DC and the Continuing Dance of Gentrification

Browsing the blogs, I stumbled across this piece in USA Today:

Much has changed since Ben's Chili Bowl opened nearly 50 years ago on a bustling strip known as America's Black Broadway for its thriving black-owned shops and theaters.

Back then, the red-and-white diner was a popular hangout for black bankers, doctors and blue-collar workers who lived and worked along U Street. Even jazz greats Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald could be found devouring chili half-smokes and milkshakes after performing at nearby clubs.

Now, on some days, the crowd at the Washington landmark is mostly white, reflecting a neighborhood metamorphosis that has brought in high-end condominiums and businesses like Starbucks.

"Sometimes you look around and wonder, 'Where are all the black people?"' said Virginia Ali, who opened the diner with her husband, Ben, in 1958.

Stephen Colbert had once joked "DC is the chocolate city with the marshmallow center." Unfortunately, it is becoming a situation where the marshmallow center is slowly overtaking the whole city.

Now, taken individually, I do not have a problem with more white people moving to the city.

I have no problem with the city undergoing some much needed structural improvements.

And I see no issue with revitalizing neighborhoods.

However, this quote illustrates my reservations:

Change also is happening near the new convention center on the edge of downtown, where Shirley Williams is trying to hold on to the apartment she has lived in for 33 years. Her landlord recently agreed to sell to a developer who plans to tear it down.

"I've been here through all the rough times and now that it's getting better they want me to leave," the retired school teacher's assistant said. "I don't think that's right."

Why do these changes have to come at such a steep cost to historical residents?

Why am I priced out of my own city?

The Far Side of Gentrification

A few weeks ago, the Washington Post published a new article about the H street corridor in downtown DC. The article detailed the thoughts and opinions of the historical residents, who had seen H street through riots and a depressed economy, and spoke with the new residents who had moved to H street after the city slated the area for economic revival.

What interested me more than the article was the surrounding chat about gentrification, proctored through one of the Washington Post’s “live online” sessions (linked in the title above). The discussion quickly dissolved into an argument about the events at a local bar, where some new residents picked up some of the sidewalk chalk sitting in a decorative basket and began drawing on the tables.

The black proprietor objected to them using the chalk. The white party at the table asked why they couldn’t draw with the chalk, since you generally use chalk to draw. The proprietor responded, saying you shouldn’t draw on a place where people eat – no one wants a bite of chalk dust.

This is where the story gets a bit blurry. The white kids assert that the proprietor became shrill, telling them that they didn’t belong in her neighborhood. The proprietor states that the white kids became hostile, saying she should be lucky that they were spending money in her “ghetto” neighborhood.

This is the delicate dance we do around gentrification. Class divisions and race divisions tend to pop up, turning neighbor against neighbor. The revitalization of an area isn’t always bad – many people enjoy living in luxury condos, having shops within walking distance, and having a nicer, cleaner neighborhood. Gentrification, however, is revitalization in a different stripe. While revitalization seeks to improve a blighted or run-down area, gentrification aims to attract people with higher incomes to live in the community.

Obviously, when two different world views collide the end result is friction. And while most of us may dream of a day when mixed income communities are the norm, it does not appear that developers seem to think the same way. Revitalizing a neighborhood doesn't have mean that the previous residents are priced out of housing options. The question is how do we reconcille development interests with the interests of a neighborhood?