The claim that successful urban revitalization results in “gentrification” and is therefore a bad thing is one of those hypothetical objections to placemaking strategies that isn’t based on hard data, a phenomenon about which I wrote as an obstacle to the implementation of placemaking strategies. For the most part, the objection to gentrification by “advocates” for lower-income people is an objection to hypothetical “displacement” of existing residents by new, higher income folks. To put it as plainly as I can, while those advocates (and journalists) often point to anecdotal evidence of low-income people being forced from their homes by avaricious landlords, I have seen no reliable aggregate data in support of that theory.

I’m a student of the strategies for social change that are about bringing people together – not driving them apart. To Dr. King, integration was not only about bringing economic benefit and political power to dispossessed people, but also creating a society where everyone, regardless of background, is treated with equal concern and respect. Social integration is a good in and of itself, creating communities that honor difference. In addition, it seems likely to me, based on observation and experience, that housing and educating low-income people in the same communities as higher income people may well provide those lower-income people with the tools for economic advancement. Segregating and concentrating low-income people seems to lead to higher levels of social dysfunction.

The Furman Center’s most recent “State of New York Housing and Neighborhoods in 2015” (http://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/NYUFurmanCenter_SOCin2015_9JUNE2016.pdf) demonstrates that in New York City displacement through gentrification is not a significant effect, but also tells us some interesting things about the dynamics of improving neighborhoods. I find the Furman Center to be an indispensable, and non-ideological, source of measurable information about real estate trends. They are also quite careful about drawing conclusions from the data – and not confusing causes and effects.

Being a practitioner, and not an academic, I feel a little less constrained in trying to interpret their results – so Furman shouldn’t be attributed for the observations I make here – which go beyond what they have concluded based on the information they have compiled. What they have found is that in New York City over the last 40 years the neighborhoods that have experienced the greatest increase in the creation of new housing units are those that were the most depopulated during the urban decline of the 60’s and 70’s. That could mean (and I think, does mean) that the new arrivals in “gentrifying” neighborhoods like Harlem, Bushwick and Williamsburg are moving into NEWLY CONSTRUCTED housing and are not, for the most part, displacing existing residents. The second conclusion I draw from their data, and this is the really interesting part, is that median rents rise in gentrifying neighborhoods because the new units, rented to new residents, charge more – not because rents in pre-existing units go up. They find that rents for pre-existing units in gentrifying neighborhoods increase no more than those generally across the city. So, one might conclude (and I do) that what gentrification actually means is not that poor folks are forced out of gentrifying neighborhoods, but that higher income (and whiter) folks are moving in – that is, that as a result of market forces, previously depopulated neighborhoods are being racially and economically integrated.

Now here’s the question: isn’t this exactly what we progressive folks have been advocating for — for decades? Couldn’t what advocates call “gentrification” also be called integration – and isn’t that a good thing?

There’s a second, objection to gentrification – which is essentially a nostalgic resistance to change. One hears advocates say that “they are taking away our neighborhood.” They argue that something valuable and essential about a place is being lost by new, higher income, whiter residents moving in (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-black-harlem.html).

The obvious response to this is that cities are dynamic places and are constantly subject to changing demographics and economics. That is simply the nature of urban life. New York in particular has long welcomed newcomers from many nations and backgrounds. Are those advocates suggesting that we now pull up the ladder we all climbed? Are they against social, economic and racial integration – and the improvement of the economic situation of the disadvantaged? If that’s the case, what is the ethically acceptable argument for their objection? I might suggest that there isn’t one. The reasoning of those worried about changes in neighborhood character is based on the same kind of exclusionary impulse that is has caused such divisiveness and turmoil in our cities for decades.

It appears to be the case that the most socially successful new residential projects are mixed-income (and generally mixed-use) developments – and New York City has potent programs to support the development of affordable units. The Mayor’s agenda to increase the availability of affordable housing units is proving to be a remarkable success under the leadership of Commissioner Vicki Been (formerly of Furman).

Putting people of different incomes and backgrounds in the same multi-family building benefits all the residents. The Moda project on Parsons Boulevard developed by The Dermott Company in conjunction with the New York City Economic Development Corporation, and the City’s Department of Housing, Preservation and Development and Housing Development Corporation in Jamaica is a great example of this. It is a 50/30/20 project (50% subsidized moderate income, 30% market rate and 20% low-income). Sitting in the lobby it is impossible to tell who is who. By contrast, we have had a disastrous history in New York of concentrating low-income people in certain neighborhoods and projects at a high density; exhibit “A” being the Far Rockaways. Mixed income development has proved itself to provide far better social results. While there is a great deal of Federal subsidy, and substantial political force, behind the creation of apartments for the lowest income New Yorkers, it may well be that it is better for those residents and better for the city as a whole to create more mixed-income projects – integrating low-income people with higher income families. More research needs to be done on this.

I am suggesting here that “gentrification” can bring positive social outcomes to a community that benefits residents of all backgrounds and income levels. It brings about social, economic and racial integration without the political upheaval and unintended effects of integration through court mandate or other forms of legal compulsion. It brings higher income families into the local schools and improves their performance (which has also become controversial (see, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/choosing-a-school-for-my-daughter-in-a-segregated-city.html). It provides a market for higher quality and more diverse local retailers. We need more solid research on this, but it may well be that gentrification improves the economic situation for lower-income people and actually enables families to advance themselves out of poverty. And isn’t that what neighborhood revitalization is all about?