Gentrification can build better neighbourhoods
It was a warm summer evening two weeks back. Squiggle Park, the usually vacant lot on the corner of Falkland and Gottingen Street in Halifax’s proud north end, had been transformed into a free, four-hour, pop-up street party called the North By Night Market. There were no Sobeys or Emera banners, no Tim Horton’s stand and no Bell Media table with smiling unpaid interns handing out bumper stickers. The entire event was coordinated by a couple of energetic young entrepreneurs from the area.
Over the course of the evening, Haligonians from all areas, all backgrounds and every age took a walk through. Seniors from Sunrise Manor and the Gordon B. Isnor, breakdancing teenagers, twenty-something students and parents pushing strollers or pulling toddlers all came, ate, danced and met their friends and neighbours (full disclosure, I spun records during the event in exchange for a $75 donation to the community radio station at which I volunteer).
This is a terrible idea, and it must be stopped.
Okay, not really, but this was the rallying cry from a couple of self-styled anarchists who peppered the event’s Facebook page in the days afterward.
The dirty word here, of course, is gentrification. Except gentrification isn’t a dirty word. It’s an economic and sociological concept that can’t be branded as “good” or “bad” the way “cancer,” “pollution” or “the New York Yankees” can.
Gentrification simply happens naturally in urban environments. It’s been occurring since humans started gathering together several millennia back and will continue long after Halifax is a dozen feet underwater.
People move when they believe a new location will provide them better opportunities. This cuts across all geographic, economic and racial lines. It’s why there are 57,000 youth at the Texas-Mexico border, why many of our families came across the Atlantic (or across the Bering Strait) and why there isn’t a decent music venue in Manhattan anymore. People are a migratory species at heart.
Having lived in the north end for a number of years, it seems to me that many of the newer residents here are not “upwardly mobile, yuppie-type folks,” as one of the anarchists described, but working- and middle-class folks who’ve recognized the un-sustainability of modern, suburban life. These new homeowners and tenants have become part of the neighbourhood’s fabric—as a Saturday afternoon at the North Memorial Library, a Saturday night at Charlie’s Club or a Sunday morning at the Detergency Room will show.
Gentrification, when unchecked by communities and municipalities, can push the economically-disadvantaged away. With strong policies in place, however, it can result in greater employment opportunities, safer streets, better schools and improved mental health.
Pressure needs to be placed on city council and property developers to ensure continued development of low-income and mixed-use housing. Additionally, the new businesses springing to life in the north end should be strongly encouraged to hire from within the neighbourhood—whether that’s through education sessions and job fairs from the municipal government and area business associations, or through economic incentives from Halifax and the province.
Some of the Facebook comments suggested discouraging “those people” from coming to “our neighbourhood,” either as residents or even as customers. Sound familiar? It should—that sentiment has been ingrained in Halifax’s social memory for the past few hundred years, albeit usually in the other direction.
As our beloved Gottingen Street celebrates its 250th anniversary this year, maybe it’s time to finally retire the “us vs. them” mentality.
Russell Gragg is a journalist and editor raising a family as a renter on Creighton Street. The closest he comes to “upwardly mobile” is climbing the steps into his favourite neighbourhood pub.
Gentrification is class warfare
Any definition of community is political, and pretending otherwise is political in and of itself. Community has context—economic, geographical and historical. Most importantly, you can’t talk about community without using a certain dirty word: class.
I don’t mean to talk about class to the exclusion of other social divisions. In the north end, for example, the relationship between class and race should be immediately apparent in looking at the composition of Uniacke Square. The history of Halifax’s black community in the north end also provides a crucial historical backdrop.
For a bit of perspective, I strongly recommend watching the 1967 cinéma vérité short film, Encounter at Kwacha House. In it, primarily black, working-class youth candidly discuss issues facing the north end. After watching the film, go count the number of black staff at Agricola Street Brasserie. To borrow a famous paraphrase of Marx, history repeats itself; the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
The farcical aspect of the supposedly “new” north end is its expressed commitment to values of “community” and “fairness”—values that stand in contrast to its relentless pursuit of capitalist-led development. Unsurprisingly, the “new” north end capitalism is the same rotten affair as always. The interests of upwardly mobile, disproportionately white, disproportionately educated professionals and developers reshape spaces in their hip, fairly-traded, LEED-certified image.
However, this world is well outside of the price range of working-class people. For low-wage workers (disproportionately women and people of colour), the proliferation of $300,000 condominiums and fancy restaurants is at best useless. Generally, it’s worse. These luxuries tend to compete better in market terms, and displace affordable housing and services. That this process includes occasionally “free” events (not that Squiggle Park ever charges admission, or that vendors were giving things away) does not change the fundamental class content of the project.
Alternatives, however, are possible. Contrast the North by Night Market with SadRad and Food Not Bombs’ “Community Potluck & BBQ” last summer. With a budget of basically nothing, two small, anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist collectives were able to run an event that had more free food, more music and more diverse participation than #NXNMRKT. While the Market catered specifically to the interests and wallets of the ascendant café clique, the Potluck prioritized the people who aren’t celebrating the “accessibility” of stuffed quail on Gottingen Street.
It’s not a coincidence that community events planned and executed by business people whose interests are in establishing a secure, affluent customer base serve the “new” north end community and not working people. It’s not a coincidence that The Coast—funded by this same community’s advertising money—says such events are “magical.” It’s not a coincidence: it’s class war.
I wish I could conclude with an easy, one-size-fits-all solution but, unfortunately, I can’t. I do, however, believe that a diversity of grassroots, community-led organizing projects that actively fight against, rather than accept as a given, the supposed inevitably of capitalism and gentrification can win. In the long run, I even believe we will win.
Sylvain Pankhurst is a member of a tiny libertarian communist group you haven’t heard of. He eats ramen noodles daily on principle.
Related Stories
Hoping to build up Gentrification: A Hip Hop Musical
This article appears in Jul 24-30, 2014.
If this were Epic Rap Battles, I’d have to say…Sylvain, you LOSE…. Sorry man, pack up your backpack and thumb it out to North Sydney, you can be rest assured they don’t have gentrification there. Enjoy.
Do you seriously eat ramen noodles ‘on principle’ or is that funny? I live on rice based purely on ‘budget’. FU.
I fall into the upper essay, and what is written there is how I feel exactly about gentrification. I live and choose to rent where I live because I want to support downtown Dartmouth, and I honestly dislike it when people associate the G word (to borrow the cancer analogy) with high class yuppie snobbery. Is it gentrification when I walk to the farmer’s market every weekend? Is it gentrification when I buy a coffee from TIBS and drop by and support a business along the slowly revitalizing Portland street? Because I guarantee that the community is benefiting from this. If we had rent control in place (this should be a serious discussion if we are going to eliminate urban sprawl), we’d see better development all around, and more responsible growth all around. Everyone wins, from the new people to new businesses, and the existing community. Right from low income renters just outside of the downtown area to people like me with higher rent tolerances.
It’s this attitude that Sylvain Pankhurst et al. seems to fail to realize that money and good people can change things. Maybe that “tiny libertarian communist group” needed to go a little further in that university education they took a student loan for; maybe they would realize that they needed to go a little further than that first year Poli-Sci course and they would understand that the world left Marx and his unattainable political philosophies some 120 years ago. I’m sorry, please use the phrase “Class Warfare” when it actually applies, not when you need to condemn 90% of the population of being too dumb to understand why they should live in a commune and knit peace quilts. All that happens is that they end up alienating the exact people they need to win over.
You can point to this event as a prime example of gentrification if you want, but I would think it’s more important to target developments and regulations that force low income families out of the neighbourhood. This event doesn’t come close to doing that. What it more likely does is offend Pankhurst’s anti-capitalist sensibilities. Yes, free events like Food not Bombs are fantastic, but commercial events aren’t the enemy by default. Pankhurst can dream of the collapse of the capitalist system all he likes, but whether you love it or hate it the system is showing no signs of disappearing any time soon. Rather than rail against anyone who does anything because they’re motivated by profit, why not find out if they have other motives as well that support everyone in the community?
Does North by Night operate to make money? Of course. But that’s hardly all it does. North by Night is changing the city’s perception of the north end. When I tell out-of-town relatives that I’m heading to Gottingen to hang out on the street with friends, they still assume I have a death wish. When they come to Gottingen themselves, they see a street filled with happy people (of many ethnic backgrounds, it must apparently be noted) enjoying a fun, inexpensive, and safe event. They get used to the idea that Gottingen isn’t a scary place, but a place that they should go to have fun, and yes, to spend their money.
Spending that money does change the north end. How could it not? But the introduction of more money into a community doesn’t have to alienate or sideline the local residents. The participation barriers to merchants who want to be a part of North by Night are incredibly low. Rather than driving out neighbourhood residents, the market is a perfect opportunity for these same residents to try their hand at entrepreneurship. Assuming that these residents don’t have any interest in making money is ridiculous and unfair. It’s an assumption that treats poorer residents like helpless victims of gentrification, frames the issue as an us-vs-them battle, and ultimately discourages local residents from trying to engage with the forces of change in an attempt to better their lives and their community.
Calling out any commercial event that takes place in the north end as another terrible symptom of gentrification can only help to keep the neighbourhood locked in poverty. I won’t pretend that there aren’t downsides to gentrification, that would be a disservice to the people who have been driven out of their longtime homes. But we should also acknowledge the upsides, which in my view are largely embodied by North by Night. If you want to rail against capitalism and anyone driven by the urge to make a profit, go right ahead. Just don’t pretend to do it in the name of a community that likely wouldn’t mind making an extra buck or two for themselves. And if you want to fight against gentrification, please choose your targets wisely. Opposing a low cost, local merchant driven event that is so open to community participation, and with so few barriers (financial or otherwise), makes many of us less likely to listen when you decide to talk about the actual harms caused by gentrifying our north end.
Epic fail for Parkhurst who clearly knows almost nothing of the history of of north end Halifax.
No kidding. Hey asshole, read this: http://spacing.ca/atlantic/2010/11/12/from…
My grandparents used to tell me about the fancy shops on Gottingen, ‘back in the day’.
Damn. Gragg spouts Margaret Thatcher’s “There is no alternative,” mantra, and y’all gobble it up. Nothing like good ol’ fashioned conservatism with a thin icing of liberal platitudes.
One nasty-ass cake.
Does this has something to do with the protesting on gottingen street today in front of the Grace? There were people claiming to be part of an Anarchist group there today with signs but I couldn’t read them. I would like to know what that was all about. It’s my neighborhood and I don’t like all this upheaval from people who don’t even live there. 🙁
BTW I think north by night is doing its best to help make my neighborhood an even more awesome place. 😀
I disagree that “Gentrification simply happens naturally in urban environments.” It is the result of a set of decisions (policies, development, etc) that have unintended consequences. I also strongly believe that community is all about context. The North End of Halifax (however you define that) has always been a mixed community. And if you want a serious historical analysis of one (small but significant) portion of the North End and the unintended consequences of development — even planned development — read Suzanne Morton’s Ideal Surroundings.
it’s funny how Russell quote mined many of my comments and took them out of context trying to twist them to fit his perverted view on gentrification as some beneficial phenomenon. if he cared about the working class people in the community then i doubt he’d be in favor of bourgeois expansion, overpriced condos and the inevitable displacement they will leave in their wake. the solution isn’t artisan bread and fair trade coffee but building community run projects to promote self-sufficiency, these things will do far more to end poverty and other symptoms that come from a capitalist society.
Don’t forget, 50 years ago developers planned what is happening right now.
What are you kids going to do between when you graduate from dal/kings and the trust funds kick in? Save us from ourselves? 20+ years ago I bemoaned the system that kept outsiders on the other side of the velvet rope, now I appreciate it.
And just like that, a fair, reasonable argument for and against gentrification is reduced down to a political ideal. Until the language of your argument changes from denigrating those you need to win over to that of compromise (namely anyone who doesn’t fight the “man”, and those who take advantage of the capitalist society), you’re fighting a terribly uphill battle.
Until then, please be relegated to the sidelines where no one listens to you, and rightfully so.
Dr. Fever said it better than me. I apologize for my outburst. It doesn’t even get across what I was trying to say. Hangs head.
i like how there’s always this assumption that people who are involved politically have university educations and trust funds. i can assure you that as an adult who has had to work since the age of 14 for anything i have my political leanings come from a lifetime of being exploited and undermined by a system that is designed to disenfranchise the many for the benefit of the few.
and dr. fever, if you fail to see how this is a political discussion, as all things in our lives are political, then i don’t know what else to say to you. there is no compromise when we live in an all out assault against working people. the language of compromise is for the people getting screwed over to continue making concessions to those with the most power hoping that they will treat us with dignity. freedom and dignity will never come through compromise with those in positions of destruction but it will be gained by fighting tooth and nail against the oppressive nature of capitalism and all it’s systemic inequities. you say to step to the sidelines which shows that you are afraid of confrontation, perhaps you are someone who directly benefits from these institutions or you are suffering from a form of stockholm syndrome regarding the nature of capitalism.
True, like I said, my last post was bitter and unwarranted. Wolverines!
Please stop with the holier than thou attitude. I’m sorry you feel victimized by the societal norms, but there’s all kinds of people out there that deal with the system as it is and make genuine efforts to make change. When you oversimplify this argument to Capitalism vs. Communism, you insult those who genuinely want to do good and revert wrongs that were done by the system.
Until you accept this, the vast majority will never accept any argument from your side, because you come off as unreasonable.
Don’t get me wrong, but hopeless idealism doesn’t fix issues like gentrification. Community involvement to push for things like rent control helps fix the negative impact of gentrification.
no, fever, they want `change`, and they want it last week.
The anti-poverty anarchist crew would have a great deal more credibility if they weren’t largely ultra-educated young white people who have the privilege and capacity to intentionally choose to live inside their dusty 19th-century ideologies.
Gentrification is problematic, but it is not all bad. It improves the housing stock, brings in new residents, and, when managed (and we can debate the degree to which it’s being managed in the North End) can bring genuine uplift to existing communities. It’s amazing how many “anti-poverty” activists are really just more comfortable keeping everyone poor.
Anyway, it’s pretty obvious who’s on the losing side of this discussion. You can hold all the rallies you want and spray-paint anarchy symbols all the condos you like, but it’s just neighbourhood colour at this point. You may as well be hoisting your placards in the background of a condo ad: “Oh, look, the local anarchists. What a colourful neighbourhood.” The North End is changing. The moldy clapboard and vinyl siding is giving way to restored houses, the weedy lots are making way for new buildings and new residents, the empty storefronts are being re-occupied. This is all good.
On my last visit home to Halifax, I encountered two very different versions of what the development of the North End could look like.
I accompanied my sister’s family to the Ward 5 Participatory Voting session. The room was full of people representing all the different communities in the area and talking to each other about a huge range of initiatives. These people were trying to hammer out an idea of what they collectively valued.
On that same visit, I also went to the North By Night Market. Despite the ethically, locally grown, indie-culture vibe of the participants, I left feeling positively skezzed out by the overall affect of the event.
Before moving away ten years ago, I lived a good 2/3s of my life in the North End and my family has roots that go back to the early 1800s. I know or at least knew the neighbourhood intimately. It might have seemed like a barren wasteland that was scary to some, but it was my home. It was a complex place to grow up in, but living there shaped my understanding of class, race, and community.
The neighbourhood’s history is the most interesting… and traumatic, in the city: the explosion, the razing of Africville and subsequent creation of public housing that broke up that community, the urban renewal plans of the 60’s that destroyed a large chunk of the housing stock, the construction of the Cogwell Interchange that separated the area with heaps of concrete, and then predictably enough, a declining population for many years. In spite of this, there was always a lot going on and it was an eclectic and interesting place to grow up. In terms of the built environment, it was not always pretty, but the neighbourhood wore this history on its architecture and landscape like scars… and if you look for it, you will find beauty, strength, and resilience in this.
And then things started to change, as they do. Every visit I make back home, I notice that the North End looks more and more like every other “up and coming” “emerging neighbourhood on the rise”. It’s not just a Starbucks popping up, but your artisanal fill-in-the-blank culture that has become standard fare in every downtown core in North America. This is not necessarily a bad thing—I’m not trying to bash “hipsters”… frankly, I like tacos as much as the next person— however, it seems that the strain of this culture that is currently laying down roots around Gottingen and Agricola seeks to serve a rather rarefied clientele with highly twee aspirations rather than a diverse community with varying tastes and incomes.
Change was needed in the North End for a long time. The participatory voting process, thriving businesses, being able to buy groceries near your home, people investing in their homes and the architectural integrity of the built environment—all of this has been needed for years and is undoubtedly of benefit to many. And in the greater scheme of things, a more densely developed North End is crucial to building a sustainable high-density city.
But there have to be continued critical conversations about what this looks likes. Otherwise, you risk losing what makes the neighbourhood have a distinctive sense of place that is steeped in a fairly special culture and history… and you get the kind of bland homogeneity of so many other parts of the city. This should be the responsibility of city developers…
..but there’s also a responsibility of the people who move to a community that has the kind of history that the North End has… and that’s to be aware you’re not moving to some kind of tabula rasa neighbourhood that was devoid of life before you got there, to be critical of the kind of gentrification boosterism that is evident on this message board, and to be sensitive to and encourage the existing social capital of a place.
I didn’t see any awareness of that in the version of development promoted at the North by Night Market or many of the new stores/restaurants that surrounded it.
Maybe the North By Night Market is salvageable, maybe it can become something more than what I saw, maybe the new additions are doing things to critically engage with the neighbourhood. I hope so. But I have to ask you enthusiasts—what kind of representation was there from the older businesses on Gottingen—the ones that stuck it out through the difficult years? Some commentators mentioned the “diversity” at this event? Maybe “diverse” people passed through, but they didn’t stick around that I saw. Why might this be the case? And to you young enthusiasts, who have recently moved there, once the neighbourhood out prices YOU, and it will, where will YOU live and how will you feel about not being able to afford to live in the community you felt invested in?
Poor Mr. Pankhurst was doomed to end up being an anarchist/communist, to use the far left’s catch words of “bourgeois” and “class warfare”, and to rail against anything to do with money when he was given the name Sylvain. As is the case with many people’s problems, you can blame the parents.
Seriously though, it actually gives me a headache to read that diatribe after Mr. Gragg’s well-balanced op-ed.
Hopefully Panky is equally pained using the internet, spawned from the evil military-industrial complex, on an equally (more?) evil computer produced in a capitalist society.
PS. I love when people look like a stereotype. Marx had a lot of hair, but he actually groomed ya know
Ramen noodles are the opiate of the people, manufactured by giant capitalist Korean Chaebol corporations that need to ensure their lowest paid employees do not actually die of starvation so that they can continue working, albeit with diminished mental capacity.
Sorry Slyvain, you’ve been duped by poor nutrition and it has affected your critical thinking skills.
Perhaps some locally grown organic produce will help you think more clearly?
Seriously, do you not see the hypocrisy of arguing for social equality while professing to consume one of the most egregiously capitalist and globalized foodstuffs, while the so-called new-north Enders promote local and sustainable food?
As a life-long north ender, I see that there have always been class issues, but I can assure you there was not a utopian period before gentrification. Instead, there were “dark satanic mills ” of industry side by side with family homes and social assistance housing. I am more than glad that the toxic industries are leaving my neighbourhood so that my children can have a safer home. I am also happy that the streets are safer and if it took gentrification to get the drug dealers off the street corners, I’m ok with that. I know it’s rough for poor people, but they didn’t want the drug pushers either. But it is not the fault of people who are able to make positive change that there are economic trade offs. This is why community involvement in supporting rent control and subsidized housing are important, not blaming the people who try to make it a better place.
And FYI, Sylvain, I have seen that film, and I have been to the Agricola St Brasserie.
And you know what?
I’d rather the Brasserie than the damn toxic tile factory that was there in 1967.
There may have been African Nova Scotia workers at that tile factory, I don’t know, but it was dangerous and a social problem to have in our neighbourhood. As was the Maritime Demolition on Harris St. As was the screen-printing factory on Roberts St. As were the dry cleaners on Cunard and Agricola. Pretty much all of the condo developments in the neighbourhood are reclaimed industrial land. I’m more than ok with this.
Dr. Fever. Downtown Dartmouth was where I was born and raised, and I can’t afford to live there anymore. You are supporting newer businesses that have displaced many old time residents. Feeding Others of Dartmouth gets pressured by TIBS customers asking that they change locations because TIBS customers feel uncomfortable drinking lattes while they watch locals line up for a meal… I want to be able to support TIBS and other businesses, because I do believe in supporting local entrepreneurs, but not when their presence is exclusionary to my neighbours. What are these businesses doing to be inclusive of the former residents?
Reading this debate, Im not sure I agree completely with either side, but I do agree there are issues with the night market and north end developments. Like with many things, its a good idea in theory. I enjoy things that bring people into the streets, talking to each other, facilitating community and discussion. Events like that , you’d think, would include everyone in the community. However, at the night market I went to I did not see this. How could an event that revolves mainly around purchasing and consuming things be inclusive? there is no draw for lower class, even lower middle class people. As a fairly poor student, I can only afford to go out maybe once a week. I usually spend this money on a cheap show, theatre, dancing, etc. Sometimes this includes some food being bought, but usually it focuses on entertainment. At the night market, there was really no entertainment. Its great that there was local vendors and food, but to actually have a space that keeps people communicating, being outside, you have to offer more. There needs to be live music or activities that allow more people to attend and enjoy themselves without spending money. When you’re having a weekly outdoor event, its kinda your responsibility to make it as accessible and inclusive as possible.
I know not all events are for everyone, but I just think it would be such a positive and amazing thing if there could be more things in the city that could be for a wider range of people. I think we often overlook certain people in our community (older, disabled, poor, mentally/physically ill, queer) when thinking about shaping communities. I still think theres a lot of positive things about the night market- its great to support local, positive businesses and makers and bring people together. but in general, I find this type of exclusion happening in a lot of revitalized or ‘up and coming ‘ communities and i think its a good idea to think about it more at least, and see what we can do.
I grew up in a low income neighbourhood in a small town in Nova Scotia. We would have welcomed any and all investment in the community – call it gentrification or whatever you want. Unfortunately, the “gentrification” didn’t arrive and the neighbourhood has declined continuously over the past 30 years to the point where there are now many abandoned houses that the town can’t afford to demolish. Eventually they will fall down or burn.
Mr. Pankhurst and his friends can play at being socialists or whatever they think they are but I suspect his educational background and upbringing ensures that he can retreat back to his middle class or better existence whenever he likes. I’m confident he has never experienced grinding poverty and the feeling that one might never escape it.
I suspect that the majority of long-time north end residents and businesses fully support development. It brings money and people to their neighbourhood. Having more night time activity at restaurants improves safety for everyone. The property values of long-time homeowners go up. It’s only the self-styled slacker types who want to hold back progress so they can continue their low-cost lifestyle unabated.
On a related topic, I also am against the creation of so-called affordable housing developments. Clustering the poor together creates pockets of what I will lightly term persistent pessimism. I grew up in that sort of situation and it was very discouraging. People in the neighbourhood actually tried to talk me out of continuing my education. They said I was wasting my time. I was lucky to escape it. Many of my peers didn’t. Several died tragically at a young age. A better answer is to provide the poor with enough income to have more choice over where they live – through guaranteed minimum incomes or rent subsidies – not to make them prisoners of the state and force them to live where they are assigned housing. That only serves to reinforce feelings of powerlessness and loss of self-agency. And fighting “gentrification” isn’t helping the people who need help the most.
Bring on the so-called “gentrification”. I call it progress.
I don’t see any of the new posh businesses on Agricola hiring a lot of underprivileged youths from Uniacke Square. I do see them saving on overhead due to their proximity. Just saying…
I live in one of the 300+K newer condominiums in the neighborhood.
It’s great, I can go home for lunch (I have a job.), and we are within walking distance to downtown.
My only complaint was our view, four storeys below, non-profit housing.
Fortunately the non-profits were sold recently, and are being renovated to bring them up to the new neighborhood standard, thus raising my own property value.
Now I have no complaints.
Thank you.