Young entrepreneurs and recent college graduates are flooding to low-income neighborhoods as a means to revitalize and maintain an “authentic” look to established communities (Zukin, 2008, p. 727). Cities normally offer a life that is convenient and with a copious number of things to do to enhance the quality life. This fact is not always the case for many individuals and families who live in low-income areas. Communities, especially established communities, are forced to adapt to the changes within their community. Whether these changes were wanted or not, the upgrades are built for an exclusive type, and the established community members are unable to utilize the shops and markets within the community. As a way to increase attractiveness and increase consumerism, new hip shops and markets featuring ethical and organic items, as well as consignment items that make use of “upcycling” (Zukin, 2008, p. 725). While these changes are environmentally friendly and encourage a different outlook into consumerism, it makes it difficult for low-income families to be able to utilize these goods and services. What ends up happening is that these households are forced out of their homes due to increased cost of living.
To uplift a community, these gentrification projects have displaced low-income individuals and families and have forced a specific demographic to fill in the spots, changing the economic concerns that were faced by the community by simply pushing those struggles to another area without consideration to community disruption (Qiang et al., 2021, p. 4). While a community is developed, another one is eradicated. Communities that have been there for multiple generations, with homes staying within the family. Unfortunately, these communities most likely had no support from the city government and were left to their own devices to survive. This either isolated the community or encouraged the community to come together and work with one another, regardless of the conditions that made this achievement difficult.
These communities have communicated with local officials, investors, and community liaisons to establish a community uplifting project that benefits community members while increasing the attractiveness of the community (Qiang et al., 2021, pp. 3-4). These efforts have gone by the wayside with capital gain and increased consumerism being the main priorities for these development projects. When these neighborhoods are gentrified, all the attempts to provide city funds to uplift the community are suddenly cared about. The attraction from upper and middle-class residents provides a multitude of changes including investment into housing, adequate public service, a rise in property values, reduced crime rates, and a bettering of the city’s public amenities (Qiang et al., 2021, p. 2). All of this is directly correlated with gentrification. This attention from the local government is devastating to the established community members who were ignored for generations.
But what attracts these young entrepreneurs, artists, and intellectuals into these neighborhoods? As Sharon Zukin (2008) puts it, it is the aesthetic that appeals to them (p. 727). With the fetishizing of cultural diversity and an “authentic urban experience”, neo-bohemians, or hipsters seek out low-income, close spaced, and easily traveled (whether from walking, cycling, or public transportation) communities (Zukin, 2008, pp. 727-728). Sharon Zukin (2018) puts it simply,
“More than using their neighbors as models, some [hipsters] take delight in finding a parallel between the involuntary marginalization of the poor and of ethnic minorities in their neighborhood and their own willed marginalization from mainstream consumer culture” (p. 729).
The connection with the downtrodden in relation to the hipster “starving artist” experience provides an adequate backdrop to the community that they hope to establish. It also makes it easier to build from bones than to start from scratch.
Are we benefitting community development by gatekeeping life from lower-income families? Are ethical changes to a community that displaces established community members truly ethical? We encourage community growth within the US to provide the necessary support systems for individuals to be able to survive and thrive, yet we are so willing to step on the backs of the established community members to make it a “better” place. By interrupting and displacing the community and community members who have lived and survived in the area, we are creating future problems that will continue to“affect”communities. The pink collar, new collar, no collar, open collar, and gold collar individuals garner more attraction to neighborhoods while leaving blue and black collar individuals to continue performing the dirty work with little to no appreciation or recognition to their community influence. This creates tension among the two groups who fight for the liberalization or conservatizing of the community. Unfortunately, only one group receives the support.
References
Qiang, A. J., Timmins, C., & Wang, W. (2021). Displacement and the Consequences of Gentrification. Unpublished Manuscript, 1–49.
Zukin, S. (2008). CONSUMING AUTHENTICITY. Cultural Studies, 22(5), 724–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380802245985