
I had a quick conversation with someone on “the” twitter last night. C had attended a meeting dealing with some form urban renewal for the local DM district where her husband manages a business. Now, I wasn’t there but the gist of the meeting was about the removal or transformation of some of the blighted areas around their business.
Their place is a converted… something. The building used to be several other things and business, mostly involving some kind of repair, production, or construction facility. They have slowly converted it into (by getting sub-renters and badgering their slow to act landlord) a usable office space and bohemian community center. No small feat for people with little start-up capital and probably little to no government assistance.
Currently the building is still partially converted, with office spaces and nice wooden floors in the front that begin to deteriorate quickly as you move further into the unfinished part of the building. But, they keep working (and badgering) to get the place completed.
Their building is situated in a lower income part of town. It used to be an industrial park of some kind that was shut down as heavy industry moved out of DM. The area that is left is occupied by a large city vehicle storage area. It is desolate and what one would come to expect in area that has suffered from a large national economic shift away from industry. Obviously they would like the place cleaned up a bit.
And this brings us back to the discussion on what should be done in these areas. Because the land prices and economic activity is depressed, rent is cheap in the area. This allows people with small amounts of start-up capital to find places to rent and set up shop. When areas like this are cleaned up and gentrified, the riff raff is forced out. Land values rise and this is good for those that own business, but not so great for those who rent. When land becomes valuable, rent goes up and it can force out all of the people who “pioneered” the place in the beginning.
While this is probably not as big a concern in their particular case as it is an industrial area and most people own, as opposed to rent, it can be a great conundrum in areas that have large residential populations.
The majority of people who live in un-gentrified areas of the city are probably poor and also rent. While it is nice for people to clean up areas of the city, this will raise rent values as more and more… white… people decide they don’t want to live in the suburbs and want to live in a nicer area of the city. Eventually, through rent raises, the poorer citizens (who have not found ways to increase their incomes to compensate for their raising rents) are forced out and neighborhoods are destroyed.
And so the city planner is caught in a terminal bind. Do you want to make this area a “nice” place? And are we willing to force out age-old communities and force poorer people to move to do this? Or do you leave a place to rot in stagnation?
I suppose that this quickly becomes a question that no one can definitively answer without gauging the specific situations consequences. Although I think the consequences to poorer renting communities are easily glossed over in the quest for higher land values and positive cash flows. Plus there is an inherent positive nature associated with the idea of “cleaning up” rough parts of the city regardless of the consequences.
I consulted an urban planning book from a class I took a few years ago and it remains silent on this issue. It talks about the need for “affordable housing” and leaves it at that.