Gentrification is a government policy of renovating city areas seeking the purpose of attracting large private investments into new buildings that would improve the picture of the cities. It is only apparent that to need renovation, the areas must have been neglected and disinvested before. With this in mind, there arose a consideration that the modern process of renewal must have its roots in the previous policies that led to the decay of the area. The present paper researches the connections between redlining policies and racial exclusion with gentrification.
To provide a more in-depth understanding of the connections between redlining policies and gentrification it is crucial to realize the essence of both practices. As Dean and Anderson state, redlining is a policy originated in the 1930s as a reaction to the Great Depression. The core idea of the project is revitalizing the real estate market by providing low-interest government loans for potential homebuyers. For this purpose, Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) rated neighborhoods according to their risk levels for investments and put them on the map (“The Legacy of Redlining” 0:26–0:40). The authorities considered the neighborhoods mainly upon the race factor and rated “hazardous” the areas where more than 5% of the population were African Americans (Dean and Anderson) Redlining made it hard for residents to get loans for homeownership or maintenance making the neighborhoods disinvested and neglected. In brief, the policy created segregated disinvested urban areas that were populated mostly by African Americans and immigrants.
The examination of the core idea of gentrification contributes to understanding that this process is as racist as redlining was. The essence of gentrification is to make redlined areas more attractive for large businesses and wealthy citizens mainly through rezoning. While this may seem to be a healthy and wise idea, the actual results of the policy contribute to racism and inequity. The fundamental problem with gentrification is the attempt to displace African American and immigrants’ communities by making the area unaffordable for the local families. As Dean and Anderson state, the rent went up 300% overnight after Brooklyn development plan came to action. All the newly built condominiums are rated as elite housing, so the lower middle class that had prevailed in the area moved out (Dean and Anderson). In short, gentrification and redlining coincide in supporting racism, inequity, and further segregation.
Further analysis provides direct proof that gentrification is the consequence of redlining as both policies concern the same areas. Urban Displacement Project delivers overlaps of major US cities’ redlining and gentrification maps, where viewers can see explicit evidence of both practices being applied to the same areas. For instance, 87% of San Francisco’s and 83% of East Bay’s redlined neighborhoods currently undergo gentrification (“The Legacy of Redlining” 04:43–05:10). Overall, after revising the evidence mentioned above, it becomes evident that policies concern the same areas, promoting further displacement of people based on their ethnicity and income level.
While results of gentrification may seem splendid from the first glance, a broader consideration can make a thinker worry. On the one hand, the policy noticeably improved pictures of major US cities by creating conspicuous elite housing in previously hazardous areas. On the other hand, renovation led to further segregation and displacement of long-term residents of the neighborhoods. In conclusion, gentrification has uncanny similarities with redlining in its core, as both policies of racial exclusion and inequity.
Works Cited
Dean, Allison Lirish, and Kelly Anderson. My Brooklyn. New Day Films, 2012.
“The Legacy of Redlining.“ – YouTube, uploaded by Urban Displacement Project. Web.