Evolution or gentrification: Do urban farms lead to higher rents?

[thesummerqueen]

An aspect of urban farming I hadn't considered.

http://grist.org/food/evolution-or-gentr...her-rents/

There are things that can and need to change about the city, but change in a neighborhood is often organic — one group of people finds themselves in better economic situations and moves on. Gentrification is systematic; it involves the displacement of people against their will. City governments use economic incentives to attract higher-income people and the businesses that cater to them. Rents and property taxes go up, and those who have historically lived in a community have no choice but to move elsewhere.

Gentrification should not be confused with community development — or neighborhood improvement, through organizing and hard work by the members of that community. Places like the South Bronx, Harlem, the South Side of Chicago, and the Mission District in San Francisco have all been improved drastically by hard-working neighborhood activists only to see them increasingly vulnerable to gentrification as conditions improve.

[cratehorus]

short answer: No, urban farming does not cause high rent

When talking about small programs like these in undeveloped, mid-sized citites, you have to take into effect what resource created the original development, and whether or not it still exists. Fortunately we are talking about detroit so it's fairly obvious with the failing auto industry..........detroit is fucked.............. the story in that article is rare............ cities like new york, san fransisco, and chicago should be establishing rent control programs, it works in most big cities, but won't work in Detroit since most people are looking to get out of detroit as soon as possible.

Gentrification is really only a problem in developing cities and Detroit is the last city in America that needs to worry about it. It's not ALWAYS racial more often than not it's used to destroy cultural neighborhoods, like a chinatown or, a little Italy, when real estate developers, take advatage of the years of development the poor in that neighborhood have done to improve and devolop it, to only destroy their homes, and build a million dollar complex

I also don't like the reference to brooklyn, they have always had a strong russian and eastern european community and have only recently been strangely stereotyped, in hollywood movies as being an all black neighborhood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNiLV1kP1xI

[KichigaiNeko]

I don't think you should strictly confuse "Urban Farming", with "Community Development" or "Gentrification"

I am to understand "Urban Farming" can be in ANY socio-economic community, gentrified or no.

[thesummerqueen]

What they're saying is that one leads, generally, to the other.

[KichigaiNeko]

Understood. But what I read was that "Community Development" led to "Gentrification" and have seen this in Sydney Australia in many suburbs.

But "Urban Farming" I have seen everywhere, and still carries on after "Gentrification"

[thesummerqueen]

Be that as it may, the issue they were addressing is that if it leads to gentrification, then it displaces people.

I've always looked at it from a community solidification stand-point, not as a property value one - possibly because I don't own a home. Foolish way of looking at it because of course businesses are going to capitalize on revitalization and attempt to attract wealthier (and more spend-thrift) people.

[KichigaiNeko]

I would also consider the value of "urban farming" displacing antisocial behavior which it does seem to have a tendency to do. So from that perspective, yes it does lead to higher spending individuals coming into an area because of community. Which then snowballs into the gentrification of an area over time.

That sounds all mixed up. But I understand that as there were many "no go suburbs" in Sydney that are now "gentrified" and sought after because of the perceived safety the original "urban farming" projects to stimulate community generated.

---

IF the people being "displaced" are of the antisocial kind, how is this a bad thing?

I am to understand that here in Australia, we start with an anti-social Public Housing suburb (usually Inner City areas) whose residents have had enough, who then go onto create a more cohesive community via a "Community Garden/ Urban Farming", that then creates a sense of ownership of an area as many of the troublemakers are "moved-on". The place gets attractive, safer (for a given value of safe) and attracts 'investment' via high fee paying individuals whose disposable income then attracts commerce that given enough time "Gentrifies" the area. Property values rise and it is a "sort after location" due to it's position close to amenities.

This what the article is referring to?

This is where I used to live "Brownlie Towers", a Public housing area close to the city in Perth. (Posted to your FB wall) it was a notorious crime and drug spot. Now? attracting young families and creating a sense of purpose for the social housing retirees to share their love of gardening. It has already lifted the property values in the area to the point that we had to purchase 80km away.

The Facebook site is SBS Harvest. Might help you understand the whole gentrification process?
https://www.facebook.com/SBSHarvest

---

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/226...The-Towers