Pre War Barnsbury had previously been regarded as a middle class suburb but it rapidly went into decline after the Second World War with working class Irish, British Caribbean and other minority’s that influxed into the area. The middle classes fled Barnsbury to the new suburbs of London whose infrastructures were receiving government investment as part of the Greater London Plan for the post-war reconstruction of London this blue print was then followed by 1952 New Town Development Act. The properties they left behind became multi-occupancy as demand for housing particularly rented types amongst the working class was greater than the supply. A pilot survey in Matilda Street, Barnsbury found that out of 160 houses that 127 did not have access to a bath (Lees et al, 2008, 13).
4
By the late fifties the first or ‘pioneer’ gentrifiers had started moving into Barnsbury. However private finance was initially difficult to obtain. The 1959 Housing Purchase and Housing Act made over 100 million pounds available to building societies and the release of credit into the housing market greatly increased owner occupation. This can be directly attributed to the beginnings of the gentrification process in Barnsbury. According to the UK census people with middle class occupations in Barnsbury increased from 23 to 43 per cent during the period 1961-1975 (Lees et al, 2008). The process expanded to other Islington neighbourhoods during the seventies and eighties. Houses were beginning to increase sharply in value and it was becoming economic sense to sell rather than achieve relatively low rental yields. The Landlords problem was that a home with tenants in is worth considerably less than a vacated one. This led to unscrupulous practices known as winkling as landlords used a ‘what ever’ means necessary approach to evict tenants. It was not uncommon for people to come home from work to find their processions on the street and the locks changed (Lees et al, 2008). Tenants that were more legally aware were threatened. Bruce Bailey a political organiser for capped rent properties in New York was found dismembered in a mafia murder organised by a property developer with mob ties. These increases in the valorisation of land has been coined the ‘rent gap’ by Neil Smith.
Alphabet City was one of the last New York Boroughs to gentrify. This is what Smith termed the ‘locational seesaw’. Investment in one area leads to disinvestment in other areas which then themselves later become development opportunities (Smith 1982 p151). Lower East Side referred to New York’s old working class residential and industrial area that grew northwards in the nineteenth century as a tenement district.
5
To the city’s elite it was a dark and dangerous place that housed ‘the great unwashed of the foreign masses’ (Mele, preface x, 2000). Alphabet City was so called as its area is approximately bordered by A, B, C & D avenues. It had similarities to Barnsbury in that immigration had devalued the land partially due to the perceived fears of crime by more affluent classes. By comparison the immigration however, was much more diverse coming from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Puerto Rica and China amongst others. Being home to the original German immigrants it was once known as little Germany, however under a period of transition during the fifties and sixties as thousands of Puerto Rican immigrants moved in and the Nuyorican art community began to develop.
In the 1980’s New York emerged as a world power house in the financial sector. Manufacturing industries continued to vanish from the city landscape mainly due to economic pressures from cheaper imported goods. Service industry employment in areas like law, communications and insurance trebled, leading to significant changes in the composition of employment. This globalisation process has seen the migration of the manufacturing industries to relocate in places of cheap labour with the added advantage of also being emerging markets. Sassen arguing from a production perspective believes that there has been a march towards neo liberalism. The national and urban economies in advanced capitalist countries have been restructured away from manufacturing towards services, recreation and consumption. (Sassen 1991; Smith 1992).
6
David Ley prefers a consumption theory explanation for gentrification. He was strongly influenced by Bell’s post industrialised thesis which predicted the growth in the service industry. Ley saw a new rationale developing over land use in post industrial cities. The expanding middle class have ‘life’ needs as well as economic ones. There consumption tastes and aesthetic outlook towards city life saw an ‘imagineering of an alternative urbanism to suburbanization’ which couldn’t be captured by structural or production explanations (Ley 1996, p15; Panelli 2007, p53).
New York underwent a surge in capital investment as office towers, apartment blocks, and existing units were upgraded. Land values near the city core soared and people who could no longer afford to live in Manhattan moved to less desirable parts of New York like Alphabet City. Alphabet City became a vibrant mix of Puerto Rican and African Americans living alongside wannabe actors, struggling artists and emerging musicians. The expanding bohemian population attracted by the low rents was synonymous with drug dealing and related crimes like prostitution and muggings. However the almost inevitable ripple effect from previous property hotspots in New York occurred and soon developers began looking at Alphabet City as the next big thing (Mele 2000). The rules of the real estate business were changing rapidly. Family property owners began to drop out and brokerage firms, property corporations, Hedge Funds and Banks became the major players. Developers began to see the land was effectively vastly undervalued and developers began snapping up property in order to redevelop and re-enact the gentrification that had been so profitable in other New York Boroughs (Mele 2000).
7
Whilst many aspects of gentrification may be considered desirable such has reduced crime rates, improved infrastructure and increased economic activity it is argued that the advantages are enjoyed disproportionately by the new arrivals. This has inevitably led to conflict as the old and new cultures clashed. David Harvey wrote from a Marxist perspective commenting upon the very tight relationships in the pre-gentrified areas that can lead to conflict. He argued that relationships can lead to resistance when they perceive a threat from outside. This potential weapon of resistance is even stronger when the working class community has a clear spatial definition as a neighbourhood (Harvey 1977; Palen 1984). Some of these anti gentrification clashes have become quite violent like the Tompkins Square Park riot in Alphabet City, New York in 1988. The building which became a symbol of anti-gentrification during the riots was the sixteen storeys Christodora Building on avenue B adjacent the park. Bought for $1.3 million in 1947 by the city it was at first used for civil functions then later became a community centre used by groups like the black panthers.
The building became run down and was eventually sold for only $62,000 dollars in 1976 to a local developer named Jaffee. He failed to get government development aid for a low cost housing scheme but still managed to sell the building eight years later for $1.3 million to another developer who himself resold or ‘flipped’ the building in less than a year for $3 million. In less than a decade a building had increased in value by 50 times it purchase price without a dime being spent on it. The developers then turned it into eighty six apartments that could cost over $300,000 dollars for a two bedroom unit. This gave the finished building a market value of over $25 million in 1988 (Smith 1996, p22).
8
Landlords throughout Alphabet City began to indiscriminately raise rents and soon many people and businesses were displaced. The park open twenty four hours a day became a meeting ground and home for many of the homeless people. It soon began to attract increased criminality and other types of public disorder. The new residents and businesses demanded a curfew on the opening hours and the city obliged with a one am limit. When the police tried to close the park on august 6th 1988 the riot began. The Christodora building became the target for much of the anger with graffiti and severe criminal damage (Smith 1996, p5).
Smith’s analysis of gentrification is set in the broader context of city development within the capitalist economy. He regards it as a social process rather than a physical one which reflects the wider society and thus clear conflicts of class will occur. ‘Gentrification represents a strategy of capital accumulation’ (Smith 1979, p540. cited Valentine 2001, p218). Smith argues that working class families have two main roles in the capitalist society. Firstly they produce workers for the capitalist economy with women bearing much of the responsibility of socialisation. The state intervenes by providing institutions like schools and hospitals to enable the continuous flow of workers. The second main role is that family homes are centres of consumption therefore providing both profit and future workers for the elite (Smith 1982). Chris Hamnett has been highly critical of Smith’s structural theories claiming that it is too deterministic. He states that
‘Smith’s opposition to any form of agency reveals him as a structuralist for whom individual agency is reduced to the flickering shadows cast by the light of capital’s fire’. (Hamnett 1992, p117; Lees et al 2008, p75).
9
J P Byrne arguing for the benefits of gentrification acknowledges the loss of affordable homes but argues the overall benefits outweigh the negatives even for the displaced poor. He believes that many of the suitable jobs for the poor are actually away from the city centres in the suburbs. Also there will be opportunities for poor people to stay if they wish working in new employment opportunities created in the restaurants, bars and domestic roles like nannies. A greater social mix will be created and local government receives extra funds which can then be spent on further infrastructure improvements that will enhance the community. (Byrne 2003; Lees et al, 2008, p197). Butler 1997 study of gentrifiers in Hackney may be used to counter this. He found that many gentrifiers talked about a desire for diversity but in practice self segregated themselves from the classes that they perceived to be lower themselves (Butler 1997, p161; Lees et al 2008, p211).
There would seem to be clearly both negative and positive experiences to be gained from the process of gentrification. Neglected areas can become more visually attractive, prosperous and have reduced crime rates. Service sector job opportunities can increase and local government revenues usually increase meaning that there are larger budgets for further investment. However if you are displaced from the area due to higher property prices or rents then many of the former arguments may seem irrelevant. Port Phillip in Melbourne for example has seen a dramatic increase in modern architecture during a process of gentrification, however is this necessarily more attractive than the previous Victorian architecture, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
10
The argument for reduced crime rates is also contestable not least the argument that crime rates themselves are often flawed and open to political manipulation through the allocation of police resources. The job opportunities that are created are often low paid serving the new middle classes. The jobs will only be attractive to the people who can no longer afford to live in the area (Powell & Spencer 2003). The jobs may also be flexible and vulnerable to economic downturns. Recent turmoil in the world financial markets as sent property prices tumbling particularly in apartment blocks. The easiness of credit for buy to let investors has been a major driving force of redevelopment in many inner city areas. The new dynamics of financial lending will probably see the slowing down of the gentrification process in many parts of the world. Remember that Lees argued that it was the access to mortgage funds that kick started the initial gentrification in Barnsbury. ‘Recessions and depressions ultimately require and allow spatial restructuring of the urban economy’ (Lees et al 2008, p73).
During this essay I have attempted to show that gentrification is a complicated but fluid phenomenon driven by complex social processes that are at times agreeable but often in conflict. Ideological positions differ and this can sometimes mean common ground cannot be found. Hammet and Smith’s academic spat basically comes down to the structure versus agency argument and so is unlikely to be resolved. Whether you think that gentrification is a good or bad thing ultimately comes down to your own subjective opinions or experience. In there book on Gentrification the authors admit to having negative experiences which influenced their academic interest. ‘Ultimately it is impossible to conduct research uncontaminated by personal or political beliefs’ (Becker,1967 p240).
References
Amin A. (1994). Post Fordism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Butler, T. (1997). ‘Gentrification and the middle classes’. Aldershot: Ashgate
Byrne, JP. (2003). Two cheers for gentrification, Howard Law Journal 46, 3: 405-432.
Hamnet, C. (1992). Gentrifiers or Lemmings ? A response to Neil Smith. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17,1: p116-119.
Hamnett, C. (2003), Unequal City: London in the Global Arena. London and New York: Routledge.
Kindleberger C. (1973). The World in Depression, 1929-39. London: Allen Lane.
Lees, L. Slater, T. Wyly, E. (2008) Gentrification. London and New York: Routledge.
Mele, C. (2000). Selling the Lower East Side: Culture, Real Estate, and Resistance in New York City. Printed in USA: Published by the University of Minnesota Press
Merrifield, A. (2002). Metromarxism: A Marxist Tale of the City. London and New York: Routledge,
Palen John J, London B. (1984). Gentrification, Displacement,
and Neighborhood Revitalization. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Panelli, R. (2004) Social Geographies: From Difference to Action. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage
Powell,J and M. Spencer (2003) Giving them the old one two: ‘Gentrification and the K.O. of impoverished urban dwellers of color’, Howard Law Journal 46, 3: 433-490.
Smith, N. (1982). ‘Gentrification and uneven development’, Economic Geography 58, 2: p139-155.
Smith, N. and Williams, P. (eds) (1986). Gentrification of the City, London: Allen and Unwin.
Smith,N. (1996). The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City.
London and New York: Routledge.
Valentine G. (2001). Social Geographies: Space and Society. Prentice Hall.
Becker, H. (1967) Whose Side Are We On? Social Problems, 14, (Winter), pp.240.) at home.earthlink.net/~hsbecker/qa.html. sourced 7/10/08.