The map shows an example from Vancouver of areas that are subject to ubran displacement.
To find out more, visit the Urban Displacment Project.
The comments below were made in a discussion on the 44 storey high rise at 30 Francis Street, Kitchener. Even though this project is going onto a very small parking lot and houses nobody at present, it illustrates what is meant by displacement. There are other examples where low rise, low rent buildings have been demolished in order to build high density residential condos.
There seems to be some confusion regarding what is meant by community "displacement". It is not just displacing people from the physical footprint of the buildings. Sorry - this is not a simple issue, so this is unfortunately long.
These developments, whether you love them or hate them, increase the cost of living in the community. Specifically, we can see this in rental rates, creating a downward pressure on lower-income residents already living in the area. Left without anywhere to gain an economic edge, low-income residents are typically eventually forced to seek housing elsewhere and are "displaced" from their neighborhoods. In fact, urban renewal, gentrification and densification have been identified as one of the major catalysts leading to homelessness. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that rents go up and families in income brackets that cannot afford to maintain these higher rents are forced to leave these areas. They are "displaced" and move away to find housing that can meet their needs, in other neighbourhoods or to leave for other towns. When this happens, the higher-income people move in. We are seeing this effect in some areas here and I am sure many of us can share anecdotes of family or friends forced to look for housing elsewhere. These people are considered to be "displaced". Not only "displaced" but defacto replaced.
So, the questions to ask ourselves are: A) Do we want to change the cultural standards and socio-economic diversity of our neighbourhoods to a homogenous higher income population only with the understanding of what this will mean to those already living there? B) Are we OK with the idea that accepting this means that we are very likely replacing the people who built the community and that has some human costs that ought not to be hard to have compassion for. C) This often has an effect on local businesses as well as the wealthier inhabitants have a preference for name brand stores and franchises over any existing mom-and-pop stores or independent retailers and typically these too are driven out of these areas. Rising costs of retail rent in these areas is a contributing factor to this. Not saying this is good or bad, just be aware of potential outcomes. D) And that pesky rent thing I keep bringing up...can we continue to see this sort of development without some sort of rent control to mitigate the negative effects of escalating rents on the existing communities?
Fact is that densification is a process run by the private sector, developers. This generally means that the only community outreach programs or needed housing initiatives that will occur during this process are those that will lead to future profits or benefits to the developers. There is no benevolence towards the community not tied to money making.
Another fun fact gleaned from in-depth studies done in the USA (seems to be where most of the long term studies have been done, there and in Europe) is that people with means and good credit scores are often the first to leave an area undergoing transition at a faster pace because they have means to do so and generally they head to...yup suburban areas adding to urban sprawl.
Displacement can be difficult to measure which is why I was saying in another post that I wish there was a way to readily quantify what is happening while it is happening before this process has gone on so long that there is no opportunity to mitigate any of the negative influences of uncontrolled densification.
So, what can we do? For starters recognize that this is a complex issue that cannot be summed up in cute little catch phrases or simplistic modeling. Understand that to mitigate some of this will require a multi-pronged approach of zoning changes (ending our love affair with single family detached dwellings which we know sets the stage for an exclusionary housing market), taxing vacant properties, empowering existing residents to explore other housing options (off market, cohousing etc.), development of mixed-use and mixed-income properties, building more affordable housing units, and rent controls.
Some communities in the USA (again I wish we had more readily available Canadian data - though there is interesting info coming out of groups in Ottawa that I want to explore more fully) are organizing residents to collectively respond to developers and force communities to also consider other initiatives versus concentrating solely on development for the more wealthy. Hard to get going because of...yup, those deep pockets that developers have. I am not the only one that recognizes that the wealth developers bring to the table has influence and sway.
In addition to displacement, research has shown these impacts on vulnerable populations can result in negative health consequences. This is something that also ought to be looked at. I admit I have only begun research into this, though as one who will likely be displaced from this neighbourhood myself, I can relate to the stresses felt. There seems to be a significant amount of research linking development like this to psychosocial stress due to severed social networks, instability and loss of attachment to a familiar places, the lost sense of security and helplessness from being forced out by landlords seeking to capitalize on increased rents, feeling abandoned by community and local government, feeling of no longer belonging in places that have long been considered "home". All of this can have measurable detrimental physical and mental health impacts. And all of that has a cost to our communities and health care systems. Easy to ignore all this though if it does not apply to you. Again, some compassion is not out of order here.
No articles or studies on gentrification, densification/intensification that I have read fails to mention the potential negative impacts on an existing population. Just seems to be some of those commenting here that cannot accept that this is not all rainbows and sunshine. There are complex issues to consider that require multi-faceted solutions. And again, I will shout this for those of you in the back, I am not against this type of development, just saying that there needs to be a balanced mix of housing types encouraged and a *plan* that takes all of this into account so that we can enjoy the potential benefits of managed development and mitigate some of the consequences.
A more thorough understanding of all of this is needed to create better planning for our communities so that the full slate of pros and cons can be examined, and we should all be advocating for a community-participatory model that includes ALL populations in the planning stages.
I hope this clarifies some concerns and addresses what is meant by community displacement. This is not sh*t I am making up just to "complain". As someone on here is fond of saying, go look all of this up. Information is readily available for all to look at and read if you have the desire, concern, or inclination to punch a word string into Google.
End of Post
No comments:
Post a Comment