Don Mitchell Analysis

A study by The Urban Institute describes gentrification as “a process whereby higher-income households move into low income neighborhoods, escalating the area’s property values to the point that displacement occurs.” Gentrification generally takes place in deteriorating urban or rural areas. The purpose of gentrification is to take struggling neighborhoods and stabilize them by increasing property value. Naturally the system isn’t perfect, as it has the side effect of displacement, which can cause some people to have to move to a different location, but overall gentrification is much more beneficial than destructive on a large scale. All neighborhoods have to be improved eventually. Gentrification is simply the most effective way of doing it. Although there are some negatives associated with Gentrification, in the long run it succeeds in creating a better place for people to live, and the pros far outweigh the cons.

During my interview, Dr. Owens let me know that the U.S. Census Bureau stopped collecting data on income, and referred me to the American Community survey. Furthermore, she gave me feedback on my index for gentrification, and made the suggestion to exclude race and ethnicity since affluent racial minorities can contribute to gentrification. By specifying the factors investigating and listing my assumptions, I give the a general idea of why I think that these factors are important to the operationalization of gentrification, and support my choices with what has been done in past studies. In the discussion section, I reason why this study is significant and how it could lead to subsequent policy changes. By outlining ways in which different audiences can benefit from this study, I show that in addition to extending the existing research, my study has the potential to make societal impacts across various fields. If this proposal were to become a dissertation, this section would be more extensive and would draw upon the results found after collecting all the

Washington, D.C. is rapidly changing in front of the citizen’s eyes. It is becoming a victim of “The Plan,” a theoretical conspiracy plan construed by whites to take over D.C.’s real estate, physical space, and politics. Gentrification in Washington, D.C. can essentially be defined as a shift in the community to attract and accommodate newcomers at the expense of the current inhabitants. In Washington, four neighborhoods are currently in the process of gentrification: Barry Farm, Lincoln Heights/Richardson Dwellings, Northwest One and Park Morton. These particular neighborhoods were specifically targeted by the government for their high crime rates, significant population of impoverished citizens, and inclusion of a certain economic class.

Some people attracted to living a long time in their communities. As a youth, I’m scared to see one day our cities will be full of homeless people, armed robbers, jobless citizen etc. All this is in the name of gentrification. Gentrification is the way of renovating and improving property values but often displacing low-income families and small business. After the renovation, some people thought that the wealthy people will come and occupy the districts. So the low-income people decided to fight for their community. Nowadays, people who live in their communities for a longer period of time find an interest of staying

Many families have been replaced in order to create a more refined neighborhood suitable to the tastes of the middle class. Benjamin Grant brings forward the idea of the positive effects of change and Barbara Eldredge presents insight to the negative effects of gentrification. Gentrification - “the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban district, a related increase in rents and property values, and changes in the district’s character and culture” became a common shift in the early 1960’s (Grant). The definition of gentrification has gone through

Gentrification is a general term for the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban, district a related increase in rents and property values and changes in district’s character and culture. Gentrification works by accretion which is gathering momentum like a snowball. Gentrification has been the cause of painful conflict in many American cities. America’s renewed interest in city life has put a premium on urban neighborhoods, some of which have been built since World War II. It tends to occur in districts with particular qualities that make them desirable and ripe for change. Word travels that an attractive neighborhood has been “discovered” and the pace of change accelerates rapidly. An increase in median income and a decline in the

The term Gentrification was coined by a British Sociologist Ruth Glass to describe the movement of middle class families in urban areas causing the property value to increase and displacing the older settlers. Over the past decades, gentrification has been refined depending on the neighborhood 's economic, social and political context. According to Davidson and Less’ definition, a gentrified area should include investment in capital, social upgrading, displacement of older settlers and change in the landscape (Davidson and Lees, 2005).Gentrification was perceived to be a residential process, however in the recent years, it has become a broader topic, involving the restructuring of inner cities, commercial development and improvement of facilities in the inner city neighborhoods. Many urban cities like Chicago, Michigan and Boston have experienced gentrification, however, it is affecting the Harlem residents more profoundly, uprooting the people who have been living there for decades, thus destroying the cultural identity of the historic neighborhood.

Gentrification was previously supported by those with “cultural capital” in the arts; people like “artists, writers, teachers, professors.” These people specifically were the main reason that the mainstream middle class was being pushed out of their neighborhoods. Gentrification originally had been used to describe the improvements and modernization of close-to-demolished buildings. With "an increasing desire for the kind of cultural and intellectual pursuits”, it is argued that gentrifiers have been “establishing a new investment climate” that serves to create homes for middle-class caucasians, which pushes out the minorities of the surrounding area. However, this soon evolved with time, as more and more ethnic minorities and wealthy moved

Gentrification is often related to the improvement of community in terms of crimes, economy and housing conditions. In this article, Scott C Macdonald discusses the relationship between gentrification and crime rates and how it affects the residents of gentrified neighborhoods. Furthermore, Macdonald explains why gentrification should reduce crime by stating that affluent neighborhoods typically have low crime rates that poor neighborhoods, thus as the urban neighborhood become more affluent the crime rates should decrease because of the change in social class. Similarly, the new comers of the neighborhood tend to be more engaged in the neighborhood security activities such as organizing citizen patrols and neighborhood watches than

Viewing the complex matter of gentrification succinctly, it helps to uncover how multifaceted it is; in that gentrification involves the oppression, marginalization, displacement of vulnerable populations, particularly, the poor, and the black who are often already negatively impacted by the effects of classism, and racism. Gentrification threatens to erode the communities and livelihood maintained by these set of people because their displacement becomes a precondition for the total transformation of the area.

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

Society can be structured in many ways. A good society requires mutual consent amongst its members, and private property is at the root of earning this consent. In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, private property defines man as an individual, forces him into a society, and is his instrument in achieving justice. It explains how man goes from existing in a state of nature to participation in a social contract. Aristotle’s Politics is concerned with how private property is closely connected to the virtue of a city and the pursuit of a good life. Thomas More’s Utopia satirizes the ideal city because it completely abolishes private property. The author argues that this is possible in a far-fetched city, but it cannot bring order to a city that is already established. From these three works, it is evident that private property is essential to the proper organization of a city because it allows for individuality and development of the virtues.

Although gentrification can cause racial and class tensions in neighbourhoods, we cannot avoid the fact that it contributes to the economic growth and development of the area, however it is also widely believed that the economic and social benefits of gentrification and the improvement and beautified parks, buildings, schools and shops are mostly enjoyed by the wealthy newcomers. However new research argues that gentrification is not one-sided as people previously thought it was

In Evelyn Perry’s Live and Let Live, she addresses some of the many concerns in under-privileged communities that are facing gentrification today. As I was reading this novel, the term gentrification certainly became defined. Evelyn Perry presented a new way of thinking and understanding when it comes to diverse, low-income, integrated neighborhoods and how to simply not judge a book by its cover.

Billy Mitchell was an Army Brigadier General and a famed aviator, considered by many to be the father of the United States Air Force, he was one of the loudest proponents of air power after World War I. He is also one of the most polarizing figures in aviation. People argue how helpful he actually was to the development of US aviation. William D. O’Neil, argues that his campaign to promote airpower was handled the wrong way. His use of scare tactics, embellishments of fact and prediction, and his confrontational attitude actually limited his ability to compromise with other branches and effectively sell his ideas. An author in support of Mitchell, Robert Burlingame, stated that World War II was the proving grounds and vindication of Billy Mitchell, that he could not have acted any other way, and his loud voice kept him in the minds of all those who heard him, making sure his ideas were not forgotten. In this paper, the argument of critic, William D. O’Neil, will be analyzed along with the advocate, Robert Burlingame will be presented, both sides will be evaluated, and then a synthesis will be made.