|
!
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br />I
<br />
<br />displacement by essentially dismanding the physical and social
<br />structures necessary co the previous generation(s) of residents.
<br />Rose cites the Latino Mission District in San Francisco, where
<br />nonprofit hca/ch clinics and auto repair shops yielded co
<br />lncernet businesses. She raises a good point: namely, that
<br />displacement is hOC just a residential problem. Long-estabEshed'
<br />neighborhood bars, faith-based institutions, cultural community
<br />centers, and industry' often have co follow the displaced
<br />residents for their own survival.
<br />
<br />?rojec~ undz. rway,.on nearly
<br />ever7 lot ora vacant block in
<br />Chicago's genrr~ing Uptown
<br />neighborhood. Severe crime
<br />and blight over the ?asr 40
<br />year$ led co the abandonment
<br />and demollrion of many
<br />beautiful buildlng~ in rhu
<br />once-gilded section of the city.
<br />CJ~ange is in the air, however,
<br />as the blight gwes way co
<br />~cale development.
<br />The news is nor atl good.
<br />
<br /> all of chat. Kennedy and Leonard point co Silicon V'all~ a.s a '
<br /> good example; where enough money was made by reverse
<br /> commuters ~o gentrify the Mission District of San Francisco
<br /> some 45 minutes to the aorr. h~ . '
<br /> Tight Housing Marker. Tblis includes conStrained. b. ousing
<br /> supply, as in San Erancis¢o, where 300,000 new jobs were
<br /> created between 1995 and 1997, but only 31,000 new homes
<br /> were constructed, or in Chicago, which grew by 112,000
<br /> residents in the 1990s bur still lost.52,000 rental units, many
<br /> to condo Conversions in genrrffTing neighborhoods. It 'also
<br /> includes: relative affordabiliry, where high demand in
<br /> premium neighborhoods prompts buyers to pursue living
<br /> opporrtmides in less costly neighborhoods; invesranent
<br /> opportunities in high-risk neighborhoods; and substanti',d
<br /> rent ~ps, where del/berate disinvesrrnent in specific
<br /> neighborhoods ensues until a =gap" emerges, thereby
<br /> triggering rapid reinvesrment.
<br />
<br /> Preference for City Amenities. Cites always have been
<br /> bastions of culture and certain groups invariably gravitate
<br /> toward neighborhoods with food, entertainment, and
<br /> beandful ~chitecture,'or ar [easr those with a potential For
<br />· such. Kennedy and Leonard say groups'less likely to have '
<br />children, such as artists, young'professionals, homosexuals,
<br />and even empty nesters are more likely to risk a move into a
<br />neighborhood with lingering blight or crime. Once these
<br />groups establish themselves,.stage three of the gentrification
<br />process begins.
<br />
<br />Many Uptown residenu are
<br />con~emed a3our r~ f~ure of
<br />local businesses, including ehi,
<br />Mian commercial d~cr j'~r
<br />around the co~ .... ~ ..2~.~ .-'~ ~,:~ ..
<br />
<br />Why Do Places Gentrify?
<br />Gencrificarion occurs in waves, according co Kennedy and
<br />Leonard, who say the federally sponsored urban renewal efforts
<br />in the !.950s and i960s, and the back-to-the-city movement of
<br />the 1970s and 1980s were two such waves. Evidence suggests
<br />that America's recent economic prosperity 'also enticed people
<br />back into cities. Development in places like Chicago surpassed
<br />even that of the [ 920s, hoc an easy ~at. Despite a strong
<br />economy and the proliferation of development, however,
<br />disparities in income continued co grow, leaving even wider gaps
<br />in the community, where different groups resided separately
<br />with clear (ines drawn between chem. Scared simply: ':-
<br />gentrification is dynamic, ~tnd Kennedy and Leonard say its
<br />causes include:
<br />
<br />£a?idfob Growth. Historically, job growth in the center city.
<br />has been the best indicator of gentrification, but rapid
<br />transit, celecommuting, and lifestyle changes have changed
<br />
<br />injqll building in Edgewarer fiu in niedy with the adjacent "vintage"
<br />buildings.
<br />
<br /> Increased TraJ~C and Lengthening Commutes. Improving one's ..
<br /> quality of life by giving up axdu0us commuces isa genmfication
<br /> factor for many who relocate to pedestrian-friendly
<br /> neighborhoods with nearby wansit stops. In ~Are Cid= Coming
<br /> Back?," a 2001 Chicago ]Zed Letter, published by the Federal -
<br /> Re~erve.Bank of Chicago, anrhors Margrerhe Krontofr, Dan,~....:~-:_:_.
<br /> MCMilIen, and W'dliarn A. Testa concur, saying affluent and.,..,=,.,~..::.~.
<br /> largely childless individtm/s are migrating back to the city, --
<br /> motivated in parr by the increased cos= and "aggravation"
<br /> associated with traffic and congestion in r_he Chicago area.
<br />
<br />· Targeted Public Sector Policies. While Kennedy and Leonard
<br /> contend "economic forces" are the predominant influence
<br /> behind genrrificarion, they also aclcnowtedge the role of local
<br />
<br />3 99
<br />
<br />
<br />
|