The Pros And Cons Of Gentrification

Gentrification, when wealthy individuals buy and renovate houses in poor neighborhoods, a word often associated with the displacement of poor residents of run-down urban neighborhoods. Gentrification has its pro’s and con’s, so naturally the supporters list the positives, while non-supporters do the opposite. In “Go Forth and Gentrify?” by Dashka Slater, the author explores the positives of gentrification for the community, newcomers, and longtime residents. Dashka Slater, a journalist who often appears in the New York Times, Sierra, and San Francisco Magazine. Mother Jones, a liberal magazine, published “Go Forth and Gentrify” in July 2007 encouraging home buyers to buy houses in poor urban neighborhoods. During this time housing prices were decreasing and the housing bubble was about to burst. Many families lost their homes to foreclosure and had nowhere to go. As a suggestion, Slater urges readers that it is alright to move into a poor neighborhood because the home buyer will positively impact the neighborhood.
“Go Forth and Gentrify?” is an article about the positives of gentrifying.
Slater reminds readers that poor neighborhoods were once thriving but when the white middle class left the city for the suburbs the neighborhoods became impoverished. She includes the fact that though gentrification does have its downsides, the newcomers often bring money and jobs to poverty stricken neighborhoods. The neighborhoods also improve once gentrified, the author uses an example of her own neighborhood. She explains how the neighborhood’s property value tripled and how better businesses moved into the neighborhood. In the article she urges readers to move into poor urban neighborhoods and gentrify. To conclude her article she includes testimonial-like stories of gentrifiers and their contributions to their
community.
Slater’s target audience is the population of people that lost their homes during the 2007-2009 Recession, so she focuses on the affordability and conveniences of gentrifying because many people during this time had little money with nowhere to go. During 2007 this would apply to approximately 1.2 million people. However, Slater’s target audience could also apply to the population of people who want to move into the city. Many young people want to leave the suburbs for the city, but some may hesitate to do so because they do not want to become the cause of gentrification. I am not a part of the target audience because I am too young to buy a house, but I do agree on some parts of Slater’s argument. Slater makes good points throughout her article that can persuade non-target audience members to her side, such as including accurate statistics. Slater’s target audience, as well as non-target audience members, may find her logical appeals very effective because they are accurate.
One way Slater uses logic to her advantage is by suggesting bad neighborhoods are the reason why residents are moving out not expensive ones. The author explains that it is not the newcomers fault for the displacement of poor residents, instead it is the neighborhoods fault. The author argues that people are most likely moving out due to the terrible schools and high crime rates, rather than the high housing prices. (361) Slater also includes the chances a poor resident geting displaced from a gentrifying neighborhood to a nongentrifying neighborhood, which is 1½:1. (Slater 361) This move allows the audience to understand that poor people are moving out due to bad neighborhoods not expensive ones and is intended for those in her audience who don’t want to be the cause for displacement. Understanding the true reason why poor residents are moving out reaffirms the target audience they will be doing more good than harm. The target audience as well as the non-target audience may find this very effective because Slater supported her ideas with accurate statistics.
Another way Slater uses logic is by adding in the environmental advantages of gentrification. In the article she emphasizes how renovating a house is more environmentally sustainable than building a new one. (361) Building a new house negatively impacts the environment by creating pollution from trucks transporting materials. She includes a study where students discovered the average suburban resident consumes twice the amount of energy and expend twice the amount of greenhouse gases than their city counterparts. (361) This move makes the audience decide whether they want to positively or negatively impact the environment. Slater uses this move to appeal to the audience’s inner green thumb and persuade them to renovate houses instead of building them. This move works on the target audience and non-target audience alike because people are environmentally conscious and want to reduce their ecological footstep.
In conclusion, Slater did a good job using logical examples. She explains how bad neighborhood are the cause of displacement not high cost of living and how gentrifiers are not the problem. Slater explains the environmental advantages of gentrification and how much better renovating a home is comparing to building a home. She related to both target and non-target audience by providing compelling examples to support her idea. While this article had plenty of emotional and credible examples, it could have been better by having more logical examples. The only logical appeals were the two listed and while they were very effective there could’ve been a few more. Other than the lack of logical appeals this article was very persuasive and gives the other side to a controversial topic.