Gentrifier by John Joe Schlichtman

Gentrifier Reviews

• 
  Corvus

  3.5 Stars.
  
  Gentrifier is an interesting take on the topic of gentrification. The authors are three upper-middle class academics of differing races and childhood backgrounds who all identify as "gentrifiers." This book is an academic text, but I did find it to be written in more accessible ways than many academic writings. The authors sought to tackle the nuances of the topic of gentrification in hopes of starting a conversation and finding ways to deal with a phenomenon that seems to be an inevitable consequence of a class stratified world.
  
  The authors make it clear that, while they do believe that gentrification is a complicated issue, they do not seek to dismiss it or excuse its negative effects as a result. I believe they did a decent job of showing the complexities of middle class peoples intentions and decisions as gentrifiers, the different type of systems and choices that govern gentrification, the different belief systems used to describe gentrification, and the different types of people who can be gentrifiers. They also offer several tools and systems to understand gentrification such as a multi-tool of micro-level manifestations of gentrification, a wheel of gentrifier types, a comprehensive breakdown of the "de-s" and "re-s" that form the foundation of gentrification, and others.
  
  What I appreciate most in this book is how much it sort of calls out many people, who talk about and fight gentrification, as gentrifiers. Because gentrification is a dirty word, many leftists who are indeed big parts of the gentrification process will refuse to see themselves as such. This book calls on them to identify themselves properly. It describes several levels of gentrification- including early and late gentrifiers. It shows that, due to larger systems of capitalism, classism, and white supremacy, even the most well intentioned of gentrifiers- who almost always think they are not gentrifiers- can be part of creating the same issues that careless developers create. They discuss how many leftist critiques of oppressive systems and gentrification are often at odds with each other such as calling out environmental racism in one breath, then claiming that reducing pollution in a poor community is bad because it will gentrify the community.
  
  They bring up something else I had not heard about before which was that Black and other people of color can be gentrifiers intraracially if they are upper-middle class. Many discussions of gentrification I have heard reduce it to white people moving into neighborhoods of color, but this book takes it a step further to discuss how middle class people of multiple races can still serve as gentrifiers. I am a person who constantly wonders where I fit into these discussions because I am under the poverty line, disabled and likely permanently unable to work, trans and queer, but am also white, in my 30s, college educated, counter-culturey looking, and like many things that are considered gentrifying businesses such as Trader Joe's. If I lose my housing due to gentrification in my neighborhood, I am not exactly sure where I could go that I could afford and not also do damage as a gentrifier. This book offers some tools to look at myself and these things that I did not have before reading it due to the more reductive arguments that occur about gentrification.
  
  My biggest criticism of the book is that the voices of the people most adversely affected by gentrification were underrepresented. Most of the book seems to center upper-middle class gentrifiers and their struggles to find neighborhoods and housing that work for them. This partially makes sense as the authors are analyzing their own experiences in order to lead by example. Most of the quotes criticizing gentrifiers come from academics or from Spike Lee- who could now be seen as a gentrifier by some of the authors' standards. There were a couple sentence-long quotes here and there from poor people who were displaced or harmed by gentrification, but overall I wanted to hear more from them and understand how they fit into all of this at a more personal level. Otherwise- and I am sure this was not the intention of the authors- it could come off as the gentrifiers being centered in the discussion of gentrification. Given that the end of the book sells us on a transformative approach that specifically involves the people most likely to be harmed and displaced by gentrification, making sure any improvements in their community are to their benefit, it would have made more sense to me that they would have been featured more in this book. I think that because of this flaw, this book can appear to be defending the harm done by gentrification when I believe that is the opposite of what the authors intended to do.
  
  Overall this book sheds a lot of light on complicated topics I have wanted a greater understanding of. I think it offers some great tools, breakdowns of terminology, and discussions of arguments surrounding gentrification. I think it can serve as a good conversation piece regarding the topic.
• 
  Jonathan Hiskes

  Three authors argue that we use the word "gentrification" to cover a vast array of causes, effects, accusations, and injustices, stretching its meaning to beyond the point where it's useful. They tell their own housing stories, examining their personal role as gentrifiers within larger structural trends. No big unifying theory, no grand solutions, but a nuanced look at a set of (very!) complicated issues.
• 
  Hannah Notess

  This book was so helpful because it really dives into the complexities around the topic of gentrification, including such questions as, "Why are so many gentrifiers against gentrification?" and "Is it possible to be an ethical gentrifier?" and "Why does everyone hate gentrification so much?" The authors also acknowledge their own personal stake in the issue by telling their own stories of being gentrifiers of various kinds.
  
  They point out two of the biggest problems with gentrification, that decisions (both pro and con) are often made without consulting the communities affected, and that the solutions proposed do not go far enough to address the root cause of gentrification, which is the dis-investment (redlining and housing segregation engineered by the FHA) that preceded the re-investment (gentrification) in those locations. Of all the topics my U.S. History class skipped over that I wish I'd known about earlier, redlining and housing segregation are somewhere at the top of the list. Without that history there would be no gentrification as we know it today.
• 
  Michelle

  I found this to be an interesting and thought-provoking read. The issue of gentrification is so complex, and like so many of today's issues, race and socio-economics make it difficult to have civil discussions and that just might lead to real solutions. The authors used themselves and others to demonstrate that the gentrifier is not one monolithic archetype and that there are many reasons that prompt individual decisions. I liked the construct that acknowledges the macro, meso and micro level factors involved in gentrification as a process and their implications on a neighnorhood's end result. No need to read if you are looking for a silver bullet answer or if you are wedded to either the idea that gentrification is solely good or always bad. Yep, once again, it's complicated. As with other complex issues I care about, I continue to learn the importance of hold conflicting ideas in my head at the same time... and be ok with acknowledging and wrestling with my own conflicting feelings... if I am going to be part of the solution, I have to own my beliefs, bias and prejudices. Always nice when there are references to places I love and have a connection with... Silver Spring, MD and Morehouse (Spike Lee is quoted often and one of the authors is Marc Lamont Hill). Thought-provoking.
• 
  Drick

  This book is written by three urbanists who also recognize that they have been and are gentrifiers. Using their knowledge in urban theory as well as their experience moving into urban neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Philadelphia and San Diego, they highlight the complex set of forces that lead to what is called gentrification. Public policy, market forces, and individual decisions by families make up the process which they refuse to call either all good or bad. Their solution to the kind of gentrification that often runs roughshod over a community with no regard for current residents is community empowerment which demands a place at the table when decisions are made or allowed that impact the neighborhood. This is a rich book personalizes a process that seems like a behemoth with no regard for human need and aspiration.
• 
  Megan

  Interesting topic, but terribly dry book - felt like reading a college textbook. In the end, I don't feel that I learned all that much about gentrification, perhaps some increased knowledge on the history and social study of it, but no real take-away strategies.
• 
  Dave

  As someone who's thought a lot about gentrification but isn't a social scientist, I can't think of a better introduction to the difficult tensions inherent to any discussion of gentrification. Grateful for the tools and frameworks provided by this trio of vulnerable scholars.
• 
  Brittany W

  This book offers a fresh perspective (types of gentrifiers and their motives) not often found in gentrification literature. I would recommend this book to any urbanite and urban scholar alike.
• 
  Lori Sara

  I thought the premise was interesting but it could have been an essay. Still some great passages though.
• 
  Mark

  TLDR: A thoughtful, current exploration of the challenges and contradictions of the current concept of ‘gentrification’, from the perspective of three self-conscious gentrifiers.
  
  As a progressive living in an urban, gentrifying neighborhood, the topic of gentrification is an ever-present topic of conversation and source of much hand-wringing, guilt, and confusion. My friends and I were unexcited at the thought of displacing previous residents, but weren’t convinced that staying in wealthier, more exclusive suburbs was necessarily the ‘right’ choice either.
  
  I was looking for guidance and clarity on the subject, and I cannot say that I received either from “Gentrifier,” perhaps because there is no obvious, clear-cut correct place for a middle-class person wanting to live in the city. But the book had me nodding along with the various arguments that it neatly summarizes and then critiques, laughing at some of the stereotypical gentrifiers they categorize, and thankful that as self-conscious and guilt-ridden as I might feel, the authors’ neurotic self-awareness is far more extreme. Their goal was to complicate, not solve, the issues contained within the highly loaded term ‘gentrifier’, and I think they succeeded.
  
  ‘Gentrifier’ is written by three ‘center left’ academics, reacting to what I gather is the more radical leftist orthodoxy of the urban studies field, which could be summarized as: “Gentrification is really bad, for lots of reasons.” In particular, the authors seem particularly annoyed that most gentrification critics are themselves gentrifiers, and yet few seem to publicly reckon with this fact. As a response, the authors lay bare their personal experience as gentrifiers in several American cities, including New York, Providence, Chicago, and San Diego. The book thus mixes personal memoir and reflections, interspersed with more academic theorizing related to key topics within gentrification.
  
  Definitions: The authors tee up the discussion using relatively clean, agreeable definitions. They define “gentrification” as the in-migration of relatively affluent households to poorer and lower value areas of the city. A “gentrifier” is thus members of those affluent households.
  
  Book summary: The book contains five main sections: the first provides an introduction to their objectives, process, and main frameworks; the second tells their personal gentrifier stories (involving plenty of guilt, hand-wringing and marital arguments); the third talks about the causes, history and different processes described by gentrification; the fourth provides a somewhat humorous taxonomy of different types of gentrifiers; and the fifth offers some policy recommendations. I’ll summarize each section below and then offer my general take.
  
  To begin with, the authors propose a ‘multi-tool’ analytical framework containing seven main facets of a gentrifier’s decision: monetary (i.e. affordability), practical (e.g. central location, more space), aesthetic (neighborhood vibe, home’s architectural design), amenity (neighborhood coffee shops, restaurants, etc.), community (want to live in racially and income diverse area), authenticity (sense of neighborhood being more ‘authentic’ than white suburbs), and flexibility (willingness to put up with more crime, lack of infrastructure). I found the framework to be somewhat useful in breaking down my own decision-making process, even if some of the categories felt far less essential.
  
  The book then becomes less academic and more personal, as the three authors each describe their own experience as gentrifiers in different cities over the course of their lives. I found their different backgrounds interesting; to summarize, one of the authors is African-American and grew up in a poor neighborhood of Philadelphia, another is a white man (I believe from the suburbs) married to a black woman and has children, and the third is a white man married to a Greek woman. Hearing about their own angst and internal arguments was therapeutic and helped me feel better about my own struggles wrestling with different points and counterpoints regarding progressivism and choices on where to live.
  
  The next chapter returns to a more academic tone as they provide an overview of the various causes and components of gentrification. They do so across three scalar levels of analysis: macro-level (global, regional, national), ‘meso’-level (city and metro region), and micro-level (neighborhood and street). They then split this by roughly chronological processes: (i) the “de-”s, e.g. devaluation, deindustrialization, defunding; (ii) the “re-”s, e.g. revitalization, restoration, reinvention; and finally (iii) the displacement of poorer households, politically, economically, and socially. I found this section helpful for contextualizing the various factors causing and being influenced by gentrification in a more systematic fashion, from global capital flows and de-industrialization to redlining, white flight and return to the city.
  
  In section four, the authors characterize different types of gentrifiers, which they group as: “Conqueror”, “Colonizer/connector”, “Consumer”, “Competitor”, “Capitalist”, and “Curator.” They use the multi-tool framework to compare and contrast these types: for example, the curator may rate more highly on flexibility than the conqueror, and so tend to be earlier stage in the lifecycle of a neighborhood’s gentrification. I liked how this section pointed out that while some gentrifiers may work harder to help poorer neighbors and be more self-aware/conscious than other gentrifiers, they are still gentrifiers nevertheless, even if they do more to help than others. It skewers some of the distinctions we try to generate as aspiring ‘pro-poor’ gentrifiers, while generally suggesting that gentrifiers aren’t innately evil, even if they maintain some agency over their impact on others.
  
  The book ends by offering some basic recommendations for how to address the problems included in the gentrification debate, using a distinction between three response types: neoliberal, ameliorative, and transformative (their preferred type). After all of the lead-up, the few policy solutions they actually recommend are pretty light and common sense, include requiring that all new developments include some affordable housing. I craved more examples of successful policies here, but admittedly, this was never the authors’ goal. They acknowledged the regional nuances and need for localized policies, and that this book was more an invitation to reframe the problem, rather than a comprehensive proposal to solve it.
  
  My take: Overall, I found “Gentrifier” deepened my understanding of and relationship with gentrification, and to recognize the flaws and limitations of common arguments in the debate. The book is neither explicitly for or against gentrification; rather it points out problems with the framing of today’s discussion and calls for greater self-awareness, analytical depth and philosophical cohesion. I agree with the authors that this nuance is necessary to drive more productive conversations than, for example: “gentrification is bad and I feel guilty.” Remaining segregated isn’t necessarily better, nor should we ‘freeze’ neighborhood demographics. Circumstances vary widely. There are ways for individuals, cities and nations to mitigate the displacement of marginalized communities. Gentrifiers and older residents may have much in common, such as a desire to live in inclusive, diverse, prosperous and safe neighborhoods.
• 
  Julia

  "What makes gentrification bad is not that people want an active street life, strong social capital, a diverse community, and financial security for their family. ...what makes middle-class-driven or middle-class-centered reinvestment bad is when it occurs within the structure of a zero-sum game, on in which residents are isolated enough from each other to implicitly consent to such a system--a structure in which both community and democracy deteriorate."
  
  This is a very nuanced and, at times, personal and confessional look at gentrification. Written by three guys who know they are seen as gentrifiers, at times the book comes across as a whiny rationalization of their own actions but mostly it does a good job of teasing out complexities, acknowledging that local context and history matter, and bringing in many voices from the literature and lived experience to convince the reader that what they think they know about gentrification is wrong.
  
  And that's the key. We're all wrong. Nobody "knows" gentrification, because every person living in a neighborhood or coming into one knows only their own point of view, and scholars only look at numbers and data, even to define gentrification in the first place. White people buying a house in an older, disinvested neighborhood of low-income black people is not gentrification, even when they open expensive cafes and boutiques that the resident population can't afford. Or, it could still be gentrification even if they don't build or patronize those places and they argue passionately for keeping neighborhoods just as they are. It is the system that defines gentrification--seeing geographic places as "wasted" if low-income people live in them, devaluing the social capital that juggernauts don't recognize as such, using the apparatus of government and markets to "curate" experiences for outsiders. The authors ultimately make an argument for dumping the universally accepted definition--crafted by generations of supremacist and patriarchal thinkers--of what constitutes a "highest and best use," (i.e., capitalism) and instead focus on sustainability, relationships, and the communal good as the best way to defend against market forces.
  
  The best part of the book is the chapter "Columbus," because it exposes so accurately the many contradictions inherent in thinking about gentrification. It's so contradictory that the reader is likely to come away from this chapter feeling so very confused about what to do--the authors frame it as "can't win for losing"--that they are even more likely to continue to perpetuate racist and classist actions because at least it's what they know. And that's very sad.
• 
  Paul Jerimy

  This was a tough book to get through due to the "prose". The style of writing was like a high school freshman trying to fake it as an academic. It was really tough to follow the topic of a sentence, let alone a paragraph or chapter. By reading very slowly and often rereading large passages, I eventually could figure out what the author was trying to say. Sadly, what he was trying to say is just a collection of anecdotes from gentrification-conscious upper-middle classed families who were trying to buy a house. The moral of the book was that even the most well intentioned people are still gentrifiers.
  
  I was really hoping to find an academic book that helps quantify what gentrification is and how we can alleviate the harm it causes. But what I found was just another book on how gentrification is bad because 'when I was a kid neighborhoods had character! Neighborhoods now a days are all cookie cutter! Trader Joe's sucks!' I know many people resonate with that feeling, but its a subjective viewpoint. In an academic focused book I was really hoping for a quantitative analysis.
  
  On the plus side, the author quite effectively points out that anyone trying to buy a home is going to contribute to gentrification in someway. Even if you're the same ethnicity of the majority ethnic group in a neighborhood, your influx of money is going to support gentrification through increasing property values and increased demand for gentrifying services. Even if you hold a PhD in social studies with a focus in gentrification, you're still going to want to do what's best for your family which typically means contributing to gentrification.
  
  I was really hoping the author would move on to the causes of this behavior, but instead he just went into anecdote after anecdote reinforcing why that behavior happens. There was not much to gain after reading the first chapter.
• 
  Rafael Suleiman

  A very good book dealing with the process of gentrification in American cities.
• 
  Jeremy

  Added much needed complexity to the conversation surrounding gentrification. The typologies they offer will surely prove useful
• 
  Mills College Library

  307.3416 S344 2017