打印

作者

Gregory D. Squires

来源

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS,Vol.41,Issue1,P.135-136

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

George Washington University

摘要

It’s complicated. Choosing a neighborhood and certainly understanding why and how a particular neighborhood has taken on its current form—why some are more appealing than others—are complex matters that entail diverse and often conflicting interests. In this book, three academics who very much want to be part of the solution to our cities’ problems openly acknowledge that they are gentrifiers (and though they do not say so, by implication, so are many readers of this book), and they spell out the difficult decisions they confronted when they chose the neighborhoods in which they lived at various stages of their lives in New York, San Diego, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Providence. They argue that to understand gentrification, it is essential to examine the life choices and chances of the gentrifiers as well as the larger interests and structural forces that have long shaped the spatial development of cities. Despite the ethical issues they no doubt grapple with more than the typical homeseeker, in the end they make similar housing decisions for many of the same reasons as do those who arguably make a less examined decision. But in confronting their own choices, they help us understand the underlying causes and consequences of gentrification.They begin by detailing what they define as an analytical multitool that incorporates seven facets of the housing choice families face. They are (a) monetary (the affordability of a home and its asset value), (b) practical (centrality of its location and adequacy of space), (c) aesthetic (character of the home and neighborhood), (d) amenities (access to good schools, third places including restaurants and other entertainment venues), (e) community (diversity and incorporation of newcomers), (f) authenticity (preservation of local culture), and (g) flexibility (willingness to accept imperfections like greater danger or less public transportation than might be desired).But they are quick to note that the housing choices gentrifiers make, and the gentrification process itself, are embedded in several historical transformations that have shaped the built environment, including capital mobility and deindustrialization, redlining and racial segregation, suburbanization, real estate speculation, and many more. So the choices gentrifiers like themselves make are not simply responses to current neighborhood characteristics but are also framed by a range of social forces that have privileged some, punished others, and created the varying opportunity structures facing diverse groups today.Further complicating efforts to understand gentrification are the mixed motives of the gentrifiers. They identify six types, acknowledging that most fall into more than one category. These types include (a) conquerors out to change the local culture, (b) connectors and colonizers wanting to improve the neighborhood, (c) consumers wanting to enjoy what the neighborhood has to offer, (d) competitors out to obtain the area’s scarce resources, (e) capitalists seeking profit opportunities from neighborhood changes, and (f) curators desiring to be good neighbors who preserve the local culture.The personal narratives of the three authors illustrate the complexities that many families confront when choosing a gentrifying neighborhood. They are acutely aware of the criticisms of gentrification and they want to do the right thing. They observe, for example, that when John and his wife Monique moved to Chicago, She wants her daughters to be safe from gun violence and educated in schools that are not failing. John wants both of these things as well, of course. But he carries a sense that his family could, in the din of everyday life, turn their backs—residentially speaking—on Chicago’s greatest challenges, namely, its deteriorating public schools and the escalating violence among its youth that touches people all around them. He imagined making a residential choice that was more a part of the solution than the problem. (p. 74)The authors note the importance of local schools in the decisions they and most families make in selecting a home, if they are fortunate to have choices. But, as they observe, in the end, John, like Marc, “was a staunch advocate of public education, but was unwilling to send his child to a substandard school in order to make a political statement” (p. 148–149).A critical dynamic they point out is that one person’s solution is often viewed as another’s definition of the problem. For example, to address a food desert requires new commercial and retail establishments. But increasing healthy food options for some by attracting such businesses could lead to increasing property values, displacement, and all the ills often associated with gentrification. So efforts by city leaders to incentivize the development of full-service grocery stores in food deserts could be interpreted as either a neoliberal “big boom” project presaging the razing of the neighborhood for gentrified development or the beginning of a truly transformative orientation to locate such resources in proximity to every city resident—thereby decreasing their scarcity. (p. 192–193)Similarly, providing vouchers for low-income families to move to more prosperous neighborhoods could be viewed as a neoliberal plot to scatter and make invisible a region’s poor while turning over the vacated land to gentrifying developers or as one tool to give choices to groups that have traditionally had few. If disinvestment has long been a problem, some level of reinvestment is necessary to enhance the quality of life of long-time residents. But to some observers such reinvestment is just a tool to attract middle-class families who will displace—culturally and politically if not spatially—families who have lived in those neighborhoods for generations. Several more examples are offered.In the concluding chapter, they expressly acknowledge that they are not offering “a specific path forward” but instead are trying to “highlight the historical and contemporary factors that create and sustain gentrification” (p. 202). Reflecting on their own narratives and the growing literature on gentrification, they nicely illustrate the complex and contradictory nature of much of the debate over gentrification. And though they do not propose a comprehensive blueprint of policy recommendations, they do conclude by juxtaposing three potential paths forward: (a) neoliberal promarket policies, (b) ameliorative approaches that attempt to mitigate some of the costs of a pure market vision, and (c) transformative policies (which they clearly favor) that prioritize social justice objectives over market outcomes. They then list what are becoming somewhat familiar options, including community benefits agreements, inclusionary zoning, fair share affordable housing, transit-oriented development, and more.But they end where they begin with a fairly simple and straightforward message: Gentrification is complicated.