MIAD
BRIDGE
An Interview with Peanut Gallery Kyle Gaffin We’re Not All Goldilocks Diego Torres Silvestre The G Word: Gentrification and Its Many Meanings Gillian B. White
1
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR I have been living in Milwaukee for most of my life up to this point and while I’ve create a life here, I noticed the copious amount of new housing sprouting throughout the city of Milwaukee. The East Side, Riverwest, Third Ward, Walker’s Point, and Bay View have seen its fair share of urbanization and it has created tension in the community. The Milwaukee neighborhoods have shown a great amount of development which is not always a bad thing under certain circumstances. The residents are fearful of the newly developed areas around their homes which drive up housing prices and rent and causes them to move out or worse, get kicked out of their homes. Gentrification is the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste. This processes cause exclustivity and hurts the current community. I am hopeful that this magazine issue will inspire you, the reader, to connect with your city and community to learn how you can can help stop gentrification in your neighboorhood and help others around you. Your knowledge on this subject can greatly affect the city you reside in and make sure that the right infrastructure is being built to provide the right resources for your community. C H RIS TIAN AC OS TA -McKILLOP
2
We’re Not All Goldilocks, We Don’t All Want The Same Porridge By Diego Torres Silvestre
08 Local Infrastructure: A Service Learning Essay By Anna Stephens
14 The G Word: Gentrification and Its Many Meanings By Gillian B. White
D EP A
RT M
EN
T
CL E TI R A
02
Artists, Communities, & Gentrification: An Interview with Peanut Gallery By Kyle Gaffin
04 What Gentrification Looks Like, In Lines, Dots, Shapes And Colours By Salonee Gadgil
10 Ways to Reduce the Negative Impact of Gentrification By Katy Kreitler
16 1
ARTISTS, COMMUNITIES, & GENTRIFICATION
AN INTERVIEW WITH
PEANUT GALLERY
Charlie Megna, Kelly Reaves, Jessi Meliza, Ryan Burns, & Brandon Howe
Peanut Gallery was an exhibition and studio space run by an artist cooperative consisting of Charlie Megna, Kelly Reaves, Jessi Meliza, Ryan Burns, and Brandon Howe. They described themselves as “specializing in showing ambitious new work by local emerging artists and connecting people with one another through workshops, screenings, artist talks and forums. Our goal is to nurture a vibrant, inclusive creative community, while encouraging questioning of established norms and good-spirited mischief.” From 2010 to 2014, they operated a space in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago, at the corner of California Ave. and Augusta Blvd. In the fall of 2014, they were forced to close up that space and move out due to their landlord’s plans to completely “remake” the intersection. “Gentrification got the best of us and we lost our storefront,” they said in a post. I sat down with them to discuss these changes and the issue of gentrification, the challenges of running a community arts space, and their hopes and plans for what was to be Peanut Gallery’s new location in Logan Square.
2
Kyle Gaffin: How did Peanut Gallery form, and what was your vision for it? Charlie Megna: It started in a small studio space in Wicker Park, which I shared with a group of other people. Kelly and I started hanging out and painting a bunch in there together, and we just kind of had the idea that since we had the space and we knew a ton of people that were making art that wasn’t showing, we just thought we could have some really good shows. So we just started putting shows together. We started with group shows first, putting calls out for people and then selecting friends that we knew had work that fit with the specific theme of the show. Then Brandon started coming and hanging out there a bunch, and then joined and became a part of the gallery. It just kind of formed from there, and kept going and then we got the bigger space after that one, and that’s when it really took off and got more serious.
CM: Yeah, kind of like a platform for people to get started to get shows was kind of the idea. And then to just have fun! Laughs.
Kelly Reaves: I think the vision was always to show what we considered underrepresented artists and to be ourselves and have fun about it.
CM: Yes and no. It was more relevant to younger artists. We had a couple neighborhood kids that would come in regularly and when the school was over there and open at the time, we had a lot of kids from the school that would come in, not necessarily for Drawing Night but they would come in and just hang out...
CM: Yeah, to have a non-threatening style of gallery or something that was very open to everyone… Brandon Howe: And to show artists that are really working hard...Not really trying to have anyone pigeonhole us into one particular style of art. If you’re working hard and you haven’t really had a chance to show your stuff yet…
KR: Yeah, a lot of artists were either still in school or just graduated, and a lot of galleries don’t want to give artists shows unless they feel like the work is really finished and polished and really thought out, and I always liked the idea of giving people shows before it’s quite to that stage, to help people work through stuff. KG: It sounds like you had in mind that this would be primarily an exhibition space. Do you feel like your programs helped you to be connected with the surrounding neighborhood and have the gallery be relevant to those who were living there?
JM: So there was an elementary school just down the street that closed probably two years ago. So when school would let out a lot of those kids would just come and hang around.
&
CM: The neighborhood was hard over there to get people in, we tried to keep it as open as possible and people would come by and say, “I’m going to come do this or that,” but they never really did that much…
The gangs moved over a few blocks. The super specific street-by-street, house-by-house outer workings were all totally in motion. People that you would see all the time just weren’t out anymore.
KG: Why do you think that was?
KG: So what you’ve been describing, that’s basically what gentrification has looked like in Humboldt Park? What do you see as positives and negatives about those shifts?
CM: I mean, it’s just a group of white kids hanging out, so…You know we tried to do events, we did some Palestinian film screenings, and we tried to do things like that to try to bring more people in and be like, “It’s not…you know, come in and hang out and you’ll like it.” But it’s hard to bring people in, especially if they aren’t making art or aren’t that interested in it, it’s hard to get them to come in. There were a bunch of regulars that were neighborhood kids. So we tried a little bit, as much as I think we could, as many ideas as we could! BH: One thing that was difficult was that a lot of neighborhood people seemed like they wanted to be able to come by and just put stuff up, but that’s just not how it was working. So we encouraged them to come work there, but I wonder if that was a deterrent for people sometimes. KR: It’s tricky because we tried to walk the line and be everything to everyone, but at the same time you’re kind of being exclusionary to everyone at the same time, too. JM: And the gallery moved in at kind of a weird, super-transitional time of the neighborhood. It was right around that first change-over that the gallery opened, when we started seeing more people coming in with strollers and, like, younger couples, and people seeing the neighborhood as starting to be a good place to buy property again, so kind of in that upswing and that was really when people started buying up property in Humboldt Park again. So, I would say that it wasn’t just the gallery that was having that kind of identity crisis.
CM: I think it depends on how it happens. Humboldt’s a weird one, ‘cause it jumped. Like, there was no transition from like smaller stores or cafes. There are independent business owners, but it’s all very high-end everything. It jumped from that mid-range price level, to just totally not available to a lot of people that lived there and even a lot of the people that are gentrifying the area. But sorry, I think I kinda lost track of your question…you’re asking how it’s beneficial or not so beneficial? KG: Yeah, I mean, in some ways, those changes, like a decrease in gang violence, these are good things… JM: I wouldn’t call it a decrease in gang violence, by any description. It just literally moved three blocks down. I’m not blind to the idea of gentrification, but the way that gentrification has happened in that particular part of Humboldt Park, it started with people living there and acknowledging that there are things happening that are not necessarily safe, to now, people going in and thinking it’s a cute place to buy a house and just ignoring the fact that there are, like, people dying of heroin overdoses an alley over. So, in terms of what’s positive about it…? CM: It’s nice to be able to go to the park again. I guess in other areas there are ways that certain businesses, certain spaces can do more benefi-
A
cial stuff for the neighborhood, you know when you start opening grocery stores in certain areas and start doing shit like that... JM: Yeah, where suddenly a post-office becomes more serviceable. And I really do think that Peanut Gallery and Knockbox were those transitional spaces, and they’re gone now. Us being there gave people that idea, “It’s the young, artsy part of town.” KR: Yeah, as far as I can see, as a homeowner in a rough neighborhood, I feel like gentrification is good for people who own, and community business owners if they own their building, and probably not so good for everyone else. KG: So you do see Peanut Gallery as being part of this process of gentrification? JM: Yeah, this is in, like, textbooks about how things are gentrified. I mean, not Peanut Gallery, but “the arts.” And this was something we talked about very openly while taking in that space. CM: We know we’re taking part in this, but how can we at least do something that’s, you know, somewhat beneficial... KG: Is there anything else that you feel like you learned from your experience in Humboldt Park? BH: Going back to the point about being conscientious – being in a situation trying to do something for the community, there really needs to be some kind of element of programming, a lot of time and effort put into trying to work with the community. JM: Now, those are all really weird and different questions with what’s going to happen now that we’re in Logan Square. It’s a very different space altogether.
3
WE’RE NOT
4
All
GOLDILOCKS Written by Diego Torres Silvestre Illustrated by Richard Vincent
G
and if you don’t like it, well, you can go oldilocks is the story of a selfish live with the bears. Here’s one take, from young girl who breaks into the Guardian’s recent piece, “Cities need another family’s home, eats their Goldilocks housing density – not too high or food, and destroys their property. She has low, but just right”: There is no question that a very self-centered perception of what’s high urban densities are important, but the “just right,” and question is how high, and she’s perfectly willing to trample Dense enough to build in what form. There is what I have called on the rights of a sense of community, the Goldilocks density: others in her quest dense enough to support to acquire it. It’s but not so dense as to vibrant main streets with fitting, then, that retail and services for local some authors have have everyone slip needs, but not too high that made reference to into anonymity people can’t take the stairs Goldilocks when in a pinch. Dense enough writing about how to support bike and transit cities “should” infrastructure, but not so dense to need be built. But in their view it’s not the subways and huge underground parking little girl who’s the monster, it’s the garages. Dense enough to build a sense of Three Bears and their divergent, community, but not so dense as to have inharmonious tastes. There’s everyone slip into anonymity. Other authors a proper urban density just have written similarly prescriptive articles, as surely as there’s a proper with titles like “Mid-Rise: Density at a porridge temperature,
5
Human Scale,” which makes the case that density is important, but that too much density can be harmful. Or “Why I Miss the Suburbs,” which consists of a woman who lives in New York City complaining about all the things she misses about the suburbs. Or here’s a local Seattle man offering his feelings on micro-housing: “I don’t think most people want to live next to a boarding house with itinerant people living in it.” Putting aside the loaded
6
language of that last quote, what each of these share is the belief that there’s a “right” way to build cities. In their view there’s a balanced amount of development—somewhere between two-story dingbats and 80-story skyscrapers—that will make everyone happy. This mindset is no less destructive than Goldilocks herself, but on a scale far beyond at of a single household’s personal property. Most people probably don’t want to live in a city full of skyscrapers, but some surely do. Manhattan is a real place, after all. Not everyone wants to live in a sprawling, suburban neighborhood either. Some people enjoy the anonymity of
the big city, others hate it. To state the very obvious, different people are different. They like different foods and different cars, or they don’t like cars at all; they have different political ideologies and appreciate different art; and they enjoy different urban environments to different degrees.
This mindset is no less destructive than Goldilocks herself...
Imposing my values to ensure that only a specific type of urban environment exists robs others of the opportunity to find their own Happy City. Unlike Goldilocks, who breaks some dishware and a chair or two, successful NIMBYs are taking away entire homes from people who would like to live in their city—they remove those potential homes from the market, and they drive up the cost of living for everyone else in the process. There’s something to be said for incrementalism, but arbitrary limits to density, excessive parking minimums, and other rigid regulations that define
which forms are acceptable (and, more to the point, which are not) cost us dearly: lost productivity, overpriced housing, air pollution, sprawl, poor health and obesity; the list goes on and on. In cities—places known for accepting and celebrating diversity—it’s amazing that we have to fight over what kinds of housing are appropriate and not. If it’s safe and clean, and someone wants to live in it, that should resolve 90 percent of the issue. They should have the right to live as they please. Community input should play a role, including on aesthetic matters, but arguments that
“I wouldn’t want to live there” have no place in the discussion, especially when those homes are maintaining vacancy rates of approximately zero. If no one wants to live there, no one will, and you’ll be unlikely to see that type of housing again any time soon.
7
GENTRIFICATION, ARTISTS, & COMMUNITIES
GENTRIFICATION, IN LINES, DOTS, SHAPES AND COLOURS By Salonee Gadgil
The Atlas of Gentrification is “a collection of data visualisations, graphs and maps which respond to the phenomenon and related issues, such a segregation and income inequality,” Scherabon says. With this project, nearly a year in the making, graphic designer Scherabon hopes to lift the veil on gentrification, an issue which he says often gets caricatured as merely being about the migration of hipsters.
Though based in London, Scherabon found inspiration for the project in the Unites States. When traveling through cities such as Chicago and San Francisco he observed the varying impact of gentrification on different urban environments. He decided to study the phenomenon further and picked Chicago, San Francisco, New York City, Boston, Portland Oregon, Los Angeles, Detroit, London and Glasgow to be the subjects of investigation. These cities were chosen because they each have a different issue at the core of their gentrification stories, he says; while it’s sky rocketing rents in London, it’s racial segregation in Chicago, forced evictions in San Francisco and so on. These issues make the movement, displacement of people in each city uniquely nuanced. To understand these nuances, Scherabon turned to empirical data. Apart from some primary research he conducted in Glasgow, most of the data he used for the Atlas is freely available open source information from government bodies and independent researchers. Then came the process of interpreting the
8
data and presenting it visually – in graphics that simplify and dramatise the empirical. “What really matters to me is that I get people to engage with the information” he says, “and sometimes an abstract approach is more engaging than a literal one.” In analyzing the data Scherabon reached some unexpected conclusions. A lot of the data sets hadn’t been combined, compared and juxtaposed in this way before. For instance, in Los Angeles his graphics reveal how in certain neighbourhoods gang membership decreased with increasing rents. Another sunburst diagram (pictured below) shows the correlation between political changes and the UK housing market. “At about 4 o’clock on the diagram there is a visible gap in the grey lines. This is exactly when Margaret Thatcher came into office.” While this version of the Atlas is now complete and awaiting a publisher, the project isn’t quite over. “At the moment it only comprehends a fraction of topics and a few key cities”, says Scherabon, “I might possibly look at further editions with new cities that I haven’t explored so far.”
Gentrification Milwaukee
Tract Gentrifying Did Not Gentrify Not Eligible to Gentrify
16 116 77 9
local
infrastructure: a service learning essay By Anna Stephens
10
When first moving to Milwaukee three years ago, I was intrigued by the historic architecture of the third ward. I spent my first year living in this neighborhood, which proved to be a very eye opening experience. There seemed to be clear attention payed to restoring many of
the old industrial buildings that make up the area. As far as what kinds of businesses made up the neighborhood and how accessible basic necessities were, that was a different story. Nearly all the businesses in the third ward and downtown for that matter consist of salons, galleries
and expensive boutiques, with only a handful of grocery stores. As an architecture minor, and a resident of Milwaukee, I find it troubling that the there seems to be a disconnect between aesthetics of the buildings downtown and which they are catering the needs of its residents.
Photo by: Igor Ovsyannykov
11
A major element to how Milwaukee’s infrastructure is organized is tourism. Of course one of the biggest money making events that Milwaukee hosts every year is Summerfest. Though this event only takes place for a span of a week, the grounds for the festival are permanently installed year round. Adequate parking, restrooms, and stages all add up overtaking a large chunk of Milwaukee’s downtown real estate. Though at first glance this area can seem slightly confusing during any given time during the off season, every part of these grounds is strategically designed. Milwaukee’s downtown businesses seem to share a similar trend in that they feel very vacant more often than not. The majority of these sky rises have been taken over by large corporations and banks. Granted they do provide jobs, they don’t make for a very engaging downtown for visitors looking for things to do. Other than going to bars, night clubs, or putting a check in the bank the average person doesn’t have a whole lot of options for things to do downtown. As I see it, wealthy corporations that occupy the majority of the downtown area are driving out middle and lower class residents from living in the area. Likewise I see a widening gap between the wealthy corporations and the middle to lower class that live in the area. Grand Avenue Mall is one example of a once flourishing oasis that now sits nearly vacant on Wisconsin Avenue. Many of the stores inside sit boarded up, while the interior has been taken over by Milwaukee’s homeless. The current state of this place is an underlining situation that something needs to be done! For instance, why not utilize the number of vacant office
12
“Without sense of
purpose, men and societies do not keep afloat for very long, morally or economically.”
buildings that make up downtown and turn them into community centers? Homelessness and segregation, both very serious issues throughout the city, could be addressed through renovating spaces downtown that are sitting empty. Perhaps if the government invested funds in trying to renovate and embrace the vacant buildings throughout the city, it would help to create a better sense of community. In his book Ill Fares the Land, author Tony Judt states “Without sense of purpose, men and societies do not keep afloat for very long, morally or economically”. This point without a doubt is relevant to these issues in Milwaukee. Clearly what needs to happen is the society and local government have to join together with the local community and its residents to pursue a common goal. These issues of infrastructure are not at all just local, but on a national level as well. A recent report given by the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation a D grade in this category. Of course the main objective here and in most cases is money. According to the same report they estimated it would take a $2.2 trillion investment from the government over the next five years to repair it. Though I do not think an issue such as segregation relative to this matter can necessarily be
fixed with money, I do believe investing slightly more funds in construction is vital. What seems to be lacking is a balanced distribution of investments throughout the city. For instance, the beautifully restored third ward in a span of about 12 square blocks is cut off by empty buildings, abandoned warehouses and uninviting storefronts that lead into downtown. Tony Judt discusses a topic in his book that he refers to as “socially responsible modernization”. He discusses the difference between developing infrastructure that acts as a moneymaking device, vs. that which benefits or serves a community. I think this point is key especially in attempting to both understand and repair places in Milwaukee. What is always a struggle in developing cities anywhere across the nation is trying to find a balance between corporate and small
Photo by: Stuart Guest-Smith
businesses. Likewise, providing the kinds of resources that benefit its residents. Wholelistic developments that Judt describes such as redistricting entire neighborhoods, or throwing up giant office buildings in historic areas are what he describes as “symptoms of uncontrolled and insensitive power.” This idea is reminiscent of Milwaukee’s era of urbanization during the 1960s. During this time a mass amount of freeways and transit systems were con-
structed, driving out many of the low-income neighborhoods, displacing families, and further segregating ethnic groups. What seems clear to many as well as me is that times such as this should serve as an examples of how not to impose developments within a community. The quality of a project should be measured by how it actually benefits its residents not solely be aesthetics, or convenience. In order to make this happen, the community itself holds a responsibility to voice what
they need. “The idea that those in authority know best- that they are engaged in social engineering on behalf of people who do not understand what is good for them” is a very valid point which Judt discusses in relation to the renewal era following World War II. It can be very easy to assume that the government knows what would best cater a community’s needs, it’s their job to help its residents. It seems that Milwaukee could use a bit more action taken on a local level concerning issues of community. Bay View is a very good example of a wellfunctioning neighborhood, which is thriving off of its local businesses through working together as a community. If we approached Milwaukee’s downtown in the same light through working with other residents, to understand what is truly needed, we would have a flourishing neighborhood and possibly a less segregated city.
Photo by: Tom Barrett
13
COMMUNITIES, ARTISTS, & GENTRIFICATION
Ways Privileged People Can
Reduce Negative
Impact of Gentrification By Katy Kreitler
Change Starts with Us
Challenging your privilege sucks, and it’s easy to find a reason to resist. I just got here! I didn’t make this building or set this rent! I work hard at my job! I took the apartment I could afford! I’ve been dreaming of opening this restaurant my whole life! I charge six dollars for gluten-free donuts because people pay it! Yes, you’re right. You’re not single-handedly responsible for all the problems in your city, and if you’re not a speculator or a landlord or a millionaire, you’re probably also limited by gentrification in some way. But your actions have consequences, and they don’t exist outside of the larger social context. So, when you’re sitting on the balcony of your new high-rise flat eating your six-dollar vegan donut, watching the community below you crumble, you must ask yourself: Do I have a part in this? How do my actions affect this community? Is there something I can do with my power, privilege, and —ahem— money?
14
1
Acknowledge Your Privilege
Privilege is a complicated issue, and no one is definitively “privileged” or “oppressed.” But if you are able to live somewhere post-gentrification, are able to enjoy the amenities in a gentrified neighborhood, and aren’t somebody that people want out of their neigh-borhood due to some aspect of your physical presentation or identity, then you have some privilege that others don’t. Own it. And use it to engender change. Like, if you’re chillin’ at your start-up and your broworker is bragging about how he kicked a bunch of Latino teenagers off of their neighborhood soccer field because he paid the city to rent the field, put down your craft brew, hop on the slide down to the first floor, and be like, “Not cool, bro!” But that’s the thing about power: It’s powerful.
2
Respect the History of Your Neighborhood
Neighborhoods have a history, a people, a unique culture. Enjoy it, learn about it, and work to preserve it, even as new cultural
elements and businesses are introduced. Don’t expect it to look like your old neighborhood.
3
Listen to the Voices of Your Neighbors
People like to talk about being a “voice for the oppressed.” That’s misguided. The oppressed have their own voices. We just have to hear them. In February, Spike Lee criticized gentrification in the Fort Greene neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY, where he grew up. When he was a child, Lee recounted, “The garbage wasn’t picked up every [expletive] day…the police weren’t around… why does it take an influx of white New Yorkers for the facilities to get better…to get the schools better?” Lee’s impassioned speech was met with vicious criticism. Apparently, Lee had “mouthed off ” and should “take a valium and calm down.” Don’t dismiss the voices of marginalized people of color according to your genteel preferences. Open your mind. Truths aren’t always spoken calmly.
4
Understand That Residents Have Feelings
If there is anger, there’s a reason. People who have been disadvantaged by gentrification may not be friendly or nice to you if your presence represents the destruction of their neighborhood – the very destruction that you benefit from. Be sensitive to this, and allow for some discomfort. Your discomfort is nothing compared to a disenfranchised group’s oppressed experience.
5
Make Socially Conscious Decisions
When you go out for a coffee or a drink or a sandwich, think about the places you are going to. Are they welcome spaces for all types of people? Do they fit into the social landscape of the existing community? Do they hire local bartenders and waiters? Are they paid a living wage? Are there at least a few items on the menu that most people in the area could afford? It doesn’t always matter that these places aren’t new – there’s always room for creativity and innovation – but that they add to the character of the neighborhood and don’t take away from it.
6
Invest in Focused Organizations
Developers and large businesses love to create charities and fundraising projects to minimize (read: distract us from) the damage they are doing to a community. These projects are, however, often run by people from the organization
(read: not the community). If you want to invest your money or time into a community (yes! do!), make sure you are giving directly to the community and following their lead. Communities know who they are, how they do things, and what they need better than outside bodies. And they should have the agency to direct these efforts towards change.
7
Question Exclusionary Tactics
You may be told that the influx of bouncers, security guards, and police in your area is about keeping everyone safe. Be skeptical. Because this isn’t about the safety of everyone. Security staff keep paying customers safe while making elite spaces unwelcome to anyone who doesn’t look like they fit in. Ask a teen in a hoodie if they feel safe in front of a nice restaurant or with increased law enforcement presence in the area and you might get a very different perspective. Most importantly, despite claims that revitalization lowers crime, studies have suggested that gentrification actually increases crime. So, there’s that.
8
Advocate for Yourself and Others
Get to know the tenant rights laws in your area – they may be more comprehensive than you realize – and visit local organizations for additional information. Share materials with others. Stand with your neighbors if they are facing eviction or being taken advantage of, and do the same for yourself. When my last landlord attempted exploitative and illegal actions, ones he had carried out successfully
with a string of young female tenants before us, we reported him immediately to the Rent Board. We won several hundred dollars, a signed agreement to stop, and the upper hand. We moved nearly a year ago, and he has yet to re-rent the place. These victories matter.
9
Vote
This may be the most important factor of all. Your vote can determine how rent control is regulated, how much affordable housing is built, whether a large corporation can build a skyscraper on your cityscape, what social services will be available this year, and other things that affect your area. So, get out to the polls! No dress code required.
It’s easy to become overwhelmed by the reality of gentrification, but if you’re able to afford your apartment and your groceries, it’s also easy to ignore. This isn’t about blame or guilt, but a call to make choices more in line with our values and visions of the world while maintaining respect for the visions that community members have for their own communities. Unfortunately, not everyone will hear this call to action. They will shut their curtains, lock their doors, and call the cops if it gets too loud.
15
Ask city-dwellers to describe what, precisely, gentrification is you’ll get an array of answers. The term is a murky one, used to describe the many different ways through which money and development enter poorer or less developed neighborhoods, changing them both economically and demographically. For some, gentrification and gentrifiers are inherently bad—pushing
out residents who are often older, poorer, and darker than the neighborhood’s new occupants. For others, a new group of inhabitants brings the possibility of things residents have long hoped for, better grocery stores, new retail, renovations, and an overall revitalization that often eludes low-income neighborhoods. In his new book The Edge Becomes The Center: An Oral History of Gentrification in the 21st Century, author D.W.
Gibson talks to New Yorkers on all sides of the argument—from developers and soon-to-be-displaced residents, to landlords and community activists. In their own words his interviewees talk about the tensions that drive the battle surrounding gentrification: issues of class, complexion, money, and power. I spoke to Gibson about what he learned during his many conversations and whether or not there’s a better way that neighborhoods can change without sacrificing the communities, and people, who’ve long called them home.
THE G WORD:
GENTRIFICATION AND Talking gentrification with D.W. Gibson and Gillian B. White
16
Was the idea for a book on gentrification based on things that you’ve seen first hand?
Gibson: Yeah, I think there is a better way to talk about what’s happening in cities, and what’s happening in New York in particular. The first thing that comes to mind is what Steven Chu, the architect, said at the end of his chapter, where he commented that language evolves and land evolves as well. Of course it does. And words get really tired. They get well-tread, and ubiquitous, and diffuse, and they lose their original point of origin. So I think that we can stop leaning on that one word and try to talk about all the aspects that affect our lives when a lot of money comes to town and people are displaced, and the character of the neighborhood changes. I think it’s better to be more precise with which of those discussions we’re having.
Is there a better way to talk about what’s happening in cities like New York?
D.W. Gibson: Yeah, in large part. I moved to New York in 1995, when I was 17 years old. I lived in a motel, a single-room occupancy place at 103rd and Broadway. When I arrived, Times Square was essentially under scaffolding, and all the XXX shops were being removed, and Disney was renovating the New Amsterdam Theatre. That was my entry point to New York, and I feel like ever since I moved here it’s been a construction zone. So absolutely. I think my own time here and my own perspective definitely motivated this book and framed it.
Q
ITS MANY MEANINGS 17
“At its heart it’s a class issue,
but in the States, through our history, we’ve made it a race issue. It very much is a race
issue.” White: What exactly, or who exactly, is a gentrifier? And do you find that people really had differing views on what that definition was? Gibson: Yeah, for some people, it’s a totally, completely, no question about it, toxic word. So they would never assign it to someone in the neighborhood that might be new and might be very different from the existing population. They wouldn’t assign it to them because they’re nice, so it’s just for the mean people. So that happens, for sure. I don’t necessarily concur with that, but it happens quite a bit. At its heart it’s a class issue, but in the States, through our history, we’ve made it a race issue. It very much is a race issue. But then you have people like Celia Weaver at UHAB [Urban Homesteading Assistance
18
Board], who is interviewed in the book. She talks about her work as a community organizer, but she also talks about being a twenty-something caucasian female moving into predominantly African-American neighborhood and what that feels like and how she feels inherently guilty and tries to create a social fabric and social relationships for herself in the neighborhood. So when someone becomes conscientious, I don’t think they’ll hesitate to self-identify as a gentrifier, but they want to try to recast that word, or at least change their behavior to give a good spin to it. White: One of the things I noticed was that people were trying to separate out the idea of gentrification by race versus gentrification by class. But often those two seem like they’re somewhat interchangeable, or they get lumped together a lot. How interchangeable do you think those things are, and why do you think people were so adamant about creating that separation?
Gibson: I think at the end of the day they are inextricable. There are a lot of class issues at the heart of capital coming to the neighborhood and displacement and all of these factors that are a part of what we loosely call gentrification. But at the end of the day, we can’t operate in a bubble in 2015. We have to acknowledge all the historic context, all the different forms of discrimination, particularly red-lining, these sorts of practices, that have made the class issue a race issue. At its heart it’s a class issue, but in the States, through our history, we’ve made it a race issue. It very much is a race issue. White: And to that point, I think one of the factors that was the most striking in your book, was the really blatant racism. In one section, Ephraim, a landlord in Brooklyn, says, “If it’s white tenants only, it’s clean. I know it’s a little bit racist but it’s not. They’re the ones that are paying and I have to give them what they want. Or I’m not going to get the tenants and the money is not going to be what it is.” It was one of those things that I think many people feel is true,
but seeing the admission is still surprising. How pervasive was that strain of thought in your interviews? Gibson: Unfortunately, I could’ve put a lot more individuals in the book that expressed bigotry in one form or another. It’s pervasive enough to be an ingredient in what’s going on. There are all kinds of landlords and developers. The book ends with probably one of the most benevolent landlords I’ve ever met. That said, this archetype of a malevolent landlord, who is detached in any way—in terms of social fabric—from the people who live in the buildings that he or she may own, or it may own, that is very pervasive. I spoke to numerous landlords and developers who in one way or another echoed
“ But
what Ephraim said. He’s in the book because he was the one who was willing to say it pointblank, and, while that’s really brutal and difficult to read, I think it’s important to have it. A lot of people sort of dance around it. There’ll be lots of hints and intonations, “We’re looking to bring ‘different’ kinds of people into the building,” and that kind of stuff. It’s a very real issue for a lot of people that are trying to find a place to work and a place to live in New York City. White: When it comes to the way neighborhoods are changing, everyone has a chance to participate in some way or another. I think a lot of times you look at gentrifiers and you look at people whose space is being gentrified. Do you think that’s true? Is there a chance for everyone to participate in a positive way?
Gibson: I do think that’s true. A person who might be on the verge of displacement. The landlord is breathing down their neck to accept the buyout. Maybe they’re experiencing other forms of harassment. They can become engaged in the community. There are all kinds of advocacy groups that put together everything from public rallies to documents that might be a part of the legislative process. I think that kind of community engagement for someone who is on the verge of displacement is the best thing that they can do. But that said, I’m a realist, and I’ve met enough people to understand that some people might fight that good fight and still get displaced. I think we very often get wrapped up in the idea of the virtual and how we can communicate with people half the world away.
I’m a realist, and understand that some people might fight that good fight and still get displaced. ”
19
White: Were there different responses to move into a neighborhood from major universities, such as Columbia or NYU, versus when it’s just an individual landlord buying a building? Gibson: The thing with the universities is that they become so dominant in the neighborhood and a lot of people have strong reactions to that. I think it’s worth really highlighting the difference between Columbia and NYU—two large highereducation institutions that have done massive development projects in New York City over the last couple of decades. But they’ve done them very very differently. Columbia, their vision for development is to treat these fortified campuses as these fortresses you can only get into with a pass. The whole “Ivory Tower” thing. Gibson: Exactly. You have high walls all around, and you have all kinds of stuff going on under ground in terms of infrastructure and maintenance, so that stuff doesn’t have interact with students above. Columbia’s model is very different than when we talked to Andrew Ross and Steven Chu and a few other people who talk about NYU, and it’s almost
20
the polar opposite approach of becoming a part of the neighborhood—building throughout the neighborhood.
no and ended up selling that building just a couple of years later to the Ace Hotel chain for at least $30 million.
And I think that’s actually the better choice. The best thing you can do is have the university be a part of the city, be a part of the community. And that’s never going to really happen with the Columbia model. And I think that it’s the volume, and it’s the overbearing nature and the really relentless nature of NYU’s development that I think riles people most.
He was very positive about all the change. He’s very happy there’s a Whole Foods down the block. He’s very happy there’s a fancy, new, modern museum right next door to the Bowery Mission. They’ve given a few internships to the homeless men that live at the Bowery. But he feels like they’re in good faith keeping them in the loop of the development, and they want to find ways to work with them. And I think those are great intentions and I hope they come to fruition. Matt’s optimism and his willingness to accept the change was admirable.
White: Was there anything during your conversations with people that you found surprising about their reactions? Gibson: I was trying to get a beat on how all of the development and change in New York City affects the homeless population, and I talked to a person named Matt who had been homeless himself and has got himself on his feet and now is director of operations at the Bowery Mission, which has been serving the homeless population for around a hundred years. The Bowery Mission tried to buy the building next to them from the Salvation Army several years ago, and they made an offer. The Salvation Army said
White: How does what you learned about gentrification in New York City translate to the the changes that are happening in cities all over the country? Gibson: On the one hand, this is entirely a book about New York, and on the other hand, it’s not at all. What I mean by that is gentrification changes— building to building, block to block, and city to city. There are scenes and dynamics that I think so many urban environments are subjected to.
“ In short term... In the short term, what it means is that if you’re a family looking for a home in New York and you go looking at brownstones out in the farther reaches of Brooklyn, you’re not competing against other families looking for a home, you’re competing against hedge funds—and that’s a whole different ballgame. I think that that’s really the central issue and the central problem of gentrification, and I think that’s what we need to get at and start to solve on a policy level.
Your
competing against hedge funds”
21
22