Affordable, safe housing is a huge concern for all populations. Traditionally, neighborhoods have been segregated along socioeconomic lines. However, even in modern cities, policy attempts to integrate communities through equal access housing have failed. Housing lotteries, through neighborhood preference programs, are now being employed by cities across the country to keep families in their neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, those same lotteries are meeting a pushback from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which has stated that neighborhood preference and housing lotteries violate federal fair housing laws. In an interesting turn of events, the populations that fair housing laws are designed to protect are now being utilized to keep them out of their home neighborhoods. This comes as a surprise to many supporters of these anti-displacement programs, as the legislation was created to assist victims of segregation, not perpetuate it.

Federal Fair Housing Laws

In 1968, shortly after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress passed the Fair Housing Act (FHA) in response to concerns about racial segregation. The statute sought to address the issues created by residential segregation, while moving cities and towns away from unequal housing and economic conditions. It was initially enacted under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and then ultimately codified under 42 U.S.C. §3601-3619. A 1968 Supreme Court ruling, Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., held that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits racial discrimination by private and governmental housing providers. These policies established a framework for eradicating segregated housing.

Under the FHA it is unlawful to “refuse to sell or rent […] or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to a person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” or “to discriminate against any person in” making certain real-estate transactions “because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.”  Since the passage of the FHA in 1968, many cities have become more diverse. The FHA plays an integral part in avoiding the Kerner Commission’s grim prophecy that the “nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white–separate and unequal.” The Act was later amended in 1988 to create certain exemptions from liability and expanded protected characteristics, including discrimination on the basis of disability or families with children.

“Fair housing protest, 1964” Courtesy of [Seattle Municipal Archives via Flickr]

Equal Housing and Discrimination

Problems regarding fair housing and discrimination are pervasive in communities across the country. HUD estimates that there are roughly two million cases of housing discrimination annually, but the actual number may be much larger. Many cases of housing discrimination are not reported. Moreover, studies conducted by HUD show that many residents are unaware of what activities are illegal under the FHA.

Despite all of the efforts to diminish segregation and discrimination in housing access, very little progress has occurred nationally. While the country has become more diverse than ever, residential housing patterns remain stagnant. Even with the passage of the FHA and the expansion of state laws protecting residents from housing discrimination, improvements in socioeconomic and racial seclusion have made few advances.

What is Gentrification?

No matter where one travels, there are segregated neighborhoods all over the U.S., particularly in metropolitan areas. Gentrification, or the arrival of  wealthier people in an existing urban district, has become common practice. This causes a litany of problems for the current residents of that community, including increased rents and property values, in addition to drastic changes to the community’s culture.

Researchers have been quick to note that the practice of gentrification is not inherently bad. Seeing a neighborhood with decreased crime, new investments, and increased economic activity are desirable, positive traits for any community. Conflicts occur because usually wealthier, white populations are given significant credit for “improving” neighborhoods, while simultaneously displacing poor, minority residents.

Gentrification has some common characteristics, though there is no technical definition for it. First, there is a change in demographics, leading to an increase in median income, decrease in household size, and a decline in racial minorities. Second, the real estate markets transform, increasing property values and the number of evictions. Third, there is a shift in land use, usually a decrease in industrial uses and an increase in offices, high-end retail, and restaurants. Lastly, a variety of character and cultural attributes change, such as landscaping, public behavior, noise, and nuisance.

Neighborhood and Community Preference

Many cities are facing serious roadblocks for making affordable housing available to low-income and middle-class residents. As property and rent increases, the ability of certain families to stay in a particular neighborhood decreases. Thousands of minority populations are being displaced by gentrification across the country. To combat this growing problem, some cities, like San Francisco, have tried to utilize neighborhood preference and housing lotteries.

Essentially, the program allows current residents to participate in a lottery for affordable housing units partially financed by the federal government. This gives those who currently live in a neighborhood a preference, a right of first refusal. Rights of first refusal are contractual rights that give a particular person or business entity the opportunity to enter into a transaction before a third party. Participants must still compete against other residents, but they have a better chance of remaining in their home neighborhood. In San Francisco, this meant setting aside 40 percent of units in subsidized developments for residents already living in the district or a half mile away. This would allows residents first dibs at living in the brand-new, partially federally-financed building.

Why Does Neighborhood Preference Violate Fair Housing Laws?

While neighborhood preference can be viewed as a noble program, it technically violates HUD’s fair housing laws. The fact that laws designed to assist minority populations are now being used to not keep them in their home neighborhoods creates an extreme incongruity. By employing neighborhood preference, HUD states that it actually maintains segregation rather than eradicating it and limits equal access to housing.

The main issue with these programs is that they give a priority to those already living in a particular district. In these specific areas, residents tend to be low-income minorities. Allowing those residents a preference continues to segregate neighborhoods. It also allows race to be an integral factor in the process, as the effect of allowing current residents to have a preference means that black tenants are more likely to receive the new units.

HUD noted via a spokesperson that the agency takes great care when reviewing programs that have noble intentions but end up with negative consequences. However, it was also noted that there was no record of HUD ever approving a neighborhood preference program.

San Francisco is not the only city experiencing these roadblocks in assisting low-income residents. In New York, a fair housing group has filed suit alleging that the city’s policy of using community preferences for affordable housing units perpetuates segregation. The pattern is national, with urban neighborhoods becoming increasingly whiter and more affluent.

Conclusion

While there are many positive aspects to transforming a neighborhood, the social, economic, and physical impacts of some changes may have negative consequences for current residents. Federal fair housing laws exist to eliminate segregated neighborhoods, but often come at a cost to current residents. The laws designed specifically to protect certain classes of citizens are now being utilized to push those same people out of their homes.

On September 22, 2016, HUD came back with a different answer after placing the San Francisco program under review. In a letter to the mayor, HUD decided that while the city cannot give priority to neighborhood residents for spaces in affordable housing projects, it will allow 40 percent of the units to be prioritized for residents who are at a high risk of displacement. Race will not be a factor for consideration in the selection process. This announcement immediately affects the Willie B. Kennedy senior apartment complex, which has roughly 98 units and more than 6,000 applicants. The lottery for this particular property had been delayed pending HUD’s decision.

This change demonstrates HUD’s willingness to acknowledge the serious consequences of displacement. It may not be the most ideal way to combat issues of equal access, but it certainly shows a sensitivity to keeping citizens in their neighborhoods. While neighborhood preference programs are out, it seems that “anti-displacement” preference programs are in.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

The Kerner Commission: Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders

Legal Information Institute: Fair Housing Act

Additional

NPR: How ‘Equal Access’ Is Helping Drive Black Renters Out Of Their Neighborhood

PBS: What is Gentrification?

CivilRights.Org: Fair Housing Laws

SF Gate: Federal Agency OKs Preferences at New SF senior Housing Complex

Investopedia: Right of First Refusal

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Equal Access?: Neighborhood Preference and Housing Lotteries appeared first on Law Street.

You’ve probably heard the term gentrification before–the process in which college-educated, higher-income individuals move into low-income parts of a city in order to live closer to cultural centers. While most people argue that this process leads to new development and better government services, they also highlight how it can displace the existing residents of these communities.

While that narrative is pretty straightforward and easy to grasp, it is important to ask whether gentrification is responsible for many of America’s urban problems. Read on to see what the arguments for and against gentrification are and what studies actually say about the process. Is gentrification as bad as people make it out to be or are other developments just as problematic?

What is Gentrification?

Like any word, gentrification has a simple definition, but in practice the process tends to be much more complicated. The formal definition of gentrification is: “the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.”

History

Prior to gentrification, there was white flight–the phrase used to describe the mass migration of whites out of inner cities and into suburbs. White flight started in the mid-20th century and continued for decades to create the many suburbs that we have today. In the wake of this migration, cities like Washington, D.C. took on a majority-minority character as minorities moved downtown and white people left for the suburbs. Gentrification is typically used to describe the reverse of this process, with affluent people, often white, trickling back into inner cities.

While dilapidated or unused properties have always been refurbished and repurposed over time, the term gentrification itself traces its roots back to 1960s London. In 1964, a British sociologist named Ruth Glass coined the term to describe what was happening in a run-down neighborhood of London. Working-class immigrants were being replaced by professional types, who wanted to be closer to the cultural centers of life. This follows the narrative of development associated with gentrification today as young, educated people seek affordable rent in new parts of a city.

According to the typical story of gentrification, this group is then followed by a second wave that is usually composed of young professional types who move in once a neighborhood becomes more established. After the second wave, the neighborhoods themselves also begin to improve aesthetically as more money pours in. New residents create a stronger tax base and increase investment incentives for companies. Infrastructure is repaired and rebuilt while new construction is started. All this new activity begins to raise the property value of everything from the corner store to the apartment complex down the street. As a result, the original low-income, typically minority residents are essentially priced out of their own communities and forced to leave for somewhere more affordable. The video below looks at several aspects of gentrification and how it is normally understood:

Who does gentrification affect?

The major criticism of gentrification is that the process boils down to affluent whites pushing poor minorities out of their own neighborhoods, in an effort to return to the inner city that their parents and grandparents abandoned years earlier. However, when you look at the evidence and research on gentrification, that narrative doesn’t always hold up.

According to several recent studies by economists and sociologists, the process of gentrification, as it is generally understood, is actually not always accurate. On average, there is little evidence to suggest that more gentrification leads to greater displacement among the original residents. This is not to say that no one ends up being displaced, but generally speaking, displacement is not a significant consequence of gentrification.

In fact, for those who stay in their neighborhoods, regardless of race, gentrification can actually have positive effects. While rents do rise as property taxes increase, residents also have more opportunities like better jobs. In fact, the whole narrative associated with gentrification is called into question as the studies also showed whites are not very likely to move into historically minority neighborhoods at all.

Regardless of whether gentrification is as bad as some people believe, a backlash against the perceived trend has already begun. There are examples in Brooklyn and Philadelphia, but arguably the most notorious backlash occurred against a store in London selling cheap cereal at high prices in a low-income neighborhood, which led to boycotts and protests. In a somewhat surprising turn of events, however, this backlash against gentrification has spawned a counter-backlash, with those accused of gentrification standing fast in the face of criticism.

What Does It All Mean?

While gentrification can affect poor communities, generally that is not the most significant problem. The new investment and diversity actually tends to improve a community. The real problem is that the process of gentrification might only affect certain communities, leaving others with extremely high rates of poverty.

In a study of Chicago’s poor neighborhoods, Harvard researchers found that gentrification only occurred or continued to occur in neighborhoods where the racial composition was at least 35 percent white. They found that the process would actually stop in places where 40 percent or more residents were black. In other words, affluent whites may not be forcing poor black people out of their neighborhoods, rather they are bypassing them completely. This is not to say that the influx of wealthy whites simply improves poor neighborhoods, rather historically black neighborhoods tend to be neglected when it comes to new investment and development. Not only does this challenge the conventional perception of gentrification, it also reinforces an older and more sinister problem in the United States: segregation.

The continuation of segregation is not being perpetuated only by whites returning to the inner city, but also in black migration out of cities. Recent evidence suggests that minority populations are increasingly moving to the suburbs. While individual neighborhoods may be integrating, new suburban trends are actually increasing segregation. On the suburban and town level within metropolitan areas, racial divisions are actually increasing. The following video gives a look at segregation in the US and the problems it leads to:

While the continuation of segregation is bad enough, it has yet another negative aspect associated it. Since gentrification or any other process of development are slow, if not completely non-existent in historically poor neighborhoods, those neighborhoods remain poor and disadvantaged. For all its own potential evils, gentrification may simply expose the familiar problems of segregation and perpetual poverty that are still going unaddressed.

The Government’s Role in Gentrification

The idea of outsiders coming into an inner city neighborhood with cash and plans for improvement is not a new idea and had a name before gentrification: urban renewal. Urban renewal, unlike gentrification, was a product of government policy, which was intended to revitalize various sections of cities. Housing reform movements began as early as 1901 but really gained momentum in the 1930s when zoning ordinances were passed separating housing and industrial areas.

The movement was crystallized in Title 1 of the Housing Act of 1949: the Urban Renewable Program, which promised to eliminate slums, replace them with adequate housing, and invigorate local economies. The act failed, however, in one of its other main goals: addressing segregation. Developers’ decisions to build high-income housing, large development projects, and highways that physically divided cities ensured the practice would continue. This disproportionately affected minority residents. Many were forced to move, often to other more crowded and/or expensive areas.

The government took another try at housing with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which was meant to stop segregation in neighborhoods at all levels. Additional measures were put in place over the years such as the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which replaced the emphasis on the demolition of decaying urban areas with rehabilitation.

As these problems persist, and with the racial strife continuing to plague the United States, President Obama sought to create legislation to address housing once again. In his plan, which was announced in July, data would be compiled then given to local authorities who could use it to more accurately distribute Housing and Urban Development funds. These efforts are intended to end the negative aspects that gentrification perpetuates, including poverty concentration and segregation. The accompanying video below details Obama’s plan to address segregation:

Conclusion

Gentrification is a well-known issue in the United States, but when you take a closer look at what is going on the trend becomes much more complicated. While displacement and housing costs are significant problems for local governments, gentrification might not always be at fault. The traditional gentrification narrative says that as wealthy people move to poor urban areas housing prices and live costs rise, displacing low-income residents. Emerging research challenges that narrative but notes that many low-income communities still face significant challenges. While people are starting to question the traditional understanding of gentrification, backlashes against inner city development and its perceived effects continue.

Studies show that gentrification does not cause displacement at the rates that most people may think, but it does highlight new trends in segregation. While inner-city communities are becoming more diverse, urban housing prices in general are going up. As a result, many low-income residents are moving to suburbs, which face further racial division. Historic segregation and displacement from urban renewal has created areas of concentrated poverty, which have grown consistently over the past decade. This poverty also tends to disproportionately affect minorities. According to CityLab, “One in four black Americans and one in six Hispanic Americans live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared to just one in thirteen of their white counterparts.” While most people think of the inner city when they think of poor neighborhoods, poverty and segregation are actually growing in many U.S. suburbs. Overall, the face of many American cities and towns are significantly changing.

Resources

Regional Science and Urban Academics: How Low Income Neighborhoods Change

US2010 Project: Separate and Unequal in Suburbia

Slate: The Myth of Gentrification

The Atlantic: White Flight Never Ended

City Lab: The Backlash to Gentrification and Urban Development has Inspired its Own Backlash

Harvard Gazette: A New View of Gentrification

The Hill: New Obama housing rules target segregated neighborhoods

Curbed: As ‘Gentrification’ Turns 50, Tracing its Nebulous History

Encyclopedia.com: Urban Renewal

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gentrification: What is it Doing to Our Urban Centers? appeared first on Law Street.

“UUGGHH.” That’s how Minneapolis-based street artist Eric Rieger, aka Hottea, responded to the latest indication of gentrification in New York. One-ninety Bowery has stood the test of time. The imposing six-story limestone Renaissance Revival relic has long been a cultural landmark. Built in 1899, then Germania Bank of New York City serviced its surrounding community, “Little Germany” (Kleindeutschland), once the largest German-American–then-bourgeois–enclave in the country.

In 1966, long after the bank dissolved, photographer Jay Maisel bought the abandoned edifice and converted its facilities into the largest single-family home in New York City. That was until Fall 2014, when Maisel reluctantly sold his spacious dwelling to one of the most voracious real-estate developers swallowing up NYC properties today. RFR Holdings LLC bought the property for an undisclosed price in September, valued between $35 and 70 million, with plans to flip the building, marketing it as ideal for retailing at the base with condominiums above, and offices, or even an art gallery. 

190 Bowery, courtesy of erin williamson via Flickr.

Courtesy of erin williamson via Flickr.

Should we be surprised? With the New Museum a block away, a Whole Foods Market nearby, scores of luxury apartments, boutiques, and art galleries immediately South, it was only a matter of time before 190 Bowery succumbed to SoHo, the epicenter of loft living. RFR will be responsible for the “renovation” of the building’s cultural memory, of course; developers have already issued a rendering of the facade scrubbed clean of the layers of graffiti, on which artists including Keith Haring, COST, NEKST, Shepard Fairey, and others have made their marks for the last three decades. One-ninety Bowery is “the last remaining part of ‘old New York’,” lamented Hottea. “This building is so iconic… it’s been there for years. I think it reminds a lot of people of what New York used to be, and how that’s being taken away… UUGGHH. That’s all I can say. When is it going to stop?” But such is the normal arch of the gentrification narrative, 5 Pointz being a glaring example. We should, however, be concerned with the manner in which this process is taking place.

RFR Holdings LLC was founded in 1991 by Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs, German-born real-estate tycoons who together own 71 properties globally. Over the last year, Rosen and Fuchs have spent $250 million on Manhattan land purchases, $500 million on office building acquisitions, and nearly $150 million on retail property–a spending spree to rival that of Quicken Loans founder Dan Gilbert who now owns most the real estate in downtown Detroit. Aside from the starkly different cities in which their properties are located, Gilbert’s Rock Ventures is an American-based firm, while RFR Holdings LLC has headquarters in New York and Frankfurt. “We can buy something more expensive because we have our own capital, plus European capital that looks for longer returns,” Rosen explained in a recent New York Times interview. “We don’t have to get in and out quickly, and having this long view allows us to be more aggressive.”

Aby Rosen, courtesy of Christopher Peterson via Wikimedia.

RFR’s acquisitions represent a broad trend of foreign investment in American real estate since the late 1980s. In lieu of escrow accounts in Swiss banks and securities in the Caribbean, which have come under intense international scrutiny, foreign investors have poured their money into global real estate, which can serve as a “convenient pied-à-terre, an investment hedge against a wobbly home currency,” according to New York Magazine, “or an insurance policy—a literal refuge if things go bad.” After the U.S. housing crisis from 2007 to 2010, property values in American cities plummeted, and while the U.S. economy has been recovering, they are still relatively “low” compared to cities around the world.

The market rate for luxury apartments in Hong Kong, for instance, is between $4,100 and $5,000 per square foot; in London the same properties are valued at $3,300 to $4,100. By comparison, Manhattan properties cost half that, ranging from about $2,100 to $2,500; alas–well out of reach for even upper middle-class inhabitants, yet quite attractive for transnational ultra-rich investors. Since 2008, roughly 30 percent of condo sales in Manhattan have been to overseas addresses, or through ambiguous entities like limited-liability corporations, such as RFR Holdings LLC, which often serve as middlemen for foreign investors. Over the last decade the majority of New York property sales have gone to investors in Russia or Saudi Arabia; over the last year, however, China has spent $22 billion on New York properties–72 percent more than they spent in 2013–claiming the lion’s share of foreign investment in American real estate. “The global elite,” according to Michael Stern, owner of JDS Development Group, “is basically looking for a safe-deposit box.”

Such gentrification on the global scale should not surprise us–it is a historical trend, and the redevelopment of 190 Bowery was inevitable. But there are dangers to this phenomenon, which reach further than the displacement of middle and working class communities, and erasure of their identity and culture. There is virtually no local market for premium properties in New York City. Urban properties as investments cease to be homes. Foreign investors lack vested interest in maintaining these properties primarily because they do not live there; the American city has effectively become a place of visitors, void of close community ties and stewardship. This hollow space is lifeless. Urban properties as investments are mostly uninhabited by their affluent proprietors; they either serve as vacation homes, or remain empty retainers of wealth. Meanwhile, middle-class homes let rooms to AirBnB, and subdivide apartments as room-shares marketed at exorbitant rates on Craigslist. We are experiencing the emergence of an absentee rentier class that not only augments our urban housing crisis; this urban real-estate bubble may threaten the systemic integrity of our economy.

What needs to change? Buyers of new construction in the city often qualify for significant tax abatements–a vestige of the neoliberal initiatives of the late 1970s and early 1980s designed to increase private investment and reverse the effects of urban crisis. Moreover, entities like RFR, based in Europe with an increasing presence in New York, have capitalized on liberal transnational financial regulations. American cities must update their zoning laws, with an eye to equitable development. New York no longer needs a mainline feed of private investment to remain viable. The effects of unfettered transnational capital currents erode the fabric of urban communities. If “UUGGHH” is not a lament, it is surely an expression of our impotence.

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Urban America: Cities of Visitors and the Absentee Rentier Class appeared first on Law Street.

So in New York, housing developers have the option to participate in an “inclusionary zoning program,” which requires them to set aside 20 percent of the units for affordable housing. This means that those apartments are granted to households making less than $42,950 a year.

Smart idea, NYC

Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to make inclusionary zoning mandatory in order to create more affordable units, according to The New York Times. De Blasio “hopes to get both bigger buildings and more affordable units within those buildings.”

New York, you’re on a roll!

But just as I’m about to clasp my hands together and give New York the standing ovation that I thought they deserved; they approved a plan for an Upper West Side condo building to have a separate door for low-income tenants. Yes, a separate door.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the days of Jim Crow Laws were long behind us. I mean we’ve elected a half-black President, a black attorney general, and honored the legendary Martin Luther King Jr. with a national holiday. This sends us back to 1920 when segregation ran rampant in this country. Are you happy New York? You took an innovative, progressive, awe-inspiring idea and just destroyed it.

The new Upper West Side apartment complex joins another building that already makes its lower class tenants use a “poor door.” Yes, there is another building where the rich have a separate door, just so they don’t have to rub shoulders with the poor. The apartment complex is in Williamsburg, a neighborhood once occupied by minorities and low-income citizens.

Gentrification at it’s finest folks. Disgusting.

“No one ever said that the goal was full integration of these populations, I think it’s unfair to expect very high-income homeowners who paid a fortune to live in their building to have to be in the same boat as low-income renters, who are very fortunate to live in a new building in a great neighborhood.”

This guy cant be serious…

First off, these really really rich people are not even close to being in the same boat as the low-income renters; they’re not even on the same island, hell they don’t even live on the same planet. They get to come home through the front door to their nicely furnished apartments and relax with a glass of red wine, while the “peasants” have to use the back entrance and hide their faces, for they are too poor to be seen. Who is he to demean a person’s life, who is he to say that the rich are better than the poor, who is he to disrespect the hardworking people of this country and strip them of their dignity through his comments?

Thankfully not everyone in New York agrees with this pompous idiot. Former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn told the New York Post, “I do not believe that these discriminatory practices were ever contemplated by the legislature, we need to change state law so that developers provide common entrances and facilities for residents in the building.”

You know New York, since you are the most diverse city in the world I thought you’d be better than this. I thought you were the city that inspired people, influenced masses, and made dreams come true. Not the city that discourages people and makes them believe they are worthless because of how much money is in their bank account. No one should be judged by how much money they make or whether they are renting or buying. New York, you are home to over 8 million people, and no matter how cliche you think it is, every single one of these people are special and unique. You do not get to choose who comes in the front and who goes in through the back. Poor or rich, black or white, people are people and you do not get to say otherwise.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Light Brigading via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC ‘Poor Doors’ Separate Rich and Poor Tenants appeared first on Law Street.

Currently on view at NYU’s Grey Art Gallery, “Energy That is All Around: Mission School,” features a group of subversive San Francisco street artists from the late-1990s. Emanating from San Francisco Art Institute (SFAI), the Mission School was a direct reaction to gentrification in the Bay Area spurred by the dot-com boom that brought an influx of young professionals, upscale boutiques, restaurants, inflated rents, and threats of eviction to the primarily working-class Latino families of San Francisco’s Mission District.

“A lot of people were displaced,” said artist Chris Johnson, “everybody got fucked over.” The art of the Mission School focused on the social, political, cultural and economic aspects of everyday life in the Bay Area during this period, embodying a radical activism railing against gentrification and rampant consumerism. “They were part of a community that responded acidly to the social and aesthetic values associated with ’80s consumer culture and corporate hegemony in the dawning of the age of the internet,” said Natasha Boas, a San Francisco-based independent curator. “With their raw, immediate, and gritty street and studio practices, these post-punk, key artists of the Mission School would soon [become] international icons for new generations of art students and makers.”

The artists — Chris Johanson, Margaret Kilgallen, Alicia McCarthy, Barry McGee, Ruby Neri — share a similar aesthetic, described by McCarthy as “urban decay,” “graffiti-based,” and “Do-it-yourself.” The art is informed by lowbrow visual culture including cartoons, billboard advertisements, graffiti, and folk art. According to Lynn Gumpert, director of NYU’s Grey Art Gallery, the artworks critique society “literally standing our culture’s notion of ‘high art’ on its head.” Often employing found objects and dumpster diving for materials, their art is bound by an “anti-establishment” and “anti-capitalist” ethos, according to art critic and curator Dian Pugh whose essay ”Off The Tracks: Ethics and Aesthetics of Recent San Francisco Art” is featured in the exhibit catalogue. “Juxtaposed against the dot-com boom culture, these artists represented the moral and political voice of our cultural community — a community that was being threatened by gentrification.”

Like a modern-day John Sloan or George Bellows, Chris Johanson refers to his art as “documentary painting;” streetscapes chronicling everyday life at the dawn of the digital age. The Survivalists (1999) is a jarring installation among the pieces in the show. Flimsy wooden beams painted yellow protrude from panels on the wall, forming catwalks on which lonely consumers push shopping carts toward the viewer, perhaps conveying the alienation of labor in capitalist society. Speech bubbles from multiple figures in the panels read: “Get out of the Mission,” “Yuppies Out Now,” “Turn the building into condos,” “For Sale: Cozy One Bedroom Basement Condo, $300,000,” “Theres [sic.] no place to stay…keep on moving.”  As a whole, the scene is too much to take in at once; only after reading each panel does the larger picture come into focus. “When people see this piece, they see the social anxiety,” said Chris Johanson. “I wanted to share the complexities of the socio-economic situation that everyone just had to deal with.” Voices are illustrated in a cacophonous and vexing exchange. It’s a “celebration of multiplicity,” said Dina Pugh, “that earnestly comments on existential issues of human identity comprised by consumer culture.”

Graffiti is a galvanizing force in each piece of this show. Barry McGee, also known by his tag “Twist,” presents a more cartoon-inspired aesthetic than Johansen, which is nonetheless political. “Growing up I used to see a group of activists, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), who would spray-paint aggressive statements on Bank of America, government buildings, and freeway underpasses,” McGee recalled in a 2004 interview. “They shed light on atrocities being committed by the Reagan Administration’s policies in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba and so on. I like that — the rawness of it.” McGee’s squat, droopy-eyed cartoon and seemingly depressed cartoon figures reflect the underside of inequitable urban change; not only the exasperated slaving masses, but also perhaps homeless, downtrodden vagabonds.

At Grey Art Gallery, the first East Coast venue to showcase the Mission School, this show is not only historically significant; it’s also relevant, according to Hi-Fructose citing “siliconvalleyization” of the Bay Area. Yet what is so striking is that the same process is currently taking place in New York City; rapid gentrification, from the city center to the periphery. Looking at the Mission District of the late-1990s, one cannot help but think of Bushwick, Brooklyn today. Both neighborhoods were inhabited by primarily working-class Latino families who, over time, have been priced out of their homes; factory buildings have been converted into artists’ lofts, and bodegas have become high-end boutiques. Public art can exacerbate the rate of gentrification, transforming working-class communities into trendy neighborhoods to which hipsters flock. But it has the potential to counter this affect as well, as Art Practical mentioned in its review of the NYU show, “there are still lessons to be learned here.”

According to Barry McGee, the landscape of contemporary public art is politically benign. “The stuff people do now doesn’t antagonize anyone at all. It has become like the mural art, which is fine in its own right but doesn’t anger people when they see it…[T]here was a time in graffiti when it was fun to do images. In hindsight, it opened the floodgates to tons of terrible art school graffiti and non-abrasive images.” McGee now advocates illicit “fundamental graffiti acts” such as tags and throw-ups, which, precisely because of their illegality, have the potential to affect social change. In such a way, the Mission School teaches us to produce graffiti as a “social practice” based on “radical pessimism” about the social environment.

The takeaway message from “Energy That is All Around: Mission School” is that art not only documents, but also has the potential it change society. And that power is open to the people.

You can see the exhibit “Energy That is All Around: Mission School” featuring artwork by Chris Johanson, Margaret Kilgallen, Alicia McCarthy, Barry McGee, and Ruby Neri at the Grey Art Gallery, New York University, 100 Washington Square East, New York, NY 10003. The exhibit is open until July 13, 2014.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [victorgrigas via wikipedia] 

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Subversive San Francisco Street Art on Display at NYU’s Grey Art Gallery appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend marked the eighth annual Bushwick Open Studios (BOS), a local arts festival in Brooklyn, NY. BOS has become an annual summer festival, growing in size and intensity since volunteers formed Arts in Bushwick, a non-hierarchical council of artists and community members in 2007. The event now encompasses five districts (nearly 600 venues), featuring open air concerts, food trucks, and even community garden initiatives. According to Arts in Bushwick, BOS has become “one of the largest open studio events in the world,” which I am nearly inclined to believe.

Last summer was my first Open Studios experience, and while I was not wholly impressed with the art, I was overwhelmed by the event as a community-oriented phenomenon. BOS 2013 coincided with numerous local block parties, hosted by working-class Hispanic families who welcomed me with free food and drink; it was an altogether heartwarming experience. This year, while there very well may have been neighborhood block parties, BOS was much different. I surveyed the scene on Sunday, accompanied by my partner, Amy Lucker, an art librarian, and Lee Mandel, the founding manager of Boswyck Farms, an urban farm based in Bushwick. Amy and Lee, who both served on the inaugural Arts in Bushwick council in 2007, were astounded by how large BOS had grown. “Can you believe this is Troutman Street?” Lee asked rhetorically as we navigated through the crowds of spectators, painted burlesque dancers on stilts, food vendors, and blaring concert stages. “When I moved here, this was a street you did not walk down alone.” We continued down St. Nicholas Avenue, stopping to notice a restaurant that opened that week on a site that was once a car dealership and mechanic warehouse. Bushwick is changing rapidly, we concurred; even I, who was new to the area, recognized the new boutiques, galleries, restaurants, cafes, and bars opening in the neighborhood.

It is no secret that the incursion of the “creative class” spurs gentrification. Since Lee moved to Bushwick in 2006, rent has almost tripled. Ten years ago, a two-bedroom apartment priced at $1,100 a month would have been expensive in Bushwick, according to Diana Reyna, who represented the 34th District (Williamsburg, Bushwick, and Ridgewood) on the New York City Council from 2001 to 2013. “Today we’re talking about people who are charging $3,000.” In 2011 alone, the average monthly rent for a studio apartment in Bushwick increased 27 percent, according to MNS, a residential and investment sales brokerage. Average monthly rents for one- and two-bedroom apartments have also increased commensurately. With the exponential rise in rent and cost of living it is becoming more and more difficult for working-class communities to raise families in Bushwick; it is no wonder then that I could not find bock parties at BOS 2014 as I did the year before. What is more concerning, though, is that from 2000 to 2010, the number of white residents in Bushwick has nearly doubled. “There is a lot of anxiety about the pace at which Bushwick is changing,” said Deborah Brown, an artist who served on the local community board in 2013. “It’s been faster than I could imagine.”

Beneath the surface of BOS 2014 — or rather on the surface— however, a voice of opposition raged. We noticed stenciled tags on the sidewalks throughout Bushwick, messages that critiqued the gentrification of the area.

Courtesy of Ryan Purcell

Courtesy of Ryan Purcell

The tags were strategically placed: two tags read “Build Community Not Condos” outside of a newly renovated apartment building and next to a low-income housing unit along Maria Hernandez Park; “increase in minimum wage = increase in living wage” outside a new health foods store.

Courtesy of Ryan Purcell

Courtesy of Ryan Purcell

The tags were targeted at specific indicators of gentrification, like new cafés, restaurants, and luxury apartment buildings, and the messages seem to have come from victims of gentrification. “Which is more criminal,” asked Lee, “these illegal tags, or the trash next to them on the sidewalk?” Amid Bushwick Open Studios these subversive tags challenge culture authority, asking tersely “Art For Whom?”

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Ryan D. Purcell].

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ‘Art for Whom?’: Bushwick Open Studios 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, my lovely editors here at Law Street sent me to cover PEN America’s “Talking Transitions” event. Go, they said. It will be interesting, they said.

Fuck yeah it was!

Basically, a whole bunch of writers gathered in a super-fancy tent at the intersection of Sixth Avenue and Canal Street, and addressed Mayor-Elect de Blasio town hall style. One by one, they got up on stage, and read approximately three-minute speeches about how they’d like to see him differentiate his administration from Bloomberg’s.

Yes, every single person read their speech. Writers, am I right? We could all use a serious public speaking class.

Anyway! There were about 20 or so speakers, addressing an audience of maybe a hundred. And there were tons of professional photographers trolling about, not to mention an incredibly expensive looking video camera set up in the back. Very official. I’m hoping the videotape will ultimately be sent to Mayor de Blasio, since he—shocker!—was not in attendance last night.

No show. Courtesy of Jon Mannion via Flickr.

So why should all you legal junkies care about a bunch of writers gathering to bitch about Bloomberg? Like, don’t we all do that in our apartments every night, sans fancy cameras?

Yes. Yes, we do. But here’s why you should care.

PEN America is a surprisingly influential group of people. Its member list is huge, and includes people like Toni Morrison, David Sedaris, and (really?) Molly Ringwald. This is an organization with clout, and it’s got a little army of writers whose words literally have power to influence public policy.

Also, most of the speakers were politically focused and highly self-aware. Last night wasn’t about flowers and poetry, it was about policy.

Let’s get into that, shall we?

First of all—a quick note about the speakers. Being who I am, I took a little tally as they each graced the stage, and discovered that, while the majority were women (represent!), all but two of them were white. Only four people of color spoke in total last night. We can do better than that, can’t we? Also, every single speaker was normatively gendered. No queerness anywhere in sight.

PEN, you’re fabulous, but please step up your diversity efforts, mmkay?

Moving right along! Issues of affordable housing, gentrification, and unethical (actually racist, let’s just be real here) policing were all major themes throughout the night.

Sergio de la Pava, a public defender by day and an award-winning novelist by night, made the excellent point that, while actual crime rates have never been lower, New York City’s arrest rate has gone up by 20 percent.

Which is a fact that makes absolutely no sense. Except for the fact that different zip codes are policed differently— unjustly funneling poor people, queer people, and people of color into poverty, substance abuse, and the prison industrial complex, regardless of whether or not they’re actually criminals.

So really, while de la Pava was up there talking about crime rates, he was really talking about racism.

“It’s of little use if New York City is the most diverse city in the world,” he said, “if its prison population is monochromatic.”

Got it, de Blasio? End the racism of the Bloomberg era. End it now.

Affordable housing and gentrification were big talking points last night as well, introduced by none other than super-rich philanthropist George Soros. He claimed, accurately, that New York is a city “where decent housing can’t be found for less than two thousand dollars,” and that’s not the kind of environment that breeds creativity, innovation, or community.

Or really, anything other than a gated community of asinine gazillionaires who are in love with the status-quo.

George Soros, philanthropist extraordinaire. Courtesy of Niccolo Caranti via Flickr.

But last night’s speakers didn’t stop at telling de Blasio what needed to change. They also told him how to do it.

Masha Hamilton, a novelist who just came back from spending the last 16 months as the Director of Communications and Public Diplomacy for the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, told de Blasio exactly what to do.

Put a poet on his communications team. A street artist on the Housing Authority.

“Let's get a poet on the mayor's communications team…a street artist on the Housing Authority…”-Masha Hamilton #PENspeakout @TalkNYC2013

— PEN Membership (@PENmembership) November 12, 2013

Why? Because according to Hamilton, artists are innovators. “It’s part of their job description to help us dream up new solutions,” she said.

It’s the creative community—that is currently getting crowded out of this overpriced, over-policed city—that can save New York City from itself. Or, more specifically, from corrupt, elitist assholes like lame duck Mayor Bloomberg.

So, what do you think de Blasio should do to improve New York City? Do you want a street artist on the Housing Authority?

Blow it up in the comments!

—

Featured image courtesy of [Tom Roeleveld via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Creatives Can Save New York appeared first on Law Street.