literature 2015 (2)

GENTRIFICATION: A CLOSER LOOK AT CHARLOTTE’S CENTER CITY 9

Literature Review

In Charlotte, as in many other cities in America, where you live tells a lot about

who you are. The city is clearly divided into sections of an integrated system based on

different purposes and characters. To the southeast are fashionable and predominantly

white neighborhoods. On the northwest side of the city constitute the poor, black section

of town. In the northeast and southwest, the middle-class and blue-collar whites,

occupying areas in the northeast and the southwest, which function as a transition zone

between these contrasting groups. In 1960, Charlotte began to experience a process called

“gentrification.” Following the Civic Rights Movement, higher income households

displace lower income households in inner city neighborhoods (Hanchett, 2005).

Steve Crump (2008) noted the downside of gentrification is poor people who once

lived in Charlotte’s (Uptown) center city historically they were African American. More

important, the changes of gentrification, has brought about wealthy professionals who

work, and want to live closer to center city. However, the problem has caused a related

displacement of low-income minorities living in the inner city (Crump, 2008). US cities

are experiencing a significant demographic shift, a movement, of wealthy professionals

who are moving back into urban cores and being associated with displacement of low-

income minorities. These people are being forced to move to other less desirable urban

locations, and with this process, it has been studied extensively as gentrification. The

ideal that gentrification and urban revival are essentially the same as something most

“sophisticated” students of city life prefer not to discuss–it’s the reality that lurks just

beneath the surface Ehrenhalt (2015). While most people talk about gentrification are

fairly sure they know it when they see it, gentrification is hard to define, however it is


dramatically changing the urban landscape and bringing a host of new challenges to local

leaders (Ehrenhalt, 2015).

Gentrification: The Meaning?

Gentrification means people who are living in (gentrifying) rundown or aging

communities. They move from a housing unit and are less likely to move into another

unit within the same neighborhood. They are more likely to become replaced by someone

higher up on the socioeconomic scale (Coates, The Atlantic.com, 2011).

Ehrenhalt (2015) wrote, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

defines gentrification as merely the transformation of neighborhoods from low value to

high value, which is the potential to cause displacement of long-time residents and

businesses due to the reductions of social capital (Ehrenhalt, 2015). While gentrification

is typically associated with new urban neighborhoods in large cities, such changes often

are associated with higher income household’s that lead to a separation between people

that are displaced in lower income households. To understand how gentrification of urban

neighborhood takes place, first, we need to understand gentrification as it relates to

decreased investments. This is the process of decay in urban neighborhoods tends to

effect how capital flows through the building environment (Wetzel, 2004).

Gentrification: Class Dimensions

Davidson & Ehrenhalt (2012) noted that gentrification is about class dimensions

of neighborhood change, but in reality it is a change of housing class. They believed the

reasoning for this thought is the modest numbers of returns–people living in the

downtown center-city. Although more people are moving to the suburbs than downtown,

this movement does not capture what is really happening. This assessment is based on the


character of the new population group rather than its size (Davidson & Ehrenhalt, 2012).

Wetzel (2004) reasoned that middle class is based on skills, education, and

connections rather than ownership of capital. Below them are the masses of workers, the

working class who work under the chain of command, creating inequality in wealth and

income, which the housing marketing tends to separate the population by income into

different areas. While some neighborhoods continue to retain their ability to attract

professional and business people, owners of rental properties will have the incentive to

upgrade their buildings and command higher rent to generate a return on the investment.

Meaning that capitalism tends to generate a division into classes and that there is a very

small portion of social class that owns the bulk of economic wealth, therefore, having

power over the labor in another class (Wetzel, 2004, p.1).

As Ley (1986) has noted, the phrase gentrification or the process of gentrification

as a result of urbanization is similar to “urban sprawl” which is associated with a

household moving from the city back to rural areas (Ley, 1986). Smith (1987) noted that

he is convinced as more of these affluent households move in the city with other low-

income households, the possibility is they too will become a product of gentrification;

they will begin to take on a likeness similar to First and Fourth Ward. As a result, these

neighborhoods begin to experience lower crime rates, changes in demographics, with

increased efforts from the government to improve the infrastructure, which improves the

standard of living (Smith, 1987).

Who are Gentrifiers?

There is a debate about who gentrifiers are, and why they engage in gentrification

and the character of their relationship to gentrifying places. It is not clear whether


gentrifiers drive or respond to conditions that enable gentrification. While many

gentrifiers fit this perception, many do not come close to the bulk of gentrifiers described

as (i.e. African-American professionals, single mothers, and bohemian artists) (Brown-

Saracino). Many who push for acceptance of gentrifier’s wish to encourage those to

consider how a gentrifier’s personal traits shape his or her relationship to gentrification

and seek to understand the extent which gentrifiers are trapped by their demographic

traits (Brown-Saracino).

The Media and Gentrification

Brown-Saracino (2009) has noted the image dominant in media representations of

gentrification is that of the gay male gentrifier who seeks to restore or beautify property.

Embedded in such accounts and assumptions are “anecdotes worthy of our attention.”

Most obvious is the portrait of the gentrifier as a person who possesses a certain

demographic traits. The gentrifier is depicted as white and creative; for instance a chef,

writer, musician or a combination of the above. In other cases, the gentrifier is presumed

to be gay, male, white, highly educated, and affluent. Although, there are other alternate

demographic traits tend to “emphasize gentrifiers,” as affluence, education, and white

privilege” (p.167). While most scholars agree that gay men compose only a small

minority of gentrifiers, there is a debate about whom gentrifiers are and why they engage

in gentrification. However, most scholars agree that gentrifiers are highly educated,

residentially mobile, and white. Based on “ideological justification,” This opinion tends

to accompany their movement into previously economically depressed center city

communities (Brown-Saracino, 2009, p. 167).

Gentrification an Attitude


Gentrifiers vary greatly in their attitudes toward gentrification and longtime

residents, but this variation cannot be neatly attributed to demographic differences.

Oftentimes the process of gentrification brings in yuppies, hipster, and upwardly mobile

minority households that would otherwise have to live in the suburbs (Coates, 2011).

Wave of Gentrification

In essence, gentrification changes the character of these neighborhoods that are

normally associated with urban life or large cities and resort communities. Gentrification

occurs in recurring waves with such programs as the federally government urban renewal

efforts that began the first wave in the 1950s and 1960s. The second wave of

gentrification recognized today as the “back-to-the-city movement” of the late 1970s and

early 1980s (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001). In 1990, a number of cities in the United States,

whose populations and economies appeared to have declined and on the rebound, were

experiencing an additional (third) wave of gentrification (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

In the 1960s, housing was one of the most visible signs of poverty in North

Carolina. Both urban and rural areas were characterized by high number of dilapidated

and deteriorating homes. In Charlotte, extensive slums throughout the cities led officials

to pursue urban renewal projects (See Panel E Figure 4). The Federal funding

requirements for such housing projects would be designed to be racially and

economically homogenous. The condition of low-income housing was improving, but

poor blacks were increasingly being relocated to the northwest of Charlotte’s central

core. A report published by The National Housing Act showed local authorities are

awarded grants based on the ability of the area to generate income for the city, rather than

the actual state of the housing project in question. One of those neighborhoods was Earl


Village; a housing project in First Ward, which was recognized as one of the most

notorious and dangerous hoods for drugs and violence (Hanchett, 2005).

In 1995, it was torn down as a process of gentrification. In 1997, Bank of

American Community Development Corporation (BACDC) teamed up with the Charlotte

Housing Authority and the city of Charlotte to redevelop the 410 unit of Earl Village,

public housing project. Today the new First Ward, (Uptown) is the revitalization of the

old Earl Village, which has become one of the more desirable places to live in uptown

(Hanchett, 2005).

The majority of people are not aware of the impact of gentrification that affects

lower-income residents living in center-cities. Despite the fact that gentrification’s

adverse effects may fall predominantly on minority households. As a result, are

determine equitably how those moving into these neighborhoods maybe minorities

themselves. In cities that are hit by gentrification pressures, residents, city officials, and

other interests often descend into rhetoric and factional conflicts. This happens because

different communities define gentrification differently (Lees, 2008).

Gentrification vs. Revitalization

Gentrification is also related with neighborhood revitalization, but the idea of

revitalization is designed to deal with a particular problem(s) in a neighborhood.

Revitalization by itself does not always trigger gentrification, and it is expected that

residents in these neighborhoods move for a variety of reasons (Kennedy & Leonard,

2001). Revitalization attempts to bring about positive neighborhood changes, the process

is to enhance the physical, commercial, and social components of neighborhoods and the

future prospects of its residents through private and public sector efforts. But its purpose


is to regenerate the worst public housing projects into mixed-income developments with

such social components as increase employment (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

Although there are many factors that may trigger gentrification, the process can

be described in three phases. Whereas displacement is not only a problem with housing,

in long established neighborhood faith-based institutions, cultural community centers,

and industry often have to follow the displaced residents to survive. Gentrification in

Charlotte is normally associated with the revitalization of downtown center-city (See

Panel F Figure 5) (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

In most of these communities the first phase of gentrification begins with big

investment from a public agency or non-profit organization or urban pioneers coming

into neighborhood for the purpose of rehabbing reasonably priced houses. This phase has

minimal impact on the neighborhoods character and may occur over several years.

Newcomers will impose different rules at this stage, such as the process of screening used

to select potential occupants for drug use and requiring higher incomes for housing

(Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

In phase two, word spreads quickly about the neighborhood’s low cost housing,

architectural character or its proximity to transit and recreation. This stage is where

displacement usually begins as housing cost rise and landlords begin to evict long time

residents in order to gain greater revenues by renting or selling to the more affluent.

Often at this stage there are professionals, artists and upward mobility households that

would otherwise have to retreat for suburbs. In this process gentrification have changed

the character of these neighborhoods, however, it brings a useful reminder that being

black is not a “monolithic” category–– changes that benefits some segments of the


community may be resented by others (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

The final phase brings visible changes to the neighborhood. Housing prices rise

substantially and displacement happens “in force.” The newcomers are vocal in their

opposition to unwanted land uses such as social services and industrial uses, thus

contributing to further displacement by dismantling the physical and social structures

necessary to the previous generations of residents (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

Disinvestment

Gentrification and disinvestment are a process made up of the actions of certain

kinds of social agents and investments, which is part of a system that is controlled by

private owners for profit rather than by the state. At the top of the social pyramid is a

very small group of middle class that owns the bulk of the wealth who manages, plans,

and gives advice. The need for control over another class position is based on dominance

of skills, education and connections rather than ownership of capital (Wetzel, 2004).

For instance, the housing market has a tendency to sort the population by income

into different areas, and racism is likely to add another type of sorting, but if an area is

increasingly filled by lower income residents, landlords have an incentive to not maintain

their properties, which they do by “milking” the decaying building of their rent, in order

to put off making repairs to save money to buy other buildings elsewhere (Wetzel, 2004,

p.2).

Ehrenhalt (2012) wrote the reality of this movement is that it affects the culture

and character of those that are associated with gentrification. Therefore, promoting new

ideas about what is desirable and attractive indicates the dangers associated with this

process (Ehrenhalt, 2012).


The New Urbanism

The movement of new middle-class residents in the United States is a small

counter-trend. This dominant trend is a social movement, which each case of

gentrification is played out differently in different cities (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

According to Ley (1986), most reports on the topic of gentrification is a renewed

interest in city life that has put a premium on urban neighborhoods, especially those

buildings that were built since World War II. These areas attract people in search of new

jobs where the housing has become scarce, causing pressure on areas once considered

undesirable. The process of gentrification tends to occur in neighborhoods that make

them desirable and appealing for change (Ley, 1986).

On October 2012, a meeting was held by city council, which described those

households willing to move into unfamiliar neighborhoods across class and racial lines.

This process increased its growth within a short period of time, gentrification worked by

enlargement (gathering momentum) when others saw a familiar face; more people were

willing to make the move (Business Meeting Book 134, 2012).1 Despite these possible

benefits in urban cities, it is believed by pre-gentrification residents that this movement is

the result in population migration theory. This view is based on New Urbanism and the

concept of defensible space (Kennedy & Leonard 2001, Davidson 2004 & Fox, 2004).

Norm Rice, the formal black mayor of Settle, (citymayors.com) has said,

“gentrification may be an unwanted side effect of development that is beyond “their”

control, “the process clearly isn’t racist; it’s about economics,” “The real question you

have to ask yourself is this good or bad (citymayors.com)?”

1 Business Meeting Book 134, minutes for Charlotte City Council


Gentrification: Is this Good or Bad?

In theory, gentrification suggests that human occupancy in closed apartment

dwellings are not considered a healthy living environment [for the poor] unless there is

significant wealth to maintain the upkeep. Poor housing, particularly when concentrated

in urban slums, imposed a number of additional social and psychological problems on the

poor, affecting health, education and crime (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

The consequences of gentrification in Charlotte, and in other cities, where

gentrified communities have become victims of its own success, people are drawn by the

appeal and the quality when success comes to a neighborhood. This success does not help

those that are most likely affected by this process, and are likely to be pushed out––

turnover most likely will take place, and those involved usually experience rent hikes, or

become evicted to bring in tenants for a higher rate. People of middle income, and

establish homeowners in these neighborhoods are often times fearful that their

neighborhood will be redeveloped. Some of these homeowners will consider that their

options are limited, decide to cash in, move elsewhere, and leave the original resident to

become displaced, as newcomers move in (Grant, 2004).


After reviewing other case studies, this problem is not a trend for Charlotte alone;

this is an issue, which a lot of cities in the most convenient areas are experiencing. In

neighborhoods where there is affordable low-income housing that is being restored into

more market rate type housing, other reports showed that there is a racial distribution of

the housing cost burden in Mecklenburg County, which targets housing cost among the

lower-income renters and other targeted homeowners. Renters are extremely vulnerable

to the effects of gentrifications, and African-Americans having disproportionate rates of

housing cost burden. A second important pattern shows a racial dichotomy or division in

renters and homeowners burden. Specifically, where there are large numbers of African-

Americans in both the very low and lower-income categories of renter-occupied

households, as compared to the numbers of Whites in the very low and lowers-income

categories of owner-occupied households (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

Effects of Gentrification

The effects of gentrification vary widely depending on local circumstances.

According to Grant (2004), the impact of gentrification often results in serious political

conflict, and while it cleans up the appearance of the inner city, it can imply hardship for

the destitute portion of a population. In these neighborhoods the original residents feel

excluded from their own communities, while newcomers are perceived as hostile and

racist. There are several key factors that influence gentrification, but there are few

historical explanations about the process that address the causes rather than the effects

(Grant, 2004).


Ehrenhalt (2012) argues that “this may be a permanent shift in urban

demography,” bringing into line US cities that are close to a global urban mode with the

focus primarily on the benefits of a demographic overturn, including new urban

investments, not to mention greater suburban diversity (Ehrenhalt, 2012).

Newcombe (2010) wrote that U Street Corridor, once the social hub of African-

American life in Washington, D C, was for decades barely functioning after a race riot in

1968. These neighborhoods are now beginning to see a much-needed change in the way

of living that before destroyed most of the inner city’s economy and cultural life. Once a

forgotten neighborhood, today U Street is making a comeback (Newcomb, 2010).

The reason for gentrification usually falls into these two categories: Cultural and

Economic. Usually the young, professionals, and the middle-class have changed their

lifestyles enough to reduce the relative appeals for a single-family life and have given up

the lifestyle of suburban homes. People are choosing to have fewer children, delaying

marriage, and homebuyers and renters instead are choosing an urban life (Smith, 2013).

According to Levy (1986), the researchers emphasize that it is the search for

socially distinct, which is the reason why those individuals in these environments often

seek opportunities of self-expression. Others make this into a more general argument of

why these communities, of white-collar service occupations have replaced production

(blue-collar) jobs, and bring with it a request for consumption, the use of attractive

features, but not of works. The process of consumption begins to dictate the production,

and the importance of consumption rather than the production guide of the central city

and land use decisions (Ley, 1986).


However, with economics it becomes a process used to evaluate and estimate the

increased cost of building and travel time to commute, making the appeal of center city to

appear more practical. The logical reasoning is by no means mutually expressed among

the exclusives. The latest conflict that has erupted in New York, concerning gentrification

where the poor, middle class, and rich who have rubbed shoulders for centuries thriving

in this dense urban community, according to this report these changes are viewed as

robbing cities of their authenticity, no matter how gritty or unsafe (Newcombe, 2010).

According to Smith (2013), the media and other research literature reported that

the concept of gentrification was viewed as a “back-to-the-city movement” that applied to

a much earlier projects which took place in Philadelphia’s Society Hill (accomplished

with substantial state assistance) as it does to the other later “schemes”(p.539). This

process was used to develop such locations as Baltimore’s Federal Hill and Washington’s

Capitol Hill in the 1970s, where the poor and working class makeup part of the urban

fabric too. These are the people that work in medial jobs and rely on the city’s supply of

affordable apartments. There were no studies on how many suburbanites had moved from

the suburbs, and were brought back to downtown by urban- renewal projects (Smith,

2013).

In the late 1970s, other studies in these reports presented data from Society Hill

and other revitalized neighborhoods (Smith, 2013). Society Hill, located in Philadelphia,

is a neighborhood much like the earlier Fourth Ward of Charlotte; it lasted well into the

nineteenth century, before the industrialization and urban development. In Fourth Ward,

the popularity declined and residents in these communities moved to other new suburbs,

such as Dilworth and Myers Park. The previous Fourth Ward neighborhood began to


deteriorate rapidly. Today First and Fourth Ward have been transformed again, and

houses the city’s middle and upper social classes (Smith, 2013).

In 1962, a report showed that less than a third of the families had purchased

properties for rehabilitation were from the suburbs, and after that time no data was

officially collected. It would appear from these results only a small proportion of

gentrifies did return from the suburbs; compared to others who moved from elsewhere

within the city boundaries. This report, suggests that the latter group of previous city

dwellers, is a consolidation of upper-and middle-class white (suburb) residences that

moved in the city (Smith, 2013). For example, in Philadelphia and elsewhere an urban

revitalization may take place, but it is not worth mentioning that the return comes from

the suburbs. This does not disprove the consumer “sovereignty” (p. 540) in these

communities as it suggests a few limitations and improvements. It is possible that most of

these younger people who moved to the city come for educational and professional

training and have decided to stay, instead of moving back to the suburbs. However, there

is a problem if this is to be taken as a final explanation for gentrification (Smith, 2013).

Neil Smith argues that gentrification is not an occurrence happening only in North

American but is happening in other cities, including Europe. His reasons are a general

assumption about post-industrial cities becoming a broad enough reason to account for

the process internationally. If cultural explain preferences explains gentrification then this

could explain why individual preferences all change the same, whether they are

nationwide or internationally. The process of this reasoning would then override the

constraints, which eliminates the individual freedom that is implied in the consumer’s

preference. If this is the case of a consumer preference, then it becomes a contradiction,


therefore, the process is then conceived in terms of a one-dimensional cultural (Smith,

2013).

This concept could be justified if it was used to refer to a combined social

preference, and not an individual preference (Smith, 2013). However, this would

suggestion that any of the ideas of new urbanism approach to gentrification is only one of

many factors participating in this process. Although, gentrification could be the

secondary reason for initiating this actual process, which explains why gentrification

occurs in the first place and that consumer preferences and demands are of a primary

importance in determining the final form and character of revitalized communities ––the

difference between a “Society Hill,” and a Charlotte’s First Ward (Smith, 2013).

Whether or not this is expressed in these preferences, it appears that the impact of

gentrification has been stimulated more by economics than cultural forces and therefore

influences those interested in making the decision to rehabilitate an inner city. One

preference in this movement that tends to stand out above all the others in this process is

to ask the question: Does it make a sound investment (Smith, 2013)?

The arrival of urban centers brings new expectations, resources, and

conveniences; however, this also creates new problems for unwanted side effects. The

concepts of city living are the exposure of social and cultural diversity as ethnicity. One

of the great amenities is to have relief from the sub-cultural boredom of many suburban

communities, which gentrification has long been associated with because of the appeals

to diversity and the difference of social mixing (Lees, 2008).

According to Lees (2008) the greatest benefit of city living is being exposed to

social and cultural diversity; however, the argument about gentrification is the


consequences of social class patterns and the social balance or mix. The idea rests on the

belief that there is an arrangement of social income groups, when achieved produces most

favorable individuals and community well being. This is assumed to be a social

advantage of the balanced community that has been at the heart of nearly all debates on

new towns and urban renewal. The problem with this concept is that little is not known

about the advantages and disadvantages of different kinds of mix, nor at what levels it

affects the street, neighborhood, district, and community, creating a social balance that

would be a goal for policy objectives (Lees, 2008).

The question is, can policy changes promote population mixes of different socio

economic and racial groups. While at the same time attract the civil class domination of

the neighborhood, or gentrifying middle classes, and the pre-existing low-income

communities and live together side by side (Lee, 2008)?

The report reveals that new people and political activities did not mix well when

they were of different races or socioeconomic statuses. In order for the combination to be

affective, it requires upgrading, (normally) it does not develop, and therefore it becomes

more serious when racial mix is combined with socioeconomic mix (Lees, 2008).

Loretta Lees (2008) argues whether social mixing and moving middle-income

people into low-income inner-city neighborhoods is a positive thing, and questions the

social mix policies. The growing interest in these cities is to build communities on a

foundation of all-encompassing neighborhoods capable of supporting a blend of incomes,

cultures, age groups and lifestyles (Lees, 2008).

There are three reasons that have been identified in these policy debates on social

mixing. First, the argument claims that the middle-class are stronger advocates for public


resources and having them involved in social mixed neighborhoods will fare better than

those without middle-class households. Second, neighborhoods that benefit from a

socioeconomic mixed community are able to support a stronger local economy than areas

of concentrated poverty. Finally, using networking and bonding as a means to promote

social mixing as a means to generate social cohesion and economic opportunity (Lees,

2008).

Gentrification: Social Mixing

Surprisingly, the argument is about whether social mixing hides gentrification

plans of a hidden social cleansing agenda. Although, these policies use terms like urban

renaissance and sustainability, (Lees, 2008) they are terms used to avoid the class

structure that involves a process of offsetting the negative image that is associated with

the process of gentrification. Other criticism of social mixing is expressed as a moral

discourse that is about helping the poor; it is difficult to be for gentrification, than to go

up against social mixing (Lees, 2008).

The bulk of information on social mixing has been focused on in the United

Kingdom, United States, and the Netherlands; each of these three countries planned a

social mix community as part of their urban renaissance agendas. For instance, in the

United Kingdom it has promoted the state-led gentrification of public housing creating a

policy for a mixed community housing market for the working class. However, in the

United States it has promoted social mixing through polices that seek the spatial de-

concentration (dispersing of space) of poverty associated with public housing (Lees,

2008).


However, it is a perfect fit of how to prioritize a problem related to the

gentrification scheme. Therefore, the inner city land stocks become frozen to those

returning suburbanites who find city life more economical than the suburbs (Ward,

2010). Focusing their attention on this phenomenon called the Moving To Opportunity

(MTO) program was a pilot program that provided vouchers to black housing residents

so they could move into integrated neighborhoods. MTO called them “mobility,”

because they provided poor families in lower-income neighborhoods to move into better,

or middle-class communities (Lees, 2008).

The search began in August 1979, when housing activists in Philadelphia were

looking for information. They came across a strange-worded theory called “spatial de-

concentration.” With this new information available, they began to slowly understand

that the “mobility program” was much more than to meet the eye. It was an opportunity

to depopulate Philadelphia of its minority neighborhoods. The massive demolition

operations in minority neighborhoods, which had been systematic, and the total lack of

reconstruction support from public or private sources spoke to that fact. It was decided

that the program would be handle at the local government level, but other cities would

have to be introduced to the program and encouraged or swayed into action against it.

During a period of two months such contacts had developed in St. Louis, Chicago, and

New York City, in which all were key “mobility” cities.

The information that had been collected in Philadelphia was dispersed to other

community activists in these cities. This arrangement helped to uncover massive amounts

of new information about the program. The information that activists had uncovered

about the mobility program slowly taught them that they were entirely wrong about what


they understood about gentrification, and perhaps this misdirection had prevented them

from realizing any measurable amount of success in forcing the city or government to

start-up housing construction projects in the city. It is clear with the obvious crises that

plague inner city that minorities are found to be a problem of control. The so-called

"gentrification" of the inner cities, and the massive demolition projects, has transformed

once-stable neighborhoods into vast wastelands. The diminishing inner-city services,

such as recreation, health care, education, jobs and job-training, and sanitation was all

rooted in an apparent fear that inner-city minorities are uncontrollable. After the 1967,

riot in Detroit which 47 people lost their lives, and the 82nd Airborne Paratroopers were

deployment from North Carolina (Ward, 2010), the Rand Corporation, is an intelligence

agency among others was asked by the Ford Foundation to conduct a three-week

workshop to study the concerns of urban problems. The participants were asked to

prepare and submit papers recommending programs in the areas of public assistance, jobs

training, and urban planning. The papers were grouped into four headings, which

included "urban poverty"(Ward, 2010). They concluded that if the problems of riots

could be expected to emerge again in the future, and more intensity and a treat to the

Constitutional privileges which becomes the American system of free enterprise and our

American technology could not contain it (Ward, 2010).

The second policy, introduced in 1992, was the HOPE VI, which was designed to

rehabilitate or redevelop the nation’s worst public housing development. The program’s

focus became demolition and redevelopment. Therefore, reducing the number of units,

many of the original residents were unable to move back on site. Earl Village, a HOPE

VI project in Charlotte, NC, was cited as blight, potentiality holding back a promising


market environment in the surrounding area. In the end, there is something perversely

uniting about the de-concentration argument–– it leads to almost universal resistance to

subsidized housing (Goetz, 2004).

Government Policy and Gentrification

In a report, published by the Mecklenburg County Planning Districts,2 it showed

that a disproportionate of “priority needs” renters in these households consist of people of

color. The overall vacancy rate of apartments is at an all-time high, and much higher in

Downtown. Steve Crump, wrote to Charlotte’ s predominantly black neighborhoods

asking “ can long time homeowners hold on,” or will they be forced to move to make

space for new buyers for the “up-and-comers,” who prefer center city and the things

going on downtown (Crump, WBTV-3, 2008). Therefore, the task of “urbanity” will

continue among those who can afford to pay for it. It reveals, however, what has been

allowed and if these policies can be changed, and by whom. It is important to point out

that gentrification is not occurring across the country. Rather, gentrification tends to

happen in cities with tight housing markets and in a select number of neighborhoods.

Many cities are in great need for new residents and revenue.

The goal of a city’s redevelopment efforts of gentrification can be a byproduct,

particularly if a city has little vacant land or few unoccupied buildings. Nonetheless, for

all the benefits this process can bring, gentrification can impose financial and social costs

on the very families and business owners who are least able to afford them. The City

Council voted, in December 2003, to “remove language” from the city’s planning

department that showed development “gentrification” in several of these neighborhoods

that could uproot some of these people. Councilman John Tabor, in a statement, told the

2 Mecklenburg County Planning Districts, report for City of Charlotte Neighborhood Development


Charlotte Observer “if there are people in these neighborhoods who can not afford their

taxes, they are the people I want to help” (Hampson, 2005). It is best to describe

“gentrification as a process of repossession of public space and the rearrangement of

living patterns” (Hampson, USATODAY.COM, 2005).

According to Kennedy & Leonard (2001) if the outcomes of gentrification are to

benefit more of those moving into the city, then the decision makers in the public and

private sectors much expect potentially harmful effects and take effective and timely

steps to mitigate the problems now and in the future (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

In 2005, the Housing Neighborhood Development (H & ND) and several of

Charlotte’s city leaders were concerned that a “policy” or the language change could

prevent gentrification and cancel the plans for revitalization in Charlotte. The impact of

this policy on some residents has been reviewed as part of a planning solution to mitigate

negative gentrification aspects (See Appendix F), and direct City staffs to continue to

monitor the City’s neighborhoods for gentrification (H & ND, 2005).

The National Housing Act, HOPE VI awarded local authorities in Charlotte and

other cities funding through the Department of Housing and Urban Development to

revitalize old obsolete housing in communities and plans to demolish existing units and

revitalized sites with mixed income housing. Based on the ability to generate income for

the city, rather than improve the actual state of the problems with the housing project (s)

in question (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001).

Steve Crump (2008) reported that some of these housing prices are just out of

reach and it is happening in neighborhoods where “folks are saying years ago, you could

not give a home away.” The newcomers in these neighborhoods feel that their efforts to


improve local conditions of the neighborhood are intensified by differences in race, class

and culture (Crump, WBTV-3, 2008).

According to Prynn (2013), this process of talking about the problem and

discussing the topic of gentrification, and how to approach a conversation about the

unforeseen problems of gentrification; “we” turn our focuses on the act of gentrification

instead of focusing our conversation on the reasons or the causes, which we have forgot.

The point to be made, if we begin and end our conversation with the focus on culture and

economics, we have missed the point. If the effects are not seen in numbers, the numbers

do not exist. This could explain the reason why politicians struggle to tackle the issue of

gentrification and displacement––policy as we know it. It is not part of a large data

system and not based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge (Prynn,

2013).

Kennedy & Leonard (2004) wrote the greatly reduced number of units and the

stricter tenant screening standards employed makes it difficult or impossible for most

families to move back in the neighborhood and enjoy the benefits. Families that do not

return to these sites must do the best they can in other neighborhoods of the city

(Kennedy & Leonard, 2004).

Reports show that the purpose for gentrification is to revitalize public housing

projects into mixed-income developments. Regardless of these possible benefits in urban

communities, it is believed by pre-gentrification residents that this movement is the result

of population migration. This opinion is based on New Urbanism and the concept of

defensible space (Kennedy, et al., 2001).


Charlotte’s City Council called a meeting to discuss the issues related to this

problem “in some cases its gentrification, and in some cases it may be demolition.2” In

the report, it states that the effects of gentrification vary widely, and with the arrival of

new people, the results would put a squeeze on the middle-income households. Previous

residents could benefit from some of these developments, “particularly those in the form

of the service sector,” but “categorizing” in terms of the population who is affected by

gentrification? Because of “limited spaces, most of it may be out of reach to all but the

well-educated, or someone in their mid-20s,” which is the biggest growing group in

Mecklenburg County (Business Meeting Minute Book 134, 2012, p. 21)1.

Kennedy, et al., (2001) in a report published 2004 by the City of Charlotte

Neighborhood Development, they wrote three of these neighborhoods meets all of these

criteria’s and would be characterized as having undergone gentrification; they are

Dilworth, First Ward, and Fourth Ward (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001). Gentrification is

taking place in other cities such as San Francisco, Atlanta, and in cultural strongholds like

New York’s Harlem, Miami’s Overton, and Washington’s Columbia Heights as well as

other urban communities (Kennedy, 2001).

What is Charlotte doing about the effects of gentrifications? Charlotte’s process is

adequately planning to anchor the lives of the ones we hope to improve using the tools or

power to influence development projects that may be harmful to this community

(Kennedy, Leonard, 2001). This information was used to compare and determine if

significant changes in individual neighborhoods had taken place in center-city Charlotte

(Kennedy Leonard, 2001).

21Business Meeting Minute Book 134, minutes for Charlotte City Council

1

literature 2015 (2)

Documents

changes of gentrification

downside of gentrification

charlottes center city

new urban neighborhoods

inner city crump

higher income households

charlottes uptown center

urban landscape