Considerations for Now

Gentrification is a polarizing topic in the world of urban planning, and one that continues to become more urgent to address as time goes on. While the most basic definitions of gentrification refer to it only as a process of change within cities whereby neighborhoods are updated and the old is replaced with the new over time, this doesn’t encompass the full effects of such a process. The inherent problem with gentrification is not that change is occurring, but rather that such changes tend to increase property values, displacing existing residents over time and making cities more hostile and less livable to marginalized groups and those of lower socioeconomic status.

Many in the planning profession are opposed to the idea of addressing gentrification through design, policy, or regulation, as it is in some ways an expression of the free market at work. However, we as a class believe that no one should be forced out of their home or neighborhood because prices have gone up around them, and that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure stability for its residents. This presents a challenge for planners hoping to create more equitable cities: is it better to make improvements in areas of lower socioeconomic status in an attempt to improve quality of life for the residents, or is it instead better to make improvements to already-privileged neighborhoods because it won’t result in displacement? Either choice results in negative consequences. In the first scenario, an untouched neighborhood is improved, many residents are displaced, and new, wealthy residents take their place. In the second, nobody is displaced, but quality of life improved significantly for those who already had superior quality of life, and nothing is improved for those without it.

The truth of the matter is that our cities are broken in this regard because of the shortcomings of our economic and social systems. Deep disparities etched over time between socioeconomic classes prevent the American dream of an equal-opportunity, level playing field from being a reality. Our urban spaces are a representation of these disparities, as improved conditions in a neighborhood lead directly to the removal of the residents that the improvements were created for. Gentrification is necessarily an intersectional issue because individuals holding a marginalized status of some kind, whether it be related to race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or any number of others, tend to be more vulnerable to displacement.

While design plays a significant role in the continuation and proliferation of gentrification as a pattern within cities across the country and outside of it, it’s important to recognize that design alone cannot create viable or final solutions to this issue. A problem like this, which boils down essentially to a significant portion of the population being in need of a better economic reality, requires solutions to be economic in nature. The best practices for combating gentrification and the like are not changes to physical space, or even changes to the processes by which we design physical space, but are instead rooted in providing economic freedom to those in need of it.

As designers and urban planners, we are not equipped with the necessary power to make significant changes to either large-scale economic systems or the personal financial situations of those at risk. Because of this, it is our responsibility to implement practices that abate gentrification in any way possible, while knowing full well that it will never quite be enough. Designed tools can make a difference even if they can’t solve the problem wholesale. We believe that it’s necessary both to implement such tools wherever possible in order to mitigate gentrification, create more vibrant and equitable urban spaces, and influence the social and economic spheres in the direction of equity and support.

The most notable design strategies that planners can employ focus on scaling back urban changes and spreading them across wide areas. “Just Green Enough: Urban Development and Environmental Gentrification,” a book by Winnifred Curran and Trina Hamilton, presents a strategy for urban design and planning by the same name. This strategy focuses on making conditions more livable for residents while sacrificing the extravagance of most “green infrastructure” that pushes property values upwards. The goal with this strategy is to do enough, without pushing the economic limits of the community at hand, rather than to do everything. To a similar end, it’s preferable to implement changes over the widest plausible area, distributed as evenly as possible over time. Gradual, uniform change will have significantly less impact on property values across neighborhoods than fast, localized change. While each intervention should be designed in relation to the locality in which its placed, the goal is to ensure that there are similar levels of change happening throughout each section of any given city.

We also would like to encourage planners, designers, and everyday citizens to join forces in lobbying for economic change. Specifically, rent control and wage increases are extremely useful in creating personal economic stability, and must be fought for across the country if we hope to ever stop the cycle of displacement.

We have created our recommendations and strategies with these factors in mind, but it’s important to note that our foremost priority is creating significant change on street systems within the United States, in the interest of the public at large. Reimagining streets is a large task, and many of the actions we recommend have significant potential to displace residents due to the physical improvements made to the streetscape. We hope that you will join us in our efforts to make streets better, and that we can together remove as many of the negative byproducts of progress as possible.