I think the term "gentrification" is inadequate and misleading in the conversation of low-income population displacement in urban areas, and stands in the way of effectively portraying the issue to unwitting outsiders who don't see the harm in urban areas becoming more affluent. I believe the word characterizes the state of the neighborhood, ITS wealth, and neglects to inform the state of the former occupants who were displaced from their homes, forced to find new jobs, separate their families, or even forcibly sell their assets at massively discounted prices due to government and corporate coercion. By framing the issue around the increase in property values and the average wealth of the occupants, it neglects to address the actual meat of the issue, which is the human cost of forcing people to move out of their homes against their will into areas with poorer access to transportation, essential services, and employment opportunities.
I say all this coming from a place where all I knew about gentrification living in the sticks growing up was that more neat shops and clubs were moving into the city that I would occasionally visit, and that all the railing against "gentrification" made no sense to me because I couldn't (or refused to) see the cost, and the word itself didn't seem to convey any of that essential context.
Much like "urban renewal," I would rather this word not be the focal point of discussion, even presented in a negative or sarcastic context. I think it shields people from engaging with the idea that increasing the nominal value of a particular neighborhood may often come at significant cost to the wellbeing of its current and/or former occupants, as wealthy land developers appropriate the value cultivated by locals and further systemic inequality.
What do you think? Is "gentrification" still a useful term or should it be mothballed in favor of a more evocative phrase like "urban displacement?"
I say all this coming from a place where all I knew about gentrification living in the sticks growing up was that more neat shops and clubs were moving into the city that I would occasionally visit, and that all the railing against "gentrification" made no sense to me because I couldn't (or refused to) see the cost, and the word itself didn't seem to convey any of that essential context.
Much like "urban renewal," I would rather this word not be the focal point of discussion, even presented in a negative or sarcastic context. I think it shields people from engaging with the idea that increasing the nominal value of a particular neighborhood may often come at significant cost to the wellbeing of its current and/or former occupants, as wealthy land developers appropriate the value cultivated by locals and further systemic inequality.
What do you think? Is "gentrification" still a useful term or should it be mothballed in favor of a more evocative phrase like "urban displacement?"
