Green gentrification: Can urban greening displace residents?
Jessica Quinton (UBC) & James Steenberg (NS Dept Lands and Forestry)
2021-06
In our previous blog series on the benefits of urban trees, we wrote about their role in increasing property values. While this can be beneficial for homeowners, it can also present problems—particularly for renters and those who cannot afford increased property taxes and other costs of living. This has been seen with urban greening more broadly and is part of a process referred to as green (or ecological or environmental) gentrification, which is concerned with the displacement and/or exclusion of marginalized residents due to the inmoving of wealthier households following urban greening. It has been seen with different types of greening, such as new or upgraded parks, community gardens, energy efficient buildings, cycle lanes, brownfield restoration projects, and more. Although high-profile projects, such as the New York City High Line, have received a lot of attention when it comes to green gentrification, small community-led projects can also promote gentrification (Alkon and Cadji, 2020). There has been relatively little research on the role of trees in gentrification, except for an example from Portland, OR (Donovan et al., 2021).
Most people have at least a vague notion of gentrification but may not know it was coined to describe the inmoving of wealthier residents (and subsequent displacement of the working class) in some neighbourhoods in 1960s London (Glass, 1964). Fifty years of research and discussion have expanded our understanding of the concept, but there is not always consensus about what exactly constitutes gentrification. Broadly speaking, some areas within cities experience more financial investment than others. Areas of disinvestment typically house poor and other marginalized communities due to the lower cost of living. If these areas are in desirable locations (e.g. close to downtown), developers can take advantage of lower property prices and purchase land for redevelopment so it can be marketed to a wealthier clientele. The government (and other stakeholders) also play a role in the process, for example by changing zoning laws or allowing exemptions, planning public infrastructure, or other developments in the area. An increase in amenities and housing quality attracts wealthier households to move in, and this can displace previous residents who can no longer afford to stay in the area. Displacement is not always physical or due to financial constraints but can also occur when residents no longer feel welcome in their neighbourhood due to the changing landscape and demographics.
Many factors can attract higher-income households to an area, including: public transit; high-end shopping districts, restaurants, and cafes; residential developments; cultural attractions; and more. Green gentrification recognizes the role of urban greening in encouraging gentrification, as greening is increasingly viewed as a highly desirable amenity in cities. Some researchers have also suggested that greening is used not only to attract wealthier households (and/or tourists) but to legitimize redevelopment projects that otherwise may not receive much public support. It is important to remember that multiple drivers of gentrification can be implemented alongside each other, making it difficult to disentangle greening from the other factors encouraging gentrification. It can also be difficult to determine whether gentrification occurred because an area was greened or whether an area was greened because gentrification occurred previously (Reibel et al., 2021). Gentrification is a complex process that unfolds unevenly across space and time and involves a diverse set of drivers and actors.
Gentrification in Halifax’s North End has been a concern in the past several years, with many noting the disproportionate effect it has had on Black residents. The North End has become popular among university students and middle-class newcomers due to the lower rents and the increasing number of condominiums, restaurants, bars, and other commercial attractions. One of the most gentrified areas in the North End is the Hydrostone area, which is one of the greener parts of the North End—a feature used to market the area. A recently approved tower condominium in the North End has committed to the provision of public and green space, and the renderings of the new development are dotted with trees and other greenery (Figure X). It is unclear how much of a role urban greening has played (or will play) in the ongoing gentrification of the North End, but it is obvious that urban greening—including trees—sells. When it comes to trees in Halifax, it is unclear how they have or will affect gentrification in the city more broadly. Newly planted street trees, for example, are relatively small and provide less canopy cover than mature trees. If trees are more highly valued and desired with a larger canopy, can newly planted trees still influence gentrification? Will there be a delayed effect as the tree grows or is the promise of future canopy enough to promote gentrification? There is currently no research on such questions.
There is also little insight on how to successfully limit gentrification in areas surrounding greening projects. Some have suggested creating smaller parks but results have been mixed (Chen et al., 2021; Rigolon and Németh, 2020), and it seems unlikely that simply scaling down tree planting projects would mitigate gentrification. Many have also advocated for the provision of affordable housing and rent control, but this needs strong enforcement to ensure the units are actually built and maintained for lower income households. There is also a discussion to be had about what exactly is ‘affordable’. Some potential considerations should be how urban greening is designed and for whom, to ensure it does not cater only to wealthier households and tourists. Another is to avoid concentrating amenities (including parks, trees, etc.) in a handful of areas, which can create enclaves of privilege. Some research has indicated that cities with more overall green space may experience less green gentrification (Rigolon and Németh, 2020), and in an ideal world, cities would have sufficient green space to accommodate everyone’s needs and greening would not have a gentrifying effect. However, financial constraints force municipalities to choose where to allocate funding for green space. Finally, it does appear that high-profile greening projects (such as the NYC High Line) have a particular impact on gentrification. Cities like to tout their green achievements, which brings attention to greening projects and makes them more desirable—perhaps ‘quiet’ greening could result in a more equitable outcome. If we want to ensure that everyone has access to the many benefits provided by urban greening—including our urban forests—residents must be able to stay in place after greening has occurred.
References
Alkon AH and Cadji J (2020) Sowing seeds of displacement: Gentrification and food justice in Oakland, CA. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 44(1): 108–123. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12684.
Chen Y, Xu Z, Byrne J, et al. (2021) Can smaller parks limit green gentrification? Insights from Hangzhou, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 59(February). Elsevier GmbH: 127009. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127009.
Donovan GH, Prestemon JP, Butry DT, et al. (2021) The politics of urban trees: Tree planting is associated with gentrification in Portland, Oregon. Forest Policy and Economics 124(August 2020). Elsevier B.V.: 102387. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102387.
Glass R (1964) London: Aspects of Change (Centre for Urban Studies ). London: MacGibbon & Kee.
Reibel M, Rigolon A and Rocha A (2021) Follow the money : Do gentrifying and at-risk neighborhoods attract more park spending ? Journal of Urban Affairs 00(00). Routledge: 1–19. DOI: 10.1080/07352166.2021.1886857.
Rigolon A and Németh J (2020) Green gentrification or ‘just green enough’: Do park location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not? Urban Studies 57(2): 402–420. DOI: 10.1177/0042098019849380.
