Cipcommunity

Gentrification Ppt

Gentrification Ppt

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………1 REVITALIZATION……………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 SOCIAL ISSUES………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 HOUSING……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 ATLANTA IN THE 1980’S………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ATLANTA IN THE 1990’S…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

HOUSING AUTHORITY DEMOLITIONS…………………………………………………………………………………… NEW TENSIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… GENTRIFICATION POLICY EVOLVES……………………………………………………………………………………… CHANGES IN THE HOUSING MARKET…………………………………………………………………………………….

INCLUSIONARY ZONING…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… The growth of cities in the United States in the second half of the 20th century changed the dynamics of cities in America. Cities were once known as manufacturing centers , but started to transform into urban centers. The City of Atlanta is a prime example of growth and renovation. Gentrification is the practice of changing the face of a neighborhood by the replacement of poor residents with residents of a higher income.

Jude Glass first used the term Gentrification in 1964 referring to the displacement of the working class by middle class individuals in London. Today, the term is still relevant in its description and process, but has evolved to include a myriad of complicated variables that cloud the underlying problem of displacement. While many benefit from “new” neighborhoods, there is a flip side. The question is, can gentrification lead to a long-term stable or greater volatility due to conflicts arising from the socioeconomic differences between whites, blacks, and other minorities in Atlanta?

And how are we insuring that displaced residents have adequate and suitable housing? INTRODUCTION Displacement of residents in gentrifying neighborhoods is troubling (Berry 1985). Displacement due to gentrification in central city neighborhoods has been shown to affect the elderly and possibly the poor. The problem with the focus of gentrification is that it is difficult to prove. The problems are centered on not being able to track residents and finding out there reasons for moving (Cameron 1992). Gentrification produces both positive and negative realities for residents.

The test for lawmakers and city planners is making sure revitalization is beneficial to ALL members in a community. Furthermore, the fall-out from gentrification – higher rent, needs to be addressed or mitigated. Revitalization can erase the historicity of certain areas. When revitalization is introduced into a neighborhood, conflict between proponents and current residents ensue. This happens because both parties view change differently and the end result totally disregards the displaced inhabitants. Whether gentrification affects large r small-scale communities, city officials need to understand the negativity involved and act on it. Most of the research available advises that gentrification only happens in a limited number of American Communities. But even though the number of communities affected is limited, the impact to the surrounding communities can be substantial (Bourne 1993). ATLANTA IN THE 1980’S Gentrification started occurring in Atlanta in the early 1960’s. But because gentrification wasn’t measured during that time, it is difficult to assess the how it took place.

The population of Atlanta declined from 425,000 to 415,000 between 1980 and 1990 (Keating,). The undeveloped areas in the city during this time filled will single family homes and small apartments. Land use progression in this area quickly increased in upscale areas clearing the way for gentrification. Multi family dwellings began to sprout up around the major lanes into the southern part of Atlanta. These units replaced the smaller apartments that were put up around the vital entrances into the city.

On the southwest border of the city, the extensive area of the city that was developed for and by African Americans after the passage of the open housing legislation of the 1960’s greatly expanded in the 1980’s. Previous restrictions on on development for middle class African Americans and the effects of racial discrimination, which restricted black incomes also led to the reduced development for their housing. On the East side of Atlanta, 1800 units were demolished and the infamous Buttermilk Bottoms and the long awaited projects development began in the 1980’s. f the 1,145 units built during the 1980’s , 218 were subsidized as low income housing. Several hundred units were built in the 1990’s but no additional units were constructed for households of low income, putting the number of homes reserved for low income below 3/5’s of what had been promised (Keating and Creighton 1989). The poorest areas of the city which are on the outskirts of the core of the city, lost over 1200 housing units as the poor couldn’t afford to pay the cost associated with aged housing.

Farther south , 1500 more units were lost due to conditions in the housing market and the rezoniong of areas from residential to industrial. Gentrification had occurred in a very small number of African American communities in the first half of the 2oth century. It reappeared in the 70’s and 80’s. In Atlanta during this period there were 16 neighborhoods going through some form of gentrification. Researchers began looking at Atlanta in 1986 and that’s where the first broad examination of gentrification in this region took place.

The Atlanta Bureau of Planning found that the turnover prices from 1975 to 1985 but neglected to oversee the northeast and southeast portion of ten neighborhoods where activists and real estate professionals identified as gentrifying ( Morningside/Lenox Park, Virginia Highland, Poncey-Highland, Inman Park, Candler Park, Lake Claire , Cabbagetown, Grant Park and Ormewood Park. The activist also revealed that there were six other higher income gentrifying neighborhoods farther North ( Underwood Hills, Martin Manor Peachtree Hills, Loring Heights, Collier Hills, and Wildwood-Spring Lake).

Analyst concluded that areas containing historically significant and architecturally valuable housing were the focus for gentrification. But the second block of housing listed was not lower income or had a significant amount of historical value. Back then as it is now, areas lacking distinctiveness became vulnerable to renovation. Compensating those that are displaced presents another issue and is frequently met with opposition. The Carter Administration began to look into displacement and wanted to seek a solution. But the Reagan Administration terminated the surveys in these areas and prevented researchers for exposing this problem.

Since HUD had overseen previous surveys , there was no ground to base policy change. The decline in Atlanta’s population between 1980 and 1990 inflicted change to the Atlanta’s make up. Smaller household meant fewer marriages and getting rid of homes meant for low income. Condominiums began to pop up everywhere. The conversions along Peachtree Street and Peachtree road began to create a demand a condominium market. In the areas of the city that were the poorest, there was no investment which led to frequent demolitions and led the way for gentrification to flourish from 1990 to 2000.

Gentrification was in Atlanta to stay and became firmly established but only occurred in less than ten percent of the city’s neighborhoods. State supported gentrification became the model and land subsidies began to encourage construction. Finally the 1980’s marked the end of low income housing. Prior to this period, the Atlanta housing district ensured that there were adequate low income housing for its citizens to include public housing and housing for the elderly. Atlanta’s Housing Authority managed 14,852 homes nine percent of the cities total supply of housing units ( Keating, 1995).

There has been no new additions to Atlanta’s low income housing numbers because federal policy shifted away from the expansion of publicly owned housing and local housing authorities therefore limiting its ability to maintain the current numbers. THE 1990’S: During the 1980”s the lack of investment in Atlanta’s black communities led to a substantial decrease in its population. But between 1990 and 2000 the city’s declined numbers reversed and Atlanta’s population grew by 22,000 people. The population increase paved the way for an additional 11,00 units.

Some were new construction but most were warehouse conversions to lofts and office buildings that were converted into condominiums. The upcoming Olympics paved the way for the demolition of over 7,000 units most of which were public housing. The Olympic games were set to take place right in the middle of an area that was the epitome of Southern poverty. There were over 1200 units demolished that were in the zone of the “Olympic Ring Neighborhoods”. Because of the crime in the area, the Olympic committee considered this area a threat to public safety.

Most of the other demolitions were considered cosmetic because they were in the vicinity of transportation routes. Other areas they saw large scale demolitions were areas that were along transportation routes to the hotels, stadiums and the Universities that housed and entertained the athletes. In the early 1990’s the demBeographics of the people that lived near and around the Olympic ring were predominately poor African Americans. The location of this area eventually would have led to gentrification but the Olympics accelerated the process.

Some of the homes that were demolished to get rid of the visual evidence of poverty could have been renovated. DEMOLITIONS In 1991, the Atlanta Housing Authority launched what became the Olympic Legacy Program. It destroyed nearly 6,000 public homes by the end of the decade. The program marked the beginning of the end for the housing services to Atlanta’s poor. Between 1995 qnd2008, almost all of the 11, 000 family units were demolished and the homes for the elderly were soon to follow. The Housing Authority now plans to destroy the remaining public housing units..

The homes that replaced the public housing units were mixed development units that included a small portion of homes for low income. A majority of the homes were market rate homes. The new units were larger with better amenities but few of the original residents were able to return to the new developments. At one of the new developments 78 of the original 1,120 residents were able to return. The families that lived in the public housing displaced by gentrification lost valuable parts of their daily lives because they were forced to move.

Their social lives changed. Their health care and transportation options were farther away so they had to reestablish themselves in new neighborhoods. NEW TENSIONS Between 1998 and 2000, resurgent gentrification began to occur in Atlanta’s eastern neighborhoods. This led to significant tensions between those that were moving in and the original residents. There were differences in race, class sexual preferences which triggered confrontations.. The existing neighborhoods were black and the gentrifiers were white.

The in-moving community contained a high number of gays and lesbians. The original residents had problems coping with residents of a different sexual preference. The steady pace of gentrification and the original residents defenselessness to change the situation increased their anxieties. Crime and drugs remained a problem in the community and both parties blamed each other. This conflict led to the inability for them to come together and share solutions. NEW GENTRIFICATION POLICIES In March of 2000, Atlanta created a gentrification task force.

The task force’s purpose was to create a plan to address gentrification and try to preserve the number of affordable housing within the city while promoting economical growth. The task force found that middle and upper income fuel the market driven demand for new housing and low-income residents cannot compete for housing. Rising property values come with new construction and the assumption of more development. Apartments for high-income residents replaced those for low-income residents. The landlords that owned the low-income properties stopped making repairs to the units to save money in order to convert them into condominiums.

The task force also found that the poor were displaced, communities are destroyed and a substantial decrease in affordable housing. These findings were presented to the city council in September of 2001 and for a brief period up until 2002, Atlanta’s housing policies shifted to include those most affected by gentrification. But the focus on the most vulnerable citizens could not withstand the pressure from developers and the policy soon went back to supporting development with fewer accommodations for those with low incomes. CHANGES IN THE HOUSING MARKET 2000-2004 REVITALIZATION

In order for neighborhood renewal to be classified as gentrification, three specific things have to take place: the people who lived there are displaced; the neighborhood has to be upgraded; and the pulse of the neighborhood has to change (Glass 1964). Gentrification does not automatically occur when those that move into a neighborhood have a higher income than those that are displaced. Members of a community may decide to leave because of many situations. So just because the tenants of an area leave, it doesn’t necessarily mean that gentrification is taking place.

When gentrification occurs, it affects the amount of low cost housing because it often involves the movement of those that have modest incomes (Atkinson 2004). In recent years, gentrification has become relatively common in cities around the world. During the 1970’s, certain neighborhoods throughout the country began to see renewal projects that introduced new more affluent residents to what are commonly called “bad areas” of the inner city. Gentrification doesn’t occur in every neighborhood but it is becoming increasingly common (Lees 1994). For most cities, revitalizing its inner cities has become a pleasant experience.

Several cities find themselves eager to reduce high levels of inner city poverty. Municipal governments in cities like Atlanta are direct recipients of increased tax revenues that result from rising property values. Tax credits and abatements have drawn in countless would-be suburbanites into revitalized inner city developments (Bourne 1993). Presently, there are about a dozen of Atlanta’s inner city areas experiencing some form of gentrification. Most cities that existed as in the nineteenth century was established as seaports or manufacturing centers close to resources like water, or coal.

Atlanta developed because of its access to the Southeast. Its role as a transportation hub further expanded later in the century around 1925. The city was encouraged to buy the land and is now home to the world’s busiest airport (Beauregard 1986). As a result, Atlanta was the fasting growing city in the South. SOCIAL ISSUES Social issues were also a driving force to Atlanta’s gentrification. Middle class workers were forced to move to the inner cities because of the growing concentration of poverty in the central city along with blacks being bussed to enforce school integration.

The movement of the skilled work force, along with communication and technology made many office jobs relocate to the suburbs. The infrastructure of interstates made Atlanta an attractive location for developers to invest in office parks like Executive Park at Druid Hills and I-85 in Dekalb County (Bostic, 2005). Atlanta is an interesting city to focus on for gentrification because it experienced rapid growth during the early 1990’s and has a predominantly African American population.

African Americans view Atlanta as the Black Capitol of the South or even “Hot-Lanta for its bustling nightlife, entertainment venues and crime. Because of Atlanta’s crime and unattractive landscape, it was difficult for the city to compete for larger scale venues until it landed the bid to hold the 1996 Olympics. The Olympic games of 1996 forced city developers and planners to redevelop Atlanta’s inner city. In preparation for the games, the city added new attractive side walks, and improved the lighting along the main entrances into the city.

In addition, the city received millions of dollars for community development housing projects. The event led to the creation of the Olympic Development Corporation whose sole purpose was to pursue ways to improve the city’s image in preparation for the games (Atkinson 2004). One of the greatest accomplishments of this organization was removing a run-down project and turning it into middle-income townhomes . It destroyed thousands of homes and marked the beginning of a negative transformation in the programs that ensured that there was sufficient low cost housing.

The families that were displaced lost valuable aspects of their daily lives by being forced to move. The social services that were used to were reduced and citizens had to rebuild in other cities. Federal regulations allowed the resident to have a say in the planning, but they had no power to overturn the redevelopment process Although African Americans have been the majority of Atlanta’s population for decades, their population has experienced a decrease in the last few years. The city’s White leadership has controlled most of the city’s power for years .

Since the 1960’s, Atlanta has seen a rise the number of corporate businesses. Besides being labeled as the Black capitol of the South, Atlanta has also been called the poster child for gentrification and still the suburbs continue to grow today. The Atlanta Metropolitan area is now spread across 8,376 square miles. As of 2000, the time it takes for a resident to drive to work ranks amongst the third longest in the nation, barely trailing New York (U. S. Census Bureau 2000). It also has the nation’s largest transit agency that does not receive llocated monies and because of this struggles financially (Wyly 1999) . HOUSING Meager mobility has made it difficult for the residents to access jobs in the area. Over 60% percent of the jobs are located 10 miles or more from the central business district (Glaeser et al. 2001). It is likely that the racial face of the city and the development strategies will have something to do with gentrification in Atlanta. Housing in Atlanta has evolved from a low density suburban community to a more diverse collection of high rises, shops, hotels, restaurants and bars mixed in with residences.

Atlanta has added over 25,000 new units, increased density by 7 percent, tore down over 20,000 homes, displaced thousand of residents without compensation and changed the whole racial profile of the city (Atkinson 2004). Between 1998 and 2000 resurgent gentrification created tensions between the different racial, class, and sexual preferences. The existing neighborhoods were entirely African American and the people moving in were predominately white. The class difference conflict was based on poorer renters who lived in a community and whites moving in and purchasing the homes.

There was also a significant number of gay and lesbians moving into Atlanta. The South is already known for not accepting a minority group and the influx of a taboo sexual preference added to the frustration. To combat the problem of gentrification, Atlanta came up with several organizations to oversee the revitalization of inner cities with inclusiveness as its policy. The new policy recognized the increasing number of residences and looked into spreading the attractivness to housing for some low and middle-income residents (Keating, 2008).

But it didn’t last long. As soon as the Olympic games ended, money stopped flowing into the distressed neighborhoods. Retail stores have contributed to the gentrification phenomenon in Atlanta. Target, Gap, Victoria’s secret recently opened stores in a 138- acre new urbanist development that is located near Atlanta’s business district. Planners, architects and city builders have celebrated Atlanta station as a good product for the city. They combined townhomes, suburban amenities and private city and everything is within a walkable distance (Hankins 2008).

But there is tension around this district. The sprawl of retail stores that are not unique to Atlanta’s landscape has the residents longing for a shopping environment that caters to their style. At the turn of the century, Atlanta experienced a tremendous growth in the number of immigrants in the city, the overwhelming majority coming Mexico and Central America. The Latino population increased about 300 percent from 1990 to 2000 . Georgia now has the eleventh largest Latino population in the United States.

When immigrants come to new cities, they usually settle within the inner city then move outward toward the suburbs over the course one or two generations. But in Atlanta, because of the cities makeup, immigrants have began to settle in areas that are classified as suburban. By skipping inner city residences, Latinos in the South are less likely to share social space with the resident African American population (Gallegher 2008). The rapid growth of Latino population to Georgia is a relatively new phenomenon.

But the social and economic issues arising from the relatively sudden arrival of new immigrants are not. Tensions over language, competition over jobs and housing and fears that new immigrants wont conform to our way of living is troublesome to some. Latino Immigrants today are following the footprints of immigrants of previous eras.. In Georgia, Latinos now comprise about one in twelve students in public schools compared to blacks at seventeen percent and whites at 58 percent. Over the past 20 years, Atlanta has lived up to its name as the New South.

The population has become more diverse because of the large Hispanic population. The Atlanta region seems to be following the classic growth example set by many other large cities with its growth on labor forces and niches based on gender race and ethic and racial transition occurring in declining suburbs. This uniqueness has made Atlanta the number one destination for migration within the United States for all people ( Bostic, 2005). One of the most frequently cited reasons for the rapid Atlanta metropolitan area growth is the strength of its economy.

Membership in a particular racial or ethnic group has a significant impact on earnings and therefore dictates where one can afford to live and in Atlanta it has contributed to resurgent gentrification. Resurgent gentrification can be characterized by the increasing number of African Americans being seen as gentrifiers and the whites coming back to black neighborhoods. The population of Blacks in Atlanta declined. The jobs that people choose typically are the ones of managerial and professional occupations and have been seen as catalysts for gentrification.

The increasing number of households that are considered wealthy in number is also an indicator of gentrification. There are two types of housing associated with these levels of income: mansions and luxury condominiums and they have to be built somewhere. Taken together, the number of people that moved to the city, the increasing portion of those that are white, the decreasing portion that are black, the increasing portion that are rich, and the declining portion of the population that are married all point to resurgent gentrification.

Tax Allocation District| Total| Affordable| Total | Affordable| Eastside| 847| 213| 857| 514| WestSide| 922| 45| 261| 194| Atlantic Station| 2,849| 401| 645| 547| Princeton Lakes| 849| 727| 350| TBD| Total| 5,467| 1,386| 2,113| 1,255| Neighborhoods are constantly undergoing some level of change. For those communities that are facing gentrification, there are a number of things that affect that community’s ability to cope with that change. The black neighborhoods in Atlanta were overwhelmed with the forces that had the power to completely transform their entire city.