The areas immediately surrounding the
centre of a city have typically been frowned upon by those from the upper and
middle classes. Typically, they were seen as places where the working poor
could find places close to employment (in most cases, the city) at a low price.
Due to the types living in these places, they have typically been regarded as
‘slums’. However, in the last forty to fifty years, these places have become
desirable to a higher population demographic, and the process of this has come
to be known as gentrification. These inner suburbs have often included
buildings constructed in a historic style, and despite often appearing rundown
and destitute, they have come to be desired by the new ‘gentry’, increasing
property values and thus often making the poor, original inhabitants have to find somewhere new to
call home.
To properly understand gentrification, one
must go back to when these now ‘trendy’ suburbs were the last place any
self-respecting Australian would want to be. Places such as Carlton, Brunswick
and North Melbourne, from the viewpoint of a mid-twentieth century Australian
were seen as places for those who could not afford a detached home with their
own land, in other words, those who could not afford the suburban dream.
However, at the same time as Australians were fleeing to the suburbs, there was
a new wave of immigrants, predominantly poor, and mainly from Southern Europe
and the Balkans. These people were far more used to the tighter living
conditions, and had not been actively encouraged to have their own small block
of privacy: for them, the now deserted and somewhat grotty inner suburbs were
the best places for them to settle. In addition to this, the people remaining were
those who could only really afford Carlton, most often poor blue-collar workers
and artists.
These immigrants then made the inner
suburbs into a vibrant places which the ‘trendies’, as they were described,
thought gave off a ‘proper’ community, as opposed to the insular outer suburbs.
They typically had more wealth than those already there, however not much more,
as Howe, Nichols and Davison (2014) discuss, stating that despite being
professionals, may ‘gentrifiers’ came from working class backgrounds, and thus
may have already been comfortable with the kind of lifestyle a suburb like
Carlton or Brunswick had to offer.
Brunswick
Street, Fitzroy, a typical example of a gentrified suburb in Melbourne
One thing common in gentrifying and
gentrified suburbs is a tendency to embrace urban activism. Howe et al. (2014)
point to unused railway land, where in 1971 a proposal to build apartments
there was quashed due to a massive community backlash. The same occurred almost
forty years later, when a proposal that would have fenced off parts of the same
land for a community garden was also defeated due to a considerable backlash
from the community. The fact the these two events, despite most likely having
shared few characters, had similar results, seem to signify that despite the
change in class of inhabitant and property values, the gentrified areas kept
their spirit and attitude seem to give Logan’s 1985 assertion that the
phenomenon is more ‘trendification’ rather than gentrification, as the gentry
tend to have their own customs, while ‘trendies’ tend to adopt the popular
opinion.
Gentrification and preservation can tend to
go hand in hand, due to the interests of residents in keeping the area the way
that they found it, due to that being what attracted them to it in the first
place. Rising property values are mainly due to the increased attractiveness of
inner-city properties, rather than ‘nicer’ housing turning up in place of the
old ‘slum’ facades. This interest by residents in preserving places has led to
many gaining a heritage overlay, preventing development which may disrupt the
streetscape. The affinity to which residents, and indeed citizens in general
have to these neighbourhoods can be seen as quite ironic given that less than
50 years ago in Australia widespread slum clearance was taking place.
A
comic showing the process of gentrification and how it disadvantages the poor
One concern about gentrification is the
displacement of the original inhabitants from the area. This is still a concern
in Australia, but is even more so in the USA. A study by Atkinson, Wulff,
Reynolds and Spinney (2011) highlighted the changing demographics, and the
flight of blue collar workers from gentrified suburbs in Melbourne. Glaeser
(2011) identifies that inner suburbs are good for the poor as their proximity
to employment and the mobility given by the better access to public transport
in the inner city. As the original residents are driven out by the rising
prices, the new areas to which they move are often at the far edges of urban sprawl,
with much reduced mobility and access to employment. Hunter (2014) shows us
that ‘the number of suburbs with above average levels of poverty rose by 34%’. .
From these occurrences, it can be seen that despite gentrification having
positive effects in bringing the inner suburbs of a city in vogue, which can be
seen as a way of curbing urban sprawl, it can also add sprawl through the
residents it displaces.
Gentrification appears to be an
inevitability as the suburban dream wears off and living near the city becomes
popular, and what remains for us to do is to manage so that those less well off
living in gentrified areas and those that can be seen to be in the process of
gentrifying are catered for. This could be done either by being supported to
keep living in the area, perhaps by setting aside a certain amount of land for
public housing, or by improving mobility and employment access in cheaper,
outer suburban areas.
Gentrification can do wonderful things to
the inner areas of a city. In Melbourne, through the efforts of its
‘trendifiers’, it can easily be credited for saving the iconic Victorian
streetscapes of Fitzroy and Carlton from the Victorian housing commission, and
for revitalizing the inner city. On the other hand, the displacement it causes
to its long term residents must be looked at so as they are not entrenched in
poverty.
References
Atkinson, R., Wulff,
M., Reynolds, M., & Spinney, A. (2011). Gentrification and displacement:
the household impacts of neighbourhood change. Melbourne, Victoria:
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved
from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/downloads/publications/EvRevReports/AHURI_Final_Report_No160_Gentrification_and_displacement_the_household_impacts_of_neighbourhood_change.pdf
Howe, R., Nichols,
D., & Davidson, G. (2014). Trendyville: the Battle for Australian Inner
Cities (pp. 159-176). Clayton: Monash Uni Publishing.
Glaeser, E (2011). Triumph of the City (pp69-91). London:
Pan MacMillan
Hunter, P. (2015). Poverty
In Suburbia. The Smith Institute. Retrieved from https://smithinstitutethinktank.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/poverty-in-suburbia.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment