GENTRIFICATION EFFECTS ON WASHINGTON DC MIDDLE CLASS
Gentrification is the process in which higher-income households occupy low-income neighborhoods, causing a spike in the value of the area’s properties to the point that some original residents are displaced. More often than not, it creates a significant change in the region’s racial and ethnic constitution (Levy 18). It results in a change in the characteristics of the area, which may, in turn, lead to community disharmony. Stakeholders aiming to revitalize a neighborhood must seek to avoid negatively affect residents who have weathered years of neighborhood neglect.Gentrification can be categorized as being in an early, middle, or later stage. The initial stage can be described as the phase when there is evidence of housing improvements and an increase in housing prices in an area proximate to other gentrifying neighborhoods. Middle stage neighborhoods have already registered an increase in housing prices, yet developable parcels of land still exist. The late-stage is marked by skyrocketing housing prices, and the demand for profitable housing units overshadows the needs of lower-income householders.
The Washington DC area continues to experience considerable economic growth and prosperity. According to a report, the recorded development has not followed the standard doughnut-shaped pattern characterized by rapid suburban growth and a general stagnation in city growth. The benefits of economic prosperity have followed an east-west divide (Kennedy et al. 24). The gap is a line that follows interstate 95 to the north and south of the city and runs right through the center of the town. To the east of this line are high concentrations of minorities, welfare dependents, and a considerable percentage of the lower class and middle-class families. On the other hand, the western part of the divide is middle and upper-income families and substantial investments made by both the public and private sectors. The improved future outlook for the area, together with a new policy, has led to economic rejuvenation and, inevitably, other pressures on the city’s neighborhoods.
Washington DC has a population of over half a million people. According to the 2010 census, the number is estimated at 647484 by the American Community Survey, 2015. The demographic profile shows that most residents are of the working-age (20-40). It is thanks to a vibrant labor market in the government and private sector. Aggressive gentrification in this area has been reflected in the low number of children as more impoverished neighborhoods move out of the city. The sex ratio is about 90. As of the 2010 census report, about 50% of the population identifies as black, 38.5% as white, and roughly 10% as Asian and other races.. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
The public sector has a major role in neighborhood transformation. In Washington DC, the local government led by the mayor in 2003 set a goal of attracting 100,000 new residents. The significant financial outlay was made in pursuit of this goal. In the Columbia Heights area, a subway station and a few vital retail shops were identified as possible anchors of the gentrification process. The city invested a total of $138 million on new or remodeled schools, recreation spaces, parks, and a civic complex. According to census data, theneighborhood has recorded a six percent increase in population in the period 2000 to 2010. The local government now enjoys annual city budget surpluses as opposed to the deficits in the 1970s.
Many other forms of ‘gentrifiers’ exist. The typical kind is mostly the self-employed affluent population who are willing to make risky investments in the housing sector. They are generally single people or young couples without children. These people are often also searching for more affordable housing than in the suburbia. This housing is also usually closer to their workplace or in the inner city. These stereotypes favor a more consumerist culture and often have shared consumer preferences. Another group of gentrifiers is those belonging to the upper-socioeconomic class. They have significant responsibility in accelerating gentrification, mainly down to their social mobility. They have the financial freedom to move into urban areas, for varying reasons but mostly work-related ones. An increase in such a class of individuals will lead to an eventual decrease in the lower-income population.
Also, women are progressively acquiring higher education degrees and, thus, better-paying jobs. It allows them to better opportunities to invest in the housing markets. Therefore, they are likely to move into these urban locations to be near their workstations. Those with children will also attempt to move to be closer to institutions that provide professional childcare. Finally, the gay community, mostly comprising of homosexual white males, appears likewise to speed up gentrification. Back in the days when oppression and homophobia were still relatively high in the country, the gay community would tend to isolate themselves from heterosexual areas. They would move in neighborhoods that were predominantly dominated by people from minority races. As more and more of these people moved in, it would have an outcome of gentrifying the area. It would cause surges in the pricing of the houses and eventual exit of low-income residents.
A combination of different factors led to an increase in gentrification pressures in Washington, DC. The most significant one being the hot housing market. In Shaw and Columbia heights, property prices have risen rapidly over the past several years. The cost for non-housingdevelopers has more than doubled in less than two years, where they seek to buy a housing shell. Deteriorated housing stock, unusually large Victorian homes available in Columbia Heights, have become candidates for renovation at more affordable prices. The establishment of new downtown social and entertainment centers have anchored the development of art galleries and restaurants in the heart of the downtown. Renovation of the Lincoln Theatre has rejuvenatedthe traditionally African American U Street Corridor causing many stores that cater to the invading high-end clientele to open. Other factors driving gentrification in Washington d.c. are the strategic public investment, for example, the opening of the Metro Station and public policy interventions such as the $5000 homeownership tax credit attracted claims by 70% of homeowners in 1998 (Kennedy et al. 34).
Columbia Heights is an area in the late stage of its gentrification and is analyzed in this journal.Columbia Heights was one of the neighborhoods destroyed by the riots from 1965-1970. Middle-class families fled the district, which was later struck by the rise of crack cocaine and substantial criminal activity. It is now home to one-third of the cities subsidized housing with more than 2300 units (Kennedy et al. 21). the above mentioned Metro Station had caused a dramatic rise in the push to gentrify the area, which is now networked to downtown and the vibrant social scenes in U Street. Central Area is situated about one mile east of downtown and is credited as being one of the first residential areas in Seattle.it is home to several companies, including Boeing and Microsoft. Between 1990 and 2000, Seattle grew by nine percent. Demographic data indicate that whites make up more than two-thirds of the population, while Asians are the second largest group at thirteen percent (Census CD Neighborhood Change Database). In 1994, a community-based organization called the Central Area DevelopmentAssociation (CADA) was founded to facilitateneighborhoodrevitalization.In this much sought after residential area, home purchases increased by thirty-nine percent between 1996 and 2001 as compared to a twenty-nine percent national increase. The organizations’ efforts, coupled with public policy, saw housing prices skyrocket in the late 1990s in this area (Levy 54).
Displacement is the single most significant negative impact of gentrification.displacement can be defined as the forced movement of a household from its residence initiated by conditions which affect the immediate surrounding. These conditions are beyond the households’ reasonable ability to prevent and occur despite the home having earned the right of occupancy by satisfying all previously imposed requirements. Qualitative research methods have uncovered the causes and motivations of the different actors in a gentrifying neighborhood. Residential, retail and job displacements are a significant cause of anxiety for incumbent residents facing displacement. Washington DCand, in particular, Seattle had nearly twenty percent of its people displaced from revitalizing neighborhoods (Zuk 27). However, the financial ability of a gentrifying block has been noted to increase. A 5% gain in neighborhood income gain is likely in revitalizing neighborhoods due to a more substantial tax base, which is a reflection of the higher economic power of the incoming residents.There is a consensus that mobility rates are equivalent in gentrifying neighborhoods versus more stable low-income neighborhoods (Ellen &O’Regan 20).
One of the adverse effects of neighborhood revitalization noted in Columbia Heights is deep divisions among the residents over the course the new development in the community should take. A recent event is symbolic of the rifts gentrification can create. In March 2000, public policy was formulated that aimed to crack the whip on landlords who had failed to maintain their apartment buildings adequately. These buildings are concentrated in Columbia heights. The local government directive was that buildings with significant deficiencies would be closed, and the tenants relocated with other federal housing subsidies. Many suspected the owners would be allowed to sell the buildings to luxury property developers or develop them themselves. Community groups mobilized massively and opposed the owners to move. A landlord was slapped with code violations and had to sell the building to the tenants for $1million with a provision requiring him to provide them with $275000 to aid in the building’s renovation and relocation assistance funding.
A reduction in affordable low-cost housing is a significant feature of gentrifying neighborhoods. Higher rents impose a financial burden on renters. It also puts certain residential areas out of the reach of low-income earners in the future. This may be further exacerbated by government policy on zoning that may limit housing density, minimum unit sizes, and building height. Tax abatements may also be used to lure homeowners into these areas. Several incumbent residents have left their neighborhoods despite having the financial capability to retain their homes. The number is estimated at more than 50000 people leaving the city for good. As the character of the area changes and the subsidized housing projects are torn down, they no longer want to stay. In Seattle, micro-housing units were introduced to cater for an expanding population of single homeowners attracted by the growing technology sector. In Columbia heights, the median rent has grown by more than fifty percent since 2000 (Ellen &O’Regan 35).
One of the underlying issues plaguing gentrification is race. Even though the total population of Columbia heights grew from 2000 to 2010, a quarter of its black residents and nearly 20% of its Latino residents was lost as compared to a quadrupling of the white population of the area. This study is according to the District of Columbia Office of Planning (2016). It has reduced the rich cultural diversity the area has previously enjoyed.according to census data, the black percentage of the population has dropped from seventy-two percent in 1995 to forty-eight percent in 2016, according to statistics from the US Census. Moreover, a 2016 report found that gentrification had an impact on the health and welfare of the African American population.
.
The Adams Morgan neighborhood has experienced a substantial influx of high-income residents since the late 1970s, which was coincident with the makeover of the commercial areas adjacent to Columbia Road and 18th Street. A significant core of African-American and Hispanic communities had been residents for quite a while due to the presence of subsidized affordable housing. The gentrification of this area would require the less financially capable households to move east where affordable housing was still available.The area has a mix of incomes on both sides of the spectrum due to the continued existence of permanently affordable housing stocks. As the wealthier society moved in, it led to an overall boost in the economy in the area. These financially stable inhabitants arrived intending to make business investments meant to better the community. It assisted the startup of new businesses that we’re assured that they would have a constant and ready market in the area. More firms also played a part in the creation of job opportunities to help boost employment rates to the less fortunate residents in the area.An increase in the locality’s population means more revenue is available to the government in the form of property and other taxes. More taxes allow the government to invest more in the community and provide them with the crucial infrastructure needed. This infrastructure may include schools, hospitals, roads, parks, and malls.
Additionally, it empowers the local government to beef up law enforcement services, which has the ripple effect of reduction of crime in the area. Children coming from a lower-income household will also benefit from a decrease in crime rates in the estate. It means they will be less exposed to violence and crime, attend better quality schools, and generally have some individuals they can look up to as role models. Research has shown that children who move from areas of concentrated poverty to gentrified or mixed income-neighborhoods are more successful than their counterparts still in poverty-ridden zones.
Columbia Heights has the reputation of offering numerous amenities to pioneers and tourists alike. Columbia Heights is perched over a ridge, offering panoramic views of the buildings and sites in the city. They have a stock of grand Victorian homes, aged more than 100 years, built with ancient architectural designs. Gentrifications assists in the preservation of such historical buildings in the area. It does this by allowing more property ownership that can either be newly built developments or existing structures. Existing residents will realize that property prices will hike, increasing the owner’s wealth and net worth in general. This move is to ensure a minimum number of vacant houses, which can be hotspots for criminal activities. As the population grows, the property value also rises to ensure constant development is adequately balanced with the preservation of historical sites.
Another effect gentrification has had on Washington DC is making it the state with the lowest dependency ratio in the country by a wide margin. This is after being described as ‘the most gentrified state in the US’. The influx of wealthy people also concurred with the exit of more impoverished people in lower classes of the economic scale. It had an effect of reducing both ratios of old-age dependency and child dependency. Facilities well spread across the state has proved an essential factor in ensuring the dependence remains low. Residents who previously were causing distress in reserves like public schools and hospitals left the area leaving only those with higher socioeconomic status. They could now share resources equitably with the least strain in the country. The average family income has increased up to three times the average between 1979 and 2010. It means a majority of families are financially capable of looking after themselves without having to depend on others. The poverty concentration in the zone is thus quite low. (Chan 62)
Further benefit gentrification has had is that the residents of such estates achieve improved mobility options and accessibility to services. In simple terms, a person living in gentrified areas like Seattle and other central regions of the state can easily access schools, recreational facilities, shopping centers, etc. They also get better public transportation services than the suburbs, which are more automobile-dependent areas. They can also decide to walk or cycle to their jibs since it is likely to be only a short distance away from where they live. Walking and cycling allow homeowners in the area to increase their fitness and fight lifestyle diseases like obesity and high blood pressure. The proximity, in turn, assists in reducing the burden faced in continuously have to pay high fees for transportation services. It also saves time spent on the road. The use of public means of transport will also save on the additional transportation costs faced by motorists, including parking fees, traffic congestions, emissions from pollutants, and possible risks of accidents. Provision of adequate public infrastructure and related services such as roads, sidewalks, emergency response, etc., means that movement is more efficiently controlled with minimal time lost in traffic jams and quick response in case of accidents.
One more benefit of gentrification to both newcomers and previous residents is that it allows more cultural mixes and diversity in the development. The availability of a large number of houses in an urban region is a compelling offer for any individual without regard to their race, religion, or cultural backgrounds. Since no one is restricted from moving into the city, more diverse communities emerge from gentrified societies. This allows the sharing of cultural beliefs and practices to those willing to learn new ways or curious to know how others are living. This makes the inhabitants become closer on personal and have less prejudicial views to those they do not understand. Different ethos also offers various products in business settings. For example, an Indian family may decide to open a restaurant offering Indian foods prepared with traditional recipes. Hence, individuals inclined to try new tastes will have a local joint that can help satisfy their wants.
In conclusion, gentrification has had a mix of both positive and effects in Washington. The rate of gentrification in Washington is alarmingly high compared to other states in the country, and a large number of homeowners are being displaced. Statistics have shown that nearly 35% of low-income residents in Washington live in census tracts. These are areas that are geographically smaller than traditional zip codes but still contain a few thousand inhabitants.These tracts are continuously growing economically; hence the poverty-stricken members of these zones face a constant risk of displacement. Ward 6 area, consisting of Capitol Hill, the Southwest Waterfront, Navy Yard, and some sections in downtown, was highlighted as the zone where the most drastic changes occurred in the last few decades. For example, in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, more than 75% of low-income populations have entirely vanished and replaced by the middle-class. Those pushed out consist mainly of the black community, low-income households, single mothers, and people without college degrees. These people are forced to move to low-income concentration zones. These are ones where nearly all occupants belong to the lower socioeconomic classes. Hence such neighborhoods are experiencing only little if any development. It brings the effect of making these weak areas even poorer and vice-versa to the prosperous regions. (Lang 1)
In addressing these negative consequences of gentrification, the first step is to get all parties to realize and acknowledge the reality of the process itself. They also need to identify that gentrification has after-effects on the general demographics of Washington. By recognizing these effects, policy-makers and owners of private businesses can devote their resources to developed regions that are lagging. In recent years, successful companies, such as Capital Bikeshare (a bike-sharing network), have made attempts to expand and locate stores in the less fortunate zones. These attemptshave occurred concurrently with the mayors’ pledges to increase resources in minority regions. Finally, local laws have been passed to allow longtime dwellers of a region a more exceptional ability to remain in their homes when developers come knocking. A bill known as ‘right of first refusal’ gives the tenants a choice not to sell their homes. Hence, the best interests of the local community should be of more considerable significance than the need to gentrify. However, at certain times their interests are not prioritized, especially in cases where a majority of the homeowners in the region are already financially well-off(Prince 32).
Works Cited
Chan, Corey. “District of change: Gentrification and demographic trends in Washington, DC.” Chicago Policy Review (Online) (2016).
Levy, Diane K., Jennifer Comey, and Sandra Padilla. “In the face of gentrification: Case studies of local efforts to mitigate displacement.” Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law (2007): 238-315.
Kennedy, Maureen, and Paul Leonard. Dealing with neighborhood change: A primer on gentrification and policy choices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2001.
Lang, Marissa. “Gentrification In D.C. Means Widespread Displacement, Study Finds.” The Washington Post, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-district-gentrification-means-widespread-displacement-report-says/2019/04/26/950a0c00-6775-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html. Accessed 4 Mar 2020.
Prince, Sabiyha. African Americans and gentrification in Washington, DC: Race, class, and social justice in the nation’s capital. Routledge, 2016.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Katherine O’Regan. “Gentrification: Perspectives of economists and planners.” The Oxford Handbook of Urban Economics and Planning. Oxford University Press, 2012.
Winston, Ben. “SOC573 Final Report Proposal – Ben Winston – Applied Demography”. Sites.Psu.Edu, 2020, https://sites.psu.edu/benwinston/2017/09/24/soc573-final-report-proposal/.
Zuk, Miriam, et al. “Gentrification, displacement and the role of public investment: a literature review.” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Vol. 79. 2015.
GeoLytics. “Census CD Neighborhood Change Datab