Very interesting interview with sociologist and global cities guru, Saskia Sassen.
[G]entrification is not a new phenomenon. Some would argue it is the result
of capitalism’s “creative destruction”. …It makes the urban
economy dynamic, it beautifies the city, brings in state-of-the-art
infrastructure. … But this is an economic dynamism that has a nasty habit of hiding its costs.
You do not see all the displaced little shops and people, the disruption, and
often, destruction of livelihoods that this brings with it. Finally, the state-of-the-art glamour zone makes everything else look rundown and unattractive. It devalues the rest of the city. Yet much of the urbanity of a city comes from the older, messier areas. In the new glamour zones, you won’t
see street life, the mixing of differences and people who are not there just to
take an elevator up to the 102nd floor.
The full interview is here (h/T: Ken McGuffin).
October 29th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I wonder if we should talk about different kinds of gentrification? In some scenarios the old buildings of whole neighborhoods are torn down and new high-rises put in – 100% instant replacement and for the current occupants, total loss. In another scenario, new people move in (gays, artists, whatever) and fix up deteriorating housing and stores — in some cases the buildings would otherwise decline beyond repair. Then the more affluent creative class move in. The process can be more organic and the original residents can sometimes benefit.
I’m not saying that the second scenario doesn’t have loss and displacement, but it’s not automatically as destructive.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Historic preservation folks have developed a technique to make affordable housing in not-yet fully gentrified areas. Big preservation projects often have to piece together financing from a number of sources, which can include affordable housing funds. When the project is complete, the developer sells some units to the well-to-do at market prices. Other units are reserved for affordable housing, eligibility for which can be defined as X % of the area’s median income. The full-price units subsidize the affordable-housing ones. The deed to the affordable-housing unit contains a covenant that restricts the new owners’ ability to cash out. Either the unit must be sold to another party who qualifies for affordable housing, or (if the buyer is wealthy), the windfall profit does not belong entirely to the seller. Some of it must be recycled into more affordable housing.
Beyond the preservation benefits, the beauty of this arrangement is that it mandates income diversity at the scale of a building. You can magnify the social effects of diversity if you design the space so that neighbors interact (a la Seaside, FL).
This strategy won’t work everywhere, or meet the needs of folks too poor to buy at the affordable housing price. But it contributes to the pot.