There was a man in my hometown of Sumter, South Carolina living in a set of run-down apartments within our historic downtown district.  After various encounters with this unknown man, I grew to have a great relationship with him as I learned about all he has seen in his life. This was a steady relationship until one day the man who was called Tex, but was actually named Mike Young, told me he had to move back to Texas. When I asked why he was moving away from a town he had lived in for so many years, he had a simple response. He said, “Drew I cannot afford to live here anymore. They have raised the prices on my apartment and it has become too much for me.” That was the last time I ever spoke to him. 

My dear old friend was one of many victims of gentrification. Gentrification is a term “many people have heard of, but not many know what it actually means … the term means the process by which higher income people relocate to or invest in urban income neighborhoods that have been naturally disinvested area” (TEDxTalks). Tex was directly affected by gentrification -- a process that has wrongfully ruined people’s lives for the past number of years. Gentrification provides the possibility for a great economic outcome, but at the same time, it has been known for destroying the people that spent their whole lives living in these areas. The “gentrifiers” in these areas must take into account the people whom will be greatly affected by what they are doing, and to make sure they do everything in their power not ruin living human’s lives. Gentrification has become a very common practice, found in big cities as well as smaller towns across the United States, and does present positive incentives for the town’s economy. However, for it to be as successful as possible, the process must be revised so that it takes into account the people that can be hurt the most from it. 

The term “gentrification” officially defined within the past 100 years. The term still goes by this definition, but has been adapted for modern times.

The term gentrification, was first coined by Ruth Glass, a British sociologist, in the early 1960s. She used it to describe urban transformation taking place in neighborhoods near the center of London, England. She wrote that gentrification occurs when working class quarters have been invaded by the middle or upper class until all or most of the working-class occupiers are displaced, and the whole social character of the district is changed (Schlossberg). 

The term and process of gentrification first became relevant during the 1940s in San Francisco, California, and this was even before they coined the term. For decades, immigrants would move into various area within San Francisco and all live-in neighborhoods with their native countrymen and women. This all changed during the boom of the technology era of the 1940s. Whenever these young technology advocates moved to San Francisco, they decided to move into immigrant neighborhoods, and when they came, the price of living quickly rose. This process of all the young technology geeks moving to neighborhoods within the Golden City caused a vicious uproar. The technology fanatics swooped into their city and started to modernize everything, during the Dot-Com boom, and this placed an inauspicious aura throughout the city. Every single action spelt trouble for the immigrants because traditionally immigrants to this country were not as wealthy as the rest. All of these immigrants were forced to leave the neighborhoods and possibly even the city that they so deeply loved. With this movement came huge confusion for most of the people involved as the immigrants were forced out with nowhere to go. As a side note, the technology hopefuls that failed to reach their goal, they also like the immigrants had to blindly leave because they could not keep up with the standard of living. This process was detrimental to the immigrants, but when this whole process was complete, the area in San Francisco became one of the richest neighborhoods in the United States of America still to this day, but this still does not make everything that happened justified.     

There has been a myriad of other examples of gentrification very similar to the one in San Francisco, mostly found a lot throughout New York City and Chicago (Atkinson, Rowland and Gary Bridge). Even in more modern times, it can be seen in North Carolina and Colorado. In Denver, as one will learn later in the paper, people are saying, “[Gentrification] is one of the greatest social economic challenges facing not only Denver but cities across the country right now and so I feel the pain… and I say this is a problem” (Mayor Michael Hancock says gentrification debate highlights Denver’s growing pains). This has been around for most of America’s history, but it is still a very complex situation. 

There are a large number of people who do not believe that gentrification is not detrimental part of society. These people usually revolve their thoughts around a singular belief, and that belief it “gentrification goes like this: rich, educated white people move into a low-income minority neighborhood and drive out its original residents, who can no longer afford to live there” (Kiviat). Why people decide to gentrify an area comes from one simple reason, which lies deep within an economic battle: one always desires to make as much money as humanly possible. When this person or group views a once beautiful, now rundown part of town, that shows huge potential, their senses begin to go off. Almost all of them are worried about is how much money they can line their pockets with, and they are not at all concerned with the people’s lives that they are most likely going to ruin. This is not to say that these people or wrong for doing this because it is a natural inclination to pursue profit, but it has seemed in many ways that the people in charge of gentrification in recent years have been going about it in the worst ways possible. 

Gentrification was a very overlooked part of the American culture until a famous movie producer, Spike Lee, spoke up on the matter after the process effected his beloved New York City. In 2014 he posed the question, “Why does it take an influx of white New Yorkers in the south Bronx, in Harlem, in Bed Stuy, in Crown Heights for the facilities to get better?” (Atkinson). Other continue this same argument by asking. “What about the people who are renting? They can’t afford it anymore!” (The Complex Relationship). This moment led to a sort of a revolution in public opinion towards the people affected during gentrification. Spike Lee did not just fabricate the situation; there is solid evidence to back up all of his claims. This data, from the above source, dates all the way back to early 1983. In this study, it was determined that in five major cities across the United States of America nearly a quarter, 23%, of all people in these urban neighborhoods were forced to move due to a multitude of factors including increased rent and other living expenses, a key component of gentrification (The Closest Look). The studies show more of the same in recent times. A 2011 study stated that citizens of a lower income minority family were very susceptible to gentrification. The people who have fit this description, uneducated and of lesser income, have been pushed out of their various neighborhoods for years, and sadly it does not seem as if it will change any time soon. 

The heavy gentrification movements have come from “The younger kids moving into these areas” (TestTube Network), and those who lead the gentrification movements believe they can eliminate the poverty, but this is not at all the case. 

Roughly a fifth (21 percent) of all residents who moved to a different area ended up in a neighborhood with a lower median income than that where they were previously lived, and this share was higher for low-income movers from gentrifying neighborhoods in particular (Florida, Richland. “The).

It has become clear through the years that the people targeted by gentrification have been the lower income citizens. When these people are pushed out of the homes they have known for generations, they will all clump up together in another part of town and thus all it will accomplish is lowering the standard of living within another part of the town. This is where the term “roaming ghetto” is derived from. One can describe a roaming ghetto as a movement every few years in which the majority of lower income residents move to another part of town within the same city. This is a never-ending process that the ones in charge of gentrification always seem to overlook.

Therefore, simply pushing the citizens out of the area being gentrified, causing them to survive on their own, is an outdated solution that must be revisited. The clear and evident way to solve the problem of the roaming ghetto and displacement because of gentrification is to find a way to incorporate those people into the new redesigned area. There are multiple ways to do this. Allowing the current residents to work in the “new job opportunities (that) emerge as more stores open and construction picks up” (When a poor attracts higher income residents).  This is a perfect way to start rehabilitating the current residents into the modernized area. Creating these jobs, such as construction jobs, will create a steady income and will also teach all who work a trade that can be used to better their chances at landing other well-paying jobs down the road. Great motivation to work could come from hiring some of these residents to construct the lower income set of houses or apartments, the same ones that many of them could be moving into. This could be for the people who currently live in the area that would not be able to traditionally afford to live in the gentrified area, and building a lower income housing area would provide both work and housing to these people. The same article mentioned above in the current paragraph declares that when these factors are added together, that this will lead to a decline in the crime rate. This is important because safety in any town is of the utmost importance to anyone, but this decline stems from the fact that these people will be working a job and not have time, or desire, to break these laws and perform these crimes.

It pains me to see grown men and women being pushed out of their homes because of the inability to pay rent during this modern time. In Durham, North Carolina this event is occurring. The area is on the up and coming, but the residents are being left behind with nowhere to live. Some are becoming enraged stating, “If the city can’t find a way to make one affordable housing [unit] a year [with that money] then shame on us as a city for not figuring out how to do that” (Schultz, Mark). The area they are gentrifying is already a decently wealthy area, home to public school teachers as well as retired men and women. The prices of their rent are rising so quickly that the current residents can into the future where they know they will not be able to afford living in this area. If the people in charge of revamping the area would simply set aside a portion of the houses for people of a lower income status, then nobody would not be left homeless. The area would also gain from this because the culture and history of this area would be stay within the area to be passed on to the future generations.  

Now when it comes to the problem of keeping these people of a lower financial status from intertwining with the new wealthier people that will be moving into the area, there are a myriad of ways to prevent this. They all revolve around employing the people that currently live in the area, like stated earlier. I believe this to be true because when one has a job with a steady income, it leads to gaining a sense of pride. Pride that one can provide for their family. The first way to get this process started has already been mentioned above. For those who are not employed by the construction companies, allow some to open little shops through the area being gentrified. Allowing this to happen will serve to keep the cultural aspect of the area intact, as well as opening other’s eyes to the multiple ethnicities that live within their same area. I know this fact to be true because in my own personal home town, they have done this, and the stores opened up and been some of the most successful in the whole entire area. These stores have also been catalyst in preserving the culture that many fought so hard to build.

Gentrification is so popular because “The process of acquiring land for development is considerably easier and faster in other cities” (THAT DIRTY WORD). This ties in perfectly to what has been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs. This land in a rundown area is very unwell kept, so the people have realized that they can buy this land for under market price and make a profit by flipping the area. When doing this, they are targeting the higher income people to come and integrate the area with more extravagant business. The more higher status companies that make their way into this area means the more they are willing to pay, and means even more money for the people in charge of the gentrification process. It is clear the possibilities that gentrification presents, but that does not mean it is right.

No logical person that will denounce another human for undertaking a challenge to make the most money possible, if it is under the right circumstances. With the current way in which gentrification is carried out though, this is not the case. A high majority of these lower income residents we speak of are a minority, there is no denying that (Brown, Stephanie). Modern gentrification, since a majority of the higher income “gentrifyers” are white, could be considered a form of racism. The reason this could be considered an act of racism because it could appear to be the white race trying to support economic dominance over the less fortunate and less educated minority race. In Durham, North Carolina this is what people believe, a process that has multiple parts. Starting with the “white flight.” This is when “An area becomes less desirable, creating opportunity for folks … to live cheaply, until the neighborhood becomes desirable again” (Schultz, Mark). After that, comes the forcing out the all the residents of the area. This is such a popular practice, but it is something that the common person does not notice, but this is something that the national media would love to portray across all major networks. Doing this could expose the people behind gentrification. Instead of turning the people in charge of gentrification into a public enemy, restructuring gentrification to include all people would turn these people into public heroes. 

This is the current situation found in Denver, Colorado. Certain parts of the city are growing at a rapid rate and people are believing that it is all because of gentrification. It does not help that a local coffee shop, Ink Coffee, wrote a sign that stated, “Gentrifying areas since 2014.” This has caused huge protest and vandalism as many has viewed this as a modern form of racism. A Denver local said, “It just baffles me that someone wouldn't understand that this is offensive to someone” (Team, TheDenverChannel.com.). This incident, being portrayed all over social media platforms and in the evening news, may be the event needed to get the word out on gentrification. It is my main for people all over the country to know of what actually goes on within the process of gentrification because all people see are the beautiful structures that are built as a result of it. This could turn the public sentiment to one of revising the process to reincorporate the affected citizens back into the area. 

In a world that is becoming inclusive of all types of people, revisiting gentrification could be just another prime example of how we all can work together. The higher income people could accomplish all they want, making a profit to ensure the safety of their family. At the same time, the lower income could better their chances of climbing out of the status of poor or lower income. The way they would do this is by working for the construction companies that oversee adding on to the existing buildings or constructing new buildings, among other job opportunities. Of course, I already stated this earlier, but I believe that it cannot be stated enough the importance of incorporating the current residents into the new area. When this is done it will only lead to a stronger overall community and a direct result of this will be a safer area as well as an overall better place to live. 

It is clear to the reader that gentrification has been a huge part of my life and I personally know they people in charge of gentrifying different areas in my own home town. They took a gamble by investing into a rundown part of town, and they came up huge winners in doing this. What they did not take into account, and the reason I am so passionate about this is because several people’s lives were either changed or ruined directly based on what took place. The people who undertook this process were not worried at all about these poor people who were removed for the homes because of their income status. I quickly decided on this topic on the basis that if I could inform one person of the evils of gentrification, then they may go and spread the news to more people. In the end the goal is to gets the word of the evils of gentrification out to enough people that it is taken to heart, and the process is revised. 
