Today.Az » Weird / Interesting » To stop gentrification from hurting the poor, neighborhoods need to change faster
29 December 2015 [13:40] - Today.Az
Discussions of "gentrification" are commonplace in
contemporary urban America, with complaints usually focusing on two main
themes. One is change in the built environment — people often liked
neighborhoods the way they were when they moved there, and resent the construction
of new structures that differ in scale and style from what was there
previously. The other is economic impact — people often worry that an influx of
affluent newcomers will raise housing costs in a way that disadvantages less
The good news is that this latter problem can be fixed. The
bad news is that the best way to do it is to increase the pace at
which a city's built environment changes.
The economics of gentrification
The experience of expensive, politically liberal coastal
cities tends to dominate media discussions of urbanism, so it's important to
note that these cities are the exception rather than the rule. Most American
central cities are relatively affordable, and many of them — especially in the
Midwest — are still suffering from the population loss and disinvestment
associated with white
flight. A Detroit, Cleveland, or St. Louis could greatly benefit from an
influx of affluent newcomers whose presence would create new job opportunities
and bolster local tax bases.
At the same time, in any city it does seem to be true that
an influx of newcomers will tend to raise prices. Research by Veronica Guerrieri, Daniel
Hartley, and Erik Hurst shows empirically how this works. Price
increases tend to concentrate in specific neighborhoods rather than spreading
across a city as a whole. They model this as a question of spillovers. More and
less affluent people place systematically different values on different kinds
of retail opportunities. So affluent young people might be drawn to proximity
to a Whole Foods and an array of independent coffee shops and yoga studios,
while working-class families might prefer a cheaper supermarket and proximity
to some home-based day care providers. When affluent people start moving to a
neighborhood, the retail mix shifts in favor of things affluent people like,
which draws more affluent people to that specific neighborhood but
not necessarily to other places in the city.
But whether this is good or bad for older residents of the
city depends on other factors. Janna Matlack and Jacob L. Vigdor examined
market data from 1970 to 2000 and found that the net economic impact of
gentrification varies according to local housing conditions.
"In tight housing markets," they write, "the
poor do worse when the rich get richer," whereas in slack markets,
"some evidence suggests that increases in others' income, holding own
income constant, may be beneficial."
When houses are plentiful, in other words, gentrification
can be a win-win — increases in other people's incomes create new opportunities
for the poor. But when houses are scarce, increases in other people's incomes
merely exacerbate scarcity and leave the poor worse off than ever.
Neighborhoods need to change faster
So what creates a "slack" housing market where
gentrification can be a win-win? Data from the real estate website Trulia shows it
can basically happen one of two ways.
Markets like Detroit, Cleveland, or Rochester are cheap
essentially because they are economically depressed. There are plenty of empty
houses, so if affluent newcomers show up and fix some of them up it doesn't
generate any real scarcity.
Tight markets like New York and the Bay Area can't replicate
that approach to affordability. But they could learn a lesson from the other kind
of slack housing market — Sunbelt markets like Raleigh and Atlanta where new
houses are being built at a very rapid clip.
Those fast-growing metros are mostly adding houses by
spreading their geographical footprint deeper into the suburbs. That's not
necessarily an appealing option for cities whose sprawl is limited by oceans or
already-gargantuan commuting times. But fortunately, technology exists that
allows house builders to pack large quantities of dwellings into limited land.
Rather than detached houses each perched in their own yard, rowhouses or
townhouses can be built. Where land is even scarcer, American builders have the
capacity to erect apartment buildings — some of them two dozen stories high or
more — whose floors are connected by elevators. The big problem is that in the
most expensive metropolitan areas it is illegal to deploy these technologies on
large swaths of land. Zoning codes and historic preservation rules generally
prevent even the priciest neighborhoods from becoming denser.
Relaxing these zoning rules would transform gentrification
of neighborhoods in generally affluent cities into a win-win that benefits the
poor. But it would mean accelerating the pace at which gentrification
reshapes the built environment of those neighborhoods. Those worried about
gentrification, in other words, likely need to choose what it is they are
primarily worried about — the aesthetic or economic dimensions of the issue —
and recognize that addressing one will likely exacerbate the other.