A case study of North Crown Heights | Prospect Heightshannah-hesse.com/Urban...
Transcript of 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.
3Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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
4Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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.
5Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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
6Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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
7Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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
Indicator for Gentrification Variable
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
Indicator for Gentrification Variable
Increasing number of recent movers Percentage of recent movers (in the last 5 years)
MOVING PATTERN Indicator
Indicator for Gentrification Variable
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
8Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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
9Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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
10Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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
11Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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
12Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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)
13Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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
14Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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
15Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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).
16Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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’.
17Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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].
18Excerpt of the Master`s Thesis on “Gentrification - Chance and Risk for a New York City neighborhood”
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