A case study of North Crown Heights | Prospect Heightshannah-hesse.com/Urban...

Excerpt from my Master´s Thesis summer 2009

This excerpt includes the abstract, introduction and discussion of the master´s thesis and parts of the

case study on the spatial distribution of gentrification in North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights.

GENTRIFICATION - Chance & Risk

for a New York City neighborhood

A case study of North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights

CONTENTS

1. Abstract | 2

2. Introduction |3

3. Case Study North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights | 5

3.1 Spatial Distribution of Gentrification | METHODOLOGY | 6

3.2 Spatial Distribution of Gentrification in North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights | 9

3.2.1 Demographic Characteristics | 10

3.2.2 Economic Characteristics | 10

3.2.3 Moving Patterns | 11

3.2.4 Physical Characteristics | 12

3.2.5 Spatial Gentrification Index for North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights | 13

4. Discussion | 14

2Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”

Abstract1.

This master´s thesis is about the emergence of gentrification as a world-wide urban phenomenon on the

basis of a specific case study in New York City. The sub-borough North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights was

chosen because it emerged as the most gentrified neighborhood in Brooklyn from a recent gentrification

model developed by Constantine Kontokosta and the Citizen Housing and Planning Council New York.

The term gentrification is explored in a literature review capturing definitions of gentrification and basic

theories of neighborhood transformation attributed to gentrification. Since the relationship of displacement

and gentrification generates the most controversy in the scholarly debate I pay special attention to the risk of

displacement related to gentrification. Next, I conducted a case study and applied a quantitative approach to

measure objectively gentrification on a relatively small level inside of a gentrified neighborhood. The results

indicate a spillover effect (Smith et. al) from the adjacent neighborhood Park Slope into Prospect heights.

My data also suggest that North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights is still in an early stage of gentrification.

Overall the analysis presents trends that agree with statements from the current literature. In a second

case study I tested if gentrification correlates with an increasing risk of displacement. I explored different

sources of data with the aim to identify variables that allow to quantitatively measure displacement. My

preliminary results suggest an increased risk of displacement in this particularly gentrified sub-borough for

market regulated but not for rent controlled housing units.

WithinthisexcerptIfocusonthespatialdistributionofgentrificationwithinmycasestudyareaafter

givingabriefoverviewaboutmycompletethesisworkintheintroduction.


Introduction2.

The phenomenon of gentrification which started as a neighborhood-based process and grew up to a

nowadays global phenomenon has been widely and controversially discussed in the field of urban geography,

planning and social sciences and has been defined in various ways. Worldwide the regeneration of inner city

areas and the so called ´urban renaissance` bring people back into formerly neglected neighborhoods that

suffered from disinvestment and vacancy. Reinvestment in these deteriorated areas and the subsequent

residential turnaround is commonly labeled as gentrification which negatively connotes the process (Vigdor

2002).

From the view of local residents and policy makers alike reinvestment can be seen as chanceANDrisk

for these abandoned areas at the same time. On the one hand, the process of gentrification revaluates

the prosperity of a deteriorating neighborhood through improving its built environment, economic and

infrastructural conditions. On the other hand, gentrification is said to generate hardship conditions and

a decline in living standards of poor households which are commonly explained through tremendously

rising rents and property values that are not affordable for many indigenous residents and local businesses.

Therefore, the process is often associated with displacement of people with lower socio-economic status

through better situated classes (Smith 1993). Displacement itself is a wide term which does not exclusively

result from gentrification and has to be defined separately.

Existing research on displacement in gentrifying areas evokes skepticism asking if displacement is really

caused by gentrification or if it happens elsewhere to the same extent (Freeman & Braconi 2004). I am

interested in exploring causes and effects of gentrification which influence local residents but also city and

state officials and policy makers which are responsible for maintaining the city`s structures.

Intention »

With my Master’s thesis I want to examine both positive and negative effects of gentrification

distinguishing between demographic impacts on residents, physical impacts on the built environment

and economic effects for households in the neighborhood. I give special emphasis on the correlation of

gentrification and displacement aiming to optimistically relativize the predominately negative view of the

figure 1.

scheme of the

gentrification

process as

commonly

described

OR

dilapidated | vacantoccupied | low

rent

refurbishment

upgrading

re-occupyingdisplacem

ent

affluent new

in-movers


process. Referring to existing empirical displacement studies (Vigdor 2002; Freeman & Braconi 2002) I

assume that gentrification can offer the opportunity to increase socioeconomic, racial and ethnic integration

if it happens without widespread displacement.

Part I of my thesis consists of a descriptive literature review that summarizes a variety of definitions,

critics and explanations of gentrification. The literature review has the purpose to introduce the reader in

the gentrification discourse and serves as the basis for the following case study.

In part Part II I explore gentrification on the basis of a specific case study neighborhood in New York City

as a global city constantly undergoing change. Based on the result of a gentrification index developed by the

Kontokosta, C.E. and the Citizen Housing and Planning Council, New York (CHPC) in 2009, I focus on the New

York sub-borough North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights which appeared as one of the most gentrified

areas in Brooklyn.

With the case study I want to examine the emergence of gentrification focusing on the ‘where’ and

`how` of the process. Guiding questions will be:

What indicates gentrification?•

Where does gentrification occur based on these indicators?•

Does gentrification correlate with displacement?•

How do indigenous residents experience gentrification?•

As an architect and urban planner I am very much interested in gentrification as a visible urban process.

Therefore, I scrutinize the spatial distribution of the process in North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights

asking where gentrification happened most and which criteria indicated the process.

In order to analyze the relationship of gentrification and displacement, I conducted a hardship study

for the case study area. I explored hardship rather than displacement since many displacement indicators

generate hardship and not necessarily displacement as long as they are considered alone. Combining

different indicators I generated a hardship score approaching the extent of displacement in North Crown

Heights | Prospect Heights.

Counterchecking the results of the data-based analysis I conducted a few qualitative interviews to

capture the local residents’ perception of gentrification. My main question was if their experience agreed

with the statistical evidences. Motivated by the idea that gentrification might not be overall negative to

the prosperity of the city I hoped to achieve an outcome that enables us to deal with the term and process

in a more neutral way. Ideally, this would strengthen the chances and weaken the risks of the process and

encourage people to deal with gentrification in a forward direction.

On the following pages I will introduce the analysis of the spatial distribution of gentrification in my case

study area North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights.


Case Study North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights3.

North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights is a neighborhood in central Brooklyn which is currently

undergoing gentrification. According to a yet unpublished Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC (Citizen Housing and

Planning Council1) 2009 gentrification model, North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights is the most gentrified

neighborhood in Brooklyn.

I chose the neighborhood as an example for gentrification in New York City because it covers the main

characteristics of gentrification in the city: attractive architecture, proximity to public transport and to

Manhattan and a location adjacent to the already gentrified neighborhood Park Slope.

The goal of this case study is to analyze gentrification and displacement in North Crown Heights |

Prospect Heights with the following guiding questions:

Which indicators of gentrification can be found in the neighborhood? •

Where in the neighborhood did these indicators emerge? •

How did gentrification affect local residents? •

Did gentrification in North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights correlate with displacement?•

This excerpt covers only the spatial distribution of gentrification in North Crown Heights | Prospect

Heights

Purpose »

The purpose of the case study is to explore a particular manifestation of the larger gentrification

phenomenon. Given the complexity of gentrification as reflected in the review I decided to examine the

1 The Citizen Housing and Planning Council (CHPC) is a non-profit urban policy research organization

dedicated to improving housing and neighborhood conditions through the co-operative efforts of the

public and private sectors. http://www.chpcny.org/

figure 2.

North Crown

Heights | Prospect

Heights

located in the

heart of Brooklyn,

adjacent to the

already gentrified

neighborhood Park

Slope

Park Slope

Prospect Heights North

Crown Heights

Prospect Park


process in a smaller scale referring to Yin who stated that:

“[…] the case study contributes uniquely to our knowledge of individual, organizational, social, and

political phenomena. [...] The distinctive need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand complex

social phenomena. In brief, the case study allows an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful

characteristics of real-life events.” (Yin 2002)

The case study is an extension of the Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC 2009 gentrification model and delves

into more details of gentrification and displacement. This serves for a better understanding of the spatial

characteristics and forms of gentrification on a specific location. Policy makers and local community leaders

potentially benefit from the information which can be a basis for future decisions concerning the case study

area.

Due to the relatively big size of the sub-borough area and the different characters of small neighborhoods

within the sub-borough I am particularly interested in analyzing the spatial distribution of gentrification in the

sub-borough itself. Did gentrification happen everywhere to the same extent? Or were there concentrations

of gentrified areas? Therefore, I zoom into the case study area analyzing the spatial extent of gentrification

on a smaller scale (on the census tract level). This is of interest given the different stages of development

in Prospect Heights and North Crown Heights as two distinct neighborhoods. In order to understand the

spatial extent of gentrification the results of the data based analysis will be supported by visualizing maps.

SpatialDistributionofGentrification|METHODOLOGY3.1

I explored spatial patterns of gentrification in the sub-borough zooming in to the census tract level using

the decennial censuses for 1990 and 2000.

Database and Geographic Units »

North Crown Heights | Prospect heights consists of 35 census tracts which house between 660 and

5,600 inhabitants (see figure 3).

Census tracts are small, relatively permanent geographic subdivisions of a county which generally

contain between 2,500 and 8,000 residents (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2008a). The decennial census is

a survey that gathers information on demographic, economic, housing and social characteristics with the

primary purpose to provide population counts. There are 100% data and sample data which cover about

figure 3.

Census tracts and

population density

in sub-borough

208


15% of all census tract`s households. While 100% data give exact numbers even for very small areas,

sample data provide estimates for small areas such as census tracts that are less exact. In the case study

analysis I combined both data yet using percentages, medians and average values in order to make the data

comparable.

Choice of Indicators »

For the spatial analysis of gentrification in North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights I selected

representative variables that were the most significant indicators in the Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC 2009

gentrification model and indicators which are identified by research as characteristics for the distribution

of gentrification. The scholarly debate identified several factors as essentially important preconditions and

indicators for gentrification. Overall scientists focused on criteria of a changing demographics and lifestyle

preferences, professional clustering in cities and a history of disinvestment that created ripe opportunities

for reinvestment in certain neighborhoods (Beauregard 1986; C. Hamnett 1991; Smith 1979).

Indicators I chose are as follows:

Indicator for Gentrification Variable

Increasing ownership rate Percentage of owner occupied housing units

Decreasing household size Percentage of 1 and 2 person households

Educational Attainment Percentage of Households with college degree or higher

DEMOGRAPHIC Indicators


Increasing household income Median HH income adjusted for constant $1989

Increasing rent burden Median gross rent as percentage of HH income

Increasing monthly rent Median gross rent adjusted for constant $1990

ECONOMIC Indicators


Increasing number of recent movers Percentage of recent movers (in the last 5 years)

MOVING PATTERN Indicator


Decreasing vacancy rate Vacancy rate

Increasing construction activity Certificates of Occupancy (CofOs) in the last 5 years

PHYSICALIndicators table 1.

Overview of

Indicators for

the spatial

gentrification

analysis


This excerpt describes 3 out of the 9 indicators presented above.

Due to inflation, monetary values (rent and income) were adjusted to constant $1989 for income and

constant $1990 for rent using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). According to the CPI a given amount in the

year 2000 was equivalent to .746 times its value in 1989 and .758 times its value in 1990.

Methodology-SpatialGentrificationIndex »

I calculated gentrification index values for each variable in every census tract in North Crown Heights |

Prospect Heights to make different variables comparable to each other and to generate an order of variables

based on significance variables. The index values also allowed to rank the census tracts based on the extent

of gentrification.

In order to observe the extent of gentrification in 1990 and in 2000 as well as the change between these

two years I calculated three different gentrification index values (GIVCensus Tract):.Separate index values have

been generated as ‘snapshots’ for the 1990 and for the 2000 survey in order to map the “most gentrified”

census tracts for both survey years. In analogy to the Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC 2009 gentrification model

the ‘snapshot’ index values were calculated as standardized z-scores through dividing the difference between

the census tract (CT) and the sub-borough (SB) in percent by the standard deviation of all census tracts (see

figure 4).

The ‘snapshot’ index values on the census tract level spatially describe the condition in a specific year

– survey year 1990 and 2000.

For the index value which describes the change between 1990 and 2000 I generated standard scores

(z) using the difference of percentage change of each census tract and the sub-borough as a whole divided

by the standard deviation of the difference of percentage change of the variable for the sub-borough as a

whole. The index value for each census tract is the sum of standard score values for each variable.

GIVCensus Tract 1990 = Σ z-scoreCensus Tracts 1990for each CT

z-scoreCensus Tract 1990 =

CT1990 - SB1990

standard deviationall Census Tracts 1990

for each variable

spatialindexfor‘snapshots’1990andrespectively2000

z-scoreCensus Tract 1990-2000 =

(CT2000-CT1990) - (SB2000-SB1990)

standard deviation (CTs2000-CTs1990)

GIVCensus Tract 1990-2000 = Σ z-scoreCensus Tract 1990-2000 for each CT

for each variable

spatialindexforchange1990-2000

figure 4.

Calculation of

GIV`s for 1990 and

2000 `snapshots`

on the census tract

level for the spatial

analysis

figure 5.

Calculation of

GIV`s for the

change between

1990 and 2000` on

the census tract

level for the spatial

analysis


Visualization »

In order to make the spatial distribution of gentrification visible within the sub-borough geographic

maps were created using GIS Software (Geographic Information System). GIS enables users to join external

databases with geographic vector graphics and to use color ranges to display different data values on a

spatial map.

For this study I joined exact values from the census tract analysis for each tract in the sub-borough and

for both survey years 1990 and 2000. The data were classified in fixed equal intervals in order to make the

1990 data and the 2000 data comparable to each other on the map.

SpatialDistributionofGentrificationinNorthCrownHeights|ProspectHeights3.2

The Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC 2009

gentrification model provides information

about the extent of gentrification on the sub-

borough level. Sub-boroughs are relatively

large units that combine multiple census

tracts. Given the dissimilarity of many unique

neighborhoods in New York City it is of interest

to obtain information at a smaller scale in order

to distinguish the extent of gentrification for

particular neighborhoods. Since sub-borough

208 combines two neighborhoods with

different historic backgrounds and different

characteristics (North Crown Heights AND

Prospect Heights) it is especially important to distinguish parts of the sub-borough from each other in this

case. Prospect Heights is the part more adjacent to Prospect Park and Park Slope – an already gentrified

neighborhood.

According to Smith (1993) the proximity to gentrified areas might accelerate the gentrification of a

neighborhood through a “spillover effect”. Therefore, I expected that Prospect Heights began earlier to

gentrify and that there might be more evidence of gentrification in this neighborhood than in North Crown

Heights. I tested this spatial correlation with a quantitative study approach on a smaller geographic scale.

I zoomed into the sub-borough using data on the census tract level from the decennial 1990 and 2000

Census. Due to limited data availability I first focused on selected representative gentrification indicators.

Secondly, I specified an index value that combines the change of all indicators in order to quantify the extent

of gentrification on the census tract level.

The geographical distribution of a particular variable and of the final index values are visualized on

spatial maps of the sub-borough.

Park Slope

Prospect Heights

North Crown Heights

Prospect Park

figure 6.

Location of North

Crown Heights,

Prospect Heights

and Park Slope

adjacent to

Prospect Park


DemographicCharacteristics3.2.1

As was pointed out in the literature review scholars state that gentrification essentially influences the

characteristics of household composition and socio-economic status of residents (Smith 1996; Vigdor 2002;

Freeman 2006). Inspired by the gentrification indicators identified by Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC I focused

on the spatial patterns of ownership rate, percentages of one –and two person households and percentages

of well educated people in the 35 census tracts of North Crown Heights |Prospect Heights.

Ownership Rate »

The ownership rate has not been included in the Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC 2009 gentrification model as

indicator for gentrification. However, scholars such as Newman and Wyly (2006, p.27) include an increasing

ownership rate as indicator for gentrification. They state that especially when accompanied by a conversion

of rental units an increasing ownership rate tends to tighten the housing market because fewer units for

rent become available on the market.

The decennial census measures the percentage of owner occupied housing units from all occupied

units. The data for North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights on the sub-borough level point out that the

percentage of owner occupied housing changed by less than 1.00% from 15.25% to 16.02 % in 2000. The

spatial distribution of owner occupied housing shows that there were 25 census tracts (CTs) in the sub-

borough which’s ownership increased from 1990 to 2000 and 10 CTs that lost owner occupied housing in the

same period. Both in 1990 and 2000 the highest ownership rate in the sub-borough occurred in CT 297 with

29.75 % in 1990 and in 32.98% in 2000. CT 297 is neither located adjacent to Prospect Park nor to Park Slope

or Eastern Parkway. According to the spillover assumption the high ownership rate in CT 297 is surprising.

Overall the western census tracts in the sub-borough show the highest ownership rates (see figure 7) which

support the spillover thesis.

EconomicCharacteristics3.2.2

Regarding economic indicators for gentrification I did not focus on commercial changes but on financial

change of households or respectively residents. I examined the spatial difference of income, rent burdens

and monthly rent amounts in order to understand the extent of economic change and location specific

advantages or disadvantages attributed to gentrification on the census tract level.

figure 7.

Ownership rate


MonthlyGrossRent »

Rent burden, as described before, might occur due to rising rents without increases in household

income or just because of a decreasing household income. Percentage changes in the average rent amount

should accordingly be included as significant variable for gentrification. It is expected that the amount of

monthly rent increases under the influence of gentrification because of rising demand in the neighborhood.

Accordingly, the median monthly gross rent in North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights analyzed by

Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC increased tremendously by about 60% between 1991 and 2005.

For the spatial analysis of the distribution of monthly rent amounts I used data about the median

monthly gross rent of households adjusted for constant $1999.

The results confirm the predicted rent increase for most census tracts while some areas, primarily in

the eastern parts of the sub-borough, experienced a decrease. As expected the average monthly gross rent

amount was different depending on the location in the sub-borough. In 1990 CT 161 recorded the highest

rent amount. In 2000 CT 161 was still under the first three census tracts that showed high rents. CT 163

and CT 207 which both experienced the highest percentage change between 1990 and 2000 (CT 163 with

27.69% and CT 207 with 32.20%) have overtaken CT 161 in 2000. All of these three census tracts are located

in Prospect Heights. The distribution of rent amounts therefore also supports the spillover assumption.

Surprisingly, the eastern parts of the sub-borough did rather record decreasing rent amounts than an

expected increase

.

MovingPatterns3.2.3

Neighborhood transitions are often generated through the influx of new residents that change the

characteristic and presumably influence the socio-economic composition of the neighborhood. Changing

numbers of in-movers and differences in the socio-economic status of in-movers and recent residents are

therefore predicted as essential indicators for the demographic change related to gentrification.

In-movers »

The Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC 2009 gentrification study focused on demographic characteristics

without considering the number of recent movers which definitely indicates gentrification. Most of the

research describes gentrification in close relation to the influx of new-comers (Newman & Wyly 2006; Lees

et al. 2007; Freeman & Braconi 2002). An increasing number of recent movers is therefore expectedly an

essential gentrification indicator. For the spatial analysis I collected data about the number of recent movers

which were defined as residents who moved into the neighborhood in the last 5 years.

figure 8.

Average monthly

gross rent

constant $1990


The results document an increasing number of recent movers in the sub-borough as a whole: the

number of recent movers increased by 16.03% between 1990 and 2000. The highest percentage change

occurred in CT 225 with almost 188.00%. This value sticks out and might be considered with caution since

this specific CT had the lowest total population of all CTs and started with an extremely low number of in-

movers in the 1990ies (55). In spite of the high percentage change CT 225 is still amongst the census tracts

with the lowest number of recent movers in 2000 (158). The highest number of recent movers occurred in

CT 207 and CT 215 both in 1990 and 2000. This matches up with the spillover thesis because both census

tracts are located close to Park Slope on the border of Eastern Parkway and Prospect Park.

The analysis of recent movers documents again huge differences within the sub-borough. While most

of the western census tracts experienced a tremendous increase in recent movers, the eastern parts partly

recorded less recent movers in 2000 than in 1990.

Surprisingly two census tracts in the middle of the sub-borough (CT 313 and CT 315) exhibit a high

number of recent movers in 1990 as well as in 2000. Both census tracts are located on the southern edge of

Atlantic Avenue close to Nostrand Avenue and Rogers Avenue which are main traffic axes (see attached

map). The high number of in-movers in these census tracts might originate from the outstanding historic

architecture in both census tracts which became designated as historic district in 2007..

PhysicalCharacteristics3.2.4

I measured the influence of gentrification on the physical appearance of North Crown Heights |

Prospect Heights combining data on the vacancy rate and on construction activity. The construction activity

quantified with the issued certificates of occupancy (CofOs) was the most strongly contributing variable

in the Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC 2009 gentrification model both in terms of the percentage change in

the sub-borough as well as in comparison with the borough as a whole (index value). Since an increased

construction activity altering dilapidated buildings might reduce the number of vacant buildings the vacancy

rate can be an indicator for gentrification too.

Vacancy Rate »

It is expected that the vacancy rate decreases in gentrifying areas once former vacant buildings become

renovated and reused. The vacancy rate was calculated by dividing vacant units available for rent units by

the sum of vacant units available for rent and renter-occupied units.

The data show that the vacancy in the sub-borough as a whole decreased by 0.44% from 1990 to 2000

figure 9.

Nr. of recent in-

movers

(moved in the last

5 years)


which is less than expected. The percentage change in particular census tracts was very different in the same

period. Half of the census tracts showed a decreasing vacancy rate while there was an increasing vacancy in

the other half of the census tracts. The highest decrease between 1990 and 2000 occurred on census tract

215 (-5.38%), 221 (-6.46%) and 271.02 (7.09%). Census tract 215 as one of the western census tracts in the

sub-borough had a vacancy rate of 7.60% in 1990 which decreased to 2.20% in 2000. The highest increase

can be observed on census tract 343 (3.83%) and 347 (2.67%) which are both in eastern part of the sub-

borough. Overall vacancy rates decreased in the western parts of the sub-borough and increased in the

eastern part of the area.

Since vacancy rates presumably increase in the early stage of gentrification when buildings become

vacant due to refurbishments, it can be assumed that the western part of the sub-borough is in a further

stage of gentrification where refurbished buildings are already occupied. Increasing vacancy rates in the

eastern part of North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights presumably occur due to current refurbishments

that ‘prepare’ the area for gentrification.

SpatialGentrificationIndexforNorthCrownHeights|ProspectHeights3.2.5

The spatial index values for all census tracts included in sub-borough 208 confirm what most of the

selected variables described above suggest: the highest index values were generated for the western census

tracts in Prospect Heights along the border of Prospect Park and Eastern Parkway and adjacent to Park

Slope. Both in 1990 and 2000 CT 161, CT 163 and CT 207 recorded the highest index values of all census

tracts (see figure 11).

CT 161 protruded from the other census tracts in many of the selected variables: in 2000 the area

between Carlton Avenue and 6th Avenue recorded the highest number of one and two person households,

the highest number of well educated residents and the highest household income.

These three census tracts are characterized by attractive brownstone buildings which were recently

included in the designation of a historic district and are located most adjacent to Grand Army Plaza, the

Brooklyn Museum and the Brooklyn Public Library. This suggests that cultural institutions and historic

architecture (historic districts) serve as catalyst for gentrification besides the proximity of already gentrified

neighborhoods such as Park Slope.

I found that the lowest index values occured in the eastern parts of North Crown Heights | Prospect

Park (1990: CT 307, CT 309, CT 343; 2000: CT 381, CT 357, and CT 271.01). This is consistent with Smith`s

(1993) ‘spillover’ idea. The selected indicators do not suggest vast gentrification in these parts of the sub-

borough. Some of the eastern census tracts even recorded negative index values which indicates that most

of the variable had a smaller extent in the census tracts than in the sub-borough as a whole. Presumably this

figure 10.

Vacancy rate


originates from the high amount of public housing which is especially concentrated in CT 307, CT 343 and

CT 381. The influence of gentrification on public housing is poorly explored. Definitely the process affects

residents of public and subsidized housing in a different way than residents in market rate units. I scrutinize

the coherence of gentrification and controlled housing in the next chapter – which explores the correlation

of gentrification and displacement.

Discussion4.

Neighborhood change happens constantly in the city. The history of North Crown Heights | Prospect

Heights (not described in detail in this excerpt) illustrated repeated neighborhood turnovers since the 18th

century shaping the characteristic of the neighborhood today. Neighborhood change has not always been

associated with gentrification. However, the term ‘gentrification’ emerged in 1964 describing the change

of London´s inner city. Since then gentrification has been a controversial term splitting supporters and

opponents of the process.

In my opinion Freeman has introduced one of the most advanced frameworks to study gentrification,

recognizing both positive and negative aspects of the process. On the one hand he supports the process

because of its potential benefits. On the other hand he skeptically argues that there are many risks

neighborhoods undergoing gentrification have to face. Freeman is careful in the evaluation of gentrification

effects. He reasonably argues that the risk of displacement cannot be negated but it can be mitigated

through mentioning and supporting a number of benefits gentrification brings into the area. In my opinion

this ambivalence accurately reflects the controversy that gentrification generates. The process affects

neighborhoods in positive and negative ways at the same time. The challenge is hence to balance these

effects in a way that positive effects outweigh negative gentrification impacts.

The thesis explored positive and negative effects of gentrification asking where and how the process

emerged and whether gentrification is correlated with displacement.

My results indicated both positive and negative effects of gentrification. The process definitely helps

to maintain the built environment and to decentralize poverty and crime but also increases the risk of

displacement as long as there are no restrictions on the housing market.

This excerpt focuses on the results of the case study on the spatial distribution of gentrification:

figure 11.

Spatial

Gentrification

Index


WheredidGentrificationIndicatorsemerge? »

I found that gentrification effects are inhomogeneously distributed among the census tracts of sub-

borough 208. The western parts of Prospect Heights adjacent to Prospect Park and Park Slope emerged as

census tracts with the highest spatial index value in the sub-borough in comparison to the eastern parts of

North Crown Heights. This spatial pattern correlates with Smith (1993) assumption of gentrification in New

York as a spillover effect from adjacent neighborhoods. Presumably there has been an immense influence

of Park Slope catalyzing gentrification in Prospect Heights. Furthermore the spatial distribution analysis

suggested a correlation between historic district designations and gentrification since census tracts which

include historic districts had more indication of gentrification than others.

In contrast to the Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC 2009 gentrification model on the relatively large sub-

borough level the census tract analysis reflected the spatial particularity of unique neighborhoods and

shows the importance of exploring gentrification on a relatively small scale in order to develop effective

coping strategies.

In addition to the spillover theory another reason for less evidence for gentrification in the eastern

parts of the sub-borough might be the high amount of public housing in these areas which is less influenced

by gentrification than market rate housing. The results of the hardship analysis confirmed this assumption

illustrating that gentrification had extremely different influences on different tenure types. Public and

regulated housing were as expected less affected by gentrification hardships than market rent housing.

Housing subsidy can therefore be described as important regulatory factor in gentrifying areas assuring a

certain amount of affordable housing in a upward tightening housing market.

Outlook–PolicyImplications »

As Wyly and Hammel (1999) state a policy response is needed as gentrification is becoming a wide

spread trend that many cities will have to face in the future. Freeman (2006) states that it is insufficient to

mobilize and organize people to fight against displacement. To mitigate the disadvantages of gentrification,

we need to develop mechanisms that tab the wealth created through gentrification for the benefit of socio-

economically disadvantaged residents who may wish to move to the neighborhood in future. It is necessary

to develop strategies to ensure that those households and small stores that risk to become displaced on

the free market could be able to stay in the neighborhood. The main challenge for policy makers is thus to

assure affordability in a gentrified neighborhood. Policy already uses methodologies to approach this goal

such as: inclusionary zoning, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to encourage investment of less affluent people

and affordable homeownership programs.

Given the extent of gentrification and the benefits some effects bring to the neighborhood it seems to

be increasingly important to deal with the process instead of merely fighting it. As expressed by Freeman:

“If (…) gentrification is becoming a widespread trend that represents the future of many cities, we should be

thinking about how to manage the process to help to achieve a more equitable and just society.”(2006).


Conclusion »

My case study had several important results. First, I demonstrated the feasibility of a case study on

gentrification effects on the census tract level in New York City using publicly available data. Secondly, I

found that gentrification is inhomogeneously distributed inside of the case study area North Crown Heights

| Prospect Heights along the edge of the already gentrified neighborhood Park Slope and concentrated

around historic districts.

Third, the data analysis showed trends thad agree with gentrification theories in the literature: the

gentrification process presumably started as a spillover effect (Smith 1979) from Park Slope and due to rent

gaps (Smith1993) that prepared the area for reinvestment.

My results would constitute a good basis for subsequent systematic quantitative analysis and higher

resolution ‘zoom-ins’.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beauregard, R. (1986). The chaos and complexity of gentrification. In N. Smith & P. Williams, eds. Gentrification

of the City. Boston: Allen & Unwin, pp. 35-55.

City of New York (1973). Neighborhood Business Analysis, 3.Crown Heights Area Maintenance Program

(CHAMP), New York: City of New York.].

Florida, R. (2003). The Rise of the Creative Class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and

everyday life, Basic Books.

Freeman, L., 2005. Displacment or Succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods. Urban

Affairs Review, 40(4), 463-91.

Freeman, L. (2006). There Goes the Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up, Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.

Freeman, L. (2009). Neighborhood Diversity, Metropolitan Segregation, and Gentrification: What are the

links in the US?. unpubished manuscript. Available from author.

Freeman, L. & Braconi, F. (2002). Gentrification and Displacement. Urban Prospect, 8(1). Available at: http://

www.chpcny.org/pubs/UP_Gentrification_Displacement.pdf [Accessed May 21, 2009].

Freeman, L. & Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification and Displacement in New York City. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 70(1), 39-52.

Glass, R. (1964). Introduction: Aspects of Change Centre for Urban Studies, ed., London: MacKibbon and

Kee.

Hamnett, C. (1991). The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of gentrification. Transcripts of the

Institute of British Geographers, 16, 173-189.

Kontokosta, C.E. and CHPC 2009 “gentrification model”. Unpublished. Available from author

Lees, L., Slater, T. & Wyly, E. (2007). Gentrification 1st ed., Routledge.

Ley, D. (1996). The new middle class and the remaking of the central city, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marcuse, P. (1986). Abandonment, Gentrification and Displacement: The Linkages in New York City. In N.

Smith & P. Williams (eds.) Gentrification of the City. London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 153-77.

New York Department of City Planning, (2006).New York City Population Projections by Age/Sex &

Borough,2000–2030, New York City. Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/

projections_briefing_booklet.pdf [Accessed July 30, 2009].


Newman, K. & Wyly, E.K. (2006). The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to

Displacement in New York City. Urban Stud, 43(1), 23-57.

Smith, N. (1979). Towards a theory of gentrification: a back to the city movement by capital not people.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 45, 538-548.

Smith, N. (1993). Gentrification in New York City. In H. Häußermann & W. Siebel, eds. Strukturen einer

Metropole. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 182-204.

Smith, N. (1996). The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City, London: Routledge.

Smith, N. (2000). Gentrification. In R. Johnston et al. (eds.) The Dictionary of Human Geography 4th ed.

Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 294-296.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2008). Guide to Census Tract Resources, Available at: http://www.census.gov/

geo/www/tractez.html [Accessed June 19, 2009].

Vigdor, J. (2002). Does Gentrification Harm the Poor? Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 133-73.

Wyly, E. & Hammel, D. (1999). Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of

Gentrification. Housing Policy Debate, 10(4), 711-72.

Yin, R.K. (2002). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Third Edition, Applied Social Research Methods

Series, Vol 5 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Inc.

LISTOFFIGURES

figure 1. scheme of the gentrification process as commonly described | 3

figure 2. North Crown Heights | Prospect Heights | 5

figure 3. Census tracts and population density in sub-borough 208 | 6

figure 4. Calculation of GIV`s for 1990 and 2000 `snapshots` on the census tract level for the spatial analysis | 8

figure 5. Calculation of GIV`s for the change between 1990 and 2000` on the census tract level for the spatial analysis|8

figure 6. Location of North Crown Heights, Prospect Heights and Park Slope | 9

figure 7. Ownership rate | 10

figure 8. Average monthly gross rent | 11

figure 9. Nr. of recent in-movers | 12

figure 10. Vacancy rate | 13

figure 11. Spatial Gentrification Index | 14

A case study of North Crown Heights | Prospect Heightshannah-hesse.com/Urban...

Documents

Transcript of A case study of North Crown Heights | Prospect Heightshannah-hesse.com/Urban...