In "Our" Backyard

In “Our” Backyard?

So, who has the rights to the neighborhood? Who can come in? Who can’t? This seems to be the question behind such a sign. I found this looking at Model Minority. I am in some degree of agreement with the M. Dot; it is interesting that when one hears the words “gentrification” or “gentrifier” one automatically thinks of a white person—most often, young—slumming it in the hood or a newly defined revitalization area kicking the current, mostly low-income, minority residents out. We should look at how many different groups also act as gentrifiers. However, I am cautious here as well because I think that is wrong to only look at the income of the “intruders” either for that would lead one to the same mistake as universally blaming (young) whites. Scholars have placed levels of complexity on the matter, examining the exogenous forces at play: structural forces that create in-roads into certain neighborhoods and not others. Mary Pattillo is an excellent example of a scholar who looks at the entire process within the African American community. I would like to call the attention to the role specific institutions play, in this case, colleges and universities.

I am not quite sure how much this plays out in every city but I have noticed that some schools are now “working” with city and county officials to place certain inner city areas earlier in the queue for revitalization in a new way. As part of her analysis in Black on the Block, Pattillo speaks to the role the University of Chicago played in constructing the plans for revitalization of North Kenwood-Oakland. However, I am speaking to the issue of schools actually purchasing properties in inner-city neighborhoods and resurrecting the old buildings, turning them into dorms for their students. Again, this may not be a nation-wide phenomenon but I know that it is happening in Miami, for instance. The University of Miami has literally turned what used to be a half-way house that once contained twelve apartments into a 6 apartment “dorm” of sorts. It is painted green and orange with Sebastian the Ibis (the school's mascot) somewhere on the front. I have to admit, it is nicer than my dorm room here at Harvard: full kitchen, off-street parking, lawn area for BBQ, all surrounding by manicured hedges and palm trees.

As a burgeoning social scientist, I am not saying what follows is strict causality but as soon as the University of Miami stepped in, the entire neighborhood began its crazed condo-phase. Since the (re)introduction of the building, you cannot drive down a single street where a condo has been erected, two-by-two. Coconut Grove, the other side of the tracks (not Cocowalk), never had condos and was always predominately black and low-income. Single family homes, the projects, apartments (inhabited predominantly by those with Section 8 vouchers): yes. Condos: no.

From my limited knowledge, research that includes looking at students and gentrification has primarily focused on university and college students searching out for cheap rents in big and/or expensive cities. But for institutions themselves to purchase these properties specifically for housing thier students and adopt the “buy here/fix here/sell to those outside of here” stance, then we have a new player in the game of gentrification. Am I fishing? Is Miami an isolated case? Harvard and Allston. UPenn and Philly. What new layers of analysis are added to the discussion when we consider the role of institutions in more than thier policy influence?