Academic Master

Business and Finance

Modern Urban Development and Housing

The subject of gentrification is inescapable in the modern urban development and housing. It is a term that sheds more heat than light due to some of its negative notions and lack of any agreed implications. Does the term refer specifically to residential demographics? Must the idea have a racial connotation? Does the term mean new development or new housing? Moreover, does it mean displacement? This comprehensive review will shed the much-needed light on this matter.

Review by different researchers around the world has taken a closer look at the studies of gentrification as well as displacement over the past few decades. This will help us have a better understanding of whether it is necessary to vote yes or No on the issue of gentrification. Just how extensive are the implications, what can of people might be affected and how do they fair after gentrification.

Now that we have a general overview of the term gentrification means and some of its implication, I am going to indulge in the main argument surrounding it. This will include the positive aspect that compels me to vote yes as well as the disadvantageous aspects I found related to the idea. At the surface level, I understand that when an area has been gentrified, the region is repaid and re-occupied. This is accomplished through dedication and hard work as well as resilience. Moreover, it is a process that takes years to provide any positive results to become clear to people. Moreover, it even takes even much longer for the area to be considered a success.

Some of the disadvantageous aspects I have noticed about gentrification is that it is a clear sign of scarcity if quality urbanism. The driving force behind the idea is a far larger spiky reorganization, often propelled by both public and private investment in various sectors such as schools, research institutions, and redevelopment of a housing.

Safer Neighborhoods

This is one of the positive aspects that makes me feel that I should vote “yes”. There is an idea that separates an industrial city into different zones. At the center of the zones is the economic heart or the financial district. It is a point where the entire area functions from. In turn, the centralization of activities would help the greater metropolitan to become much safer, and attract people not only to housing but also to other different activities and amenities. This would improve the local economy and stabilize the city.

Preservation of Local History

Another observable aspect is the preservation of local history. I feel that for an area to begin gentrification, it is must be declared a historical neighborhood. In that way, regulations would be put in place that would prevent another wave of urban decay by monitoring things such as garbage, noise pollution and even curfews. This would provide the residents with the ability to reclaim dilapidated neighborhoods and make sure that all regions and residents will be cared for and offered necessary security in what might be perceived as a potentially dangerous area.

Creativity Takes Center Stage

Since the area would be undergoing gentrification, I believe it will attract the creative class who understand and appreciate the new diversity. This would bring artists, teachers, performers and other creative thinkers all working in one place. This would create a strong cultural front in a world where art has constantly been cut from school.

However, the new development has a couple of disadvantageous aspects. First I believe that the value of the neighbourhood would rise to a point where the original residents won’t be able to afford the new lifestyle. Landlords would increase rent, which most of the initial residents won’t afford. Social amenities will be expensive, Grocery stores will begin selling foods on higher prices. Therefore the poor people won’t afford and forced to buy at shifty corners. The stores that originally served the original residents will be bought, which implies that local people will be pulled out of jobs, and therefore, the new changes won’t be relevant for those living there. Eventually, the original residents will be compelled to move into many dilapidated neighborhoods, with much world social amenities. This implies that the change won’t is any better for the original residents. In fact, the problem of ghettos and slums will arise in the long run.

It is important I mention that the idea of gentrification is not always bad. It will bring in new ventures where more people can work, safety and better schools etc. The neighborhood isn’t expensive yet. However, as gentrification continues, more upper-middle-class people move in and the businesses change to accommodate them. Everyone else simply can’t afford to live there anymore and they leave. Earlier in the cycle of the new development, things are always good. Usually, performers, artists and other professionals later move to crime-ridden areas. Moreover, these areas tend to have a lot of gang activities and drug problems. New residents will move in making the area much safer and investments will sprout from the surrounding. Maybe new music spaces will be opened. This is all positive but will be sustainable if the area remains affordable.

After a while, the developers will later realise the negative implication of the new demographic. The new demand implies increased the cost of investment and more expensive housing options. This is one key adverse issue of gratification. Middle-class folks will pour in limiting options for the poor. Moreover, the squatters will also be greatly affected. Over time the demand for luxury housing will increase. Therefore, the lower end household is bought and the prices are raised by the new owners. Therefore, the poor will automatically be priced out, and often require to seek new neighbourhoods to live in which is sad.

With the exit of the lower class, performers and musicians, all the strong cultural beacons will be gone. The rich start moving out after realising that the new neighbourhood is not cool anymore. This, in turn, would send the new housing on the market, no one wants to live in uncool areas. As a result, prices would drop, neighbourhood fall apart, paving way for crime and cycle happens again. In some cases, the cycle often continues for over a decade. Sometime it would last longer. I have experienced this go back and forth in the old city.

Whatever the case, this is not a new thing. Therefore people should not be surprised since this is a common thing and thus should be expected. We have experienced many people being priced out of their respective neighbourhoods. Therefore this should not upset people. As a lower class voter, I believe I have a place in the new cycle and I will ensure I contribute positively to my new neighborhood.

Here is the important thing other voters need to understand. Poor people who show few signs of becoming less poor will still experience the impact of concentrated wealth and economic power of the newly developed neighbourhood. As indicated earlier, poor people will experience increased rates of eviction and involuntary displacement. As a result, they will be forced to move for other different reasons and one of the most common reasons is an increase in rent. This is something they see happen in other social circles.

While this is not an exhaustive subject, by all means, I believe I have provided the most fundamental points to vote for gentrification. It is a subject that everyone should feel free to provide their opinion based on individual experience. However, the truth is, the poor are displaced and getting pushed out of their original neighbourhood to the most vulnerable neighborhood’s .therefore they remain in abject poverty even after the new development. Therefore, even though I will vote yes, the most important task ahead is the creation of more inclusive neighbourhood that meets the needs of all people.



Calculate Your Order

Standard price





Pop-up Message