Gentrification within Inner-City Suburbs
(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
Loading ...The gentrification of cities is effecting the social structure of inner-city suburbs within Melbourne. It can be a positive change as it can result in the upgrading of infrastructure as more capital is brought into the area (Shaw, 2003). Local Heritage is likely to be preserved and as investment is make within the particular area buildings are inproved and increases can be seen in the rate base. However there can also be negative issues resulting in the gentrification of an area such as different social and land use tensions. Low income earners can be displaced and there can be a loss of cultural diversity (Shaw, 2003). Gentrification is said to be a result of a number of different contributing factors.
Christine Kilmartin suggests that the factors that are contributing to the cause of gentrification are big profits for the suppliers of gentrified real estate and consumers who want to be living near to where all the action is happening. The media industry is said to then be contributing to the whole circle being repeated as there is a strong economic basis to the process (Shaw, 2003). While this may be one explanation to why gentrification is occurring, there are many more ideas emerging.
There is also the explanation of ‘the stage theory of gentrification’, which is used to indicate the process of gentrification through stages (Shaw, 2003). The first stage involves ‘marginal gentrifiers’, who generally mix into the particular area as renters and no real change becomes obviously apparent as the orignal community members are not neccesarily displaced. The second stage involves ‘early gentrifiers’, who can be in a position to rent or buy as first home buyers and usually begin to renovate small homes. The next stage that occurs is ‘gentrification proper’ which begins as middle-class home owners or developers realise that the rent gap is closing in that area. This means that the money being realised from the land and the amount of money that could be realised is greater, encouraging people to either invest or capitalise. The final stage of gentrification is where major redevelopments are introduced which are expensive to built and sold at extremely high prices, this is called the ‘advanced gentrification’ stage.The areas of Carlton and Fitzroy have been a prime example of gentrification within the inner-suburban areas of Melbourne, although it may not be at its final stage.
Carlton and Fitzroy were initially subdivided in the early 1850’s and have seen three major social phases. To begin with this area was socially diverse with a range of families, being home to both upper and middle-class people as well as the poor. South Carlton then started to become highly industrialised with manufacturing companies and large factories and by the 1890’s most of the rich had moved out of the Carlton and Fitzroy areas and over the Yarra. It was at this time that the era of ‘the slums’ approached and remained for decades, being home to many immigrants into Australia. The Housing Commission of Victoria then committed itself to demolition and redevelopment in the 1960’s (Yule, 2004, pp XI). This process has led to the most recent change in social profile as the wealthy have moved in, attracted to the close proximity to the city, leaving the low income housing as an island of poverty surrounded by affluent housing. Evidence demonstrating pre and post gentrification can be found throughout Carlton and Fitzroy along with the current social and land use tensions.
Post gentrification can now be seen as new apartment blocks have been built in these inner-suburban areas with high security measures usually incorporating car parking at street level with security bars, demonstrating a lack of trust and a missing sense of community. Bowls Club’s are being demolished as the membership numbers have slowly declined as the demographics of the inner-suburban areas of Melbourne change. This is worrying as for those older, less affluent residents who have lived in the area most of their lives may be left to feel isolated and lonely with little social interaction. The neighbourhood shopping areas have also changed considerably as they are now catering for a more affluent clientele. These shopping strips have changed from the small green grocers to the chain supermarket and the expensive retail shops. With these changes comes an increased price which can make it difficult and more expensive for the less affluent to afford weekly groceries.
Evidence of social tensions between the different groups living together can be seen in Carlton and Fitzroy for example, where it has been demonstrated that different territorial areas exist. The use of the land can also create tensions, for example the use of the land through the commission housing in Carlton is a social issue. The affluent city commuters want another main road in and out of the city for quicker travel to work, but at the same time this will destroy the playground and safe environment that the children in the commission housing enjoy (Kleinman, R, 2006). The student accommodation next door to the commission flats have been designed so that there is no absolutely integration between the people living next door. Similarly the modern apartments built in the area with high security are isolating themselves and creating their own gated space which does not reflect positively on the surrounding community as street surveillance declines. The increasing diversity in ethnicity within the area has also resulted in social tension as many people try to adjust to the different cultures. This is evident at the Church of All Nations where the elderly go to have their lunch and socialise. The elderly did not want to be in contact with the people of different cultures and races coming in from the commission flats next door, maybe because of fear or simply no understanding. This has consequently meant that a side door was introduced to the church for the use of giving out food vouchers.
The inner-city suburbs of Melbourne have had a changing social structure over time, resulting in the gentrification of the area. The gentrification of the area has produced different social and land use tensions as the poor have gradually been replaced by the more affluent. Gentrification can have both negative and positive impacts on different communities. Experiences from both overseas and locally show that gentrification of an area can result in the upgrading of infrastructure as more capital is brought into the area.
Questions that can arise from this issue are:
- How do we as planners deal with the less affluent people left behind to remain within a gentrified community?
- Is there any way to stop gentrification from occurring, and would you want to stop it?
- Is it fair to gradually push the pople for a lower socio-economic bracket further and further away from the inner-city?
- Do you agree with the stage theory of gentrification and what will happen next, after the final stage?
References
Brand, D. 2003. My Role in its Downfall, Melbourne. [online], (Accessed Online, April 2007).
Howe, R. (1982) Slums and Suburbs, chp. 4, Living in the Inner City, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 47-65.
Kilmartin, C. 2003. Port Phillip: Change and Gentrification, Urban and Regional Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Australia. [online], (Accessed Online, April 2007).
Kleinman, R, 2006, Carlton playground battle on for young and old, The Age, Australia. [online].
Rushby, D. 2006, Public Housing Land Grab, Housing for the Aged Action Group (HAAG), Melbourne. [online], (Accessed Online, April 2007).
Shaw, K. 2003. Local Limits to Gentrification: Implications for a New Urban Policy, City of Port Phillip, Melbourne. [online], (Accessed Online, April 2007).
The Age, 2004, Slums, Spags ans Survivors, The Age, Australia. [online], (Accessed Online, April 2007).
Yule, P, 2004, Carlton: A History, Melbourne University Press, Australia.
Posted in Social Planning |
I believe Katelind has raised many strong arguments around the inner city gentrification of Carlton and Fitzroy. I agree with Katelind’s point that as a result of the gentrification of these areas we are starting to see a variety of different land use and social tensions within the area. I for one frequented the areas of Fitzroy and Carlton quite regularly over the past decade and I myself have noticed the rapid gentrification of these areas. On one hand you are able to witness that a lower socio-economic mix of people still call these areas home, but on the other hand one witnesses the rapid rise of an evolving upper class entering and settling in the area for a variety of reasons. I believe the areas proximity to the city, transport, café cultural and housing diversity are the main reasons the areas of Carlton and Fitzroy are gentrifying. I believe one way to demonstrate how these areas have gentrified is through their main streets of Lygon and Brunswick. These streets where once shopping strips where the working class community would come to buy their groceries and supplies and were once the heart of the community. They use to be streets in which people in the community came to shop and interact. Nowadays these streets are home to a cafés, restaurant and bar culture, with a mix of boutique shopping.
But this leads me to Katelind’s question of, is there any way to stop gentrification from occurring?
My response to this is quite broad in that gentrification of these areas is somewhat organic, in that the reasons people choose to reside and develop the area is determined by each individuals own reason and that nothing can really be done to stop gentrification from occurring. This leads me to think as to whether the gentrification of these areas has had a negative effect. My response is somewhat mixed. On one hand I would say yes, as that the traditional heart and soul of these communities has moved or evolved to the point that the current gentrification we are witnessing of the area is merely another chapter to its somewhat short history. Either way you look at it, I believe it is very difficult to say that we should stop gentrification of these area occurring and in turn there is the obvious argument that there is in fact no need to stop the gentrification of Carlton and Fitzroy from occurring.
As university students I think we study the concept of ‘gentrification’ in the inner city with mostly negative connotations, and while I agree there are some negative outcomes to this process, I also think that there are a number of benefits to area’s that have undergone gentrification. As Katelind points out the transformation of Carlton and Fitzroy has changed the area immensely. There has been significant development in the area over the past 20 years as people have recognised the area as being in close proximity to the city, having beautiful period homes and being well serviced by transport and facilities. As these areas have been developed, houses have been restored and facilities have been improved, all adding to the attractiveness of the suburb. Property price have definitely increased experientially, however this has been a benefit to all owners in the area.
As planners I it is our duty to plan for the entire community, however to attempt to ‘restrict’ gentrification, as Adam pointed out, would not only be incredibly difficult, but is it truly what the community want?
I feel that this process reflects our changing community and that while it should be guided appropriately, it is an important part in improving our quality of living, which is a good thing.
This is an interesting debate, and - rather than answer the questions posed! - I’d like to raise some observations and further questions of my own. Firstly, I think “gentrification” is itself a complex term, and applies differently in different areas. In one sense “gentrification” refers to a historical process, where traditions seen to be inherent to an area are displaced. Another word for this process would be “modernisation” - perhaps an irreversible process, in the way Adam suggests. Some of the features that katelind attributes, negatively, to “gentrification” - “a lack of trust”, the change from “from the small green grocers to the chain supermarket”, “absolutely no integration” - could be seen as part of a critique of modernity generally, what happens when notions of “community” are disrupted. This critique reaches back to the nineteenth century, notably in various Romantic movements, and I think is evident even in quite contradictory planning theories - Howard, Le Corbusier and Jacobs can all be seen as reacting to variously negative aspects of modernity.
Secondly, katelind describes some quite specific features of “gentrification” in inner urban areas that could be attributed to more particularly current and local forces - conditions of the housing market, investment opportunities, local and state level governing policies, and the like. Here it is necessary to consider, on the one hand, the economic interests of “speculators” - developers, investors, property owners, business proprietors - and on the other, the social and community needs of a diverse range of residents. As katelind suggests, sometimes these interests align fortuitously. Increased investment brings improvements to infrastructure, and more broadly, employment opportunities and forms of cultural diversity (”cafés, restaurant and bar culture”). However the post makes an earnest plea, I think, for those who are potentially left behind, and asks how planning should respond to this plea.
I would suggest there are several dimensions to this challenge which, rather than answer katelind’s questions, might serve only to add to them. Firstly, gentrification in its own right introduces “different social and land use tensions” - between those who represent the different stages of the “gentrified”, between developers and heritage advocates, between owners and renters, between new residents and new businesses. Fitzroy and Carlton provide ample evidence of this. Planning theory, and ultimately policy, would need to cater for the multiple “faces” and corresponding tensions of gentrification. Secondly, planning work would need to continue to ask the question of social welfare for those left behind in the wake of gentrification, without necessarily remaining nostalgic, in a sense, for “the era of ‘the slums’”. And finally - implicit in katelind’s post - there might need to be new questions asked of what constitutes “community” in inner urban areas - might there be an idea of “community” which includes the “less affluent people left behind”, “renters”, “first home buyers”, “affluent city commuters” and so on? And what sorts of planning theory and policy can help resolve the inherent tensions in such a “community”?
Ah - I missed Brisotwea’s comment while entering my own. Apologies if it appears I ignored it…
I will try and respond to katelind’s article in relation to Footscray, which is perhaps the last inner city suburb to undergo the process of gentrification.
katelind: How do we as planners deal with the less affluent people left behind to remain within a gentrified community?
I’m not sure if planners can deal with this sort of issue in a proactive way. More than likely we will be responding to planning applications from the likes of the Department of Human Services and organisations such as Yarra Community Housing. It would be nice if for every apartment development aimed at the well-to-do there was a corresponding level of social or affordable housing, either within the development, or as a seperate development, but obviously it would have to come from the public sector, as there is not really a monetary interest for the private sector to provide social housing in suburbs which are undergoing gentrification.
katelind: Is there any way to stop gentrification from occurring, and would you want to stop it?
I don’t think gentrification can be stopped in Footscray, as it the last untapped suburb ripe for redevelopment with such close proximity to the Melbourne CBD and such good access to public transprot.
The process is already beginning with Allegro Apartments on Barkly Street, Unisity Apartments on the corner of Ballarat Road and Gordon Street, the Vietnamese-inspired Westville Central Apartment development on Nicholson Street, and the mixed-use development proposal for the former Kinnears factory. The main market for these apartments are young professionals and (mostly overseas) university students, and there is basically no provision for social housing within any of these developments.
Gentrification will occur in Footscray, it is only a matter of time. The real question is how many of the existing residents from lower-socio economic backgrounds will remain over time. There must be some provision for social and affordable housing, or such people will become marginalised and will be forced out to outer suburbs such as Werribee or Melton.
katelind:Is it fair to gradually push the pople for a lower socio-economic bracket further and further away from the inner-city?
It is not really fair, but unless the State Government in particular increases the proportion of public/social/affordable housing that it is funding and providing, then people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, particularly refugees, migrants and those from minority backgrounds will be dispersed away from Footscray with its excellent access to retail and public transport, to outer suburbs which are isolated from public transport, and do not have the same variety in terms of retail, civic/community and employment diversity.
katelind: Do you agree with the stage theory of gentrification and what will happen next, after the final stage?
Footscray is still in the very early stages of gentrification, and there are still large numbers of people from low socio-economic backgrounds who are either living there or have busineses there, or shop there. It would be a shame if a place such as Footscray, which has such a long and proud working class / ethnically diverse background, became yet another yuppified upper class and homogenous gentrified suburb which other places such as St Kilda, Fitzroy, Richmond etc are already well advanced in that regard.
Katelind, you posed some very interesting points about the gentrification process. The process of how a suburb or region becomes a popular or trendy area to live has always interested me. It seems to me that most of the inner city suburbs are vastly becoming vogue areas. Richmond, Prahran, East Melbourne, Docklands, St. Kilda, Clifton Hill and as you mentioned Carlton and Fitzroy are all areas that are currently experiencing gradual increasing housing prices mainly due to the process of gentrification.
Inner city areas are in high demand, as we have recently seen with the rental shortage. In the past year, properties available to rent in the “the inner-city apartment market in the CBD, Docklands, St Kilda Rd and South Bank areas has fallen from 5.2% in April last year to 3.1%” (Yardney, 2006, online).
I often visit Richmond and St. Kilda both areas where gentrification is in full swing. It seems to be increasingly difficult in these suburbs to find a run down terrace house of cottage, as all have been revoted; some even to the extent where there original character is very difficult to be seen. I think that a risk of gentrification is areas could become too identical, and therefore they will loose there special-ness and unique character which was originally what made the area popular. In no way do I think that the main elements of gentrification are a bad thing, though I think that these areas need special protection so that they do not become like every other suburb.
While researching the topic of gentrification I came across a speech which was given by Cr David Brand at Port Phillips Gentrification Forum held in 2003. He compared the process of gentrification to that of the effects of a tsunami. While I feel the impact of gentrification is less destructive they do have some similarities. Both are a “destructive force” to the places in which they impact (Brand, 2003, p.3). Much “like a tsunami (gentrification), it can leave despair and destruction in its wake, to people and to places” (Brand, 2003, p.3). Tsunamis and gentrification also “leave behind bland cultural entropy” like the “homogenous yuppie monoculture” which seems to appear in gentrified areas.
One the whole while I do feel that the process of gentrification can affect our suburbs negatively, but I think that on the whole the good that gentrification brings out ways the bad. The process of gentrification is one that should be monitored closely by planners so that all people in the community are catered for and original features are protected.
Sources:
Brand, D., (2003) I am a Gentrifier, accessed online http://www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/attachments/o9245.pdf- accessed 08/05/07
Yardney, 2006, Melbourne Rental Crises Looming, accessed online- http://www.propertyupdate.com.au/articles/77/1/Melbourne-Rental-Crisis-Looming- accessed 06/05/07
Some would say a building adds value over time but it is not exactly the building it is the land value (location) that increases in value. A building is like a machine, over time it wears and tears, it depreciates in value. Therefore parts of it may need to be replaced or upgraded such as new standards in electrical etc. If gentrification does not happen then we are stuck with old areas or buildings that are unattractive and as a result can lead to increase in crime, a neglected neighborhood etc. So I would say gentrifications is part of the urban renewal process as state by the Wikipedia Gentrification is a process or phenomenon in which low-cost, physically deteriorated neighborhoods undergo physical renovation and an increase in property values, along with an influx of wealthier residents who may displace the prior residents. All in all gentrification is a natural process that will happen and should not be stop it is a process that involves not only the landlords but banks, developers which all play a key roles in this process.
Some would say a building adds value over time but it is not exactly the building it is the land value (location) that increases in value. A building is like a machine, over time it wears and tears, it depreciates in value. Therefore parts of it may need to be replaced or upgraded such as new standards in electrical etc. If gentrification does not happen then we are stuck with old areas or buildings that are unattractive and as a result can lead to increase in crime, a neglected neighborhood etc. So I would say gentrifications is part of the urban renewal process as stated by the Wikipedia Gentrification is a process or phenomenon in which low-cost, physically deteriorated neighborhoods undergo physical renovation and an increase in property values, along with an influx of wealthier residents who may displace the prior residents. All in all gentrification is a natural process that will happen and should not be stop it is a process that involves not only the landlords but banks, developers which all play a key roles in this process.
It would appear that most comments would reflect the notion that the positive effects of gentrification would outweigh the negative effects and that gentrification should not be thought of as such a negative concept. I would agree that it is not necessary to stop or restrict the process of gentrification and although the less affluent residents will encounter a number of difficulties as a result of this process, they will also incur the benefit of their property price increasing.
The suggestion for Palmer that “…for every apartment development aimed at the well-to-do there was a corresponding level of social or affordable housing” is a valid suggestion to attempt to encourage policy to help to deal with displaced original residents. However this would indeed have the effect of stopping or slowing the process of gentrification as the proportion of less affluent people to affluent people will not significantly change. I agree with PAL that gentrification is a natural process of which is necessary for urban sprawl and development.