Recently the New York Times ran an article about gentrification in DC and how for the first time in 51 years, the District will no longer be majority black. In the article, a local hair salon owner complains about her rising property taxes and how small businesses whose properties may have gain value are now selling their properties because they can not afford the taxes. One of my favorite blogger's Ta-nehisi Coates responded to this article after another blogger had pointed out the hair salon owner would still make a considerable profit even if she had to sell her property.
Coates point out that:
"I actually think it's fairly easy to understand Johnson's beef. She likes her neighborhood as it is. She may well be able to "sell high," but the fact is she doesn't want to sell at all. She probably would love to see her property values rise, but the neighborhood isn't simply, for her, a financial instrument--it's an emotional one. In that sense, Johnson isn't very different than millions of other humans who invest in neighborhoods."
He continues on to say:
"... the city is trying to make H Street a "desirable place to live," I am compelled to ask "desirable for whom?" I'm not being obtuse here--I understand, in the aggregate, his larger point. But very often people find a kind of value in their living condition that eludes socioeconomic data."
And this is a real sticking point for me. As a planner, I can not tell you how many times I have been to redevelopment meetings in struggling and blighted communities where consultants or planners propose turning around a neighborhood by adding a Starbucks, a wine shop and a deli. These businesses might turn a neighborhood around but...for whom? Either these consultants or planners assume that everyone likes Starbucks, wine and deli sandwiches or they are just out of touch with the culture of that community, which is even more troubling. I'll get into that later. The problem that I see is that too many consultants and planners feel that they have to uplift a struggling community by importing another culture of businesses (usually their own culture) instead of adding onto the cultural capital that is already within a community. Which means if a struggling community doesn't have a coffee shop, a Dunkin Donuts would be more appropriate than Starbucks and a Subway Sub would be more appreciated than a deli.
Coates goes on in his post to state:
"...I don't think we'd much debate the notion that neighborhoods usually hold some emotional value. But we often fail to see that value in African-Americans because, from a socioeconomic perspective, black people represent a class that is too often murdered, too often impoverished, too often uneducated, and too often diseased. Put differently, statistically, black people are a problem. Fix the problem and black people will thank us, right? Maybe."
I think this paragraph could be applied to almost any impoverished neighborhood, regardless of race. But this paragraph sort of lays out the reason I wanted to create this blog in the first place. I wanted a blog that focused on City Planning from a people's perspective. In my opinion, the world of planning theories and practices focuses on the brick and mortars of planning cities. Planning practices get implemented with almost no respect to the the culture of individual neighborhoods and communities. I remember reading in particular about the success of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in redeveloping blighted neighborhoods. The main criticism of the successful redevelopment of TOD projects that occurred in several major cities was that it completely displaced the original residents through gentrification. Well in my mind, that is a failure. Any practice that gets counted as a success that does not improve the lives of the existing residents is a practice that is culturally tone def.
But even worse than being tone def to another community's culture is viewing another community's culture as a problem. If you are in charge of reviving a neighborhood and you view a blighted neighborhood only as a problem you are going to fail to see the positive aspects of the neighborhood that can be built upon for revitalization. If you only see the neighborhood as a problem, you will replace instead of rebuild. And without understanding or more importantly caring about a neighborhood's culture, what gets replaced could be very important to the fabric of the existing community. A blighted community may seek out help from planners and consultants to help turn around their neighborhood because they feel that there neighborhood and it's culture is something worthy to be saved. Not replaced.
Until all reformers understand that they have to rebuild and not replace, there will always be resentment from the existing residents of gentrified neighborhoods. And I will continue to write about the urban experience.
Showing posts with label Gentrification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gentrification. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
A Planner's reality: Segregation in America
Salon.com recently posted a great slideshow of the most segregated cities in America. The post had a map of the racial breakdown of each city as well as an explanation of the history of segregation in each city. Check out the slideshow in this link.
What's interesting is that even in some of the most segregated cities, there is a new trend of young affluent white suburbanites moving into back into the core of cities and working class and middle class city black populations moving into inner-rung suburbs. While this new trend is causing some existing places to become more diverse as one population slides into a new neighborhood as the group is leaving, what's fascinating is that the new trend is still reinforcing the old trend of segregation. The shifts in population among races are not quite coexisting with each other as they are displacing one another.
And this displacement is causing a lot of ugly fights between new and existing populations throughout urban America. In Philadelphia and Washington D.C., historically black neighborhoods are trying to protect their community's identity from white and now black gentrifiers and in suburban Detroit, elite black suburbs or worried about the waves of working class blacks from inner-city Detroit moving into their communities.
These new tensions are now issues that planners now have to listen to and address. These tensions are no longer just a sensitive issue for the inner-city but now affect suburban planners as well. In my jurisdiction, my office worked on an historic black community (historic in culture but not in the building preservation sense) that began as a segregated community and had faced decades of discrimination. Their struggles in overcoming these obstacles helped cement the community's identity and it was very important that we preserve and honor that community's history. But from a strictly planning sense, none of their history of segregation was going to greatly affect how we planned and designed their future housing developments and open spaces. We could not ignore their history but we could not plan around their history either without a historical landmark or building. There was a disconnect between the community and the planners. To the community, their history was the number one concern. For the planners, designing safe spaces was our number one concern.
This disconnect between preserving the people's history in a community over the preservation of buildings is one of city planning's biggest challenges and up to now one of it's biggest failures. As a whole, city planners do not know how to at least help a community on the wrong side of gentrification. As city planners we almost always side with the gentrifiers because our number one goal is to create better designed spaces and buildings. The influx of gentrification helps remove and redevelop empty debris filled lots, rehabilitates vacant buildings and brings commercial vitality back into neighborhoods. Who wouldn't want that?
Newcomers into gentrified inner-city neighborhoods are often dismayed when they find out that it is the existing long term residents who do not want the positive changes of gentrification. The standard answer for newcomers to existing long-term residents is that they should be thanking them for improving their neighborhoods. The issue for long-term residents is not that they want to live in sub-standard conditions but they are seeking a permanent stake in their community in which they felt they established. Whether that neighborhood is an affluent community or a poor community, long term residents feel that it is their neighborhood in large part because of the history of segregation. A lot of older black inner-city neighborhoods were purposefully segregated and became the only neighborhoods blacks could live in within a metropolitan region.
Despite their struggles these older black communities formed identities that were important not only to the psyche of blacks that lived in that community but to urban black America as a whole...for that time. Over time, these communities have often lost their identities as segregation slowly ended and middle class blacks moved out, leaving some of the working class blacks who couldn't afford to leave feel abandoned. But even with all that said there is still some high reverence for some of these communities no matter how poverty stricken or crime riddled they have become. While saying you are from Harlem or the Southside of Chicago or the 9th Ward of New Orleans may be looked down upon by some, for some in urban black America it is still a source of pride.
And this source of pride, which is wrapped around decades of segregation, self-empowerment, decline and then decades of poverty is what gentrification threatens to end. These communities have seen the life cycles of the black community within those cities and while they may be dying, those that still live in those communities do not want to see it end. So how do we as planners preserve that sense of pride? We all know that cities and neighborhoods go through changes, death and rebirth. Do we interfere with the natural life cycle of neighborhoods? Or is it important to maintain the cultural identity of a place like Harlem from becoming just another nice gentrified neighborhood?
What are your thoughts? Thanks for reading!
What's interesting is that even in some of the most segregated cities, there is a new trend of young affluent white suburbanites moving into back into the core of cities and working class and middle class city black populations moving into inner-rung suburbs. While this new trend is causing some existing places to become more diverse as one population slides into a new neighborhood as the group is leaving, what's fascinating is that the new trend is still reinforcing the old trend of segregation. The shifts in population among races are not quite coexisting with each other as they are displacing one another.
And this displacement is causing a lot of ugly fights between new and existing populations throughout urban America. In Philadelphia and Washington D.C., historically black neighborhoods are trying to protect their community's identity from white and now black gentrifiers and in suburban Detroit, elite black suburbs or worried about the waves of working class blacks from inner-city Detroit moving into their communities.
These new tensions are now issues that planners now have to listen to and address. These tensions are no longer just a sensitive issue for the inner-city but now affect suburban planners as well. In my jurisdiction, my office worked on an historic black community (historic in culture but not in the building preservation sense) that began as a segregated community and had faced decades of discrimination. Their struggles in overcoming these obstacles helped cement the community's identity and it was very important that we preserve and honor that community's history. But from a strictly planning sense, none of their history of segregation was going to greatly affect how we planned and designed their future housing developments and open spaces. We could not ignore their history but we could not plan around their history either without a historical landmark or building. There was a disconnect between the community and the planners. To the community, their history was the number one concern. For the planners, designing safe spaces was our number one concern.
This disconnect between preserving the people's history in a community over the preservation of buildings is one of city planning's biggest challenges and up to now one of it's biggest failures. As a whole, city planners do not know how to at least help a community on the wrong side of gentrification. As city planners we almost always side with the gentrifiers because our number one goal is to create better designed spaces and buildings. The influx of gentrification helps remove and redevelop empty debris filled lots, rehabilitates vacant buildings and brings commercial vitality back into neighborhoods. Who wouldn't want that?
Newcomers into gentrified inner-city neighborhoods are often dismayed when they find out that it is the existing long term residents who do not want the positive changes of gentrification. The standard answer for newcomers to existing long-term residents is that they should be thanking them for improving their neighborhoods. The issue for long-term residents is not that they want to live in sub-standard conditions but they are seeking a permanent stake in their community in which they felt they established. Whether that neighborhood is an affluent community or a poor community, long term residents feel that it is their neighborhood in large part because of the history of segregation. A lot of older black inner-city neighborhoods were purposefully segregated and became the only neighborhoods blacks could live in within a metropolitan region.
Despite their struggles these older black communities formed identities that were important not only to the psyche of blacks that lived in that community but to urban black America as a whole...for that time. Over time, these communities have often lost their identities as segregation slowly ended and middle class blacks moved out, leaving some of the working class blacks who couldn't afford to leave feel abandoned. But even with all that said there is still some high reverence for some of these communities no matter how poverty stricken or crime riddled they have become. While saying you are from Harlem or the Southside of Chicago or the 9th Ward of New Orleans may be looked down upon by some, for some in urban black America it is still a source of pride.
And this source of pride, which is wrapped around decades of segregation, self-empowerment, decline and then decades of poverty is what gentrification threatens to end. These communities have seen the life cycles of the black community within those cities and while they may be dying, those that still live in those communities do not want to see it end. So how do we as planners preserve that sense of pride? We all know that cities and neighborhoods go through changes, death and rebirth. Do we interfere with the natural life cycle of neighborhoods? Or is it important to maintain the cultural identity of a place like Harlem from becoming just another nice gentrified neighborhood?
What are your thoughts? Thanks for reading!
Friday, March 12, 2010
The HIDMO - Gentrification in Seattle's Central District
This is a 10 minute documentary on the gentrification of Seattle's Central District. This video focuses on the recent targetting of the Hidmo Eritrean Cuisine restaurant.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Harlem: Gentrification or Addition?
The New York Times ran a great article about how Greater Harlem in New York City is no longer majority black. For those who do not know, Harlem was the long cultural epicenter for black folks throughout the 20th century. Not only was Harlem the home to many world renowned black writers, artists, musicians and intellectuals, the Harlem Renaissance helped defined the black experience in America in the 1920's and beyond.
Like most historic cultural ethnic enclaves, Harlem fell on hard times particularly after desegregation and urban renewal policies. The traditional base of black folks had eroded by the 1970's. The well-to-do and the middle class black populations were no longer forced to live in the crowded conditions of Harlem and moved onto better housing in and outside the city. What was left of Harlem in the 1970's was a poor urban community with a rich and long cultural and historical legacy.
Harlem was not the only culturally significant black community that fell on hard times, similar patterns of vacancy occurred in the Shaw-Howard University neighborhoods in Washington D.C., and the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor in Baltimore. The article reports that:
"Because so much of the community was devastated by demolition for urban renewal, arson and abandonment beginning in the 1960s, many newcomers have not so much dislodged existing residents as succeeded them. In the 1970s alone, the black population of central Harlem declined by more than 30 percent.
'This place was vacated,' said Howard Dodson, director of Harlem’s Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. 'Gentrification is about displacement.'"
There are many urban communities today that have incredibly vacancy rates of over 10-20%. Many of these communities are now feeling development pressure after 30-40 years or more of abandonment in some cases. A lot of people in these urban communities fear gentrification but in cases like Harlem where there are so many vacancies, should residents feel threatened by the newcomers if no one is being displaced?
What are you thoughts?
Like most historic cultural ethnic enclaves, Harlem fell on hard times particularly after desegregation and urban renewal policies. The traditional base of black folks had eroded by the 1970's. The well-to-do and the middle class black populations were no longer forced to live in the crowded conditions of Harlem and moved onto better housing in and outside the city. What was left of Harlem in the 1970's was a poor urban community with a rich and long cultural and historical legacy.
Harlem was not the only culturally significant black community that fell on hard times, similar patterns of vacancy occurred in the Shaw-Howard University neighborhoods in Washington D.C., and the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor in Baltimore. The article reports that:
"Because so much of the community was devastated by demolition for urban renewal, arson and abandonment beginning in the 1960s, many newcomers have not so much dislodged existing residents as succeeded them. In the 1970s alone, the black population of central Harlem declined by more than 30 percent.
'This place was vacated,' said Howard Dodson, director of Harlem’s Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. 'Gentrification is about displacement.'"
There are many urban communities today that have incredibly vacancy rates of over 10-20%. Many of these communities are now feeling development pressure after 30-40 years or more of abandonment in some cases. A lot of people in these urban communities fear gentrification but in cases like Harlem where there are so many vacancies, should residents feel threatened by the newcomers if no one is being displaced?
What are you thoughts?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Rebound of New Orleans - New Growth or Dillution of the Past?
Four years after Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans is growing again and has grown to 3/4th's of their pre-storm population. While the city is still missing a significant chunk of their former residents, most of the new population of residents are not native residents returning home but newcomers which are starting to change the culture of New Orleans. The NOLA.com article quotes:
The city is now home to a tide of newcomers unprecedented in recent history, including Hispanic day laborers, idealistic young teachers, and urban planners all drawn by the unique opportunity to help a devastated city rebuild, almost from scratch.
....Before Katrina, New Orleans famously had the highest percentage of "native-born" residents of any major American city. In the 2000 census, for instance, 77 percent of New Orleanians were considered natives, defined as those born anywhere in Louisiana.
Viewed optimistically, the statistic is a measure of New Orleanians' attachment to their hometown. But it's also a symptom of a moribund economy that attracts few migrants.
...The percentage of single, childless adults -- a group more associated with transplants -- has risen significantly, surveys indicate. At the same time, the percentage of families living in extreme poverty, the group most likely to be native-born, has dropped. The percentage of white residents has risen, while the percentage of African-Americans has slipped.
Will the newcomers ultimately embrace New Orleans long rich cultural heritage or identity? Or will they add on to the heritage and tradition or ultimately change it? It's probably too early to tell for now? With an influx of newcomers, what will it really mean now to miss New Orleans?
What are your thoughts? To read the entire article, click here.
The city is now home to a tide of newcomers unprecedented in recent history, including Hispanic day laborers, idealistic young teachers, and urban planners all drawn by the unique opportunity to help a devastated city rebuild, almost from scratch.
....Before Katrina, New Orleans famously had the highest percentage of "native-born" residents of any major American city. In the 2000 census, for instance, 77 percent of New Orleanians were considered natives, defined as those born anywhere in Louisiana.
Viewed optimistically, the statistic is a measure of New Orleanians' attachment to their hometown. But it's also a symptom of a moribund economy that attracts few migrants.
...The percentage of single, childless adults -- a group more associated with transplants -- has risen significantly, surveys indicate. At the same time, the percentage of families living in extreme poverty, the group most likely to be native-born, has dropped. The percentage of white residents has risen, while the percentage of African-Americans has slipped.
Will the newcomers ultimately embrace New Orleans long rich cultural heritage or identity? Or will they add on to the heritage and tradition or ultimately change it? It's probably too early to tell for now? With an influx of newcomers, what will it really mean now to miss New Orleans?
What are your thoughts? To read the entire article, click here.
Friday, June 19, 2009
What's wrong with bringing in Higher Income Residents to the 'Hood?
In my previous post I discussed Gentrification and New Urbanism where the founder of New Urbanism, Andres Duany seemed to be in support of Gentrification. In an interview with American Enterprise in 2002, Duany ponders why there is a negative connotation with gentrification and bringing in higher income residents. Here is an excerpt of that interview:
TAE: You’ve complained that some poverty activists actually resist measures that reduce poverty.
Duany: Oh yes. There are, for instance many, many places where what the town needs most desperately is what is now derisively called “gentrification.” When I study most inner cities I see poverty mono-cultures. The arrival of some higher-income residents is exactly what they need, so it’s amazing that gentrification has become a negative term.
What smart urbanists want is to have a full range of society within neighborhoods. You need people who are CEOs, and people who are secretaries. You need school teachers, and you need somebody to deliver the pizza. Society doesn’t work unless there are all kinds of people around, in relatively close proximity. Any society that has only one income level is dysfunctional. And, by the way, the great thing about the American system is that everybody can actually aspire to rise to the level of “gentry.” We don’t have the generalized envy and resentment that you find in many other countries.
But “gentrification”—attracting the middle class back to poor areas—is sometimes resisted by certain local activists. Why? Because it threatens to break up their political coalitions, and their base of power. When I first ran across this I was just amazed. I was so naive. Why wouldn’t this poor area want middle class people moving in? I mean, you need the tax base. Now, I see selfish local bosses as the source of the resistance.
Ok, here's my beef. I do not belief that bringing in higher income residents into poor urban neighborhoods is the only way to improve neighborhoods. I believe you can generate the same results of improving the living conditions of a poor neighborhood by improving their access to jobs, education and healthcare. I do believe it is important for young people, especially young people in poor urban neighborhoods to have role models. And having an economically diverse and socially diverse neighborhood is a great way of producing various role models for young people to model themselves after. We know that in some urban neighborhoods the lack of proper role models is severely lacking but I believe with better access to opportunities, role models can be created from within the neighborhood rather than imported.
Poverty mono-cultures as Duany points out are prevalent within inner-cities and a lot of times these cultures unintentionally help reinforce their own social and economic barriers. Other times these poverty mono-cultures are products of historical trends and current lack of access to opportunities. Whether their problems of poverty mono-cultures are self imposed or they are being generated externally, it is social and economic barriers that keeps the community in poverty. If the barriers are removed then the community can create its own economic and social stratosphere and will not have to depend on an outside force to do that for them.
I truly agree that is not healthy to have one income neighborhoods as Duany points out above. However for a neighborhood to be truly stratified where a CEO can live in the same neighborhood as his secretary, then that CEO is going to have to be willing to go to the same neighborhood church with their secretary. The CEO is going to have to let their kid go to school with their secretary's kid and when the kids get older have both kids allowed to date. If the CEO chooses to live in that same neighborhood but still partake of all the trappings of CEO such as private schools, country clubs, etc... then the secretary and her family will slowly be pushed out of the neighborhood or will not benefit from any of the social interactions of living next to a CEO.
As far as local activists against the moving in of higher income residents because it will destroy their power base - well, I'm sure it's true in some instances but in most instances these activists are fighting for a neighborhood that's in fear. For every example of where gentrification succeeded in not permanently displacing the poor and not significantly raising property values past the median home value of that city, I can point out five other examples were gentrification did the opposite and the people who had the least continued to struggle.
Let me be clear, I'm not against the upper class moving into urban neighborhoods, we all know cities could desperately use their property taxes - to help the poor. I just don't believe that adding the upper class to neighborhoods will create an economically stratified environment unless everyone shows some sacrifice and participation to create a truly diverse neighborhood. The answer for every urban neighborhood can not be add higher incomes and condos. To me it is the equivalent of every East Coast state legislating casinos to cash in on gambling. Eventually there will be not enough gamblers. And eventually there will be not enough high income residents to spread across our metropolitan regions to save our neighborhoods.
So while I do agree partly with Duany that high income residents should be added to some urban neighborhoods, I firmly believe that better living conditions can be created within neighborhoods internally and that the removal of economic and social barriers can generate better living within urban neighborhoods.
What are your thoughts?
TAE: You’ve complained that some poverty activists actually resist measures that reduce poverty.
Duany: Oh yes. There are, for instance many, many places where what the town needs most desperately is what is now derisively called “gentrification.” When I study most inner cities I see poverty mono-cultures. The arrival of some higher-income residents is exactly what they need, so it’s amazing that gentrification has become a negative term.
What smart urbanists want is to have a full range of society within neighborhoods. You need people who are CEOs, and people who are secretaries. You need school teachers, and you need somebody to deliver the pizza. Society doesn’t work unless there are all kinds of people around, in relatively close proximity. Any society that has only one income level is dysfunctional. And, by the way, the great thing about the American system is that everybody can actually aspire to rise to the level of “gentry.” We don’t have the generalized envy and resentment that you find in many other countries.
But “gentrification”—attracting the middle class back to poor areas—is sometimes resisted by certain local activists. Why? Because it threatens to break up their political coalitions, and their base of power. When I first ran across this I was just amazed. I was so naive. Why wouldn’t this poor area want middle class people moving in? I mean, you need the tax base. Now, I see selfish local bosses as the source of the resistance.
Ok, here's my beef. I do not belief that bringing in higher income residents into poor urban neighborhoods is the only way to improve neighborhoods. I believe you can generate the same results of improving the living conditions of a poor neighborhood by improving their access to jobs, education and healthcare. I do believe it is important for young people, especially young people in poor urban neighborhoods to have role models. And having an economically diverse and socially diverse neighborhood is a great way of producing various role models for young people to model themselves after. We know that in some urban neighborhoods the lack of proper role models is severely lacking but I believe with better access to opportunities, role models can be created from within the neighborhood rather than imported.
Poverty mono-cultures as Duany points out are prevalent within inner-cities and a lot of times these cultures unintentionally help reinforce their own social and economic barriers. Other times these poverty mono-cultures are products of historical trends and current lack of access to opportunities. Whether their problems of poverty mono-cultures are self imposed or they are being generated externally, it is social and economic barriers that keeps the community in poverty. If the barriers are removed then the community can create its own economic and social stratosphere and will not have to depend on an outside force to do that for them.
I truly agree that is not healthy to have one income neighborhoods as Duany points out above. However for a neighborhood to be truly stratified where a CEO can live in the same neighborhood as his secretary, then that CEO is going to have to be willing to go to the same neighborhood church with their secretary. The CEO is going to have to let their kid go to school with their secretary's kid and when the kids get older have both kids allowed to date. If the CEO chooses to live in that same neighborhood but still partake of all the trappings of CEO such as private schools, country clubs, etc... then the secretary and her family will slowly be pushed out of the neighborhood or will not benefit from any of the social interactions of living next to a CEO.
As far as local activists against the moving in of higher income residents because it will destroy their power base - well, I'm sure it's true in some instances but in most instances these activists are fighting for a neighborhood that's in fear. For every example of where gentrification succeeded in not permanently displacing the poor and not significantly raising property values past the median home value of that city, I can point out five other examples were gentrification did the opposite and the people who had the least continued to struggle.
Let me be clear, I'm not against the upper class moving into urban neighborhoods, we all know cities could desperately use their property taxes - to help the poor. I just don't believe that adding the upper class to neighborhoods will create an economically stratified environment unless everyone shows some sacrifice and participation to create a truly diverse neighborhood. The answer for every urban neighborhood can not be add higher incomes and condos. To me it is the equivalent of every East Coast state legislating casinos to cash in on gambling. Eventually there will be not enough gamblers. And eventually there will be not enough high income residents to spread across our metropolitan regions to save our neighborhoods.
So while I do agree partly with Duany that high income residents should be added to some urban neighborhoods, I firmly believe that better living conditions can be created within neighborhoods internally and that the removal of economic and social barriers can generate better living within urban neighborhoods.
What are your thoughts?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Gentrification and New Urbanism
The Daily Kos ran an article this week called A Tale of Two (Segregated) Exurbs which was a critique of an article titled A Tale of of Two Exurbs which was published in The American Prospect Magazine. The Daily Kos goes one step beyond The American Prospect article in explaining the difference between the two exurbs, one which is sprawling exurb and the other a compact exurb designed by the founder of New Urbanism, Andres Duany.
The issue the article has with the Duany developed New Urbanist exurb is it's susceptibility toward the big "G" word, gentrification. The author feels like I often feel that the theory of New Urbanism is a great but the implementation often results in displacement of the lower class or rapidly increasing property values. Although I do have to say that I dont necessarily agree with this for the article's specific example of Gaithersburg, Maryland which I do feel is economically and socially diverse.
While I think the article's example is flawed I do believe it's message and intent is worth discussing. Here's a swipe from the article:
"Gaithersburg was designed by Duany Plater-Zyrbek, the nation’s leading firm in New Urbanist urban design. New Urbanism is kind of like a good, liberal-minded person’s vision of an urban utopia: mixed-use land zoning, local neighborhood stores and shops, extreme walkability, eco-friendly, and on and on. In short, New Urbanism is the urban planning/urban design alternative to suburban sprawl. A pretty good alternative, at least in theory.
The dirty little secret about Duany and New Urbanism is the design’s susceptibility to gentrification. A quaint little town with a thriving local economy is undoubtedly a hot commodity among young, affluent white folks. An influx in affluent folks typically precipitates raises in rents and property values, often resulting in lower-class displacement. Such is the potential effect of New Urbanism. It’s actually a little more than mere susceptibility to gentrification—Duany has been quoted in interviews pondering "What’s so bad with gentrification?" He even argued that the arrival of higher-income residents is what some urban communities need.
But there’s something peculiar—or, suspicious—about a discussion of New Urbanism (an urban design susceptible to gentrification) that fails to mention racial or class diversity (a major casualty of gentrification). In our quest for walkable, eco-friendly built environments, are we willing to concede racial diversity?"
Now I know this will look like I'm beating up on the theory of New Urbanism...again. I really want to like New Urbanism, I really, really do but all of it's greatest examples seem economically exclusionary and not very diverse. As you can tell from looking at this blog, I love cities and urban places because of their diversity, hodgepodge of ideas and it's quilted layers of history. New Urbanism seems like a whitewash of that. As for Duany's quote about importing wealth and not creating wealth in cities, I'll get to that in another post.
I have scratched my head over this issue several times but keep drawing blanks. Is there any way to create a New Urbanist project in an urban area while mixing low income residents with higher-income residents. Or can the goal of new Urbanist project help reconnect or foster growth from within the community without having to lure some outside force to "improve" the neighborhood.
Maybe New Urbanist projects are a victim of their own success. The problem with gentrification is that you can not stop it. Once a neighborhood tips towards being trendy the escalation of newcomers as well as the character of the neighborhood is dramatic. The only neighborhoods where an outside culture comes in that does not create instant gentrification are artist communities. While these communities eventually become gentrified it may take decades before long time residents feel pressured out by property values and the character of the neighborhood is never fully erased...in fact artists often enhance the positive qualities of neighborhoods.
Whatever the solution is we can see that there is a trend between New Urbanist projects and gentrification. Let's hope New Urbanism does not become our generation's new Urban Renewal projects.
The issue the article has with the Duany developed New Urbanist exurb is it's susceptibility toward the big "G" word, gentrification. The author feels like I often feel that the theory of New Urbanism is a great but the implementation often results in displacement of the lower class or rapidly increasing property values. Although I do have to say that I dont necessarily agree with this for the article's specific example of Gaithersburg, Maryland which I do feel is economically and socially diverse.
While I think the article's example is flawed I do believe it's message and intent is worth discussing. Here's a swipe from the article:
"Gaithersburg was designed by Duany Plater-Zyrbek, the nation’s leading firm in New Urbanist urban design. New Urbanism is kind of like a good, liberal-minded person’s vision of an urban utopia: mixed-use land zoning, local neighborhood stores and shops, extreme walkability, eco-friendly, and on and on. In short, New Urbanism is the urban planning/urban design alternative to suburban sprawl. A pretty good alternative, at least in theory.
The dirty little secret about Duany and New Urbanism is the design’s susceptibility to gentrification. A quaint little town with a thriving local economy is undoubtedly a hot commodity among young, affluent white folks. An influx in affluent folks typically precipitates raises in rents and property values, often resulting in lower-class displacement. Such is the potential effect of New Urbanism. It’s actually a little more than mere susceptibility to gentrification—Duany has been quoted in interviews pondering "What’s so bad with gentrification?" He even argued that the arrival of higher-income residents is what some urban communities need.
But there’s something peculiar—or, suspicious—about a discussion of New Urbanism (an urban design susceptible to gentrification) that fails to mention racial or class diversity (a major casualty of gentrification). In our quest for walkable, eco-friendly built environments, are we willing to concede racial diversity?"
Now I know this will look like I'm beating up on the theory of New Urbanism...again. I really want to like New Urbanism, I really, really do but all of it's greatest examples seem economically exclusionary and not very diverse. As you can tell from looking at this blog, I love cities and urban places because of their diversity, hodgepodge of ideas and it's quilted layers of history. New Urbanism seems like a whitewash of that. As for Duany's quote about importing wealth and not creating wealth in cities, I'll get to that in another post.
I have scratched my head over this issue several times but keep drawing blanks. Is there any way to create a New Urbanist project in an urban area while mixing low income residents with higher-income residents. Or can the goal of new Urbanist project help reconnect or foster growth from within the community without having to lure some outside force to "improve" the neighborhood.
Maybe New Urbanist projects are a victim of their own success. The problem with gentrification is that you can not stop it. Once a neighborhood tips towards being trendy the escalation of newcomers as well as the character of the neighborhood is dramatic. The only neighborhoods where an outside culture comes in that does not create instant gentrification are artist communities. While these communities eventually become gentrified it may take decades before long time residents feel pressured out by property values and the character of the neighborhood is never fully erased...in fact artists often enhance the positive qualities of neighborhoods.
Whatever the solution is we can see that there is a trend between New Urbanist projects and gentrification. Let's hope New Urbanism does not become our generation's new Urban Renewal projects.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
TOD and the Hood
One of the new concepts that is all the rage right now in planning, especially Maryland planning is Transit Oriented Development of for short, TOD. Actually TOD is not really a new concept, many developments in the state and across the nation have tried implementing TOD over the past two decades. And if you want to take it back even further then that, just about all city neighborhoods before the car era were transit oriented development. In the early 1900’s, how else were you going to get to work without living next a train station or trolley stop without having to walk?
Fast forward to today. There has been a push to reverse the trend of auto dependent neighborhoods and reclaim the streets for the pedestrian. But in order to make a more walkable neighborhood, developments and land uses must be clustered together or even stacked together to reduce the number of trips a resident, shopper or worker would have to make by car or transit. Across the country TOD has had tremendous effects on suburban commuter stations and on large redeveloped greyfields and brownfields. These large TOD projects which either built around new transit stops or redeveloped large swaps of acres and parcels have created a sense of place, a sense of community and ultimately a destination.
If TOD can work in the suburbs, it can only be just as successful in cities, where the infrastructure and transit is already place, right? Well…not so much.
Redevelopment of any kind can be…difficult. So difficult and expensive that it can scare developers away. Besides cutting through government red tape and most likely changing zoning laws to accommodate TOD, developers have to seek out and buy out every parcel, deal with community groups, clean up the site and the prove to bankers that this risky inner-city development is just as stable for a loan as a new development in the burbs. Mind you searching out deeds is tedious. I once did a title search for property in Philadelphia that still showed former President William Harrison as the owner. So redevelopment can be very tough but it can be done…if done properly.
Now there are two kinds of TOD projects in inner-cities. Those that succeed and turn a profit and those that fail miserably while blowing hundreds of millions of the tax payers dollars. I’ll first cover the latter because there are a lot of failed TOD’s. In fact some planners will argue that most of the failed TOD projects were not TOD at all. They will tell you that they were really Transit Adjacent Development or Transit Related Development but whatever they were they did not implement all of the criteria needed for a successful TOD. This is all very true. Many critics of TOD (who deride it’s costs) point out the failures of Transit projects that were not really TOD at all.
When planners point out successful models of TOD from across the country, they all employ the same techniques of TOD planning which seeks to create an almost 24-7 living-working transit environment. But what planners often do not point out is that inner-city TOD projects all share one similar trait in common…instant gentrification. As I have stated in posts before, it is really difficult to build for a low income community who by the way are the ones who will use transit the most. This problem is compounded if that same neighborhood is a transitional neighborhood aka “a neighborhood that doesn’t matter” when trying to plan for the needs of the existing residents. So while a great new half a billion development is going to go up in a low income neighborhood to take advantage of it’s great infrastructure, almost none of the neighborhoods needs will be addressed in the new plan.
With so much funding, borrowed money and reputations on the line, developers are seeking to turn a large profit to offset massive debts. Ad for government officials the opportunity to completely revitalize a struggling community into a thriving commercial hub which will dramatically increase revenue and population is all but a not brainer. The consequences of potentially displacing an inner-city community certainly are not enough to outweigh new construction, jobs and growth.
So what happens to the community? Well it means neighborhoods stores and shops will now be replaced with national chain stores that are found in the suburbs to entice the young middle class to move back into the city. Which means the small grocer will be replaced by a Whole Foods. The coffee and doughnut shop will get replaced by Starbucks. The corner liquor store will get replaced by an upscale liquor store that sells mostly wine. The Chinese Food spot will get replaced by Quizno’s. So even if the existing residents do not get pushed out by rapidly raising property values, they will get priced out of their everyday way of life.
What was layered inner-city community chock full of history will be replaced by bland brick suburban architecture that mimics the suburban TOD. Now something is wrong with this picture when the city mimics the suburbs to entice suburbanites about the joys of city living. But this pattern of development is occurring cities all across the nation. Once again is easier to mass develop a project then to do it incrementally by working with separate land owners. It is far easier for one developer to buy out everything and redevelop everything at once. Now don’t get me wrong, when implemented right, these TOD projects are wildly successful but I have not seen one project yet that was able to keep the existing culture of the neighborhood.
The challenge for planners today is to make TOD work for the inner-city and not only for the new proposed residents. The solution for neighborhood revitalization can no longer be bringing in a new group of higher income to make the neighborhood better. This game of spatial mismatch has to end because there is no more developmental space in our metro areas to push people around anymore. Gentrification in our cities is now pushing out the working class, who depend on transit out of cities into the suburbs while suburbanites are now moving back to downtowns and cities with the choice of they want to use transit.
Lastly developers and planners must realize that people make neighborhoods and not buildings. While it is sad that layers of architectural history get removed for bland architecture that looks the same from Dallas to Boston, the razing of buildings does not mean the razing of the culture of that neighborhood and you develop the land as if it were a clean slate. And simply reclaiming some past vestiges and relics of the neighborhood or renaming new buildings and streets after former residents does not continue the legacy of that neighborhood without the people. While as planners we will always plan for the future to make better neighborhoods, we must always remember to plan for the needs of the people and not to the needs of a concept or theory.
Thanks for reading!
Fast forward to today. There has been a push to reverse the trend of auto dependent neighborhoods and reclaim the streets for the pedestrian. But in order to make a more walkable neighborhood, developments and land uses must be clustered together or even stacked together to reduce the number of trips a resident, shopper or worker would have to make by car or transit. Across the country TOD has had tremendous effects on suburban commuter stations and on large redeveloped greyfields and brownfields. These large TOD projects which either built around new transit stops or redeveloped large swaps of acres and parcels have created a sense of place, a sense of community and ultimately a destination.
If TOD can work in the suburbs, it can only be just as successful in cities, where the infrastructure and transit is already place, right? Well…not so much.
Redevelopment of any kind can be…difficult. So difficult and expensive that it can scare developers away. Besides cutting through government red tape and most likely changing zoning laws to accommodate TOD, developers have to seek out and buy out every parcel, deal with community groups, clean up the site and the prove to bankers that this risky inner-city development is just as stable for a loan as a new development in the burbs. Mind you searching out deeds is tedious. I once did a title search for property in Philadelphia that still showed former President William Harrison as the owner. So redevelopment can be very tough but it can be done…if done properly.
Now there are two kinds of TOD projects in inner-cities. Those that succeed and turn a profit and those that fail miserably while blowing hundreds of millions of the tax payers dollars. I’ll first cover the latter because there are a lot of failed TOD’s. In fact some planners will argue that most of the failed TOD projects were not TOD at all. They will tell you that they were really Transit Adjacent Development or Transit Related Development but whatever they were they did not implement all of the criteria needed for a successful TOD. This is all very true. Many critics of TOD (who deride it’s costs) point out the failures of Transit projects that were not really TOD at all.
When planners point out successful models of TOD from across the country, they all employ the same techniques of TOD planning which seeks to create an almost 24-7 living-working transit environment. But what planners often do not point out is that inner-city TOD projects all share one similar trait in common…instant gentrification. As I have stated in posts before, it is really difficult to build for a low income community who by the way are the ones who will use transit the most. This problem is compounded if that same neighborhood is a transitional neighborhood aka “a neighborhood that doesn’t matter” when trying to plan for the needs of the existing residents. So while a great new half a billion development is going to go up in a low income neighborhood to take advantage of it’s great infrastructure, almost none of the neighborhoods needs will be addressed in the new plan.
With so much funding, borrowed money and reputations on the line, developers are seeking to turn a large profit to offset massive debts. Ad for government officials the opportunity to completely revitalize a struggling community into a thriving commercial hub which will dramatically increase revenue and population is all but a not brainer. The consequences of potentially displacing an inner-city community certainly are not enough to outweigh new construction, jobs and growth.
So what happens to the community? Well it means neighborhoods stores and shops will now be replaced with national chain stores that are found in the suburbs to entice the young middle class to move back into the city. Which means the small grocer will be replaced by a Whole Foods. The coffee and doughnut shop will get replaced by Starbucks. The corner liquor store will get replaced by an upscale liquor store that sells mostly wine. The Chinese Food spot will get replaced by Quizno’s. So even if the existing residents do not get pushed out by rapidly raising property values, they will get priced out of their everyday way of life.
What was layered inner-city community chock full of history will be replaced by bland brick suburban architecture that mimics the suburban TOD. Now something is wrong with this picture when the city mimics the suburbs to entice suburbanites about the joys of city living. But this pattern of development is occurring cities all across the nation. Once again is easier to mass develop a project then to do it incrementally by working with separate land owners. It is far easier for one developer to buy out everything and redevelop everything at once. Now don’t get me wrong, when implemented right, these TOD projects are wildly successful but I have not seen one project yet that was able to keep the existing culture of the neighborhood.
The challenge for planners today is to make TOD work for the inner-city and not only for the new proposed residents. The solution for neighborhood revitalization can no longer be bringing in a new group of higher income to make the neighborhood better. This game of spatial mismatch has to end because there is no more developmental space in our metro areas to push people around anymore. Gentrification in our cities is now pushing out the working class, who depend on transit out of cities into the suburbs while suburbanites are now moving back to downtowns and cities with the choice of they want to use transit.
Lastly developers and planners must realize that people make neighborhoods and not buildings. While it is sad that layers of architectural history get removed for bland architecture that looks the same from Dallas to Boston, the razing of buildings does not mean the razing of the culture of that neighborhood and you develop the land as if it were a clean slate. And simply reclaiming some past vestiges and relics of the neighborhood or renaming new buildings and streets after former residents does not continue the legacy of that neighborhood without the people. While as planners we will always plan for the future to make better neighborhoods, we must always remember to plan for the needs of the people and not to the needs of a concept or theory.
Thanks for reading!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Battle for Harlem
An interesting take on gentrification in Harlem. A lot has been written about this in the New York media. I don't agree with all the comments made from both sides of the argument but I will say that change is inevitable. How much change should happen at once is debateble and a debate that is happening in many inner cities of America from D.C. to Chicago to Los Angeles.
The New Urbanist Church
I don't know about this one.
This article covers how some urban churches are embracing new urbanism in order to bring more worshippers from the changing community. The article quotes:
"In meeting the challenges of revitalized urban neighborhoods across the country, urban churches are rethinking the ways they connect with their adjacent communities, combining an eclectic mix of edgy art and ancient Christian traditions."
The article goes on to state:
"To connect with the new urbanites, churches in their midst reflect a potent blend of artistic integrity, authentic community and groundedness—a sense of place that might surprise suburban dwellers—while also navigating the tricky terrain of increased diversity and toleration. "
“The creative class moves around a lot, and so they’re attracted by the idea of being rooted...”
Click here for the entire article. Overall this was a very interesting article about how some urban churches are now reaching out to the creative class and crossing all types of geographic, cultural and class lines. Historically the urban church has had a sometimes peculiar relationship with their communities. They have either been or continue to be the pillars of their community or the pillar of a community that no longer lives there. The latter can be witnessed by many catholic and predominantly black churches whose congregations have left the physical church's community decades ago. It is not uncommon for these particular churches to have conflict with the existing neighborhood who feels the church may not be advocating their interests, or may feel the large numbers of visiting parishioners are a nuisance.
With that being said, can the new urbanist church now reach out to members of their community who are now returning back to the city? Maybe, maybe not. I have always been somewhat critical of the new urbanist movement for the lacking diversity and often triggering gentrification. Can the new urbanist church really pull across socio-economic lines or will it just the upper echelons of the creative class and gentrifiers?
What are your thoughts?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The End of White Flight
The Wall Street Journal recently printed an article about the End of White Flight based on the small increases of whites returning to cities and the fairly significant decreases of blacks in cities moving to the suburbs. The article covers the many challenges cities have to face with a changing population such as changing social norms, loss of heritage, conflict in cultural traditions and the redistricting of school students. Other challenges that cities face is the rising rate of poverty among the city's poor neighborhoods as the black middle class moves and take jobs to the suburbs and affluent whites come to other impoverished neighborhood and price the poor out.
The End of White Flight will continue to have major impacts on how cities are viewed and planned as the shift of whites moving toward cities and blacks moving to the suburbs will significantly change the spatial dynamics of cities. Old cultural traditions will end and be furiously fought for and new ones will arise in unfamiliar places.
To read the rest of the article, click here. And please respond and tell us your thoughts.
The End of White Flight will continue to have major impacts on how cities are viewed and planned as the shift of whites moving toward cities and blacks moving to the suburbs will significantly change the spatial dynamics of cities. Old cultural traditions will end and be furiously fought for and new ones will arise in unfamiliar places.
To read the rest of the article, click here. And please respond and tell us your thoughts.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Gentrification in DC
Watch this movie trailer about how Washington DC aka the "Chocolate City" is losing it's color.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Universities step up to the plate of City Redevelopment
The Wall Street Journal recently wrote an article about universities across the country becoming major city developers and de facto planning commissions of their own neighborhood. The main focus of the article was on the University of Pennsylvania's (UPENN) $2 Billion redevelopment of a 42 acre parcel on the Schukill River, which separates the campus from downtown Philadelphia, that will include a 50 story plus high-rise.
Proposed UPENN redevelopment site
Focusing on UPENN, which has been lauded by many developers and universities outside of Philadelphia for successful redevelopment and partnership with surrounding neighborhoods and the university, leads the question of whether having universities as a developer or a de facto city planning agency is ultimately a good thing for cities.
The answer would seem obvious in UPENN's example, the redevelopment of the site will bring over 4,000 new jobs and the University has the resources and capital that the city of Philadelphia does not, with UPENN almost having an operating budget larger than the entire operating budget of the city. There is a down side that is not talked about, especially in UPENN's example outside of Philadelphia. UPENN's continues growth beyond it's campus whether it's for university use or economic development growth has uprooted many long term residents and has almost totally cleared some neighborhoods original character.
While change is inevitable, many neighborhoods adjacent to UPENN feel that change is only accommodated when the old neighborhood is completely removed and their needs go unaccounted for as new residents reek the benefits of new amenities that long term residents never had. Many long term residents do not feel their neighborhood were gentrified, they feel their neighborhoods were steam rolled over by the university.
With the previous example in mind, one has to wonder about the danger of having a university, which is still a private entity take on de facto planning roles that should be handled by a city planning agency which could help better integrate existing needs of a neighborhood with the the new demands of a university. If Universities are left alone solely to be the developer they may only look out for the interests of their clientele which are the students and faculty who are a lot of times of a different socio-economic class then the residents of adjacent neighborhoods and expect different needs and services.
So what is your opinion of Universities becoming major developers or de facto planners? Has University development been successful or unsuccessful in cities where you live? Let us know.
Reclaiming a historic restaurant in Baltimore
Yesterday the Baltimore Sun reported that the Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC)reached a deal to buy the historic and iconic Chesapeake Restaurant which is located on Charles Street near Penn railroad station. BDC proposes shops, restaurants, a gallery and condos for the site.
Excerpt from the article:
"The BDC selected Station North Development Partners LLC in 2005 to build Chesapeake Square - then proposed as an estimated $40 million to $50 million project with shops, restaurants, an art gallery, subsidized artists' lofts, a 91-unit condominium tower and 11 townhouses."
This deal is not only important in providing commercial activity near Baltimore's train station which is currently almost non-existent or out of visible sight to travelers but will help invigorate the Charles North community which is sandwiched in between the prominent neighborhoods of Charles Village to the north and Mount Vernon to the south. Filling in the gap of development along Charles street can only make the corridor stronger and help revitalize the intersection of Charles Street and North Avenue, which is one of the city's most prominent intersections but has been in decline for the last three to four decades.
Currently there are some positive signs that the crucial intersection of Charles St. and North Ave. is coming back online with the redevelopment of the North Avenue Market site but there is still signs of a weak market with the failed redevelopment of condos on Calvert Street just a few blocks away which was also in close proximity to the train station.
Hopefully, the new proposal by BDC will provide a stronger link to the train station as well as provide more density and amenities to the site and neighborhood that will attract potential residents and frequent passerbys from the city but also from the much coveted D.C. commuter crowd as well.
Excerpt from the article:
"The BDC selected Station North Development Partners LLC in 2005 to build Chesapeake Square - then proposed as an estimated $40 million to $50 million project with shops, restaurants, an art gallery, subsidized artists' lofts, a 91-unit condominium tower and 11 townhouses."
This deal is not only important in providing commercial activity near Baltimore's train station which is currently almost non-existent or out of visible sight to travelers but will help invigorate the Charles North community which is sandwiched in between the prominent neighborhoods of Charles Village to the north and Mount Vernon to the south. Filling in the gap of development along Charles street can only make the corridor stronger and help revitalize the intersection of Charles Street and North Avenue, which is one of the city's most prominent intersections but has been in decline for the last three to four decades.
Currently there are some positive signs that the crucial intersection of Charles St. and North Ave. is coming back online with the redevelopment of the North Avenue Market site but there is still signs of a weak market with the failed redevelopment of condos on Calvert Street just a few blocks away which was also in close proximity to the train station.
Hopefully, the new proposal by BDC will provide a stronger link to the train station as well as provide more density and amenities to the site and neighborhood that will attract potential residents and frequent passerbys from the city but also from the much coveted D.C. commuter crowd as well.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Preserving Historic Black Neighborhoods
The AP has recently written in article about the historic preservation of subdivisions that were built for blacks. This issue has often been somewhat of a touchy issue because the argument is about preserving the cultural heritage of a neighborhood instead of the aesthetic character or the significant age of the site. Factors that work against these sites in historic preservation is that some of the neighborhoods have lost their cultural significance as the black population has dwindled out or was displaced and these neighborhoods are often times not as old as the typical historic neighborhoods already in the inventory of historic places.
Many historic, culturally rich black neighborhoods have already succumbed to development and gentrification while others are still fighting to keep their cultural identity. Examples of historically black neighborhoods that have completely lost their identity can be seen in Philadelphia in the Society Hill neighborhood which was the basis of W.E.B. Dubois's ground breaking anthropology, The Philadelphia Negro. Other neighborhoods that are struggling to maintain their identities include the iconic black neighborhoods of Compton, CA, Harlem in New York City and the Atlanta neighborhood of Dr. King which is already listed in the register of historic places.
Here's an excerpt of the article:
"Some of the early black homeowner neighborhoods around the country are trying to win historic recognition before their place in the history of homeownership fades. The residents want to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which would make them eligible for federal tax credits or grants for historic preservation. ... Persuading black property owners to seek the designation can sometimes be difficult because some equate preservation with gentrification or higher taxes."
For the entire article, click here.
So what are your thoughts on preserving neighborhoods based on their cultural identity and history?
Many historic, culturally rich black neighborhoods have already succumbed to development and gentrification while others are still fighting to keep their cultural identity. Examples of historically black neighborhoods that have completely lost their identity can be seen in Philadelphia in the Society Hill neighborhood which was the basis of W.E.B. Dubois's ground breaking anthropology, The Philadelphia Negro. Other neighborhoods that are struggling to maintain their identities include the iconic black neighborhoods of Compton, CA, Harlem in New York City and the Atlanta neighborhood of Dr. King which is already listed in the register of historic places.
Here's an excerpt of the article:
"Some of the early black homeowner neighborhoods around the country are trying to win historic recognition before their place in the history of homeownership fades. The residents want to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which would make them eligible for federal tax credits or grants for historic preservation. ... Persuading black property owners to seek the designation can sometimes be difficult because some equate preservation with gentrification or higher taxes."
For the entire article, click here.
So what are your thoughts on preserving neighborhoods based on their cultural identity and history?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
For the Baltimoreans
The State Center Redevelopment Project
The Project Vision Statement from the State Center's website cites:"The State Center redevelopment offers the rare chance to build on the tremendous economic power of the State's office presence in Baltimore and knit together existing transit, cultural, institutional, university and neighborhood assets.
The ultimate vision for the State Center is a diverse, inclusive, mixed-use income community that promotes public transportation, maximizes the use and interest in public open spaces and provides for an active, walkable street environment..."
The website cites that the ultimate goal is to connect and integrate the State's office complex with the surrounding neighborhoods and in the process become on of the City's most attractive arts, entertainment, retail and residential districts.
The State Center will be a huge project for revamping downtown Baltimore's northwest edge as well as providing a boost to the culture rich neighborhoods of Mt. Vernon and Bolton Hill and to the MLK transit corridor. But what will this redevelopment project mean for the adjacent McCulloh Homes community? Will the pressure of redevelopment ultimately threaten their community to be redeveloped as market-priced Housing?
What are your thoughts? Feel free to comment, especially for those who were able to attend the January 23rd public meeting.
For more Information, click here.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Big Box Stores and the Inner City
The rise of the Big Box store came into vogue in the American suburbs in the late 1970’s into the 1980’s and has become a staple of suburbs ever since. While as city planners, we are not crazy about the one-story, single land use that consumes so much land with floor space and parking, it can not be denied that these stores are profitable.
Unfortunately, big box stores have been reluctant to say the least to open stores within the inner-city. While many cite factors such as the inner city being not the right clientele or crime, others have simply stated inner city neighborhoods do not have the floor space and acreage available to meet their standard building footprints.
Recently, many big box retail chains have started to invest in cities and have modified their typical building size with smaller square footage, multiple floors and reduced parking or parking garages. The question we pose with this new trend is - Do big box stores hurt cities?
Cities by nature combine several land uses on a single property and will have smaller retail stores competing with each other which often lowers prices and provides better services to customers. Big box stores which were created under the Euclidean zoning of the suburbs do just the opposite of what urban retail is tailored for.
We all know that big box retail has a tendency to make local stores go out of business but what is your opinion of big box stores when they go into depressed markets that have very limited retail? Will the big box store create a market where only large retail can survive or do you believe that a big box store can be a generator of economic growth in the inner city?
What are your thoughts?
Unfortunately, big box stores have been reluctant to say the least to open stores within the inner-city. While many cite factors such as the inner city being not the right clientele or crime, others have simply stated inner city neighborhoods do not have the floor space and acreage available to meet their standard building footprints.
Recently, many big box retail chains have started to invest in cities and have modified their typical building size with smaller square footage, multiple floors and reduced parking or parking garages. The question we pose with this new trend is - Do big box stores hurt cities?
Cities by nature combine several land uses on a single property and will have smaller retail stores competing with each other which often lowers prices and provides better services to customers. Big box stores which were created under the Euclidean zoning of the suburbs do just the opposite of what urban retail is tailored for.
We all know that big box retail has a tendency to make local stores go out of business but what is your opinion of big box stores when they go into depressed markets that have very limited retail? Will the big box store create a market where only large retail can survive or do you believe that a big box store can be a generator of economic growth in the inner city?
What are your thoughts?
More examples:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
For the Baltimoreans
Fells Point's Recreation Pier to be turned into a Hotel
Recreation Pier in Fells point maybe recognized to many outside of Baltimore as the police station in NBC's hit show, "Homicide: Life on the Street," but to Baltimoreans, the pier was a historic landmark that was anchor not only to Fells Point but to the waterfront as well.
Today the city of Baltimore is preparing to sell the pier and it's historic structure to developers who will develop the property into a new W Hotel and restaurant. The developers will also make costly repairs to the pier which is deteriorating and poses a risk to the foundation of this historic structure. The proposed hotel will have 130 rooms and a restaurant on the top floor over looking harbor.
For more info on the Recreation Pier and Fells Point, click here.
Save 1520 Sedgwick Avenue... aka the Birthplace of Hip Hop
There is an ongoing battle in the Bronx to save 1520 Sedgwick Avenue, the housing project known for giving birth to hip hop back in 1973. In August 1973, Kool Herc, known as the founder of hip hop, threw what was to be the first hip hop house party in history. Scholars, musicians, and the media now recognize 1520 Sedgwick Avenue, aka General Sedgwick House, in the Bronx borough of New York City, as the birthplace of hip hop, a uniquely American musical genre and culture that has taken over the world.
The owner plans to remove the building from its affordable housing program and hand it over to private investors for market rate housing. DJ Kool Herc and Senator Charles Schumer have stepped in to help residents take control and preserve the property as a national cultural landmark, but they need your help in saving what is affectionately known as Sedgwick & Cedar.
For more info Click here.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Hip Hop & City Planning Series
Like no other music before or after it, Hip Hop intrinsically belongs to the city. Hip Hop was birthed in the city, lives in the city and could not have been started anywhere else but the city.
Other musical genres have their meccas of their musical art, be it Jazz from New Orleans, Country in Nashville, the Blues of Memphis or the Rhythm of Motown...but while these cities that drew in artists from all over the map to help spread their genre's music, HIP HOP was started purely by city residents, for city residents with out any outside influences.
In short, Hip Hop is a product of the city. Similarly to the Blues, Hip Hop begun from the spirit of the havenots and the burdened. The economic conditions of people from both genres helped inspire the melodies, songs and messages of their plight, glory and spirit. However, Hip Hop as a genre itself was created from it's own economic conditions. The lack of money for instruments, music training or even music programs in city schools inspired city youth to come up with their own music and their own sound without instruments.
Hip Hop began when DJ's took the drum solo or break beat of a record from another genre and began scratching the record back and forth to extend the break beat into a grove. Once the beat was sampled, people began to make simple rhymes to them while the kids who danced to the break beats, who were called B-Boys created their own dance that we know of as Breakdancing. Along with graffiti, all the elements of the Hip Hop culture formed creating a new genre of music straight from the city.
What this series will look at is the influence that city planning and government programs had on cities that created the conditions that Hip Hop was created from. This series will look all the way back to Urban Renewal, and the affect that these programs had in creating housing projects as well as "Blight Removal" programs which targeted minority neighborhoods. This series will look back to the effects that "Reagonomics" had on cities and the poor. The dramatic impact of the crack cocaine era and its affects on Hip Hip will be explored and lastly the series will look at gentrification in cities today.
This should be an interesting series and as always we would love to hear people's responses and comments.
Other musical genres have their meccas of their musical art, be it Jazz from New Orleans, Country in Nashville, the Blues of Memphis or the Rhythm of Motown...but while these cities that drew in artists from all over the map to help spread their genre's music, HIP HOP was started purely by city residents, for city residents with out any outside influences.
In short, Hip Hop is a product of the city. Similarly to the Blues, Hip Hop begun from the spirit of the havenots and the burdened. The economic conditions of people from both genres helped inspire the melodies, songs and messages of their plight, glory and spirit. However, Hip Hop as a genre itself was created from it's own economic conditions. The lack of money for instruments, music training or even music programs in city schools inspired city youth to come up with their own music and their own sound without instruments.
Hip Hop began when DJ's took the drum solo or break beat of a record from another genre and began scratching the record back and forth to extend the break beat into a grove. Once the beat was sampled, people began to make simple rhymes to them while the kids who danced to the break beats, who were called B-Boys created their own dance that we know of as Breakdancing. Along with graffiti, all the elements of the Hip Hop culture formed creating a new genre of music straight from the city.
What this series will look at is the influence that city planning and government programs had on cities that created the conditions that Hip Hop was created from. This series will look all the way back to Urban Renewal, and the affect that these programs had in creating housing projects as well as "Blight Removal" programs which targeted minority neighborhoods. This series will look back to the effects that "Reagonomics" had on cities and the poor. The dramatic impact of the crack cocaine era and its affects on Hip Hip will be explored and lastly the series will look at gentrification in cities today.
This should be an interesting series and as always we would love to hear people's responses and comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)