CAUTIOUSLY CELEBRATING THE LATINIZATION OF CITIES

BY TASHA-REE

Gentrification is the process by which upper-middle class families and individuals buy and renovate homes and property in an urban area and thus raise the property value while displacing those that lived there already. Gentrification is not new to the world, it’s been around for a while, yet society always seems surprised when it happens. Gentrification reluctantly displaces lower, middle and working-class families through different mediums. Individual renters and buyers, by choice and structural forces, move into gentrified areas Many of these areas are first gentrified by the establishment of mega projects in these urban areas. State and public forces buy property in these areas and build large establishments that attract gentrifiers to these areas. These upper middle class gentrifiers, Their desire to live closer to these large establishments result in the displacement of those that already live there.  Private businesses have their hand in gentrification also, in that they help create the desired community that the gentrifiers want to live in and those that already live there can’t afford.

Gentrification is not all bad, many people only see one side of the spectrum. Gentrification brings about diversity of both socio-economic status and the people that move and can afford to stay there. It also brings about new businesses and raises the property value of these areas. It increases the economic revenue directed to this area, uplifting and revitalizing the areas that might have been forgotten about. But while these things may seem positive and shed a good light on gentrification, it too has a downside. Gentrification displaces mass amounts of people from areas that they’ve possessed for generations. They are displaced not only from the land, but also from the culture attached and created in these areas.

Being someone who’s witnessed gentrification and has been displaced, I have had a negative insight of the thought of gentrification. However, as people become upwardly mobile, gentrification, in a way, becomes inevitable. People, including myself, after becoming educated and upwardly mobile face the fear of being chastised by those they knew from their hometown for not wanting to return. But returning will result in the gentrification of their own people. Gentrification is a double-edged sword it seems.

CAUTIOUSLY CELEBRATING THE LATINIZATION OF CITIES

BY ERIC

Being from Coney Island in Brooklyn there are a few areas by my house that are referred to as Latinized other than Sunset Park and Washington Heights. Although my small part of New York City doesn't have any there must be thousands throughout the country. I for one am a huge supporter of the "anything"-ization of cities throughout the country. This country has been known as a Free country since it was established as a country so that anyone would be willing to make the U.S.A. their new homeland for a pursuit of happiness and that's what I believe, that no other country but ours has a sign on it that says "Hey you, you should totally live here if you want to be free and live a more awesome life!". That being said, I don't really think that the U.S. guaranties this. A good example would be the U.S. cities or neighborhoods that Latin American immigrants first moved to in the late 1900's. These immigrants came here for the ability to become whoever they wanted. Sadly enough, they were met with segregation and areas that were impoverished and overpopulated. They were then given the opportunity to work but due to circumstances dealing with the labor force, they had to work even harder than those already established in America. 

Luckily for me, the area I'm from is culturally diverse unlike many other parts of the country. Most of my friends since childhood are not the stereotypical white male as some would assume just by looking at me. Majority of them till this day are Black and Latino. Since moving up to Albany I've noticed that most of the friends I've made have been of a race other than White. This isn't something that was instilled in me by my parents, but going to public school in New York City definitely helped shape my opinion on other cultures and ethnicities.  

There will always be people who disagree with other cultures and migrants, especially when they move in large numbers, into an area. Mike Davis, the author of Magical Urbanism states, "As Cecilia Menjivar emphasizes, if ‘immigrants do not have access to desirable goods and information (or to people who control them), their ties, no matter how strong, may not yield any benefits.’ A great example of this is what was talked about in class with the town of Prince William County. The native residents were predominantly Caucasian and really could not find it in themselves to accept the ever growing Latino population moving into their neighborhoods. That led to the collapse of the community in terms of protesters picketing outdoors, boycotting the business ran and used by these "foreigners", town meetings that were hard to fathom, and just the very blatant racism that took place overall. Nothing good came of the town residents’ inability to welcome Latino new comers. That being said, these are the reasons why I believe "Cautious" is the right word to use in regards to celebrating the Latinization of U.S. cities. I am a huge advocate for the cultural impact of Latinos, and all other cultures for that matter, in the country. Unfortunately, there are still many American citizens who feel that my views are skewed.

CAUTIOUSLY CELEBRATING THE LATINIZATION OF CITIES

BY ABNER

Gentrification has drawn the ire of many social scientists and inner city inhabitants as of late. It has steadily gained the reputation of a four-letter word in today’s society, and some would argue with good reason. Gentrification is a process of renovation in poorer often-deteriorating inner-city areas by more affluent individuals. Although that definition does not necessarily elicit anything significantly terrible, the gripe that many of its opponents have is that this renovation usually comes at the cost of displacing long time working-class residents. The residents that reside in inner-city areas are characterized by something other than class, they are primarily black or Latino and it is their neighborhoods that have been affected the most by gentrification. The apparent destruction of minority enclaves has made the gentrification phenomena ammunition for the ninety-nine-percenters. It has become a major catalyst in escalating the nation’s ongoing class warfare. This is evident when you take into consideration that large projects such as the Barclays center and aggressive expansion agendas such as Columbia’s Manhattanville have displaced thousands of lower income Americans. These projects have displaced large groups of predominantly black and Hispanic residents in Harlem and Brooklyn. The immediate eviction from construction coupled with the long term forced exodus of poor residents induced by rising costs of living can and has significantly altered the demography, culture and identity of entire neighborhoods. Furthermore opponents of gentrification argue that the value of these neighborhoods has been given to them by their working class cultures. The appeal of El Barrio or Washington heights is its rich Latin piece of Americana. They argue that the people who have traditionally resided in the area have given those neighborhoods use value

The displacement of low status individuals is a hotly debated topic. As the displacement has progressed pundits have denounced it as bulling by those of the upper class. Indeed it is an unfortunate thing but is it really all that terrible? Sure it can be argued that the practice of accumulation by dispossession (David Harvey- Marxist Geographer) is an abusive economic practice. However the fact of the matter is that land is a very valuable and very finite commodity. Furthermore inner city real estate has a very steep price tag due to its use value and an even steeper price tag when you consider its exchange value. The latent value that inner city areas have are what attract businesses and professional class settlers. Inner cities provide access to a seemingly never-ending flow of consumers from all walks of life. In other words for a business they are an economic gold mine (pun not intended).  “The goal was to market the value added and the competitive advantage gained from doing business in New York, In other words in selling New York for the sake of it being New York.”  (Davila , . Times squaring the barrio. page 103: Print. )

Economics is the study of effectively allocating, distributing and consuming finite resources. From an economic standpoint it makes complete sense that the scarcity of inner city land would fetch a higher price. Due to the finite nature of the resource, dispossession in turn becomes an ugly bit of collateral damage in what is otherwise merely the natural flow of city development. Economics is also informally known as the study of rational human action. This definition can be more effectively applied to the process of gentrification. Gentrification is a micro scale practice, that is to say it is not driven by public policy rather by the invisible hand of the market manifest in individual actions. To put it in layman’s terms rational people make rational decisions, this is the first law of economics. Consequently people tend to gravitate towards what is most economically beneficial to their endeavors. For many businesses and young professionals that means moving into inner city areas. Here they find all of the conveniences as well as all the opportunities modern city life has to offer. The free flow of human reason is not something that can be detained. Thus cannot be fought against.

This may sound harsh when it comes to the cause of fighting the noble battle but the truth is that there are two sides to every coin. The argument has been based around protecting low-income residents and demonizing gentrifiers. However many people ignore a couple of things that residents have working to their advantage. One of which is that the New York State government keeps rent artificially low to protect the homes of working class city dwellers. It is a piece of legislature called the New York Rent Stabilization and Rent Control Laws and it is policy on which the State Democratic party stakes its reputation. These laws restrict what landlords can charge tenants in New York City and as of 2011 they have been extended through 2018. Furthermore many tenants pass down apartments within their family sometimes keeping rents at 1940’s market value. This practice has cost Landlords millions of dollars collectively in lost revenue. The economic struggle for space is a dirty game played by both sides. I’m all for the preservation of culture and storied neighborhoods but it cannot be denied that gentrification improves the quality of those neighborhoods. The influx of young professionals is not only an economic stimulus but also a positive reinforcement to inner city youths with very few positive role models. Gandhi said it takes a village to raise a child and having around a few professionals only helps out the cause. “Gentrifiers’ capacity to attach themselves to history gives them license to reclaim the downtown for their own uses.” (Zukin, Sharon. Gentrification as market and place. page 42: Print.)

Perhaps gentrification is an unjust practice and perhaps It isn’t. Whatever the case may be in this polarizing issue there has to come a point where we have to stop fighting and let social Darwinism run its course. Social Darwinism refers to the survival of the fittest within the parameters of a modern society Ie. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer as they must. In society power translates to money.  Heck its not as if it has not happened before. Henry Kissinger used to live around the corner from my block when he was a kid. He told my 5^th grade class one time that in those days everyone in Washington Heights was poor Eastern European immigrants. It turns out we displaced them just as we will one day ourselves be displaced and eventually so will our displacers. Granted many of these whites moved on upwards in the social ladder. Perhaps the push that we need in order to progress comes in the form of displacement and discomfort but one thing we do know is that progress wont come in stagnant neighborhoods that breed poverty. Henry Kissinger also told our class something else that day that seems so pertinent now “in the end the only constant is change, it is the natural order of things.”   

CAUTIOUSLY CELEBRATING THE LATINIZATION OF CITIES

BY YISURY

Oh man Oh man! How much difference one can acknowledge in an issue and talk about it, express opinions and elaborate on the thought. But it is so much different when the history books are speaking about you! About Me! Us Latinos! We’ve lived the impacts of our family moving to a different country and we are still living it. I was reading the “The Time Squaring of El Barrio” by Arlene Davila where she emphasizes the notion of gentrification and the development of the term. First hand, gentrification refers to spatial restructuring and a process that seems to reassert a purely local identity. In other words, it’s a process that changes the outlooks of what seems to be dense population of one identity.  For example, those of us who are from the inner cities in New York such as East Harlem “LES” or Washington Heights we know that a lot has changed socially, politically and economically wise. For now let’s just say that these places scream politics because it’s an advantage for others to perceive them as what they are. Wherever there are enough dollar signs in America, there will always be a sense of politics involved. Hence, the catchy phrase “Money talks!”  What do I mean by “as what they are”? Well, our culture! Our way of being who we are as a whole, our entire growth of lifestyle… is now a thing of trend.  I mean, there’s a new series on MTV featuring the livelihood of young adults who live in the Heights. I even went to high school with one of them! It’s just crazy! Idk, maybe funny? Exciting? Stupid? Embarrassing?   C’ mon! We all know how bad we spoke about Jersey Shore, I know I did. But we somehow couldn’t look away.

Davila spoke about a change in cultural identity in certain places and that the change was inevitable. Well, she’s right about the fact that change is most definitely inevitable. As mentioned in her readings, “The Uptown N.Y Project” is a way of regulating the change that’s occurring within the Latino community for a future with good economic growth, and a positive social impact. Do I agree on the use value shift to exchange value? I do. There is always going to be a shift or change whether you want it or not so might as well do it the right way. Valuing the Dominican tradition in my family will never fade because it’s who we are and where we come from. People will judge regardless. So, therefore, creating a market out of Latino culture, something different for America to experience, is actually pretty cool.

A lot of good things can come of this: new jobs to the community, more opportunity, and a diverse environment.  I won’t sit here and pretend that it’s all good, because there are downsides to everything. For starters, these neighborhoods that still exist in New York, such as Washington Heights, won’t be the same anymore. People would move out, majority Latinos, because they can’t afford it anymore. The culture itself would become a datable topic to many who are going to say the real traditions are over. Others would say Latino culture has progressed through media and massive attention from “outsiders”. I guess only time would tell what we’re willing to admit to ourselves, because we are the ones who live there, grew up there. Are these real neighborhoods that are left completely gone for good? For better or for worse? You tell me.   

CAUTIOUSLY CELEBRATING THE LATINIZATION OF CITIES

BY TANYA

“Gentrification the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents” [Merriam-Webster]. Gentrification happens every day in the poorest of neighborhoods where people are forced to move out of their homes because new places are being built and rent is increasing which makes it unaffordable to live in their homes. Why would those who gentrify want to make it seem as if it’s going to help benefit all people when it’s just an inconvenience to those who are most important to those neighborhoods?

            I’m originally from Brooklyn, NY where gentrification has taken place in the downtown area of Brooklyn. Before the Nets Stadium was built downtown Brooklyn was a place where people could go shopping or just hang out. Now all you can see in the downtown area are condos and luxury businesses which make it unaffordable for those who use to go downtown to hang out or have fun. As Sharon Zukin says in the chapter Gentrification as a Market Place, gentrification in New York occurs near Mass Transit lines. I know that many trains pass by this area which makes it accessible to all but not affordable to all. Trains from a lot of neighborhoods go where the Barclays center is located. Just because many people can get there doesn’t mean the area around the Barclays Center is affordable or the events are afforadable.

            The way I see it, those who are in charge of the gentrification think that because they put these major popular places in these low-income neighborhoods people will feel that their neighborhoods are important. What I don’t think they understand is that although these places are important places where tourist and wealthy people want to go, lower class or working class people can’t afford to live there. In Spanish Harlem where they plan to build this place to show that they are trying to bring in Latinos, by looking at the model it shows that once this place is built others won’t be able to live there. In a sense it’s really a way to move the poor out and only keep those Latinos who can afford to live there and those that can’t to just visit.