In Streetwise, Elijah Anderson (1990) discusses the social forces at work in an urban area he calls the Village-Northton. His is a sociological field study of the daily interactions between the residents of an area encompassing two communities--in his words, "one black and low income to very poor (with an extremely high infant mortality rate), [and] the other racially mixed but becoming increasingly middle to upper income and white" (Anderson, 1990, p. ix). In keeping with valid sociological fieldwork, Anderson (1990) immersed himself in the community from the summer of 1975 through the summer of 1989.
Anderson makes a strong case for the inevitability of ghetto life--in other words, once "ghettoization" begins, it continues its course without regard to a neighborhood's tentative and transitory movement toward gentrification. The middle class and well-heeled whites and minority cultures who move into regenerating urban communities are attracted to city life for its vibrancy and "charm," yet they ultimately are playing with fire when it comes to sharing the same neighborhood which was formerly the turf of gangs, prostitutes, drug dealers, and other societal deviants. Such areas are frequently called "colorful," when they are, in fact, dangerous. Charm and color quickly turn to fear and suspicion after more than enough reports of car break-ins, gang retaliations, and drug deals gone bad fill the local news. As Anderson (1990) points out in his conclusion:
For those only weakly committed to city living, particularly middle-class people who have serious difficulty with social diversity and who have clear housing alternatives, the "problem-free" suburbs become tempting. After an incident such as a car break-in or a bicycle theft, a "last straw" can make them leave. (249)
It is interesting to note that, in the above excerpt, Anderson (1990) uses very "minor" instances of crimes. But one too many minor crimes adds up to a whole greater than the sum of its parts--the urban center begins to appear more and more uninhabitable.
Anderson (1990) uses the apt term "old heads" to typify those long-term residents who were in the urban center before gentrification, and who have been able to remain on, despite an
Culture in urban communities, also referred to as inner-cities, are growing increasingly violent. In the article, The Code of the Streets by Elijah Anderson, he begins to take an in-depth look at the root of the evil. He deduces that economic factors, parenting and the troublesome environments largely influence the violent norms within this culture.
Chapters 11 and 12 in “Not in My Neighborhood” deal with Edmonson Village, a quaint, Catholic and mainly white section of Baltimore. Nothing was out of place in Edmonson Village, with TV’s running schedules and businesses thriving. But the families in the houses would stay put, being the only owners most of the time. This would mean the entire generation borne from the times of segregation did not take kindly to African Americans trying to settle in. See, black people were being vastly mistreated. Living in slums and segregated from sanitary and adequate living. But after the Civil Rights Act is passed and separation of blacks and whites is outlawed, African Americans begin earning enough to live in better quality homes, and looking to more upscale parts of
Recent events that have highlighted racial tension in the United States have had even a larger number of opinions that vary regarding why the nation continues to struggle with such a challenging issue. In our text Chapter 6 titled “The City/Suburban Divide” (Judd & Swanstrom, 2015, p. 136) identifies a subject that very well may contribute to the tension. A reference to the “urban crisis” describes a landscape that is littered with “high levels of segregation, inequality and poverty, along with racial and ethnic tensions.” (Judd, et al., p. 165) Many scholars argue that the crisis was a result of the demographic changes the nation experienced following World War II as advancements in technology and infrastructure aided White Mobility. The term “White Flight” has been used to describe a massive relocation early in the twentieth century when the White Middle-Class population left the cities for suburban areas following the great migration.
In the early twentieth century, East Liberty was a flourishing business district with affordable housing for its residents. Decades later, this neighborhood’s prosperity declined as residents began fleeing to other areas and businesses were forced to shut down. This left East Liberty in diminished conditions, like the conditions depicted in John Edgar Wideman’s story of Homewood in Our Time. Urban renewal efforts were quickly adopted for East Liberty, but these efforts failed. Today, the area is in a state of continuous revitalization, which is beneficial for the economy and some citizens, but African Americans don’t always benefit from these changes. Chris Ivy explores this division in his documentary Easy of Liberty. Failed urban renewal efforts of the sixties and continuing gentrification have transformed East Liberty’s booming business district into a racially divided neighborhood.
There have been many articles published about the transformation of cities in regards to industrial improvements, communities blooming with mass migrations, and standards of living. A number of different cultures have migrated to rural and urban populations and among those mass migrations there were African Americans. Although immigrants went through hardships such as harsh living conditions and low status, they didn’t have to go through as much trouble as African Americans did. African Americans who moved into the city were not on top of the priority list to most. They were not given the time of day to their needs. Race affected these urban dwellers because of discrimination, living conditions, and inequality.
In the 1970s ghettos came to be a place of social isolation because of the segregation between the Whites, and the Blacks. As a result, blacks were doomed to stay in the poor neighborhoods because of racial issues among the people. The ghettos were formed by the government putting the black people in communities such as “black belts”, “darkytowns”, “Bronzevilles”, or ”Nigger towns” that are surrounded by poorly impoverished and well educated middle-class blacks who were forced to move in these neighborhoods, ones that are set up for failure. The ghettos were kept because whites began to fear integration and they did not want Blacks to be near their sight. Gentrification reshape the ghettos by providing resources that will benefit the Blacks and also increasing rents, building new builds and how the whites were
“Recently, some studies suggest an opposite effect, that long-term neighborhood dwellers are less likely to leave a gentrifying neighborhood than a non-gentrifying one, and that some of those who move out can actually capitalize on the move” (Hilbert, 2016). Hilbert indicates that gentrification can also be positive in the sense that residents can capitalize on the move due to the increase of property
In “Is Gentrification All Bad” Davidson tries to convince the reader that there is a positive side to gentrification. Throughout the article davidson provides evidence and a personal example of how gentrification is a positive change for many neighborhoods by giving an example of gentrification and credible statistics.
This image of disorder then encourages further incivility, telling residents and other citizens that it does not care about how their neighborhood represents itself. This encourages further uncivilized activity leading to outbreaks of greater crime. Aesthetically, the property appears derelict and unwanted. This appearance lends itself to the loitering of homeless individuals where “crashpads” become homes to runaways. This environment escalates to drug venues where loitering, refuse and graffiti problems exist. Graffiti tags indicating particular gang logo markings create turf wars amongst rival gangs. Then, an escalation of problems unfolds for law enforcement. Meanwhile, the neighborhood, once considered
One suburb is characterized by a small and quiet society filled with wealthy and materialistic residents while the other possesses many varying community characteristics similar to those like New York City’s. One suburb has one of the highest median house values while the other has one of the lowest values. Furthermore, there are discrepancies between education attainment and income spending statistics, and economic and housing data. However, both villages are located in the same suburban county roughly the same distance from the busy New York City and are inclusive communities that cater to all of their residents as displayed by the many churches and public facilities
A third way Anderson describes how discrimination affects those in the inner city is the discrimination against hiring those who live there some workplaces have. Part of the reason the concept of family has deteriorated in the inner city, besides the increase of drugs and drug dealing, is because it is hard for a young man to provide for his family. Those who are in the “decent” group have to fight against the stereotypes set forth by those part of the “street” group and have to essentially be a public relations manager for the rest of his street. Those who want a job must deliberately contradict stereotypes as companies are hesitant to hire people from the inner city, even discriminating against whole districts and refusing to hire anyone
People are always hearing talk about the so called American Dream, but we haven’t reached it and we still have a long way to go. Opportunity in America can be very limited for people of color, whom now live with the consequences of the “deliberately” segregated past (Powell). Racial segregation into poverty ridden neighborhoods plays a major role in limiting opportunities. Poverty has proved to be a burden that is way too heavy for most people to hold on their shoulders. The “sobering” conclusion is that money, in and of itself, cannot cure the ills of poverty, nor does money alone define the condition of poverty (Burney, Beilke). Location can decide where a child goes to school, where a person works, influences
Gentrification is a generalized term for the influx of wealthy people into a poor area whom transform its culture and character. The rise in wealth correlates to the increased property values and rent which end up driving the less wealthy population out of the city. Often times the term is used to explain the displacement of poor communities by rich outsiders, which assigns a negative connotation to gentrification. However, the process by which a community becomes “gentrified” is intricate and has its pros and cons. Experts agree that before an area can be gentrified it must go through a period of disinvestment, where older buildings are unkempt and start to deteriorate, business start moving out, and the average income levels fall. While some neighborhoods develop a strong sense of community others turn to urban despair.
In relation to this, Kern’s article “Gendered Urbanization” illustrates how the factors attracting affluent women to the new condominiums in Parkdale are often the same instruments of oppression against the residents; according to her research, an attractive aspect of the new condominiums are security measures put into place to keep out the impoverished, and therefore dangerous, communities within Parkdale, such as a 24-hour concierge, double locks on all apartment doors, and a video monitor at the front desk. Even if “street[s] are very quiet” (Kern 372, III) the design of the buildings project and imply a criminal, unpredictable nature onto the original residents of Parkdale, and “enshrines these expectations into the built environment”. One resident interviewed stated “ my [apartment] has twenty-four-hour security, and they don’t let anybody in without talking to security. Residents are not allowed to let anybody in, even if you open the doors” (Kern 372, IV). Therefore, the community lost to the shift in housing rates is not replaced with incoming residents, but rather the two communities are segregated by classist infrastructure and stereotypes that push the lower income people to the outskirts of Parkdale. This leads to a huge sense of isolation and unease in the community of original Parkdale residents because, not only are they threatened and disadvantaged financially, the implantation on these condominiums are actively keeping them out.
Criminologists have been looking at the correlation between poverty and crime since criminology became a real discipline. They do not think the poor are criminals; this is not the case. It is just that the association between poverty and childhood development leading to crime is too strong to ignore. This is probably why many poor and working-class families desire to live in the suburbs, believing that their children will have better opportunities in education and work and that it would be a way to escape from the threat of urban violence. On the other hand, those who live in the suburbs are hesitant of allowing them to come into their neighborhoods because they think that crime, drugs, blight, bad schools, and higher taxes will inevitably follow. With this in mind, one now asks three questions with the first two being psychological and the last being a result of the answers to the first two: 1) Does one’s neighborhood shape who they are? 2) Would one be a different person if they grew up somewhere else? 3) Should suburbs be mandated to rewrite their zoning laws and allow a “fair share” of affordable housing? This work will attempt to answer these questions.