One the one hand, I’m sure we’re all glad to see ugly, blighted, crime-ridden inner-city decay replaced by shiny new condos and upscale retail establishments and new and prosperous residents who can add something to the city tax base. On the other hand, these developments only sometimes go up on vacant lots (and even when they do, their presence tends to drive up local rents in general). More often, existing apartment buildings and things have to be demolished or rehabbed. Poor and working-poor people who have been living there a long time, possibly for generations, and who have a lot of connections with the existing neighborhood as a community, get notices that their leases will not be renewed for the coming year and they have to vacate. Which usually means they can’t even live in the same neighborhood any more – the rents are now beyond their means. They must go – elsewhere. Wherever rents are still cheap. The old neighborhood effectively ceases to exist, though the name might remain.
Is there another way? Is it possible to “gentrify” decayed urban neighborhoods without displacing their current residents?
Without replacing the reasons why these people are poor, I don’t see how this can be possible. I think the only way it can be done is to provide education and training opportunities to those people who fall into the lower income brackets. Then there’s the chance they could move into a better-paying job and afford the new neighbourhood. I support this kind of idea.
However, there are some other alternatives. I know that here in Ottawa, on Lebreton Flats, which is a former industrial area pretty much right downtown that has sat empty for about 40 years, new developments are going up that are required by the city to have a certain percentage of new homes be sold as low-cost housing. You can read about it here.
Also, those people who own homes in these areas, even if it is a low-end house, are likely to see the value of their home go up significantly as gentrification takes off. So what could have been bought for under $100,000 in the past will definitely go for higher in the future. This could be a huge boon to people, especially if their house is already paid off. Personally, I think combining education and training opportunities with guaranteed low-cost housing is the way to go.
I believe that New York City was able to do this to a degree with the advent of Rent Control. The pros and cons of Rent Control have been debated constantly in New York for as long as I can remember, however for the purpose of this discussion, keeping the rents stabalized in older buildings to long-standing tennants (which is what Rent Control essentially was) did keep some neighborhoods in NYC diverse even when newer and more expensive buildings were built and property values rose.
It can (and would) be argued that even if this is considered a positive that Rent Control has too many negatives to make it worthwhile. Again, the debate raged on for decades… And Rent Control may have since been appealed, I’m not sure…
I think it’s possible, and should be done.
The key is to reverse the devaluing trends before they gain too much traction.
One thing that created poor areas in my city, which were later reclaimed by gentrification, was the wholesale conversion of property from single family home-owner property to split-up home rental property.
If someone had just put the brakes on that and put the engine into reverse, the places might have gone to the existing tenants.
For instance, if they had said there would be no more splitting of homes, then the only way for a person to sell would be to find a new owner, not several renters. Ownership is the key to maintenance. Landlords can afford to become slumlords because once the original mortgage is payed off it’s all gravy.
But a new owner has an investment to maintain and will put money in to keep the value above his equity.
But, that’s a proposal to close the barn door after the stampede. In most places relevant to this discussion, it’s too late by decades to “reverse the devaluing trends.”