Confessions of a Black Gentrifier

whynot_31 · April 2011

SnowboardQueen said:

And finally, when the sweet, young kids living 2 or more to an apt., start bombarding the boards with how they are being priced and/or forced out by their greedy landlords to rent to a single person who can afford to rent at twice the rate all the roommates combined were paying. And they are now being forced to consider housing East of Utica.

This is just the being as Franklin Ave and Nostrand ave will be completely unrecognizable AND there will be a rumors that West Indians and people of African descent used to live in Crown Heights - just as in Park slope.

SnowboardQueen,

You seem to define gentrifiers as being what I will call the 5th Wave. Meanwhile, other readers seem to use the term to apply to the Sweet Young Kids you mention. I see the kids at least 3rd Wave.

Here's a crude guide of my definition, and I've bolded the change in each:

First Wave: Employed people replace people who's main form of support was public assistance: AFDC/SSI/SSD.

Second Wave: Employed people with some college replace the first wave.

Third Wave: Employed people with who have completed college replace the second wave.

Forth Wave: Employed people who have completed college and have some wealth replace the third wave

Fifth Wave: The folks described by SnowboardQueen. They have salaried positions and careers with career ladders, not "merely employment". They have wealth.

Please note (that unlike SnowboardQueen), I am not certain that "this is just the beginning". I am not confident that Franklin and Nostrand are on a path that will certainly lead to them being attractive to the 5th Wave.

I fear the economy may retract long before enough of the 5th Wave is created to "have to" live in Crown Heights.

....gentrification may be just another way of saying "a neighborhood increasing in income and wealth", but I often wonder if the "opponents to gentrification" have put much thought into the alternatives: slum-ification and ghetto-ification.

In other words, if the economy crashes, the Nostrand and Franklin may not only stop gentrifying, but may actually decline. Slums and ghettos are created when a neighborhood's reputation and the overall economy take a turn for the worse.

Change is constant. What goes up, often comes down.

I just hope the neighborhood doesn't come down during my tenure here ....cause I like living around here. I'd hate for everyone I know (including businesses) to leave, or "change" because there was suddenly a new class of people (be it higher or lower) that demanded to be catered to.

....but I also realize that I can't control whether such things occur; I am not more powerful than macro economics.

Is anyone?

whynot_31 · April 2011

P.S. Obviously there are a lot more factors that go into determining one's ability to pay more for housing than "college".

Some of the reasons that people have less money for housing are deemed illegal, and investigated by the NYC Commission on Human Rights, or the state Division of Human Rights, or Feds.

And, of course, people can pay more money for housing as a result of skills, demand, accumulated wealth, interests, etc.

The waves I describe are illustrative, at best.

trumystic · April 2011

Hmmm... To me it seems like there are 2 different waves of gentrification. Gentrification wave 1 is middle class people replacing mostly lower income people.(I say "mostly" cause there are many middle class homeowners in Crown Heights). Gentrification wave 2 is rich people replacing middle class people.

But maybe saying the "real gentry" makes it easier to point and say "its the rich people who are doing it". When do people i.e. middle class people take ownership for being part of this process and at the same time ally themselves with lower income people so that we can create communities where multiple classes can coexist? (And yes I realize lots of people dont think socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods are the ideal). Alternatively, maybe its just a part of the American Dream- people dont want to ally themselves with the poor because they have this dream of getting out and becoming rich. Why upset the pyramid if one day you could stand at the top?

homeowner · April 2011

I don't think that you can have this discussion outside the bounds of race. Taking Whynot's list, there always have been black residents of Crown Heights who fit within the description of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd (and to a very limited extent 4th)wave. They were always here. They lived here in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. They are invisible to the "real gentry" because those folks have a very limited view as to what kind of neighborhood they moved into. They see the current residents as a monolith, without any distinction.

whynot_31 · April 2011

Homeowner-

I totally agree. And if we want to complicate things further we can briefly state that we live in INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS which cater to different classes of people. I.E. People in different "waves" can live on the same block, but (barring rent control and section 8 ) they rarely live in the same building.

Trumystic-

Ah, but the world has so many more classes and there are so many more gradations of income.

Don't you think the unemployed people in Wave 0, perceive Wave 1 as gentrifiers?

Just like the people in Wave 1 perceive the people in Wave 2 as gentrifiers?

Just like the people in Wave 2 perceive the people in Wave 3 as gentrifiers?

Just like the people in Wave 3 perceive the people in Wave 4 as gentrifiers?

Just like the people in Wave 4 perceive the people in Wave 5 as gentrifiers?

etc, etc.?

In other words, the only thing it takes to change a neighborhood and be labeled a gentrifier is to have slightly more money. You don't need to be "rich", you just need to have more money than me, and I label you a "gentrifier".

Now let's jabber about class:

Although it takes luck and hard work, people are able to move to higher classes. ....Are they ALWAYS able to do it, does hard work always pay off? Of course not, but enough do that there is a correlation between being in a higher class and work. Some draw a correlation between luck (such as being in the right place at the right time, being healthy, as well as having things like the "right skin hue") and a higher class, and prefer to put most of the focus there.

Conversely, being a slacker or unlucky, often makes one fall into a lower class. ....Do all slackers and people with health problems end up poor? Of course not, but enough do that there is a correlation between being in a lower class and being a slacker. Some draw a correlation between being in a lower class and being unlucky (having a health condition, being born with "the wrong hue", etc) and prefer to put most of the focus there.

With me?

Now let's see where these things lead:

In this country, the dominant philosophy is that one's hue is fixed [Michael Jackson being a notable exception].

However, one's class is assumed to be flexible. We'd like to believe that that work pays, and that for the most part, life fairly distributes benefits based on work and skills (not luck).

[whether we should have this assumption, or hold on to it as firmly as we do, is a different issue]

As a result, many assume that people in lower class are there because they do not work hard. ....not because they are unlucky. This assumption obviously minimizes instances in which you can work your butt off in a labor job, yet never be promoted to supervisor. It also minimizes the fact that your kids can attend crappy schools in which it is almost impossible to learn, not matter how hard you try because your peers may beat the crap out of you for trying to succeed.

For a moment, picture yourself in Wave 1.

In your view, you are better than Wave 0. You work! While you happen to have more money, you also believe that you deserve that apartment more than they do.

Now picture yourself in Wave 2.

In your view, you are better than Wave 1. You took some technical classes at the community college to get some skills, and they didn't. While you happen to have more money, you also believe that you deserve that apartment more than they do.

The same is true for Wave 3, 4, and 5.

To make a long story short:

a. "Everybody does it"

b. One does not have to ever believe that they are "going to be rich", one simply has to believe that they are more entitled to the apartment than the person who just left.

....while both a and b allow us to the mental zen needed to assure ourselves we are not evil, "c" really seals the deal:

c. Ultimately one is entitled because one can pay the money demanded by the landlord/owner While discrimination exists, even if you are healthy, educated and have the right hue, if you ain't got no money ....you don't get the apartment!

In other words, you believe you are entitled to the apartment because (no matter how rich you are) you had the discipline not to spend all of your money on OTHER stuff you wanted.

This is NYC, and you are foregoing something to pay for it; whether that is good $6 cheese, or a personal $5M yacht is just a matter of means and preferences.

...and the beat goes on.

whynot_31 · April 2011

P.S. A Brooklynian happy hour seems to be in the works. About 20 people attended the last one, which was in December.

http://brooklynian.com/forum/the-lounge-random-stuff/happy-hour-2#post-728434

trumystic · April 2011

From: Communicating Gentrification

Volume 5 , Issue 2 - April 2010

In most large cities, there is a neighborhood that has become known as the new hip area. You could go there and find a range of new restaurants and bars; pop into some funky clothing stores and independently owned record shops; and find some cafes that felt unique because they didn't feature the same green, white, and black logo that adorns other cafes in other parts of the city. You were fascinated by the street life in this neighborhood, especially the quantity of twenty-somethings who were hanging out, most of whom seemed to be adorned with tattoos, piercings, and thrift store apparel. The newspaper, alternative weekly, and on-line magazines all told a similar story about this area: the neighborhood was once a grubby no-man's land until the artists moved there, breathing life into this urban frontier.

But then the neighborhood started to change; it was gentrifying. The reporters now describe this change as a problem because the neighborhood is quickly losing its edge. That is, people like you are hanging around too often, looking to buy a condo, and transforming the place from an artsy bohemian enclave into a haven for yuppies and middle class couples with one child and a large dog.

Gentrification refers to the transformation of poor and working class urban neighborhoods into middle-class or upper class areas. Communication is central to this process--framing changes as they happen and then explaining the conversion after the fact. The popular press has been one of the most important sources for information about this urban issue. Newspapers, alternative weeklies, and magazines have dedicated increasingly more space to this subject since 1985, when stories started to appear regularly in US publications. There are clearly unique geographical, historical, and political situations that facilitate gentrification in different cities. Yet, publication outlets within a geographic region publish similar stories, and coverage of the issue reads the same across geographic regions, especially when artists are involved. Reports in the San Francisco Chronicle mirror articles published by the Chicago Tribune, for example. Three interesting storylines appear regularly that help frame artist-led gentrification.

... http://www.natcom.org/CommCurrentsArticle.aspx?id=659

The author then goes on to highlight 3 frames of artist led gentrification:

1)"First, press coverage features a consistent narrative about the ways artist-pioneers discover sections of the city, help improve those neighborhoods, and then get chased out by gentrifiers."

2)"A second common storyline is the troubling representation of gentrified neighborhoods as frontiers".

3)"Because artists are willing to move into neighborhoods that are considered less desirable to middle class renters or buyers, reporters often refer to the artists as pioneers, but sometimes calls them shock troops..."

trumystic · April 2011

From: Communicating Gentrification

Volume 5 , Issue 2 - April 2010

In most large cities, there is a neighborhood that has become known as the new hip area. You could go there and find a range of new restaurants and bars; pop into some funky clothing stores and independently owned record shops; and find some cafes that felt unique because they didn't feature the same green, white, and black logo that adorns other cafes in other parts of the city. You were fascinated by the street life in this neighborhood, especially the quantity of twenty-somethings who were hanging out, most of whom seemed to be adorned with tattoos, piercings, and thrift store apparel. The newspaper, alternative weekly, and on-line magazines all told a similar story about this area: the neighborhood was once a grubby no-man's land until the artists moved there, breathing life into this urban frontier.

But then the neighborhood started to change; it was gentrifying. The reporters now describe this change as a problem because the neighborhood is quickly losing its edge. That is, people like you are hanging around too often, looking to buy a condo, and transforming the place from an artsy bohemian enclave into a haven for yuppies and middle class couples with one child and a large dog.

Gentrification refers to the transformation of poor and working class urban neighborhoods into middle-class or upper class areas. Communication is central to this process--framing changes as they happen and then explaining the conversion after the fact. The popular press has been one of the most important sources for information about this urban issue. Newspapers, alternative weeklies, and magazines have dedicated increasingly more space to this subject since 1985, when stories started to appear regularly in US publications. There are clearly unique geographical, historical, and political situations that facilitate gentrification in different cities. Yet, publication outlets within a geographic region publish similar stories, and coverage of the issue reads the same across geographic regions, especially when artists are involved. Reports in the San Francisco Chronicle mirror articles published by the Chicago Tribune, for example. Three interesting storylines appear regularly that help frame artist-led gentrification.

... http://www.natcom.org/CommCurrentsArticle.aspx?id=659

The author then goes on to highlight 3 frames of artist led gentrification:

1)"First, press coverage features a consistent narrative about the ways artist-pioneers discover sections of the city, help improve those neighborhoods, and then get chased out by gentrifiers."

2)"A second common storyline is the troubling representation of gentrified neighborhoods as frontiers".

3)"Because artists are willing to move into neighborhoods that are considered less desirable to middle class renters or buyers, reporters often refer to the artists as pioneers, but sometimes calls them shock troops..."

Confessions of a Black Gentrifier

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories