14 Apr 2015
I thought I would share my views on the much debated and controversial topic of Gentrification. I often hear people asking questions like "what is gentrification" or "what is happening in the area" or "why is there so much 'new' people living here" and more recently I was asked if "gentrification can be prevented?".
Gentrification appears to be to some extent a natural phenomenon which has occurred worldwide. It is not something which can be called exclusively good or exclusively bad. Butler (2011) states that the Isle of Dogs(London) is gentrification by Capital and is not a victimless process.
Gentrification is generally defined as an area undergoing changes, particularly visible through renovations to properties. A clear indication of this is noting the amount of properties being redeveloped, refurbished, renovated or upgraded. It is further defined as the displacement of existing lower income residents by the influx of higher income groups.
By this definition it would appear that existing residents that are displaced become victims to a gentrified area. However, on closer investigation, it becomes apparent that these neighbourhoods have generally gone into a state of decay with the associated levels of crime and social issues giving the area a degree of unsavouriness and lack of appeal to live and work there. Very often one would find abandoned and or under-utilised properties which creates an ideal environment for criminal activities.
The above represents a typical scenario that may have been identifiable in many parts of the world. During the 1950s & 60s college educated city dwellers left New York City for a safer life in the suburbs, ironically not excluding some "rough" neighbourhoods. The sentiment shared by many of them at the time was that one should not be caught there after dark. Yet, today, some of these once gritty and unattractive neighbourhoods have become the more fashionable and desirable places to live and or work in.
According to McFayden, 2008, many American inner cities have undergone significant economic, structural and aesthetic changes. Due to lack of foresight and an inability to adjust to the changing market forces may have led to their demise, or rather, decay. This contributed to, amongst many other things, urban flight, increased unemployment and associated poverty.
The 1970s saw an increased demand for educated and technologically literate workers and a corresponding decrease for blue collar workers. Those cities that understood these cyclical changes within their economies were better equipped to deal with these changes. Who would have thought that over a century ago Woodstock was a fishing village and popular holiday beach destination???
So, we can see that Gentrification is a phenomenon that is not new to us. The term 'gentrification' was coined by Ruth Glass in the '60s when she described the arrival of the upper middle-class British families buying properties in London's gritty suburbs. The word refers to the 'gentry', or ruling class. Glass, who held a Marxist view, most likely intended the term to carry a negative connotation.
More positively, Gentrification may also be viewed as an indication of economic growth. The infrastructure in terms of the public open spaces, transportation as well as safety and security are usually some of the aspects that are improved upon as a result of a gentrified area. This is in fact very noticeable in the case of Woodstock and Salt River. Notwithstanding that the catalyst for this precinct's revitalisation was a government-led initiative, it is largely the private sector, operating in an open market economy, that has contributed to the transformation of the area into one that is perceived to be safer, cleaner and more appealing. Furthermore, economic growth is synonymous with reduced levels of unemployment and poverty as well as leading to higher literacy levels.
Whether or not this phenomenon can be prevented...I think not. Perhaps the negative impacts may be reduced, but this remains challenging. A large part of this view is based on the understanding that education levels lay at the root of this perceived problem. In the greater scheme of things, not everyone can be satisfied all the time. One has to remember that "Change is inevitable"... In the business-world this concept is readily embraced and very often it is said that resisting change may lead to your demise...in short, you may find yourself out of business.
I would extend this concept into the above context. The questions to be raised now is whether we are prepared for the inevitable changes that will happen, is happening and even that which has happened. Or, do we sit around as spectators, commenting on what we observe. And that is all it ever amounts to. Just a comment by a spectator. Or, are we flexible enough to constantly adapt to the ever changing market forces? And if so, are we willing and able to take up the opportunities that arise from these changes?
In conclusion, consider the following: an existing resident formed part of a labour force and worked hard to support his/her family. Eventually he reaches retirement age and stops working. His offspring achieves a higher level of education than he did and moves out of the area to go off into the world to seek his "fortune". He works hard, and seeks a place to make home. He chooses to purchase property in an area that potentially offers good capital growth. This description could so easily be the people who gentrify the next suburb. With each new generation a new class is defined-essentially satisfying its needs, displacing a previous class who are outgrown by their area.
Written by: Waleed Ras