Category: WK6: Gentrification (LA + San Fran)

In Peter Moskowitz’s book “How to Kill a City: Part 3: San Francisco,” he uses anecdotes to demonstrate how the gentrification of San Francisco has forced out its marginalized residents (artists, African Americans, Hispanics, low income, and queer individuals) into the suburbs via obvious and discrete methods. In Alfredo Huante’s article “A Lighter Shade of Brown? Racial Formation and Gentrification in Latino Los Angeles” he introduces the concept of “gente-fication,” gentrification led by Latinx community, which can either be the Mexican-American middle class investing in the barrios and uplifting the entire community or the Mexican-American middle class becoming “honorary white” and supporting gentrification and white people instead of other Hispanics. 

Both texts show how the arrival of white people who increase the cost of living and drive out the locals has contributed racial tensions; one highlights the relationship between the city’s minorities and the newly arriving white technology workers while one shows upward mobility can divide a Hispanic community. The first text focuses on minitories in San Francisco as a whole, showing how there is a common enemy 

The second text makes me think about the divide that exists within my people, specifically how money, and papers, can change you and your support for your community. Frequently when some people in my family feel like they have achieved the American dream, they shift their perspectives from wanting to support the lower class Hispanics who they used to be to wanting to support other communities. This can be seen in their changes in perspective with regards to immigration policies and how they may vote. They are showing the idea of second definition gente-ficiation. When I see this, it strengthens my resolve to go back to Oklahoma after college and support the community that I come from and be able to contribute to the first definition of gente-fication. 

Being from a smaller community,  I’m not as exposed to gentrification much but when I take the time to observe Atlanta, I feel like it is more apparent. Specifically in Little Five Points, there are thrift shops that are catered more towards making it aesthetic, taking away from the practicality that it once had and how it used to cater towards the lower income community. There are nicer housing options in this part of the neighborhood which creates changing stores to accommodate for white people while the more run down areas lack these commodities.

The materials that we have engaged with this week – the readings by Peter Moskowitz & Alfredo Huante, the film The Last Black Man in San Francisco, and the interactive Mapping Inequality Redlining in the New Deal America website – speak more broadly to the process of gentrification, not only as an economic shift within communities, but also as a racialized process and a process of the commodification of neighborhoods and resources. More specifically, Peter Moskowitz’ chapter “San Francisco” in How to Kill a City, details the social and legal construction of gentrification in San Francisco. The author first opens with a contextualization and conversation of the film we watched and Jimmy Fails. An important theme that this text presents is the connection between a city and a native of the city, as he describes how Jimmy feels like an anomaly within the city as it has changed over time, becoming a distinct version of what he once knew. The article by Alfredo Huante specifically talks about gentrification within the Los Angeles barrio of Boyle Heights. Huante emphasizes gentrification beyond its economic shift and impact, providing an understanding of the racialization which simultaneously occurs, given part of the Mexican-American community and their proximity to whiteness. I think that both of the readings can be simplified by a statement I found interesting from the film, which considers gentrification as the “final frontier of manifest destiny.” Gentrification is a process which I believe inherently fosters inequality. In a class I took Fall 2023 with Dr. Jessica Stewart on Housing Politics, we explored a lot of what the readings, film and website cover, and in one of our conversations we talked about if housing developments could be ethical and not cause mass displacement of entire communities. Considering the statement made in the movie and what I learned in that class, these modern day housing developments can not be ethical as the very underlying legal construction of neighborhoods does not allow the process to be. The different zones created– single-family, multi-family, commercial and industrial – inherently create divisions in cities that in turn have greater effect on the health & available resources of communities. Another interesting concept that I think plays an important role in gentrification as an economic and racial project is NIMBYism (Not in my backyard) specifically for the opposition of affordable housing.

Through the readings Lighter Shade of Brown and How to Kill a City San Fran there are discussions about the ways that gentrification directly affects the demographic of cities and how the change in composition connects to the way systems ensure that Whiteness is prioritized. Within both of the readings there is discussion of previous California cities that were predominantly non-White and through efforts of remodeling of the city there has been a decrease of a diverse population. There is a polarizing perspective where White people view this as a method of integration while people of color view this as a threat to communities already established. How to Kill a City San Fran showcases a creative film in which the creator is attempting to convey a message through art expression in order to provide a new perspective to gentrification. While gentrification initiatives focus on the advancement of technology, an increase in finances for the city, and new opportunities, the film discusses the erasure of identities that occurs through these initiatives. Gentrification tactics refuse to acknowledge the realities including: “ There’s little neighborhood-level data on evictions, but between 1990 and 2011, the number of Latino households fell by 1,400, while White households increased by 2,900” (Moskowitz 131). Both these articles emphasize that gentrification efforts fail to discuss the realities of the people displaced. A difference in these articles is discussion of gentrification by the Latino community as they are hopeful that investment in the city can provide more resources which increases the chances of upward mobility. A concept distinct in the Lighter Shade of Brown article is “Gente-fication”: “Gente-fication is primarily understood as economic and racial uplift and, simultaneously, an alternative to white-led gentrification” (Huante 9). This discussion of some of the Latino support for this initiative is related to the differences in racial identities the Latino population is composed of and how it creates a variety of perspectives in the diaspora. While the pan-ethnicity known as Latinx is racialized in various points of history it is important to acknowledge that there have been times in which some Latinos attempt to assimilate to Whiteness in the United States in order to be able to mobilize or due to sentiments of exclusion due to being Latinx. This connects to an important and complex topic that at times some Latinx people can benefit from White privilege.

This week’s materials focused on the ongoing process of gentrification in San Francisco and Los Angeles. “How to Kill a City” begins with background information on the assigned film “The Last Black Man in San Francisco” and how the film aims to tackle gentrification on both the large scale – by bringing awareness to the realities of displacement – and the personal – by supporting the artists who created it enough to keep living there. The piece goes on to examine the economic and political driving forces of gentrification in which governments and corporations maximize profit generated by a given piece of land leading to displacement. It highlights how more subtle forms of eviction go undetected in the data, masking the severity of the problem. Gentrification is accompanied by a loss of the city’s identity, culture, and its long-time residents. The mostly white individuals who instigate gentrification, “How to Kill a City” claims, do not do so intentionally or maliciously. They are simply trying to find affordable housing themselves without realizing the displacement they are indirectly causing. 

Our second reading, “A Lighter Shade of Brown? Racial Formation and Gentrification in Latino Los Angeles,” would disagree and likely critique this view of gentrifiers. The article includes an anecdote about a white real estate agent who posted flyers encouraging home-buyers to look for cheaper options in Boyle Heights. When this rhetoric was criticised, the real estate agent was quick to deny malintent and present herself as a lesser evil and an ally against corporation driven gentrification in the area. I found this anecdote particularly salient because it captures many of the themes we have discussed this semester. We see a white person using a move to innocence, presenting herself as sharing a common enemy (corporation driven gentrification), as sympathetic to this “very sensitive nerve,” and as apologetic for offending anyone. She does all of this while refusing to change her behavior or offer material solutions. We also see whiteness as property. This woman frames gentrification as an unavoidable process in which white people will eventually take over the area in one form or another. More broadly, “A Lighter Shade of Brown?”  tackles race as a central dynamic that is both shaping and being shaped by gentrification while “How to Kill a City” approaches race as a secondary correlate in the process. Both articles along with the film were tremendously impactful. 

“A Lighter Shade of Brown? Racial Formation and Gentrification in Latino Los Angeles” by Alfredo Huante analyzes the recent and ongoing gentrification of Los Angeles and the effects that the Latinx community have suffered as a result. Huante specifically references the concept and theory of “racial formation” and how racial and cultural dynamics are shifted and reshaped due to gentrification. “How to Kill a City” by Peter Moskowitz examines how communities that are impoverished and majority people of color are affected most by gentrification. The article dives deeper into the development of modern real estate practices and government policies which both are large contributors to gentrification and how gentrification is a systemic issue.

Both articles emphasize the destructive nature of gentrification, depicting the harsh impacts left on gentrified communities. Both articles identify how gentrification erases racial and cultural presences within these communities in a harmful manner. They depict the effects that Latinx communities across the country have been forced to undergo through the gentrification of their neighborhoods. These neighborhoods, harshly and often violently, shift towards mostly white, affluent neighborhoods while erasing the Latin culture and sense of community. Both authors push forth the idea of gentrification’s contribution to social and racial inequality and discrimination in America, and how the process of gentrification contributes to a larger process of the erasure and suppression of the Latinx community.  

Moskowitz’s article takes a larger-scoped perspective on gentrification, analyzing the impacts that people of color as a whole suffer around the country. Huante’s article is more focused, specifically observing and analyzing the gentrification of Latinx communities in Los Angeles. While Moskowitz’s article gives more attention to the governmental and economic aspects and impacts of gentrification, Huante focuses more on the racial and anti-Latinx contexts of gentrification. While both articles have some overlap in this sense, a key difference between the two is the identification and specification of the intent behind gentrification, and each article analyzes a different aspect of the motivations behind it. 

Both articles are mostly factual but also leave some room for interpretation and both authors mix in some of their own insights into the issues surrounding gentrification and the problematic nature of the process. In my opinion, both authors make very valid points about the negative effects of gentrification, and I agree that the violent and devastating nature of gentrification is why it is a process that needs to be gotten rid of altogether. While economic progression is important, and while it is necessary for societies to change and improve, it should never be at the hands of minority communities throughout America. These cultures are important and it is significant that these cultural practices and presences remain intact as American society continues to change. Progression should never be at the hands of any already-disadvantaged group, because in my opinion that outweighs any sort of economic or political benefit that may come with gentrification.

In “A Lighter Shade of Brown?” by Alfredo Huante, he examines the racial placement of Latinos, particularly Mexican Americans, in the US racial hierarchy. Specific policies such as housing, economic opportunities, and how areas are policed affect Latino identity are analyzed throughout the essay. Huante talks about how Latinos are both racialized as non-white and then limited in regards to differences from Black Americans. In How to Kill a City: San Francisco by Peter Moskowitz, we examine how gentrification has displaced long-time residents. Moskowitz criticizes the urban planners for prioritizing the wealthy people moving into the area compared to the working-class communities, particularly the communities of color. His main point or argument from the essay is that gentrification is not something that is a natural process but something that we actively do as a society, and it is a result of our political and economic state. Further efforts to stop this and prevent further displacement are also talked about later in the book. Finally, Last Black Man in San Francisco looks at gentrification through the eyes of Jimmy, a black man who is trying to refind his childhood identity in San Francisco. This film highlights the negative effects of gentrification regarding money, ownership, and erasing communities altogether. All three of these books/films explore gentrification and displacement, agreeing that all of these processes are not natural but caused by policy changes and racial hierarchies. All of these articles challenge each other by offering different perspectives on gentrification, race, and identity. A lighter shade of brown argues that Latinos cannot be fully exemplified by the narratives of gentrification and displacement. How to kill a city views gentrification as a policy-driven issue. The last black man in San Francisco provides a more personal and emotional perspective of gentrification. Overall, from all of these articles and films, I have learned that their are many unique perspectives and reasons for the gentrification of blacks and Latinos across the United States and results in the displacement of many people. I have seen the community which I grew up in my hometown in get torn down and replaced with more houses and buildings to appease the rich and not take care of the middle class so it is prevalent everywhere if you pay enough attention. 

“A Lighter Shade of Brown?” by Alfredo Huante examines gentrification in Boyle Heights, a community that has received attention due to activists against gentrification, and how gentrification works to empower and protect the white dominance and establishes new racial hierarchies and perpetuates racial inequalities. How to Kill a City: San Francisco by Peter Moskowitz is a case study examining the ways in which San Francisco, a city that was known for its diverse populations, has become gentrified and left its original communities to the edges. Last Black Man in San Francisco is a film about the lived experience of gentrification and the people and communities it directly impacts. How to Kill a City: San Francisco mentions this film and how it was created by residents in San Francisco and the intentionality of using old school film techniques to encapsulate the original San Francisco. Both papers examine cities in California, a state that has become increasingly expensive to live in, which is why my own family moved to Georgia. Additionally, this quote, “ This is what a gentrified city looks like: nothing like a city at all” (Moskowitz 159), connects all three pieces together because gentrification takes away the natural beauty that is created through diverse communities and replaces it with capitalist ideologies and businesses that continue to protect white dominance. The worst part of all of this is that when gentrification happens and white people move into these communities, the government begins to invest and make roots that they never did when people of color resided there. Additionally, “A Lighter Shade of Brown?” highlighted the idea of “educated vs uneducated” became established but it is not really about who knows more or less but rather who has learned more about white supremacy ideologies and has internalized them into their practices. Gentrification is a process of taking what people of color have created within their communities and kicking them out to use their cultural contributions, labor, and communities for profit and aesthetic appeal. It displaces Black and Brown residents, erasing histories and replacing them with commercialized versions that cater to the white and wealthy and creates racial inequalities and hierarchies to protect this new version. My family lived in California for their whole lives but they had to leave, and my aunt who lives there now has to rent rooms in her home to stay afloat.