ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

134 ■ THE ECONOMICS OF UNIQUENESS
the potential consequence that will have the most direct relationship to the economic
changes in real estate is the phenomenon known as social displacement.
Th e simplistic description of displacement is this: property values and rents go
up; newcomers who can aff ord it move in; long-term poorer residents who cannot
aff ord to stay are pressured by the economic and social changes to move
out. For the World Bank the issue of relocation (or, as it is termed, triggering an
involuntary resettlement) is always a consideration when evaluating a potential
project and its eff ects. Usually relocation is recognized when a government action
forces people to move so that a highway can be built, for example, or a dam constructed.
But increased rents and rising property values can also cause involuntary
resettlement, not through direct action of the government but through the
indirect (oft en gradual) transactions of the marketplace.
But like gentrifi cation in general, the issue of displacement, or involuntary
resettlement, should not be oversimplifi ed. First, not all departure is characterized
as forced displacement. People, businesses, and households move for a variety
of reasons in addition to not being able to aff ord the increased rent. Second,
there will always be some economic displacement, regardless of which neighborhood
it is and whether it is targeted for heritage-based regeneration. If the rent is
due and the renter can’t aff ord to pay, more oft en than not this default causes the
renter to move. Th is principle is enshrined in all rental contracts, for neighborhoods
housing wealthier and lower-income households alike. Th ird, some departures
can represent an economic gain, when owners take the opportunity to sell
their property for more than they expected to fetch—hardly a negative outcome.
Fourth, when the involuntary resettlement of households is properly conducted
and households are moved into structures that are vacant and adequate, they
haven’t really been displaced.
Th ere is at least some evidence that in a gentrifi cation processes, many businesses
and households will make an eff ort to remain in the neighborhood, even
if it means further stretching their very limited budgets. Aft er all, infrastructure
and public services have been upgraded, creating a better physical environment
and improved public safety. Th ere are more and better stores in the area, as well
as other new businesses. New jobs may be available.
On refl ection, the positive outcomes of a heritage-based revitalization strategy
far outweigh the negative ones. Further, it is important to recognize a simple fact:
barring massive and ongoing public subsidies, neighborhoods that are mainly
poor will not have the fi nancial resources to maintain existing buildings and to
secure a minimum of public safety, let alone generate suffi cient funds to properly
care for heritage buildings. Th e goal should be economic integration, which
includes the low-income communities but also the rehabitation of heritage areas
by households and businesses with the fi nancial resources to make the necessary
investments.