masters essay final submission 081114

Running head: DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION

REDEVELOPMENT, GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT:

Would a Holistic Approach to Creating Policies that Mitigate Displacement due to

Gentrification better serve both Place and People?

by

Cheryl Williams-Kearney

AN ESSAY

Submitted to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences,

Wayne State University,

Detroit, Michigan,

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING

August 2014

MAJOR: Economic Development

APPROVED BY:

______________________________

Williams-Kearney

DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

a. Research questions

i. Would a holistic approach to creating policies that mitigate displacement

due to gentrification better serve both "People" and "Place"?

ii. Have holistic policies that emphasize the revitalization of "People" instead

of emphasizing "Place" had the impact sought by community groups?

iii. If holistic policies implemented have impacted displacement due to

gentrification, how might these policies be adapted in other locations

facing various stages of gentrification?

b. Methodology and definitions

c. Overview of organization of essay

II. History of redevelopment and gentrification

a. Federal Housing Act of 1949

b. The role of government programs on gentrification

i. Why were thriving Black neighborhoods demolished for redevelopment

ii. Model Cities program

iii. Lafayette Park-Detroit

iv. Hamlin Park-Buffalo-buffalo rising

v. Pruitt-Igoe-St. Louis

c. Private market forces of gentrification

d. Gentrification as on off-shoot of redevelopment

i. Neighborhood tipping and displacement

Williams-Kearney


ii. Mobility and displacement- case studies of private market gentrification

1. Harlem

2. Clinton Hill

e. Indigenous residents’ response to gentrification

i. “You’ll never be from Southie”

ii. Anacostia –Chocolate City

iii. "My Brooklyn: a Battle for the Soul of a City"- a documentary

iv. "Fate of a Salesman" (Washington, D.C.) – a documentary

III. Case studies of holistic policy projects vs. place based projects

a. Holistic policies that mitigate displacement

i. Cleveland-The Evergreen Cooperatives

ii. Pittsburgh- Hill District Community Group

iii. Baltimore- partnerships with Johns Hopkins University & Hospital

b. Exclusionary policies directly resulting in disharmony among residents

i. Philadelphia-Point Breeze

ii. Boston-FB page Boston against gentrification

iii. Atlanta

Williams-Kearney


IV. Recommendations

a. Specific concepts researched and reviewed

i. Policies employed in early stages of gentrification

ii. Policies employed in middle stages of gentrification

iii. Policies employed in late stages of gentrification

b. Author’s recommendations

i. Workforce training

ii. Consolidated planning of projects

1. Detroit Corridor Initiative

2. U3

V. Conclusion

Williams-Kearney


Chapter I: Introduction

The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not a combined approach of

affordable housing in conjunction with training and workforce development can better stem the

tide of displacement due to gentrification associated with redevelopment. The Housing Act of

1949 attempted to address blight and substandard housing in our nation’s inner cities by

demolishing substandard slum housing and replacing it with housing units affordable for

“moderate to low- income residents”. This did not take into consideration the displacement of

those categorized as “extremely low income” and unable to afford the newly available low cost

housing. In the 1960s, Detroit’s Lafayette Park/Black Bottom/Paradise Valley project was a

prime example of an additional outcome of reinvestment in the neighborhood that ended in the

displacement of the residents due to gentrification (miesdetroit.org, 2013).

To prepare residents for rising housing costs and future self-sufficiency, many

communities are tying workforce development to redevelopment projects aimed at maintaining

the neighborhood’s diversity. The thought behind this movement is that for a neighborhood to

achieve true sustainability, revitalization requires not only an investment in the beautification of

the environment, but an investment in the future of all of its residents, current and future.

Neighborhoods that have addressed redevelopment with an eye towards sustainability are

reviewed later in the case studies. These policies are said to serve both the “People” and the

“Place”.

It was a commonly accepted notion that as urban areas succumbed to disinvestment,

urban sprawl, “White flight” and declining population, the tried and true method of revitalization

was through renewal and redevelopment. The implementation of the federal Housing Act of

1949 gave birth to urban renewal in an effort to provide “governmental assistance to eliminate

Williams-Kearney


substandard and other inadequate housing through the clearance of slums and blighted

areas”(42USC § 1441, 1949). The resultant effect, overwhelmingly, was the displacement of the

indigenous residents as the areas gentrified as a result of those redevelopment projects.

Over the last 60 plus years, the most popular method of revitalization has been providing

new affordable housing on the redevelopment site; however residents may have been displaced

from the area if they did not meet the criteria to be selected for a unit. They also may have been

displaced while waiting for the completion of the construction of the new housing units. In times

of active national social consciousness, providing developers incentives to convince them of the

financial feasibility of setting aside affordable housing units was far less daunting than in periods

of economic and social conservatism. However, what was earmarked as affordable housing for

“moderate and low income” residents disregarded residents that qualified as “extremely low

income”, who frequently earned less than 80% of the area median income. For residents

classified as “extremely low income” programs such as inclusionary zoning and tax credits do

not address their housing concerns as they cannot qualify to purchase or even rent the

“affordable units”.

Over time, governmental influence was no longer the primary catalyst for the

redevelopment of the older central cities. Reinvestment policies, dictated by changes in the

public’s consumption patterns, cultural preferences and major changes in the global economy,

particularly deindustrialization, spurred the convergence of the gentry back to the core cities.

Levy et al suggest that gentrification is born of different types of displacement; “1)’direct

displacement’, such as that which was resultant of federal urban renewal programs in the 1950s

and 1960s; 2) ‘secondary or involuntary displacement’ where low-income households prefer to

remain but cannot afford higher rents, taxes, tenant harassment, or the withholding of services; 3)

Williams-Kearney


‘exclusionary displacement’ where preventive policies preclude future low-income residents

from locating there” (as cited in Freeman and Braconi, 2002).

For the lowest financial strata of residents, the inability to participate in these options

required municipalities to approach the issue from a different perspective. Why are these

residents not even earning a livable wage and how can that issue be addressed? In recent years,

many cities have begun attaching training and hiring initiatives to anchor institutions’

participation in neighborhood redevelopment. Additional initiatives to preserve the historical and

minority business culture of the redeveloping neighborhoods are also being included in

redevelopment projects negotiation process.

Could a holistic policy approach address issues beyond blight and under-employment, if

investments are in the people as well as the structures, such as the methods employed to curb

racial tension in between current and new residents in Boston (Vigdor, 2002), Philadelphia

(Spikol, 2012), or Atlanta (Reid &Adelman, 2003)? This study will review creative approaches

instituted in several communities to determine the outcomes of these policies and whether their

implementation has had an effect in reducing displacement of current residents.

Research Questions

1. Would a holistic approach to creating policies that mitigate displacement due to

gentrification better serve both "People" and "Place"?

2. Have holistic policies that emphasize the revitalization of "People" instead of

emphasizing "Place" had the impact sought by community groups?

3. If holistic policies implemented have impacted displacement due to gentrification,

how might these policies be adapted in other locations facing various stages of gentrification?

Williams-Kearney


Methodology and Definitions

The methodology employed will be to review the policies implemented in various

communities comparing and contrasting the outcomes in both a historical and current context.

These data will be gleaned from scholarly articles, journals, books, and review of community

development corporations’ participation in policy creation in their neighborhoods. Additional

insight will be provided by personal communication with community leaders in affected areas

and filmed documentaries addressing the response of indigenous residents’ reaction to

gentrification as a result of redevelopment.

What exactly do the terms “gentrification” and “displacement” mean? In order to

measure the effects of gentrification, a general consensus for a clear definition of “gentrification”

is needed. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defined gentrification as

“the process by which a neighborhood occupied by lower-income households undergoes

revitalization or reinvestment through the arrival of upper-income households” (U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development 1979, 4).

In the PBS.org article, “What is Gentrification” it is defined as “Gentrification is a

general term for the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban district, a related increase in

rents and property values, and changes in the district's character and culture. The term is often

used negatively, suggesting the displacement of poor communities by rich outsiders. But the

effects of gentrification are complex and contradictory, and its real impact varies….

Gentrification has been the cause of painful conflict in many American cities, often along racial

and economic fault lines. Neighborhood change is often viewed as a miscarriage of social justice,

in which wealthy, usually white, newcomers are congratulated for ‘improving’ a neighborhood

Williams-Kearney


whose poor, minority residents are displaced by skyrocketing rents and economic change….( i.e.,

demographic, real estate markets, land use, and culture and character changes)” (pbs.org,2013).

Freeman (2005) points to several variations of the definition, but gleans similarities to

come up a working definition that allows the impact to be measured; “First, consider the types of

neighborhoods with the potential to be gentrified. Characteristics of such neighborhoods would

include (1) central city neighborhoods (2) populated by low-income households that have

previously experienced (3) disinvestment. Next, consider the actual process of gentrification. The

definitions listed above point to an (4) influx of the relatively affluent or gentry, and (5) an

increase in investment. The first three represent disadvantaged neighborhoods that are the pool of

potentially gentrifying neighborhoods, whereas the last two refer to the process of gentrification”

(Freeman, 2005). The following sections will explore statistical effects and the human response

to those effects

Levy et al contend that while there is “no agreed upon definition” of gentrification they do refer

to several other notable sources: “Urban geographer Ruth Glass who coined the term gentrification…She

defined it as the process of middle-and upper-class households moving into distressed working-class

neighborhoods, upgrading the derelict housing stock (as cited in Glass, 1964). David Ley, as cited in

Simon Fraser University’s online definition describes it as “a process of social change where by a social

transition occurs as lower-income groups are progressively replaced in inner-city neighborhoods by

middle-income groups who reinvest and revitalize the inner-city" (as cited in Ley, 1996). Virtually all of

the redevelopment projects involve the resurrection of the “central business district”, henceforth referred

to as the CBD.

In attempting to define “displacement” Peter Marcuse asserts” One can define displacement

in terms of households or housing units, in individual or in neighborhood terms, or as a consequence of

physical or economic changes” (Marcuse, 1985). He does defer , in his opinion, to an even more

Williams-Kearney


complete definition: “The most widely accepted definition is that developed by George and Eunice Grier:

Displacement occurs when any household is forced to move from its residence by conditions that affect

the dwelling or its immediate surroundings, and that: 1) are beyond the household’s reasonable ability to

control or prevent; 2) occur despite the household’s having met all previously imposed conditions of

occupancy; and 3) make continued occupancy by that household impossible, hazardous, or unaffordable”

(as cited in Grier, G. and E. Grier, 1978).

The terms “place” and “people” take on something of a unique quality in the field of urban

planning and community development. When considering redevelopment of a neighborhood, “place” falls

into one or all of three categories; 1) the place of residence, 2) the workplace, or 3) the community itself

with particular focus on neighborhood amenities. “People”, therefore not only pertains to the residents of

a neighborhood, but investors, business owners, employees that work in the area but reside elsewhere and

people that are drawn to the area to support and enjoy the amenities. The issue at hand is that respect and

consideration must be given to the “place” and “people” as they existed prior to the redevelopment

projects.

Overview of Organization of Essay

The material covered and conclusions reached in this study will be presented in the

following order:

Chapter I introduces the topic of displacement and gentrification and discusses why it is

worthy of review. The pitfalls of the earliest concepts of urban renewal that were employed when

creating policies to redevelop neighborhoods are briefly examined. Next, three research

questions are presented to frame the context of the analysis of the subject matter, i.e., will

holistic policies that speak to the needs of both “people” and “place” provide the most

harmonious outcomes for all involved with neighborhood redevelopment projects? This is

Williams-Kearney


followed by the methodology utilized and the definition of terms, review of specific concepts

dealing with the various stages of gentrification and the organization of the essay.

Chapter II discusses the history of redevelopment from the Federal Housing Act of 1949

focusing on some of the earliest urban renewal/redevelopment projects through present day

projects driven by market economy and consumer consumption preferences. Gentrification as an

off-shoot of redevelopment is examined in the writings of Professor Lance Freeman with regards

to mobility and displacement and the level of neighborhood acceptance in the revitalization of

Harlem and Clinton Hill. On a more personal level, residents are interviewed about the changes

they see in their neighborhoods in the documentary films, “Brooklyn: a Battle for the Soul of a

City” and “Fate of a Salesman”.

Chapter III looks at both holistic and exclusionary policies utilized in specific case

studies and their respective outcomes. Chapter IV offers recommendations and best practices

based upon the case reviews that are followed by the conclusion in Chapter V.

Williams-Kearney


Chapter II: History of redevelopment and gentrification

Federal Housing Act of 1949

Following the return of the veterans of WWII and the enactment of the Servicemen’s

Readjustment Act of 1944, which provided numerous benefits including low cost mortgages, the

real estate market skyrocketed. To support that boon, Congress passed 42 U.S. Code § 1441,

better known as the Federal Housing Act of 1949, whereas, “The Congress declares that the

general welfare and security of the Nation and the health and living standards of its people

require housing production and related community development sufficient to remedy the serious

housing shortage, the elimination of substandard and other inadequate housing through the

clearance of slums and blighted areas, and the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a

decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family, thus contributing to

the development and redevelopment of communities and to the advancement of the growth,

wealth, and security of the Nation. The Congress further declares that such production is

necessary to enable the housing industry to make its full contribution toward an economy of

maximum employment, production, and purchasing power” (U.S. Congress, 1949).

In a ten year review of the Housing Act of 1949 by Duke University, it is pointed out “It

is important to note that the very title of the Act implies emphasis on housing rather than urban

renewal” (Leach, 1960, p. 778). The very focus of this paper seems to be supported by the

review of the program that even in its infancy the two-pronged approach was weighted in favor

of housing over redevelopment due to political pressures. While the concept of the dire need for

additional housing was easy to grasp, the tandem act of redevelopment was not so clear. The

singular focus of building residential units overlooked the need for redevelopment of the

commercial areas that are vital to the revitalization of the community.

Williams-Kearney


The role of government programs on gentrification

Thus far, the causes of gentrification driven displacement were explained as a collateral

consequence of politics, finance and racial preferences. But what if the result was not an

unintended outcome, but rather it was because “The private hand of the market was consciously

manipulated to cause a decline in property values and the quality of life in urban neighborhoods”

(Godsil, 2014)? Godsil proposes the existence of an “unholy trinity” of puppet masters consisting

of the federal government, bankers and real estate brokers who intentionally decimated the value

of urban land for financial gain and racial autonomy.

The supposition is that the combination of the Federal Highway Act of 1956, the Federal

Housing Administration (FHA) and the Veterans Administration (VA) homeownership loans

simultaneously enhanced “the autonomy of white families to purchase homes and move to the

suburbs…disinvesting in urban centers and contributing to the exclusion of Black and Latino

families from those same suburbs, (Godsil, 2014). The inability to readily relocate when the

highways demolished their neighborhoods ‘resulted in massive displacement of poor people and

the destruction of established neighborhoods” (Godsil, 2014). Politicos, bankers, real estate

developers and businessmen used highway act funds to construct roads through lower income

neighborhoods which provided a quick and convenient escape route to the suburbs. Poor in-place

residents did not have equal access to FHA or VA loans to purchase new homes in other

neighborhoods, where they were often restricted from purchasing. If the government was

instrumental in causing displacement, does it have a responsibility to enact corrective measures?

Why were thriving Black neighborhoods demolished for redevelopment?

The thriving Black Detroit neighborhoods of Black Bottom and Paradise Valley were

KO’d by the one-two combination of Eisenhower era freeway expansion, driven by the auto

Williams-Kearney


industry, and the Lafayette Park redevelopment project. Progress can be determined by one’s

perspective. To Black residents these neighborhoods were a sanctuary in a time of extreme racial

inequality. As Blacks were refused admittance to, or participation in many aspects of everyday

life, a microcosm was created in these neighborhoods that provided all the necessities of life in a

safe environment. Blacks owned successful businesses of every type that provided the services

that support any community.

I-75 and I-375 destroyed this area in the name of progress. Many Whites could not

understand the attachment and described the area as dirty and run down. Their perspective could

not fathom the security the residents derived from this enclave in a time when venturing beyond

the perimeter could mean incarceration or even death. “Historian Joe T. Darden of Michigan

State University, co-author of the new book “Detroit: Race Riots, Racial Conflicts and Efforts to

Bridge the Racial Divide,” said the Detroit experience needs to be remembered for what was lost

to urban renewal and expressways in the 1950s and ’60s. “Some people may not know that

history, so if nothing else, it’s important to put that into perspective and say more about it,” he

said” (Gallagher, 2013).

In 1953, recent college graduate, urban planner Ed Hustoles came to Detroit to work on

the Lafayette Park project. Hustoles recalls he viewed the projects that replaced rat-infested

neighborhoods as “enlightened”. Interviewed in 2013, at the age of 87, “Hustoles sounds wistful

today remembering at the distance of half a century what was viewed as a great revitalization

effort. “I was a young guy out of college,” he said. “We thought we were doing good. We were

taking blight away and giving people decent, safe, and sanitary housing, and we were rebuilding

the city. “Well, in retrospect, you can always do some things differently” (Gallagher, 2013).

Williams-Kearney


Current urban planner “best practices” have now decided that removal of freeways in core areas

is the way of the future, so now I-375, 1.062 mile long freeway that destroyed a neighborhood

60 years ago is being considered for removal (ssti.us,2014).

Model Cities Program

Under the umbrella of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society the Demonstration

Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 was enacted, better known as the Model

Cities Program. It was the first time a holistic approach to addressing urban decay was utilized.

Its goals, while altruistic, were quite lofty and eventually unobtainable. A historical review of the

program by Duke University explains “The specific objectives each local program is expected to

meet are: to rebuild or revitalize large slum and blighted areas; to expand housing, job, and

income opportunities; to reduce dependence on welfare payments; to improve educational

facilities and programs; to combat disease and ill health, to reduce the incidence of crime and

delinquency; to enhance recreational and cultural opportunities; to establish better access

between homes and jobs; and generally to improve living conditions for the people who live in

the areas…”(as cited § 101, 42 U.S.C. § 3301 (Supp. II, 1965-66)).

Although the program was designed for recipient cities to receive both financial and

technical guidance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, it has been

deemed an unmitigated failure, (ccdemuth.com). Because the benefits were to be directly

administered on a local level, the cause for failure appears to be a lack of vertical coordination

between agencies and a lack of specific program structure. The various departments involved on

the federal and regional levels established a structured line of communication, but lacked the

authority to dispense funds, while the local agencies simply floundered. The exact source and

purpose of the funds was also unclear. “By the time the first model cities programs were

Williams-Kearney


announced in December of 1968, the term "supplemental grant" had become an Orwellian

misnomer—the grants were not supplementing anything, but were themselves the whole

program. The HUD press releases announcing the model cities programs listed numerous

projects funded by other agencies, but in most cases the non-HUD projects had neither been

planned by the local CDAs nor coordinated at the federal level to fit local plans. By this time,

most of the local model cities administrators had come to realize that the promised gush of

categorical grant money was never going to be more than a trickle. As a result, most of the

supplemental grants were used for projects which could have been funded by the categorical

grants, rather than for "innovative" projects or to "fill the gaps" between the categorical

programs” (ccdemuth.com).

With a changing of the guard at the White House from Johnson to Nixon the backing of

the Model Cities program dwindled, although an October 1969 article in the Lawrence Journal-

World states the decision to pull support was not a specifically partisan one. In spite of this

observation, Nixon did cut the funding by 42% from $515 million to $300 million. This total

deficit was, however, offset by increases in other HUD programs (news.google.com). “An

extension of the Model Cities program was launched August 1, 1972 by the Nixon

administration to provide for more review, involvement, and cooperation by various levels of

local government and citizens, with less review at the federal level. Nixon approved $2.3 billion

to fund model cities from 1969 to 1973. Model Cities funding was terminated June 20, 1975”

(Virginia.edu).

The lack of vertical coordination between agencies, no specific program structure and a

lack of consistent authority to disperse funds spelled the end of the Model Cities programs as

originally intended.

Williams-Kearney


Lafayette Park-Detroit, Michigan

One of the earliest redevelopment projects to come out of the Housing Act of 1949 was

Lafayette Park which replaced two historically Black neighborhoods named Black Bottom and

the adjacent neighborhood known as Paradise Valley. The neighborhoods were acknowledged as

“one of the city's major African-American communities of black-owned business, social

institutions and night clubs. It became nationally famous for its music scene: major blues singers,

big bands, and jazz artists—such as Duke Ellington, Billy Eckstine, Pearl Bailey, Ella Fitzgerald,

and Count Basie—regularly performed in the bars and clubs of Paradise Valley entertainment

district. It is also where Aretha Franklin's father, the Reverend C. L. Franklin first opened his

New Bethel Baptist Church on Hastings Street” (detroithistorical.org). The area was demolished

to make way for Lafayette Park and the extension of I-75 (locally known as the Chrysler

Freeway). The redevelopment project was assigned to world renowned architect Ludwig Mies

van der Rohe.

In a article on BlacDetroit.com a 23 year resident of Lafayette Park, Neil McEachern

states, “The plan was to build this neighborhood in downtown Detroit to attract a diverse group

of middle-class people to live in downtown Detroit to kind of stem the tide of people moving

further and further out," (blacdetroit.com). My observation is this, what about the prior residents

who were not “middle class” and what was to become of them? It very clearly does not address

the concerns of the indigenous residents, which are reviewed in later chapters.

“Lafayette Park was built as the result of the Gratiot Redevelopment Project initiated in

the 1940s, when Detroit’s city government approved the destruction of a densely populated

working class African-American neighborhood called Black Bottom. Thousands of residents

were displaced and the area remained vacant until the city retained Chicago-based developer

Williams-Kearney


Herbert Greenwald, architect Mies van der Rohe, urban planner Ludwig Hilberseimer and

landscape designer Alfred Caldwell to design a plan for the area. Three 22-floor high-rises, 21

buildings with 186 ground-level housing units, and a large park were completed by the early

1960s” (Dittmer, 2012). While the project called for mixed income dwellings, there is an obvious

line of demarcation between the upper and lower income housing projects, i.e., the low income

Martin Luther King housing project located at 573 Chene Street and upper income complexes

such as the Lafayette Towers and The Pavilion at 1 Lafayette Plaisance.

So how did the displaced residents feel about this redevelopment? This is addressed in

later chapters.

Hamlin Park-Buffalo, New York

Prior to the 1949 Housing Act was U.S. Housing Act of 1937, the Wagner-Stegall low-

rent housing bill. ” As early as the 1930s, the National Association of Real Estate Boards

(NAREB) looked for urban redevelopment through private investment rather than public housing

programs. The NAREB called for cities to acquire properties in blighted areas through eminent

domain and sell them to private developers at below-value prices. The board proposed that the

government provide subsidies to cover the difference between the purchase price and the value

after redevelopment. While several states complied and passed statutes to encourage urban

redevelopment by private enterprise, the success of these programs was limited due to the

lukewarm response of developers, who believed that they were not lucrative investments. The

reluctance by developers to invest in slum areas was a continual problem in the history of urban

development” (buffalorising.com, 2013).

The history of Hamlin Park is as rich and diverse as any reviewed in this research. It is

was the city’s first planned subdivision and was at some point home to varied ethnic groups from

Williams-Kearney


German to Jewish to African-American. It boasts amenities such as “the Frederick Law Olmsted

designed Delaware and Martin Luther King Parks, the North Jefferson Library, the Albright

Knox Art Gallery, the Historical Society, the Zoo, and the Museum of Science; the availability of

public transportation, with two rapid transit stations in or near the community, and the nearby

expressway system that provides ready access to downtown, the international airport and to

outlying communities and employment opportunities” (city-buffalo.com).

Hamlin Park is unique as one of the early redevelopment projects in that it is considered

to be at least partially successful when compared to other “urban renewal” projects in Buffalo, as

well as the rest of the nation. The success can be attributed to the manner in which Model Cities

guidelines were applied. The downfall of Model Cities in general seems to be the magnitude of

issues to be addressed was so enormous as to be unmanageable. To avoid this pitfall, Hamlin

Park narrowed the focus of redevelopment by utilizing a triage approach. Instead of trying to

“reinvent the wheel” and cure all the ills of the blighted areas in Buffalo, Hamlin Park choose

only to stabilize the areas which were salvageable by preventing further deterioration and thus

“led to the Hamlin Park neighborhood becoming the first African American middle class

community in Western New York” (buffaloah.com).

The two main factors driving their success were code enforcement, which is appropriate

when there is some level of stability already present and the creation of the Hamlin Park

Taxpayers Association in 1965. While both efforts were implemented in conjunction with Model

Cities, the narrow scope allowed both programs to survive beyond the demise of Model Cities in

1974.

Williams-Kearney


Pruitt-Igoe-St. Louis

As evident in most early renewal projects, a similar catalyst of a declining population spurred the

creation of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project and eventually described as “arguably the most

infamous public housing project ever built in the United States” (soc.iastate.edu). The 2,870 unit,

eleven-story, 33 building housing complex was designed in the high rise architectural style of

LeCorbusier and completed in 1956. Pruitt-Igoe was a panicked response to a rapidly declining

population that, preceding other major cities, began as early as the 1930s. The original plans

were to build "two- or three-story row type apartment buildings’ and a large public park” in the

mostly vacant neighborhood of DeSoto-Carr (soc.iastate.edu). Instead, with the election of a

new mayor Joseph Darst in 1949, the design plans were replaced with his personal preference for

a New York City type high-rise skyline; to achieve that vision he hired architects George

Hellmuth and Minoru Yamasaki. The desire to transform St. Louis into “Manhattan on the

Mississippi” was the impetus for a redevelopment project to include not only high-rise units for

middle and high income residents but also a modernist style business district.

In the wake of a steadily declining population, the plan to designate the Pruitt apartments

for Blacks and The Igoe apartments for Whites fell apart as Whites refused to move in, leaving

the entire complex to Black occupation only. There are numerous theories as to why the colossal

housing project was constructed including intentional “segregationist policies’ and ‘restrictive

cost guidelines of the Public Housing Administration” (soc.iastate.edu). While segregation as a

policy cannot be confirmed, cost issues between contractors and the housing administration

resulted and “the city responded by raising densities, reducing room sizes, and removing

amenities” (soc.iastate.edu). As a result of myopic aspirations of 1950 civic leaders, within 20

years the unmitigated failure was imploded. Similar to the rebirth of the Detroit’s CBD,

Williams-Kearney


spearheaded by businessman Dan Gilbert, St. Louis area businessman Paul McKee is moving

forward with the development of “Northside Regeneration” on the former site of Pruitt-Igoe.

Residents’ response to the redevelopment plans will be addressed later in this paper.

The earliest redevelopment projects were often driven by two main factors; urban core

declining population due to White Flight and utilization of federal highway funds to create the

commuter paths from the suburbs to the central business districts. Many vibrant Black

neighborhoods were razed in order to support White Flight and the eventual disinvestment of the

urban core.

Private market forces of gentrification

Although the government substantially impacted redevelopment-driven gentrification,

consumerism and technology which shape the economy, are also catalysts for redevelopment

driven gentrification. A sound tax base is required for any city to function. An aggressive plan to

establish a sound tax base is of critical importance in cities where both the population and the

business sector have declined. In pursuit of those personal and business taxes policies that

designed to entice investors, employers of the highly skilled and middle to upper income

residents often overlook low-income residents. These low income residents, who are generally

renters, suffer additionally as they have no equity in the properties being bought out.

A local example of private market forces is the land purchased by Wayne State

University, for the ever expanding Medical School located at 540 E. Canfield. Residents of the

neighbor called “Black Bottom” were displaced and relocated to the Brewster-Douglas Housing

Project. The economic impact of the expansion of the nation’s fourth largest medical school,

which is affiliated with the Detroit Medical Center, is apparent as the DMC is Detroit’s largest

private employer.

Williams-Kearney


Geographer Neil Smith posits the “production-side theory” as an economic process

resulting in a downward spiral causing gentrification by drawing a correlation between money

and production. Basically Smith states the lower housing costs in post WWII suburbia generated

a mass exodus which in turn was followed by a shift of capital investment from the central cities

to the suburbs. Consequently, this disinvestment culminated in devaluation of central city land.

This phenomenon created a subsequent phenomena Smith described as the “rent-gap

theory”. The rent-gap theory explains the difference between the value of land based on its

current use and its potential for increased value when redeveloped for more profitable uses. The

increased land values increase housing costs to the point of generally replacing long standing

residents with younger, more educated, middle class Whites who are able to pay the increased

housing costs.

A causal result of the exodus to suburbia was disinvestment in the core city

neighborhoods. In the midst of the disinvestment was the birth of a technology based economy as

opposed to the manufacturing based economy, which tended to employ a majority of center city

residents. Not only did this cause an abandonment of residential areas but also an abandonment

of the associated industrial areas. The decline of capital investment directly devalued the land

thereby giving birth to the existence of “rent-gap” and the mass purchase of discounted land for

the purpose of redevelopment and the catalyst for gentrification.

As opposed to an economic or even place based theory, David Ley suggests that

gentrification is driven by consumerism and social aspirations. Referencing the work of Sharon

Zukin, Dr. Olaf Kaltmeier further clarifies the theory as “the consumption-side theory of urban

gentrification, on the other hand, underlines the socio-cultural qualities and motives of the

Williams-Kearney


gentrifiers, who aim at a comfortable life in the city centers equipped with art galleries,

delicatessen stores, cafes and restaurants, as well as upscale living opportunities” (Kaltmeier,

2011).

Smith compares and contrasts his gentrification production theory with consumer-side

theory as postulated by David Ley. While he does not dismiss consumer-side theory as a

contributing factor to gentrification, he describes it as actually being an inclusive element of

production-side theory which he refers to as “one-dimensionality of consumer culture in the

advanced capitalist world” (Smith, 1995).

An additional factor contributing to gentrification, external to urban renewal, is economic

globalization. As previously mentioned, the impact of technological advancements has literally

changed the shape of not only local economies, but national and global as well. It also drastically

changes the type of individual suited for employment in this economy.

This new economy affects products, telecommunications, transport and financial

transactions. It has eliminated the need for physical proximity and yet major cities are

scrambling to achieve the status of “World City” as “major sites for the concentration and

accumulation of international capital” (as cited in Friedman, 1986). Ironically, while technology

has eliminated the need for requirement of physical proximity to perform the duties of business,

transnational corporations seek a central location from which to conduct business. To

accommodate this request and hopefully gain status as a “World City” certain amenities must be

available. The costs of these amenities are not generally within the financial reach of the in-

place residents, therefore, it can be said that gentrification is necessary for the sake of financial

advancement and stability of the city.

Williams-Kearney


Gentrification as an off-shoot of redevelopment

At what point or percentage of in-movers does gentrification occur? What are the reasons

for the current residents to leave the area? Are they leaving voluntarily or involuntarily? Is the

influx of Whites back to the cities “reverse tipping”? Are there advantages for the current

residents built into the projects, or are the advantages they enjoy peripheral to those amenities

designed for the projects’ targeted audience?

Neighborhood tipping and displacement

The precursor to the current influx of Whites to the urban core was known as “White

Flight”. White flight was a phenomenon where Whites would move from the city to the suburbs

as Blacks moved into their neighborhoods. “Tipping” is a term that was coined to quantify the

acceptable percentage of Blacks that could move into a neighborhood before Whites fled en

masse to the suburbs. “The tipping point can be understood, then, as a threshold after which there

is an acceleration in the rate of white out-movement from a neighborhood. It is a specific,

numerical proportion usually said to be 25 or 30 percent, after which “there is an exaggerated

increase” in the proportion of blacks” (Goering, 1978). While Goering is correct that there is “no

reason for optimism” regarding harmonious integrated neighborhoods on any great scale, time

has proven him wrong regarding the shrinking of the cities due to the total abandonment of

Whites. Urban redevelopment has reversed the “White Flight”, but has created a new scenario of

possible displacement of Blacks and the poor.

Independent radio commentator, Glen Ford penned an article entitled “Are we passing

the “Tipping Point: for Black Habitation in the Cities?” that was posted on voiceofdetroit.net, an

online independent newspaper. Mr. Ford describes this new, “reverse tipping” as a racially

driven agenda masquerading as economic development. “Finance capital, corporate muscle, and

Williams-Kearney


the political parties that serve them have set in motion the new phenomenon of Black flight from

the cities, and white return. Unlike white flight of the previous era, the current Black exodus is

mainly involuntary and economic. In reality, it is more like a purge, an ethnic cleansing based on

the reality that, in a racist society, the very presence of substantial numbers of Black people

brings down the value of land and other assets….The corporate class longed for the centralized

amenities that only big cities can provide, and finance capitalists looked forward to trillions in

added values if only the Blacks and browns could be evicted from urban real estate” (Ford,

2014).

As “tipping” left Blacks and the poor in economically devastated neighborhoods,

“reverse-tipping” spells the return of White middle class to upgrade the area beyond the means

of many of the current residents. It speaks to the inequities of choice and placing the current

residents in the position of only being able to acquiesce to decisions made for them. Tipping left

Blacks in undesirable neighborhoods, reverse-tipping is removing them from those same

neighborhoods now that improvements are finally underway.

Mobility and displacement-case studies of private market gentrification

Harlem and Clinton Hill neighborhoods, New York City

In an effort to quantify the effects of gentrification on displacement, social scientists

developed two main methodologies; one was to compare the characteristics of the gentry to the

indigenous residents, the other was to simply ask former residents, after the fact, their reasons for

having left the neighborhood. According to Freeman (2005), the results of the latter method were

not reliable as factors that were not directly correlated to redevelopment were included in the

studies in studies by. Another flaw in the methodology to quantify the rate of displacement was

the inability to formulate a displacement baseline as implemented in the “Out-Movers Study” by

Williams-Kearney


Schill and Nathan (1983). Simply put, there was nothing to which the exodus could be compared.

Additional studies, utilizing various Succession study methodologies such as “Resident

Surveys”, based on Grier and Grier’s 1978 definition of displacement and “Comparison Study”,

yielded inconclusive results, (Freeman, & Braconi, 2004). However in New York City, Freeman

and Braconi (2004) found “that normal housing succession is the primary channel through which

neighborhood change occurs”. They further found that members of the lower socio-economic

strata actually lessened the turnover rate due to lessened mobility.

In his book “There Goes the ‘Hood”, Columbia University Planning Professor Lance

Freeman explores the history of predominately Black neighborhoods of Harlem and Clinton Hill.

He reviews the historical significance of the neighborhoods that eventually played a major role in

the eventual redevelopment and gentrification of the areas.

In the 1800s, Harlem was basically a summer retreat for wealthy who found the commute

back and forth into the city too cumbersome and expensive. As transportation became less of an

issue many upper class Whites settled in the area giving rise to the luxurious and now much

coveted brownstones. Speculative real estate investment left many properties vacant with no

prospects for these grand homes. Rather than lose their investments, landowners turned to Blacks

who were limited in their choices of where to reside. Although the property owners charged

Blacks much higher rents, the opportunity allowed Blacks of a higher economic standing (or as

E. Franklin Frazier referred to them the “Black Bourgeoisie”, 1957), to settle in the area.

Educated and artistic Blacks swarmed to the area of upscale dwellings and gave birth to the

Harlem Renaissance. So unlike other predominately Black neighborhoods in other cities, Black

were not relegated to areas of substandard housing stock.

Williams-Kearney


As the economy fluctuated from the Great Depression to WWII to recessions in the mid-

late 1950s, the 70s, and early 90s followed by the “Great Recession” following the sub-prime

market crisis from 2007-2010, the effects on the citizenry were especially devastating in

neighborhoods that already only had access to marginal opportunities. Lack of opportunity,

coupled with or driven by systematic racism seemed to turn hopelessness to utter despair with

the heroin epidemic in the 1950s, heroin habits acquired while serving in Vietnam, importation

of heroin from Southeast Asia into the neighborhoods in the 1970s and the finally the crack

cocaine epidemic of the 1980s.

Freeman, as a scholar of color, was able to investigate the residents’ perceptions of

gentrification and have them respond with more candor than someone with whom they may not

identify. Freeman’s employed methodology was to actually interview a cross section of

residents of both Harlem, and Clinton to gauge their views on gentrification. Having grown up in

the area he has a unique perspective on changes in the area, but he never asked why the residents

accepted lack of services for them and improvements for the white in-movers as the status quo.

Almost all interviewees said the services and the amenities in the neighborhood had improved,

such as groceries with fresh food and improved police response, but very few questioned or

complained as to why these conveniences had been denied them. Complacency driven

acceptance is articulated as “Here whites are views as a group that will not tolerate inferior

services. Cognizant of this, stores and providers of public services step up their performance to

accommodate the new clientele” (Freeman, 2006).

He later addresses “urban myths” and Blacks inherent distrust of Whites and the political

structure in the country and with good reason. He points to Black cinema where the intentional

decimation of Black neighborhoods is illuminated in films such as New Jack City (dir. Mario

Williams-Kearney


Van Peebles, Warner Bros. Pictures, 1991), where the villainous main character explains that the

scourge of crack was introduced in Black neighborhoods by the powerbrokers, not the residents.

In Boyz in the Hood (dir. John Singleton, Columbia Pictures, 1991) Freeman delves more deeply

into the conspiracy theory as espoused by the character “Furious”, a well-read man who is the

father of one of the main characters. Furious educates his neighbors or the origins, intent and

evils of gentrification. “Here Furious describes gentrification as a deliberate plot to make money.

Current residents are to be discarded without a thought. Moreover, the conditions that make

gentrification possible in the first place-low property values-results from an intentional plan to

destroy black people. Neil Smith could not have said it better” (Freeman, 2006).

Indigenous residents’ response to gentrification

While it is acknowledged there is a human cost of displacement it is not the main focus of this

study (the focus is policies that reduce the human cost), the Center for Disease Control postulates

“Gentrification is a housing, economic, and health issue that affects a community’s history and

culture and reduces social capital…. Where people live, work, and play has an impact on their

health. Several factors create disparities in a community’s health. Examples include

socioeconomic status, land use/the built environment, race/ethnicity, and environmental

injustice. In addition, displacement has many health implications that contribute to disparities

among special populations, including the poor, women, children, the elderly, and members of

racial/ethnic minority groups.”(CDC, 2013). These changes may manifest as physical, mental,

emotional or even increased social justice inequities.

You’ll never be from Southie

Pushback to perceived displacement due to gentrification is not just a racial issue, but an

economic one as well. The predominately working-class, Irish enclave of “Southie” responded to

Williams-Kearney


the influx of gentrifiers in an online battle on Facebook and blog site CaughtInSouthie.com. The

main antagonist attacked the residents of Southie alluding to jealousy of “yuppies” due to their

own low-class existence. BostInno, staff writer Steve Annear looks to various data to determine

the cause of gentrification in South Boston. Quoting Professor of Public Policy and Economics at

Duke University, Jacob Vigdor. “there is bound to be some amount of tension when

neighborhoods are flooded with newcomers that change the way a community identifies with

itself—but it’s hard to avoid the process once it begins…. young people look for affordable

neighborhoods near the center of the city to live. Then, based on demographics, stores like

Starbucks and Whole Foods may follow suit, and in turn, attract additional occupants with an

affinity for such amenities” (Annear, 2012). It is all about economics.

“More People, Not Enough Housing: In June, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that

Boston’s population was on the rise and between April 2010 and July 2011, it increased to

625,087 from 617,594, reported the previous year. The 1.2 percent increase represents 7,493

people and is double the Massachusetts average growth rate over that time period, according to

the report” (Annear, 2012). According to Dr. Japonica Brown-Saracino, Assistant Professor of

Sociology at Boston University, the issue is not merely one of displacement; “long time residents

react not only to physical displacement, but “social displacement,” which is the loss of control in

a gentrifying community. The loss of a neighborhood’s culture is a far more emotional issue and

subject more so to volatility.

Is there even a possibility of a symbiotic relationship between the Southies and yuppies?

A comment in the online battle may sum it up…”"The truth is you will never be from Southie.

You live [in] South Boston, they are not the same. The word 'yuppies' will always go to people

Williams-Kearney

http://www.caughtinsouthie.com/feature/letter-south-boston


not from Southie," said Brian Lori Powers, in response to the conversation on the Facebook

thread. "My Question to the yuppies is—why live somewhere that [your'e] not wanted and feel

you'll never be treated the same. Southie will never change so why would you live there." "Just a

thought," said Powers.

Anacostia

The Washington D.C. neighborhood is the subject of debate on-line and NPR radio;

specifically, opposing views about displacement and the plight of one Black resident, Robert

Adams, are analyzed. Adams, a lifelong resident of Anacostia and community activist, wished to

purchase a larger home in his neighborhood as his family grew. Due to rising property prices,

Adams was forced to move his family to five bedroom home in Maryland that was actually less

than the two bedroom home he originally considered in his old neighborhood. The price

disparity, Adams attributes to the beginnings of gentrification. He felt especially betrayed, after

having advocated as an elected official for improved services to the area, he could no longer

afford to live there.

The opposing opinion is examined in an article on “GreaterGreaterWashington.org” site.

The three contributors are White, one of whom, David Garber, was the focus of the original NPR

discussion on Mr. Adams fate and displacement in Anacostia. The prevailing opinion was

summed up by Eric Fidler as “This alleged displacement story is not truly one of displacement.

The man (or his wife, as the story suggests) wanted a bigger house, and that's fine. If you don't

want to spend more money, but want a bigger house, you typically will have to move farther out

where the prices per square foot are lower. This is not unique to Anacostia, and I'm frustrated

that NPR portrayed the man as being "displaced" when the real reason that he moved is that he

Williams-Kearney


(or his wife) wanted a bigger house and did not want to pay much more money. That's a common

story as to why people move farther out, but this anecdote doesn't support Morning Edition's

claim that white people are "pricing out" this man”( greatergreaterwashington.org,2011).

Garber speaks to the joy espoused by neighbors regarding improvements to the area due

to the new diversity. “White people are moving into Anacostia. So are black people. So are

Asian people, Middle Eastern people, gay people, straight people, and every other mix. And

good for them for believing in a neighborhood in spite of its challenges, and for meeting its

hurdles head on and its new amenities with a sense of excitement. And good for the countless

residents who have stayed in the neighborhood through its worst times, many of whom are glad

to see signs of progress. A few months after I moved into Anacostia, my next-door neighbor—an

amazing woman who raised her family in the house adjoining mine, and for years dealt with

heavy drug activity and physical neglect next door—told me "you know, this is the first summer

in a long time that I've felt comfortable sitting on my front porch”

(greatergreaterwashington.org,2011).

In the NPR interview, Adams explains that the issue is not that he couldn’t afford the

home, it was the fact that his dollar bought so much more in Maryland than in the gentrifying

Anacostia neighborhood. What is most interesting about this debate is perspective. “Right now

prices are really low in Anacostia," he [Garber] says. Adams' reply: Low according to whom?

Many newcomers like Garber who move east of the river don't want to see people like Adams

forced out. They see themselves as trailblazers fighting to preserve the integrity of historic

Anacostia and its surrounds. Stan Voudrie is one of those newcomers — a white developer who

has been snatching up property in historic Anacostia, an area designated for preservation,

Williams-Kearney

http://greatergreaterwashington.org,2011

http://greatergreaterwashington.org,2011


including six square blocks he bought with business partners. Standing in front of the just-

opened Uniontown Bar & Grill – the first such bar this part of town has seen in as long as anyone

can remember — he bristles at even the mention of "gentrification." It's a buzzword people

around here don't take kindly to, he says.

"I see 'Gentrification Kills' spray painted on the sides of buildings and ... you know, malaria kills

and diseases kill," he says. 'Gentrification Kills' ... means it has a negative connotation’, (npr.org,

2011). At what price, progress? Is progress synonymous with White?

"My Brooklyn: a Battle for the Soul of a City"

“The process of gentrification in New York is not about people moving into a

neighborhood and other people moving out. The process of gentrification is about corporations

and the idea that this city doesn’t have a role in making sure the collective aims of the people are

actually achieved in development. It’s obscene” (Anderson, 2012). In her documentary, director

and Brooklyn gentrifier, Kelly Anderson takes a critical look at the manner in which downtown

Brooklyn was redeveloped. “Having watched her once ethnically diverse Park Slope

neighborhood slowly transform into “a hip, expensive brand” — and realizing that she had been

in the vanguard of that transformation — Ms. Anderson begins to question the complex forces

that determine a city’s character” (Catsoulis,2013). Of particular interest is the redevelopment of

the area of Fulton Mall, which at the time was the third most profitable shopping area in New

York City. In a 2012 interview with The Huffington Post, Kelly reveals “In Downtown

Brooklyn, more than 100 local small businesses were displaced in the wake of the 2004

rezoning. Many of them were owned by (and catered to) African Americans and Caribbean

immigrants, and they have been replaced largely by luxury housing towers and big box chain

Williams-Kearney


retail stores. Particularly on city-owned sites, the city could have driven a harder bargain with the

developers that came in, forcing them to provide affordable housing and affordable space for

small businesses in the new developments.” Negotiations of this type could have led to holistic

polices that blended new residents and businesses with the existing members of the

neighborhood instead of accelerating displacement.

In the same interview, Anderson’s co-producer, Allison Lirish Dean, responds to the

question, “HP: Many people respond to gentrification by saying, "Change happens." Is

gentrification, to a certain extent, unavoidable? A part of the way a city develops? Allison

Lirish Dean: When people say that gentrification is "inevitable," it tells me that they've

internalized rhetoric generated by people in power who want everyone else to think their agenda

is the only option” (HP, 2012). The callousness of the city and the developers is further

articulated by Anderson when responding to the question of how new areas of development are

determined, “HP: What other neighborhoods in New York do you believe are currently

under the threat of being developed without considering the communities living there? At a

real estate conference we filmed, the developers were encouraging one another to get on the

subway, and wait until the white people get off. The next stop will be the next "hot area." That

about says it all!

In a video accompanying the interview, Anderson juxtaposes the opinions and the

attitudes of the haves versus the have-nots. The film montage offers the opinions of NYC

Planner Amanda Burden, describing the redevelopment as “heaven”, John Tides of FUREE

(Families United for Racial and Economic Equality) telling of the city’s assistance, “by doing

everything they can to help a developer make a buck in New York City”. New York City Mayor,

billionaire Michael Bloomberg comments that a dislike of “wealthy or profit making people”

Williams-Kearney


will eventually cause the demise of the city; these are the people that they want to attract to help

those who are less fortunate. He doesn’t comment, though on where those residents and business

owners who are “less fortunate” will go once they are priced out of the area. The parting shot is

of a tearful Black woman asking why should she have to leave her neighborhood where she

raised her family because someone decided she should.

When interviewing both natives and newcomers about Fulton Mall, opinions were drawn

by class and racial lines, “These positive sentiments, held largely by the black and Caribbean

working-class communities who patronized the mall, stood in stark opposition to the

unselfconsciously hostile way that relative newcomers -- who tended not to set foot there --

talked about it. The latter, some of whom appear in our film, described Fulton Mall as "gross,"

"scuzzy," dirty," "crappy," and one gentleman even likened it to a "turd." The planning and

redevelopment of downtown Brooklyn would seem to be explained by consumption-side theory,

in that the types existing businesses did not cater to the taste of the incoming gentry.

"Fate of a Salesman"-Washington, D.C.

Documentary filmmakers Tessa Moran and Ben Crosbie assess the impact of urban

development on a single, yet epochal, business establishment on H Street NE, in Washington,

D.C. “Men’s Fashion Center” was opened in 1952 by immigrants Murray and Aaron Goldkind.

The film chronicles the history, successes and eventual closing of a “retail institution” after 60

plus years in a predominately Black neighborhood. The story is told the eyes of the long-time

manager Willie Carswell, who came to define his life by the “family” of co-workers he adopted.

The relationships with co-workers and customers helped him maintain decades of sobriety after

returning from Vietnam. The “Men’s Fashion Center” was the haberdashery of civil servants,

entertainers and preachers.

Williams-Kearney


While the filmmakers chronicle the history of the store, they tend to dwell more so on the

lack of financial planning and foresight, rather than the effects of redevelopment on the demise

of the store, such as “the streetcar construction that curtailed foot traffic on H Street NE for

years” and the changing tastes of the new residents, (washingtoncitypaper.com,2013). As with

the Fulton Mall in Brooklyn, consumer-side economics seemed to be a driving force, as

condescending and culturally oblivious comments were often made by the in-movers as to why

they would not shop at the existing businesses. And that change in the retail climate spelled the

end of a historically and culturally relevant mainstay of the neighborhood.

The previously mentioned case studies illustrate the level of discomfort and suspicion of

the indigenous residents. They articulated the manner in which they felt the in-movers

disrespected the history and the culture of their neighborhoods. The voice their total lack of input

or consideration in the development process.

Creating policies that do not include current residents do not have to be the norm. The

follow chapter looks at programs where all stakeholders, particularly anchor institutions, create

projects that are inclusive and serve both people and place.

Williams-Kearney


Chapter III: Case studies of holistic policy projects vs. place based

projects

Holistic policies mitigating displacement

The “best practices” approach of most planners which fails to consider current residents

during the development phase is being challenged. In the April 2013 issue of “Planning”

magazine, Justin Glanville asks “How can planners encourage redevelopment of urban

neighborhoods without causing wide-scale displacement of long-term, often low-income and

minority, residents?....Increasingly, strategies revolve around not only preserving housing

options for original residents, but ensuring that those residents-and not the just the affluent

newcomers-benefit. Job creation, workforce development, and preservation of neighborhood

commercial corridors have helped to create and retain affordable housing” (Glanville, 2013). The

following cases take a look at cities that implemented projects with a strong relationship between

all stakeholders, specifically residents and anchor institutions.

The debate as to whether displacement is an inevitable result of gentrification is an

ongoing and unresolved one. Glanville refers to a study by Lance Freeman of Columbia

University which says that in 1990s Harlem, residents were 24% less like to move out due to

redevelopment than in non-redevelopment areas. Freeman’s research was reviewed in a previous

chapter. “Yet there is also evidence that displacement has remained a real side effect of

redevelopment, even where preventative measures were taken” (Glanville, 2013).

When creating a redevelopment zone that encompassed the Black and Hispanic areas, the

Portland Development Commission “aware of the threat of displacement…instituted anti-

displacement policies such as setting aside 30 percent of the program’s budget for affordable

housing and down payment assistance” Glanville, 2013). In spite of these efforts housing prices

Williams-Kearney


increased 52% between 2000 and 2010. During this same period the minority neighborhood

became majority White.

Cleveland

The Evergreen Cooperatives of Cleveland fight back against the type of displacement

engendered by the economic disparities between current residents and in-movers. Their mission

is to counteract the effects of the global economy and outsourcing of labor. This policy is of

particular importance to rust-belt cities that previously relied on unskilled labor in the

manufacturing arena.

“The free trade agenda that has driven developed national economic policies for the past

quarter century is built on a critically flawed assumption. David Ricardo’s so-called law (which

is really a theory) of ‘comparative advantage’ did not anticipate today’s reality of free flowing

global capital. The exercise of free trade suits the interests of politically influential global

corporations and their shareholders whose capital moves across borders without restraint to exploit

local competitive advantages, most notably labor costs and more lenient environmental regulations.

In the name of

global efficiency we have often contributed to heightened social injustice abroad, further degraded

the global ecosystem, and sacrificed domestic economic resiliency as we have outsourced the US

manufacturing base…. the resilient demand creation of local anchor agencies—the hospitals,

universities, and government services that all have a strategic long-term interest in the health of

their local communities. The properly harnessed energy of these anchor institutions is a vital

source of resiliency in place-based economies. And resilient place-based economies provide the

strong foundation that is the necessary pre-condition for successfully engaging in the competitive

global economy” (Capital Institute, 2012).

Williams-Kearney


In partnership with University Circle project anchor institutions, such as Case Western

Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic, the Evergreen Cooperatives has provided funding to

establish three co-op businesses that employ local residents. The businesses, an industrial

laundry, a greenhouse and a solar-panel installation, in return provide services to those anchor

institutions. The birth of this program began casually over a glass of wine at the close

community wealth building conference in 2006, between India Pierce Lee, Program Director for

Neighborhoods, Housing & Community Development at the Cleveland Foundation and Ted

Howard of the Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland. The strategy was the

brainchild of the CEO Ronn Richards “in an effort to break down the barriers between the area’s

major anchor institutions (principally Case Western University, the Cleveland Clinic and

University Hospitals) and 7 neighboring communities home to 43,000 people whose median

household income was less than $18,500 and where over 25 percent of the working population

was unemployed” (Capital Institute, 2012).

The cooperatives require a minimum of 50 employees, on the job training and a

minimum wage of $10.50 per hour with free health insurance. As Co-op members, the

owner/employees should be able to accumulate $65,000 in their capital accounts within 8 years

(Capital Institute, 2012). While the businesses may have experienced the normal growing pains

of any business, the holistic approach to redevelopment has had an overall positive effect on both

residents and anchor partners. “The history of worker coops is a mixed bag,” says Gar Alperovitz

co-founder of the Democracy Collaborative, “they have often tended to break down, or exploit

the environment or they get taken over if they are successful. The Evergreen model builds in

worker ownership and control but under the umbrella of broader democraticizing and green

principles. It is a community-building model in its essence” (Capital Institute, 2012). Jeffrey

Williams-Kearney


Hollender of Seventh Generation (green household products) epitomizes the Evergreen initiative

as “its holistic, systemic approach to dealing with the fundamental problems with our economic

system—from ownership issues to individual wealth building to sustainable products to creating

community wealth to looking at the challenges of starting up businesses” (Capital Institute,

2012). This approach seems to have significantly lessened push back in the area.

As a resident of this very area for several years, there was always a very apparent

disconnect between the low income members of the neighborhood and the residents of the three

or four luxury high-rise apartments on Terrace Rd. These buildings were home to employees of

the hospitals, universities and business professionals. The divide was so glaring that upon

moving into my apartment, the school system immediately transferred my child out of the local

elementary school to the accelerated magnet school all the way across town. I never met any

neighbors outside of my apartment or place of business. Thanks to the efforts of programs like

Evergreen Cooperatives, I may have had the opportunity to interact with neighbors of all income

levels.

Pittsburgh- Hill District Community Group

The Hill District of Pittsburgh was the home of Pulitzer Prize winner August Wilson. It

was also home to first Black revolutionary war soldiers. As with most Rustbelt cities, the area

suffered from federal housing policy driven disinvestment and subsequently, displacement.

According to Regional Legal Housing Services staff attorney, Robert Damewood, 413

businesses and over 8,000 residents were forced to relocate from the Lower Hill, (Damewood,

2011). Statistics of indigenous residents are: median income <$15,000, 29% home ownership,

that may be delinquent on taxes, in a severe state of disrepair or no clear title, 25% of housing

units are public housing.

Williams-Kearney


The goals of “the Hill” residents are: be recipients of the benefits of neighborhood

revitalization; reintegrate the neighborhood into the cultural fabric of the community; increase

ownership and control over community assets. To bring these goals to fruition, in 2008, the “one

Hill Neighborhood Coalition (more than 100 businesses and community groups) negotiated a

Community Benefits Agreement that featured in conjunction with the development of a new

hockey arena, a new grocery store, a community fund for critical needs, first consideration for

development related jobs, and funding for a Hill District Master Plan. “Residents of Pittsburgh’s

Hill District completed a master plan in 2010 outlining anti-displacement strategies” (Glanville,

2013).

The Hill District created a Neighborhood Partnership Program to “reverse the racial

academic achievement gap” in the area schools; create rehab grants and funding to address

delinquent taxes and property title issues; foreclosure and financial education; improve and

increase green spaces; and outreach, case management and violence prevention services, They

have very clearly articulated their required anti-displacement strategies; first source hiring, fund

priority for owner-occupied rehab grants; minimize displacement by dedicating the first housing

built on the project site as housing replacement for current residents; project recipients of public

subsidies must include a community organization as a co-owner of the project, (prrac.org, 2011).

During personal correspondence with Robert Damewood of RHLS, he offered the following: Hi, Cheryl, …A few years ago I had an opportunity to work with a community group in a struggling steel town about an hour outside of Pittsburgh that had access to a lot of development funding as a result of a settlement in an "equalization" lawsuit. The lawsuit (Sanders) challenged Allegheny County's practice of directing CDBG funds to white areas, and a settlement was reached that established a committee to direct 25% of the county's CDBG funds for 7 years to targeted investment in low-income African-American neighborhoods. The result in Clairton's Southside neighborhood was pretty dramatic. A small neighborhood (about 20 blocks) was completely

Williams-Kearney


turned around. But like the anti-displacement strategies in the Hill, the focus was on improving living conditions for the existing residents. An important aspect of the revitalization was substantial home repair grants for homeowners, along with help resolving tax and mortgage delinquencies. Attached is a PowerPoint on the Clairton Southside neighborhood revitalization along with before and after maps. I think this is a good example of how a distressed weak market neighborhood can be comprehensively revitalized in a way that benefits existing residents, but of course it didn't go far enough - the public schools in Clairton are still abysmal, there is no grocery store, the neighborhood is not well served by public transportation, and the adjacent commercial district is still struggling. But the neighborhood is a lot safer now, living conditions are much improved, and residents have a far greater ownership stake.

Bob (R. Damewood, personal communication, November 5, 2013).

The comment, “I think this is a good example of how a distressed weak market neighborhood

can be comprehensively revitalized in a way that benefits existing residents” concisely describes

the Hill District’s holistic and anti-displacement approach to neighborhood redevelopment. It

further shows the advantages of policies that are to interchangeable distressed areas, i.e., the

strategies that Mr. Damewood learned in Clairton can by implemented in Pittsburgh, as well.

Baltimore-Homewood Community Partners Initiative

As with the partnership between Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland, Johns

Hopkins has partnered with Baltimore community organizations to enhance the living conditions

of the neighborhoods surrounding their campus. Unlike Cleveland, however, JHU does not seem

to be driven by the same altruism as displayed in Cleveland. JHU has clearly expressed their

desires to improve the area as a response to concerns of their students and more so, potential

students.

While their original motivation may have been self serving, the end result was the

creation of the Homewood Community Partners Initiative. “In August 2010, JHU’s Board of

Trustees created the External Affairs and Community Engagement Committee, the first new

standing committee in 13 years. In the fall of 2011, the committee announced the HCPI, its

Williams-Kearney


first action. The HCPI would focus on 11 neighborhoods (Abell, Barclay, Charles North, Charles

Village, Greenmount West, Harwood, Oakenshawe, Old Goucher, Remington, Wyman Park, and

Greenmount Avenue’s Main Street district) in five engagement areas: (1) clean and safe

neighborhoods, (2) blight elimination and housing creation, (3) public education, (4) commercial

and retail development, and (5) local hiring, purchasing, and workforce development”

(McNeely, 2012).

As a major stakeholder in the area, JHU has been instrumental in the creation of several

community based organizations dedicated to the implementation of inclusive development

policies. Because the areas of greatest disinvestment typically border JHU campus, there is an

inherent catalyst for JHU’s participation with as many stakeholders as possible. In preparation

for the creation of the HCPI (Homewood Community Partners Initiative), JHU turned to

Baltimore attorney, Joseph McNeely for his experience with and knowledge of the area as the

Executive Director of Central Baltimore Partnership. “The Central Baltimore Partnership is

bounded to the south by the University of Baltimore and Penn Station. The Maryland Institute

College of Art, following the Jones Falls up to Wyman Park, serves as the southwestern and

western boundary, with Johns Hopkins Homewood Campus to the north and Greenmount

Avenue to the east. The Partnership fosters the arts and sustainable development in healthy,

transit-oriented neighborhoods at the center of the Baltimore region”(centralbaltimore.org,

2014).

On the other side of town is HEBCAC (Historic East Baltimore Community Action

Coalition), also founded by Johns Hopkins University. What is of particular interest about

HEBCAC is its focus on human capital. HEBCAC programs address a myriad of needs of the

current residents; a 24 hour substance recovery facility, hosting 12 step meetings, referrals and

Williams-Kearney


support for treatment, housing, legal, job training, etc.; a technology center that provides free

training as well as computer repair; housing and commercial development; an enhanced

shopping district partnering merchants and residents; neighborhood service that work to

strengthen the relationships between neighbors through area beautification, block parties, home

repair and grant writing classes; youth programs that provide GED training, counseling and life

skills workshops; one of the most unique programs offered is “ReBoot Computer Store

&Business Center” which sells refurbished desktop computers for just over $100.

The impressive list of services led to a personal correspondence with HEBCAC, Deputy

Director, Jeffrey W. Thompson. One of the most successful programs has been the “Baltimore

Food Enterprise Center. Cheryl, .…We just received word that the Dept of Commerce awarded

us a $1.4M EDA grant which is critical initial funding for the project (J.W. Thompson, personal

communication, November 20, 2013). “the Baltimore Food Enterprise Center, (BFEC) would be

an FDA approved fully equipped commercial kitchen where caterers, bakers and specialty food

producers could use as needed. The BFEC would also provide food entrepreneurs small business

training, technical assistance and access to financing. Aside from caterers and specialty food

producers, the facility could also accommodate local urban farmers, gardeners and other growers

seeking to either further process their fresh crop (wash, sort, cut and package) or produce a

product with a shelf life. It could also serve as a commissary kitchen and wash out for area

vendor carts and food trucks” (ebdi.org, 2010).

BFEC furnishes services to anchor institutions, which provides a built-in source of

revenue. It also partners with the community to provide health, nutritional training, community

gardens and food business seminars. In collaboration with workforce development programs,

BFEC will assist in the placement of graduates of culinary arts training programs. To clarify the

Williams-Kearney


importance of the food industry in redeveloping neighbors, Thompson provided a report on the

importance and the viability of kitchen incubators which allow residents who previously sold

home-cooked meals illegally from their residences. The shared use of incubators allows them to

economically and legally conduct their food service businesses while increasing their income and

contributing to the local economy.

Unlike the previous cases that show a high level of success when forging a relationship

between all stakeholders, the following cases illustrate racial and economic discord when all

stakeholders are not proactively involved in the planning process.

Exclusionary policies directly resulting in disharmony among residents

What happens when methods such as those just discussed are not employed in the

planning process? In some cases disharmony in gentrifying neighborhoods may actually be

incited by developers to increase an exodus by current residents, similar to the “blockbusting”

efforts of realtors in the 1950s and 1960s.

Philadelphia-Point Breeze

As younger, educated, two paycheck couples move to Philadelphia they are

finding the housing costs in the Center City cost prohibitive. In the south Philadelphia

neighborhood of Point Breeze homes are approximately one half the cost of the adjacent

neighborhood to the north. Although “the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority and the Office

of Housing and Community Development have been spending federal Neighborhood

Stabilization Program (NSP) funds in Point Breeze to counteract the effects of the downturn”

(philly.com, 2013) the contentious relationship between long time residents, new-comers and

developers reached “the boiling point” in 2012 at a scheduled zoning meeting. The majority of

the anger of the incumbent residents is directed at real estate developer, Ori Feibush, who

Williams-Kearney


according to an article in Philadelphia CityPaper, after having insulted many including the

mayor, planned on running for city council in the district where Point Breeze is located

(citypaper.net. 2014).

At the originally scheduled zoning meeting, an unnamed longtime resident accused the

zoning members of providing inadequate notice of the scheduled meeting. The woman went on

to say she believed this was intentional and in support of Mr. Feibush, “The propose 13 Condos

at Point Breeze and Titian will be built by Ori Feibush, a developer, investor, owner of OFC

realty and website nakedphilly.com. Feibush stated publicly that he only wants to build market

rate houses in Point Breeze i.e., $300,000 or higher. He has purchased over 150 properties in

Point Breeze and the other side of Washington Avenue already and wants more. Majority of his

buyers are newcomers that support luxury homes or condos…. It is clear that these developers

and new residents are not looking to work or live with existing residents, but to take over our

community like the other side of Washington Avenue (philly.curbed.com, 2012).

Although the article presented the viewpoints of both new and old residents and a

representative of the controversial developer, the fact that on Mr. Feibush’s own website he lists

pictures of properties at $380,000 and $467,500 (ocfrealty.com/naked-philly,2014). This would

seem to support the statement that not only does he not plan to include lower income residents,

but he also stacked the deck with higher income residents to support his bid for the council seat

in the Point Breeze district. Incumbent councilman and long time Point Breeze resident,

Kenyatta Johnson, retained his seat.

Boston

The battle between “Southies and Yuppies” was previously addressed when reviewing

the battle that began on Facebook. As the influx of “artists, gays and young professionals”

Williams-Kearney


continued into Boston’s South End, the transition has been slow and, still painful to new and old

residents. Because of its strategic location near the financial district, Chinatown, the Theater

District and more, and low priced property due to years of decline, South Boston was prime for

redevelopment and the ensuing gentrification. Still, many of the values of the old Irish-Catholic

residents remain. For example, gays and lesbians are not allowed to participate in the south

Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade and young children (perhaps in gang initiation) may assault

yuppie in-movers (boston.com, 2005). Although neighborhoods experienced pushback from the

original residents, commercial and retail gentrification moved forward. The downside to the

Starbucks, sushi bars and upscale pub that replaced the infamous Triple O’s, hang out for the

infamous “Whitey” Bulgar gang is that many of the neighborhood small businesses that made the

area attractive in first place were priced out. “It's easy for a place to lose its soul”, (boston.com,

2005).

Atlanta

“The white folk moved out and are now paying anything to move back. – Frank Edwards,

Atlanta Resident” (Reid & Adelman, 2003).

To what degree have low income Blacks been displaced by middle to upper income

Whites returning to Atlanta? “Without question, rising property values have displaced older,

long-term black residents as middle- and upper-income whites bid up property values. While

statistics are difficult to obtain, anecdotal evidence indicates that annual increases in property

assessments have displaced many residents on fixed incomes as their property taxes doubled or

even tripled. In few areas have these increases been as dramatic as in the enclave of

neighborhoods on the east side of Atlanta, including Kirkwood, East Lake, and East Atlanta’

because ‘They are close to downtown; they have an ample stock of historic housing; their

Williams-Kearney


populations are aging, opening opportunities for new buyers; and, of increasing relevance in

Atlanta, they have small tracts of undeveloped land for new, in-fill construction” (Reid &

Adelman, 2003).

“Regentrification, that’s just a nice word for taking black folks’ property. – Billy

McKinney, Former State Representative” (Reid & Adelman, 2003)..

The racial composition of the above mentioned neighborhoods have almost reversed

themselves. Neighborhoods that were predominately White in the 1960s and 1970s became

predominately Black and the percentage of Whites that have moved back to these neighborhoods

is increasing at an astounding rate. When recalling the methods employed in the 1960s and 1970s

to prevent Blacks from moving in and subsequently to scare the Whites out of the neighborhood,

is it any wonder that the current residents don’t look kindly on being priced out of their

neighborhoods.

Not only have racial tensions increased, but as with Boston, many low-income, highly

religious areas are also homophobic. This was demonstrated in the Kirkwood neighborhood in a

clash between a White homosexual couple and their Black next door neighbor when local

minister rallied the long time residents to stand against the invasion of “white… homosexual and

lesbian take-over” (Reid & Adelman, 2003). The Kirkwood incident increased residents’ rebuff

of the incoming gentry. The racial divide eventually changed the face of local politics as the

Black City Councilperson failed to be re-elected when she told the in-movers “I don’t represent

you because you didn’t vote for me. – Sherry Dorsey, Former City Council Person” ((Reid &

Adelman, 2003).

As an afterthought Atlanta created the Gentrification Task Force. Their recommendations

to the city were to proactively include affordable housing policies, tax incentives to developers

Williams-Kearney


and education of residents on predatory lending. This further supports the theory of a proactive

holistic approach to urban development. In areas where current residents’ needs were not

considered during the planning process, a Gentrification Task Force may be an approach that can

be applied in other cities experiencing similar growing pains.

Williams-Kearney


Chapter IV: Recommendations

Specific concepts researched and reviewed

The following chapter reviews policies implemented in various case studies by Levy,

Comer and Padilla. The purpose of this chapter is not so much aimed at the case studies

themselves but the applicability of the strategies used during varying levels of gentrification and

why these strategies should be used in other cities in similar circumstances.

While creating policies that are directed at improving and uplifting human capital may

give the social justice minded planner the “warm and fuzzies”, it is imperative that policies are

implemented to build and sustain affordable housing and help residents acquire and retain

wealth. Levy, Comer and Padilla (2006) constructed the following strategies to develop

affordable housing to “decrease the negative effects of gentrification”. They postulate the three

tools required to build and maintain affordable neighborhoods, thus mitigating full scale

displacement are: 1) Housing Production, 2) Housing Retention, 3) Asset Building.

Affordable housing production is crucial in that it can “provide affordable alternatives to

involuntarily displaced households, potentially even within the same neighborhoods, and

mitigate exclusionary displacement or a shortage of affordable housing for future low- and

moderate income families” (D.Levy, J. Comey, & S. Padilla, 2006). Some strategies for

increasing housing production are: housing trust funds, inclusionary zoning, and low-income

housing tax credit. A particular advantage of housing trust funds is that the disbursement

guidelines of the funds are adaptable to need and thus can be used to assist with home purchases

or area specific needs such as homelessness, which can be resultant of displacement.

Inclusionary zoning generally requires that a certain number of units in a development be set

aside for low-income or senior housing for a specified period of time. Incentives to the developer

Williams-Kearney


can include zoning changes that allow the increased density of units, lesser capital outlay for

infrastructure. They may also be exempt from be required to purchase certain permits or can opt

out buy contributing monetarily to a housing fund to be build units in a less expensive area. The

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, which is monitored by the Internal Revenue Service, provides

tax credits for building rental units for low-income housing, (Levy, Comer & Padilla, 2006).

Programs can be administered through State or local authorities and can therefore the application

can be modified to adapt to specific local needs, i.e., multi-unit rentals or senior units. Split-rate

tax assesses the property separately from the land which incentivizes property improvement but

discourages land speculation. Tax Increment Financing is used to encourage development, but it

can be used to further displacement when it is used in a designated area already controlled by

millionaire/billionaire developers as in Midtown and Downtown Detroit.

Property values are retained when property is maintained. Often when the property owner

is an absentee landlord the property is allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. Code enforcement

is method by which to ensure compliance with local building, health, and fire codes. If the

property is in gross violation of these codes the property may be condemned and forced

displacement may be the result. While displacement is the result to be avoided, so is living in

substandard housing. Code enforcement in conjunction with some of the previously mentioned

tools can increase the value of the landlords’ property but discourage him from pricing the

current residents out because his profits may be obtained through other avenues, such as Section

8. Rent control, which is quite popular in New York City, requires reasonable and gradual rent

increases, no reduction in tenant services and compliance with local building codes. The Section

236 mortgage and the Section 8 rental program are federal programs that provide either

subsidized interest rates on insured loans or subsidize the difference in the actual rental cost and

Williams-Kearney


30% of the tenants’ income. Section 236 or Section 8 property owned may either prepay or opt

out of the program and convert the property to private market housing. Newly gentrifying areas

are prime targets for opting out as the land owners want to cash in on market rates.

Various methods of asset building are examined, such as individual development

accounts (IDAs) limited equity housing co-ops (LEHCs) community land trusts (CLTs) location

efficient mortgages (LEMs) and the Section 8 homeownership program. Building

individual wealth is infallible hedge against displacement. These methods incorporate matched

savings accounts, coops with controlled share prices to maintain affordability, land trust where

the occupants own the building, and LEMs assume a scenario sans a privately owned vehicle in a

live, work, play area where smaller down payments are required. In lieu of rental payments, the

Section 8 Homeownership program allows the payment to be applied to almost homeownership

related cost except downpayment or closing costs (Levy, Comer & Padilla, 2006).

Policies employed in early stages of gentrification

Levy, Comer and Padilla examine the early stages of gentrification two neighborhoods;

one in (Bartlett Park) St. Petersburg, Florida and the other in (Oak Park) Sacramento, California.

They found both areas agreed that needed to improve the current housing stock by rehabilitation,

infill development and developing vacant properties. Simultaneously, but secondarily, actively

court economic development which could improve the employment concerns and increase the

median income, as well as developing a housing trust fund to enable incumbent residents to

remain and therefore stabilize the neighborhoods.

Policies employed in middle stages of gentrification

The case studies for the middle stages of gentrification are (Reynoldstown) Atlanta,

Georgia and (Figueroa Corridor) Los Angeles, California. Housing was again the main priority

Williams-Kearney


but chose housing rehabilitation and production as their primary goal, Los Angeles went with a

Housing Trust Fund. Secondary strategies included IDAs, code enforcement and rent

stabilization.

Policies employed in late stages of gentrification

(Central Area) Seattle, Washington and (Uptown) Chicago, Illinois provide the late stage

case studies. Infill development and Housing levy were the primary strategies in Seattle with

Voluntary Inclusionary Zoning the primary target for Uptown Chicago.

All areas relied on active community organizations and varying degrees of resident

involvement. In all case studies housing and economic development needed to occur

synchronously, however primary or secondary ranking of strategies seemed to be determined by

the attitude of the residents. If the prevailing attitude was NIMBY, economic development took

precedence over affordable housing.

Author’s recommendations

In order to truly experience an implementation of holistic policies, engagement of all

stakeholders needs to begin with providing a quality education, quality health care and mentoring

of the youngest members of the neighborhoods. While this may seem to be a long term strategy,

the timeline of redevelopment projects from conception to implementation is years. During that

same 8-10 year time span, the future of the neighborhood children could be secured, thus

reducing the pool of residents ill-equipped to afford the redeveloped area.

It is the duty of all stakeholders to offer their services to areas other than those targeted

by big business and developers. Investing heavily in only a few neighborhoods cannot support an

entire city. Current investments in Midtown and Downtown Detroit are not aimed at improving

Detroit for long time Detroit residents. Projects are designed for big businesses that are not

Williams-Kearney


partnering to any great extent with local employment needs. Amenities and entertainment are not

aimed at incumbent residents. The goal of projects such as Live, Work, Play Detroit is primarily

aimed at young, White, middle class in-movers. Regardless of resultant phenomenal success in

one or two designated areas, there are hundreds of thousands of residents that still need to

experience improvements in their neighborhoods. Whether residents voluntarily or involuntarily

move from a targeted redevelopment area to another area of the city, those other areas should

experience at least a trickledown effect of major reinvestment in other areas.

Workforce training

There is a general consensus that businesses locate where there is a vibrant and plentiful

pool of talent from which to hire. Talented workers flock to areas with an abundance of well

paying jobs from which to choose accompanied by amenities that make for a congenial place to

reside. It is fiscally irresponsible to ignore the premise that properly educating the current

populace is not only the most prudent path, but the most moral one. “We can import some skilled

workers, but a more reliable way of boosting the local educational quality is to grow our own

skilled workers” (Bartik, 2012).

“We know from research that an individual’s wages not only depend on his or her own

level of education, but also on the average level of education in the metropolitan…when a

metropolitan area increases the percent of college grads by one percent of the area’s population,

the area’s average wages go up by over twice as great as one would predict based on the wage

gains for those getting college degrees. This 1% boost to percent college graduates boosts

average wages in the metropolitan area by about 1.9%. But the direct effect on the earning of

those receiving the college degrees is only the 80% boost for each individual from getting a

Williams-Kearney


college degree times 1%, or 0.8%. The other 1.1% is due to wages going up for individuals

whose education and skills did not directly change”(Bartik, 2012).

A conjoining of anchor institutions with the existing neighborhoods is a win-win for all.

As previously examined in the cases of Cleveland and Baltimore, including the incumbent

residents from the policy making stages up to and including providing training and jobs is

paramount to the success of these blended neighborhoods. However it is critical not to wait until

the residents are ready to enter the job market. The anchor institutions must invest in the

educational process of the neighborhood. “PNC provides employees with opportunities for paid

release time to help out educational programs in various volunteer capacities. To sum up, the

local educational system’s quality is absolutely key to long-run economic growth and per capita

income…because a high quality education system both grows and attracts skilled people, and

skilled people have profound effects on the productivity and productivity growth of area

businesses ” (Bartik, 2012).

When discussing workforce development and the locally available talent bank, it appears

to be the general consensus that the only way to revive the economy is the importation of tech

savvy college grads, when empirical evidence has shown us that second and third tier support

positions contribute to the local economy almost twice the amount of the techies. Projections

from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the fastest growing field is healthcare, registered

nurses in particular, which only requires a 2 year degree. “A recent report by the McKinsey

Global Institute cited on Forbes.com, found that while low-skill jobs are on the decline, by 2020

employers around the globe will need an estimated 45 million more mid-level workers who have

a high school education and vocational training. Meanwhile, a highly cited study by the Harvard

Graduate School of Education last year concluded that in the U.S. ‘we place far too much

Williams-Kearney


emphasis on a single pathway to success: attending and graduating from a four-year college.’

According to the report, 30% of the 47 million new jobs expected to be created in the U.S. by

2018 will only require an associate’s degree or a certificate”(Goudreau, 2012).

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows us that vocationally and technically trained

employees will be in the greatest demand in the future (U.S. Dept of Labor, 2012). Their training

takes the least amount of preparation time, and their incomes will allow them to contribute a

sizeable amount to the tax base and support available amenities with their discretionary income.

To prove how easily we can reduce the economic disparities between the incumbents and the in-

movers we can look to the educational achievements of the Detroit charter school University

Preparatory Academy. Their K-12 Mission Statement is “To prove that urban children can

succeed in college through personalized learning and relentless commitment to their success”

(uprep, 2013). Their mission is apparently accomplished as they boast a 90+% graduation rate

and 90+% going on to post secondary education. That is a phenomenal accomplishment when

compared to Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook Schools where 97% graduate and 94% are admitted to

post-secondary institutions (cranbrook.edu, 2013). The tuition for grades 1-5 is $22,900 and by

grades 9-12 it jumps to $39,900 per year. I would say the difference of 4 to 7 percentage points

between the schools’ achievements are a fair trade considering the costs (or lack thereof)

involved. The raw, untapped talent is sitting there waiting for the opportunity to shine. It is the

duty of all stakeholders to develop these young residents.

Again, this may seem to be a long term strategy, but when one considers the life span of a

city’s Master Plan and the timeline for educating our youth is appropriate.

Williams-Kearney


Consolidated planning of projects

There is a consortium of organizations that can and do champion the redevelopment of

urban areas, from philanthropic to academic to community groups. Their stated goal is usually

one of producing and sustaining a mixed-income paradise for all. The common thread seems to

be, however, that when decisions for the future of the targeted areas are made they tend to be

geographically restricted and exclusionary to the predominately low-income and minority

incumbent residents. Neighborhoods such as Midtown Detroit are the focus of major

redevelopment with millions available to attract a younger, more educated and generally Whiter

resident. With the exception of the University of Detroit/Livernois corridor as the investment

outlier, the rest of the city of Detroit is at this point basically an afterthought. The plans for new

housing is often designed without considering the ambulatory issues of seniors although there

will be 41.6 seniors p/100working age residents by 2030 (Myers, 2013), or retail outlets that are

price prohibitive or offer merchandise with no appeal to the current dwellers. Unlike cities such

as Cleveland and Baltimore where relationships with anchor institutions mandate local/minority

hiring and job training, Midtown and Downtown Detroit are remiss in engaging the current

citizens of the city. So much more could be accomplished if some the same principles espoused

by these groups were equitably applied.

Detroit Corridor Initiative

The mission statement of DCI is: To accelerate economic opportunity through strategic

cross sector partnerships that create quality mixed- income districts and job growth in Detroit. It

appears in this context that “quality mixed-income districts” is a disclaimer that advises that

economic development is not a stated goal for the entire city nor inclusive of all of its citizens,

only. Capable of enormous influence over citywide revitalization DCIs partners are almost

Williams-Kearney


singularly focused on the Midtown/Downtown corridors: Woodward Corridor Investment Fund,

Midtown Detroit, Inc., TechTown Detroit, the Ford and Kresege Foundations.

DCI strategies are sound and innovative and could make a significant impact if applied

city-wide. Implementation of policies that monitor and measure job growth in targeted

neighborhoods, encouragement of Transit Oriented Development (TOD), cross-municipal

collaboration and cross-sector funds to accelerate project development are needed and would be

welcomed throughout the city. In my opinion is that if these policies were not applied in such a

narrow scope philosophically, economically and geographically, many more people in the city

could benefit.

u3ventures

Here is another example of exclusionary programs that could easily benefit and improve

the “established resident-newcomer” relations. u3ventures has clients world-wide, primarily in

the Eds & Meds arena e.g. Wayne State University, Detroit Medical Center and the redeveloping

neighborhood of Midtown. Despite the fact they “firmly believe that anchor institutions hold the

key to sustainable community and economic development in many cities across the country”

their “planning strategies are focused on leveraging place and capturing institutional demand to

enhance the physical environment, capture economic activity, and attract private investment”

(u3ventures.com, 2012). The relationship between urban areas and expanding universities is very

often tenuous. Frequently, in the name of the safety of the students, local residents have been

made to feel unwelcome in their own neighborhood. A concerted effort to include the

surrounding neighborhood, as with Johns Hopkins University is vital if a truly mixed-income and

socially just neighborhood is to exist.

Williams-Kearney


Chapter V: Conclusion

“Is redevelopment good for everyone” (Hecht et al, 2013)? After reviewing

redevelopment projects from the 1950-60s to the present it is quite clear that best practices-

planner driven policies do not address the needs of all, nor are they designed to do so.

Throughout the history of planners, the approach or supporting discipline has changed…from

engineers, to architects and eventually social justice. What is considered planning “best

practices” depends on the underlying discipline that is popular at the time of the project. Social

justice driven planning is a concept that is in its infancy. Planning that mainly considers the

efficacy of Place based planning is overlooking the needs of People. People placed planning

cannot stand alone either as constant stream of income is necessary in any municipality. Planning

policies which marry the two concepts and is holistically applied would seem to benefit the

largest number of urban dwellers.

When planners, developers, and various stakeholders create plans that are singularly

driven by economics many suffer. New York City Mayor Bloomberg stated unabashedly that

wealthy residents and business owners are exactly whom the city prefers to attract. Their

presence is essential so that they may take care of the needy (Anderson, 2012). But is it

acceptable to promote a society that denies opportunities to specific groups to such an extent that

able bodied adults are need of such paternalistic oversight?

Vigdor (2002) asks whether gentrification actually harms the poor. He concludes that

what is of greater importance are the underlying causes of gentrification. Does the improved

housing stock entice low income residents to pay more? Will they benefit from an upgraded

business climate that provides more employment opportunities and will this improve the tax base

Williams-Kearney


and therefore enhance public services? He examines the relative costs of staying versus leaving,

as does Freeman in the Harlem/Clinton Hill neighborhoods.

What is glaringly absent from all of the accounts researched is the level of acceptance of

a second class existence by people of color. When Freeman interviewed residents of Harlem and

Clinton Hill the overwhelming majority states that services drastically improved when Whites

moved to the neighborhood. What the residents failed to question was the absence of these

amenities prior to the arrival of the in-movers. Why are the incumbent residents comfortable

accepting substandard municipal, retail, health, and educational services unless Whites move in?

Respondents even stated they knew things would improve because Whites would demand it and

accept nothing less. As such the only way to see improvement is with the return of Whites to the

neighborhood. A second class existence is accepted as the norm, possibly even deserved. The

systemic nature of racism in the United States has convinced people of color that no other

existence is possible.

Even when many Blacks aspire to and achieve what they perceive to be social and

economic equality, they lift and separate themselves from lower income Blacks. This

phenomenon occurs when middle and upper class Blacks measure their successes by their ability

to acclimate to White culture, abandoning their own. This too can contribute to the acceleration

of gentrification. This subjects Blacks of the lowest socioeconomic strata to an additional source

of racism, (Frazier 1957). Black gentry can be viewed as the cruelest of all. In the HBO original

series, “The Wire”, which examines drugs, politics and police in Baltimore, one of the main

characters was a drug kingpin, who decimated his childhood neighborhood with drugs and

murder while using the drug proceeds to buy up much sought after Baltimore Harbor real estate

for development. During the police investigation, when it was determined how the drug money

Williams-Kearney


was being laundered the two detectives commented, “He’s worse that a drug dealer. He’s a

developer”(creator, David Simon, HBO Original, 2004).

So, have holistic policies such as the ones implemented in Cleveland, Baltimore and

Pittsburgh had the desired outcome? I would say yes, however, the number of cities that have

aggressively campaigned for and instituted such policies is minimal.

At what point will equal access to opportunity be available to all? When will policies be

created and implemented that offer equal opportunities so that displacement and gentrification

are a thing of the past? Integration and paternalism should not be the linchpins of an equitable

existence. Equality should be a standalone factor. It is not, however, going to ever come to

fruition unless specific policies are created to engender equality

Can redevelopment projects continue utilizing only planning “best practices” without

considering the human needs of the neighborhoods’ current residents? Is social justice merely the

current buzz word tossed about by guilt ridden affluent liberals? From a theological perspective,

Mark R. Gornik looks at community development in Baltimore in the context of the relationship

between the neighborhood and the church (Gornik, 2002). He suggests the animosity or apathy

between neighbors could and should be addressed through their churches. Because churches are

such a large part of most Black communities they generally are an integral part of many local

community development organizations and could play a large role in incorporating People based

planning in upcoming development projects..

While Blacks had customarily relied on their own community for culture, morals and

mores in their “second city” existence, the combination of racism, the economic downturn and

the lack of mobility to seek better jobs and homes, directly affected and thereby destroyed the

family structure. Ill-prepared educationally, economically and socially for the new Global

Williams-Kearney


Economy, the Black community is often viewed as lazy, unintelligent and amoral, by those

unaware of the systemic causes of this scenario which provides their rationalization for

excluding Black from the planning process. These historical inequities can only be righted by

programs such as those partnered by Johns Hopkins University.

Because the creation and implementation of holistic policies is so new it is difficult to

assess the level of success in mitigating displacement. Displacement in and of itself is difficult to

assess as the data to determine why someone has left the area may be unobtainable (e.g. former

residents of Detroit’s Herman Gardens housing project). It may be impossible to track or follow

up with residents once they have moved from the area. Without being able to conduct exit

interviews it cannot be determined if they moved due to increased costs or other reasons.

Even without hard data to confirm the number of people that were able to remain in their

neighborhoods, holistic policies support social justice and therefore should be included in all

redevelopment projects to varying degrees depending upon the level of need. Policies need to be

created that invest in the physical infrastructure and human capital simultaneously and with the

same degree of urgency. Holistic policies address the dichotomy of existence in cities like

Baltimore, Atlanta, Chicago, Washington D.C. and Atlanta where the “tourist” version of the city

flourishes and visitors have no knowledge or understanding of life as it exists on “the other side

of town”.

Planning projects that have been created with an eye to the future have shown that when

holistic policies are implemented, everyone benefits, albeit in very small numbers so far.

Williams-Kearney


Bibliography

Altman, M. (2009). Building on a Promise : Redeveloping St. Louis, Planning Promises

on the North Side:From Pruitt-Igoe to Paul McKee. Available:

http://www.stlpublicradio.org/news/northside/history_of_the_northside.php. Last

accessed 4th Feb 2014.

Anderson, K. (2012, May 12). MY BROOKLYN-TRAILER [video file]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD_t-OMy3dM

Anderson, K; A.L. Dean. (Directors). (2012) My Brooklyn [Documentary film] United

States: Self distributed

Annear, S. (2012, July 18). "you will never be from southie": Debate over gentrification

heats up online . Retrieved from http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2012/07/18/you-will-never-be-

from-southie-debate-over-gentrification-heats-up-online/

Bartik, T.J.. (2012). Education and Local Economic Development: Why Skills Matter, How

We're Doing, and Leverage Points for Change. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment

Research. 1 (1), p1-8

Betha, Reva W.; Mark Davison. Hamlin Park Neighborhood FAQ. Available:

http://buffaloah.com/a/landmks/ham/faq.html. Last accessed 3rd Aug 2014.

Briney, Amanda. (2014). The Controversal Topic of Gentrification and Its Impact on the Urban

Core. Available:

http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/gentrification.htm. Last

accessed 3rd Aug 2014.

Capital Institute. (2012). Field guide to investing in a resilient economy..a capital lab initiative,

evergreen cooperatives field study. Retrieved from

Williams-Kearney

http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/gentrification.htm

http://buffaloah.com/a/landmks/ham/faq.html

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2012/07/18/you-will-never-be-from-southie-debate-over-gentrification-heats-up-online/

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2012/07/18/you-will-never-be-from-southie-debate-over-gentrification-heats-up-online/


http://www.capitalinstitute.org/sites/capitalinstitute.org/files/docs/FS2-Evergreen full

article.pdf

Catsoulis, J. (2013). Branding in Brooklyn: A World of Change. Available:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/movies/my-brooklyn-a-documentary-from-kelly-

anderson.html?_r=1&. Last accessed 27th July 2014.

Center for Disease Control. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). Health Effects

Of Gentrification. Atlanta, GA

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm

Central Baltimore Partnership staff writer. (2009-2014). What does the Central Baltimore

Partnership do?. Available: http://www.centralbaltimore.org/about_us. Last accessed 3rd

Feb 2014.

City of Buffalo. (2011). History of Buffalo. Available:

http://www.city-buffalo.com/Home/CityServices/Hamlin_Park_Community/History. Last


City of Philadelphia. (2011). Council Members. Available:

http://philadelphiacitycouncil.net/council-members/. Last accessed 26th July 2014.

Connerly, Charles; Joe, Darden. (2006). Integration, Segregation, Housing and Public Policies:

International Perspectives and the Development of New Research. Available:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sociology/irnhep/irnhepreport/irnhepreport1_05.htm. Last


Cranbrook Schools. (2013). Affording Cranbrook Tuition Overview. Available:

http://schools.cranbrook.edu/affordingcranbrook. Last accessed Apr 2013.

Williams-Kearney

http://schools.cranbrook.edu/affordingcranbrook.%20Last%20accessed%20Apr%202013

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sociology/irnhep/irnhepreport/irnhepreport1_05.htm

http://www.city-buffalo.com/Home/CityServices/Hamlin_Park_Community/History

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm


Crosbie,B; T. Moran. (Directors) (2013) Fate of a Salesman [Documentary film] United States;

Eidolon Films

Damewood, R. (2011, October 17). Anti-displacement strategies in Pittsburgh’s Hill District:

How one historic African-American neighborhood is harnessing its development potential to

sustain and benefit long-time residents. Retrieved from

http://www.prrac.org/pdf/Hill_District_Dev_Principles_-_HJN.pdf

R. Damewood, (personal communication, November 5, 2013).

Darden, J. T., Hill, R. C., Thomas, J., & Thomas, R. (1987). Detroit: Race and uneven

development. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Davey, D; Ron Wallace. Black Wallstreet. Available:

http://www.daveyd.com/blackwallpolitic.html. Last accessed 3rd Aug 2014.

DeMuth, Christopher Clay. (1976). Deregulating the Cities. The Public Interest. Summer , p115-

128.

Detroit Historical Society. (2014). Black Bottom Neighborhood. Available:

http://detroithistorical.org/learn/encyclopedia-of-detroit/black-bottom-neighborhood. Last


Dittmer, M. (2012, August 24). [Review of book Thanks for the views Mr.Mies: lafayette park

Detroit by D.Aubert, L. Carver, & N. Chandani,]. Retrieved from

http://placementpublication.org/index.php?/place-1/place-1-lafayette-park-detroit-usa/

Ebling, M. (2014). The fate of Detroit's Chrysler Freewaythe public considers the alternatives.

Available: http://www.ssti.us/2014/06/the-fate-of-detroits-chrysler-freeway-the-public-

considers-alternatives/. Last accessed 27th July 2014.

Williams-Kearney

http://detroithistorical.org/learn/encyclopedia-of-detroit/black-bottom-neighborhood

http://www.daveyd.com/blackwallpolitic.html


Flint, A.. (2005). Same Old Southie. Available:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/05/29/same_old_southie/?

page=2. Last accessed 3rd Feb 2014.

Ford, G. (2014). Are we passing the “tipping point” for Black habitation in the cities? Available:

http://voiceofdetroit.net/2014/06/16/are-we-passing-the-tipping-point-for-black-

habitation-in-the-cities/. Last accessed 4th Aug 2014.

Frazier, E.F (1957). Black Bourgeoisie. New York: The Free Press a division of Simon &

Schuster. 1-238.

Freeman, L. (2005). Displacement or succession?: Residential mobility in gentrifying

neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 463-491. doi: 10.1177/1078087404273341

Freeman, L. (2006). There goes the 'hood: views of gentrification from the ground up.

Phildelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Freeman, L., & Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification and displacement; new york city in the 1990s.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 39-52. Retrieved from

http://www.astudentoftherealestategame.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Freeman

%20and%20Braconi%202004%20Gentrification%20in%20NY.pdf

Gallagher, John. "When Detroit Paved Over Paradise-The Story of I-375." Detroit Free Press 15

Dec. 2013. Freep.com. Gannett Company. Web. 3 May 2014.

Gentrification and displacement; new york city in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning

Association, 70(1), 39-52.

Glanville, J. (2013, April). Taking the sting out of gentrification. Planning, the magazine of the

American Planning Association,79(4), 12-15.

Godsil, R. (2014, Jan/Feb). Autonomy, mobility, and affirmatively furthering fair housing in

gentrifying neighborhoods. Poverty & Race, pp. 1-2,8, 10-11.

Williams-Kearney

http://www.astudentoftherealestategame.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Freeman%20and%20Braconi%202004%20Gentrification%20in%20NY.pdf

http://www.astudentoftherealestategame.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Freeman%20and%20Braconi%202004%20Gentrification%20in%20NY.pdf


Goering, J.M. (1978). Neighborhood Tipping and Racial Transition: A Review of Social Science

Evidence. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 44 (1), 68-78.

Gornik, M.R (2002). To Live in Peace Biblical Faith and the Changing Inner City. Grand

Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. 1-283.

Goudreau, J.. (2012). The Best Jobs That Don't Require a Bachelor's Degree. Available:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/06/21/the-best-jobs-that-dont-require-a-

bachelors-degree/. Last accessed 25th Feb 2013.

Grant, B. (2003). What is Gentrification?. Available:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/flagwars/special_gentrification.php. Last accessed 3rd Feb 2014.

Healthy Neigborhoods. (2014). Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) 2 Reports.

Available: http://www.healthyneighborhoods.org/about/performance.aspx . Last accessed

3rd Aug 2014.

Heavens, A.J.. (2013). Town by Town: In Point Breeze, the key point is price. Available:

http://www.philly.com/philly/classifieds/real_estate/town-by-town/

20131208_Town_By_Town__In_Point_Breeze__the_key_point_is_price.html. Last

accessed 3rd Feb 2014.HEBCAC staff writer. (2008). Programs that make a difference.

Available: ww.hebcac.org. Last accessed 15th Nov 2013.

Hecht, B., Bell, J., Rose, J., McLean, J., & Kimball, K. (2013, October). In David Bradley

(Chair). Is redevelopment good for everyone. Citylab: urban solutions for global

challenges, New York, NY. Retrieved from

http://fora.tv/conference/citylab_urban_solutions_for_global_challenges

Hill District Community Group. (n.d.). Reclaiming the lower hill. The Community Table, 1.

Retrieved from http://www.hdcg.org/reclaiming-the-lower-hill

Williams-Kearney

http://www.hdcg.org/reclaiming-the-lower-hill

ttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/06/21/the-best-jobs-that-dont-require-a-b

ttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/06/21/the-best-jobs-that-dont-require-a-b


J.W. Thompson (personal communication, November 20, 2013).

Kaltmeier, O. (2011). Selling enthnicity: urban cultural politics in the americas. (p. 239).

Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=2NLXKJxtsEQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA239&dq= "consumption side

theory"&ots=iaCYerZXvm&sig=b__WsqRwxQJxfJWTvlls_h0Vv5A

Krueger, Megan. (2013). Lovely Lafayette Park. Available: http://www.blacdetroit.com/BLAC-

Detroit/November-2013/Lovely-Lafayette-Park/. Last accessed 3rd Aug 2014.

Lapin, A. (2013). Fate of a Salesman, Reviewed. Available:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/artsdesk/film/2013/10/08/fate-of-a-salesman-

reviewed/. Last accessed 3rd Feb 2014.

Leach, R. H. (1960). The federal urban renewal program: A ten year critique. Duke University

School of law; Law and Contemporary Problems, 25(4), Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1190629?

uid=3739728&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102947894761

Levy, D. K., Comey, J., & Padilla, S. (2006). In the face of gentrification: Case studies of local

efforts to mitigate displacement. Retrieved from

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411294_gentrification.pdf

Levy, D. K., Comey, J., & Padilla, S. (2006). Keeping the neighborhood affordable: A handbook

of housing strategies for gentrifying areas. Retrieved from

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411295_gentrifying_areas.pdf

Marcuse, P. (1985). Gentrification, Abandonment, and Displacement: Connections, Causes, and

Policy Reasons in New York City. Urban Law Journal; Journal of Urban and

Contemporary Law. 28 (1), 195-240.

Williams-Kearney

http://www.blacdetroit.com/BLAC-Detroit/November-2013/Lovely-Lafayette-Park/

http://www.blacdetroit.com/BLAC-Detroit/November-2013/Lovely-Lafayette-Park/


Mathias, C. (2012). Kelly Anderson, 'My Brooklyn' Director, Discusses Brooklyn Gentrification .

Available: Kelly Anderson, 'My Brooklyn' Director, Discusses Brooklyn Gentrification .

Last accessed 26th July 2014.

McNeely, J. B. (2012, July 02). Homewood community partners initiative a call to action

findings and recommendations. Retrieved from

http://web.jhu.edu/administration/president/about/communications/pdfs/HCPI Report-

mod-1-2-2013.pdf

Meyers, D. (2013, March). Diversity and Aging in America, Planning, the magazine of the

American Planning Association,79(3), 11-15.

MPTD staff writer. (2013). Interview Fate of A Salesman Creators Tessa Moran and Ben

Crosbie . Available: MPTD Interview with Eidolon Films Founders Tessa Moran and

Ben Crosbie. Last accessed 26th July 2014.

National Endowment for the Humanities. (2013). Seattle Model City Program. Available:

http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=seattle-model-city-program-cr.xml.

Last accessed 3rd Aug 2014.

Nixon Cuts Funds, (1969, October 1) Lawrence Daily Journal-World, p23

OCF Realty. (2014). Point Breeze. Available: http://www.ocfrealty.com/naked-philly?

keys=point+breeze&field_related_neighborhood_tid=29. Last accessed 27th July 2014.

PolicyLink. (2013). Economic opportunity tool group. Retrieved from

http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136717/k.4DB8/Economic_Opportuni

ty_Tool_Group.htm

Preservation Exchange. (2014). The History of Hamlin Park Finale: The Legacy of Model Cities

and Hamlin Park in the Present . Available:

http://preservationexchange.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-history-of-hamlin-park-

finale.html. Last accessed 3rd Aug 2014.

Williams-Kearney

http://preservationexchange.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-history-of-hamlin-park-finale.html

http://preservationexchange.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-history-of-hamlin-park-finale.html

http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136717/k.4DB8/Economic_Opportunity_Tool_Group.htm

http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5136717/k.4DB8/Economic_Opportunity_Tool_Group.htm

http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=seattle-model-city-program-cr.xml


Puma, Mike. (2013). The History of Hamlin Park Part VII: Early Housing Acts and the Start of

Urban Renewal. Available: http://buffalorising.com/2013/09/the-history-of-hamlin-park-

part-vii-early-housing-acts-and-the-start-of-urban-renewal/. Last accessed 3rd Aug 2014.

(2013). Pursue the Passion. Available: http://uprep.com/. Last accessed 25th Feb 2013.

Reid, L. W., & Adelman, R. M. (2003, April). The double-edged sword of gentrification in

atlanta . Retrieved from http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/apr03/indexthree.html

Simon, D (Creator). (2004) The Wire: United States: HBO Original Programming

Simon Fraser University. (2000). Gentrification. Available:

http://www.sfu.ca/geog452spring00/project3/m_gent.html. Last accessed 4th Feb 2014.

Singleton, J. (Director). (1991) Boyz in the Hood: United States: Columbia Pictures

Slater, T. (2010). Gentrification of the City. Available:

http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tslater/gotcbridgewatson.pdf. Last accessed 4th Feb

2014.

Smith, N. (1995). Gentrifying theory. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 111(2), 124-126. doi:

10.1080/00369229518736951

Smith, N. (2007). Toward a theory of gentrification a back to the city movement by capital, not

people. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(3), 538-548. doi:

10.1080/01944367908977002

Spikol, L. (2012, January 30). Development or gentrification? reaching the boiling point.

Retrieved from http://philly.curbed.com/archives/2012/01/30/screaming-cops-racist-

innuendojust-another-community-mtg.php

Taylor, H. Ralph; George A. Williams, Jr.. (1967). Housing in Model Cities. Law and

Contemporary Problems. 32 (3), p397-408.

Williams-Kearney

http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/apr03/indexthree.html

http://buffalorising.com/2013/09/the-history-of-hamlin-park-part-vii-early-housing-acts-and-the-start-of-urban-renewal/

http://buffalorising.com/2013/09/the-history-of-hamlin-park-part-vii-early-housing-acts-and-the-start-of-urban-renewal/


Thomas, J. M. (1997). Redevelopment and race: planning a finer city in postwar Detroit .

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Thompson, J. (2010). Baltimore Food Enterprise Center. Available:

http://www.ebdi.org/baltimore_food_enterprise_center . Last accessed 15th Nov 2013.

u3ventures staff writer. (2012). Unlocking eds & meds; Place-Based & Demand Driven

Institutional Planning. Available: http://u3ventures.com/advisory/services/. Last accessed 13 Apr 2014.

U.S. Congress. (1949). 42 USC § 1441 - congressional declaration of national housing policy.

Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1441

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1979. Whither or whether urban distress.Working paper, Office of Community Planning and Development. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Vigdor, J. L., Massey, D. S., & Rivlin, A. M. (2002). Does gentrification harm the poor?

Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 133-182. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067387

Van Peebles, M. (Director) (1991) New Jack City: United States: Warner Brothers

von Hoffman, Alexander. Why They Built the Pruitt-Igoe Project. Available:

http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/PruittIgoe.html. Last accessed 3rd Aug 2014.

WC Perspective. (2013). The Hamlin Park Neighborhood: A Strong Community and One You

Should be Seriously Considering. Available: http://buffalorising.com/2013/05/the-

hamlin-park-neighborhood-a-strong-community-and-one-you-should-be-seriously-

considering/. Last accessed 3rd Aug 2014.

Weber, E., Garber, D., & Fidler, E. (2011, February 16). Ggw discusses: Displacement and npr

in anacostia. Retrieved from http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9277/ggw-

Williams-Kearney

http://buffalorising.com/2013/05/the-hamlin-park-neighborhood-a-strong-community-and-one-you-should-be-seriously-considering/



http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/PruittIgoe.html

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067387

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1441


discusses-displacement-and-npr-in-anacostia/ …..

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/15/133754531/d-c-long-chocolate-city-becoming-more-

vanilla

Wikipedia. (2014). Gentrification. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification. Last

accessed 17 May 2014.

Williams-Kearney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/15/133754531/d-c-long-chocolate-city-becoming-more-vanilla

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/15/133754531/d-c-long-chocolate-city-becoming-more-vanilla

masters essay final submission 081114

Documents