Mission Economic Development Association (MEDA), San Francisco, “Small Business DisplacementHearing,” materials presented to Supervisor Alicia Becerril on September 16, 1999.Office of Mayor Michael R. White, Living in Cleveland Center, Fannie Mae Foundation andCleveland Cavaliers Team up for the 8 th Annual Buying into Cleveland Home Show 2000 onApril 8. News Release, January 7 th , 2000.Pan, Philip, “Council Rejects Additional Rights for Slum Property Tenants,” The Washington Post,March 22, 2000, p. B8.Pierre, Robert E., “District Sees Hope in Population Loss; Early Estimates Predicted Larger Decline,”The Washington Post, December 29, 2000, p. A14.PolicyLink, Community-Based Initiatives Promoting Regional Equity: Profiles of Innovative Programsfrom Across the Country, PolicyLink, Oakland, CA, January 2000.PolicyLink and The Funders’ Network on Smart Growth and Livable Communities. AdvancingRegional Equity: Perspectives from Philanthropy on Promising Practices., PolicyLink,Oakland, CA, February, 2001.Randolph, R. Sean, “Bay Area Must Keep Pace with Global Economy,” San Francisco Chronicle,March 15, 2000, p. A19.Renaissance Program Policy Board, Building an Even Better Atlanta, Atlanta, May, 1997.Residential Displacement, An Update, Washington, D.C.: Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment, Office of Policy Development and Research, 1981.Rowen, Angela, “Pure Greed,” San Francisco Bay Guardian, January 19, 2000, p. 18.Rozhon, Tracie, “Grit and Glory in South Harlem,” New York Times, March 16, 2000, p. B1.San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Community Development, memo from Anna Yee to Director PamDavid, January 21, 2000.San Francisco Chronicle, “Developer Pays to Move Businesses Out,” January 25, 2000, p. A16.Sawicki, David S., and Mitch Moody. “Déjà vu All Over Again: Porter’s Model of Inner CityDevelopment.” The Review of Black Political Economy, vol. 24, nos. 2 and 3, Fall 1995-Winter 1996, pp. 75-94.Scholz, David, “What a Difference a Bridge Makes,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 22, 2000, p. C1.68
7 th Street McClymonds Corridor Neighborhood Improvement Initiative, Neighborhood CommunityPlan, San Francisco Foundation.Shill, Michael and Richard Nathan, Revitalizing America’s Cities: Neighborhood Reinvestment andDisplacement. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983, as reported in Ley, p. 66.Slater, Dashka, “Neighborhood Bully,” San Francisco, February, 2000, p. 3.Smith, Matt, “Welcome Home,” SF Weekly, Vol. 18, No. 28 (August 18, 1999).Smith, Neil, The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London and New York:Routledge, 1996.Smith, William J., Trends in Atlanta’s Employment Profile.. Atlanta: Research Atlanta, Inc., 1997.Spinner, Jackie, “Miracle on 14 th Street,” The Washington Post, March 27, 2000. p. F-18.Strategic Economics, Gentrification: Causes, Indicators, and Possible Policy Responses for the SanFrancisco Bay Area, Berkeley, CA, September, 1999.The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Moving Beyond Sprawl: TheChallenge for Metropolitan Atlanta. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 2000.The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, A Region Divided: The State ofGrowth in Greater Washington, D.C. Washington: Brookings Institution, 1999.Tucker, Katheryn Hayes, “Saying Goodbye to the ‘Burbs,” New York Times, March 5, 2000, p. 1Section 3.Tucker, Neely, “Apartment Landlord Sentenced; Community Service Completes Deal with D.C.,” TheWashington Post, July 13, 2000, p. B-01.Turner, Margery Austin and Ingrid Gould Ellen, “Does Neighborhood Matter? Assessing RecentEvidence” Housing Policy Debate, Volume 8, No. 4.Urban Land Institute, Association of Bay Area Governments, and Bay Area Council, Bay AreaFutures: Where Will We Live and Work, November, 1997.von Hoffman, Alexander, Housing Heats Up: Home Building Patterns in Metropolitan Areas.Washington: The Brookings Institution Survey Series, December, 1999.69
- Page 1:
___________________________________
- Page 4 and 5:
POLICYLINKSUMMARY OF RECENT PUBLICA
- Page 6 and 7:
ABSTRACTThis paper serves as a prim
- Page 8 and 9:
PREFACEThe Brookings Institution Ce
- Page 11 and 12:
DEALING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE:A
- Page 13 and 14:
owners, and developers—better und
- Page 15 and 16:
III. GENTRIFICATION DYNAMICS:DEFINI
- Page 17 and 18:
A. How Big a Trend Is Gentrificatio
- Page 19 and 20:
espective metropolitan areas, this
- Page 21 and 22:
uilt only 31,000 new homes. 18 The
- Page 23 and 24:
created a $5,000 first-time homebuy
- Page 25 and 26:
consequences are perceived by varyi
- Page 27 and 28: esidents they should stay in place
- Page 29 and 30: and that these revenues are not era
- Page 31 and 32: sale. 42 The street’s mix of busi
- Page 33 and 34: communities (such as in Cleveland)
- Page 35 and 36: IV. THE POLITICAL DYNAMICS OF GENTR
- Page 37 and 38: the development process made unexpe
- Page 39: 2. increasing regional, city and co
- Page 42 and 43: Atlanta’s future into concrete st
- Page 44 and 45: Affordable Housing Preservation and
- Page 46 and 47: likely unproductive, although San F
- Page 48 and 49: where the entering families with sc
- Page 50 and 51: VI. CONCLUSIONThis paper provides a
- Page 52 and 53: APPENDIX ARESPONSES TO GENTRIFICATI
- Page 54 and 55: taken out of the San Francisco mark
- Page 56 and 57: According to a recent survey, twent
- Page 58 and 59: developed among long-standing Afric
- Page 60 and 61: increased concentrations of minorit
- Page 62 and 63: class to 60-65 percent of the popul
- Page 64 and 65: experience in the Reynoldstown comm
- Page 66 and 67: Hot Housing Market. Perhaps the mos
- Page 68 and 69: The opening of the new Metro statio
- Page 70 and 71: 3. ConclusionOptimism about the cit
- Page 72 and 73: just over seven percent of all perm
- Page 74 and 75: But neighborhood watchers see the c
- Page 76 and 77: BIBLIOGRAPHYAtkinson, Rowland, “M
- Page 80: Walker, Mary Beth, A Population Pro