MARCH 15 — Ever heard of ‘gentrification’?
The root word is “gentry”, which means people of high social class, especially in the past. If one was a member of the landed gentry, it meant he was one of those who owned a lot of land.
In simple words, the rich.
Coined by sociologist Ruth Glass 60 years ago (1964), “gentrification” was then used to describe neighbourhood change in inner London during the 1960s (London: Aspects of Change). It was the displacement of the working class as upper-class Londoners moved into their neighborhoods.
Glass wrote:
“[G]entrification goes on until all or most of the original working-class occupiers are displaced, and the whole social character of the district is changed.”
Since then, a generic definition of the term has been proposed – that is, a process involving a change in the population of land-users such that the new users are of a higher socio-economic status than the previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment through a reinvestment in fixed capital.
According to Bucharest-based architect Andreea Cutieru, gentrification is a process in which a low-income area of a city experiences redevelopment and an influx of new residents, usually resulting in an increase in property values and the displacement of earlier residents.
One may therefore say that any process of change fitting the above descriptions, regardless of contexts, is gentrification.
In recent years, the phrase “state-led gentrification” has emerged to explain the different colours and patterns of gentrification across the world.
In the United States, gentrification is said to typically begin with the promise of urban renewal and the popularisation or romanticisation of an “up-and-coming neighbourhood.”
Can you now see the connection between gentrification and urban renewal?
Redevelopment projects can reshape communities — but at what cost? — Picture by Firdaus Latif
One of the chief activities of urban renewal, which is state backed, is redevelopment that is achieved through the rebuilding of deteriorated or obsolete structures. This often leads to gentrification. Many therefore consider urban renewal a euphemism for gentrification.
Urban renewal has often been “sold” to the community as redevelopment for better quality of life, but the end result can be quite the opposite, namely eviction, displacement, and homelessness for the community. These are outcomes which accord with the generic definition of gentrification: a process of change associated with capital reinvestment.
However, urban renewal may not necessarily be gentrification.
Churn Tsang and Lin-Fang Hsu, of the Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, draw a distinction between urban renewal and gentrification.
Through a literature review of gentrification, the learned writers identify two core assumptions about gentrifications, especially state -led and state-backed. The two are that: (1) the redevelopment is capital-led and against the community’s will, and (2) the logic of capital has overridden the logic of the government during the redevelopment.
Through a case study of the Kwun Tong Town Centre (KTTC) project, the writers investigate whether redevelopment led by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in Hong Kong constitutes a form of state-led gentrification.
Against the notion of generic gentrification, the writers argue that an urban renewal process becomes gentrification only when the two conceptual assumptions are consistent with contextual realities.
Despite the appearance of state-led gentrification, the KTTC redevelopment was state-led but socially-oriented and supported by the local community. The project was undertaken to redress environmental deterioration and building obsolesce in a crowded and old urban area.
Why state led? This was because government-led planning was necessary — the project involved over 70 per cent government land and required extensive planning and billions of foregone land premiums.
Why was it not a state-led gentrification? The answer is there was the local community’s support, which was contingent upon a societal consensus on the policy governing URA’s acquisition and compensation policy.
It was also found that the design of the KTTC project reflected a commitment to social goals and community aspiration. The writers make the following findings:
“URA and local residents reached an agreement on the trade-offs between financial concerns, community needs, and environmental quality, thereby producing a scheme that received prevalent support.
“Acquisition and compensation were based on specified formulae and delinked from project profitability. The URA addressed residents’ housing needs through direct engagement in acquisition.
“The URA endeavoured not only to address residents’ housing needs by directly engaging residents in the acquisition process, leveraging private-sector capital to take forward redevelopment, but retained control over the project through a plan-led approach and a profit-sharing formula.”
Consequently, the negative outcomes of displacement were mitigated by the authority and other contextual factors.
So, urban renewal is not gentrification where, among others, the authority and local residents reach “an agreement on the trade-offs between financial concerns, community needs, and environmental quality, thereby producing a scheme that received prevalent support.”
This is something that needs to be incorporated into urban renewal projects under the proposed urban renewal legislation that has invited criticisms.
Churn Tsang and Lin-Fang Hsu call for a grounded perspective on urban renewal or redevelopment.
Criticism against urban renewal projects must take into account contextual realities.
*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
