Masters essay final submission 081114

Running head: DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION
Williams-Kearney
Page 1
REDEVELOPMENT, GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT:
Would a Holistic Approach to Creating Policies that Mitigate Displacement due to
Gentrification better serve both Place and People?
by
Cheryl Williams-Kearney
AN ESSAY
Submitted to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences,
Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING
August 2014
MAJOR: Economic Development
APPROVED BY:
______________________________

DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION
Williams-Kearney
Page 2
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
a. Research questions
i. Would a holistic approach to creating policies that mitigate displacement
due to gentrification better serve both "People" and "Place"?
ii. Have holistic policies that emphasize the revitalization of "People" instead
of emphasizing "Place" had the impact sought by community groups?
iii. If holistic policies implemented have impacted displacement due to
gentrification, how might these policies be adapted in other locations
facing various stages of gentrification?
b. Methodology and definitions
c. Overview of organization of essay
II. History of redevelopment and gentrification
a. Federal Housing Act of 1949
b. The role of government programs on gentrification
i. Why were thriving Black neighborhoods demolished for redevelopment
ii. Model Cities program
iii. Lafayette Park-Detroit
iv. Hamlin Park-Buffalo-buffalo rising
v. Pruitt-Igoe-St. Louis
c. Private market forces of gentrification
d. Gentrification as on off-shoot of redevelopment
i. Neighborhood tipping and displacement

Williams-Kearney
Page 3
ii. Mobility and displacement- case studies of private market gentrification
1. Harlem
2. Clinton Hill
e. Indigenous residents’ response to gentrification
i. “You’ll never be from Southie”
ii. Anacostia –Chocolate City
iii. "My Brooklyn: a Battle for the Soul of a City"- a documentary
iv. "Fate of a Salesman" (Washington, D.C.) – a documentary
III. Case studies of holistic policy projects vs. place based projects
a. Holistic policies that mitigate displacement
i. Cleveland-The Evergreen Cooperatives
ii. Pittsburgh- Hill District Community Group
iii. Baltimore- partnerships with Johns Hopkins University & Hospital
b. Exclusionary policies directly resulting in disharmony among residents
i. Philadelphia-Point Breeze
ii. Boston-FB page Boston against gentrification
iii. Atlanta

Williams-Kearney
Page 4
IV. Recommendations
a. Specific concepts researched and reviewed
i. Policies employed in early stages of gentrification
ii. Policies employed in middle stages of gentrification
iii. Policies employed in late stages of gentrification
b. Author’s recommendations
i. Workforce training
ii. Consolidated planning of projects
1. Detroit Corridor Initiative
2. U3
V. Conclusion

Williams-Kearney
Page 5
Chapter I: Introduction
The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not a combined approach of
affordable housing in conjunction with training and workforce development can better stem the
tide of displacement due to gentrification associated with redevelopment. The Housing Act of
1949 attempted to address blight and substandard housing in our nation’s inner cities by
demolishing substandard slum housing and replacing it with housing units affordable for
“moderate to low- income residents”. This did not take into consideration the displacement of
those categorized as “extremely low income” and unable to afford the newly available low cost
housing. In the 1960s, Detroit’s Lafayette Park/Black Bottom/Paradise Valley project was a
prime example of an additional outcome of reinvestment in the neighborhood that ended in the
displacement of the residents due to gentrification (miesdetroit.org, 2013).
To prepare residents for rising housing costs and future self-sufficiency, many
communities are tying workforce development to redevelopment projects aimed at maintaining
the neighborhood’s diversity. The thought behind this movement is that for a neighborhood to
achieve true sustainability, revitalization requires not only an investment in the beautification of
the environment, but an investment in the future of all of its residents, current and future.
Neighborhoods that have addressed redevelopment with an eye towards sustainability are
reviewed later in the case studies. These policies are said to serve both the “People” and the
“Place”.
It was a commonly accepted notion that as urban areas succumbed to disinvestment,
urban sprawl, “White flight” and declining population, the tried and true method of revitalization
was through renewal and redevelopment. The implementation of the federal Housing Act of
1949 gave birth to urban renewal in an effort to provide “governmental assistance to eliminate

Williams-Kearney
Page 6
substandard and other inadequate housing through the clearance of slums and blighted
areas”(42USC § 1441, 1949). The resultant effect, overwhelmingly, was the displacement of the
indigenous residents as the areas gentrified as a result of those redevelopment projects.
Over the last 60 plus years, the most popular method of revitalization has been providing
new affordable housing on the redevelopment site; however residents may have been displaced
from the area if they did not meet the criteria to be selected for a unit. They also may have been
displaced while waiting for the completion of the construction of the new housing units. In times
of active national social consciousness, providing developers incentives to convince them of the
financial feasibility of setting aside affordable housing units was far less daunting than in periods
of economic and social conservatism. However, what was earmarked as affordable housing for
“moderate and low income” residents disregarded residents that qualified as “extremely low
income”, who frequently earned less than 80% of the area median income. For residents
classified as “extremely low income” programs such as inclusionary zoning and tax credits do
not address their housing concerns as they cannot qualify to purchase or even rent the
“affordable units”.
Over time, governmental influence was no longer the primary catalyst for the
redevelopment of the older central cities. Reinvestment policies, dictated by changes in the
public’s consumption patterns, cultural preferences and major changes in the global economy,
particularly deindustrialization, spurred the convergence of the gentry back to the core cities.
Levy et al suggest that gentrification is born of different types of displacement; “1)’direct
displacement’, such as that which was resultant of federal urban renewal programs in the 1950s
and 1960s; 2) ‘secondary or involuntary displacement’ where low-income households prefer to
remain but cannot afford higher rents, taxes, tenant harassment, or the withholding of services; 3)

Williams-Kearney
Page 7
‘exclusionary displacement’ where preventive policies preclude future low-income residents
from locating there” (as cited in Freeman and Braconi, 2002).
For the lowest financial strata of residents, the inability to participate in these options
required municipalities to approach the issue from a different perspective. Why are these
residents not even earning a livable wage and how can that issue be addressed? In recent years,
many cities have begun attaching training and hiring initiatives to anchor institutions’
participation in neighborhood redevelopment. Additional initiatives to preserve the historical and
minority business culture of the redeveloping neighborhoods are also being included in
redevelopment projects negotiation process.
Could a holistic policy approach address issues beyond blight and under-employment, if
investments are in the people as well as the structures, such as the methods employed to curb
racial tension in between current and new residents in Boston (Vigdor, 2002), Philadelphia
(Spikol, 2012), or Atlanta (Reid &Adelman, 2003)? This study will review creative approaches
instituted in several communities to determine the outcomes of these policies and whether their
implementation has had an effect in reducing displacement of current residents.
Research Questions
1. Would a holistic approach to creating policies that mitigate displacement due to
gentrification better serve both "People" and "Place"?
2. Have holistic policies that emphasize the revitalization of "People" instead of
emphasizing "Place" had the impact sought by community groups?
3. If holistic policies implemented have impacted displacement due to gentrification,
how might these policies be adapted in other locations facing various stages of gentrification?

Williams-Kearney
Page 8
Methodology and Definitions
The methodology employed will be to review the policies implemented in various
communities comparing and contrasting the outcomes in both a historical and current context.
These data will be gleaned from scholarly articles, journals, books, and review of community
development corporations’ participation in policy creation in their neighborhoods. Additional
insight will be provided by personal communication with community leaders in affected areas
and filmed documentaries addressing the response of indigenous residents’ reaction to
gentrification as a result of redevelopment.
What exactly do the terms “gentrification” and “displacement” mean? In order to
measure the effects of gentrification, a general consensus for a clear definition of “gentrification”
is needed. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defined gentrification as
“the process by which a neighborhood occupied by lower-income households undergoes
revitalization or reinvestment through the arrival of upper-income households” (U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development 1979, 4).
In the PBS.org article, “What is Gentrification” it is defined as “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 the district's character and culture. The term is often
used negatively, suggesting the displacement of poor communities by rich outsiders. But the
effects of gentrification are complex and contradictory, and its real impact varies….
Gentrification has been the cause of painful conflict in many American cities, often along racial
and economic fault lines. Neighborhood change is often viewed as a miscarriage of social justice,
in which wealthy, usually white, newcomers are congratulated for ‘improving’ a neighborhood

Williams-Kearney
Page 9
whose poor, minority residents are displaced by skyrocketing rents and economic change….( i.e.,
demographic, real estate markets, land use, and culture and character changes)” (pbs.org,2013).
Freeman (2005) points to several variations of the definition, but gleans similarities to
come up a working definition that allows the impact to be measured; “First, consider the types of
neighborhoods with the potential to be gentrified. Characteristics of such neighborhoods would
include (1) central city neighborhoods (2) populated by low-income households that have
previously experienced (3) disinvestment. Next, consider the actual process of gentrification. The
definitions listed above point to an (4) influx of the relatively affluent or gentry, and (5) an
increase in investment. The first three represent disadvantaged neighborhoods that are the pool of
potentially gentrifying neighborhoods, whereas the last two refer to the process of gentrification”
(Freeman, 2005). The following sections will explore statistical effects and the human response
to those effects
Levy et al contend that while there is “no agreed upon definition” of gentrification they do refer
to severalother notable sources: “Urban geographer Ruth Glass who coined the term gentrification…She
defined it as the process of middle-and upper-class households moving into distressed working-class
neighborhoods, upgrading the derelict housing stock (as cited in Glass, 1964). David Ley, as cited in
Simon Fraser University’s online definition describes it as “a process of social change where by a social
transition occurs as lower-income groups are progressively replaced in inner-city neighborhoods by
middle-income groups who reinvest and revitalize the inner-city" (as cited in Ley, 1996). Virtually all of
the redevelopment projects involve the resurrection of the “central business district”, henceforth referred
to as the CBD.
In attempting to define “displacement” Peter Marcuse asserts” One can define displacement
in terms of households or housing units, in individual or in neighborhood terms, or as a consequence of
physical or economic changes” (Marcuse,1985). He does defer , in his opinion, to an even more

Williams-Kearney
Page 10
complete definition: “The most widely accepted definition is that developed by George and Eunice Grier:
Displacement occurs when any household is forced to move from its residence by conditions that affect
the dwelling or its immediate surroundings, and that: 1) are beyond the household’s reasonable ability to
control or prevent; 2) occur despite the household’s having met all previously imposed conditions of
occupancy; and 3) make continued occupancy by that household impossible, hazardous, or unaffordable”
(as cited in Grier, G. and E. Grier, 1978).
The terms “place” and “people” take on something of a unique quality in the field of urban
planning and community development. When considering redevelopment of a neighborhood, “place” falls
into one or all of three categories; 1) the place of residence,2) the workplace, or 3) the community itself
with particular focus on neighborhood amenities. “People”, therefore not only pertains to the residents of
a neighborhood, but investors, business owners, employees that work in the area but reside elsewhere and
people that are drawn to the area to support and enjoy the amenities. The issue at hand is that respect and
consideration must be given to the “place” and “people” as they existed prior to the redevelopment
projects.
Overview of Organization of Essay
The material covered and conclusions reached in this study will be presented in the
following order:
Chapter I introduces the topic of displacement and gentrification and discusses why it is
worthy of review. The pitfalls of the earliest concepts of urban renewal that were employed when
creating policies to redevelop neighborhoods are briefly examined. Next, three research
questions are presented to frame the context of the analysis of the subject matter, i.e., will
holistic policies that speak to the needs of both “people” and “place” provide the most
harmonious outcomes for all involved with neighborhood redevelopment projects? This is

Williams-Kearney
Page 11
followed by the methodology utilized and the definition of terms, review of specific concepts
dealing with the various stages of gentrification and the organization of the essay.
Chapter II discusses the history of redevelopment from the Federal Housing Act of 1949
focusing on some of the earliest urban renewal/redevelopment projects through present day
projects driven by market economy and consumer consumption preferences. Gentrification as an
off-shoot of redevelopment is examined in the writings of Professor Lance Freeman with regards
to mobility and displacement and the level of neighborhood acceptance in the revitalization of
Harlem and Clinton Hill. On a more personal level, residents are interviewed about the changes
they see in their neighborhoods in the documentary films, “Brooklyn: a Battle for the Soul of a
City” and “Fate of a Salesman”.
Chapter III looks at both holistic and exclusionary policies utilized in specific case
studies and their respective outcomes. Chapter IV offers recommendations and best practices
based upon the case reviews that are followed by the conclusion in Chapter V.

Williams-Kearney
Page 12
Chapter II: History of redevelopment and gentrification
Federal Housing Act of 1949
Following the return of the veterans of WWII and the enactment of the Servicemen’s
Readjustment Act of 1944, which provided numerous benefits including low cost mortgages, the
real estate market skyrocketed. To support that boon, Congress passed 42 U.S. Code § 1441,
better known as the Federal Housing Act of 1949, whereas, “The Congress declares that the
general welfare and security of the Nation and the health and living standards of its people
require housing production and related community development sufficient to remedy the serious
housing shortage, the elimination of substandard and other inadequate housing through the
clearance of slums and blighted areas, and the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a
decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family, thus contributing to
the development and redevelopment of communities and to the advancement of the growth,
wealth, and security of the Nation. The Congress further declares that such production is
necessary to enable the housing industry to make its full contribution toward an economy of
maximum employment, production, and purchasing power” (U.S. Congress, 1949).
In a ten year review of the Housing Act of 1949 by Duke University, it is pointed out “It
is important to note that the very title of the Act implies emphasis on housing rather than urban
renewal” (Leach, 1960, p. 778). The very focus of this paper seems to be supported by the
review of the program that even in its infancy the two-pronged approach was weighted in favor
of housing over redevelopment due to political pressures. While the concept of the dire need for
additional housing was easy to grasp, the tandem act of redevelopment was not so clear. The
singular focus of building residential units overlooked the need for redevelopment of the
commercial areas that are vital to the revitalization of the community.

Williams-Kearney
Page 13
The role of government programs on gentrification
Thus far, the causes of gentrification driven displacement were explained as a collateral
consequence of politics, finance and racial preferences. But what if the result was not an
unintended outcome, but rather it was because “The private hand of the market was consciously
manipulated to cause a decline in property values and the quality of life in urban neighborhoods”
(Godsil, 2014)? Godsil proposes the existence of an “unholy trinity” of puppet masters consisting
of the federal government, bankers and real estate brokers who intentionally decimated the value
of urban land for financial gain and racial autonomy.
The supposition is that the combination of the Federal Highway Act of 1956, the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) and the Veterans Administration (VA) homeownership loans
simultaneously enhanced “the autonomy of white families to purchase homes and move to the
suburbs…disinvesting in urban centers and contributing to the exclusion of Black and Latino
families from those same suburbs, (Godsil, 2014). The inability to readily relocate when the
highways demolished their neighborhoods ‘resulted in massive displacement of poor people and
the destruction of established neighborhoods” (Godsil, 2014). Politicos, bankers, real estate
developers and businessmen used highway act funds to construct roads through lower income
neighborhoods which provided a quick and convenient escape route to the suburbs. Poor in-place
residents did not have equal access to FHA or VA loans to purchase new homes in other
neighborhoods, where they were often restricted from purchasing. If the government was
instrumental in causing displacement, does it have a responsibility to enact corrective measures?
Why were thriving Black neighborhoods demolished for redevelopment?
The thriving Black Detroit neighborhoods of Black Bottom and Paradise Valley were
KO’d by the one-two combination of Eisenhower era freeway expansion, driven by the auto

Williams-Kearney
Page 14
industry, and the Lafayette Park redevelopment project. Progress can be determined by one’s
perspective. To Black residents these neighborhoods were a sanctuary in a time of extreme racial
inequality. As Blacks were refused admittance to, or participation in many aspects of everyday
life, a microcosm was created in these neighborhoods that provided all the necessities of life in a
safe environment. Blacks owned successful businesses of every type that provided the services
that support any community.
I-75 and I-375 destroyed this area in the name of progress. Many Whites could not
understand the attachment and described the area as dirty and run down. Their perspective could
not fathom the security the residents derived from this enclave in a time when venturing beyond
the perimeter could mean incarceration or even death. “Historian Joe T. Darden of Michigan
State University, co-author of the new book “Detroit: Race Riots, Racial Conflicts and Efforts to
Bridge the Racial Divide,” said the Detroit experience needs to be remembered for what was lost
to urban renewal and expressways in the 1950s and ’60s. “Some people may not know that
history, so if nothing else, it’s important to put that into perspective and say more about it,” he
said” (Gallagher, 2013).
In 1953, recent college graduate, urban planner Ed Hustoles came to Detroit to work on
the Lafayette Park project. Hustoles recalls he viewed the projects that replaced rat-infested
neighborhoods as “enlightened”. Interviewed in 2013, at the age of 87, “Hustoles sounds wistful
today remembering at the distance of half a century what was viewed as a great revitalization
effort. “I was a young guy out of college,” he said. “We thought we were doing good. We were
taking blight away and giving people decent, safe, and sanitary housing, and we were rebuilding
the city. “Well, in retrospect, you can always do some things differently” (Gallagher, 2013).

Williams-Kearney
Page 15
Current urban planner “best practices” have now decided that removal of freeways in core areas
is the way of the future, so now I-375, 1.062 mile long freeway that destroyed a neighborhood
60 years ago is being considered for removal (ssti.us,2014).
Model Cities Program
Under the umbrella of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society the Demonstration
Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 was enacted, better known as the Model
Cities Program. It was the first time a holistic approach to addressing urban decay was utilized.
Its goals, while altruistic, were quite lofty and eventually unobtainable. A historical review of the
program by Duke University explains “The specific objectives each local program is expected to
meet are: to rebuild or revitalize large slum and blighted areas; to expand housing, job, and
income opportunities; to reduce dependence on welfare payments; to improve educational
facilities and programs; to combat disease and ill health, to reduce the incidence of crime and
delinquency; to enhance recreational and cultural opportunities; to establish better access
between homes and jobs; and generally to improve living conditions for the people who live in
the areas…”(as cited § 101, 42 U.S.C. § 3301 (Supp. II, 1965-66)).
Although the program was designed for recipient cities to receive both financial and
technical guidance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, it has been
deemed an unmitigated failure, (ccdemuth.com). Because the benefits were to be directly
administered on a local level, the cause for failure appears to be a lack of vertical coordination
between agencies and a lack of specific program structure. The various departments involved on
the federal and regional levels established a structured line of communication, but lacked the
authority to dispense funds, while the local agencies simply floundered. The exact source and
purpose of the funds was also unclear. “By the time the first model cities programs were

Williams-Kearney
Page 16
announced in December of 1968, the term "supplemental grant" had become an Orwellian
misnomer—the grants were not supplementing anything, but were themselves the whole
program. The HUD press releases announcing the model cities programs listed numerous
projects funded by other agencies, but in most cases the non-HUD projects had neither been
planned by the local CDAs nor coordinated at the federal level to fit local plans. By this time,
most of the local model cities administrators had come to realize that the promised gush of
categorical grant money was never going to be more than a trickle. As a result, most of the
supplemental grants were used for projects which could have been funded by the categorical
grants, rather than for "innovative" projects or to "fill the gaps" between the categorical
programs” (ccdemuth.com).
With a changing of the guard at the White House from Johnson to Nixon the backing of
the Model Cities program dwindled, although an October 1969 article in the Lawrence Journal-
World states the decision to pull support was not a specifically partisan one. In spite of this
observation, Nixon did cut the funding by 42% from $515 million to $300 million. This total
deficit was, however, offset by increases in other HUD programs (news.google.com). “An
extension of the Model Cities program was launched August 1, 1972 by the Nixon
administration to provide for more review, involvement, and cooperation by various levels of
local government and citizens, with less review at the federal level. Nixon approved $2.3 billion
to fund model cities from 1969 to 1973. Model Cities funding was terminated June 20, 1975”
(Virginia.edu).
The lack of vertical coordination between agencies, no specific program structure and a
lack of consistent authority to disperse funds spelled the end of the Model Cities programs as
originally intended.

Williams-Kearney
Page 17
Lafayette Park-Detroit, Michigan
One of the earliest redevelopment projects to come out of the Housing Act of 1949 was
Lafayette Park which replaced two historically Black neighborhoods named Black Bottom and
the adjacent neighborhood known as Paradise Valley. The neighborhoods were acknowledged as
“one of the city's major African-American communities of black-owned business, social
institutions and night clubs. It became nationally famous for its music scene: major blues singers,
big bands, and jazz artists—such as Duke Ellington, Billy Eckstine, Pearl Bailey, Ella Fitzgerald,
and Count Basie—regularly performed in the bars and clubs of Paradise Valley entertainment
district. It is also where Aretha Franklin's father, the Reverend C. L. Franklin first opened his
New Bethel Baptist Church on Hastings Street” (detroithistorical.org). The area was demolished
to make way for Lafayette Park and the extension of I-75 (locally known as the Chrysler
Freeway). The redevelopment project was assigned to world renowned architect Ludwig Mies
van der Rohe.
In a article on BlacDetroit.com a 23 year resident of Lafayette Park, Neil McEachern
states, “The plan was to build this neighborhood in downtown Detroit to attract a diverse group
of middle-class people to live in downtown Detroit to kind of stem the tide of people moving
further and further out," (blacdetroit.com). My observation is this, what about the prior residents
who were not “middle class” and what was to become of them? It very clearly does not address
the concerns of the indigenous residents, which are reviewed in later chapters.
“Lafayette Park was built as the result of the Gratiot Redevelopment Project initiated in
the 1940s, when Detroit’s city government approved the destruction of a densely populated
working class African-American neighborhood called Black Bottom. Thousands of residents
were displaced and the area remained vacant until the city retained Chicago-based developer

Williams-Kearney
Page 18
Herbert Greenwald, architect Mies van der Rohe, urban planner Ludwig Hilberseimer and
landscape designer Alfred Caldwell to design a plan for the area. Three 22-floor high-rises, 21
buildings with 186 ground-level housing units, and a large park were completed by the early
1960s” (Dittmer, 2012). While the project called for mixed income dwellings, there is an obvious
line of demarcation between the upper and lower income housing projects, i.e., the low income
Martin Luther King housing project located at 573 Chene Street and upper income complexes
such as the Lafayette Towers and The Pavilion at 1 Lafayette Plaisance.
So how did the displaced residents feel about this redevelopment? This is addressed in
later chapters.
Hamlin Park-Buffalo, New York
Prior to the 1949 Housing Act was U.S. Housing Act of 1937, the Wagner-Stegall low-
rent housing bill. ” As early as the 1930s, the National Association of Real Estate Boards
(NAREB) looked for urban redevelopment through private investment rather than public housing
programs. The NAREB called for cities to acquire properties in blighted areas through eminent
domain and sell them to private developers at below-value prices. The board proposed that the
government provide subsidies to cover the difference between the purchase price and the value
after redevelopment. While several states complied and passed statutes to encourage urban
redevelopment by private enterprise, the success of these programs was limited due to the
lukewarm response of developers, who believed that they were not lucrative investments. The
reluctance by developers to invest in slum areas was a continual problem in the history of urban
development” (buffalorising.com, 2013).
The history of Hamlin Park is as rich and diverse as any reviewed in this research. It is
was the city’s first planned subdivision and was at some point home to varied ethnic groups from

Williams-Kearney
Page 19
German to Jewish to African-American. It boasts amenities such as “the Frederick Law Olmsted
designed Delaware and Martin Luther King Parks, the North Jefferson Library, the Albright
Knox Art Gallery, the Historical Society, the Zoo, and the Museum of Science; the availability of
public transportation, with two rapid transit stations in or near the community, and the nearby
expressway system that provides ready access to downtown, the international airport and to
outlying communities and employment opportunities” (city-buffalo.com).
Hamlin Park is unique as one of the early redevelopment projects in that it is considered
to be at least partially successful when compared to other “urban renewal” projects in Buffalo, as
well as the rest of the nation. The success can be attributed to the manner in which Model Cities
guidelines were applied. The downfall of Model Cities in general seems to be the magnitude of
issues to be addressed was so enormous as to be unmanageable. To avoid this pitfall, Hamlin
Park narrowed the focus of redevelopment by utilizing a triage approach. Instead of trying to
“reinvent the wheel” and cure all the ills of the blighted areas in Buffalo, Hamlin Park choose
only to stabilize the areas which were salvageable by preventing further deterioration and thus
“led to the Hamlin Park neighborhood becoming the first African American middle class
community in Western New York” (buffaloah.com).
The two main factors driving their success were code enforcement, which is appropriate
when there is some level of stability already present and the creation of the Hamlin Park
Taxpayers Association in 1965. While both efforts were implemented in conjunction with Model
Cities, the narrow scope allowed both programs to survive beyond the demise of Model Cities in
1974.

Williams-Kearney
Page 20
Pruitt-Igoe-St. Louis
As evident in most early renewal projects, a similar catalyst of a declining population spurred the
creation of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project and eventually described as “arguably the most
infamous public housing project ever built in the United States” (soc.iastate.edu). The 2,870 unit,
eleven-story, 33 building housing complex was designed in the high rise architectural style of
LeCorbusier and completed in 1956. Pruitt-Igoe was a panicked response to a rapidly declining
population that, preceding other major cities, began as early as the 1930s. The original plans
were to build "two- or three-story row type apartment buildings’ and a large public park” in the
mostly vacant neighborhood of DeSoto-Carr (soc.iastate.edu). Instead, with the election of a
new mayor Joseph Darst in 1949, the design plans were replaced with his personal preference for
a New York City type high-rise skyline; to achieve that vision he hired architects George
Hellmuth and Minoru Yamasaki. The desire to transform St. Louis into “Manhattan on the
Mississippi” was the impetus for a redevelopment project to include not only high-rise units for
middle and high income residents but also a modernist style business district.
In the wake of a steadily declining population, the plan to designate the Pruitt apartments
for Blacks and The Igoe apartments for Whites fell apart as Whites refused to move in, leaving
the entire complex to Black occupation only. There are numerous theories as to why the colossal
housing project was constructed including intentional “segregationist policies’ and ‘restrictive
cost guidelines of the Public Housing Administration” (soc.iastate.edu). While segregation as a
policy cannot be confirmed, cost issues between contractors and the housing administration
resulted and “the city responded by raising densities, reducing room sizes, and removing
amenities” (soc.iastate.edu). As a result of myopic aspirations of 1950 civic leaders, within 20
years the unmitigated failure was imploded. Similar to the rebirth of the Detroit’s CBD,

Williams-Kearney
Page 21
spearheaded by businessman Dan Gilbert, St. Louis area businessman Paul McKee is moving
forward with the development of “Northside Regeneration” on the former site of Pruitt-Igoe.
Residents’ response to the redevelopment plans will be addressed later in this paper.
The earliest redevelopment projects were often driven by two main factors; urban core
declining population due to White Flight and utilization of federal highway funds to create the
commuter paths from the suburbs to the central business districts. Many vibrant Black
neighborhoods were razed in order to support White Flight and the eventual disinvestment of the
urban core.
Private market forces of gentrification
Although the government substantially impacted redevelopment-driven gentrification,
consumerism and technology which shape the economy, are also catalysts for redevelopment
driven gentrification. A sound tax base is required for any city to function. An aggressive plan to
establish a sound tax base is of critical importance in cities where both the population and the
business sector have declined. In pursuit of those personal and business taxes policies that
designed to entice investors, employers of the highly skilled and middle to upper income
residents often overlook low-income residents. These low income residents, who are generally
renters, suffer additionally as they have no equity in the properties being bought out.
A local example of private market forces is the land purchased by Wayne State
University, for the ever expanding Medical School located at 540 E. Canfield. Residents of the
neighbor called “Black Bottom” were displaced and relocated to the Brewster-Douglas Housing
Project. The economic impact of the expansion of the nation’s fourth largest medical school,
which is affiliated with the Detroit Medical Center, is apparent as the DMC is Detroit’s largest
private employer.

Williams-Kearney
Page 22
Geographer Neil Smith posits the “production-side theory” as an economic process
resulting in a downward spiral causing gentrification by drawing a correlation between money
and production. Basically Smith states the lower housing costs in post WWII suburbia generated
a mass exodus which in turn was followed by a shift of capital investment from the central cities
to the suburbs. Consequently, this disinvestment culminated in devaluation of central city land.
This phenomenon created a subsequent phenomena Smith described as the “rent-gap
theory”. The rent-gap theory explains the difference between the value of land based on its
current use and its potential for increased value when redeveloped for more profitable uses. The
increased land values increase housing costs to the point of generally replacing long standing
residents with younger, more educated, middle class Whites who are able to pay the increased
housing costs.
A causal result of the exodus to suburbia was disinvestment in the core city
neighborhoods. In the midst of the disinvestment was the birth of a technology based economy as
opposed to the manufacturing based economy, which tended to employ a majority of center city
residents. Not only did this cause an abandonment of residential areas but also an abandonment
of the associated industrial areas. The decline of capital investment directly devalued the land
thereby giving birth to the existence of “rent-gap” and the mass purchase of discounted land for
the purpose of redevelopment and the catalyst for gentrification.
As opposed to an economic or even place based theory, David Ley suggests that
gentrification is driven by consumerism and social aspirations. Referencing the work of Sharon
Zukin, Dr. Olaf Kaltmeier further clarifies the theory as “the consumption-side theory of urban
gentrification, on the other hand, underlines the socio-cultural qualities and motives of the

Williams-Kearney
Page 23
gentrifiers, who aim at a comfortable life in the city centers equipped with art galleries,
delicatessen stores, cafes and restaurants, as well as upscale living opportunities” (Kaltmeier,
2011).
Smith compares and contrasts his gentrification production theory with consumer-side
theory as postulated by David Ley. While he does not dismiss consumer-side theory as a
contributing factor to gentrification, he describes it as actually being an inclusive element of
production-side theory which he refers to as “one-dimensionality of consumer culture in the
advanced capitalist world” (Smith, 1995).
An additional factor contributing to gentrification, external to urban renewal, is economic
globalization. As previously mentioned, the impact of technological advancements has literally
changed the shape of not only local economies, but national and global as well. It also drastically
changes the type of individual suited for employment in this economy.
This new economy affects products, telecommunications, transport and financial
transactions. It has eliminated the need for physical proximity and yet major cities are
scrambling to achieve the status of “World City” as “major sites for the concentration and
accumulation of international capital” (as cited in Friedman, 1986). Ironically, while technology
has eliminated the need for requirement of physical proximity to perform the duties of business,
transnational corporations seek a central location from which to conduct business. To
accommodate this request and hopefully gain status as a “World City” certain amenities must be
available. The costs of these amenities are not generally within the financial reach of the in-
place residents, therefore, it can be said that gentrification is necessary for the sake of financial
advancement and stability of the city.

Williams-Kearney
Page 24
Gentrification as an off-shoot of redevelopment
At what point or percentage of in-movers does gentrification occur? What are the reasons
for the current residents to leave the area? Are they leaving voluntarily or involuntarily? Is the
influx of Whites back to the cities “reverse tipping”? Are there advantages for the current
residents built into the projects, or are the advantages they enjoy peripheral to those amenities
designed for the projects’ targeted audience?
Neighborhood tipping and displacement
The precursor to the current influx of Whites to the urban core was known as “White
Flight”. White flight was a phenomenon where Whites would move from the city to the suburbs
as Blacks moved into their neighborhoods. “Tipping” is a term that was coined to quantify the
acceptable percentage of Blacks that could move into a neighborhood before Whites fled en
masse to the suburbs. “The tipping point can be understood, then, as a threshold after which there
is an acceleration in the rate of white out-movement from a neighborhood. It is a specific,
numerical proportion usually said to be 25 or 30 percent, after which “there is an exaggerated
increase” in the proportion of blacks” (Goering, 1978). While Goering is correct that there is “no
reason for optimism” regarding harmonious integrated neighborhoods on any great scale, time
has proven him wrong regarding the shrinking of the cities due to the total abandonment of
Whites. Urban redevelopment has reversed the “White Flight”, but has created a new scenario of
possible displacement of Blacks and the poor.
Independent radio commentator, Glen Ford penned an article entitled “Are we passing
the “Tipping Point: for Black Habitation in the Cities?” that was posted on voiceofdetroit.net, an
online independent newspaper. Mr. Ford describes this new, “reverse tipping” as a racially
driven agenda masquerading as economic development. “Finance capital, corporate muscle, and

Williams-Kearney
Page 25
the political parties that serve them have set in motion the new phenomenon of Black flight from
the cities, and white return. Unlike white flight of the previous era, the current Black exodus is
mainly involuntary and economic. In reality, it is more like a purge, an ethnic cleansing based on
the reality that, in a racist society, the very presence of substantial numbers of Black people
brings down the value of land and other assets….The corporate class longed for the centralized
amenities that only big cities can provide, and finance capitalists looked forward to trillions in
added values if only the Blacks and browns could be evicted from urban real estate” (Ford,
2014).
As “tipping” left Blacks and the poor in economically devastated neighborhoods,
“reverse-tipping” spells the return of White middle class to upgrade the area beyond the means
of many of the current residents. It speaks to the inequities of choice and placing the current
residents in the position of only being able to acquiesce to decisions made for them. Tipping left
Blacks in undesirable neighborhoods, reverse-tipping is removing them from those same
neighborhoods now that improvements are finally underway.
Mobility and displacement-case studies of private market gentrification
Harlem and Clinton Hill neighborhoods, New York City
In an effort to quantify the effects of gentrification on displacement, social scientists
developed two main methodologies; one was to compare the characteristics of the gentry to the
indigenous residents, the other was to simply ask former residents, after the fact, their reasons for
having left the neighborhood. According to Freeman (2005), the results of the latter method were
not reliable as factors that were not directly correlated to redevelopment were included in the
studies in studies by. Another flaw in the methodology to quantify the rate of displacement was
the inability to formulate a displacement baseline as implemented in the “Out-Movers Study” by

Williams-Kearney
Page 26
Schill and Nathan (1983). Simply put, there was nothing to which the exodus could be compared.
Additional studies, utilizing various Succession study methodologies such as “Resident
Surveys”, based on Grier and Grier’s 1978 definition of displacement and “Comparison Study”,
yielded inconclusive results, (Freeman, & Braconi, 2004). However in New York City, Freeman
and Braconi (2004) found “that normal housing succession is the primary channel through which
neighborhood change occurs”. They further found that members of the lower socio-economic
strata actually lessened the turnover rate due to lessened mobility.
In his book “There Goes the ‘Hood”, Columbia University Planning Professor Lance
Freeman explores the history of predominately Black neighborhoods of Harlem and Clinton Hill.
He reviews the historical significance of the neighborhoods that eventually played a major role in
the eventual redevelopment and gentrification of the areas.
In the 1800s, Harlem was basically a summer retreat for wealthy who found the commute
back and forth into the city too cumbersome and expensive. As transportation became less of an
issue many upper class Whites settled in the area giving rise to the luxurious and now much
coveted brownstones. Speculative real estate investment left many properties vacant with no
prospects for these grand homes. Rather than lose their investments, landowners turned to Blacks
who were limited in their choices of where to reside. Although the property owners charged
Blacks much higher rents, the opportunity allowed Blacks of a higher economic standing (or as
E. Franklin Frazier referred to them the “Black Bourgeoisie”, 1957), to settle in the area.
Educated and artistic Blacks swarmed to the area of upscale dwellings and gave birth to the
Harlem Renaissance. So unlike other predominately Black neighborhoods in other cities, Black
were not relegated to areas of substandard housing stock.

Williams-Kearney
Page 27
As the economy fluctuated from the Great Depression to WWII to recessions in the mid-
late 1950s, the 70s, and early 90s followed by the “Great Recession” following the sub-prime
market crisis from 2007-2010, the effects on the citizenry were especially devastating in
neighborhoods that already only had access to marginal opportunities. Lack of opportunity,
coupled with or driven by systematic racism seemed to turn hopelessness to utter despair with
the heroin epidemic in the 1950s, heroin habits acquired while serving in Vietnam, importation
of heroin from Southeast Asia into the neighborhoods in the 1970s and the finally the crack
cocaine epidemic of the 1980s.
Freeman, as a scholar of color, was able to investigate the residents’ perceptions of
gentrification and have them respond with more candor than someone with whom they may not
identify. Freeman’s employed methodology was to actually interview a cross section of
residents of both Harlem, and Clinton to gauge their views on gentrification. Having grown up in
the area he has a unique perspective on changes in the area, but he never asked why the residents
accepted lack of services for them and improvements for the white in-movers as the status quo.
Almost all interviewees said the services and the amenities in the neighborhood had improved,
such as groceries with fresh food and improved police response, but very few questioned or
complained as to why these conveniences had been denied them. Complacency driven
acceptance is articulated as “Here whites are views as a group that will not tolerate inferior
services. Cognizant of this, stores and providers of public services step up their performance to
accommodate the new clientele” (Freeman, 2006).
He later addresses “urban myths” and Blacks inherent distrust of Whites and the political
structure in the country and with good reason. He points to Black cinema where the intentional
decimation of Black neighborhoods is illuminated in films such as New Jack City (dir. Mario

Williams-Kearney
Page 28
Van Peebles, Warner Bros. Pictures, 1991), where the villainous main character explains that the
scourge of crack was introduced in Black neighborhoods by the powerbrokers, not the residents.
In Boyz in the Hood (dir. John Singleton, Columbia Pictures, 1991) Freeman delves more deeply
into the conspiracy theory as espoused by the character “Furious”, a well-read man who is the
father of one of the main characters. Furious educates his neighbors or the origins, intent and
evils of gentrification. “Here Furious describes gentrification as a deliberate plot to make money.
Current residents are to be discarded without a thought. Moreover, the conditions that make
gentrification possible in the first place-low property values-results from an intentional plan to
destroy black people. Neil Smith could not have said it better” (Freeman, 2006).
Indigenous residents’ response to gentrification
While it is acknowledged there is a human cost of displacement it is not the main focus of this
study (the focus is policies that reduce the human cost), the Center for Disease Control postulates
“Gentrification is a housing, economic, and health issue that affects a community’s history and
culture and reduces social capital…. Where people live, work, and play has an impact on their
health. Several factors create disparities in a community’s health. Examples include
socioeconomic status, land use/the built environment, race/ethnicity, and environmental
injustice. In addition, displacement has many health implications that contribute to disparities
among special populations, including the poor, women, children, the elderly, and members of
racial/ethnic minority groups.”(CDC, 2013). These changes may manifest as physical, mental,
emotional or even increased social justice inequities.
You’ll never be from Southie
Pushback to perceived displacement due to gentrification is not just a racial issue, but an
economic one as well. The predominately working-class, Irish enclave of “Southie” responded to

Williams-Kearney
Page 29
the influx of gentrifiers in an online battle on Facebook and blog site CaughtInSouthie.com. The
main antagonist attacked the residents of Southie alluding to jealousy of “yuppies” due to their
own low-class existence. BostInno, staff writer Steve Annear looks to various data to determine
the cause of gentrification in South Boston. Quoting Professor of Public Policy and Economics at
Duke University, Jacob Vigdor. “there is bound to be some amount of tension when
neighborhoods are flooded with newcomers that change the way a community identifies with
itself—but it’s hard to avoid the process once it begins…. young people look for affordable
neighborhoods near the center of the city to live. Then, based on demographics, stores like
Starbucks and Whole Foods may follow suit, and in turn, attract additional occupants with an
affinity for such amenities” (Annear, 2012). It is all about economics.
“More People, Not Enough Housing: In June, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that
Boston’s population was on the rise and between April 2010 and July 2011, it increased to
625,087 from 617,594, reported the previous year. The 1.2 percent increase represents 7,493
people and is double the Massachusetts average growth rate over that time period, according to
the report” (Annear, 2012). According to Dr. Japonica Brown-Saracino, Assistant Professor of
Sociology at Boston University, the issue is not merely one of displacement; “long time residents
react not only to physical displacement, but “social displacement,” which is the loss of control in
a gentrifying community. The loss of a neighborhood’s culture is a far more emotional issue and
subject more so to volatility.
Is there even a possibility of a symbiotic relationship between the Southies and yuppies?
A comment in the online battle may sum it up…”"The truth is you will never be from Southie.
You live [in] South Boston, they are not the same. The word 'yuppies' will always go to people

Williams-Kearney
Page 30
not from Southie," said Brian Lori Powers, in response to the conversation on the Facebook
thread. "My Question to the yuppies is—why live somewhere that [your'e] not wanted and feel
you'll never be treated the same. Southie will never change so why would you live there." "Just a
thought," said Powers.
Anacostia
The Washington D.C. neighborhood is the subject of debate on-line and NPR radio;
specifically, opposing views about displacement and the plight of one Black resident, Robert
Adams, are analyzed. Adams, a lifelong resident of Anacostia and community activist, wished to
purchase a larger home in his neighborhood as his family grew. Due to rising property prices,
Adams was forced to move his family to five bedroom home in Maryland that was actually less
than the two bedroom home he originally considered in his old neighborhood. The price
disparity, Adams attributes to the beginnings of gentrification. He felt especially betrayed, after
having advocated as an elected official for improved services to the area, he could no longer
afford to live there.
The opposing opinion is examined in an article on “GreaterGreaterWashington.org” site.
The three contributors are White, one of whom, David Garber, was the focus of the original NPR
discussion on Mr. Adams fate and displacement in Anacostia. The prevailing opinion was
summed up by Eric Fidler as “This alleged displacement story is not truly one of displacement.
The man (or his wife, as the story suggests) wanted a bigger house, and that's fine. If you don't
want to spend more money, but want a bigger house, you typically will have to move farther out
where the prices per square foot are lower. This is not unique to Anacostia, and I'm frustrated
that NPR portrayed the man as being "displaced" when the real reason that he moved is that he

Williams-Kearney
Page 31
(or his wife) wanted a bigger house and did not want to pay much more money. That's a common
story as to why people move farther out, but this anecdote doesn't support Morning Edition's
claim that white people are "pricing out" this man”( greatergreaterwashington.org,2011).
Garber speaks to the joy espoused by neighbors regarding improvements to the area due
to the new diversity. “White people are moving into Anacostia. So are black people. So are
Asian people, Middle Eastern people, gay people, straight people, and every other mix. And
good for them for believing in a neighborhood in spite of its challenges, and for meeting its
hurdles head on and its new amenities with a sense of excitement. And good for the countless
residents who have stayed in the neighborhood through its worst times, many of whom are glad
to see signs of progress. A few months after I moved into Anacostia, my next-door neighbor—an
amazing woman who raised her family in the house adjoining mine, and for years dealt with
heavy drug activity and physical neglect next door—told me "you know, this is the first summer
in a long time that I've felt comfortable sitting on my front porch”
(greatergreaterwashington.org,2011).
In the NPR interview, Adams explains that the issue is not that he couldn’t afford the
home, it was the fact that his dollar bought so much more in Maryland than in the gentrifying
Anacostia neighborhood. What is most interesting about this debate is perspective. “Right now
prices are really low in Anacostia," he [Garber] says. Adams' reply: Low according to whom?
Many newcomers like Garber who move east of the river don't want to see people like Adams
forced out. They see themselves as trailblazers fighting to preserve the integrity of historic
Anacostia and its surrounds. Stan Voudrie is one of those newcomers — a white developer who
has been snatching up property in historic Anacostia, an area designated for preservation,

Williams-Kearney
Page 32
including six square blocks he bought with business partners. Standing in front of the just-
opened Uniontown Bar & Grill – the first such bar this part of town has seen in as long as anyone
can remember — he bristles at even the mention of "gentrification." It's a buzzword people
around here don't take kindly to, he says.
"I see 'Gentrification Kills' spray painted on the sides of buildings and ... you know, malaria kills
and diseases kill," he says. 'Gentrification Kills' ... means it has a negative connotation’, (npr.org,
2011). At what price, progress? Is progress synonymous with White?
"My Brooklyn: a Battle for the Soul of a City"
“The process of gentrification in New York is not about people moving into a
neighborhood and other people moving out. The process of gentrification is about corporations
and the idea that this city doesn’t have a role in making sure the collective aims of the people are
actually achieved in development. It’s obscene” (Anderson, 2012). In her documentary, director
and Brooklyn gentrifier, Kelly Anderson takes a critical look at the manner in which downtown
Brooklyn was redeveloped. “Having watched her once ethnically diverse Park Slope
neighborhood slowly transform into “a hip, expensive brand” — and realizing that she had been
in the vanguard of that transformation — Ms. Anderson begins to question the complex forces
that determine a city’s character” (Catsoulis,2013). Of particular interest is the redevelopment of
the area of Fulton Mall, which at the time was the third most profitable shopping area in New
York City. In a 2012 interview with The Huffington Post, Kelly reveals “In Downtown
Brooklyn, more than 100 local small businesses were displaced in the wake of the 2004
rezoning. Many of them were owned by (and catered to) African Americans and Caribbean
immigrants, and they have been replaced largely by luxury housing towers and big box chain

Williams-Kearney
Page 33
retail stores. Particularly on city-owned sites, the city could have driven a harder bargain with the
developers that came in, forcing them to provide affordable housing and affordable space for
small businesses in the new developments.” Negotiations of this type could have led to holistic
polices that blended new residents and businesses with the existing members of the
neighborhood instead of accelerating displacement.
In the same interview, Anderson’s co-producer, Allison Lirish Dean, responds to the
question, “HP: Many people respond to gentrification by saying, "Change happens." Is
gentrification, to a certain extent, unavoidable? A part of the way a city develops? Allison
Lirish Dean: When people say that gentrification is "inevitable," it tells me that they've
internalized rhetoric generated by people in power who want everyone else to think their agenda
is the only option” (HP, 2012). The callousness of the city and the developers is further
articulated by Anderson when responding to the question of how new areas of development are
determined, “HP: What other neighborhoods in New York do you believe are currently
under the threat of being developed without considering the communities living there? At a
real estate conference we filmed, the developers were encouraging one another to get on the
subway, and wait until the white people get off. The next stop will be the next "hot area." That
about says it all!
In a video accompanying the interview, Anderson juxtaposes the opinions and the
attitudes of the haves versus the have-nots. The film montage offers the opinions of NYC
Planner Amanda Burden, describing the redevelopment as “heaven”, John Tides of FUREE
(Families United for Racial and Economic Equality) telling of the city’s assistance, “by doing
everything they can to help a developer make a buck in New York City”. New York City Mayor,
billionaire Michael Bloomberg comments that a dislike of “wealthy or profit making people”

Williams-Kearney
Page 34
will eventually cause the demise of the city; these are the people that they want to attract to help
those who are less fortunate. He doesn’t comment, though on where those residents and business
owners who are “less fortunate” will go once they are priced out of the area. The parting shot is
of a tearful Black woman asking why should she have to leave her neighborhood where she
raised her family because someone decided she should.
When interviewing both natives and newcomers about Fulton Mall, opinions were drawn
by class and racial lines, “These positive sentiments, held largely by the black and Caribbean
working-class communities who patronized the mall, stood in stark opposition to the
unselfconsciously hostile way that relative newcomers -- who tended not to set foot there --
talked about it. The latter, some of whom appear in our film, described Fulton Mall as "gross,"
"scuzzy," dirty," "crappy," and one gentleman even likened it to a "turd." The planning and
redevelopment of downtown Brooklyn would seem to be explained by consumption-side theory,
in that the types existing businesses did not cater to the taste of the incoming gentry.
"Fate of a Salesman"-Washington, D.C.
Documentary filmmakers Tessa Moran and Ben Crosbie assess the impact of urban
development on a single, yet epochal, business establishment on H Street NE, in Washington,
D.C. “Men’s Fashion Center” was opened in 1952 by immigrants Murray and Aaron Goldkind.
The film chronicles the history, successes and eventual closing of a “retail institution” after 60
plus years in a predominately Black neighborhood. The story is told the eyes of the long-time
manager Willie Carswell, who came to define his life by the “family” of co-workers he adopted.
The relationships with co-workers and customers helped him maintain decades of sobriety after
returning from Vietnam. The “Men’s Fashion Center” was the haberdashery of civil servants,
entertainers and preachers.

Williams-Kearney
Page 35
While the filmmakers chronicle the history of the store, they tend to dwell more so on the
lack of financial planning and foresight, rather than the effects of redevelopment on the demise
of the store, such as “the streetcar construction that curtailed foot traffic on H Street NE for
years” and the changing tastes of the new residents, (washingtoncitypaper.com,2013). As with
the Fulton Mall in Brooklyn, consumer-side economics seemed to be a driving force, as
condescending and culturally oblivious comments were often made by the in-movers as to why
they would not shop at the existing businesses. And that change in the retail climate spelled the
end of a historically and culturally relevant mainstay of the neighborhood.
The previously mentioned case studies illustrate the level of discomfort and suspicion of
the indigenous residents. They articulated the manner in which they felt the in-movers
disrespected the history and the culture of their neighborhoods. The voice their total lack of input
or consideration in the development process.
Creating policies that do not include current residents do not have to be the norm. The
follow chapter looks at programs where all stakeholders, particularly anchor institutions, create
projects that are inclusive and serve both people and place.

Williams-Kearney
Page 36
Chapter III: Case studies of holistic policy projects vs. place based
projects
Holistic policies mitigating displacement
The “best practices” approach of most planners which fails to consider current residents
during the development phase is being challenged. In the April 2013 issue of “Planning”
magazine, Justin Glanville asks “How can planners encourage redevelopment of urban
neighborhoods without causing wide-scale displacement of long-term, often low-income and
minority, residents?....Increasingly, strategies revolve around not only preserving housing
options for original residents, but ensuring that those residents-and not the just the affluent
newcomers-benefit. Job creation, workforce development, and preservation of neighborhood
commercial corridors have helped to create and retain affordable housing” (Glanville, 2013). The
following cases take a look at cities that implemented projects with a strong relationship between
all stakeholders, specifically residents and anchor institutions.
The debate as to whether displacement is an inevitable result of gentrification is an
ongoing and unresolved one. Glanville refers to a study by Lance Freeman of Columbia
University which says that in 1990s Harlem, residents were 24% less like to move out due to
redevelopment than in non-redevelopment areas. Freeman’s research was reviewed in a previous
chapter. “Yet there is also evidence that displacement has remained a real side effect of
redevelopment, even where preventative measures were taken” (Glanville, 2013).
When creating a redevelopment zone that encompassed the Black and Hispanic areas, the
Portland Development Commission “aware of the threat of displacement…instituted anti-
displacement policies such as setting aside 30 percent of the program’s budget for affordable
housing and down payment assistance” Glanville, 2013). In spite of these efforts housing prices

Williams-Kearney
Page 37
increased 52% between 2000 and 2010. During this same period the minority neighborhood
became majority White.
Cleveland
The Evergreen Cooperatives of Cleveland fight back against the type of displacement
engendered by the economic disparities between current residents and in-movers. Their mission
is to counteract the effects of the global economy and outsourcing of labor. This policy is of
particular importance to rust-belt cities that previously relied on unskilled labor in the
manufacturing arena.
“The free trade agenda that has driven developed national economic policies for the past
quarter century is built on a critically flawed assumption. David Ricardo’s so-called law (which
is really a theory) of ‘comparative advantage’ did not anticipate today’s reality of free flowing
global capital. The exercise of free trade suits the interests of politically influential global
corporations and their shareholders whose capital moves across borders without restraint to exploit
local competitive advantages, most notably labor costs and more lenient environmental regulations.
In the name of
global efficiency we have often contributed to heightened social injustice abroad, further degraded
the global ecosystem, and sacrificed domestic economic resiliency as we have outsourced the US
manufacturing base…. the resilient demand creation of local anchor agencies—the hospitals,
universities, and government services that all have a strategic long-term interest in the health of
their local communities. The properly harnessed energy of these anchor institutions is a vital
source of resiliency in place-based economies. And resilient place-based economies provide the
strong foundation that is the necessary pre-condition for successfully engaging in the competitive
global economy” (Capital Institute, 2012).

Williams-Kearney
Page 38
In partnership with University Circle project anchor institutions, such as Case Western
Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic, the Evergreen Cooperatives has provided funding to
establish three co-op businesses that employ local residents. The businesses, an industrial
laundry, a greenhouse and a solar-panel installation, in return provide services to those anchor
institutions. The birth of this program began casually over a glass of wine at the close
community wealth building conference in 2006, between India Pierce Lee, Program Director for
Neighborhoods, Housing & Community Development at the Cleveland Foundation and Ted
Howard of the Democracy Collaborative at the University of Maryland. The strategy was the
brainchild of the CEO Ronn Richards “in an effort to break down the barriers between the area’s
major anchor institutions (principally Case Western University, the Cleveland Clinic and
University Hospitals) and 7 neighboring communities home to 43,000 people whose median
household income was less than $18,500 and where over 25 percent of the working population
was unemployed” (Capital Institute, 2012).
The cooperatives require a minimum of 50 employees, on the job training and a
minimum wage of $10.50 per hour with free health insurance. As Co-op members, the
owner/employees should be able to accumulate $65,000 in their capital accounts within 8 years
(Capital Institute, 2012). While the businesses may have experienced the normal growing pains
of any business, the holistic approach to redevelopment has had an overall positive effect on both
residents and anchor partners. “The history of worker coops is a mixed bag,” says Gar Alperovitz
co-founder of the Democracy Collaborative, “they have often tended to break down, or exploit
the environment or they get taken over if they are successful. The Evergreen model builds in
worker ownership and control but under the umbrella of broader democraticizing and green
principles. It is a community-building model in its essence” (Capital Institute, 2012). Jeffrey

Williams-Kearney
Page 39
Hollender of Seventh Generation (green household products) epitomizes the Evergreen initiative
as “its holistic, systemic approach to dealing with the fundamental problems with our economic
system—from ownership issues to individual wealth building to sustainable products to creating
community wealth to looking at the challenges of starting up businesses” (Capital Institute,
2012). This approach seems to have significantly lessened push back in the area.
As a resident of this very area for several years, there was always a very apparent
disconnect between the low income members of the neighborhood and the residents of the three
or four luxury high-rise apartments on Terrace Rd. These buildings were home to employees of
the hospitals, universities and business professionals. The divide was so glaring that upon
moving into my apartment, the school system immediately transferred my child out of the local
elementary school to the accelerated magnet school all the way across town. I never met any
neighbors outside of my apartment or place of business. Thanks to the efforts of programs like
Evergreen Cooperatives, I may have had the opportunity to interact with neighbors of all income
levels.
Pittsburgh- Hill District Community Group
The Hill District of Pittsburgh was the home of Pulitzer Prize winner August Wilson. It
was also home to first Black revolutionary war soldiers. As with most Rustbelt cities, the area
suffered from federal housing policy driven disinvestment and subsequently, displacement.
According to Regional Legal Housing Services staff attorney, Robert Damewood, 413
businesses and over 8,000 residents were forced to relocate from the Lower Hill, (Damewood,
2011). Statistics of indigenous residents are: median income <$15,000, 29% home ownership,
that may be delinquent on taxes, in a severe state of disrepair or no clear title, 25% of housing
units are public housing.

Williams-Kearney
Page 40
The goals of “the Hill” residents are: be recipients of the benefits of neighborhood
revitalization; reintegrate the neighborhood into the cultural fabric of the community; increase
ownership and control over community assets. To bring these goals to fruition, in 2008, the “one
Hill Neighborhood Coalition (more than 100 businesses and community groups) negotiated a
Community Benefits Agreement that featured in conjunction with the development of a new
hockey arena, a new grocery store, a community fund for critical needs, first consideration for
development related jobs, and funding for a Hill District Master Plan. “Residents of Pittsburgh’s
Hill District completed a master plan in 2010 outlining anti-displacement strategies” (Glanville,
2013).
The Hill District created a Neighborhood Partnership Program to “reverse the racial
academic achievement gap” in the area schools; create rehab grants and funding to address
delinquent taxes and property title issues; foreclosure and financial education; improve and
increase green spaces; and outreach, case management and violence prevention services, They
have very clearly articulated their required anti-displacement strategies; first source hiring, fund
priority for owner-occupied rehab grants; minimize displacement by dedicating the first housing
built on the project site as housing replacement for current residents; project recipients of public
subsidies must include a community organization as a co-owner of the project, (prrac.org, 2011).
During personal correspondence with Robert Damewood of RHLS, he offered the
following:
Hi, Cheryl,
…A few years ago I had an opportunity to work with a community group in a struggling steel
town about an hour outside of Pittsburgh that had access to a lot of development funding as a
result of a settlement in an "equalization" lawsuit. The lawsuit (Sanders) challenged Allegheny
County's practice of directing CDBG funds to white areas, and a settlement was reached that
established a committee to direct 25% of the county's CDBG funds for 7 years to targeted
investment in low-income African-American neighborhoods. The result in Clairton's Southside
neighborhood was pretty dramatic. A small neighborhood (about 20 blocks) was completely

Williams-Kearney
Page 41
turned around. But like the anti-displacement strategies in the Hill, the focus was on improving
living conditions for the existing residents. An important aspect of the revitalization was
substantial home repair grants for homeowners, along with help resolving tax and mortgage
delinquencies. Attached is a PowerPoint on the Clairton Southside neighborhood revitalization
along with before and after maps. I think this is a good example of how a distressed weak
market neighborhood can be comprehensively revitalized in a way that benefits existing
residents, but of course it didn't go far enough - the public schools in Clairton are still abysmal,
there is no grocery store, the neighborhood is not well served by public transportation, and the
adjacent commercial district is still struggling. But the neighborhood is a lot safer now, living
conditions are much improved, and residents have a far greater ownership stake.
Bob (R. Damewood, personal communication, November 5, 2013).
The comment, “I think this is a good example of how a distressed weak market neighborhood
can be comprehensively revitalized in a way that benefits existing residents” concisely describes
the Hill District’s holistic and anti-displacement approach to neighborhood redevelopment. It
further shows the advantages of policies that are to interchangeable distressed areas, i.e., the
strategies that Mr. Damewood learned in Clairton can by implemented in Pittsburgh, as well.
Baltimore-Homewood Community Partners Initiative
As with the partnership between Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland, Johns
Hopkins has partnered with Baltimore community organizations to enhance the living conditions
of the neighborhoods surrounding their campus. Unlike Cleveland, however, JHU does not seem
to be driven by the same altruism as displayed in Cleveland. JHU has clearly expressed their
desires to improve the area as a response to concerns of their students and more so, potential
students.
While their original motivation may have been self serving, the end result was the
creation of the Homewood Community Partners Initiative. “In August 2010, JHU’s Board of
Trustees created the External Affairs and Community Engagement Committee, the first new
standing committee in 13 years. In the fall of 2011, the committee announced the HCPI, its

Williams-Kearney
Page 42
first action. The HCPI would focus on 11 neighborhoods (Abell, Barclay, Charles North, Charles
Village, Greenmount West, Harwood, Oakenshawe, Old Goucher, Remington, Wyman Park, and
Greenmount Avenue’s Main Street district) in five engagement areas: (1) clean and safe
neighborhoods, (2) blight elimination and housing creation, (3) public education, (4) commercial
and retail development, and (5) local hiring, purchasing, and workforce development”
(McNeely, 2012).
As a major stakeholder in the area, JHU has been instrumental in the creation of several
community based organizations dedicated to the implementation of inclusive development
policies. Because the areas of greatest disinvestment typically border JHU campus, there is an
inherent catalyst for JHU’s participation with as many stakeholders as possible. In preparation
for the creation of the HCPI (Homewood Community Partners Initiative), JHU turned to
Baltimore attorney, Joseph McNeely for his experience with and knowledge of the area as the
Executive Director of Central Baltimore Partnership. “The Central Baltimore Partnership is
bounded to the south by the University of Baltimore and Penn Station. The Maryland Institute
College of Art, following the Jones Falls up to Wyman Park, serves as the southwestern and
western boundary, with Johns Hopkins Homewood Campus to the north and Greenmount
Avenue to the east. The Partnership fosters the arts and sustainable development in healthy,
transit-oriented neighborhoods at the center of the Baltimore region”(centralbaltimore.org,
2014).
On the other side of town is HEBCAC (Historic East Baltimore Community Action
Coalition), also founded by Johns Hopkins University. What is of particular interest about
HEBCAC is its focus on human capital. HEBCAC programs address a myriad of needs of the
current residents; a 24 hour substance recovery facility, hosting 12 step meetings, referrals and

Williams-Kearney
Page 43
support for treatment, housing, legal, job training, etc.; a technology center that provides free
training as well as computer repair; housing and commercial development; an enhanced
shopping district partnering merchants and residents; neighborhood service that work to
strengthen the relationships between neighbors through area beautification, block parties, home
repair and grant writing classes; youth programs that provide GED training, counseling and life
skills workshops; one of the most unique programs offered is “ReBoot Computer Store
&Business Center” which sells refurbished desktop computers for just over $100.
The impressive list of services led to a personal correspondence with HEBCAC, Deputy
Director, Jeffrey W. Thompson. One of the most successful programs has been the “Baltimore
Food Enterprise Center. Cheryl, .…We just received word that the Dept of Commerce awarded
us a $1.4M EDA grant which is critical initial funding for the project (J.W. Thompson, personal
communication, November 20, 2013). “the Baltimore Food Enterprise Center, (BFEC) would be
an FDA approved fully equipped commercial kitchen where caterers, bakers and specialty food
producers could use as needed. The BFEC would also provide food entrepreneurs small business
training, technical assistance and access to financing. Aside from caterers and specialty food
producers, the facility could also accommodate local urban farmers, gardeners and other growers
seeking to either further process their fresh crop (wash, sort, cut and package) or produce a
product with a shelf life. It could also serve as a commissary kitchen and wash out for area
vendor carts and food trucks” (ebdi.org, 2010).
BFEC furnishes services to anchor institutions, which provides a built-in source of
revenue. It also partners with the community to provide health, nutritional training, community
gardens and food business seminars. In collaboration with workforce development programs,
BFEC will assist in the placement of graduates of culinary arts training programs. To clarify the

Williams-Kearney
Page 44
importance of the food industry in redeveloping neighbors, Thompson provided a report on the
importance and the viability of kitchen incubators which allow residents who previously sold
home-cooked meals illegally from their residences. The shared use of incubators allows them to
economically and legally conduct their food service businesses while increasing their income and
contributing to the local economy.
Unlike the previous cases that show a high level of success when forging a relationship
between all stakeholders, the following cases illustrate racial and economic discord when all
stakeholders are not proactively involved in the planning process.
Exclusionary policies directly resulting in disharmony among residents
What happens when methods such as those just discussed are not employed in the
planning process? In some cases disharmony in gentrifying neighborhoods may actually be
incited by developers to increase an exodus by current residents, similar to the “blockbusting”
efforts of realtors in the 1950s and 1960s.
Philadelphia-Point Breeze
As younger, educated, two paycheck couples move to Philadelphia they are
finding the housing costs in the Center City cost prohibitive. In the south Philadelphia
neighborhood of Point Breeze homes are approximately one half the cost of the adjacent
neighborhood to the north. Although “the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority and the Office
of Housing and Community Development have been spending federal Neighborhood
Stabilization Program (NSP) funds in Point Breeze to counteract the effects of the downturn”
(philly.com, 2013) the contentious relationship between long time residents, new-comers and
developers reached “the boiling point” in 2012 at a scheduled zoning meeting. The majority of
the anger of the incumbent residents is directed at real estate developer, Ori Feibush, who

Williams-Kearney
Page 45
according to an article in Philadelphia CityPaper, after having insulted many including the
mayor, planned on running for city council in the district where Point Breeze is located
(citypaper.net. 2014).
At the originally scheduled zoning meeting, an unnamed longtime resident accused the
zoning members of providing inadequate notice of the scheduled meeting. The woman went on
to say she believed this was intentional and in support of Mr. Feibush, “The propose 13 Condos
at Point Breeze and Titian will be built by Ori Feibush, a developer, investor, owner of OFC
realty and website nakedphilly.com. Feibush stated publicly that he only wants to build market
rate houses in Point Breeze i.e., $300,000 or higher. He has purchased over 150 properties in
Point Breeze and the other side of Washington Avenue already and wants more. Majority of his
buyers are newcomers that support luxury homes or condos…. It is clear that these developers
and new residents are not looking to work or live with existing residents, but to take over our
community like the other side of Washington Avenue (philly.curbed.com, 2012).
Although the article presented the viewpoints of both new and old residents and a
representative of the controversial developer, the fact that on Mr. Feibush’s own website he lists
pictures of properties at $380,000 and $467,500 (ocfrealty.com/naked-philly,2014). This would
seem to support the statement that not only does he not plan to include lower income residents,
but he also stacked the deck with higher income residents to support his bid for the council seat
in the Point Breeze district. Incumbent councilman and long time Point Breeze resident,
Kenyatta Johnson, retained his seat.
Boston
The battle between “Southies and Yuppies” was previously addressed when reviewing
the battle that began on Facebook. As the influx of “artists, gays and young professionals”

Williams-Kearney
Page 46
continued into Boston’s South End, the transition has been slow and, still painful to new and old
residents. Because of its strategic location near the financial district, Chinatown, the Theater
District and more, and low priced property due to years of decline, South Boston was prime for
redevelopment and the ensuing gentrification. Still, many of the values of the old Irish-Catholic
residents remain. For example, gays and lesbians are not allowed to participate in the south
Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade and young children (perhaps in gang initiation) may assault
yuppie in-movers (boston.com, 2005). Although neighborhoods experienced pushback from the
original residents, commercial and retail gentrification moved forward. The downside to the
Starbucks, sushi bars and upscale pub that replaced the infamous Triple O’s, hang out for the
infamous “Whitey” Bulgar gang is that many of the neighborhood small businesses that made the
area attractive in first place were priced out. “It's easy for a place to lose its soul”, (boston.com,
2005).
Atlanta
“The white folk moved out and are now paying anything to move back. – Frank Edwards,
Atlanta Resident” (Reid & Adelman, 2003).
To what degree have low income Blacks been displaced by middle to upper income
Whites returning to Atlanta? “Without question, rising property values have displaced older,
long-term black residents as middle- and upper-income whites bid up property values. While
statistics are difficult to obtain, anecdotal evidence indicates that annual increases in property
assessments have displaced many residents on fixed incomes as their property taxes doubled or
even tripled. In few areas have these increases been as dramatic as in the enclave of
neighborhoods on the east side of Atlanta, including Kirkwood, East Lake, and East Atlanta’
because ‘They are close to downtown; they have an ample stock of historic housing; their

Williams-Kearney
Page 47
populations are aging, opening opportunities for new buyers; and, of increasing relevance in
Atlanta, they have small tracts of undeveloped land for new, in-fill construction” (Reid &
Adelman, 2003).
“Regentrification, that’s just a nice word for taking black folks’ property. – Billy
McKinney, Former State Representative” (Reid & Adelman, 2003)..
The racial composition of the above mentioned neighborhoods have almost reversed
themselves. Neighborhoods that were predominately White in the 1960s and 1970s became
predominately Black and the percentage of Whites that have moved back to these neighborhoods
is increasing at an astounding rate. When recalling the methods employed in the 1960s and 1970s
to prevent Blacks from moving in and subsequently to scare the Whites out of the neighborhood,
is it any wonder that the current residents don’t look kindly on being priced out of their
neighborhoods.
Not only have racial tensions increased, but as with Boston, many low-income, highly
religious areas are also homophobic. This was demonstrated in the Kirkwood neighborhood in a
clash between a White homosexual couple and their Black next door neighbor when local
minister rallied the long time residents to stand against the invasion of “white… homosexual and
lesbian take-over” (Reid & Adelman, 2003). The Kirkwood incident increased residents’ rebuff
of the incoming gentry. The racial divide eventually changed the face of local politics as the
Black City Councilperson failed to be re-elected when she told the in-movers “I don’t represent
you because you didn’t vote for me. – Sherry Dorsey, Former City Council Person” ((Reid &
Adelman, 2003).
As an afterthought Atlanta created the Gentrification Task Force. Their recommendations
to the city were to proactively include affordable housing policies, tax incentives to developers

Williams-Kearney
Page 48
and education of residents on predatory lending. This further supports the theory of a proactive
holistic approach to urban development. In areas where current residents’ needs were not
considered during the planning process, a Gentrification Task Force may be an approach that can
be applied in other cities experiencing similar growing pains.

Williams-Kearney
Page 49
Chapter IV: Recommendations
Specific concepts researched and reviewed
The following chapter reviews policies implemented in various case studies by Levy,
Comer and Padilla. The purpose of this chapter is not so much aimed at the case studies
themselves but the applicability of the strategies used during varying levels of gentrification and
why these strategies should be used in other cities in similar circumstances.
While creating policies that are directed at improving and uplifting human capital may
give the social justice minded planner the “warm and fuzzies”, it is imperative that policies are
implemented to build and sustain affordable housing and help residents acquire and retain
wealth. Levy, Comer and Padilla (2006) constructed the following strategies to develop
affordable housing to “decrease the negative effects of gentrification”. They postulate the three
tools required to build and maintain affordable neighborhoods, thus mitigating full scale
displacement are: 1) Housing Production, 2) Housing Retention, 3) Asset Building.
Affordable housing production is crucial in that it can “provide affordable alternatives to
involuntarily displaced households, potentially even within the same neighborhoods, and
mitigate exclusionary displacement or a shortage of affordable housing for future low- and
moderate income families” (D.Levy, J. Comey, & S. Padilla, 2006). Some strategies for
increasing housing production are: housing trust funds, inclusionary zoning, and low-income
housing tax credit. A particular advantage of housing trust funds is that the disbursement
guidelines of the funds are adaptable to need and thus can be used to assist with home purchases
or area specific needs such as homelessness, which can be resultant of displacement.
Inclusionary zoning generally requires that a certain number of units in a development be set
aside for low-income or senior housing for a specified period of time. Incentives to the developer

Williams-Kearney
Page 50
can include zoning changes that allow the increased density of units, lesser capital outlay for
infrastructure. They may also be exempt from be required to purchase certain permits or can opt
out buy contributing monetarily to a housing fund to be build units in a less expensive area. The
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, which is monitored by the Internal Revenue Service, provides
tax credits for building rental units for low-income housing, (Levy, Comer & Padilla, 2006).
Programs can be administered through State or local authorities and can therefore the application
can be modified to adapt to specific local needs, i.e., multi-unit rentals or senior units. Split-rate
tax assesses the property separately from the land which incentivizes property improvement but
discourages land speculation. Tax Increment Financing is used to encourage development, but it
can be used to further displacement when it is used in a designated area already controlled by
millionaire/billionaire developers as in Midtown and Downtown Detroit.
Property values are retained when property is maintained. Often when the property owner
is an absentee landlord the property is allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. Code enforcement
is method by which to ensure compliance with local building, health, and fire codes. If the
property is in gross violation of these codes the property may be condemned and forced
displacement may be the result. While displacement is the result to be avoided, so is living in
substandard housing. Code enforcement in conjunction with some of the previously mentioned
tools can increase the value of the landlords’ property but discourage him from pricing the
current residents out because his profits may be obtained through other avenues, such as Section
8. Rent control, which is quite popular in New York City, requires reasonable and gradual rent
increases, no reduction in tenant services and compliance with local building codes. The Section
236 mortgage and the Section 8 rental program are federal programs that provide either
subsidized interest rates on insured loans or subsidize the difference in the actual rental cost and

Williams-Kearney
Page 51
30% of the tenants’ income. Section 236 or Section 8 property owned may either prepay or opt
out of the program and convert the property to private market housing. Newly gentrifying areas
are prime targets for opting out as the land owners want to cash in on market rates.
Various methods of asset building are examined, such as individual development
accounts (IDAs) limited equity housing co-ops (LEHCs) community land trusts (CLTs) location
efficient mortgages (LEMs) and the Section 8 homeownership program. Building individual
wealth is infallible hedge against displacement. These methods incorporate matched savings
accounts, coops with controlled share prices to maintain affordability, land trust where the
occupants own the building, and LEMs assume a scenario sans a privately owned vehicle in a
live, work, play area where smaller down payments are required. In lieu of rental payments, the
Section 8 Homeownership program allows the payment to be applied to almost homeownership
related cost except downpayment or closing costs (Levy, Comer & Padilla, 2006).
Policies employed in early stages of gentrification
Levy, Comer and Padilla examine the early stages of gentrification two neighborhoods;
one in (Bartlett Park) St. Petersburg, Florida and the other in (Oak Park) Sacramento, California.
They found both areas agreed that needed to improve the current housing stock by rehabilitation,
infill development and developing vacant properties. Simultaneously, but secondarily, actively
court economic development which could improve the employment concerns and increase the
median income, as well as developing a housing trust fund to enable incumbent residents to
remain and therefore stabilize the neighborhoods.
Policies employed in middle stages of gentrification
The case studies for the middle stages of gentrification are (Reynoldstown) Atlanta,
Georgia and (Figueroa Corridor) Los Angeles, California. Housing was again the main priority

Williams-Kearney
Page 52
but chose housing rehabilitation and production as their primary goal, Los Angeles went with a
Housing Trust Fund. Secondary strategies included IDAs, code enforcement and rent
stabilization.
Policies employed in late stages of gentrification
(Central Area) Seattle, Washington and (Uptown) Chicago, Illinois provide the late stage
case studies. Infill development and Housing levy were the primary strategies in Seattle with
Voluntary Inclusionary Zoning the primary target for Uptown Chicago.
All areas relied on active community organizations and varying degrees of resident
involvement. In all case studies housing and economic development needed to occur
synchronously, however primary or secondary ranking of strategies seemed to be determined by
the attitude of the residents. If the prevailing attitude was NIMBY, economic development took
precedence over affordable housing.
Author’s recommendations
In order to truly experience an implementation of holistic policies, engagement of all
stakeholders needs to begin with providing a quality education, quality health care and mentoring
of the youngest members of the neighborhoods. While this may seem to be a long term strategy,
the timeline of redevelopment projects from conception to implementation is years. During that
same 8-10 year time span, the future of the neighborhood children could be secured, thus
reducing the pool of residents ill-equipped to afford the redeveloped area.
It is the duty of all stakeholders to offer their services to areas other than those targeted
by big business and developers. Investing heavily in only a few neighborhoods cannot support an
entire city. Current investments in Midtown and Downtown Detroit are not aimed at improving
Detroit for long time Detroit residents. Projects are designed for big businesses that are not

Williams-Kearney
Page 53
partnering to any great extent with local employment needs. Amenities and entertainment are not
aimed at incumbent residents. The goal of projects such as Live, Work, Play Detroit is primarily
aimed at young, White, middle class in-movers. Regardless of resultant phenomenal success in
one or two designated areas, there are hundreds of thousands of residents that still need to
experience improvements in their neighborhoods. Whether residents voluntarily or involuntarily
move from a targeted redevelopment area to another area of the city, those other areas should
experience at least a trickledown effect of major reinvestment in other areas.
Workforce training
There is a general consensus that businesses locate where there is a vibrant and plentiful
pool of talent from which to hire. Talented workers flock to areas with an abundance of well
paying jobs from which to choose accompanied by amenities that make for a congenial place to
reside. It is fiscally irresponsible to ignore the premise that properly educating the current
populace is not only the most prudent path, but the most moral one. “We can import some skilled
workers, but a more reliable way of boosting the local educational quality is to grow our own
skilled workers” (Bartik, 2012).
“We know from research that an individual’s wages not only depend on his or her own
level of education, but also on the average level of education in the metropolitan…when a
metropolitan area increases the percent of college grads by one percent of the area’s population,
the area’s average wages go up by over twice as great as one would predict based on the wage
gains for those getting college degrees. This 1% boost to percent college graduates boosts
average wages in the metropolitan area by about 1.9%. But the direct effect on the earning of
those receiving the college degrees is only the 80% boost for each individual from getting a

Masters essay final submission 081114

Masters essay final submission 081114

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Masters essay final submission 081114

Similar to Masters essay final submission 081114 (20)

Masters essay final submission 081114