“The presence of so much vacant land allows poor cities to revitalize without the same fear of gentrification.”
— John Powell, Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Responses
jaech1ck said: Can you provide context for this quote?
Powell assumes the definition of gentrification as redevelopment of lower-income urban areas that displaces low-income individuals with an influx of high-income individuals. He argues that while wealthy high-density cities like San Francisco or Seattle need to be deeply aware of gentrification, poor cities like Cleveland or Detroit (or St. Louis) have so much vacant land that displacement is not a primary concern amidst revitalization. It frustrates me to hear cries of “gentrification” in places like St. Louis. If gentrification is merely an influx of resources, then the city desperately needs it. If it is the displacement of low-income individuals, we needn’t worry too much (as Powell suggests) because we’ve got plenty of vacant land to develop without displacing anyone. Perhaps the debate hinges on simple definitions. I’ve heard many disparagingly refer to gentrification as simply white people moving back to the city. Ironically, these are the same people who simultaneously criticize the phenomena of white flight. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it here: If whites in the suburbs is white flight, and whites in the city is gentrification, then where the hell do we want white people to live? Let’s not lose sight of reality here.
Replies
Likes
-
irishboyinlondon liked this
-
greenpeanuts2 liked this
-
loganalexander reblogged this from secretrepublic
-
secretrepublic posted this
4 Notes