Environmental Gentrification: Why Greening Projects Are Not Always Sustainable
By Amy Perez and Jenny Nguyen
With the push for ‘sustainable development’ and ‘eco-friendly
cities,’ greening projectssuch as a breathtaking oceanfront
walkway, a large-scale modern playpark, or even beautiful
tree-lined streets with new shops and restaurants at surface
seem favorable and to promote sustainability, but who in reality
benefitting from these urban greening projects? Who is bearing
the costs?
According to theUrban Displacement Project, gentrification
is defined as “a process of neighborhood change that includes
economic change in a historically disinvested neighborhood --
by means of real estate investment and new higher-income
residents moving in -- as well as demographic change -- not
only in terms of income level, but also in terms of changes in the
education level or racial make-up of residents [1].” This wide-scale issue intensifies in the neoliberal era as sustainable development projects amplify the problem by masking behind vague definitions of sustainability and ‘green living.’ This poses a dangerous threat as the implications of these projects are often not considered by the public because of the positive notion associated with terms like sustainable development [2].
By extension, the term environmental gentrification, also referred to as eco-gentrification, was coined in 2007 by Melissa Checker, professor of Urban Studies at Queens College, in her book, The Sustainability Myth:
Environmental Gentrification and the Politics of Justice, to describe this rising phenomenon. Environmental
Gentrification describes the process of rising property values and displacement of low-income residents contributed to by large-scale, high-end development in the name of urban greening projects [2]. Toby Kirkaldie explains how this process is rationalized in their piece Challenging Environmental Gentrification, utilizing the concept of the urban greening paradox” to describe the situation in which neighborhoods are made more appealing with the addition of green space, causing housing prices to dramatically increase, thus displacing residents that the green space was originally intended to benefit. In these situations, displaced residents are often forced to settle in areas that face the same “park-poverty” issues. Whether the “urban greening paradox” occurs intentionally or unintentionally, it poses an immense threat to low-income residents of cities across the globe and furthers spatial segregation [2]. While the push for greener cities is not inherently bad, the problem is amplified when the process is performed intentionally, co-opted by high-end real estate developers
with only profit in mind [3].
One of the largest examples of environmental gentrification in practice in the United States, even before the term was coined, is the construction of New York City’s Central Park. After the 1970s financial crisis that caused
budget cuts to the city’s Parks Department, the Central Park Conservancy was established in 1980 by a private entity as a non-profit organization. Central Park at the time received a high amount of donations from
surrounding residents and played a large part in the city’s first gentrification boom with the park proposed in racist and elitist exclusionary terms. A section of what today is recognized as Central Park was once Seneca Village, founded in 1825 by a group of free African Americans. The community became home to a multitude
of people varying in ethnicities and was strong and successful. As the community’s success grew, surrounding residents acted in opposition as the mayor got involved to declare their land as space for a new park. After
years of protest from community members, the government ruled against the Seneca Village community and they were evicted from their homes. One year later, plans for Central Park were finalized [4]. The racist and elitist existence of Central Park is one of the earliest examples of environmental gentrification that led the way in contributing to the private “two tier fundraising model” that divides NYC’s parks in terms of safety and quality to this day [5].
Instances of environmental gentrification are rampant in cities such as NYC and beyond, but nowadays are disguised behind a mask of urban greening and “sustainable living.” The neoliberal notion of “green living” has
become greatly marketable, leading to the increased private development of urban spaces. NYC’s Highline, built in 2006, is a prime example of this situation. This so-called greening initiative resulted in a massive
influx of tourists which completely transformed the socio-economic landscape of the area as property values rose and displaced residents and small businesses [6]. There is a sustainable paradigm, as Kirkaldie mentions, in situations like this in that environmental gentrification is allowed to persist because of “‘mainstream’ ‘white-centered’ ‘elite’ sustainability’s lack to evolve,” as well as the hidden economic gains for city government and private investors that go along with this. It is clear that developers and those in power favor technocratic environmental solutions over social justice and that sustainable development is being used as commodification rather than a social movement [2]. With all this being said, is there an effective way to challenge environmental gentrification with social equity at the forefront?
In effort to avoid environmental gentrification, researchers look to approaches that will improve the environmental health and safety of an area without displacing residents. The strategy of “conscious anti-gentrification” is a direct response to environmental gentrification that points to greening projects as
means of bettering environmental quality and public health without altering the neighborhood's
socio-economic character, involving the inclusion of local residents in these projects, implementing them
gradually, and rejecting common physical aspects that lead to gentrification [2]. This approach has also been labeled the “just-green-enough” strategy by Winifred Curran and Trina Hamilton who use the case of Newtown Creek in Greenpoint, Brooklyn as a positive example of conscious anti-gentrification [6]. Read more about this
here. In all, what these strategies prove is the dire need for mainstream notions of sustainability to
inherently include social justice. That is how environmental gentrification has a chance of being challenged in the midst of advanced capitalism.
There are many instances of local communities raising awareness and fighting back against gentrification and instances of eco-gentrification. In San Diego, Somali activist and artist Fahad Mohammed works to fight against gentrification in his neighborhood, City Heights. City Heights is one of many areas in San Diego that has been labelled an ‘opportunity zone’, in which developers could come in and introduce new changes, buildings, and infrastructure. Mohammed worries that his neighborhood will soon face gentrification and speaks up about this issue through his artwork and activism. Through his photography and documentaries, he captures the
community, buildings, and culture of City Heights as it has been for years. Mohammed hopes to preserve the essence of City Heights and express his and his community’s wish to stay and keep their home as is through his art. [7]
Another community in San Diego that is also facing gentrification and is coming together to fight back is the Barrio Logan community, a largely Hispanic community. New changes in their community have prompted community members in Barrio Logan to meet up and discuss the situation surrounding gentrification.
Several residents and business owners of Barrio Logan are concerned about the arrival of these new changes
and are working towards protecting their culture and community from being displaced as a result of gentrification. The community discussed the need to protect the people who live in Barrio Logan, some hopes for ‘gentefication’ instead of gentrification through “enhanc[ing] the characteristics of the neighborhood
while at the same time provid[ing] economic opportunities for the community”, and a few other topics as well [8]. This discussion served as the beginning of the community’s work in fighting gentrification in their neighborhood. [8]
Taking a look at a different city in California, People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights (PODER) is an organization working in San Francisco to combat gentrification in the Mission and Excelsior districts, where several individuals in low-income communities and communities of color are at risk of being
driven out of their homes due to rising costs. PODER’s work centers around community-based planning, giving communities the power to choose how they want their home and neighborhoods to look like. Some of
PODER’s work include developments and housing that are equitable, accessible, and affordable for all, community-engaged urban farms and parks, as well as support resources for finding a job, housing, and more that are centered around communities and helping communities. PODER empowers communities in San Francisco to create sustainable and equitable homes while helping to support one another. [9]
All of these instances highlight the resistance and stand that communities are taking against gentrification actively happening in their own neighborhoods. Gentrification affects the lives of many families, residents, and business owners. The community-centered and community-empowering work that these individuals and organizations are partaking in is significant and will help in the fight to prevent gentrification and the displacement of communities and their culture.
The appropriation of urban green space will persist when environmental improvement is put in the hands of private developers and city government. This is why acts of
community resistance to gentrification and solutions putting the wellbeing of people belonging to these communities at the forefront are so important. Moreover, in the wake of capitalist, white-centered, ‘mainstream sustainability,’ it is crucial that budding, even established, environmentalists reject notions of sustainability
and sustainable development that fail to include social justice. Sustainability does not exist when the people within a given community are not being sustained. Challenging environmental gentrification involves actively rejecting elements that tend to lead to the displacement of residents as well as shifting the warped notion of sustainable development that allows this to persist.
​
Article written by Amy Perez and Jenny Nguyen, interns for Internal Development at the UC San Diego Student Sustainability Collective 2021
Sources:
[1] https://www.urbandisplacement.org/gentrification-explained
[2] https://issuu.com/tobykirkaldie94/docs/the_essay
[3] https://critical-sustainabilities.ucsc.edu/environmental-gentrification/
[4] https://nyunews.com/2018/10/03/10-04-ops-stallone/
[5] https://www.fordham.edu/download/downloads/id/5726/bernadette_corbett_-_urban_parks.pdf
[6] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/06/dangers-ecogentrification-best-way-make-city-greener
[7] https://www.artsandculturesd.org/post/one-artivist-s-fight-against-gentrification
.png)