PREFACEThe Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy’s mission is : (1) toconduct empirical research on market, demographic, and policy trends that affect cities andmetropolitan areas; (2) to produce new ideas about the challenges that emerge from these trends,in order to stimulate change; and (3) to create and nurture a broad network that will lead to sharedlearning and action.The Center has produced or collaborated on analyses of growth patterns in the Los Angeles,Atlanta, Phoenix and Washington, D.C. regions and in North Carolina. We have worked withpartners in Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Denver, Seattle, and elsewhere. This has made it clearto us that there is a wide range of economic, social, and growth conditions across, and within,different metropolitan areas. This paper’s description of <strong>gentrification</strong> pressures in the SanFrancisco Bay Area, Cleveland, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C. further reinforces the idea of thediversity of metropolitan environments and neighborhoods.However, there are some general trends we see, to varying degrees, across the country. Thegeneral trend in U.S. metropolitan areas is the steady movement of people and jobs toward themetropolitan fringe, and the concentration of poverty and distress in the central city and innersuburbs. We think that the movement of middle class people into central cities presents realopportunities—and challenges—for cities and neighborhoods, but it should not be mistaken for thestory of national development.Thus, the context for examining <strong>gentrification</strong> and its effects is one of diverse metropolitanareas and a general decentralization of economic and social life. Cities and metropolitan areas mustunderstand where they fit into this context. If <strong>gentrification</strong> is a concern, leaders need to implementpolicies that are fair and balanced. We think that the equitable development framework presented inthis paper is a promising source for these policies, which will have major implications forneighborhood planning, land use reform, and local tax policy. All of these implications need to beexplored and experimented with as equitable development moves from a concept to a tried-and-truemodel of development. If a city is not gentrifying, leaders must explore what they can do tojumpstart their economy and revitalize their neighborhoods. Without a strong fiscal base and healthymarkets, it is difficult for cities to help their residents thrive.We would like to thank Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard, for their thorough, balancedexamination of this issue, and the Fannie Mae, Surdna and Ford foundations for their support. Wealso appreciate the opportunity to work with PolicyLink, and look forward to working with them again.Bruce KatzDirectorThe Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policyvii
PREFACEPolicyLink, a national nonprofit research, communications, capacity building and advocacyorganization, is dedicated to advancing policies to achieve economic and social equity based on thewisdom, voice and experience of local constituencies. Since our founding in 1999, few, if any,issues have galvanized these local constituencies as urgently as the phenomenon of <strong>gentrification</strong>.There is widespread concern that some neighborhood revitalization efforts are destabilizingcommunities that have strong traditional and cultural significance for low-income people of color.People living in areas of concentrated poverty hope that the renewed interest in their neighborhoodsportends an improvement in the quality of their lives. However, as they watch property values andrents rise, they worry that without knowledge, strategies and allies, the physical improvements thatthey have long sought will not be theirs to enjoy. As a result, there is a powerful demand for reliablefacts and useful policies that will enable community residents to embrace and fashion revitalizationand maintain their residency.The development patterns that lead to <strong>gentrification</strong> are shaped by a complex array ofprivate and public actions at the local, regional, state and federal levels. The patterns of growth anddecline, investment and disinvestment occurring throughout metropolitan regions reflect more thansimply economic opportunity and changing values. They also mirror failures to come to grips withissues of race and societal inequity. Avoiding or addressing the adverse consequences of<strong>gentrification</strong> on low income people of color, therefore, will ultimately require policy solutions at alllevels that promote a genuine vision of regional fairness and inclusion that benefits all residents inthe region.Working with community-based practitioners, PolicyLink is creating an equitabledevelopment framework that can achieve that vision. Equitable development policies and practicescombine people-based and place-based strategies; create new tools and instruments to enable lowincomeresidents to gain an equity stake in the revitalization of their communities; and actively buildthe voice of residents so that they become agents of change in the development process. This reportis an important beginning in that it sorts out the causes and consequences of <strong>gentrification</strong>; explainsthe differences among cities’ patterns of development; and illustrates the economic, social andpolitical forces at work through several instructive case studies. The Brookings Institution Center onUrban and Metropolitan Policy and report authors Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard have beenexcellent partners, and we hope that this work adds value and raises the level of discussion on theseimportant issues.Angela Glover BlackwellPresidentPolicyLinkviii
- Page 1: ___________________________________
- Page 4 and 5: POLICYLINKSUMMARY OF RECENT PUBLICA
- Page 6 and 7: ABSTRACTThis paper serves as a prim
- 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 78 and 79:
Mission Economic Development Associ
- Page 80:
Walker, Mary Beth, A Population Pro