BUILDING UP
EXPLORATION 2
Buildings as a manifestation of the wealth transition in Brooklyn.
By nature of its process, gentrification typically causes some sort of modification of the pre-existing landscape, topography, and typology of the location of its infestation. This means that, with a change in wealth comes a change in the condition of the domestic environment.
When residential developers begin to sense that a neighborhood has a larger capital value capacity than its current condition suggests, they'll likely begin to start preying on local zoning codes and for-sale land plots within the given area. In some cases, neighborhoods naturally increase in capital value as a result of expanding city-limits and the pressure that sprawl places on the surroundings of an urban area. Other neighborhoods are "worked on" by local governments and/ or developers in order to make the location more desirable or safe to live in. This artificially increases the capital value, regardless of intentionality, of the location over time. For example, if a new train line was constructed and it connected Neighborhood C, which was in the middle of Brooklyn, to Manhattan, and it provided as a quicker commute over to Manhattan than other locations within Brooklyn, Neighborhood C might quickly inherit more capital value than it held in its previous state. Though this is a method of artificial capital development, it is capital development none the less.
This is often the tipping point of the conversation about gentrification, where it gets confused with the term "urban renewal". While both gentrification and urban renewal have in common the revitalization of an urban landscape, it is believed that urban renewal is developed by professionals in government or planning who have experience with improvement of neighborhoods without displacement of the under-privileged. Gentrification, on the other hand, is a simple feed of the interests of the emerging presence of wealthy residents in a formerly disinvested-in location... so development is done according to the demands of the market and by professionals looking to make a profit, rather than by those who have a better interest for the neighborhood in mind.
Oftentimes, politicians, land developers, contractors, and architects will cover up their possible gentrifying footprint by naming their proposals as "urban revitalization" projects. By using this language, these people can attempt to convince the public or the policy makers that their projects are healthy for their cities, even when they sometimes might not be. Naturally, as infrastructure ages, it is treated by government officials or development planners with renovation and replacement plans. Their claim is they do what they have to do to keep the city safe... which is certainly a valid claim when we are talking about building codes or transportation upgrades. If we don’t do this, our subways might be caught holding train loads that their tracks weren’t designed to bear the weight of, or a building's structural security might possibly wear beyond its intended lifetime, putting the general health of its residents in danger. This is because the land we inhabit or the facilities that we occupy are considered old development and often weren't at first built to support the type of heavy use that it experiences in today. Just as people are begging the government to reform our gun laws to better serve the times and conditions that we live in, we need for the government to do the same to our facilities and services. It is truly the only safe option for both low-class and middle-class city dwellers, alike. Inevitably this form of renewal is an attractive bonus for people looking to inhabit a location and another contributor to the play-out of gentrification.
People have been writing on the differences between gentrification and urban renewal for many years, now. An article that more appropriately illustrates the dialogue around this topic better than myself can be referenced at this url:
https://dirt.asla.org/2014/09/26/is-urban-revitalization-without-gentrification-possible/
This inherent interconnection of the dialogue around and about gentrification with the formalized and appropriated lingo of “urban revitalization” is why gentrification has gone on for so long without appropriate representation as a critical urban social justice crisis. When our politicians and land developers are able to combat their connection to gentrification with dialogue that over-dilutes their impacts by over-discussing their intentions, like as follows in a description from the link referenced above,
The District government calls this project “revitalization without gentrification,” as all current residents will be allowed to come back to the new development. “There will be zero displacement.” The city also promises it will undertake a program of “build first before demolition.” To increase the diversity of the development, some 300 of the new units will be affordable housing, rentals, or for sale. The city also wants to encourage small businesses to locate in Barry Farms. They are creating “live-work” sites that will enable people to live above their stores. “We need to get rid of the bullet proof glass.”
They are able to avoid their responsibilities of representing the interests of ALL of their constituents.
In order to better understand the ways that buildings manifest as a transition of wealth into the area, I have referenced a photography project titled “Brooklyn Changing” by Kristy Chatelain.
Click into this tab
in order to see some of her photos, which are a perfect opportunity to understand this transition from a distance through the screen of a computer or phone, as the photography is a comparison project… a view of before and after.
To read more about how I’ve digested the ideas written about, find your way to the