Islands of decay in seas of renewal: Housing policy and the resurgence of gentrification

Abstract

For many observers, the recession of the early 1990s signaled the end of what Berry called islands of renewal in seas of decay. In the past decade, however, shifts in mortgage finance have intersected with developments in assisted housing to alter the links between gentrification and housing policy. In this article, we use field observation, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, and HOPE VI plans to analyze the resurgence of gentrification in eight U.S. cities.

Between 1992 and 1997, gentrified neighborhoods attracted conventional homepurchase mortgage capital at a rate that grew at more than 2.3 times the suburban rate. Logit models confirm that mortgage capital favors gentrified neighborhoods even after controlling for applicant and loan characteristics, suggesting a new relationship between mortgage lending and neighborhood change. In some cities, gentrification has surrounded islands of decay and poverty with landscapes of renewal     

Reinventing the central city as a place to live and work

Abstract

Public policies for urban development have traditionally emphasized investment in physical infrastructure, the development of large‐scale commercial facilities, the construction of new housing, and the renewal of existing neighborhoods. Most efforts to revitalize central cities by building new facilities for visitors have focused on suburban commuters and tourists. At the same time, many housing initiatives in central cities have concentrated on low‐income communities because outlying suburban areas have attracted traditional middle‐income households.

This article argues that emerging demographic and cultural trends—combined with changes in the structure of business organizations and technological advances—provide new opportunities for cities to retain and attract middle‐class households. Using gay and lesbian populations as an example, it focuses on the role that nontraditional households can play in urban redevelopment. In light of the rise of nontraditional households and the growth of self‐employment and small businesses, cities should adopt policies that make them attractive places in which to live and work.     

The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development

Abstract

Historic preservation contributes greatly to housing and economic development. Historic preservation has produced almost 250,000 housing units through use of the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit. Additionally, heritage tourism is a multibillion‐dollar industry, and preservation projects help further community revitalization.

Historic preservation also has a downside. Preservation's growing popularity may dilute its imperative and market prowess, and some argue it is used to thwart new development. Preservation requirements may impede affordable housing production and displace area residents. These undesirable consequences are not givens, however. Preservationists are working to become more flexible, and we suggest ways to practice historic preservation while mitigating some of its negative consequences—for example, tax credit changes, more flexible building codes, and a “tiered” system of designating historic properties at varying levels of significance.     

Central‐city and suburban migration patterns: Is a turnaround on the horizon?

Abstract

The huge population losses that characterized many older, larger U.S. cities during the 1960s and 1970s slowed and in some cases ceased during the 1980s and early 1990s. Periodic media reports of neighborhood turnarounds, commercial revitalization, and improvements in housing and the quality of life in selected inner‐city subareas have been taken as signs that central cities are retaining middle‐class residents and even attracting some back from the suburbs.

Analysis of metropolitan household migration patterns based on the U.S. Census Bureau's 1980 and 1990 Public Use Microdata Samples and more recent Current Population Surveys shows that the dominant trend in residential movement among most population subgroups is still toward the suburbs. While not discounting reports of central‐city neighborhood turnarounds and selective demographic revitalization, our findings imply that those improvements are limited and that a widespread back‐to‐the‐city movement is not likely in the foreseeable future.     

Comment on David Listokin,Barbara Listokin,and Michael Lahr's “The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development”: Historic preservation in a neoliberal age

Abstract

Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr argue that historic preservation can function as a community development tool, but there are numerous deficiencies inherent in this method that make it a less‐than‐desirable way to revitalize. Historic preservation generally leads to gentrification that in turn displaces many low‐income households. The historic rehabilitation tax credit also represents a circuitous means of providing affordable housing that would be more effectively delivered through direct subsidy.     

Comment on David Listokin,Barbara Listokin,and Michael Lahr's “The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development”

Abstract

Listokin, Listokin, and Lahr laud the economic benefits of historic preservation but fail to delve deeply enough into the negative impacts and how they might be mitigated. Preservation projects tend to displace lower‐income households and small businesses, and the jobs they generate tend to be low paying. In areas with high potential for displacement, local government and civic leaders should act cautiously and not intervene in ways that overheat these markets. We are unlikely to see new federal policies that substantially mitigate displacement. Nonetheless, the historic rehabilitation tax credit could be revised to encourage more modest and affordable preservation projects.

The extra costs associated with historic rehabilitation standards can be more burdensome than the authors describe. To reduce these costs, the administration of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation could be made more consistent and cost‐sensitive.     

Combining historic preservation and income class integration: A case study of the butchers hill neighborhood of Baltimore

Abstract

For the past several decades in the United States, a tension has existed between the goals of historic preservation, the provision of affordable housing, and the creation of mixed‐income neighborhoods. Historic restoration for residential uses has often been associated with gentrification and the displacement of low‐income residents. This article examines the public and private sector support system for combining historic preservation with the creation of affordable and mixed‐income housing and neighborhoods and analyzes the strategies and experiences of the Baltimore neighborhood of Butchers Hill in taking this approach to community re‐vitalization.

Using historic preservation as a catalyst for community revitalization requires a comprehensive approach to prevent displacement of low‐income residents. In Butchers Hill, the mixed‐income community that was created was an outgrowth of conflict between two community‐based organizations. The case eludes simple typologies of gentrification and indicates the need for additional study of the dynamics and benefits of mixed‐income neighborhoods.     

Comment on Elvin K. Wyly and Daniel J. Hammel's “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrification”

Abstract

Gentrification ought to be examined, for policy purposes, as part of a general restructuring of the space of cities resulting from broader changes in the nature, location, control, and effects of economic processes. However, even if it is narrowly seen as simply residential change, as in the article by Wyly and Hammel, the displacement of poor households by an upper‐income gentry ought not be confused with the effort to mix moderate with low incomes in public housing through the best of HOPE VI.

Despite this confusion, Wyly and Hammel provide some interesting data showing the extent to which investment in inner‐city areas has accelerated in recent years, paralleling changes in financial arrangements and contradicting any notion that degentrification is a continuous, long‐term process. Their data, although short on demographic detail, also implicitly highlight the role of government in pushing the market to respond rationally to economic demand and the continuing danger that gentrification will displace African‐American families.     

Gentrification in tourist cities: Evidence from New Orleans before and after Hurricane Katrina

Abstract

Tourism‐led redevelopment often provides city residents with increased opportunities for employment, leisure, and cultural enrichment, but it can also have dramatic and unpredictable effects on their lives. One of these effects involves the repercussions of redevelopment that transforms working‐class neighborhoods into middle‐ or upper‐class areas catering to tourists. We use the city of New Orleans as a case study to explore the connections between tourism and gentrification.

We first discuss the growth of tourism in New Orleans, paying particular attention to its geographic scope. We then consider the ways in which gentrification and tourism are connected in New Orleans and what their relationship adds to theories of tourism development and urban revitalization. The analysis concludes with an in‐depth look at one of the nation's oldest black neighborhoods, Tremé, where both tourism and the nonblack population have been increasing in recent years.     

Comment on Elvin K. Wyly and Daniel J. Hammel's “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrication”

Abstract

Wyly and Hammel raise a number of important issues regarding the role of low‐income housing assistance in the more recent resurgence of inner‐city capital investment. However, their methodologies are found to be limited, and their results only weakly support a number of the strong conclusions they draw. Despite these limitations, Wyly and Hammel do present some interesting findings, such as greater loan denial rates for higher‐income applicants in the inner cities than in the suburbs, and raise the possibility of a changing income mix of urban gentrifiers. Building on the article's main theme, the comment suggests strategies to improve low‐income housing policy outcomes and highlights the gentrification conundrum.