Over the past 20 years suburbia has drawn the tired masses from the urban centres of cities, large and small, with promises of owning a piece of the American dream. Marketed as a haven for low price, high opportunity housing, surburbia blossomed like a toxic plume, leeching residents, retail and real estate investment from the heart of the city. One-time mixed income neighbourhoods were bought up by real estate speculators and absentee landlords driven by profit margins and profit taking. Vibrant neighbourhoods were decimated by a largely disinterested population, exacerbated by tragic civic planning, who were lulled into believing that they were somehow 'less' than the McMansion Monarchy.
Geo-political events of the 21st century have begun to coax some of the suburban masses out of their gated (whether physical or economic) developments into the urban cores. Of great importance are the Gen Xers, give or take a decade, who, upon leaving their parents suburban homes, are opting to buck that elitist trend and exploring home ownership in the rehabilitated cores. Cities are seeing a renaissance of revitalization. Young, educated and often well-funded residents are taking up the cause of restoring the allure of urban living. What starts with one or two 'urban pioneers' quickly becomes a full blown 'urban village' attracting progressive investment, including those elusive real estate dollars, as urban blight is gentrified.
The word gentrification has a polarizing voice eliciting visions of restored real estate, trendy shops and entertainment venues mixed with a diverse social network, albeit built on the monotony of economic prosperity. The opposing voice sees the same physical composition of gentrified neighbourhoods but, instead of celebrating the economic restoration, declares gentrification as a well-heeled battle against the urban poor, lobotomizing true social diversity with Starbucks branded comradare.
The topic of gentrification, both its' benefits and risks, has come up among the ScaleDown staff as we discover our place in the future of Windsor. After contemplating the ideas and visions we are advocating for as part of the process of 'scaling down' we realized that gentrification is product of monstrously misaligned 'supply and demand'-based market. It is not the product itself that causes the gentrification, but a supply void of a product that is so heavily in demand that consumers will pay almost anything to be a part of this urban revolution. Instead of fearing gentrification we intend to harness the effects of this social stigma for the benefit of the entire community. By pushing for strict development standards, advocating for, and designing, socio-economic diversity and engaging urban citizens in acts of advocacy, on both a civic and human scale, the process of gentrification can be tamed to draw investment dollars without impeding the new social fabric. With wide-scale reinvestment into core communities the economic tragedy most often associated with gentrification can be mitigated, if not avoided. Success in establishing 21st neighbourhoods as replicas of the early-20th century communities will prepare us for the challenge of rehabilitating the suburban wastelands that are sure to be the bane of the next generation.
PS: If you want to read more about gentrification, both the pros and cons, Google gentrification and read the diversity of information from both sides of the arguement.
7 comments:
I just think gentrification is the last thing we have to worry about in Windsor.
You can get a waterfront condo with an amazing view for under $80,000 that would sell for 5X that in other cities. When looking at real estate values one important factor that is widely ignored is comparing price to build cost.
Right now most if not all downtown real estate (and all Windsor for that matter) cannot sell for what it cost to build it.
They had a big Gentrification problem in Denver when I went there. I saw a 1,000 ft2 condo selling for $800,000
I go to bed every night praying for a little gentrification
In his Smart City Radio interview, Christopher Leinberger explains how "gentrification", as its negative conotations have become known, is simply the effect of the "supply and demand" law being out of whack. Only in our real estate market does there exist the overwhelming demand of quality urban/walkable communities and that demand doesn't get filled. When it does, the demand is so big that the resulting price tag is very high.
When our real estate developers begin to recognise that the demand for such developments warrant them stepping outside their comfort zone of the suburbs, and they actually beging to start filling this void more adequately, will prices begin to come down to a reasonable level.
(I do agree with Mark that this is something that we have no worries about right now in this city. However, once we get our wishes and Windsor's economy ramps up again, it is something that we are going to have to plan for as it happens in most economically rising cities)
Gentrification is an ugly word that is often used to end a conversation before it begins. A return to an economically, commercially and socially diverse core will benefit every resident of the community and it is a conversation that we must start having if we are to get past the hyperbole.
I tend to use "gentrification" in a positive manner when talking about Windsor/Detroit.
Yes it can be damaging to low-income people but what cities have to realize is that places that were dilapidated are now fixed. The city itself should do everything in its power to help integrate low-income into the rest of the population and not ghetto-ize like is currently done.
All the praises for gentrification - but where are the ideas to "mitigate" or "eliminate?"
While our home prices are low right now, it won't always be that way.
How do you ensure there is an adequate supply of lower income housing without negatively affecting neighbouring housing prices?
In Windsor, we have falling wages. Yes - the cost of living is low, but as the economy grows again this will change. $9-$12 an hour jobs do not lend itself to active home ownership.
I'd be interested in that discussion, because I can't seem to find any information - yet.
"How do you ensure there is an adequate supply of lower income housing without negatively affecting neighbouring housing prices?" The provincial Liberals have a plan: subsidies, which is what this site is REALLY advocating for.
"Don't worry about making poor choices because, if you vote for us, we'll subsidize your path to upward mobility (through more subsidies, naturally)."
The answers to your question was
I was told the only way to plan affordable housing without negatively affecting property values is designate property for affordable housing ensuring its the last property to be developed in the area.
Other than that you gear your incentives (which we don't have yet) towards projects that have affordable components within them.
Personally, however, I believe we have enough lower end units and that simply won't be a problem for Windsor in the next decade.
Bring on the Gentrification!!!
If we have enough lower end units, then why is the city proposing more subsidized housing?
My overall concern is planning. You state "gentrification" isn't an issue for the next decade.
Then what?
Given the short sightedness of politicians with the eye on general elections, it is an issue that must be addressed in any discussion regarding rejuvination.
Incentives? Absolutely. Subsidies? No.
But where I think you and I could agree on, those need to be developed now and incorporated into a the overall plan for Windsor.
Post a Comment