Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbrook
|
It's totally interesting; the definition seems to be evolving a bit too. When Ruth Glass came up with the concept of gentrification in 1964, she included both changes within the community with the outcome of displacement as her definition:
"One by one, many of the working class quarters have been invaded by the middle class - upper and lower ... Once this process of 'gentrification' starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the working class occupiers are displaced and the whole social social character of the district is changed"
https://sites.google.com/site/gg2wpd...gentrification
In an NPR interview a couple years back, she expressed regret about documenting that concept as she felt it's become overused and abused as people (specifically social justice advocates) began to separate the displacement aspect from the definition. She felt without displacement as part of "gentrification", it was simply revitalization or natural changing trends that city and nations experience. Her comments made me rethink the use of the word as not every form of development is gentrification unless there is proven negative impact on lower income or working class individuals. That's why I'm not sure we can technically classify Kensington as true gentrification yet as many of the parts that are revitalizing were former neighborhoods that had become almost entirely abandoned and with relatively low population density living in them, and the few people who were originals in those areas up to the point of the recent revitalization have remained which is different outcome from what we see in places like Point Breeze.
Anyways, enjoying the conversation. It's always interesting to learn from other people's perspectives.