Alex Baca - Greater Greater Washington

GGW discusses: Displacement versus gentrification

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:22:00 EDT

Yesterday, Erik Weber, David Garber, and Eric Fidler reacted to the NPR story about two people who chose not to live in Anacostia. In our discussion, other contributors had some broader thoughts about displacement, gentrification, and the difference between the two.

Photo by sebat85 on Flickr.

Alex Baca writes:

There is no stable definition of gentrification. Ask anyone—your neighbor, your colleague, your parents, your friends—and you'll wind up with explanations that feel the same, but just don't quite match up.¹

One thing common to many definitions of gentrification, both in academic and popular discourse, is that it often becomes a synonym, or at the very least a signifier, for the process of displacement.²

Gentrification and displacement aren't the same and should not be inextricably linked as frequently as they are, because it is possible for a neighborhood to "gentrify" without substantially displacing its long-term residents. Part of this thought is drawn from the fact that there is little quantitative work or research done on displacement.³

There are no exit surveys when one sells their house or ends their lease, so there is no real way of telling precisely why someone has left, and whether or not they left against their will. Say a son or daughter of a home's original owner, who has since passed away, sells the property because they aren't personally interested in it or, say an apartment complex is bought, developed into condos, and sold at prices far out of the range of the inital residents.

Both scenarios look like displacement once they're said and done, but they are wildly different. So, discussions of displacement, and whatever's causing it, inevitably become based on our personal experiences and anecdotal evidence, because we've got nothing else to work with.

Gentrification has also come to imply long-term, poor African Americans kicked out of their neighborhood by unsympathetic, middle-class whites. If you, as I do, consider gentrification a class-based, rather than race-based, process (it is, after all, about who can afford the mortgage), then this trope loses some of its steam.

Veronica Davis says:

Somehow somewhere, gentrification has become a code for "young, middle-class white people" moving into the a poor, black neighborhoods. In my examination of "Gentrification East of the River, I explored how it is disingenuous to discuss the concept of "gentrification" without acknowledging that people move in and our of a community for many reasons and based on personal preferences.

There have been articles on the influx of white residents in DC and the impact on neighborhood demographics. In my Hillcrest sub-neighborhood of Fairfax Village, most of the new residents are young, professional and black. Neighborhoods in Ward 7's Southeast have seen an increase in young, white families moving into the single family homes. Some of them relocated from other parts of the city in search of a larger house and a lawn.

It's important to point out in these middle class neighborhoods, many white families didn't leave during the era of "white flight" to the suburbs. Is a white middle class family purchasing from a black middle class family "gentrification"? Or is it just a family making a decision to sell and another family making a decision to buy?

¹ It's true in academia, too: Loretta Lees' Gentrification borrows heavily from Neil Smith's The Revanchist City when defining the word, but winds up with something quite different. In Turf Wars, Gabriella Gahlia Modan sticks her perceptions in a footnote. Alexander von Hoffman, in House by House, Block by Block, doesn't even bother with saying what it is or isn't at all.

If the academics can't agree, no wonder common discourse has trouble with consistency, too! I find that the best way to address gentrification is to assume everyone has their own, intensely personal, definition of what it is and how it works.

² The exceptions on the academic side are Alexander von Hoffman and Lance Freeman.

³ Lance Freeman's There Goes the 'Hood is the only example I know of. In it, Freeman finds that long-term residents of a micro-area of Harlem have chosen to stay in their neighborhood, rather than leave, because the amenities they've waited for finally began to arrive when the neighborhood "gentrified."

62 comments

GGW discusses: Displacement and NPR in Anacostia (Feb 16, 2011)
Gentrification east of the river, pt. 2: Economic development (Nov 9, 2010)
GGW discusses: The focus on Anacostia (Feb 21, 2011)
Gentrification east of the river, pt. 1: Organic and inorganic (Nov 8, 2010)
Gentrification east of the river, pt. 3: Role of the community (Nov 11, 2010)

Urban hipster? Long-time resident? We all need an affordable place to live

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:26:00 EDT

by Stephen Miller and Alex Baca

How does a growing city ensure that affordable housing is available to its population? As DC gains population for the first time in decades, we must take advantage of creative new tools and cross class and cultural boundaries if the city wants to be affordable for all.

Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.

Tuesday's Coalition for Smarter Growth forum, "Urban Hipsters and Long-time Residents Unite! Housing Strategies to Preserve Mixed Income Neighborhoods as DC Grows," featured David Bowers of Enterprise Community Partners and DC planning director Harriet Tregoning.

The speakers discussed the city's changing demographics, various affordable housing tools at the city's disposal and the role transportation plays in ensuring affordability. The bottom line is that, as Bowers said, "whether you've been here 40 years or if you just got off the Bolt Bus from New York... we all have the need for safe, decent affordable housing."

David Bowers is a minister, and his oration shows it. Standing before the audience, Bowers told stories: of an African American couple in their 70's that moved to the District five decades ago, when they were redlined out of certain neighborhoods; of growing up all too aware of the 8th & H gang; of his coworker, a 25-year-old Georgetown graduate who lives with friends and volunteers at her church. He punctuated the end of each anecdote with, "And that's DC!"

The point? As Bowers says, "DC is a diverse city that has changed over time and will continue to change." That change includes housing. "People have been priced out of neighborhoods, not by some nefarious plan, but by the market... It's not going to be static."

Bowers also serves as the vice president and impact market leader for Enterprise Community Partners, Inc., which through its Continuum of Housing Campaign, works to promote a diverse mix of housing that can accommodate low- and moderate-income earners.

During his presentation, he asserted three key points critical to that end: acknowledging that all people have inherent worth and deserve dignity and respect; all people have the need for safe, decent affordable housing; and that all housing is affordable, but the question is, "for whom?"

Tregoning's presentation, in contrast to Bowers', was filled with data points on the District's demographics. Since 1960, the District lost 200,000 people, with some neighborhoods in the city's core losing up to 50 percent of their population. Within the past decade, however, DC has been regaining population. The release of 2010 Census data later this month is expected to show the population again surpassing the 600,000 mark.

"I like to think of Washington as the city of the future," Tregoning said. With our smaller household sizes and concentrations of both recent college graduates and retirees, "we already have the demographics of the United States in 2050," she said. "Part of the challenge is to right-size our housing stock so we can have the type of housing that matches the needs of our residents." For example, Tregoning pointed out, the multi-unit building she inhabits in Columbia Heights used to be a single-family home.

Photo by smartergrowthdc on Flickr.

Along with this changing population comes a change in how District residents get around. When compared to our region, DC residents are three times less likely to own car and three times more likely to walk to work. And while the city's population grew by 1.7 percent between 2005 and 2008, the number of motor vehicle registrations dropped by nearly 6 percent during the same period.

What does transportation have to do with affordable housing? First, the cost of parking is usually bundled with new housing, even if homeowners or tenants don't have cars. In DC, only 65 percent of households own a car, and in neighborhoods like Columbia Heights that plummets to only 20 percent. Developers often overestimate how much parking is actually needed, and in other cases parking minimums require developers to spend lots of money to build parking spaces. Structured parking, for example, costs between $35,000 and $50,000 per space. That's a high cost to include in the price of housing.

Second, reducing transportation expenses to households makes living in our region more affordable for everyone's bottom line. Washington-area households in neighborhoods well-served by transit spend an average of $9,000 per year on transportation, while the regional average is closer to $19,000. In some car-dependent areas of our region, households spend up to $25,000 per year on transportation.

Don't believe it? Ask AAA, which estimates the annual cost of car ownership at over $9,500. It's easy to see that car-free and car-lite households save money on transportation, and households in denser areas like the District have access to more transportation options.

Because housing and other land-use issues are inescapably linked to transportation, these related costs should be factored together when considering affordability. Especially in DC, where the median income is lower than the region at large, increased transportation costs have a dramatic impact.

Already, 90,000 households in the city pay more than a third of income to housing, while 47,000 households spend more than 50 percent of income on housing. Ensuring low transportation costs is especially important for these families.

Tregoning said that the city's transportation efforts—such as more transit options and better places to walk and bike—aim to reduce household expenses. 40 percent of all DC auto trips are 3 miles or less. "Those trips can be converted to walking, biking, or transit trips," Tregoning said. "I don't expect anyone to make an extraordinary effort" to bike, walk or use transit, she said. It's up to the city to ensure that "for many trips, it should make more sense and be easier" to use modes that save residents money.

Both speakers mentioned inclusionary zoning (IZ) as the primary tool that could be used to keep housing in the District affordable and diverse. The city's IZ policy was enacted in 2006, when data demonstrated that, as Tregoning said, "we were either re-segregating the city or reinforcing the segregation" through development patterns. Currently, all new construction of 10 or more units must set aside 8-12% of those units as affordable housing.

In the future, and when the economy rebounds, Tregoning suggested that as many as, if not more than, 170 units per year would be set aside for households earning between $32,000 and $80,000. And, per the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative's mandate, new construction in some East of the River communities must comprise of at least 30% affordable units.

Though inclusionary zoning has its detractors, it's not just a hot topic for the Office of Planning. Mayor-Elect Vince Gray has repeatedly referenced IZ as a way to mitigate potentially skyrocketing housing costs. IZ is here to stay for the foreseeable future. If wielded effectively, it should keep the District more affordable than it would be otherwise.

Beyond the statistics and the programs, the most important takeaway from the forum was Bowers' call for engagement. "Get informed and get involved," he told the audience. "These conversations about the urban hipster vs. the long-time resident, black vs. white, black vs. Latino—that divides." The city's chances of overcoming these challenges, he said, hinges on involvement from a cross-section of its population.

Bowers encouraged forum attendees to substantively engage in places where not everyone looks or talks like them. He counseled the audience never to be apologetic in the face of hostility as they attempt to bridge the city. As complex as housing policy can be, it begins with simple discussions. "Start talking with people," Bowers preached, "instead of about people."

22 comments

Still not inclusionary: Council blasts Fenty's inaction (May 1, 2009)
Delay scuttles affordable housing at 14th and U (Jul 28, 2008)
Keep inclusionary zoning housing affordable (Sep 22, 2010)
"Affordable housing for cars" (Sep 19, 2008)
A demographic portrait of the District: 2008 (Oct 5, 2009)

Wal-Mart, urban design, Main Street, jobs, and eye care

Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:56:00 EDT

by Alex Baca

Wal-Mart is planning four stores in the District, in areas varying in walkability from dense New Jersey and H Streets, NW to Brightwood and East Capitol to the very auto-oriented New York Avenue.

Photo by Fernando Stankuns on Flickr.

Lydia DePillis has stayed on top of one question on the minds of many who care about walkable development: could these Wal-Marts be friendly to the urban landscape, or just more "Sprawl-Mart"?

So far, Wal-Mart has rarely built good urban models. It takes some lobbying for them to sacrifice surface parking and embrace multi-story buildings (see this rendering of the Wal-Mart planned in Baltimore City), despite the way a company of such magnitude ought to at least fake an interest in good urban building practices.

Of course, Wal-Mart's impact will go far beyond the built environment. Will it be good or bad for DC?

Wal-Mart forces suppliers to cut their prices down to the bone, which negatively effects the national and international economy. Wal-Mart isn't "Main Street"-friendly, and a healthy, diverse commercial corridor is important to the vitality of a dense, urban neighborhood.

My largest concern is that Wal-Mart will obliterate any efforts to jump-start a hyper-local economy. Empty storefronts are a big issue. In working in Anacostia, I've realized that getting a business into a formerly-empty space makes people feel good about their neighborhood. ANC 8C commissioner William Ellis had hoped Wal-Mart would look at Howard Road, by the Anacostia Metro, because of the 295/395 access. It's fortunate that's not one of the sites since it would also stall the renaissance that is, albeit slowly, finally looking possible for Good Hope Road and Martin Luther King Boulevard.

Many individuals that I've spoken with in Anacostia are interested in seeing their commercial corridor turn into more than empty storefronts (of which there are more than a few). But, Wal-Mart is not going to fill up any existing empty spaces. It's going to plunk itself down somewhere with plenty of yardage and make people come to it. Wal-Mart makes you feel good about saving money, but it's not your neighbor.

In marginalized communities, banks consider necessary loans too high-risk to grant, or the entrepreneur thinks there won't be a strong enough customer base. The presence of Wal-Mart could alleviate those concerns. But, it could also singlehandedly quash organic growth in the area. This could be most problematic in the location planned for Georgia and Missouri Avenues, an area where Wal-Mart could leave empty many small-business storefronts.

However, the behemoth will bring jobs. Underserved parts of DC need jobs and "Main Street" can't provide stable employment on such a massive scale. Though the DC Council will probably have to force them do to it, Wal-Mart can afford to pay hundreds of workers a living wage. Given the overhead costs for Mom and Pop, living wages are not always a possibility.

There's already a Wal-Mart inside the Beltway in Prince George's, and the District is likely losing tax revenue because people drive out there now, as it is. Shouldn't we keep that local?

Though there are more than a few criticisms of the way the Wal-Mart brings goods and services, they do put those amenities within the reach of shoppers who might not otherwise afford it. Those with groceries, like the ones planned for DC, can make fresh produce accessible. Some Wal-Marts even offer eye examinaions and fill contact lens orders. If one-stop shop also includes better access to optical care, that's beneficial.

In 2004, Ward 5 residents thwarted a potential effort from Wal-Mart; the company then claimed the space they were looking to occupy was actually too small. There's plenty to hate—and conversely, plenty to love—about Wal-Mart, but this time its impending arrival is inevitable. Locations are coming en masse and the economy is not as flush as it was six years ago. Despite evidence that indicates that the number of jobs the retailer provides is harder to calculate than it seems, turning down Wal-Mart will look like turning down a couple hundred job opportunities. That doesn't look good for anyone beholden to a constituency that's largely out of work.

Given the circumstances, the best we can do is demand that, when Wal-Mart hulks its way into the District in 2012, it offer our residents living wages and a well-designed, urban-friendly space.

37 comments

Will Wal-Mart be urban? Part 3: New Jersey Avenue (Nov 24, 2010)
Will Wal-Mart be urban? Part 1: Brightwood (Nov 21, 2010)
Will Thomas push for local business and good urban design? (Dec 28, 2010)
Terrible Aldi design shows need for new parking zoning (Dec 15, 2010)
Will Wal-Mart be urban? Part 2: New York Avenue (Nov 23, 2010)

Gentrification needn't displace if we do more than shrug

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:49:00 EDT

by Alex Baca

Megan McArdle, the Atlantic's business and economics editor, has purchased a property in Eckington (after a challenging real estate search). Her latest post, titled "The Gentrifier's Lament," is a brief glance toward her contribution to the neighborhood.

Photo by rockcreek on Flickr.

It's laudable to raise the question of one's location in a gentrifiying neighborhood—those of us who live in or might move into a such a neighborhood should be self-reflexive about our presence. But McArdle simply shrugs her shoulders at the issue, assuming the effects and changes her investment will bring are inevitable. They're not, and potential gentrifiers need to talk about the real issues and policies that can solve them.

Eckington, McArdle explains, is "euphemistically known as a 'mixed' neighborhood, where poor black residents who have lived there for a generation or more exist somewhat uncomfortably side-by-side with more affluent whites who are drawn to the relatively cheap rents and lovely Victorian housing stock."

She gets to the real lamenting by the post's end:

"I have no idea how you could stop this process. To keep our neighborhoods the way [Jane] Jacobs and I liked them would involve massive coercion not just of real estate owners, but of merchants, food vendors...everyone in the network of service providers that supports a neighborhood. The more people like me who move into my current neighborhood, the more services the neighborhood will attract—and those, in turn, will bring further waves of gentrifiers who will use their higher incomes to drive up rents, home prices, and the assessed values upon which property taxes are based.
I want the services, but I don't want this to price out all the people who already live there. Unfortunately, it's a package deal."

I've complained before that McArdle takes a rather reductionist and simplistic view towards gentrification, and her latest piece is no exception. She boils gentrification down to middle-class (and likely white) buyers moving in, displacing poor (and likely African American) residents. Note that she does not specify whether she believes her neighbors do or do not own their homes. Neighborhood change, whether it's gentrification or not, extends far beyond this assumed black/white binary—especially in cities other than DC.

McArdle argues that stereotypical gentrifiers move into neighborhoods expecting goods and services to open in their wake, and consequently jack up the cost of living for those who can least afford it. This is a real problem, one that's been seen in, among other neighborhoods, Shaw, Petworth, and Columbia Heights. But she simply shrugs her shoulders. She seems completely comfortable with accepting the status quo: That because gentrification has almost always traditionally resulted in displacement, there's no way to stop the process now.

Gentrification doesn't always have to equal displacement, and there's no room for lament when the real problem of the latter needs some attention. True, one person alone can't enact a city-wide inclusionary zoning policy or demand that a developer include a substantial amount of mixed-income units in their next project, but one person can at least change their attitude.

McArdle includes in her post chunks of an essay by her colleague Benjamin Schwartz, which argues that the ideal Jane Jacobean neighborhood possesses the following qualities—and almost certainly does not exist:

"...An architecturally interesting enclave holds in ephemeral balance the emerging and the residual. Such neighborhoods still contain a sprinkling of light industry and raffish characters, for urban grit, and a dash of what [Sharon] Zukin calls 'people of color,' for exotic diversity. Added to the melange are lots and lots of experimental artists (for that boho frisson) and a generous but not overwhelming portion of right-thinking designers, publishing types, architects, and academics, and the one-of-a-kind boutiques and innovative restaurants that will give them places to shop and brunch."

All Schwartz's essay serves to do is reinforce stereotypical images of gentrification, which distract from the problem at the heart of the process: Displacement. Instead of taking the McArdle approach and throwing our hands in the air, exclaiming that "we have no idea how to stop this," we should be encouraging our local leaders in policy and government to be prescient and knowledgeable of neighborhoods that might see substantial economic and demographic change in the future.

Housing Complex reported yesterday that Anacostia recently received a $3 million dollar grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Sustainable Communities Funding, via the District Department of Housing and Community Development. DHCD's intended use for the grant demonstrates precisely the kind of prescience needed from local authorities that can influence neighborhood change:

"This project's main goal is to anchor the existing residents of Historic Anacostia, which will not be affordable in another decade unless direct, explicit and significant actions and investments are made to ensure a continued supply of affordable housing. This will be accomplished by: 1) Bolstering homeownership, particularly historic properties, and maintaining affordable options; 2) Promoting commercial redevelopment and entrepreneurship and enhancing job readiness, with a particular focus on leveraging the area's current assets and the developments occurring nearby to create economic opportunities; 3) Expanding job opportunities to help current residents better afford housing; and 4) Enhancing resident participation."

DHCD is taking a step in the right direction with Anacostia. Time will tell whether or not the grant money shakes out fairly, but in the meantime, let's be sure to carefully delineate between gentrification and displacement—and quit lamenting.

82 comments

Gentrification east of the river, pt. 2: Economic development (Nov 9, 2010)
Gentrification east of the river, pt. 1: Organic and inorganic (Nov 8, 2010)
Cities are more than just poverty (Dec 19, 2007)
"Clybourne Park" raises gentrification's tough questions (Apr 5, 2010)
When a "ghetto" is not a "ghetto" (Jun 16, 2009)

Great Hall's new look could accentuate its past

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:28:00 EDT

by Alex Baca

Having spent most of my life in the DC area, I have a good stock of memories of things that I found particularly impressive or pleasing: Meridian Hill Park, rowhomes in Capitol Hill, the Tidal Basin, and seeing the Washington Monument at night have stuck, indelibly, in my head.

Photo by A. Strakey on Flickr.

Union Station is the train terminal for DC, and it's historic, too. It should be on my personal list of attractive, engaging sights. But when I rode Amtrak in and out last weekend, it was as unremarkable as ever. Unfortunately, the station was marked by dim lighting, low ceilings, an unattractive boarding area, and a Great Hall marred by an ill-lit and looming Center Cafe.

The plans put forth by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) massively shake up the space's current status quo. Housing Complex's Lydia DePillis reviewed the issue on Monday: The proposal includes a 1,300-square foot "hole" cut into the floor of the Great Hall. Elevators and stairs running through the "hole" will connect all three stories, and the Center Cafe will be elevated from its current height. Much of the design appears to use glass, which will make new structure less obtrusive.

Needless to say, this proposal is distinctly unlike the rest of Union Station, and DC's preservationist strongholds—including the Capitol Hill Restoration Society, the Committee of 100, and the DC Preservation League—are not pleased.

Dozens of comments were submitted in opposition to the proposal as part of the Historic Preservation Act's Section 106 public review process. The bulk of the comments aren't necessarily anti-change: Many express a desire to return the floorplan to one that recalls the station's appearance in the 1940's. This would require the complete removal of the Center Cafe and would move all ticketing to the Great Hall. The oft-repeated refrain in the public comments is that that's how Union Station was intended to be laid out, similar to other train stations of the era.

But, I think Union Station's redevelopment is a prime opportunity to seize hold of an innovative design, while integrating some of the space's more traditional aspects—and the USRC plan for the Great Hall's floor does just that. Train stations across the country look as they did in the early 20th century. Why does Union Station need to be just like Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, Denver's Union Station, or Los Angeles' Union Station?

This proposal retains most of Union Station's original qualities, such as its vaulted ceiling, vendor stands, and benches, while giving the center of the space a considerate and timely upgrade.

Current and proposed center cafe overlayed.
Image from Union Station Redevelopment Corporation.

All of the proposed changes for the Great Hall are well within the "non-historic floor". The glass structure will visually and physically open the space: It's slimmer than the existing Center Cafe platform, which should open up sightlines in what's currently a low-feeling, harsh space. The current Center Cafe doesn't draw a viewer's eye toward the vaulted ceiling, but a glass column probably would. It will improve handicap access and promises better signage. And, the glass and light should certainly enhance what's currently a rather dismal dining experience in the food court.

Though the DC Preservation League has taken Union Station's redevelopment plan as an opportunity to publicize their fundraising efforts via a contest with the National Trust for Historic Preservation's This Place Matters campaign, DePillis reports that the League doesn't have any plans for how they'd spend the money (and that they might spend it on projects unrelated to Union Station). Essentially, their campaign for the $25,000 unlimited grant is based on the fact that Union Station's growth and change should be stuck in the 1940s and 1950s.

Preservation does not need to be a process that relegates spaces merely to the way things once were. Instead, it should be a chance to smoothly combine what we do now with the way things once were. This "pit"—which bears little resemblance to the 1970s-era audio-visual display "pit" that the DC Preservation League and others operate in fear of—could give Union Station truly unique qualities that would stick in its visitors' heads.

A building's physical characteristics don't deserve to remain stagnant; preservation should be reflexive, honoring our past but incorporating the change of present. Union Station is a real, living space, not a memorial, and thousands of users engage with it daily. Instead of giving those users what any other train station could give them, why not take the opportunity to create a brand-new experience and an individual identity for Union Station?

47 comments

Should Union Station's Great Hall be less great? (Aug 26, 2010)
This hall isn't your hall (Jan 22, 2009)
Why all the wailing over the Union Station railyard project? (Jan 24, 2011)
Let's write a better historic preservation law, part 3 (Aug 15, 2008)
Now and Future: Results Gym (Aug 13, 2009)