Cate Thurston’s paper, “Bringing Back Broadway,” was a study of urban redevelopment in Los Angeles’ Broadway Corridor. Cate shared her research and analysis on why redevelopment was an important factor for various people, such as Ira Yellin, the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles, and Councilmember Jose Huizar. The reason why redevelopment was important for many people was because the city was changing and there was a need to drive tourists into the city. As more tourists visit Los Angeles, spending increases, thus, generating more prosperity and wealth. This paper also discussed why this particular neighborhood changed and why space changes over time in Los Angeles. Cate shared how the Broadway Corridor in the 19th and 20th …show more content…
I was fascinated to hear how the corridor used to be a business center where restaurants, quinceanera shops, party supply shops, and various other stores were once in operation (WPA, 3/8). This reminds me of the time when I use to live in South Central Los Angeles, and how in every street I passed, there were many restaurants and many various shops from clothing stores, restaurants, tool shops, and party supply stores. It was very convenient for my family and me to purchase something we wanted or needed. This was a huge difference in the Broadway Corridor because Cate stated that for the most part this street was not a residential neighborhood. It was a place where you shopped and by night, it was an empty area. I was also curious as to what Cate meant when she said that the Broadway Corridor was a community that only spoke to Latinos and was not seen as a “community befitting a prestigious urban core” (WPA, 3/8). I would like to understand what she meant by this. By prestigious urban core, what did she try to indicate? Was she saying that this area was only appealing to Latino/Latinas during the 20th century? I know Cate mentioned in later years that many Latino businesses closed down due to economic factors, resulting in many businesses closing their doors. I would like to have some better clarification about this specific issue she …show more content…
When she mentioned Skid Row and the redevelopment of the Broadway Corridor it got me thinking about the future of Los Angeles. When I went to Downtown Los Angeles not too long ago, I noticed many new skyline projects being built and many new beautiful apartments. It makes me wonder if the homeless population in Downtown Los Angeles will be displaced and be “forced” to move out of the city. As the city of Los Angeles grows, it is becoming a hub to attract more tourists and making downtown a more developed area. I feel that Skid Row will eventually be redeveloped, forcing many homeless people out of the area. As I continue discussing redevelopment and displacement in Los Angeles, I wonder how the new football stadium in Inglewood will affect the city and its surrounding neighborhoods. This massive project will surely generate more money for the city; however, this will be at the expense of its residents in Inglewood and South Central. Many small businesses will close down and will not be able to compete with other retailers. Traffic, pollution, and increasing rent and real estate prices will be huge problems that will happen. I wonder if residents in Inglewood would be able to afford the rising prices of housing in the future. I feel it is beneficial for the city and hurtful for those who will be displaced or
In today’s society, gentrification is considered a taboo not to be spoken of unless being attacked; however, Justin Davidson, a professional critic, challenges this notion and examines both sides of this custom. As an author, architecture and classical music critic, who won a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism, Davidson approaches the issue of gentrification with a unique style of neutrality that leads his audience to question all they thought they knew about gentrifying.
Gentrification has greatly changed the face of Oakland so far in the 21st century. New shops and people are moving in at record numbers, greatly increasing the median income of the city; however, many long-term residents are being evicted due to increasing property values and rent prices. Many are also outraged at the loss of Oakland’s strong cultural roots, but at the same time, in low income areas, crime rates have greatly reduced and academic performance has increased. This begs the question: In what ways has gentrification positively and negatively affected Oakland so far in the 21st century?
A wealthy person that wants to help and to take along with others that belong to the working class they do it without thinking it twice, and most importantly they don’t say it publicly. with the only thing I totally agree with him is in reconstructing L.A and I wouldn’t say reconstructing the city , I would refer to it as reconstructing the Angelenos mentality , of accepting the reality that Southern California has many cultures living here. My final word about gentrification and the article in general is Hypocrisy because Long time ago , people fled because of the lack of good urban conditions concerning safety, urban services etc.. So, now they come back because it's all revitalized and different. It is basically pushing the actual habitants to leave because they can't afford their apartment or house anymore and it is now suitable for the qualified people to live there now. I also need to add that after listening to the radio podcasts yesterday in class, it made me feel, like even though gentrifications goal is money, profit, structuring a city and rebuilding it is simply not a benefit for all, even though that might not be the target, but it is what it is. It's not because of "race", but reality speaks from its broken
Growing up in East Austin, one would be accustomed to seeing rundown neighborhoods inhabited mostly by African American and Hispanic working-class families. In the past few years though, the view has drastically changed. Now brightly colored two-story homes housing affluent Caucasian families occupy the once dilapidated areas. The previously desolated lots are now the future sites of lofts and condominiums. The recent changes in East Austin are a clear sign of gentrification. Gentrification is the extremely evident process of displacement. Revitalizing a derelict neighborhood favors the entire community, not just the ones with money. However, revitalization and gentrification
to make a “problem” disappear? They will be the human cost of gentrification. Unless the city in partnership with the business community and its Downtown Eastside residents can attain a solution together, it is difficult to fathom a future that is just, regardless of its economic promise.
Gentrification and police brutality is still prevalent in America. This is especially true for the people of Skid Row in Los Angeles, in which they are treated poorly. People view the residents of that area as worthless or harmful in the community. However, what they fail to realize is that the community is a benefit for residents there, because they are not able to pay bills and it is easier for them to live there. On the other hand, new people are moving to Los Angeles daily which is why they are looking at Skid Row as a piece of land and are trying to get rid of it and the people there.
Over the past twenty years, San Francisco’s Mission District has experienced a tremendous amount of change. Similar to many neighborhoods across the United States, it has been undergoing a gentrification process in which increases in housing prices, redevelopment in buildings, and a shortage of rental units have left many of its low-income population homeless or on the verge of becoming homeless. In order to understand the controversial issue revolving around the gentrification process taking place the Mission District, it is essential to know the history of the Mission District, San Francisco’s geography and housing laws, and the socioeconomic impacts of gentrification.
In San Francisco, around 48% of the Latino communities are involuntarily moving out of the city because they can no longer afford living in their neighborhood. This is due to the increase of something called gentrification. Gentrification is when buildings renovated to create more urban looking neighborhoods by wealthy people, which lead to a mass influx of a more affluent society. The purpose of this research paper is to explain the reasons why gentrification occurs and answer the question: How is the gentrification of San Francisco diminishing the culture of other races and how is it affecting the minorities of the city?
When a neighborhood is gentrified it will not only change the image of it, but also the services available there (Al-Kodmany 2011, 62-63). In other words, gentrification does not only have an impact on the physical aspect of the land, but also the resources that lie there. During the 90s, the Near West Side neighborhood located near Loop, an up-scale neighborhood, sought drastic changes within the area. The changes in racial demographics in the Near West Side indicated that the health risks that affected minorities dropped in the past decade (1992-2002) (Al-Kodmany 2011,
“Words are not passive; indeed, they help to share and create our perceptions of the world around us. The terms we choose to label or describe events must, therefore, convey appropriate connotations or images of the phenomenon under consideration in order to avoid serious misunderstandings. The existence of different terms to describe gentrification is not an accident, neither is the plethora of definitions for it” (Palen & London, 1984, p. 6). SAY SOMETHING Peter Marcuse (1999) argues that, “how gentrification is evaluated depends a great deal on how it is defined” (p. 789). Defining gentrification properly is necessary for anchoring an analysis of neighborhood change, particularly in light of recent scholarly efforts to replace the term (to describe the process) with less critical names like: ‘urban renaissance’,
When cities begin their journey of being gentrified, many locals become displaced. Displacement is when locals are uprooted from their homes, due to outside factors, and forced to move elsewhere. According to the Urban Displacement Project conducted by U.C. Berkeley, “Gentrification results from both flows of capital and people. The extent to which gentrification is linked to racial transition differs across neighborhood contexts... Displacement takes many different forms—direct and indirect, physical or economic, and exclusionary—and may result from either investment or disinvestment” (U.C. Berkeley). Many people are coming into San Francisco’s Bay Area because of how diverse each element is. However, according to Census numbers, between 1990 and 2010, 35.7% of San Francisco’s black population dwindled (Bliss). 35.7% of the black community within San Francisco suffered from displacement. An additional 53% of low-income households in the Bay Area are at risk for displacement and gentrification (U.C. Berkeley). This has definitely left a dent within the diversity reputation held up by the Bay Area. When such a strong large part of people leave, The City will experience a shift in culture and community. Whether, it is the real estate, the food, the different cultures, the Bay Area has always been known for being different. Perhaps, this is why so many outsiders are coming in and buying up every piece of land they can. Whether their intentions were to purchase land and
However through urban planning and development, solutions can be discovered and put into action to allow easier flow into urbanism. Transportation issues for example can be resolved by planning for the future of Los Angeles and by investing in the public transportation system. An example of this would be investing in bike paths, lanes, and routes so that people with low income, such as Hispanic immigrants, can travel to their locations in an easier manner through biking. An investment “to fill in gaps and complete the citywide bike plan” for this method of transportation “calls for nearly 1,700 miles of new and upgraded paths and lanes before 2035,” which can seem difficult but possible (Laura J. Nelson). Biking as a new main method of transportation “can help reduce crashes of all types and assist in reaching an ambitious new city goal of eliminating traffic deaths by 2025” (Laura J. Nelson). A solution to gentrification through urban planning is to instead focus on a new method of development called Asset Based Community Development. Through this different urban revitalization process, an inside out approach is taken where development occurs by focusing on the communities’ assets and building upon them, unlike gentrification. When the community is dedicated and determined to rebuild their torn down neighborhoods, it is possible to bring new life to the neighborhood by focusing on assets such
Spike Lee asked in his rant “why does it take an influx of [wealthy] white New Yorkers … for the facilities to get better?” Communities that have not gentrified have poor facilities and services for the resident living there, but when people with wealth move in, the city government wants to turn its attention onto the community to make it better. In San Francisco, the Fillmore district was one of the worst places in the city to be in. Crime flourished throughout this neighborhood. Now with the influx of stores and wealthy residents coming in, the city turned one of the worst neighbors into one of the best neighborhoods. Julia Wong accurately described a situation about the lasting effect gentrification had on the community. In San Francisco, it became a new hub for tech companies and many of the wealthy tech employees were moving into immigrant neighborhoods. Landlords were driving up the cost of rent because of increased incentives to evict longtime tenants. Some tech workers paid a fee to have the soccer field for an hour and got into an argument with the neighborhoods kids because they followed a different set of rules; rules that were in place for years in the community. She stated that the government was renting out parks and quoted Mark Buell who said “it’s a way of trying to provide a service to the community”. Why does it take money to provide a free
Los Angeles was the first product off the assembly line of American urban planning. Turned on in the late 19th century, the city-making machine was fueled by an immense immigration of people who sought to create a new type of city out of the previously quaint pueblo. They also strove to craft the first major city developed primarily by Americans and outside of European archetypes. As a result, Los Angles is not only incredibly diverse, but also nearly impossible to define. Since it is a product of the American machine, understanding the community of Los Angeles becomes vital to understanding the United States. But to fully comprehend the present Los Angeles, one must look at the process that created it. Specifically, Los Angeles was
In today’s society, it may seem that gentrification can eliminate poverty and increase neighborhood opportunities. Low-income residents and property owners will be the first to be altered by gentrification. In an email to the editor at the Atlantic, Freeman, the director of the Urban Planning program at Columbia states “ Gentrification brings new amenities and services that benefit not only the newcomers but long term residents too. Full service