Pros And Cons Of Gentrification Essay
GENTRIFICATION IN “BRICK CITY”
***N E W A R K***
Originally, the term gentrification was invented to describe the residential movement of middle-class people into the low-income areas of London. (Zukin, 131). I understand gentrification to be a plan that focuses on developing urban renewal plans and projects to help uplift and restore low-income urban areas. This is all done in hopes to attract wealthier residents in order to boost the economy of the neighborhood or city. It has been debated that gentrification can be linked to reductions in crime rates, increased property values, and renewed community activism. My hometown of Newark, NJ is currently undergoing such a process. Newark legislators and businessmen have come to call this development the “Newark …show more content…
Renaissance”. Starting with the destruction of the central projects in the early 90s, there have been a lot of high-profile projects in the downtown Newark area, including the New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC), Riverfront Stadium which host games for the Newark Bears baseball team, and the New Jersey Devil Ice Hockey rink. There are also many non-profit groups and five major CDCs (community development corporations) in Newark doing work in the local community. These CDCs function much like the CBOs (community based organization) found in neighborhoods in Brooklyn, in that they provide structure and support for the public need. Nicole Marwell states in her book, Bargaining for Brooklyn, that some of the most important and considerable contributions of Brooklyn’s CBOs were their substantial improvements to the housing stocks in their area. Marwell contends that these “community based corporations and other nonprofit housing developers across the nation have rehabilitated and built from scratch hundreds of thousands of units of housing in the places where poor people live” (Marwell, 35). In Newark specifically, the work of the CDCs is mainly detailed by the construction of various housing development projects all throughout the city. These CDCs are concentrating on building mixed-income communities and adding some middle-income housing. Unfortunately, all of these housing development projects are economically motivated endeavors, built to attract outsiders into the community, and are leaving the needs and issues of the people already present on the back burner. These development projects are designed to attract wealthier people to Newark and the residents feel as though they will eventually be unable to afford to live in the city, and they will be replaced. The residents would like to see our politicians focus more on strengthening and improving the conditions of the people, neighborhoods, and communities that are already here, not move us out and build completely new communities. Joseph Della Fave, the director of Newark’s Ironbound Community Corporation, which is a partnership founded by community residents to assist neighborhood people in developing community based programs, argues that it is locally unproductive to build art centers like the NJPAC, ice hockey stadiums and housing developments like Society Hills (a large middle-income subdivision) and not revitalize the neighborhoods themselves. He says, “you’re back to juxtaposing the needs of the people who live here and trying to move the city forward” (Axel-Lute, 3).
Like many critics of gentrification, I am interested in exploring the consequences of gentrification in Newark in terms of population displacement and urban decline. There has been little local community discussion and involvement in the gentrification happing in Newark. I would like to specifically explore the impacts of the construction, opening, and development of various urban renewal projects such as the NJPAC center and various housing developments. I’d like to draw upon developments like these because they are expected to generate money for the city and stimulate community engagement and support. Many residents feel as though the city is not trying to work with them, rather they are trying to work around them. I am particularly interested in this topic, not only because Newark is my hometown and it is familiar to me, but also because I am extremely passionate about any movement, law, project, partnership, operation or venture that will improve the conditions of my city. Given all the circumstances that help classify Newark as low-income, dangerous, and unhappy, I just don’t believe the building of an ice hockey stadiums in the middle of downtown, surrounded by crack-heads and chaos is the right way to “renew” the city. On the other hand, many housing renewal projects have and are anticipated to positively impact the environmental and social aspects of Newark. This dichotomy has generated an ongoing debate as to whether gentrification in Newark has generally positively or negatively impacted the city. I do not seek to answer this question, rather, I am interested in exploring different aspects of the two arguments and as a Newark resident myself, drawing my own conclusion.
Numerous cities in America have been betrayed by processes like gentrification. During the decline of American cities after World War II, the federal government implemented a policy tool for countering the economic and social decline many of these cities were experiencing. The federal government called this tool “urban renewal”. Newark’s population growth in the early part of the century followed by a decline in the latter part of the century has followed a classic American urban pattern. As immigrants came to American cities to work in industrial production through the Second World War, Newark saw steady growth through the 1930s. The city’s population remained basically stable for the next 20 years with only slight variances in population. However, in the years after World War II, Newark experienced a steady decay in population and employment. Civil unrest and racial tensions in the 1960s and 1970s accelerated this decline and by 1970, Newark's population had declined by a 14% decrease over 20 years. With fewer available jobs, residential population continued to decline and by 1990, Newark’s population was down to 275,000 residents. This population regression slowed down through the middle of the decade and by 1996 Newark had a population of 269,000 residents. The population has increased since then, and according to the 2000 census, the city’s population had climbed to 273,546.
Given its struggles with population influxes and many other economic and social problems, Newark officials decided the city needed a change. Specifically for Newark, this process would include the destruction of the heart of the black Central Ward at the end of the 90s decade. Many of the city’s poor residents were displaced by the demolition of public housing in recent years. The consequent displacement of thousands of Newarkers and the deliberate demolition of such a large central area of the city, were huge blows to the city. Some have argued that to this day, Newark has not yet fully recovered from this damaging displacement. In an article entitled, “Facing its Past, Newark Gets Ready for its Future“, author Julia Vitullo Martin examines how failed government policies and middle-class flight weakened the social, political, and economical strength of the city. During the demolition of the central ward, at the start of Newark’s gentrification process, hundreds of vacant lots were interspersed with one and two family houses, most owned by struggling low-income families: many of whom eventually lost their property to either mortgage foreclosure or the city for failure to pay taxes. The South Ward, which is the part of town I reside in, also had many public housing projects which have since been demolished. The current major of Newark, Cory Booker, states that “beset by double-digit unemployment and with one-fourth of its residents living below the poverty line, Newark is ranked right behind Miami as the second poorest major American city” (Vitullo Martin, 1). Given the example of displacement and the damage the city underwent subsequently, it is clear that urban policies such as urban renewal and gentrification can in fact back fire and hurt the residents of the city, while still strengthening the business districts and local economics.
In considering gentrification in Newark, I thought first to consider some neighboring towns in New Jersey that have undergone a similar process. In her article, “Tale of Three Cities: The trickiest part of dealing with gentrification may be deciding when to start”, author Miriam Axel-Lute proclaims that “the poster child for gentrification in the eastern U.S. is Hoboken, NJ” (Axel-Lute, 1). Hoboken, New Jersey in a mid-sized city, located just 30 minutes northeast of Newark. It sits on the Hudson River, opposite of New York City. Hoboken first began its gentrification processes back in the 1970s and has just began to see its positive benefits back in 2000, when more affluent residents moved into the city and swelled the population. In her article, Miriam explains how in the initial stages of the Hoboken gentrification process, “greedy developers” forced low-income residents out of their neighborhoods in order to make way for “affluent commuters” (Axel-Lute, 1). She exclaims that the ideal gentrifying process would include housing advocates who would struggle to prevent the displacement of poor families by not raising their rent prices. Miriam Axel-Lute is concerned that through the displacement of families, some of the distinctive culture of the area would be lost. She wants to see the developers share their part of the wealth with the already existing community. This would be an ideal situation and although it has taken some time, Hoboken has seen the influx of wealthier residents and has experienced an overall positive impact of gentrification. But unlike Hoboken, the problem with a city like Newark is that its neighborhoods have a history of long suffering, abandonment and disinvestment. Getting a major developer to consider the poor of the community, she believes, is almost impossible mainly because the restoration of abandoned homes and securing access to capital is developers’ primary concerns. The physical and social damage Newark undertook after the riots in the 1960’s is a historically example of the city’s past afflictions and disinvestment on part of the city and state government, and although it may fit the pattern of cities whom failed at gentrification, Newark actually shows no signs of damage to their lower-income residents. Miriam says Newark and gentrification don’t often get mentioned in the same sentence, unless it’s to say, “Newark, for example, could use some gentrification” (Axel-Lute, 3) She says Newark is best known for the devastation its neighborhoods suffered during rioting in 1967 and the drastic population losses that followed, though they argue that things have picked up in the city. Recently, the population has picked up and there have been some high-profile projects downtown, including the New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC) and Riverfront Stadium, and the slow but steady work of some nonprofits in the neighborhoods. The author exclaims that now rather than promoting flight from neighborhoods, the community development corporations (CDCs) are now focusing on creating mixed-income communities and adding some middle-income and market-rate housing. The city of Newark has five major CDC’s. “We want mixed-income areas, and we are encouraging CDCs, when appropriate, to do more unsubsidized or market-rate units,” says Gerard Joab of the Newark office of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation. The author exclaims “if gentrification means displacement and cultural disruption by outsiders, then Newark’s revitalization is so far showing signs of taking place without it” (Axel-Lute, 3). Gerard Joab insists that the middle-income people moving into the North Ward and neighborhoods like Society Hill are people who have family in the area. “Their kids’ grandparents are here, or their kids are in private school here. They are renting outside, but they have ties here. They work here, were born here”, Joab exclaims.(Axel-Lute, 3). This exclamation supports the argument that Newark is benefiting from the gentrification process. In her articles, Miriam tries to draw out how although in the past, gentrification has spawned conditions of displacement, the new angle the CDCs in Newark are taking in terms of their consideration of and consequent commitment to low-income residents, has brought about positive relocation of residents around the city. Some residents share in her acclimation.
In an article written by another Newark resident entitled, “Newark Needs a Rebirth “, author Celines Garcia exclaims Newark needs a face-lift. She points out that certain parts of Newark are still recovering from the damage the riots caused back in the 1960s. She contends that in order for the gentrification process to be successful, Newark’s resident need to take more pride in what they have and where they live if they are to maintain Newark’s nickname, the “Renaissance City.” She states that she is impressed with the construction of multifamily homes all over the city and the programs that give lower-income families the opportunity to own them. She says it is certainly a step up for residents and an improvement in the look of the city, but she exclaims that beyond the visual disarray of the city’s homes and structures, Newark is flooded with dysfunctional families and single-parent homes that have birthed troubled youth. Celines Garcia is a real Newark resident. She is thirty now and current lives in Bloomfield, NJ (a smaller city-suburb right outside of Newark). She points out many problems in Newark but also praises many aspects of the city. When she encounters people who are planning to move out of the city, she asks, “Are you affecting your surroundings, or are your surroundings affecting you” (Garcia, 1). She encourages the residents to be proactive in their city’s redevelopment. She says the residents should make the city, and not allow the city to make them. Celines gives us a perspective from a Newark resident who loves her city but feels the need for further improvement. She praises some of the work achieved as a result of the gentrification process, specifically new structures built for the downtown area and results of the recent housing redevelopment projects. Although there is much perceived success, Celines concerned about the declining quality of life for the residents and the social dynamic of the neighborhoods; something I think she feels the gentrification process has not yet touched. She contends that there is currently a desperate statewide need for welfare reforms to protect children in abusive homes. Rimes blames “the poverty mentality” for family dysfunctionality, and expects it will take reliable people, comprehensive state involvement, community volunteers and quality foster homes just to begin to solve the problems with Newark’s youth. This is an example of a big problem, Newark has yet to correct.
Although there is evidence of success in the housing developments, some Newark residents find problems in the developmental design. In another article written by a current Newark resident entitled, “Gentrification in Newark”, author Ashanti Rimes exposes some faulty designs in Newark’s Land Use Plan. She discusses Newark‘s implementation a Land Use Element into the Master Plan for the city’s housing renewal. The purpose of the Land Use Element is to provide the city with guidelines as to how and which zones can be refurbished. The goal of the Land Use Plan is to “provide a framework for both future planning and the provision of community facilities and open space.” She points out faults in Newark Land Use policy and expounds on how it affects residents. The article explains how this Land Use Plan strategy is to first, address the “de-densification” of the city’s housing stock via the demolition of high-rise towers like the infamous Prince Street projects. The city plans to then replacement these project buildings with low-rise town homes and apartments. The second part of its strategy seeks to increase the density in some formerly single-family neighborhoods by building or converting these homes into homes that can sustain two or three families. There are a total of five district-wards in Newark: the North, South, East, West, and Central wards. One of the problems with this Land Use Plan is that only three of the five wards will permit the construction of detached and attached housing, while only two wards will permit multifamily apartments. This causes the residents who cannot afford rent in these new housing complexes to seek cheaper places to live, but because both rent and property values have risen all over the city, many of these residents will have no where to go but out of the city completely. Because of affects such as this, many residents fear that the city’s politicians are building up the city with no major goals in sight for the people. Richard Bey, a third-grade teacher at Peshine Elementary School (Newark) and a 30 year resident states, “Newark allows outside builders to come in and build without making their plan and purpose known. East Orange, on the other hand, makes a point of saying where and why something is being built” (Rimes, 1). Rimes ultimately concludes that Newark politicians currently in office may appear to mean well by their efforts to improve deteriorating minority communities, but she suspects that their ultimate goal is to solve the “problem” by removing the inhabitants of the minority communities altogether. She states that as derelict neighborhoods are restored, renovated, and renewed, the once affordable rent skyrockets to a price unobtainable by the current residents. The residents are then forced to leave their homes. The fortunate people find other places to live and others are left homeless and become wards of the streets.
Some scholars do not share this interpretation of Newark’s housing development outcome. In his article entitled, “Newark's Renaissance Spreading in all Directions”, author Anthony Birritteri exclaims that, “In 2000, Newark lead all major cities in the Garden State in new private residential construction, including total number of units, total dollar value of those units and the number of new two-family and three- and four-family homes” (Birritteri, 1). According to the 2000 Census, the city's population has also stabilized, decreasing only 0.6 percent to 273,546 compared with 275,221 in 1990 and the decades of steep population exoduses that pledged Newark since the riots have stopped. This article suggests that many critics say Newark's renaissance focused only on downtown commercial development. Birritteri argues that the positive housing and population statistics are proof that all of the city's residents are sharing in Newark's rebirth. Previous major Sharpe James comments, "Newark is the only city in America that has completely transformed its neighborhoods from the failed American dream of high-rise public housing, to quality housing," says James, commenting on the destruction and construction of the projects in Newark. "We have closed the gap in the city, where you can no longer tell the difference between public housing and private housing” (Birritteri, 1). James goes further to say that the Newark Renaissance is more than just bricks and mortar. He pleads that the Newark gentrification process has incorporated and involved more areas and affairs than just Downtown district. He claims that the gentrification process will shift from, “we are going to zero in on education and children” (Birritteri, 5). He asks “what good is building an arts center or a stadium if our children cannot afford to attend because they can't earn a competitive wage to buy a ticket” (Birritteri, 5)? He insists that the next stage of gentrification in Newark, “will be a renaissance of the mind” (Birritteri, 5). This is a statement that I believe Miriam Axel-Lute would be happy to hear.
In conclusion, it is clear to me that historically gentrification has been known to displace residents in its attempt to revitalize.
There has been past evidence that shows how this process can force lower-income residents who are no longer able to afford rent or pay property taxes in their neighborhoods to move out. Gentrification is a word that is often times misunderstood and has become synonymous almost with displacement. Because many of these urban areas many are initially inhabited by minority populations and are stereotyped as bad neighborhoods with run down houses and unemployed people, many would argue that the government’s secret tool of urban renewal has been to get the old residents out and bring some new residents in. in most cases white, rich people then in and improve the aesthetic conditions of the neighborhood and then the original residents, who eventually are unable to keep up with tax costs and recognize that culture of their old neighborhood is lost, then move elsewhere. Surprisingly, I just didn’t find this to be the case exactly in Newark, NJ. There has been some displacement of lower income families out of the city, but the overwhelming impact seems to be a positive one.
Surprising!!!!
***N E W A R K***
Originally, the term gentrification was invented to describe the residential movement of middle-class people into the low-income areas of London. (Zukin, 131). I understand gentrification to be a plan that focuses on developing urban renewal plans and projects to help uplift and restore low-income urban areas. This is all done in hopes to attract wealthier residents in order to boost the economy of the neighborhood or city. It has been debated that gentrification can be linked to reductions in crime rates, increased property values, and renewed community activism. My hometown of Newark, NJ is currently undergoing such a process. Newark legislators and businessmen have come to call this development the “Newark …show more content…
Renaissance”. Starting with the destruction of the central projects in the early 90s, there have been a lot of high-profile projects in the downtown Newark area, including the New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC), Riverfront Stadium which host games for the Newark Bears baseball team, and the New Jersey Devil Ice Hockey rink. There are also many non-profit groups and five major CDCs (community development corporations) in Newark doing work in the local community. These CDCs function much like the CBOs (community based organization) found in neighborhoods in Brooklyn, in that they provide structure and support for the public need. Nicole Marwell states in her book, Bargaining for Brooklyn, that some of the most important and considerable contributions of Brooklyn’s CBOs were their substantial improvements to the housing stocks in their area. Marwell contends that these “community based corporations and other nonprofit housing developers across the nation have rehabilitated and built from scratch hundreds of thousands of units of housing in the places where poor people live” (Marwell, 35). In Newark specifically, the work of the CDCs is mainly detailed by the construction of various housing development projects all throughout the city. These CDCs are concentrating on building mixed-income communities and adding some middle-income housing. Unfortunately, all of these housing development projects are economically motivated endeavors, built to attract outsiders into the community, and are leaving the needs and issues of the people already present on the back burner. These development projects are designed to attract wealthier people to Newark and the residents feel as though they will eventually be unable to afford to live in the city, and they will be replaced. The residents would like to see our politicians focus more on strengthening and improving the conditions of the people, neighborhoods, and communities that are already here, not move us out and build completely new communities. Joseph Della Fave, the director of Newark’s Ironbound Community Corporation, which is a partnership founded by community residents to assist neighborhood people in developing community based programs, argues that it is locally unproductive to build art centers like the NJPAC, ice hockey stadiums and housing developments like Society Hills (a large middle-income subdivision) and not revitalize the neighborhoods themselves. He says, “you’re back to juxtaposing the needs of the people who live here and trying to move the city forward” (Axel-Lute, 3).
Like many critics of gentrification, I am interested in exploring the consequences of gentrification in Newark in terms of population displacement and urban decline. There has been little local community discussion and involvement in the gentrification happing in Newark. I would like to specifically explore the impacts of the construction, opening, and development of various urban renewal projects such as the NJPAC center and various housing developments. I’d like to draw upon developments like these because they are expected to generate money for the city and stimulate community engagement and support. Many residents feel as though the city is not trying to work with them, rather they are trying to work around them. I am particularly interested in this topic, not only because Newark is my hometown and it is familiar to me, but also because I am extremely passionate about any movement, law, project, partnership, operation or venture that will improve the conditions of my city. Given all the circumstances that help classify Newark as low-income, dangerous, and unhappy, I just don’t believe the building of an ice hockey stadiums in the middle of downtown, surrounded by crack-heads and chaos is the right way to “renew” the city. On the other hand, many housing renewal projects have and are anticipated to positively impact the environmental and social aspects of Newark. This dichotomy has generated an ongoing debate as to whether gentrification in Newark has generally positively or negatively impacted the city. I do not seek to answer this question, rather, I am interested in exploring different aspects of the two arguments and as a Newark resident myself, drawing my own conclusion.
Numerous cities in America have been betrayed by processes like gentrification. During the decline of American cities after World War II, the federal government implemented a policy tool for countering the economic and social decline many of these cities were experiencing. The federal government called this tool “urban renewal”. Newark’s population growth in the early part of the century followed by a decline in the latter part of the century has followed a classic American urban pattern. As immigrants came to American cities to work in industrial production through the Second World War, Newark saw steady growth through the 1930s. The city’s population remained basically stable for the next 20 years with only slight variances in population. However, in the years after World War II, Newark experienced a steady decay in population and employment. Civil unrest and racial tensions in the 1960s and 1970s accelerated this decline and by 1970, Newark's population had declined by a 14% decrease over 20 years. With fewer available jobs, residential population continued to decline and by 1990, Newark’s population was down to 275,000 residents. This population regression slowed down through the middle of the decade and by 1996 Newark had a population of 269,000 residents. The population has increased since then, and according to the 2000 census, the city’s population had climbed to 273,546.
Given its struggles with population influxes and many other economic and social problems, Newark officials decided the city needed a change. Specifically for Newark, this process would include the destruction of the heart of the black Central Ward at the end of the 90s decade. Many of the city’s poor residents were displaced by the demolition of public housing in recent years. The consequent displacement of thousands of Newarkers and the deliberate demolition of such a large central area of the city, were huge blows to the city. Some have argued that to this day, Newark has not yet fully recovered from this damaging displacement. In an article entitled, “Facing its Past, Newark Gets Ready for its Future“, author Julia Vitullo Martin examines how failed government policies and middle-class flight weakened the social, political, and economical strength of the city. During the demolition of the central ward, at the start of Newark’s gentrification process, hundreds of vacant lots were interspersed with one and two family houses, most owned by struggling low-income families: many of whom eventually lost their property to either mortgage foreclosure or the city for failure to pay taxes. The South Ward, which is the part of town I reside in, also had many public housing projects which have since been demolished. The current major of Newark, Cory Booker, states that “beset by double-digit unemployment and with one-fourth of its residents living below the poverty line, Newark is ranked right behind Miami as the second poorest major American city” (Vitullo Martin, 1). Given the example of displacement and the damage the city underwent subsequently, it is clear that urban policies such as urban renewal and gentrification can in fact back fire and hurt the residents of the city, while still strengthening the business districts and local economics.
In considering gentrification in Newark, I thought first to consider some neighboring towns in New Jersey that have undergone a similar process. In her article, “Tale of Three Cities: The trickiest part of dealing with gentrification may be deciding when to start”, author Miriam Axel-Lute proclaims that “the poster child for gentrification in the eastern U.S. is Hoboken, NJ” (Axel-Lute, 1). Hoboken, New Jersey in a mid-sized city, located just 30 minutes northeast of Newark. It sits on the Hudson River, opposite of New York City. Hoboken first began its gentrification processes back in the 1970s and has just began to see its positive benefits back in 2000, when more affluent residents moved into the city and swelled the population. In her article, Miriam explains how in the initial stages of the Hoboken gentrification process, “greedy developers” forced low-income residents out of their neighborhoods in order to make way for “affluent commuters” (Axel-Lute, 1). She exclaims that the ideal gentrifying process would include housing advocates who would struggle to prevent the displacement of poor families by not raising their rent prices. Miriam Axel-Lute is concerned that through the displacement of families, some of the distinctive culture of the area would be lost. She wants to see the developers share their part of the wealth with the already existing community. This would be an ideal situation and although it has taken some time, Hoboken has seen the influx of wealthier residents and has experienced an overall positive impact of gentrification. But unlike Hoboken, the problem with a city like Newark is that its neighborhoods have a history of long suffering, abandonment and disinvestment. Getting a major developer to consider the poor of the community, she believes, is almost impossible mainly because the restoration of abandoned homes and securing access to capital is developers’ primary concerns. The physical and social damage Newark undertook after the riots in the 1960’s is a historically example of the city’s past afflictions and disinvestment on part of the city and state government, and although it may fit the pattern of cities whom failed at gentrification, Newark actually shows no signs of damage to their lower-income residents. Miriam says Newark and gentrification don’t often get mentioned in the same sentence, unless it’s to say, “Newark, for example, could use some gentrification” (Axel-Lute, 3) She says Newark is best known for the devastation its neighborhoods suffered during rioting in 1967 and the drastic population losses that followed, though they argue that things have picked up in the city. Recently, the population has picked up and there have been some high-profile projects downtown, including the New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC) and Riverfront Stadium, and the slow but steady work of some nonprofits in the neighborhoods. The author exclaims that now rather than promoting flight from neighborhoods, the community development corporations (CDCs) are now focusing on creating mixed-income communities and adding some middle-income and market-rate housing. The city of Newark has five major CDC’s. “We want mixed-income areas, and we are encouraging CDCs, when appropriate, to do more unsubsidized or market-rate units,” says Gerard Joab of the Newark office of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation. The author exclaims “if gentrification means displacement and cultural disruption by outsiders, then Newark’s revitalization is so far showing signs of taking place without it” (Axel-Lute, 3). Gerard Joab insists that the middle-income people moving into the North Ward and neighborhoods like Society Hill are people who have family in the area. “Their kids’ grandparents are here, or their kids are in private school here. They are renting outside, but they have ties here. They work here, were born here”, Joab exclaims.(Axel-Lute, 3). This exclamation supports the argument that Newark is benefiting from the gentrification process. In her articles, Miriam tries to draw out how although in the past, gentrification has spawned conditions of displacement, the new angle the CDCs in Newark are taking in terms of their consideration of and consequent commitment to low-income residents, has brought about positive relocation of residents around the city. Some residents share in her acclimation.
In an article written by another Newark resident entitled, “Newark Needs a Rebirth “, author Celines Garcia exclaims Newark needs a face-lift. She points out that certain parts of Newark are still recovering from the damage the riots caused back in the 1960s. She contends that in order for the gentrification process to be successful, Newark’s resident need to take more pride in what they have and where they live if they are to maintain Newark’s nickname, the “Renaissance City.” She states that she is impressed with the construction of multifamily homes all over the city and the programs that give lower-income families the opportunity to own them. She says it is certainly a step up for residents and an improvement in the look of the city, but she exclaims that beyond the visual disarray of the city’s homes and structures, Newark is flooded with dysfunctional families and single-parent homes that have birthed troubled youth. Celines Garcia is a real Newark resident. She is thirty now and current lives in Bloomfield, NJ (a smaller city-suburb right outside of Newark). She points out many problems in Newark but also praises many aspects of the city. When she encounters people who are planning to move out of the city, she asks, “Are you affecting your surroundings, or are your surroundings affecting you” (Garcia, 1). She encourages the residents to be proactive in their city’s redevelopment. She says the residents should make the city, and not allow the city to make them. Celines gives us a perspective from a Newark resident who loves her city but feels the need for further improvement. She praises some of the work achieved as a result of the gentrification process, specifically new structures built for the downtown area and results of the recent housing redevelopment projects. Although there is much perceived success, Celines concerned about the declining quality of life for the residents and the social dynamic of the neighborhoods; something I think she feels the gentrification process has not yet touched. She contends that there is currently a desperate statewide need for welfare reforms to protect children in abusive homes. Rimes blames “the poverty mentality” for family dysfunctionality, and expects it will take reliable people, comprehensive state involvement, community volunteers and quality foster homes just to begin to solve the problems with Newark’s youth. This is an example of a big problem, Newark has yet to correct.
Although there is evidence of success in the housing developments, some Newark residents find problems in the developmental design. In another article written by a current Newark resident entitled, “Gentrification in Newark”, author Ashanti Rimes exposes some faulty designs in Newark’s Land Use Plan. She discusses Newark‘s implementation a Land Use Element into the Master Plan for the city’s housing renewal. The purpose of the Land Use Element is to provide the city with guidelines as to how and which zones can be refurbished. The goal of the Land Use Plan is to “provide a framework for both future planning and the provision of community facilities and open space.” She points out faults in Newark Land Use policy and expounds on how it affects residents. The article explains how this Land Use Plan strategy is to first, address the “de-densification” of the city’s housing stock via the demolition of high-rise towers like the infamous Prince Street projects. The city plans to then replacement these project buildings with low-rise town homes and apartments. The second part of its strategy seeks to increase the density in some formerly single-family neighborhoods by building or converting these homes into homes that can sustain two or three families. There are a total of five district-wards in Newark: the North, South, East, West, and Central wards. One of the problems with this Land Use Plan is that only three of the five wards will permit the construction of detached and attached housing, while only two wards will permit multifamily apartments. This causes the residents who cannot afford rent in these new housing complexes to seek cheaper places to live, but because both rent and property values have risen all over the city, many of these residents will have no where to go but out of the city completely. Because of affects such as this, many residents fear that the city’s politicians are building up the city with no major goals in sight for the people. Richard Bey, a third-grade teacher at Peshine Elementary School (Newark) and a 30 year resident states, “Newark allows outside builders to come in and build without making their plan and purpose known. East Orange, on the other hand, makes a point of saying where and why something is being built” (Rimes, 1). Rimes ultimately concludes that Newark politicians currently in office may appear to mean well by their efforts to improve deteriorating minority communities, but she suspects that their ultimate goal is to solve the “problem” by removing the inhabitants of the minority communities altogether. She states that as derelict neighborhoods are restored, renovated, and renewed, the once affordable rent skyrockets to a price unobtainable by the current residents. The residents are then forced to leave their homes. The fortunate people find other places to live and others are left homeless and become wards of the streets.
Some scholars do not share this interpretation of Newark’s housing development outcome. In his article entitled, “Newark's Renaissance Spreading in all Directions”, author Anthony Birritteri exclaims that, “In 2000, Newark lead all major cities in the Garden State in new private residential construction, including total number of units, total dollar value of those units and the number of new two-family and three- and four-family homes” (Birritteri, 1). According to the 2000 Census, the city's population has also stabilized, decreasing only 0.6 percent to 273,546 compared with 275,221 in 1990 and the decades of steep population exoduses that pledged Newark since the riots have stopped. This article suggests that many critics say Newark's renaissance focused only on downtown commercial development. Birritteri argues that the positive housing and population statistics are proof that all of the city's residents are sharing in Newark's rebirth. Previous major Sharpe James comments, "Newark is the only city in America that has completely transformed its neighborhoods from the failed American dream of high-rise public housing, to quality housing," says James, commenting on the destruction and construction of the projects in Newark. "We have closed the gap in the city, where you can no longer tell the difference between public housing and private housing” (Birritteri, 1). James goes further to say that the Newark Renaissance is more than just bricks and mortar. He pleads that the Newark gentrification process has incorporated and involved more areas and affairs than just Downtown district. He claims that the gentrification process will shift from, “we are going to zero in on education and children” (Birritteri, 5). He asks “what good is building an arts center or a stadium if our children cannot afford to attend because they can't earn a competitive wage to buy a ticket” (Birritteri, 5)? He insists that the next stage of gentrification in Newark, “will be a renaissance of the mind” (Birritteri, 5). This is a statement that I believe Miriam Axel-Lute would be happy to hear.
In conclusion, it is clear to me that historically gentrification has been known to displace residents in its attempt to revitalize.
There has been past evidence that shows how this process can force lower-income residents who are no longer able to afford rent or pay property taxes in their neighborhoods to move out. Gentrification is a word that is often times misunderstood and has become synonymous almost with displacement. Because many of these urban areas many are initially inhabited by minority populations and are stereotyped as bad neighborhoods with run down houses and unemployed people, many would argue that the government’s secret tool of urban renewal has been to get the old residents out and bring some new residents in. in most cases white, rich people then in and improve the aesthetic conditions of the neighborhood and then the original residents, who eventually are unable to keep up with tax costs and recognize that culture of their old neighborhood is lost, then move elsewhere. Surprisingly, I just didn’t find this to be the case exactly in Newark, NJ. There has been some displacement of lower income families out of the city, but the overwhelming impact seems to be a positive one.
Surprising!!!!