Friday, November 29, 2013

Gentrification? A Good or Bad program


Segregation in major cities is not only a Memphis problem. I live in Washington D.C. which has a large African American population. However, the city is divided much like Memphis into large pockets of similar races. The city is divided into four quadrants: Northwest, Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest (although this is now Alexandria and Arlington, Virginia). Much of the white population lives in Northwest and in the surrounding suburbs, while most of the black population of the city lives in Southeast, and Northeast. Because of the separation of races, the socioeconomic levels of those areas are very different. I live in Northwest, which is a primarily white neighborhood. During the early 21st century, the district relocated many African American families to build the Washington Nationals stadium. This attempt at gentrification caused a large uproar in the city. These families were removed from the homes that they had lived in their whole life to make room for a stadium that mostly white people go to. This process of gentrification is not unique to DC. Cities all over the country try to improve their cities like the HOPE IV project in Memphis by housing projects are either destroyed or relocated.
Although this project has many clear negatives, proponents of this can point to the vicious cycle of the current socioeconomic structure of many inner city neighborhoods. By removing some of these families and attempting to improve the neighborhoods, the cycle can be broken. Families can be given a second chance to send their children to better schools that are more diverse and give a better opportunity for success. By staying put in a neighborhood without much hope, families are reluctant to change, but in some instances a fresh start will allow for more growth and a better chance for their children to flourish.
In reality though, moving a family to gentrify a neighborhood is a delicate matter. Most of these people have grown accustomed to living somewhere, and to just immediately remove them, and put them in a new place can have startling consequences. Much of the population that are being removed from their homes are in the lower class of society and do not have the means to live in neighborhoods that have a higher level of living. This causes problems socially and economically. People cannot survive in surrounding that they are not comfortable in. Many of these relocations are moving people to another poor neighborhood with the same issues they had before in an effort to improve the former slum. This is another vicious cycle that does not seem to have an end in sight, and gentrification is an attempt to move people around, but it seems as it the results are negligible at best.


2 comments:

  1. It seems like in this situation, the bad outweighs the good. What it all boils down to is the intent of the gentrification. It can be used in different ways. In Sugrue’s Not Even Past, gentrification is definitely a malicious exploit. Big corporations would find their way into Chicago’s lower-class neighborhoods, forcing impoverished families to move elsewhere. This was a move to segregate the city even further. It was and probably still is one of the most segregated cities in the United States. When these corporations move in, families are unable to afford their high prices and are therefore forced to leave. That was the intent of gentrification in Chicago during that time period. In other instances, gentrification can be a good sign. If an upper-class business is established in a certain area of town, it could allow jobs to open up for many of the lower-class residents of the area.
    Gentrification along with a corrupt housing agency creates a powerful force for segregation. Although we don’t see it occur as much today, they worked together efficiently throughout the early 50’s and into the 80’s. Gentrification may seem to have some benefits, but I say that it is more negative than it is positive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gentrification does typically mean that communities of lower SES are moved in order to 'revitalize' a neighborhood or area, yes. But let's not forget that these are people with families, friends, ties and connections across their neighborhoods. There are existing networks that help these low income families get through as Dr. Jamerson discussed in the HOPE VI presentation.

    I don't believe that we are past segregating our cities. Real estate agents and agencies may not straight up say "No you can't move into that neighborhood," but they have certainly used covert practices to steer people into certain neighborhoods and away from other areas. Additionally, there have been less aggressive ways of gentrifying areas as in the case in Columbus, Ohio. Creating Historic Districts to push out homeowners that aren't able to afford the upkeep of their homes as mandated by Historic Districts is another tactic used to turn around and gentrify neighborhoods across the nations. I highly suggest watching "Flag Wars" a 2003 documentary about
    about the conflict between two communities during the gentrification of a Columbus, Ohio neighborhood. The film shows the tension between the two historically oppressed communities of African-Americans and gay homebuyers intended in gentrifying Columbus' Olde Towne East neighborhood.


    Here is a link in which Eric Fischer, writer for the NY Times, uses data from the 2010 US Census to map the most segregated cities in the U.S.:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/most-segregated-cities-census-maps-2013-4?op=1

    ReplyDelete