Real Estate, Race, and Gentrification Part I

Last Friday, I attended what could be best described as a modern Salon, in Harlem, with some very educated and aware folks. Most were from the Teachers College and Columbia network, but there were a few folks that were also outside CU, which is a great thing when speaking about real issues in Harlem, and NYC in general. On the whole, I find that many minority TCers are much more aware and caring about not only the state of education, but the state of society in our fair city. I feel like due to TC's location in Morningside Heights, minority students feel a greater attachment to the community and see it as more of a long-term place because of the high percentage of minority students that are serviced in local schools and through the larger city-wide system. Of course, I haven't performed academic studies on this, but definitely trust my gut when it comes to this particular issue. I guess time will bear it out.

The salon, which were are attempting to hold once a month or so, was a great chance to break bread, have some wine, and talk about the issues that are near and dear to folks. The vibe was great, and there were some very intelligent, and thoughtful people in the room. Unlike public debate which can be unruly, raucous, and downright unintellectual, we had a great start to a larger conversation.

To due it proper justice, I will not attempt to hammer away all of what was discussed. However, the main portion of the conversation centered around race, real estate, and Harlem's gentrification. Here is a highlight of what my thoughts are about the topic:

Gentrification Is A Myth (A little Harlem History)
I'm not a sociologist, but history shows us that people move in patterns. They behave in patterns, mostly predicitable ones, so that, not only does human behavior become repetitive, but it becomes cyclical. That being said, people move to places, they live, establish cultural institutions, and lay claim on a space for a set period of time. Then, especially in cities, those groups leave (given, for a littany of reasons) and give space for other groups to move in. In the last decade, this phenomenom has taken place in Harlem, where real estate values have risen, older renters have been priced out, and new groups of people move in. Harlem is unique (or not) because it has a cultural, historic tie to the black community, and is the unoffical capital of black America. I'm not going to argue the neighborhood's importance, because it does mean alot to black history, but it is far from the capital of the new black America. I would argue that its not the capital of black New York, which I believe can be found in numerous neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Also, historically speaking, Harlem of the early 20th century was heavily Jewish, and remained so until the 1930s. Although blacks lived there, it was a Jewish enclave, until the Bronx was built up and Jews migrated there during the 20s and 30s, vacating apartment houses that black migrants would soon establish. Moreover, Harlem was one of the few neighborhoods where de facto segregation allowed blacks to live, and in a few places, own. That being said, whites lived here before blacks.

The basis of the new "Harlem" is that blacks are being pushed out by opportunistic whites that are buying up cheap property and "taking over." While this might be the case, we must understand the reasons why this is even possible. Firstly, apartment buildings, brownstones, and townhouses that dot New York City are only cheap and ripe for investment when neighborhoods have bad reputations. Harlem, which saw its share of urban plight in the 70s, 80s and 90s, was a dangerous and scary place at times. The crime rate was high as drugs and urban issues help erode the high culture that the neighborhood experienced in the 40s and 50s. Slum clearance enabled public housing to be built, and soon, those places were no longer immune to serious urban issues. However, real estate prices are driven by perception and reputation. When Harlem was at its lowest point, it became more than an urban ghetto; it became a code word for whites to say "where they (blacks) live." Regardless of the fact that many Harlem homes and business are not, and have never been totally black owned, it was used as a synonym for where the others live. Arbitrary boundaries were drawn, (usually 96th St) and it was rare to see many whites live above that line. Of course, this made for a socially isolated set of communities, and landlords did less and less to take care of their buildings as tenants became harder to collect from, and crime skyrocketed. Building values plummeted during the 1980s, and many buildings were foreclosed on, and sold at auction or rehabbed through federal programs. What happened (possibly in conjunction with the Dinkins and Guiliani mayoral administrations' focus on crime prevention and correction) was that New York became safer. Even Harlem, with its brownstones, townhouses, and art deco builidngs, became a desirable place. This shift was then reinforced by the opening up of newer businesses, the rehabbing of subway stations, apartment buildings, and reinvestment by the large city entities, such as the universities.

You see, Harlem's property values were always valuable; its Manhattan real estate. But, when the perception of a neighborhood is all bad, then it takes a long time, and much infrastructure to repair it. But the authenticity of the neighborhood will always draw people back to it. Because 125th street has high quality shopping, rapid transit, and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, it will continue to serve as a main street of the city. Whites have not discovered or re-discovered anything new about Harlem; they are moving back here because the housing is is affordable, there is plenty of access to rapid transit, and you can buy a home in New York City for a fraction of what it costs in predominantly white neighborhoods. I don't see this as evil or as a plot to destroy the fabric of black America; instead, I see this as a prime reason why blacks don't yield as much political power in New York as they do in Atlanta, Washington DC or even Philadelphia: the lack of home ownership. Simply put, gentrification would not be occurring if more blacks owned their homes, and had the ability to decide to sell out (at top price) to people trying to move for a better life, regardless of race. Moreover, the civil rights movement has taught us that segregation is inherently wrong, and that there are unique benefits to having mixed societies than segregated ones. Folks fought, marched, and risked their lives for access to mixed living situations, so why is it that folks are arguing to maintain segregation in neighborhoods like Harlem?