Gentrification in the United States
Gentrification in the United States is commonly associated with an influx of higher-income movers into historically divested neighborhoods with existing, working-class residents, often resulting in increases in property prices and investment into new developments.
Although there is evidence showing gentrification may modestly raise real estate prices, other studies claim that lower crime and an improved local economy outweigh the increased housing costs—displacement tends to decrease in gentrifying areas such as these as a result.
These studies have prompted "social mix policies" to be widely adopted by governments to promote the process and its positive effects, such as lessening the strain on public resources that are associated with de-concentrating poverty.
However, more specific research has shown that gentrification does not necessarily correlate with "social mixing," and that the effects of the new composition of a gentrified neighborhood can both weaken as well as strengthen community cohesion.
The change gentrification brings in class distinction also has been shown to contribute to residential polarization by income, education, household composition, and race.
The decrease in vacancy rates and increase in property value that accompany the process can work to stabilize a previously struggling community, restoring interest in inner-city life as a residential option alongside the suburbs.
Displacement due to gentrification limits access to or availability to housing affordability, healthy food alternatives, transportation, education institutions, outdoor and green space, exercise facilities, and social networks.
[24] Limits to these effects can lead to changes in stress levels, injuries, violence, crime, incarceration rates, mental health, and social and environmental justice.
[28][29] Existing residents at risk of displacement in communities undergoing gentrification are often from low-income and minority populations (such as Black and older age residents), placing them at greatest vulnerability for the negative effects of gentrification on health including, and not limited to, lack of access to healthy foods and transportation options and increased risk of pollution and mental health issues.
Growing up in gentrifying neighborhoods was associated with moderate increases in being diagnosed with anxiety or depression between ages 9–11 relative to similar children raised in non-gentrifying areas.
The effects of gentrification on mental health were most prominent for children living in market-rate (rather than subsidized) housing, which lead the authors of the study to suggest financial stress as a possible mechanism.
[34] “School gentrification” is characterized by: (i) increased numbers of middle-class families; (ii) material and physical upgrades (e.g. new programs, educational resources, and infrastructural improvements); (iii) forms of exclusion and/or the marginalization of low-income students and families (e.g. in both enrollment and social relations); and (iv) changes in school culture and climate (e.g. traditions, expectations, and social dynamics).
[44] Additionally, the changing demographics may lead to development projects involving the demolition of old homes and community centers, which may erase the historical landscape and culture of a neighborhood.
[56] In the 1990s and 2000s, gentrification expanded into other parts of Atlanta, spreading throughout the historic streetcar suburbs east of Downtown and Midtown, mostly areas that had long had Black majorities such as the Old Fourth Ward, Kirkwood, Reynoldstown and Edgewood.
On the western side of the city, once-industrial West Midtown became a vibrant neighborhood full of residential lofts and a nexus of the arts, restaurants, and home furnishings.
[57][58] Atlanta landlords not being required to accept Section 8 housing vouchers due to state laws along with further construction of the BeltLine trail is expected to fuel more gentrification and needed improvement in neighborhoods within the city limits.
In Boston's North End, the removal of the noisy Central Artery elevated highway attracted younger, more affluent new residents, in place of the traditional Italian immigrant culture.
The construction of the Prudential Tower complex that was finished in 1964 along the northwest border of South End was a spark for this urban-renewal effort and the gentrification process for the area that surrounded it.
These "marginal" gentrifiers made significant efforts towards superficial beautification as well as rehabilitation of their new homes, setting the stage for realtors to promote the rising value of the area.
The reasons new homebuyers gave for their choice of residence in Bay Village was largely attributed to its proximity to downtown, as well as an appreciation for city life over that of suburbia (Pattison 1977).
The renovations efforts these "marginal" gentrifiers undertook seemed to spark a new interest in the area, perhaps as word of the cheap land spread to the wider student community.
The buyers in stage two cited Peabody schools and the socioeconomic mix of the neighborhood as primary reasons for their residential choice, as well as a desire to avoid job commutes and a disenchantment with the suburban life.
Moreover, by the early 1970s, blighted Darien Street was at its lowest point as a community, because the houses held little property value, many were abandoned, having broken heaters and collapsed roofs, et cetera.
A major driver of gentrification in Bay Area cities such as San Francisco has been attributed to the Dot-Com Boom in the 1990s, creating a strong demand for skilled tech workers from local startups and nearby Silicon Valley businesses leading to rising standards of living.
[80] As a result, a large influx of new workers in the internet and technology sector began contributing to the gentrification of historically poor immigrant neighborhoods such as the Mission District.
This trend can be attributed to the effects of redlining, police brutality on Black residents, loss of affordable housing, among other systemic factors, which have all perpetuated financial inequality, racial discrimination, and segregation.
... Hard as it is to believe, however, New York and other cities in the American Northeast are beginning to enjoy a revival as they undergo a gradual process known by the curious name of 'gentrification' term coined by the displaced English poor and subsequently adopted by urban experts to describe the movements of social classes in and around London.
[88] Gentrification in Detroit differs from most cities in that relatively few residents have been physically displaced, as large amounts of vacant land and housing are available for development.
[99] Compared to other large metropolitan cities in Texas, such as Dallas and Austin, Houston has been most rapidly gentrifying, leading to issues such as unaffordable housing and displacement of long-term existing residents.
[101] Because of these negative stereotypes, some use what is portrayed in media as justification for viewing the historic Freedman's Town as one that is not worth preserving, which fails to recognize the strength and value in protecting the neighborhood's culture and dangerously hides the issues of race, poverty, and systemic barriers that need to be addressed.
