This is Elmhurst, Queens. I grew up here. In middle school, I would walk past these buildings every weekend to go to the mall or get a snack from a bakery, and yet failed to recognize how drastically it changed from year to year. As a kid, I didn’t see the impacts of these towering buildings on my surrounding community: the number of classmates who had moved further into Queens, or simply away, seemed like a natural progression to me.
In these areas, there is little protection against sudden urban development, or gentrification. Due to increased prices in the central city, wealthier people move into comparably poorer urban neighborhoods and increase the demand for new chain stores and luxury housing (N.L.I.H.C 2019). This often displaces current residents, who are vulnerable to increases in rent and overall cost of living (N.L.I.H.C 2019). These shortcomings, however, may be overlooked by wealthier residents. The issue with gentrification is how cities, like New York City, address it, instead of letting gentrification expand.
Effects of Gentrification
Using Google Maps, I document below the changes to a corner in Williamsburg, NY from 2007 to 2022. In 2007, Williamsburg was a low-density area that was predominantly occupied by artists who were priced-out of Manhattan. It became the center of “grubby nightclubs” and concert spaces for a booming music scene (Kurutz, 2024).
Around that time, and despite a rising inventory of unsold condominiums in Brooklyn, projects like 111 Kent (pictured above) and the Edge, two glass and concrete towers along the Williamsburg waterfront with about 575 apartments, began to sell their units (Barbanel, 2008). According to a NYU Furman Center report, average rents in Greenpoint and Williamsburg have increased nearly 79 percent since 1990, illustrating that the increased gentrification of Williamsburg has made the neighborhood more expensive.
These increases in the cost of living, make lower income populations unable to afford units in new constructions (N.L.I.H.C 2019). Such developments have displaced many that lived there before the sudden rent spike. The Hispanic and Black population decreased, alongside a 14% increase in families who made more than $100,000-$250,000 (Furman Center, 2021).
The effects of gentrification are complicated, but some may argue that gentrification can be beneficial. Gentrification can provide investment into historically underinvested neighborhoods, which enables renovated spaces, better education, more civic participation and higher-quality services (Economist, 2018). Some also have argued that building more market-rate housing means that overall prices would decrease and also add to the supply of housing (Einstein 2020, 150).
However, these benefits of gentrification are not shared equally among socioeconomic groups (N.L.I.H.C 2019). Between 2000 and 2014, although gentrifying areas experienced large relative gains in income, the largest relative gains were concentrated in the white population.
Urban planners lacking access to undeveloped land turn to replacing old buildings with new ones. The issue is complicated as the locality of the gentrification defines who the stakeholders are, and the people who have the most prominent voice in the development of the area. In many cases, low-income communities often have difficulty inserting themselves into local development plans made by development agencies. A study on housing regulations in Los Angeles, suggested that upzoning, the process of increasing the zoning density in a neighborhood to make space for multifamily buildings, occurred more in areas with limited political resistence and less in wealthier neighborhoods (Gabbe, 2018). This lack of new construction in wealthier neighborhoods puts responsiblity on less wealthy neighborhoods to rebuild their low-density buildings and provide more housing for the expanding population, which contributes to heavy gentrification in poorer areas (Capps, 2016).
Planning and zoning board meetings frequently amplify the voices of older, white homeowners who wish to move into poorer neighborhoods, and seek better returns on their properties, meaning that representatives of current residents in the local area are not heard (Einstein 2020, 149). This is partially due to the fact that wealthy newcomers tend to take over political institutions like homeowner associations, and advocate for amenities and services that fit their definition of community improvement (Hyra, 2016). In doing so, there is a loss of significant cultural and historical hubs within a predominantly minority community, and contribute to a loss of cultural life in some areas. This means that in low-income communities, even if there is a high number of residents who wish to defend their neighborhood from gentrification, there will be a lack of institutional tools to help them (Einstein 2020, 148).
Furthermore, the school system lacks the structure to adapt with shifting demographics and resist the consumer model of education. Gentrification can lead to students in majority-nonwhite schools feeling they don’t belong due to the influx of white students (Newman & Wyly, 2006). Low-income minority students were displaced. This could contribute to lower education levels as moving from neighborhoods and schools can lead to a less cohesive community and education, preventing some students from opportunies of social mobility (Mordechay & Ayscue, 2024).
Revitalization, Instead of Gentrification
Rethinking our framing on the issue of gentrification and specific local policies can alleviate the intrusive nature of the process. Development without displacement is entirely possible. It must be emphasized that it is a societal responsibility to ensure that residents of the same city must minimize damage and create better opportunities for social mobility, while maintaining diversity as a top priority.
Communities can resist gentrification in multiple ways. Some gentrifying schools in NYC have opted for lottery systems to fill empty seats (Newman & Wyly 2006). This ensures that higher-income families do not get all the available seats, which contributes to maintaining diversity in gentrifying neighborhoods (Newman & Wyly).
Cities should adopt a more community-based approach to the housing crisis. Revitalization is an alternative to gentrification, wherein the development process enables community members to identify the types of housing, services and infrastructure that should exist in their neighborhood (N.L.I.H.C 2019). At the core of this model, longtime residents’ visions of their neighborhoods’ future are empowered and local governments can protect their communities by including their viewpoints on what projects are developed within their neighborhoods.
More pressingly, the audiences of market-rate housing are still often exclusionary of low-income communities. Policies that ensure there is active community engagement at local government meetings are critically needed: these policies can include requirements that developers to notify “abutters,” “adjacent landowners,” “adjoining landowners,” or “contiguous property owners” located within a certain geographic radius of a proposed development (Einstein 2020, 159).
To minimize corruption, urban planners and city officials should reinforce a policy that requires developers to conduct a specific series of research in an area they wish to construct a new project in, and use it as a foundational basis for proposing construction to the members of a community (Einstein 2020, 164).
Citations:
Barbanel, J. (2008). “A Barometer in Williamsburg”, New York City, NY: New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/realestate/16deal2.html.
Capps, K. (2016). “Blame Zoning, Not Tech, for San Francisco’s Housing Crisis”, New York City, NY: Bloomberg, CityLab Housing. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-11/zoning-plays-a-big-role-in-san-francisco-s-housing-crisis-gentrification-and-wealth-disparity
Einstein K. L. (2020). Chapter 7: “Gentrification, Affordable Hosuing, and Housing Reform”, Neighborhood Defenders, 146-172. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Furman Center (2021). “ Neighborhood Profile: Greenpoint/Williamsburg BK01”, New York City, NY: NYU, Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. Retrieved from https://furmancenter.org/neighborhoods/view/greenpoint-williamsburg.
Gabbe, C. J. (2018). Why Are Regulations Changed? A Parcel Analysis of Upzoning in Los Angeles. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 38(3), 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17696034
Hyra, D. (2016). Commentary: Causes and Consequences of Gentrification and the Future of Equitable Development Policy. Cityscape, 18(3), 169–178. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26328279
Kurutz, S. (2024). “Williamsburg. What Happened?”, New York City, NY: New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/29/style/williamsburg-brooklyn-history-timeline.html.
Mordechay, K., & Ayscue, J. B. (2024). Diversifying Neighborhoods, Diversifying Schools? The Relationship Between Neighborhood Racial Change and School Segregation in New York City. Education and Urban Society, 56(1), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245221110555
Newman, K., & Wyly, E. K. (2006). The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City. Urban Studies, 43(1), 23–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43197378
N.L.I.H.C (2019), “Gentrification and neighborhood revitalization: What’s the difference?” Publications: National Low Income Housing Coalition. Retrieved from https://nlihc.org/resource/gentrification-and-neighborhood-revitalization-whats-difference
Opinion (2018). “In Praise of Gentrification”, New York City, NY: The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/06/21/in-praise-of-gentrification.
Roda, A. (2023). “Holding the Line”: Investigating How Urban School Leaders’ Respond to Gentrification in New York City Schools. Urban Education (Beverly Hills, Calif.), 58(10), 2515–2542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920959137
