Go Forth And Gentrify

Thesis statement: Though gentrification involves benefits for the rich house owners, it puts the middle class and poor in disadvantaged positions.

Induction

Gentrification upgrades the deteriorated or devalued properties, thus improving the infrastructure. Gentrification targets middle-class and upper-income households and pushes them out of neighbourhoods. Gentrification has positive and negative consequences, while the adverse impacts in most cases involve stress, depression, and displacement. The concept of gentrification is to upgrade the lifestyles of people. Socio-economic differences remain the main concerns of gentrification. Evidence suggests that gentrification acted more in favour of whites as they moved from the suburbs to the central city areas. The massive movement of rich and upper groups to central city areas promoted the concept of gentrification. The influx of upper strata to more developed areas influenced the neighbourhoods as property values increased enormously. Gentrification threatens the conditions of the poor more than other groups because they remain vulnerable to displacement.

Analysis

The major drawback of gentrification is the high cost of living that the state imposes on citizens. Dashka (2007) in the article “Go Forth and Gentrify” highlights the implications of gentrification on poor neighborhoods. The effects of gentrification are not positive for the poor in many cases, as it results in demographic change and radical shifts. The most visible negative consequences include high property pricing, evictions, and displacements. Dashka argues that gentrification also provides benefits to poor neighbourhoods and the people living there. Upscaling new entrants in urban areas involves economic advantages for the people, such as bringing more jobs, investments, and the generation of tax revenues. The state collects taxes from the rich and urban settlers that provide funds for social services availed by the masses (Dashka, 2017, p. 69).

Richard Florida (2015) assessed the practical implications of gentrification on neighbourhoods. During 2005, the probability of gentrification faced by each household was 1.3 per cent; however, the increased rate of inflation declined the chances of gentrification in future. Another problem faced by the households was their movement to gentrifying areas. The government did not move the displaced populations to non-gentrifying areas thus contributing to stress and discomfort. Gentrifying areas contain diversified people as they belong to different backgrounds and cultures. People in non-gentrifying areas represent the upper strata and are less vulnerable to gentrification. The source also highlights the problems encountered by low-income populations due to gentrification. Florida recognized that gentrification made neighbourhoods racially more diverse. However, the educational diversity was the same in the gentrified and non-gentrified areas. Landlord harassment was also identified as a common problem experienced by low-income households. Even the neighbourhood income gains did not influence the housing exit rates. The impact of gentrification on black neighbourhoods changed according to their educational levels. The facts reveal that black people from low-income groups exhibited their attraction towards gentrification. Gentrification provided labour, work, and employment to the deprived communities. The author mentions, “Many other Bay Area communities may realize that their neighbourhood has turned the corner from displacement risk to reality” (Florida, 2018, March 4). The movement of rich people to urban areas affected the old residents reflected through pressures of surviving with increasing costs. Gentrification increased the costs of living in urban areas and forced people to move to affordable locations. Displacement represents the worst example of gentrification as it pushes working-class neighbourhoods. When it comes to the poor, gentrification never improved their lifestyles, and people still survived in poverty. Results of a study conducted in 2014 reveal that 12 stable neighbourhoods encountered disadvantages after gentrification(Florida, 2018, March 4).

Gentrification provides more benefits to the landlords as they control the pricing that affects the poor and middle-class neighbours. Displacement is more adverse for poor Americans as it forcefully dislocates them. The benefits associated with increased property tax provoke landlords to increase rents, thus allowing them to earn profits. High profits of the landlords again negatively affect the poor. A majority, when finding it difficult to pay the rent, move to affordable houses. The author associates the problem of displaced residents with gentrification because it is difficult for the poor to find appropriate housing. A gentrifying neighbourhood affects other neighbourhoods and housing units. Gentrification also influenced the lives of white people negatively as people belonging to middle and low-income groups moved to the black neighbourhoods. The state, through gentrification, failed to provide affordable housing to the masses, exhibiting the negative implications (Roos, 2018, March 07).

Atkinson (2002) associates the benefits of gentrification with the rich households. These benefits turn into the disadvantages of people belonging to low-income groups. Homeowners, tenants, and people belonging to the middle class enjoy the benefits of gentrification. Poor communities suffer the disadvantages of gentrification because they are unable to pay rent due to displacements. Gentrification affects the social and financial aspects of deprived families. Due to the high price of houses, they are already under financial pressure, and paying for the education of their children becomes more difficult. Fewer resources are available for low-income families, leading to long-term displacement (Atkinson, 2002, p. 5). Kirkland (2008) identifies that black people remain victims of gentrification. The impacts of gentrification are adverse for the children because they leave their houses and face difficulties in adjusting to new circumstances (Kirkland, 2008, p. 20).

Conclusion

The overall analysis of gentrification and its impacts on the community depicts it results in racial diversity and class division. Gentrification pushed the working class to the outskirts of gentrified neighbourhoods. Evidence reveals that gentrification affects the school years of children, affecting their academic performance and academic achievement. Benefits such as facilities and amenities remain within the middle and upper classes. Gentrification also affects the displaced people’s mental health, depicted by stress and anxiety.

References

Atkinson, R. (2002). Does gentrification help or harm urban neighborhoods? An assessment of the evidence-base in the context of the new urban agenda. ESRC Center for Neighborhood Research, 1-20.

Dashka, S. (2007). Go Forth and Gentrify? Mother Jones, 32 (4), 69.

Florida, R. (2015). This Is What Happens After a Neighborhood Gets Gentrified. Retrieved 03 04, 2018, from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/this-is-what-happens-after-a-neighborhood-gets-gentrified/432813/

Kirkland, E. (2008). What’s Race Got to Do with it? Looking for the Racial Dimensions of. Gentrification. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 32 (2), 18-30.

Roos, D. (2010). How Gentrification Works. Retrieved 03 04, 2018, from https://money.howstuffworks.com/gentrification2.htm