Idris Raoufi
Transportation Planner, Wilson & Company Engineers
Co-Founder of The 816 Bicycle Collective
Outreach Coordinator of Kansas City Bicycle Federation
Is Gentrification different from urban revitalization, if so why?
Gentrification and Urban Revitalization are two separate market implications that take place in
urban, more specifically transitioning dense urban areas. Despite being separate the two terms
are very intertwined, misconstrued, and mistaken for each other. By their basic definitions they
are inherently neutral, however, the perception of what constitutes gentrification is
overwhelmingly negative. Urban Revitalization itself is an obscure term, kind of like
SUSTAINABILITY or COMMUNITY. There are definitions of these words but they vary
between academia, politics, community development, urban planning, etc…
What is your general insight on the topic of gentrification?
Gentrification, put rather simply, is when new development/redevelopment in an area or
neighborhood artificially raises the property values of adjacent parcels “Forcing” owners to raise
their rents to reflect the artificial value. What is more commonly referred to when people talk
about gentrification, is when poor people, predominantly of color or ethnicity, are forced to
move out of an area/neighborhood due to higher rents which can be attributed to rising property
value.
My insight is that, gentrification is a market force that is vastly different based on location, one
city will see it differently from another. Two neighborhoods in one city might see it differently.
Gentrification is a lightning rod which in my opinion is a symptom of a much larger problem.
Gentrification is an effect of Urban Revitalization, however there is not always a negative
association. The shitty aspects of gentrification come to light when a municipality does not
protect vulnerable populations like renters. The history and breadth of this subject is
overwhelming to be honest.
What type of people live in low income urban housing, and why do you think so?
LOW INCOME HOUSING is a legal definition and the people who live within these units must
meet certain Federal guidelines to qualify for LOW INCOME HOUSING. Cut the cake however
you’d like, the demographics of those living in LOW INCOME HOUSING are predominantly
earning under $21,000 a year and overwhelmingly Black or African American, and Hispanic or
of Latin decent.
Answering this question concisely is very difficult because the answer lies within the history of
the civil rights movement and the long list of federal regulations that followed the movement.
The answer lies in racially motivated lending practices like “RED LINING”. The answer lies in
institutionally racist housing and employment policies. The answer lies in public housing and the
creation of HUD. In my mind the real question to ask is not why these people live in LOW
INCOME HOUSING, rather, what prevents them from leaving?
Does gentrification help or hurt the community?
Two sides of the same coin. It can cause damage to one population that is vulnerable or
disenfranchised by development in their community and create great wealth for another
population that isn’t vulnerable. The type of gentrification or development taking place is very
important. Some developments are ultimately better for the greater good despite the fact that
some people might be displaced. However, this is never a blanket generalization.
In my opinion, the value of gentrification rests on these key factors: Existing Land Use, Housing
Policies for Renters (Protections), Median Property Values, Median Rent, Median Income,
Percentage of Tenure by Type, and Transit Accessibility.
When gentrification is discussed without considering all of these factors it will be misleading.
Do you see this topic spreading or expanding outside of urban low income housing?
It happens on all levels. It is not that it does not affect different populations, it is how it affects
them. Gentrification only happens where there is pent up demand for a market condition. Right
now and for the last 3 decades since URBAN RENEWAL has been in effect, the most negative
impacts of gentrification have rested on the shoulders of urban poor, people of color, and ethnic
enclaves.
Do you think taxes help pay for urban revitalization?
Of course, tax incentives like abatement and tax increment financing, are always “necessary” to
lure large developers to the urban redevelopment. I don’t agree with it but this would be the
answer anyone at the City or EDC or BBC would give you. However, there is no cause an effect
here as much as there is correlation. You will be hard pressed to find direct cause and effect with
gentrification and urban revitalization.
There is a depth of urban revitalization, as a term it casts a large net and there are some many
different examples of it. In many cases urban revitalization happens on a very small scale and
receives no attention or tax incentives.
Interview With:
Maxine Weaver — Homeowner ship councilor
What is your view on gentrification? Do you think this is an effective program?
2. Working for a company for new home buyers. When you guys look for new homes. Is it urban low income areas you target? Why do you think if so?
3. What do you think the percentage of new home buyers staying in the area, for over 3 years? After you guys help them.
Answers
1. My view on gentrification. This can be a good thing depending upon ones prospective. However, I believe it can have a more negative effect on people that already live in the area. Beautifying and renovating a city is nice, however, the end goals generally does not have the best interest of the citizens. In some cases it all about increasing the bottom line and that generally entails pushing the poor/lower class out (who usually makes up the majority of the population) and attracting higher working class individuals.
2. As a Homeownership Counselors at NHS, we allow our first time prospective homebuyers to pick and choose where they would like to live. That’s a big decision and it should always be your decision, we coach them on credit and finances. In the past one of our mission were geared to low and moderate income household that was 80% and below media income but not necessary purchasing in our target area. However, there were monetary benefits when a customer chose to purchase in a Target area. That since is no longer the case.
3. The percentage of new homebuyers that usually stay in the homes for 3 or more years is about 85%. The reason being is that many purchase homes as a Dream Home and others as a starter home. And as family grow there may be a need to add on or sell and buy a larger home. Another reason why they have to live in the home over 3 years is because of the subsidized/grant/soft second funds that mandate them to live in the property certain amount of years or be forced to pay back the money.
No comments:
Post a Comment