Interesting commentary but I will disagree w/one thing. I believe that the dangerous assumption in using (simply) the economic definition is not that it assumes people of color are poor, I think it's moreso an assumption that people of color lack the same "value-added" than those who aren't.

This may cause some heartburn for people of color who naturally fit the gentrifier mold but see no "value added" by their presence in these areas or at a minimum whose value aren't discussed in the same manner.

by HogWash on Jun 28, 2011 2:40 pm • link • report

Why then, is it always presented as "white folks kicking black/brown folks out of 'their' neighborhoods"? No one seems to care when a historically white neighborhood becomes less so (more diverse), but when a historically black or Hispanic neighborhood becomes less-so (more diverse), it's the end of the world? I've left Asians out of the question since no one seems to care about them from either angle.

by Sam B on Jun 28, 2011 2:51 pm • link • report

Why do only the poor kids in my neighborhood throw litter on the sidewalk?

by Middle class tax payer on Jun 28, 2011 3:00 pm • link • report

In terms of fear, why are bike lanes, dog parks, and cupcakes code for white people? Why doesn't the African American community want these things?

And what would happen if gentrification were driven almost completely by higher earning African Americans displacing lower earning African Americans? Would we see the same amount of fear? I don't know of any examples of this but my gut says no. If I'm right it suggests that while gentrification is might be a change in the economic class of the neighborhood, the fear of that change is based in race.

by Steven Yates on Jun 28, 2011 3:11 pm • link • report

Gentrification has always meant whatever the affected (gentrified) group needed it to be. A few decades ago when the term was being used against rich conservatives developing the inner cities, it was all about race. Now that the progressives are faced with being labeled gentrifiers, they turn it to mean economic impacts.

by Steve on Jun 28, 2011 3:29 pm • link • report

@Steven Yates,

I'm sure you would see a lot of derogatory terms thrown around like "uppity," "oreo," etc. There is inherent fear in communities of low socioeconomic status that the smarter, wealthier, more driven folk will take over. This happens at the micro level in the schoolyard and in the macro level in urban communities. In the case, politicians and journalists like to frame the picture in black and white.

I don't understand the phrase "stopping gentrification." Gentrification is a result of economic forces at play, not an action or crime to be committed.

by cmc on Jun 28, 2011 3:32 pm • link • report

cmc's comment is a prime example of my point. 40 years ago, nobody would embrace the label of gentrification and claim it was just natural economics at work. It was a 100% pejorative term, akin to a crime against impoverished city dwellers. And it was 100% a liberal vs. conservative fight.

Now it's apparently OK to be a gentrifier. Anybody who has been alive more than 40 years will see the glaring hypocrisy.

by Steve on Jun 28, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report

Wasn't CakeLove the 1st cupcakery in DC? -- started by an African American HU alum? Is that worse for a neighborhood than a liquor store with bullet proof glass?

by Tina on Jun 28, 2011 3:40 pm • link • report

@CMC... My quote probably isn't clear out the context of the larger discussion. I wasn't saying stop economic development or neighborhood change, but how do we deal with displacement.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Jun 28, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report

Anxiety over gentrification is itself part of the free market-- the free market for votes. Politicians see that there is electoral support to be gained by complaining about gentrification.

What it basically gets down to is that the existing residents act as there own interest group which has a stake in certain policies they want maintained, and the influx of new residents dilutes and weakens the existing interest groups and start pushing for different policies.

40 years ago, nobody would embrace the label of gentrification and claim it was just natural economics at work. It was a 100% pejorative term, akin to a crime against impoverished city dwellers.

That is because it would be typically the city using eminent domain to bulldoze entire neighborhoods, displacing the renter-residents will little to no compensation, and replacing them with highrises or city government buildings in the name of "urban revitalization." It's hard to get upset about middle class people buying real estate and living there.

by JustMe on Jun 28, 2011 3:48 pm • link • report

1. Umm, duh.

2. http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-about-contested-spaces.html -- based on writings from 2004 and later.

It's class, but differences of all types--age, gender preference, level of educational attainment, etc.

3. "Stopping gentrification" is misdirected. The issue ought to be about "stopping displacement." But since (1) the general discourse on the issue is flawed so we don't see what the issues really are and (2) as a result we don't really have a decent housing policy and wide-ranging approach to this issue, we therefore get displacement big time.

4. middle class tax payer -- poor = class and it's about socialization and mores. While considered a conservative book, I like the discussion about these issues in _The Future Once Happened Here_ by Fred Siegel.

Although, shockingly a couple weeks ago I did see a white bicyclist maybe in his 30s pissing on the Metropolitan Branch Trail, and plenty of white nonpoor people seem to think expectorating in the public space is fine...

5. It happens that just yesterday I read this paper, which isn't that great, but has some interesting points here and there:

jph.sagepub.com/content/10/2/139.abstract

Of course, it's about revitalization in weak markets, and DC is a decidedly strong real estate market, which requires some different strategies like these:

Newman, Kathe, and Wyly, Elvin K. “Gentrification and Displacement Revisited: A Fresh Look at the New
York City Experience.” Research Bulletin 31. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University
of Toronto. Reprint and slight revision of Urban Studies and Shelterforce articles.

Within the paper there are a few cites for this book, _Reviving America's Forgotten Neighborhoods: An Investigation of Inner City Revitalization Efforts_ which I haven't read, but clearly I need to, especially if I ever do write a book on urban and commercial district revitalization.

Plus, the first chapter in the book _Reconsidering Jane Jacobs_ is in large part about perceived defects in JJ's work, including dealing with displacement and reproduction of spaces into high value districts.

by Richard Layman on Jun 28, 2011 3:51 pm • link • report

Article has some good points, gentrification is not simply white people moving in kicking out poor blacks. But it includes many Asians, Indians, and blacks. The key factor that is the same for all these groups is their education and access to high paying professional jobs. As this region continues to transform and it's economy becomes more oriented towards workers with higher education, gentrification will continue to occur in popular close in areas where generation y wants to live. The locals who say it's just whites kicking them out are just making the most basic assessment of several social and economic factors that are changing the dc region along with the rest of the country. If I were to give a local some advice when they worry about being displaced it would be to push your kids to get a education so that in time maybe they could afford the neighborhood they grew up in once it's totally gentrified

by Mike on Jun 28, 2011 3:51 pm • link • report

@Steve -- weren't white people who moved into "blighted" urban neighborhoods 40 years ago artists seeking space for cheap, just like in (e.g.) Detroit today? Can you give some example of an inner city area that was developed by "rich conservatives" 40 years ago that was met with opposition by "liberals"? The only type of thing I can think of that would fit that is the building of highways through city neighborhoods. I guess that was pretty egregious gentrification. But demolishing houses altogether and the demographic turnover of residences within houses is a very different story.

by Tina on Jun 28, 2011 3:51 pm • link • report

Just a clarification, the Bright book on revitalizing inner city neighborhoods is cited in the Journal of Planning History article, not the book on Jane Jacobs.

by Richard Layman on Jun 28, 2011 3:53 pm • link • report

Also another thing I understand how can the locals complain about the new unique local non-chain brew pups, restaurants, and shops popping up around the city weekly. Would they rather them to continue be liquor stores with bullet proof glass that the homeless get drunk outside all day long, & Chinese carry out with every fried food known to man. First choices sound a lot better to neighborhood vitality to me

by Mike on Jun 28, 2011 3:58 pm • link • report

Mike, the fear is, as others have mentioned, that the new retail and nightlife options you mention are the engines of displacement.

It's a sad quandary to be in -- poor people want to live in neighborhoods with nice retail and restaurants, but their experience has been that with that revived commercial life comes increased rents, new neighbors who disrupt the status quo, etc. So their only opportunity to forestall their eventual displacement is to oppose the kinds of improvements that attract gentrifiers.

by Matt W on Jun 28, 2011 4:24 pm • link • report

correction. Cakelove founder is a GW alum.

by Tina on Jun 28, 2011 4:27 pm • link • report

The issue with "gentrification" is that there are few issues. Take a look at the "hottest" neighborhoods as well as the neighborhoods seen as "up and coming." Young professionals and families want to move to these neighborhoods because they are great communities which the GGW vision embodies. They are walkable and have many transportation options (as opposed to the singular car), there is public space, a plethora of options in terms of retail, and active community involvement. Why isn't everyone rushing to live in soulless apartment superblocks on Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Massachusetts Avenues in upper Northwest instead? They are sterile and lifeless and people desire a community. The decline in the automobile centric society makes the city attractive again. For low-income people, they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But I always like to look at these neighborhoods as great economic boons to the city and the neighborhood themselves. A vital neighborhood supports small business, entrepreneurship, grocers, franchisers, and brings plentiful employment options to the community at many income and socioeconomic levels. It also severely limits the need for numerous liquor stores and check cashiers (which are undoubtedly a detriment to any neighborhood).

@Veronica,
Thanks for the clarification.

by cmc on Jun 28, 2011 4:32 pm • link • report

@Steven Yates, in terms of fear, why are bike lanes, dog parks, and cupcakes code for white people? Why doesn't the African American community want these things?

Well considering that this panel involved Veronica O. Davis, a Black women living in a black community, who likes bike lanes, dog parks and cupcakes, maybe the issue is with how you and your people mischaracterize us. This starts by correcting your friends/associates/family etc on the obvious stereotypes they likely perpetuate which enables them to form conclusion based on clearly faulty evidence.

IMO, it's utter laziness. You can read the various EOTR blogs advocating for some of the same things as we see here.

As lazy as the assumption that white people feared blacks which explains why (when Obama became president) they raided gun shops.

And what would happen if gentrification were driven almost completely by higher earning African Americans displacing lower earning African Americans?

Then it wouldn't be considered gentrification.

by HogWash on Jun 28, 2011 4:47 pm • link • report

Also another thing I understand how can the locals complain about the new unique local non-chain brew pups, restaurants, and shops popping up around the city weekly.

Ahhh, spoken like someone w/a limited connection to the city or at least lacking a certain amount of respect/understanding for those locals

by HogWash on Jun 28, 2011 4:57 pm • link • report

@Hogwash, reference to bikes, dogs and cakes as code is straight from the post;

One of the problems is a pervasive "fear undertone" that has branded "bike lanes, cupcakes, and dog parks as code for white people," said Davis who pointed to a social component of "a lot of day cares but no pre-schools" in certain neighborhoods that have a heightened fear, alertness, and sensitivity to a real or perceived encroachment of change.

S. Yates simply responded to this reported quote of what was said in the meeting.

by Tina on Jun 28, 2011 4:58 pm • link • report

Then it wouldn't be considered gentrification.

To these people it will first and always be about race.

by Aunt Jemima on Jun 28, 2011 4:59 pm • link • report

My numbers may be off, but according to the 2010 census DC WOTR is now majority white -- by a half percent point.

50.55 white
36.04 black
11% hispanic
4% asian

It never adds up to 100% because of the hispanic thing -- they can be any race.

Blacks are a majority in Wards 4 and 5. Big minority in Ward 6. Very small minorities in 1, 2 and 3.

Any discussion on this has to be based on facts and the huge numbers of blacks that left the city in the last 10 years. And the huge number of whites that moved in.

If you believe in straight lines, DC WOTR will be substantially less diverse than Arlington in 10 years. I doubt the straight line will happen because people in Wards 4 and 5 are more stable.

by charlie on Jun 28, 2011 5:23 pm • link • report

@Tina, thanks!

I understood where the comment came from. I got that. V attempted to get at the root (fear) of why those things are branded "for" white people. Steven went further and asked why the black community doesn't want those things.

Maybe he could have phrased his question differently?

by HogWash on Jun 28, 2011 5:34 pm • link • report

@HogWash

What Tina said.

I've heard the bike lane and dog park before, and wondered if it a lot of people actually feared those things or if it's a relatively small minority within the African American community. Veronica's quote would seem to suggest that it's a feeling shared by at least a sizable portion of the community.

So if we take it as true for the time being that there is this fear of dog parks and bike lanes, the question becomes why, or more specifically why do they not want these amenities? The framing I've seen in the past seems to be that they actively don't want these things, as opposed to more buses instead of bike lanes or more playgrounds instead of dog parks.

Sorry if my question came off racist, that was not my intent.

by Steven Yates on Jun 28, 2011 5:35 pm • link • report

In Baltimore and most other working class cities gentrification is wealthier whites replacing poorer whites. Why DC lets itself be bambozzled that it's a racial thing is beyond me.

Also the neighborhoods affected were originally Irish, Greek, Jewish etc. As a Greek who moved back to Greek Alley where my family owned since 1902 am I a gentrifier? I don't feel very gentry. And wealthier DC residents who move back to the Carolinas to retire and displace blue-collar residents, are they gentrifiers?

It a pointless game to get over on the guilt-trippers.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 28, 2011 5:41 pm • link • report

@ charlie

Again, the white flight from DC was in the years after 1954 and the black flight was in the years after 1968.

After those two enormous events much of the city was pretty much empty. Abandoned houses everywhere. Over half my 1400 block of S in 1975. The only populations being replaced, in most cases, were rodents and cockroaches. (Although they've held on pretty well).

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 28, 2011 5:54 pm • link • report

@Steven Yates.... Actually this was a discussion today on my neighborhood listserv. My neighbors (young and old) want economic development, better retail options and walkable communities. We have several small dogs in my neighborhood and almost everyday someone says "I wish we had a dog park".

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Jun 28, 2011 5:59 pm • link • report

@Ms V

And I guess that's part of my question. I don't see these amenities as being race dependent. But it would appear that there are those out there who do. So how big is the group that feels this way and why do they fell that way?

@Tom Coumaris

I think it becomes a race issue in DC because there really is no working class white neighborhood in DC right now. So you are basically left with rich white people displacing poor black people. Obviously this is an over generalization (there's probably some other ethnic groups thrown in there) but this one seems the most common, at least judging by the debates on the topic.

by Steven Yates on Jun 28, 2011 6:13 pm • link • report

@Tom Coumaris; I'm seen you made that argument before. I am sure you are partially correct.

My earlier statement was a bit off: there is a substantial black population in ward 1.

However, just looking WOTR at Wards 1,4,5 and 6, you see:

57,000 blacks moved out
42,000 whites moved in

as compared to 2000. Not sure about 1990.

The largest, of course, is Ward 6. 32,000 blacks moved out of ward 6, and 16,000 whites moved in.

To pretend gentrification in DC wasn't about moving blacks out is silly. It is. It will probably change, as WOTR most poor blacks are gone, and there is limited opportunity to uproot more established families.

by charlie on Jun 28, 2011 6:16 pm • link • report

@Steven Yates... I can't give qualitative data on who wants what. But there is a sizable group who wants these things.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Jun 28, 2011 6:21 pm • link • report

@Veronica - then why did you express at the meeting (as reported above) that bikes/dogs/cakes are code for white gentrifiers? Is this just a misunderstanding of the importance of that expression - that it seems more important or representative of people who are fearful of real or percieved change because you are quoted giving voice to that association (of whites and bikes/dogs/cakes)? No one really thinks that "black people" don't like bikes/dogs/cakes. That would be super ignorant. Its that these things are referenced in the post as being associated with "white gentrifiers" in the perceptions of many, and there is a fear or dislike of these things because of what they might represent (change). Surely you can see how this might lead some readers to conclude the inverse: if some people fear/don't like bike-lanes/dog-parks/cupcakeries then those same people must not want bike-lanes/dog-parks/cupcakeries in their neighborhoods.

your comment @5:59 negates the very fear/dislike/association of these things that you gave voice to at the meeting. Were you trying to help dispell that fear in the meeting? I'm just trying to understand. It sounds like in the meetg you gave voice to that association that seems to be held by many-but in so doing you were trying to dispell that fear/association?

Thanks for your help in interpreting the post.

by Tina on Jun 28, 2011 6:27 pm • link • report

As a Greek who moved back to Greek Alley where my family owned since 1902 am I a gentrifier?

The 1400 block of S was known as "Greek Alley" back in the day? For real? I had no idea. (I'm Greek-American, myself)

by JustMe on Jun 28, 2011 6:36 pm • link • report

@Tina... the fear undertone isn't part of my direct quote. That was infused by the author of this post who is blending what occurred at the panel and his own thoughts. My full comments from the panel is that somehow these things have become synonymous with white people. The fear part as John Muller has outline is that if a our community gets those things then their communities will become more attractive to higher income people and they will be displaced eventually. It gets back to the myth that Jay Greene tried to dispel that homeowners rarely get displaced because of property tax increases.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Jun 28, 2011 6:40 pm • link • report

and the Homestead Program was not in the late '90's but the mid-'70's, a fact I recall all too well.

I was chosen for one of the houses in the Logan Circle program but it's price- $19,000 was just not as good as the $25,000 I got my present home for, even though I paid twice what it had sold for 6 months earlier.

I was stupid enough to get involved with the low-interest renovation program DC had east of 15th for mid-income homeowners. After I signed the loan papers they had to obtain a contractor for me and supervise work. They didn't for two years. The Washington Star had a front story on how a young government attorney was living in a shell with no heat, an electric cord from neighbors, and showering at work because of this mess.

But the monthly payments kept coming on the loan and when DC finally got a contractor, and I had to move out for work, they told me to not worry about the payments until the work was finished and I could move back. They would roll the past due payments over into a new loan. When half the work originally called for was finished, for the original loan, making it possible to move back I phoned about setting up the repayment. I was told I had been foreclosed on the day before. Then I had to spend a year and $50,000 to fight foreclosure and eventually worked out a deal where I kept my home but had to pay the loan in cash because in the three years my income had risen over middle-income limits.

That DC program was no give-away, it was a horrible disaster.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 28, 2011 6:43 pm • link • report

@Tom Coumaris... There may have been several iterations of the program. Under the Williams administration houses under the homestead program sold for $250.00. I worked for a real estate developer who renovated two of them in Columbia Heights

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Jun 28, 2011 6:46 pm • link • report

... The fear part as John Muller has outline is that if a our community gets those things then their communities will become more attractive to higher income people and they will be displaced eventually...

Yes. Thats a conundrum. This is shared by those white artists seeking inexpensive space in abandoned neighborhoods (the kind Tom C. describes as Shaw 35 years ago with many empty houses). So, is it gentrification when white people with more money displace other whites? This is what cmc and S. Yates asked. I

by Tina on Jun 28, 2011 7:10 pm • link • report

Just @ justme

Not the block, the alley running from Swann to R Streets. Greeks had shops and cafes on the first floors in the 1700 block of 14th and lived above. The names ranged from Hafales to more famous Calomiris and Pelocanos.(George Pelecanos the crime author and "The Wire" author recently sold his family home which was the building next to the Verizon building. They had a cafe downstairs).

My cousins the Elafisides (changed their name to "Lake" !?!) owned the house next to me, 1415 S, since 1902. In my part of the alley, behind the 1800 block of 14th, Greek immigrants lived in my carriage house and the one that had been behind 1402 Swann. The George Coumaris family lived here briefly but by 1920 my house was 3 apartments, one of which had a Greek/Italian husband and an African-American wife. She was refused admittance at Providence Hospital maternity because of mixed race, but the baby, born on the lawn, came to visit me every year after I moved in for her entire life.

More history here than anyone wants to acknowledge.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 28, 2011 7:28 pm • link • report

Middle Class taxpayer, I'm not certain why the poor children in your neighborhood throw trash on the curb. I see people do this all the time and it stinks. Perhaps these children don't know the importance of community and that they too are part of that community and need to keep it clean. Perhaps they don't even feel apart of the community, after all, I don't know where you live but there are plenty of neighborhoods in DC where the police don't come when called, the fire department is slow to answer, the EMT are disorganized, and all of the good resources have been moved to upper northwest. If this is the case, perhaps the children that litter feel if others don't care about them and avoid coming to their neighborhood why should they bother? I suggest the next time you see the precious poor children throwing trash on the ground, just sit them down and have a chat. Teach them and let them know that you want them to be a part of the community and that they too are valuable regardless if their poor. :)

by Malik on Jun 28, 2011 7:45 pm • link • report

@Tina... All depends on who you ask. Some will say yes, some will say no. There will be debates until the end of time. The real question is how do we create a space for low income artists as a neighborhood is revitalized? My opening point at the panel and John used on here, we can spend energy trying to define gentrification or we can figure out how to redevelop a neighborhood sans displacement.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Jun 28, 2011 8:47 pm • link • report

A lot of overly simplistic stuff here. Having lived through different stages of gentrification here, and in Chicago and Atlanta, there are a lot of variables to consider. In Lakeview/Chicago, whites displaced Hispanics, a residual of working class whites and deinstutionalized people of varied races. In Kirkwood, Atlanta, it was whites replacing blacks, although if you went a couple neighborhoods over, middle class hipster whites replaced poorer whites and there also were neighborhoods that had never entirely lost their white populations that were going though economic succession.

In DC, places like Adams-Morgan, Brookland, and Mt Pleasant never entirely lost their white populations and much of the displacement has involved low income white renters (interns, artsy types, students). The slow gentrification that is becoming evident in places like Hillcrest involves young middle class whites replacing older middle class blacks who are cashing out at retirement. The first serious gentrifiers in LeDroit park were African-Americans who recognized the historical place of the neighborhood in Black DC.

The truly displaced, in my experience, are renters, usually those without much tenure in their places. My African-American neighbors in Atlanta who owned and were relatively young invested in their properties. The older folks did more minor upgrades but tended to eventually cash out and leave after awhile. My next door neighbors were long-term renters (20+ years) and they left after the older of the two renters moved in with family in SC because of declining health. At that point, the owner decided to renovate the house for his girlfriend. Many houses in that area were bought for back taxes--they were houses without stable owners and usually had had unstable renters with brief tenures. Those are the folks who are most affected by changing rents. Their transience often includes unstable families and other problems. People with long-term tenure in gentrifying neighborhoods seem to adapt much more and often welcome many, though not all, of the changes. I tended to be on the old timers' side in Atlanta. The local hardware was replaced by an overpriced mediocre restaurant and redoing the old commercial district included nothing useful like a drug store or a bank which would have appealed to everyone in the area, as opposed to the stuff that got built, which tended toward mediocre overpriced cafes or "winebars".

The Cakelove guy is from Cleveland Heights, Ohio---an inner ring mixed income (more mixed than anywhere in DC) and suburb with beautiful homes that experienced gentrification in some vintage neighborhoods during the 70s. I used to live there. Of all the places I've lived, it has always been my favorite. To some extent, he probably was a child of gentrification before he brought it to U St.

by Rich on Jun 28, 2011 9:42 pm • link • report

One last thought--most of the focus is on current gentrification. DC has been experiencing it since the FDR years when Georgetown was rediscovered. Many predominantly white areas that no one thinks of as gentrified, went through gentrification from the 60s onward. This includes old blue collar enclaves like Tenleytown (esp. N of Albermale and E of Wisconsin), Dupont, Woodley, and Cleveland Park. It was impossible to get conventional mortgages in CP in the early 60s and the area was judged by lenders to be in decline. And of course, Georgetown, which was a multi-racial mostly blue collar neighborhood that didn't fully turn the corner until the last of the industrial uses on the water left. Gentrification has been with us for decades here and it's affected all kinds of people.

by Rich on Jun 28, 2011 9:50 pm • link • report

"'HOPE VI helps the lower income people stay, but it is the middle income people who get displaced. They make too much to qualify for housing programs but they don't make enough to afford the cost of living in the city,' the panel said. 'These formulas look at the Adjusted Median Income, not the cost of living.'"

I want to challenge the common perception that middle income people don't qualify for housing programs in DC. That's not true. I'm a young, black professional who has researched such programs. Now there are not enough programs for moderate/middle income people, but there are some programs. They are generally classified as workforce housing. There are currently workforce housing programs that offer assistance for those who make up to 120% of the a.m.i. or $119,025.

by PoliNerd on Jun 29, 2011 4:06 am • link • report

@Steven, I didn't think you were being racist. Instead, I thought your statement was simply not based on analysis as good as it could have been. As w/all the "most [insert group]" statements, we shouldn't allow the loudest voices to be the example of the larger group. I think your question stems from the effects of a sensationalist media and a public disinterest in delving into most issues beyond what the media presents.

I wasn't in attendance but I would guess that even Veronica doesn't believe that view is found among a sizeable portion of our community. If we're speaking about "specific" neighborhoods w/in our community, Veronica explains when saying, "Each neighborhood has a different story. The issue happens at a micro level, each block by each block, instead of a macro, city-wide level,"

That said, I don't understand why it's difficult for others to understand why people in certain areas EOTR don't advocate for dog parks and bike lanes. EOTR just got it's FIRST sit-down restaurant last year..or maybe late 2009. Those in N'hoods lacking basic quality of life amenities usually don't see dog parks and bike lanes as something integral to their areas. So what many of you see as anti-those things, I see as, "Why are we wasting money on [...] when we need so much of [...]. The proposed streetcars in Anacostia is a good example.

But of course you have the rabble rousers...the dog whistlers who personally benefit from leading people to believe these "agendas" out there. Marion Barry and Al Sharpton has been guilty in places EOTR. And the entire media establishment WOTR and FentyRhee were guilty as well. I've lived here for 11 years and can never recall a city so divided and atmosphere so toxic. At its core, the vitriol against Fenty was tangible - based on his performance while in office. The vitriol against Gray was based on his performance in 1992. Moreso in the later case, the dog whistled L O U D L Y</>

by HogWash on Jun 29, 2011 7:24 am • link • report

@HogWash - After reading this last comment from you, I've concluded that your earlier statement to steven about "you and your people mischaracterize us" must have been some sort of satirical joke, and am relieved by that fact.

I'm glad for the conversation on bikelanes/cupcakes/dogparks though. I was under the impression, based largely on the statements of DC black leaders as reported online and in print, that that a large portion of the black community didn't want these things. I've also often wondered about why the attractiveness/usefulness of these things would be divided by race. The conversation here sounds like it's just a vocal minority.

Can someone help clarify to me how displacement actually occurs? I'm aware that property tax increases are limited (especially if you sign up for the homestead deduction, available to everyone who owns and lives in their primary residence in DC), rent increases are limited if the landlord owns 4 or more units, and there's tax exemptions available for the elderly (I'm not so sure about the poor). With all of these programs in effect, by what mechanism are people en masse displaced against their will? When we talk about displacement, are we talking about people selling their homes as well? As I understand it, many people who bought these homes for surprisingly low prices, and by selling them are now able to buy rather large homes in the burbs (and often choose to do so.) "Gentrification" provides working-class homeowners with a fantastic wealth transfer and with it comes greater purchasing options for homes -- that seems good to me, not bad.

So I guess, I don't understand how people are being displaced against their will. If you can explain, and even better if you know of any evidence that it occurs, I'd like to know. And for those who are being "displaced" by their own choice, nobody says that's a bad thing, right?

by Jared on Jun 29, 2011 8:23 am • link • report

Actually this was a discussion today on my neighborhood listserv. My neighbors (young and old) want economic development, better retail options and walkable communities. We have several small dogs in my neighborhood and almost everyday someone says "I wish we had a dog park".

Just as a side-note, the idea that middle-class amenities are a "white thing" is pretty pervasive in popular culture. To take a trivial example, you can see this in the viral website "Stuff White People Like".

Sure some entries ("#110 - Frisbee Sports") can be amusing, but stuff like "Farmer's Markets" "Yoga" and "Recycling", not so much. It just reinforces the negative stereotype that middle-class tastes and behavior are "acting white". That's toxic for the everybody, and tends to create a racially-oriented rallying point for anti-progressive agenda. ("Healthy food in schools? White!")

Not cool.

by oboe on Jun 29, 2011 9:32 am • link • report

No one in DC who has a vested interest in DC has been displaced. By displaced I mean "kicked out of the city against their will". DC's rental laws are too strong for anyone to actually have been kicked out who was actively taking part in the economy. If you don't participate in the economy, you get what you get. What happened in Atlanta or Chicago or wherever has no bearing on what's happening here. There are myriad, expertly funded rental assistance programs and the laws and judiciary strongly favor rental rights. I'm sure some squatters have been displaced and many drug dens have been displaced, but that's about it. Anyone who worked formally or informally either still has their house, or made a conscious decision to move for greener pastures. No one living in government owned housing has been displaced either. Black people aren't moving into the city because black people don't "have" to live in a ghetto anymore, dependent on slimy politicians like Barry. They can pick and chose the best economic situation for their families because the formal economic barriers for blacks are gone.

What people are calling displacement is simply "my economic constituents are leaving, and the new person is not one of my economic constituents". It's political power theater by the old guard civil rights era politicians (Gray and Co.) who have found their comfy constituencies disappearing. And 40 years ago neighborhood turnover happened to every race and ethnicity and no one batted an eye because it was just "the neighborhood got old and young families are now moving in". It's been happening in America since America had neighborhoods.

The racial aspect is two things 1) white people think black people are "taking over the neighborhood" when 8% of the residents are black. I think that's the same human effect that's happening here with blacks. Only bad people with racism in their heart fear black people moving in, and the same is true for people who fear white people moving in. We don't need to perpetuate the insecurities of bad people. It doesn't make the country or the city stronger 2) it's an extremely convenient argument for anyone too lazy to get to know anyone from another race.

by ahk on Jun 29, 2011 9:44 am • link • report

@cmc

Your analysis was flawed. The apartments in upper Northwest are more expensive than gentrifying neighborhoods. In fact, there's really no comparison between the Connecticut Avenue or Wisconsin Avenue corridors and the "up and coming" neighborhoods. Upper Northwest has a lot of luxury apartments and some people gravitate toward that. Some take a "fixer-upper" in a moderately dangerous neighborhood with a hope that it will appreciate. Totally different appeal for either choice.

by The Heights on Jun 29, 2011 10:03 am • link • report

@Jared: Less than voluntary moves are not uncommon. People living on the financial edge might not be able to meet a legal rent increase, and a setback such as a job loss might make current rent unaffordable. Although homeowners generally have more resources (which allowed them to buy in the first place), they too can find themselves in that situation -- replace "rent" with "mortgage payment".

Of course, these things can and do happen anywhere, but "gentrification" -- which IMO chiefly means that those who move out for whatever reason are likely to be succeeded by people with different socioeconomic characteristics -- can, for example, increase the market rate for rentals (what landlords can realistically hope to get for their units). This surely makes landlords more likely to seek (legal) rent increases than they would otherwise be and thereby causes the people living on the edge to fall off at a greater rate than before. (Politics aside, measuring such processes is a very interesting research problem.)

by davidj on Jun 29, 2011 10:17 am • link • report

. EOTR just got it's FIRST sit-down restaurant last year..or maybe late 2009.

Wasn't this by design? I had the impression that many people EOTR have a strong stake in the area being purely residential, and restaurant businesses, especially ones that served alcohol, were considered pretty much unwelcome (as they are unwelcome in many parts WOTR, as well).

by JustMe on Jun 29, 2011 10:35 am • link • report

@Jasper, I wasn't attempting a joke but sure, we can say that it was. Either way, it wasn't mean to be malicious.

I was under the impression, based largely on the statements of DC black leaders as reported online and in print, that that a large portion of the black community didn't want these things.

If you will, please reread my earlier statement about the media and dog whistlers. I have no doubt that they largely share the blame for why you had that impression. Why do I say this? Well, look at the facts. Just of the top, who are the black leaders who said that black folk don't want these things? Marion Barry? Although I can't recall him saying that he's the only person I can think of who would. What I do remember many of us saying is similar to what I said above. That is, black folk in some areas EOTR do not see bike lanes and cupcake shops as "integral" to the functioning of our communities.

Now this is something I believe is a fact. However, it's not how it is translate by the media and dog whislters. They led many DC residents to believe that black folk didn't want these things and used as an example a random (likely unemployed) resident to speak for the entire community. It's no different than TV screens failing to show those in our community who are being progressive. Instead, the representatives too many times are inarticulate mothers or family members waxing about how good [...] was. W/that as a backdrop, it's no wonder why people think negatively about us as a group rather than individuals.

I personally think many anti-gray folk were sold a bag of rocks in part because it fed into a "feeling" they had. In this case, these feelings weren't based on rational thought..but an emotional one. In some cases, that also applied to Fenty. But also to DAl (and his endorsement), Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, Condoleeza Rice etc.

I tend not to form my opinion based on someone else's feelings about a person or subect.

by HogWash on Jun 29, 2011 10:35 am • link • report

@davidj

There is plenty of evidence to support the thesis that gentrification does not actually displace people any faster - any neighborhood has a natural rate of turnover as people move in and out, as people are born and as they die, etc.

by Alex B. on Jun 29, 2011 10:37 am • link • report

@JustMe I had the impression that many people EOTR have a strong stake in the area being purely residential, and restaurant businesses, especially ones that served alcohol, were considered pretty much unwelcome

Really? I haven't gotten that impression. Now if I were to really use generalizations, I would venture to say that I don't see why EOTR residents wouldn't want a sit-down restaurant (in part because they served alcohol) when there's a liquor store and unhealthy food options on every corner near you, me and the rest. But to your point, I don't think that impression is based of something real..more perception than not.

by HogWash on Jun 29, 2011 10:39 am • link • report

@HogWash; dude, you just don't get it. It wasn't the EOTR residents that were complaining about sitdown restaurants with alcohol. That was the folks on 15th and P with the Mexican place.

@AlexB; 60,000 blacks moving out of Ward 6 in 10 years is a bit higher than the natural decrease, no? I'd say the other wards track your pattern (around 8000 blacks leaving) but not ward 6.

by charlie on Jun 29, 2011 10:54 am • link • report

Most of the folks I see selling their homes in Petworth, Brightwood, Brookland and eslewhere are black, getting a considerable return on their investment from decades ago (in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in many cases), laughing all the way to the bank and selling to the highest bidder - regardless of race, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, national origin.

The process of changing Chocolate City to Harlequin / Orange Sherbet / Chili Pepper / Latin /East and West African / South Asian / Caribbean City has been helped along considerably by African-Americans.

MARION BARRY when Mayor played a pivotal role in getting the ball rolling by giving great deals to developers 20 plus years ago. Mayor Barry, probably not wanting to admit this now, nurtured the beast that became Penn Quarter and newly gentrified, older downtown about with real estate deals in the 1980s.

Isn't that the way capitalism works?

Black folks also ride bicycles, like bike lanes, like dog parks and eat cupcakes, by the way.

Why do we insist on pigeon-holing people endless?

Now back to helping the racially-mixed (black-white), professional, educated, vegan lesbians moving in up the block who bought their home from an elderly African-American couple delighted to be returning to the Carolinas with a chunk of change in their pockets they never expected not too many years ago.

Good for them. Good for everyone.

by A.B. Hunt on Jun 29, 2011 10:56 am • link • report

@Charlie

Can you show your work on those numbers? I've seen you use several different figures for the same stat.

And no, that number alone does not show displacement at all - it certainly doesn't offer any sort of proof.

by Alex B. on Jun 29, 2011 11:03 am • link • report

@the Heights,

I never mentioned price.

I was talking about demand, though I did not say so explicitly. People are moving into these new neighborhoods at a higher rate and developers and small businesses are anxious to make their presence known and give the residents (w/ money to spend) what they want. And what they want is a neighborhood with a life.

There is little argument to make against the fact that the apartment superblocks in upper northwest lack many of the community features of the revitalized neighborhoods in DC. They do it better than the suburbs, yes, but NIMBYs don’t like change. This has been documented many times over here at GGW.

The point I am to make is as the inner city returns to greatness, the poor may find themselves displaced, nevertheless, it remains a net benefit to all.

by cmc on Jun 29, 2011 11:57 am • link • report

@Alex B.: I agree that there is a "natural rate of turnover" and that most displacement is part of this. However, it is theoretically possible that gentrification-related market changes could indeed "displace people ... faster" or in somewhat larger numbers -- that is, that some of the people who move out would have continued or renewed their leases in a pre-gentrification market.

It does seem that if this really happens, it has a fairly small effect relative to other aspects of natural turnover.

by davidj on Jun 29, 2011 11:57 am • link • report

It seems like this panel defined gentrification as a strictly economic issue simply because they chose to define is as a strictly economic issue, not because it's true. This strikes me as being the easy way to explain the situation, but not accurate. "African American culture" (whether there is a single black culture in America is another story), is awash in the concept of "getting out the hood," and there is an undeniable pull toward suburbia for people who were denied the "American dream" for so long. Those same neighborhoods are being repopulated by people who grew up in the "boring" suburbs and find urban life exciting. In that NPR article from February on DC becoming "More Vanilla," it was somewhat buried (and brushed aside) that their example anecdote profiled former-resident actually chose to pay more money to live in the suburbs because he didn't think the place he was looking at in Anacostia, where he grew up, had the right amenities! (see: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/15/133754531/d-c-long-chocolate-city-becoming-more-vanilla)

So let's say white people moved into that house instead of a long-time Black resident. They could have chose white picket fences in suburbia too, but they didn't. They wanted to live in the District. Of course economics are at play, but it's very complicated and messy and includes all sorts of social factors as well! It's just as reductive and unproductive to claim it's all about income or class as it is to reduce it to race.

by TP on Jun 29, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report

@alexB; Sorry if this is repeat post.

Data is from DC planning website and census counts:
Formatting is a mess, sorry.

in 2000:

(Ward, Total, Black, White, HIspanic, ASian)

Ward 1 73129 24794 36864 15827 3156
Ward 2 73915 1079 57317 7570 6942
ward 3 77152 3860 64447 5796 5146
Ward 4 75773 44459 18601 14179 1218
Ward 5 74308 56489 12259 4707 1037
Ward 6 76598 31842 38047 3170 3161
Ward 7 71068 67471 1291 1653 136
Ward 8 70712 69550 2645 1307 260
592655 299544 231471 54209 21056

In 2000:

Ward 1 70056 33554 22276 18109 2588
Ward 2 66968 13727 45036 6997 5269
ward 3 71826 4259 61647 5027 4231
Ward 4 71831 52407 13112 9237 721
Ward 5 71376 62846 6796 1856 607
Ward 6 66604 66604 21513 2053 1339
Ward 7 69822 68312 976 658 133
Ward 8 70130 65533 3745 1016 301

Total black loss White gain
Ward 1 8760 -14588
Ward 2 12648 -12281
ward 3 399 -2800
Ward 4 7948 -5489
Ward 5 6357 -5463
Ward 6 34762 -16534
Ward 7 841 -315
Ward 8 -4017 1100

67698 -56370

as you can see, Ward 6 is an anolomy. Ward 2 a bit so. The rest pretty much as you describe (natural process of turnover)

by charlie on Jun 29, 2011 12:40 pm • link • report

That said, I don't understand why it's difficult for others to understand why people in certain areas EOTR don't advocate for dog parks and bike lanes. EOTR just got it's FIRST sit-down restaurant last year..or maybe late 2009. Those in N'hoods lacking basic quality of life amenities usually don't see dog parks and bike lanes as something integral to their areas.

Just want to point out that, while this kind of stance is understanding, it's completely counterproductive. If you want "sit-down restaurants" you spend money on infrastructure that appeals to middle-class folks with lots of disposable income. Then private investment will drive development. As folks have touched on above, the reason a lot of folks have fought public improvements is that there's a fear it will lead to gentrification. It's a paradox.

Private investors aren't going to build bike-lanes; and DCHA isn't going to spin-off a restaurant group.

by oboe on Jun 29, 2011 1:07 pm • link • report

"sit-down restaurants" you spend money on infrastructure that appeals to middle-class folks with lots of disposable income. "

I am really confused. I thought that demographic wanted food trucks?

by charlie on Jun 29, 2011 1:33 pm • link • report

Oboe has it right -- infrastructure is integral to the development of an area; development also feeds the need for more infrastructure. It is a cycle. Oboe said that folks fight public improvements because they fear it will lead to gentrification. I'd like to suggest it's a bit broader than that. Folks fight public improvements because they fear change and are especially resistant to changes that are perceived to disrupt their way of life.

by Scoot on Jun 29, 2011 2:27 pm • link • report

Just want to point out that, while this kind of stance is understanding, it's completely counterproductive.

Whether it's counterproductive is irrelevant to the question of "why" some people (especially those in poorer areas of towns) don't see bike lanes and dog parks as integral to their communities. There are hosts of middle class communities around the country that aren't advocating for bike lanes and dog parks. Those simply amenities that appeals to "some" middle class people in "some" middle class communities.

Folks fight public improvements because they fear change and are especially resistant to changes that are perceived to disrupt their way of life.

I think that's a much better understanding and explanation as to why people "fear" change than the ones often presented here and other places. Can't disagree with that!

by HogWash on Jun 29, 2011 3:03 pm • link • report

Sorry to break it to Ms. Davis, but anyone who thinks overt racism ended in 1975 badly needs to take a history course.

by Alan Page on Jun 29, 2011 3:13 pm • link • report

Mr. Page... Overt in the form of segregation and outward expressions. I am aware that racism still exist in this country, but it tends to be in more covert forms. The world those of us born in 70s grew up in is different than previous generations. By the way 1975 wasn't a hard and fast year.

by Veronica O. Davis (Ms V) on Jun 29, 2011 3:27 pm • link • report

@Veronica -so to summarize - the meeting and/your intention is to craft methods that allow lower income people to remain in place as higher income neighbors move in and bring with them the demands for (and power to gain?) better amenities that starts a cycle of attracting even more people with even more money. Additionally to inform current residents who might be fearful of changes that might come that might "price them out of the neighborhood" of exant policies/programs to prevent them from being "priced out".

by Tina on Jun 29, 2011 4:00 pm • link • report

There are hosts of middle class communities around the country that aren't advocating for bike lanes and dog parks. Those simply amenities that appeals to "some" middle class people in "some" middle class communities.

True 'nuff. I'd just point out that the amenities in this particular area need to appeal to members of this particular community. Which is why we don't have an opulent and publicly-funded Country Music Hall of Fame in the District.

by oboe on Jun 30, 2011 7:36 am • link • report

gentification is simply a mask for community leader and local politicians not performing their obigation in a manner in-which is respectfull to all citizens. when there is cause to believe that gentification is in the process, a closer look at the leaders should find grounds for removing them from their pedestals.

by dcotda - chair on Jun 30, 2011 10:04 am • link • report

There are many different forms of displacement, including forced displacement that happens under urban renewal (in both the 1950s and today). A discussion of displacement should also involve those being displaced or those who have been displaced. In my post today, I talk about a fascinating 1966 study of those who were forced out of their homes in SW.
http://sociologyinmyneighborhood.blogspot.com/2011/06/urban-renewal-and-grief-in-ward-6.html

by Johanna on Jun 30, 2011 12:22 pm • link • report

Neighborhoods change back and forth, decade after decade. While I think changes in the city's history in the early and mid-part of the 20th century may have been related to race and social class, I think that is less true today.

I think currently it's "hip" to live in the city center versus the suburbs. Therefore there has been an influx of upper/middle class folks (of all racee) into the city. As the neighborhoods become overpriced or too crowded, developers seem to look for the next "hot" upcoming neighborhood, and the people follow cause they want the "hip" factor yet they don't want to pay the high rent/mortgages.

While for sure there are many sad stories of displacement, particularly of renters and low income/rent controlled housing dwellers, there are also many happy stories (less reported by the way) of lower/middle class folks of all races who owned their homes and have benefited a great deal by selling them now at a much higher price.

Case in pt, I know a lower/middle class African-American couple who are now in their 60s. They bought their home in Columbia Heights in the 1980s for 15K. They just sold it for $650K. That's a huge chunk of change. It's basically what they will use for their retirement.

If CoHe had never developed they would not be able to retire early, which now they can do.

I think we like to focus on the negative aspects of change, but there are also positive ones..and I bet more than we are willing to admit.

by LuvDusty on Jul 7, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report