6.C.11) Prevent displacement of existing urban residents
Urban neighborhood revitalization efforts can provide existing residents with expanded housing choices, improved public services, new amenities, more nearby jobs, less crime, and other benefits. As property values increase, homeowners (including low- and moderate income homeowners) see the value of their assets increase. However, revitalization efforts can also have the unfortunate side effect of displacing residents and businesses due to increasing rents or rising property taxes.
Urban revitalization strategies should be paired with comprehensive anti-displacement efforts so that current residents and entrepreneurs have the option to stay and benefit from revitalization. Current residents should be involved in neighborhood planning through meaningful participation. All deed-restricted affordable units lost through revitalization should be replaced by permanently-affordable units; and new affordable housing should be located in close proximity to market-rate development.
A comprehensive, client-oriented strategy is needed to link existing residents and merchants with housing, business and employment opportunities, services, and healthcare. MAPC is currently participating in an effort to implement such a coordinated strategy through a Human Development Overlay District in Boston’s Chinatown neighborhood. If successful, this pilot project, funded and created by the Environmental Simulation Center and the Ford Foundation, might provide a model that can be replicated elsewhere in the region.
11.a MAPC and the Asian Community Development Corporation should establish a pilot Human Development Overlay District in Chinatown and make recommendations for its replication elsewhere
Anonymous:
Sadly- every neighborhood in Boston or immediately surrounding that has been "revitalized" has undergone large scale displacement of previous residents and businesses. South Boston? JP? The North End? Davis Square? Fenway? I could go on...
These have been fantastic revitalizations, but at what cost? Neighborhood diversity is waning as everything that becomes revitalized reflects the same exact business pattern and demographic pattern: upper-middle class to upper class young urban working professionals. Same types of stores, same types of restaurants, same type of housing rehabs catering to one of 3-4 standard neighborhood patterns: eclectic, artsy and crunchy (but still pricey), or chic, well groomed and somewhat haughty, or playground for the recently graduated, partying, monied 20-somethings.
I appreciate the efforts to improve our communities and offer the public amenities- but sadly, any area that becomes successfully "revitalized" also loses much of its original flavor that made it special and in the end becomes a homogeneous area with the same types of bistros, gastro-pubs, chain stores, and grocers (ahem- Whole Foods).
It would be prudent to assess successful means of avoiding this in other cities such as Austin (Keep Austin Weird Campaign), Nashville, New Orleans, Boulder, Philadelphia, and even portions of Atlanta.
From a third party perspective- it is certainly a telling tail that the North End and Beacon Hill almost seem to be merging into the same neighborhood with government center sandwiched in between, Fenway is being assimilated into the fabric of the Back Bay and South End and even South Boston is strikingly complementing the South End these days. Individual neighborhood flair and identity is slowly disappearing with only architecture and landmarks and SOME difference in business establishments defining each area. As one friend exclaimed: "Yoga? In Southie?????" Indeed.
Post new comment