Green Gentrification: A Case Study and Theoretical Analysis
Introduction
The world is facing new challenges as a consequence of climate change. Ecosystems and communities across the United States are experiencing hotter temperatures, more severe storms, sea-level rise and warming, increases in incidents of drought, loss of species, global rises in hunger, health threats, and poverty and displacement. To avoid the worst effects of climate change, we must dramatically reduce global carbon emissions. However, regardless of our progress in limiting carbon emissions society still faces significant impacts. Action must be taken to mitigate the consequences of climate change, which has negatively impacted ecosystems and communities across the globe.
The ability to prepare for, recover from, and adapt to the impacts of climate change is called “climate resilience.” Climate resilience can include a combination of nature-based actions, for example improving stormwater management to mitigate flooding hazard or managing the heat island effect in urban ecosystems by planting shaded trees. The U.S government has made a pledge to build climate resilience and many communities in the U.S. are increasingly adopting green interventions. But often these green interventions have negative consequences, like green gentrification. Green gentrification refers to a process started by the implementation of an environmental planning agenda that lead to the exclusion and displacement of vulnerable residents. Environmental improvements tend to increase quality of life and subsequently property values in communities where they are implemented. Increasing property values act to price out vulnerable residents.
Low-income communities, people of color, and migrant communities, are often vulnerable residents. These communities have contributed the least to climate change, have the least access to environmental amenities, but are the most exposed to climate hazards and effects, and have the fewest resources to adapt, making their communities the perfect ground for climate resilience projects. But now, as a consequence, are most likely to experience residential and social displacement as green gentrification permeates their communities.
Despite the well reported negative consequences of greening many local governments continue to incentivize greening projects without the consideration of its negative effects. In this paper we outline strategies that when implemented can reduce the negative consequences of greening and highlight governments and local communities making conscious decisions to preserve communities and their residents in the design of their climate projects.
Parks-Related Anti-Displacement Strategies (PRADS)
Literature has both heralded greening initiatives for mitigating the impacts of climate change (Kondo 2018, Lee & Maheswaran 2011, Beyer et al 2014, Aram et al 2019) and criticized greening for its role in gentrification and displacement (Shokry et al 2020, Wolch et al 2014,), challenging policymakers, local governments, and stakeholders to find more equitable solutions to climate change.
As a result, much recent literature has focused on finding ways to implement green improvements without the unintended consequences (Cite). These methods can be summarized by the acronym PRADS, Parks-Related Anti-Displacement Strategies, a term coined by Alessandro Rigolon, from the University of Utah, and Jon Christensen, from the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. The methods are organized to describe strategies for protecting renters, homeowners, businesses, and jobs from gentrification, and incentivizing housing developers, public housing organizations, and public park funding agencies to offer affordable housing options.
11th Street Bridge Park Project (Washington, D.C)
The 11th Street Bridge Park project in Southeast Washington DC creates a perfect scenario to empirically examine how PRADS can work to mitigate green gentrification. D.C’s Southeast region has previously engaged in environmental projects, like the Anacostia River protection and restoration project led by the Anacostia watershed society, but this project is the first where organizations, government, and communities work together to implement equitable development. The 11th Street Bridge Park project will construct a public park and pedestrian link in place of a defunct vehicular bridge to serve as a connection between the east (Capitol Hill) and western (Anacostia Hill) sides of the Anacostia River. The park is designed to include (with input from local residents) an environmental education center, amphitheater, kayak / canoe launch, urban agriculture, café, play space, hammock grove, rain gardens, picnic garden and overlooks with views of the Capitol and Anacostia hills.
The idea to reconstruct the 11th Street Bridge, first proposed by Harriet Tregoning, the former Director of the DC Office of Planning, aimed to literally bridge the two neighborhoods of Anacostia and Capitol Hill, hoping the park can serve as a model and symbol for community-driven planning and greening projects. The park will link Washington D.C Ward 6, the Capitol Hill neighborhood characterized as upscale and predominantly white and Ward 8, the Anacostia Hill neighborhood characterized quite oppositely as historically African-American and low-income. Anacostia Hill residents are especially vulnerable to the negative consequences of greening projects because of systematic disinvestment in their communities. The Washington D.C Government, Building Bridges Across the River (BBAR), a non-profit organization aiming to revitalize communities in Southeast DC, and two architecture firms, one firm based in the Netherlands (OMA), and the other a landscape architecture firm based in Philadelphia (OLIN) worked together to design a park building strategy that involves local residents and prioritizes equity. The 11th Street Bridge Project begins construction at the end of this year, and predicts an opening date sometime in 2025. Establishing protections for residents and incentives for developers is timely. Establishing early, before developers and investors recognize the potential of park projects to increase surrounding property values, is considered best for success. Already the Bridge project team has implemented these protections:
Renters: D.C has a reputation for being “pro-Tenant”, meaning they go above and beyond other states to make laws to protect renters. D.C’s government has implemented ordinances (DOPA, TOPA) to protect renters and low-income populations from being displaced, a solid foundation to encourage equitable development boasted by the 11th Street Bridge project design. The District Opportunity to Purchase Act (DOPA) is an affordable housing preservation tool that gives the Mayor the authority to purchase certain apartment buildings in order to: (1) maintain existing rental affordable units for tenants; and (2) increase the total number of affordable rental units within the District. The Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) states that tenants in buildings up for sale must be offered the first opportunity to buy the building. TOPA aims to stabilize neighborhoods, combat urban displacement and help tenants become homeowners. Under this provision more than 1,000 units have been preserved as affordable housing since 2002.
Homeowners: Manna DC is a nonprofit housing developer and counselor in the District of Columbia. The organization aims to revitalize D.C neighborhoods through homeownership. Manna DC is responsible for creating new, and preserving existing affordable housing, as well as encouraging homeownership in DC by offering first-time homebuyer education courses, for the process of home purchase and for continued success as homeowners. The Bridge Park team will partner with Manna and provide grant dollars for a down payment assistance program to make homeownership financially feasible for lower-income households and provide affordable homeownership opportunities within Ward 8. These organizations will also work together to erect a Home Buyers Club chapter in Ward 8 and establish homebuyer education programs targeted towards renters currently living within the area. Increased homeownership in Ward 8 will act to mitigate impacts of displacement from the Bridge Park project.
Businesses & Jobs: The Skyland Workforce Center was established in 2019 to support employment opportunities for Anacostia residents in conjunction with the Bridge Park project. The Skyland Workforce Center provides workforce development programs and job placement opportunities for Ward 8 residents so they can achieve economic self-sufficiency, and improved quality of life. The center works to ensure that local workers will be highly qualified and first in line for construction jobs related to the park so that they have a lessened likelihood of being displaced due to employment mismatches.
Nonprofit and Public Housing Organizations: The Douglass Community Land Trust was formed in 2017 in response to fears of displacement due to the 11th Street Bridge Park. The Trust maintains over 200 units of affordable housing with goals to reach 750 units by 2027. Aiming to provide lasting community assets and permanently affordable housing opportunities for families and communities.
Public Park Funding Agencies: Building Bridges Across the River (BBAR) is a non-profit organization established in 1997 to fund community development projects in Southeast D.C. BBAR’s mission is to improve the quality of life for families living east of the Anacostia River. BBAR in conjunction with the D.C government is responsible for the construction of the 11th Street Bridge Park, they prioritizes equity and in their role as park manager will continue fighting to maintain culture and communities in Ward 8, by establishing community led decision boards and sub-organizations that will assist in reaching their equitable development goals.
The 11th street Bridge Park project is a good example of how PRADS can be implemented in greening project plans to prioritize equity. Employing protections and resources for homeowners, renters and workers, engaging non-profit agencies and challenging local governments to prioritize anti-displacement and equitable development legislation. Despite having an equity-driven agenda embedded in the Bridge Park design, Anacostia is still at risk of green gentrification. In Anacostia, house prices are already going up, median sale prices have multiplied by 2.5 between 2014 and 2018, signifying that a majority of residents will ultimately be displaced following the bridge project. Although this project boasts community support, protesters have assembled with claims that the vision set by the equitable development plan is not being realized. The fact remains that no matter how much equity planning is embedded into urban greening interventions, there may be unavoidable negative consequences for local communities.
Research Question
How can we know whether PRADS work to improve conditions for local residents following a greening project like 11th Street Bridge Park? The project design follows equitable and anti-displacement strategies cited in literature as effective ways to mitigate green gentrification. But this body of literature relies solely on theoretical justifications, offering no empirical evidence to enforce the efficacy of the cited strategies. Many greening projects that prioritize equitable development are fairly new, and some, like the Bridge Park, have not yet completed construction. This makes it difficult to examine community conditions following a greening project to determine if PRADS did reduce the impacts of green gentrification.
One study examines the impact of community land trust (CLT) on gentrification outcomes, Choi et al 2018. Choi investigates whether CLTs counteract the negative effects of neighborhood gentrification, examining neighborhoods from several states in the U.S between 2000 to 2010. Using data from the U.S. Census and the American Community Survey five characteristics were used to identify gentrifying neighborhoods: racial composition, education level, neighborhood average income, property values, and homeownership types. More specifically, Choi establishes a list of quantitative criteria to define gentrifying neighborhoods : (1) The rate of change of percentage White population is higher than that of the corresponding citywide median. (2) The rate of change of percentage college-educated is higher than that of the corresponding citywide median. (3) The rate of change of median income is higher than 120% of the corresponding citywide median. (4) The rate of change of median value of single-family homes is higher than that of the corresponding citywide median. (5) The rate of change of percentage of owner-occupied units is higher than that of the corresponding citywide median. Based on this criteria Choi establishes four types of neighborhoods: (1) Gentrifying neighborhoods with CLTs, (2) Non-gentrifying neighborhoods with CLTs, (3) Gentrifying neighborhoods without CLTs, and (4) Non-gentrifying neighborhoods without CLTs. Choi examines these neighborhood types, finding the impact of CLTs on gentrifying and non gentrifying neighborhoods using neighborhoods without CLTs as the control group. Hypothesizing that CLTs will offset gentrification in three ways: (a) counteracting displacement, (b) preserving affordability, and (c) stabilizing the speculative increase of property values when neighborhoods are gentrified. Previous research has revealed a range of disadvantages associated with gentrification, but until now the role of CLTs in these circumstances has only been assumed or suggested. Furthermore, past studies have not evaluated the actual effects of CLTs on the gentrifying process. Therefore, this research contributes to planning theory by providing practical evidence to bolster the assumptions of previous research.
Choi investigates his hypothesis using a binomial regression model where the dependent variable measures whether the gentrifying process occurred in a neighborhood between 2000 and 2010, and the independent variables include nine gentrification indicators and a dummy variable to describe the existence of a CLT. Finding the presence of CLT units had a significant effect on the probability of gentrification. The odds of gentrification were 0.30 times as likely for neighborhoods with CLTs than for neighborhoods without a CLT. In other words, the presence of CLTs decreased the odds of gentrification by 70%, suggesting that CLTs may slow or dampen the negative impacts of gentrification. Choi then employs a paired t-test to examine specific relationships between displacement, affordability, property values and the presence of CLTs. Finding, CLTs counteract the decrease of lower-middle-class and less-educated residents in gentrifying neighborhoods, which may reduce the likelihood of displacement of such residents due to gentrification. Among gentrifying neighborhoods, affordability decreased more in neighborhoods without a CLT between 2000 and 2010, indicating that CLTs stabilize the decreases in affordability within gentrifying neighborhoods. Lastly, results show no significant results when determining CLTs role in stabilizing housing prices. Overall, Choi finds strong support for the ability of CLTs to help mitigate the negative effects of gentrification.
Choi’s findings highlight the importance of using CLTs as a means to alleviate the negative impacts of gentrification in neighborhoods, results indicate that CLTs may be one of the best ways to stabilize neighborhoods, preserve affordability, and build community assets in neighborhoods. Thus, policymakers and/or community representatives should strongly consider using the CLT model as a development tool in their neighborhoods.
We can use an approach similar to Choi to examine the impact of PRADS on green gentrification outcomes. Choi focuses exclusively on CLT to combat gentrification but this is not the only effort that can be made. We discuss several other strategies that assist in slowing gentrification, that may complement the efforts of CLTs. Together, the impact of these efforts may be more robust. Choi does not consider joint efforts in his analysis, he does not control for the use of other anti-gentrification strategies at the neighborhood or state level. This oversight may mean his results overestimate the impacts of CLTs on gentrification outcomes. We will address these shortcomings in our analysis.
Methods
In this section we propose an analysis of the impacts of PRADs, using the 11th Street Bridge Park project as a natural experiment. Of course the park project has broken ground just this year and its predicted completion date is not until the year 2025, this is not a sufficient time frame for a post analysis. This is the case for many similar greening projects that prioritize equity, not enough time has passed since project completion to conduct an adequate post analysis. We will instead propose a mock post analysis to provide a framework for PRADs impact studies conducted in the near future.
In this hypothetical study we will examine the impacts of PRADS on outcomes following the construction of the 11th street Bridge park. We will compare racial composition, education level, neighborhood average income, property values, and homeownership types before and after the park project. We will investigate changes in these characteristics in Ward 8 and compare them to changes in Ward 7 whose proximity to the park may put residents at risk for gentrification. PRADs proposed for the park project largely focus on Ward 8 residents, Ward 7 residents may not have similar access to CLTs, workforce development programs, or home buying assistance, but do have similar access to renter protection laws. We will use a binomial regression model where the dependent variable measures whether the gentrifying process occurred in the wards of interest following the park project, and the independent variables will include gentrification indicators and several dummy variables to describe the existence of a PRADs. This approach is similar to Choi’s initial analysis, and we anticipate a similar result. We hypothesize that PRADs will offset the impacts of gentrification, Ward 8 neighborhoods will be less likely to experience gentrification compared to Ward 7 residents because of the presence of PRADs.
Data
Choi et al 2018 utilizes public survey data to measure neighborhood change overtime. These public surveys include the U.S Census and the American Community Survey, which offer well documented information about neighborhood race, income, level of education, and home value, which are all markers for gentrification. The benefit of proposing this analysis before the close of the study period is the opportunity to curate more detailed data. We can design a community survey that asks more specific questions about resident utilization of the PRADS programs and resources, their location following displacement, their sentiment towards development in their neighborhood, and even offers the opportunity to collect this data as a panel. This type of data can more robustly describe neighborhood change and we can make stronger conclusions about the impacts of green gentrification and how PRADS prevents or contributes to this trend.
Conclusion
The world is facing new challenges as a consequence of climate change and to avoid its worst effects we must dramatically reduce global carbon emissions. The U.S government has made a pledge to build climate resilience and many communities in the U.S. are increasingly adopting green interventions meant to adapt and abate the negative consequences of climate change. But often these green interventions have negative consequences, like green gentrification. Despite the well reported negative consequences of greening, many local governments continue to incentivize greening projects without the consideration of its negative effects that disproportionately impact low-income communities, people of color, and migrant communities. PRADS, Parks-Related Anti-Displacement Strategies, describe strategies to protect renters, homeowners, businesses, and jobs, and incentivize housing developers, public housing organizations, and public park funding agencies to prevent green gentrification. Although there are several theoretical examples of how PRADS can work to improve green gentrification following a greening project there is no empirical evidence. One paper, Choi et al, looks at the impacts of community land trusts on gentrification outcomes. Using the model design proposed by Choi et al 2018, the 11th Street Bridge Park project in Southeast Washington DC creates a perfect scenario to empirically examine how PRADS can work to mitigate green gentrification. We find that despite having an equity-driven agenda embedded in the Bridge Park design, nearby neighborhoods are still at risk of green gentrification. Since announcing the project, house prices in nearby neighborhoods have gone up, signifying that a majority of residents will ultimately be displaced following the bridge project. To prevent green gentrification we may need to be more aggressive in our efforts to protect local communities.
References
Aram, F., García, E. H., Solgi, E., & Mansournia, S. (2019). Urban green space cooling effect in cities. Heliyon, 5(4), e01339.
Bernard, R. & Kratz, S. (2022).11th Street Bridge Park’s Equitable Development Plan. Building Bridges Across the River.Equitable-Development-Plan_09.04.18.pdf (bbardc.org)
Beyer, K. M., Kaltenbach, A., Szabo, A., Bogar, S., Nieto, F. J., & Malecki, K. M. (2014). Exposure to neighborhood green space and mental health: evidence from the survey of the health of Wisconsin. International journal of environmental research and public health, 11(3), 3453-3472.
Choi, M., Van Zandt, S., & Matarrita-Cascante, D. (2018). Can community land trusts slow gentrification?. Journal of Urban Affairs, 40(3), 394-411.
Green, J. (2021, October 26). Washington, D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park Nears Final Design. The Dirt. https://dirt.asla.org/2021/10/26/washington-d-c-s-11th-street-bridge-park-nears-final-design/
Kondo, M. C., Fluehr, J. M., McKeon, T., & Branas, C. C. (2018). Urban green space and its impact on human health. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(3), 445.
Lee, A. C., & Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence. Journal of public health, 33(2), 212-222.
Matthai, C. ( 2021, April 23). BBAR 11st Street Bridge Park. https://web.mit.edu/nature/projects_21/cases//11streetBridgePark-casestudy-matthai.pdf
Rotondaro, V. (2021, February 12).What’s Behind D.C.’s Gentrification Ranking Drop? One Lawyer Suggests Development Appeals Contributed. Washington CityPaper. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/508617/whats-behind-d-c-s-gentrification-ranking-drop-one-lawyer-suggests-development-appeals-contributed/
Wiener, A. (2014, September 11). With 11th Street Bridge Designs, Anacostia Public Art Takes a Welcome Turn. Washington CityPaper. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/373067/with-11th-street-bridge-designs-anacostia-public-art-takes-a-welcome-turn/
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and urban planning, 125, 234-244.
(2022, March). 2022 Demographics (Ward 6, Ward 7, Ward 8). DC Health Matters. https://www.dchealthmatters.org/?module=demographicdata&controller=index&action=index&id=131495§ionId=
Comentarios