Cities and The Faux Cities
While city life, or at least the concept, is coming back into vogue for the “creative class”, little is being done to curb the switch of minorities and low-income residents out to the suburbs as they are replaced by wealthier, white counterparts. The city is, by design, an environmental and social solution to the problems of sprawl, yet the American perception of cities has been both beneficial and detrimental. On one hand, the city is seen as the dumping grounds for low-income residents and minorities in deteriorating neighborhoods, and on the other as an exciting, trendy scene for young people. Now that America is no longer a vast wilderness of opportunity, the old city has become the new frontier of choice and options.
The idea of downtown revitalization has been a successful decision in many large cities where the declining population needed a galvanizing force to lure residents back in. This has proven to work out well, for an emerging generation is now realizing the benefits of the city that simply can not be substituted by the suburbs. However, the creative class of residents who have entered the scene with hammers and paintbrushes in hand to make what is old new again have succeeded in pushing the former residents out to the not-so-tantalizing suburbs. This process of un-intended gentrification has slowly brought in big businesses and chains that appeal to white, affluent new residents, and has risen rents by ameliorating the historic districts with walk-able amenities – a huge selling point in the days of high gas prices and desire for historic charm.
The cycle of the filtering process now favors higher-income residents in the cities as they gradually take over whole developments. The problem with this trend is that although the streets look neater, the houses brighter, and the tiny yards greener, those who can no longer afford to live in the now high-dollar real estate have no choice but to relocate to the suburbs, where they still grapple with affordability.
When neighborhoods in inner cities first begin to change, there is a temporarily lower rate of segregation by race and income, yet this is not long-lasting, and eventually entire neighborhoods turn over completely. The process of gentrification pushes the former residents out by the raised land value of the neighborhood as landlords begin to charge higher rents. This is then compounded when pricey chain stores move in to tailor to the growing affluent population and can not meet the needs of low-income residents. In this way, rent is only one factor of affordability in a neighborhood. While the minority residents may not be ostracized or singled out directly, the choice is often made for them to relocate to where the cost of living is potentially more reasonable.
Even when there is forced mixed income, to strike a balance of backgrounds, the results are regularly mixed in their success. For example, in Chicago, the Cabrini-Green public housing has been entirely overhauled to provide a stark contrast of former residents mixed with affluent residents. The plan is hopeful, and still too early to give substantial results, but already there have been problems. One article about this transformation highlights the problems already facing this hopeful balance of rich and poor in the same neighborhood, or even apartment complex: gentrification has already taken root in the neighborhood. According to the article, even the common spaces, the familiar places for residents to come together, are being gentrified. In particular, “the basketball courts – the great equalizer… – have been replaced by a Blockbuster, two Starbucks, and a grocery store that has its own sushi station” (O’Connor). The author remarks that this plan can “create two classes of the extremely poor” (O’Connor). One of these classes is comprised of those who are able to adjust, to work their way up to the point that they can leave the class altogether and survive without government help. The other class is of those who will never break the cycle.
Another aspect of the trend towards cities and traditional development structures is that of the faux-city or New Urbanism. New Urbanism has many positive components: it combats sprawl by promoting compact development; it generates a healthier neighborhood; and it mimics city growth by planning for long-term use. Because New Urbanism takes away the focus of the car on daily life, and garners a safe, interactive network of people, it seems like the prime solution for low-income housing and minimizing segregation. However, since New Urbanism has been so popular with residents, developers focus their attentions to financially significant buyers, who end up being white, affluent citizens.
In this way, the segregation tends to be even more pronounced in the New Urbanism development pattern than in actual cites and traditional neighborhoods, where development came about organically over time. New Urbanism is having a similar effect on today’s population that suburbs had to Americans in the 1950’s. While it seems like a responsible choice to locate a home or business in one of these Transportation Oriented Developments, ultimately there is an element of social fabric missing from the benefits of these developments. “Traditional Neighborhood Development” is a misleading title and the neighborhoods that are resulting, at least for now, are marketed towards white, affluent residents, and thereby not affordable enough to create a mix of incomes and races.
In the case of Chicago, New Urbanism is being plopped into an old urban neighborhood, which is somewhat of a false fit. O’Connor’s article concludes that these mixed-income developments are “neither good nor bad” and that the real problem is that they are “touted as a strategy to uplift residents” while in fact serving cities to “fund redevelopment and gentrification”. The question remains: what is the long term solution to poverty and housing affordability in America and how can neighborhoods become less segregated? So far, New Urbanism and the trendiness of Old Urbanism becoming new have not provided a workable answer, despite the promise that they seem to hold.
Leave a Reply