Student’s Name

Supervisor’s Name

Course Name

Due date

Statement Of The Problem

Evaluating Gentrification Related To Neighborhood and City Health

“Gentrification a lift for everyone” was the headline of a 2005 article in USA Today (Newman & Wyly, 2006). This trend has sparked heated debate, with supporters and opponents split down the middle. One of the main arguments against this, as discussed by Professor Stephen Sheppard in his paper, ‘Why is Gentrification a Problem,’ is that low-income households who have spent years building a community with all of its complex social networks are forced to pack up and leave, either by choice or necessity. These residents are frequently unable to afford to stay in gentrified districts, and those that do may feel alienated from the community (Sheppard, 2012).

Professor J. Peter Byrne argues in his paper, “Two Cheers for Gentrification,” that an increase in the number of rich and well-educated citizens can only benefit cities. The fundamental reason for this is a growth in the number of residents with a lot of spare cash who may put it to good use in the city by paying taxes, buying local goods, and participating in local political processes. He goes on to say that the shortage of affordable housing, which is typically blamed on gentrification, is the result of the government’s incapacity to provide it. As a result, having wealthy people live and invest in the city will allow the government to support more affordable housing (Byrne, 2003).

Newman and Wyly began their investigation in their paper by examining displacement and its changes in New York City throughout the decade before the start of their research. They looked at information from the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey, which is a three-year longitudinal study. Residents are polled on a variety of topics, including jobs, housing circumstances, and demographics. Newman and Wyly examined five previous years of surveys, filtering them to only include those that met their research criteria, which mostly included renters who had moved into their present residence since the previous study. They also looked at those who had relocated inside the city rather than those who had moved from other cities to acquire a better understanding of how gentrification affects intra-urban mobility.

The researchers subsequently conducted a second investigation, this time using an interpretivist approach. They did so by conducting a field study in neighborhoods inside the seven gentrifying sub-borough areas identified by Freeman and Braconi to acquire a deeper grasp of the changes brought about by this tendency within existing communities. This study went into greater detail into the numerous factors that drove residents of gentrifying districts to relocate.

The researchers used the second part of their study to identify two districts with little social change and to gain a deeper grasp of the lack of gentrification on the map and the ground. They gathered information through a variety of methods, including fieldwork, data generated from databases, archives, and secondary sources, and in-person interviews. Researchers wanted to acquire a better understanding of the causes of stalled gentrification and how they differ in different neighborhoods by using an interpretivist approach.

To strengthen the validity of their findings, all three of our researchers used two separate study approaches. Wyly and Newman utilized a mix of positivist and interpretivist methodologies to evaluate whether the census data supported their arguments that gentrification induced displacement and then to identify the precise reasons for these displacements. Their research, on the other hand, was not objective. The primary difference between Ley & Dobson’s technique with the one indicated above is that their research was conducted objectively, and as a result, their findings did not give strong evidence to back their statements.

Gentrification may result in displacement, which may be linked to increased bad health in non-gentrifying neighborhoods, lowering a city’s overall health. Second, the good health in gentrifying neighborhoods could simply be the result of the influx of more affluent, already healthier inhabitants. Gentrification has an impact on public health, especially in areas where certain communities are more vulnerable to the harmful effects of gentrification. According to studies, vulnerable populations have a shorter life expectancy, a higher cancer rate, a higher rate of birth deformities, a higher newborn mortality rate, and a higher prevalence of asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Annotated Bibliography

Diem, S., Holme, J. J., Edwards, W., Haynes, M., Epstein, E. (2019). Diversity for whom? Gentrification, demographic change, and the politics of school integration. Educational Policy, 33(1), 16–43.

This case study looked at how three New York City schools dealt with the effects of gentrification as student demographics changed. The conflicts, triumphs, and problems inherent in the school gentrification and integration process were examined using the conceptual framework of urban school leaders as cultural workers.

GD Johnson, M Checker, S Larson, (2021). A small area index of gentrification, applied to New York City. Department of Urban Studies, City University of New York

With application to New York City, this study gives a small-area indicator of the multifactorial process loosely referred to as gentrification (NYC). For NYC census tracts that are spatially normalized to the year 2010, the relative change of key input variables (median family income, median rent, and proportions of non-Hispanic white, 20–34-year-olds, and individuals with a 4-year college degree) was computed from 2000 to 2016.

Kenneth. A. Gould, TL Lewis, (2018). From Green Gentrification to Resilience Gentrification. City university of New York, Brooklyn.

New York City’s once industrial waterfronts have been transformed into gentrified residential districts for the environmental class in the recent decade. To accomplish this, the city must clean and green these areas. This is referred to as green gentrification. It is headed by public officials and corporate investors who exploit underutilized environmental resources as part of the green growth machine.