Gentrification and low-income neighborhoods: Entry, exit and enhancement
Many urban U.S. neighborhoods that were once had high levels of poverty and crime grew more prosperous and attracted new residents over the past twenty years. Although it is commonly believed that this phenomenon, known as gentrification, displaces residents with more wealthy outsiders, little research has been done to show gentrification’s effects on the original residents and overall neighborhood prosperity.
A 2010 study from the United States Census Bureau and New York University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, “How Low Income Neighborhoods Change: Entry, Exit, and Enhancement,” examines patterns of change in metropolitan low-income neighborhoods in the 1990s to evaluate evidence of displacement, sources of neighborhood income change and complementary changes associated with gains in average neighborhood income. The researchers analyzed income changes at the household level using data from the American Housing Survey (AHS) from 1989 to 2001, tract data from the 1990 and 2000 Census, and the Urban Institute’s Neighborhood Change Database (NCBD).
The study’s findings include:
- Original homeowners — immune from the effects of rent increases — left gentrifying neighborhoods at significantly higher rates than did poorer households that rented. The researchers suggested that relocation may be more a selective choice than a product of mounting economic pressures.
- The key drivers of neighborhood change were voluntary entries and exits — not forced economic displacement — and differences between the incomes of those moving into and out of gentrifying neighborhoods proved not to be significant.
- Households that remained in these growing neighborhoods saw much larger increases in income than comparable households in neighborhoods that did not experience such gentrification. Although these changes may not have significantly impacted a neighborhood’s average household income, “it might be an important component of the neighborhood change process.”
- Neighborhood satisfaction increased significantly among renters in neighborhoods experiencing economic growth.
- There was no evidence that neighborhoods experiencing economic growth also grew less racially diverse during that period. While 51% of new renters in these neighborhoods were white, 54% of those leaving these neighborhoods were white.
Overall, the study calls into question theories of gentrification that assume that poorer residents are simply displaced by whiter and wealthier individuals. The authors concluded that “to be sure, some individual residents are undoubtedly hurt by neighborhood change; but in aggregate, the consequences of neighborhood change — at least as it occurred in the 1990s, do not appear to be as dire as many assume.” (Note: The paper’s final version was published in the journal Regional Science and Urban Economics.)
A related 2010 study published in the Journal of Urban Economics, “Who Gentrifies Low-Income Neighborhoods?”, similarly found that “the demographic flows associated with the gentrification of urban neighborhoods during the 1990s are not consistent with displacement and harm to minority households. In fact, taken as a whole, our results suggest that gentrification of predominantly black neighborhoods creates neighborhoods that are attractive to middle-class black households.”
Read the issue-related Cleveland Plain Dealer article titled "Cincinnati's Over-the-Rhine Neighborhood Makes an Amazing Comeback."
- What key insights from the news article and the study in this lesson should reporters be aware of as they cover these issues?
Read the full study titled "How Low Income Neighborhoods Change: Entry, Exit and Enhancement."
- What are the study's key technical term(s)? Which ones need to be put into language a lay audience can understand?
- Do the study’s authors put the research into context and show how they are advancing the state of knowledge about the subject? If so, what did the previous research indicate?
- What is the study’s research method? If there are statistical results, how did the scholars arrive at them?
- Evaluate the study's limitations. (For example, are there weaknesses in the study's data or research design?)
- How could the findings be misreported or misinterpreted by a reporter? In other words, what are the difficulties in conveying the data accurately? Give an example of a faulty headline or story lead.
Newswriting and digital reporting assignments
- Write a lead, headline or nut graph based on the study.
- Spend 60 minutes exploring the issue by accessing sources of information other than the study. Write a lead (or headline or nut graph) based on the study but informed by the new information. Does the new information significantly change what one would write based on the study alone?
- Compose two Twitter messages of 140 characters or fewer accurately conveying the study’s findings to a general audience. Make sure to use appropriate hashtags.
- Choose several key quotations from the study and show how they would be set up and used in a brief blog post.
- Map out the structure for a 60-second video segment about the study. What combination of study findings and visual aids could be used?
- Find pictures and graphics that might run with a story about the study. If appropriate, also find two related videos to embed in an online posting. Be sure to evaluate the credibility and appropriateness of any materials you would aggregate and repurpose.
Class discussion questions
- What is the study’s most important finding?
- Would members of the public intuitively understand the study’s findings? If not, what would be the most effective way to relate them?
- What kinds of knowledgeable sources you would interview to report the study in context?
- How could the study be “localized” and shown to have community implications?
- How might the study be explained through the stories of representative individuals? What kinds of people might a reporter feature to make such a story about the study come alive?
- What sorts of stories might be generated out of secondary information or ideas discussed in the study?