Thoughts on Gentrification

I like everything that [glynnsea] and [riveraal] said about gentrification. That said, I still think the "concept" is difficult to define in a way that makes any sort of "political response" difficult (in response to what [jungesam] was talking about). I think there are real, what we might call "material" facts of the phenomenon, and real "social issues" (in the sense of less material facts) resulting from these material conditions. Yet, it is hard to link these together in a way that makes gentrification describe anything that is in itself a problem that can be countered effectively.

Some material issues/facts:

-economic differences, what we might call class
-the shortage of urban housing
-the shortage of adequate housing
-the fact of housing being available through a market
-the gravitation of infrastructural elements to certain areas in confluence with other similar elements following a dynamic pattern, and
-the rising of infrastructural elements in coordination with other economic interests (retail, etc.) in confluence with other similar elements in a dynamic pattern

These are not things too eye-opening, just me saying in complicated ways some basic facts of capitalism.

Some social issues/facts:

-there is this thing called culture, where people who live/express themselves a certain way tend to flock together
-there is this thing called race, where people who look the same have often created a similar culture in relation to (not "because of" or "predicating", exclusively) the fact that there has historically been economic "facts" (that's putting it mildly) associated with the differences between these races
-in addition to the economic dynamics between cultures/races, there are also dynamisms of a more implicit character, which could be called "libidinal" (being a force or energy that is not explicitly manifest) that can guide behavior and act as a accumulated, economical principle that is also in relation (and not neccesarily "because of" or "predicating", exclusively) to the differentiations of culture
-because of the coherence of cultures, there is often a dissonance between "different" cultures
-PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANT: because of any and all of the above issues/facts, and predicated by any and all of the above issues/facts, there are people who will take advantage of the fact of these conditions in order to better their own condition (in any of these diverse treatments of the term) often at the expense of others by manipulating these facts along pathways which we could call POWER. This is what we, by vastly simplifying the above conditions, term exploitation.

So this is what I see as the point: by just getting mad at anybody for exploitation, you discount the reality of all these important factors, depoliticizing the facts of exploitation and making it simply a "political issue" like "free speech" or "abortion" etc. This is what liberals (and I mean conservatives too, in that they take part in the liberal political process) do to make politics meaningless.

Yet, the reality of exploitation in the real world (not just in my clever little lists) means that its reality is expressed as a reaction to exploitation, which I think is what [jungesam] might term political, as an angry condemnation of whatever particular single fact of the above happens to be present (its bourgeois culture, its racism, its class, etc etc).
But that ends up being, at least in my opinion (because of course I have only highly rational post-structural marxist thought processes!!) a little stupid. I mean, I understand [davismic]'s revulsion. I feel it too. Where else am I supposed to live? I don't want to live in hipsterville brooklyn, although that might be my race/class "place", and I don't think I should have a train ride of more than an hour, which leaves me with few options. Of course, I don't have to live in a city (believe me I'm GTFO after this year) but does that mean I should move back to Iowa where housing is plentiful? And although this sounds like a cop-out, if I didn't move in here, you can bet they would have rented the place the next day. These forces are bigger than people, bigger even than idiotic hipster fashion "movements", it is the way that the economic system works in this country. And its the way it has worked since there were cities in this country. [riveraal] notes the irony of 20th cent. white flight, but it has been going on longer than that. My great-grandmother lived 10 blocks from where I live now, in the 20s, and my grandfather (different family side) was born in Harlem Hospital, where I catch the subway! Yet it is a black neighboorhood! Hartford is good example too, because it is much smaller. The jews and italians moved out of the city to Bloomfield around the turn of the century to get away from you-know-who, and then in the 70s they moved further out as the blacks and hispanics moved out to Bloomfield, and now at the turn of this century the young white professionals are moving back into the city. Who is gentrifying who? Who is "responsible"?

I don't think that this means that we can just sit back and do nothing. But I think that all of this makes it tough to declare how the "issue" of gentrification should be politicized. Critique like this is one thing, another thing is just to let people know it is happening (to speak of hipsters, I think that while "gentrification" is a word they all know, I don't think many know what it really means). [glynnsea]'s suggestions of affordable housing action is a great idea, because that is really one of the key factors in the process. [riveraal]'s mention of catching people who abuse the affordable housing procedures for their own gain is another important idea. These are all "political", I guess, but you see what I mean about it being difficult to plot a course. Another problem I've noticed is that alot of people just don't care enough to organize against losing their "culture". I thought it was interesting, [glynnsea], what you said about people wanting to keep a good community to raise their kids in. It sounds like there is a very strong sense of community there, that an invasion of another culture could seriously disrupt. However, I don't see that in my neighborhood at all. People throw trash out their windows in between the buildings, which leads to all sorts of infestations; bottles and other trash are left on the street; after a friday night it looks like a dumpster was overturned in front of our building, right on the same steps where parents sit with their children and let their kids run around. They sell drugs on the corner, which while it doesn't present any immediate problems (its not a movie, there aren't drive-bys or anything) it draws a pretty nasty element of crackheads and prostitutes around the same area where there are really young kids out late at night (say what you want about addiction, but I DO NOT like crackheads, I think they are fucked). Whatever sense of community is here, it doesn't seem very interested in improving itself or even maintaining itself. The cause of this I'm sure is dense and complex, involving a number of factors that are similar and related to gentrification, yet at the same time it makes it pretty hard to talk about a political response to a certain exploitation when there is no way to "organize" the exploited in the traditional model of political response. This is not say that I think more "white people" in the neighborhood would help, but I tend to think that whoever is willing to live in this area could. Of course, some people don't have much of a choice, but it still seems a little strange, and not very political, to speak about a ghetto as a place to reserve for people who can't live anywhere that is worth living. (seems sort of like a "reservation", doesn't it?) And when the interests-that-be "improve" the area, by stimulating a cultural change that results in an "increased sense of community" actualized in the "higher values" of a different culture, who really wins? The people who move out probably go to live in an area that is alot like the one that they just left, only in a different place, the people who move in have an increased sense of "culture" by living in a "really chill area" (see the east village), but then before long live in an area just like the one that they left. Everyone keeps on living, the only people who's situation has really changed is the people who profited on the movement. Where's the politics in gentrification? Everywhere, and nowhere. I know Sam, seems a bit "post-modern", but what else is there? Class consciousness? The resolution of this contradiction of history? I secretly wish, but I don't seem to think so.

Well, I just spent an hour of work not working. Let's call it political and have another cup of coffee, eh?