A Word from Eric Miller for September, 2004

Gentrification and Renewal

Taken by itself, the word "gentrification" would seem to have a negative elements, however.

"Restoration" by itself is certainly positive. Restoring an old house comes to mind. That would certainly seem like a good thing to most of us. Likewise, order can be restored. Prosperity can be restored. Even people can be restored.

"Displacement," however would seem to have a unilateral negative meaning. It's not like the word "restoration"--only people can be displaced. Houses can't be displaced, only restored.

This brings us closer to a definition that I think is more true to what we assume when we hear the word "gentrification." Restoring houses and displacing people.

I have not been displaced. I do not know what it is like. I have only read about it in my urban studies books. People have been displaced by railroads, by highways, by parks and public projects, and by private individuals who move in, restore houses, and raise property values.

As you can see, what we think of as "gentrification" happens for many different reasons, and not so often as a coordinated effort.

Looking back at the first part of the definition, the word "restoration" would suggest that the area being "gentrified" was in some other condition at some other time. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything to "restore" it to.

It amuses me sometimes. Walking around in neighborhoods with any number of friends or acquaintances I have heard the comment, "This used to be a really nice neighborhood." Each time I ask if they thought a bad neighborhood was ever "built." There might have been bad designs, or cheap housing, but no neighborhood was ever built with an intent to make it "bad."

A specific symbol which comes to mind was a sign on a dumpster in the Pilsen neighborhood of Chicago. It read "Gringo's out of Pilsen." I wonder if the author stopped to think about why perhaps this place might be called "Pilsen."

I think it is safe to say, even from just this incidental evidence, that neighborhoods always change. My neighborhood certainly has. There are many more Latino faces than just one year ago. Property values have gone up considerably, and the retail strip is changing, all the result of different forces.

Sometimes neighborhoods get worse. If they do, they eventually end up abandoned, composed of vacant lots and scattered, boarded-up buildings. Sometimes they are renewed with new people, restored buildings, and new businesses.

Don't get me wrong, there should be more efforts to help the people who are displaced. Take any one of the people who live around here. Developers and non-profits are fixing up houses pretty fast. The values then go up, as do the taxes. The environment around many of the residents, mainly seniors, changes, through no fault of their own--and staying in their home becomes more difficult.

There must be unexplored solutions, even ones within the market. Perhaps a reverse-mortgage on the restored value, allowing the restoration to take place and the residents to stay in the home. I'd be most interested in hearing about any existing or experimental programs.

Whether we like it or not, "gentrification" is only avoidable when decay replaces it. It doesn't do any good to let an area decay. Neighborhoods, like life, must be renewed. That's a much preferable word to "gentrification." "Displacement" and "restoration" aren't necessary parts of "renewal." Likewise renewal isn't exclusive to people or houses. Neither is it something we can avoid if we are to move forward as a nation, community, or person.

Eric Miller is editor of The New Colonist.

Go to A Word from Richard Risemberg

Return to Top