Research Paper about Gentrification

Does gentrification bring more benefits or detriments when it comes to consumption in the neighbourhood? Gentrification refers to upper or middle-income families and individuals moving into deteriorated urban regions which raises property values but causes the eviction of low-income families and small businesses. This essay will discuss the issue of gentrification and consumption from the viewpoints of residents, businesses, and the government in the context of three gentrifying neighbourhoods in Washington, D.C., United States, namely “Columbia Heights, Petworth and U Street Corridor” (Grier, Sonya A., and Vanessa G. Perry 2018, 26). 

Gentrification involves individuals who are “diversity seekers” (Grier, Sonya A., and Vanessa G. Perry 2018, 25) that have a common feature of exploring and learning about cultures different from their own, moving into underprivileged and minority neighbourhoods. Gentrification separates the area into two groups, namely new and old residents. Some new and old folks favoured the rising diversification, neighbourhood spirit and interactions in their surroundings. However, others argued that diversity caused the replacement of original people and culture initially located in the society and exacerbated the issue of newer populations overshadowing traditional communities. In addition, there was no true diversity, togetherness, and integration because there were outcasts who did not have any social connection and people were only mixing within their race due to arrogance, mistrust, and miscommunication in the gentrified neighbourhood. A few of the long-term natives reflected that newcomers were not able to assimilate into the community as a result of different upbringings, perspectives, and ways of life. The newer population was unable to conform to customs such as greetings, parking rules and demonstrated little interest in the locals which resulted in unhappiness and hostility between the new and old inhabitants in the district. Most long-term residents agreed that the new population brought positive changes such as heightened social safety and upgraded communal services to the community. The new folks were more vocal in pushing for better changes in the region and have successfully pressured the government to feel more urgency in upgrading overlooked areas. However, this also indicated that newcomers dominated the district by having more power in influencing decision-making than natives. The new populace has successfully pushed for the construction of “dog parks and bike lanes” (Grier, Sonya A., and Vanessa G. Perry 2018, 33) which were not well-liked by locals. The traditional inhabitants feel isolated and detached from the community because they were not entitled to provide their opinions before the construction. This eventually led to the old residents leaving the area and moving into rural districts where lodging and levies are more affordable. Gentrification may ultimately reduce the sense of belonging in the community and alter the neighbourhood from a minority and low-income society to a white and higher-income community. 

Gentrification may raise property values and bring in new retail shops for new and old inhabitants to enjoy. Real estate values have at least doubled and there has been an influx of stores owned by non-locals due to gentrification. The population which joined recently were fond of the new shops tailored to suit their preferences, but long-term folks were dismayed as local shops were gradually being taken over, modern boutiques that opened did not cater to their needs and local stores that remained changed their style of business and culture to survive. Permanent inhabitants felt resentment when a taco shop succeeded a local hair braiding store. The reason was that the introduction of these new enterprises, which displaced the older business, was meant to meet the newcomers' demand and such new stores contributed to traditional residents losing shops that were familiar to them. This scenario of new settlers receiving preferential treatment while traditional folks are being neglected is widely acknowledged as a cultural shift that is discriminatory towards the natives because they are disrespected and under-represented. “Ben’s Chilli Bowl” (Grier, Sonya A., and Vanessa G. Perry 2018, 31) was previously a hotspot for traditional folks to congregate has seen a sharp spike in foreign customers but lost local patrons because the stall currently caters to newer customers in order to survive. Old patrons do not frequent this dining outlet nowadays because they feel that the store has transformed and is no longer the same as before. Gentrification in the neighbourhood brought about uncomfortable changes for the traditional population because they felt excluded and faced a shortage of services and necessities. 

Gentrification may bring about a segregated or a “racially diverse” (Grier, Sonya A., and Vanessa G. Perry 2018, 24) district. A segregated neighbourhood is undesirable as it deprives certain minority groups of obtaining better facilities and prevents them from receiving equality. On the other hand, a socially peculiar zone is able to encourage appreciation, assurance, cooperation, and equality between different racial societies. Policymakers in the United States recognized the significance and benefits of a culturally distinct neighbourhood hence introduced specific guidelines such as “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule” (Grier, Sonya A., and Vanessa G. Perry 2018, 25), “Civil Rights Act of 1964” (Grier, Sonya A., and Vanessa G. Perry 2018, 25) and “U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Prosperity Playbook initiative” (Grier, Sonya A., and Vanessa G. Perry 2018, 25). These policies implemented aimed to enhance neighbourhood diversity and eliminate unfairness, thus preventing a segregated neighbourhood that may stem from gentrification. Despite the government efforts, the public criticized the policies devised for being incomprehensive and unsatisfactory as the root problems of inequality, prejudice and lack of social participation remained unsolved. The government has also failed in being all-inclusive of members in the area as they disregarded the original population and only gave attention to the newer folks who were wealthier. This created the impression that the government was biased which made long-term residents disappointed. The policies were also incompetent in promoting synergy between diverse groups and further aggravated the situation of segregation and antipathy. The protocols established were exclusionary which developed “faux diversity” (Grier, Sonya A., and Vanessa G. Perry 2018, 35) that were related to artificial social interactions between people of different backgrounds. The artificial connection between groups is derogatory in the long term as members of the community do not take the initiative to learn and know about each other which may cause uneasiness and animosity. The policymakers’ unsuccessful attempt of creating an inclusive society created a salient separation between the new and old inhabitants. 

In conclusion, gentrification has both benefits and disadvantages that need to be balanced out. Gentrification may have proven to be detrimental because, firstly, local culture and people in the community were displaced. Secondly, long-term inhabitants have lost shops that they are customed to, causing them to a face shortage of services. Thirdly, traditional folks face discrimination from both new neighbours and the government. Fourthly, policies enforced by the government were unable to solve the issue of injustice and have failed in fostering racial harmony and social coherence. Lastly, both new and old residents do not genuinely interact well with each other, resulting in superficial diversity. The government can consider reducing the situation of segregation and false diversification by increasing the number of communal spaces and platforms for people to interact meaningfully and treat all citizens equally regardless of their race (Purcell, M. 2014, 151).