Lock the doors! Call the H.O.A.! It’s Halloween, the one night each year when we face the most terrifying objects of our imagination:
Youth on the street.
There is indeed a certain, almost unnerving aptness to Halloween as the “scary” holiday. If you tossed just about every stereotypical suburban fear into a bubbling cauldron, you would probably end up with a potion that smelled an awful lot like trick-or-treating.
Imagine it: young people, often strangers, out late at night, in strange garb, sometimes without formal supervision, taking over the street – the mind boggles at every clause!
And yet, despite the goblins and ghouls, Halloween is probably the single night of the year when most of us feel most safe on the street.
We feel safer from cars, because there are different norms about where pedestrians are expected and allowed. And we feel safer from people, because there’s enough nightlife to enforce (and reinforce) social behavior – consider Jane Jacobs’s eyes on the street.
And, in most neighborhoods, it’s all done without formal measures. There are no traffic-calming structures, no police; it’s a self-governed system of liveliness. It’s almost, dare I say, an act of guerilla urbanism – for one night each year, we get together to show off what our streets could be.
And then everything goes back to normal.
We return the streets to cars (or to emptiness), we go back to being afraid of strangers, and we forget that anything else is possible.
November 1. Photo: iStock
In fairness, regular nightlife probably isn’t possible in a typical suburban neighborhood, but we might ask ourselves whether it’s really so bad to knock on a neighbor’s door, to let kids off the sidewalk, to hear (or participate in) a little raucousness now and then.
And it bears considering whether even our idyllic image of Halloween is truly one to emulate. The classic setting is proud rows of well-spaced houses (bonus points if they’re in New England). Is it a picture that’s inclusive of other housing types? Is it classist? From Peanuts to Stranger Things, the most prominent representations of trick-or-treating are undeniably white- and middle-class-coded. Would I be as accepting of children at my door if they spoke differently than I do?
Ultimately, the point should not be to replicate our archetypical Halloween but to learn from it. What makes a good trick-or-treat street is not just streetlights or sidewalks but also social behavior. It’s a street that’s physically accessible, but it’s also a street where drivers expect and accept humans in the roadway. It’s a street where strangers can walk without judgement, where neighbors can ask each other for candy freely, where we can make noise and make a mess and have fun once in a while.
And while that might seem scary, I’d say it’s worth the thrill.
Joe Wilson is a second year master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC Chapel Hill, and the managing editor of Angles.
Feature image: still from It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown!; IMDB
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently overturned a decades old ruling known colloquially as the Chevron Deference. This decision resulted from a challenge by the organization Loper Bright Enterprises Inc., a group of commercial fishing interests. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Gina Raimondo Secretary of Commerce et al., brought two questions: Does the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorize the National Marine Fisheries Service to promulgate a rule that would require industry to pay for at-sea monitoring programs? Should the Court overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council or at least clarify whether statutory silence on controversial powers creates an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency?
Specifically, the ruling’s consideration of the latter question led to overturning of precedent whereby ambiguous statutory language in federal legislation was addressed by outside intelligence agencies such as the EPA, HUD, or any other agency. Plainly, this means courts must resolve gaps in understandings related to any federal level legislation. The consequence of this is increasingly partisan interpretations of laws, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on challenges brought before the court system, and a potential overwhelming of the court system by increased litigation loads.
Photo: NOAA/Unsplash
At present, the ruling does not overturn previous matters of deference from the policy’s inception in 1984 until this year, though this may change as challenges are brought to varying precedents. Moving forward, impacts of this will be felt broadly. Those federal agencies serving in the role as interpreters of statutory language are now severely limited in their ability to provide impactful decision making for protection of public welfare since this role now shifts to judges within the court system. Consequently, assuming a worst-case scenario, it may be possible to form a business whose motives disfavor certain regulations. Said business may then bring challenges to those regulations. The manufacturing of these challenges, along with the slowing of interpretations from administrative agencies, and potentially inconsistent rulings may mean negative outcomes as a general statement.
Tying everything together, this represents a grave misstep by, what is increasingly clear, a partisan Supreme Court. As it relates to concerns of city planners, what is immediately apparent is what may happen with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as an example. Since the agency regulates a host of issues including eviction procedures, tenant selection, prepayment of Section 515 mortgages, and design and construction standards held in the Fair Housing Act, among others, these issues are now in jeopardy on the basis of interpretation by individual judges.
Thus, planning for housing becomes considerably more difficult in some aspects as applicability has been called into doubt. For now, the decision effects only those agencies on the federal level. This may change over time as states, and even locales, find compelling arguments in new precedents that will surely come as a result of overturning established precedent through the Chevron Doctrine. Things to look out for may include challenges to zoning regulations and local entitlements by developers, which would effectively usurp the work of current and previous planners.
In any event, this case should only underscore the importance of professional planners to continue on and fight inane decisions of monied interests. This might mean working to increase specificity or reducing complexity in legislative language, depending on the issue. It also underscores the importance of being vigilant where bad faith actors may benefit in some way despite clear detriment toward others. Community input, particularly from marginalized populations, on issues of day-to-day significance will also be more critical than ever as we start to navigate this new landscape.
Nicholas Stover is a recent graduate of the master of city and regional planning program at UNC. His interests intersect with land use, environmental planning, and equitable development.
This week in Chapel Hill a new year began. Thousands of students converged upon UNC’s campus (a select few upon New East, home of Carolina Planning) to begin the annual academic cycle, just as they have in innumerable seasons past. For Angles, though, this year is a special one. It is the blog’s tenth anniversary, an occasion which we believe merits celebration and contemplation.
Throughout the year, we will be publishing a series called “Angles of Reflection,” in which writers will engage in conversation with posts from the blog’s archive and explore how the field has changed — and how it has not — over the years. To kick things off, we’re going back to one of its earliest posts, Planning for the Phone Age.
Originally written in 2013 for Changing Media’s The Good Plan, this piece, by DCRP alum Lindsay Davis, took a look at the increasing distractions that smartphones were proving to be. Even at that time, Davis noted how they took people out of their physical surroundings, often to the detriment of interpersonal connection. “This,” she wrote, “leaves a new task up to cities — integrating the self and the cellphone into the public realm.”
A decade later, Davis’s words feel prescient. The self and the cellphone are by now intimately integrated, and devices guide our movement through the public realm almost like another sense. Beyond their use as tools — restaurant menus, bus passes — their influence extends into the very way we perceive ourselves and our places. GPS maps distort our sense of space and direction even as they increase our ability to get from one point to another. Group messages, digital classrooms and online forums take on many of the characteristics of social spaces. At a deep level, we relate ourselves to our screens, to our digital representations as dots on a map and text on a page. And, at times, this new sense of identity comes at the expense of our surroundings; our locations and our social interactions become more rooted in information than experience.
Photo credit: Robin Worrall, Unsplash
Often, and understandably, the focus has been on the disorienting effects of these changes. GPS navigation and social media physically alter our brains. In recent years, with the rise of AI-generated text and images, the links between digital and physical reality have become tenuous. It’s enough to rattle the nerves of even the staunchest techie.
Fundamentally, the challenge remains the same today as it did in 2013. How can we — individuals, communities, organizations, cities — use devices to connect to our environments, instead of bypassing them? How can we use them to expand our consciousness, rather than restricting it?
The solutions, undoubtedly, will require deep reflection.
Joe Wilson is a second year master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC Chapel Hill, and the managing editor of Angles.
The days are long, cicadas loud, the DCRPeople scattered to jobs and internships and sunny vacations. Yes, it’s officially (according to the Registrar, at least) summertime!
We wish to offer congratulations to all recent graduates, but especially to Candela Cerpa and Kathryn Cunningham. As Editor-in-Chief of the Carolina Planning Journal and Managing Editor of Angles, respectively, Candela and Kathryn have worked hard over the past year to put together a journal and a blog packed full of thought-provoking reportage. Volume 49 of the Journal – Everyday Life and the Politics of Place – will be out soon, so make sure to get your copy!
As we celebrate Candela and Kathryn, we’d also like to take the opportunity to introduce ourselves – their successors!
Samantha Pace | Editor-in-Chief, Carolina Planning Journal
The next Editor-in-Chief of the Carolina Planning Journal will be Samantha Pace. Samantha is a third year in a dual Masters program in City and Regional Planning at UNC-Chapel Hill and Environmental Management at Duke University. She is interested in climate resilience and adaptation, public spaces, and urban design. After receiving her undergraduate degree in Industrial Design from North Carolina State University, she worked at a biotechnology start-up in Research Triangle Park for 3 years. In her free time, Samantha enjoys camping, live music, block printing, and making pizzas.
Joe Wilson | Managing Editor, Angles
Taking over as Managing Editor of Angles is Joe Wilson, a second-year master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC-Chapel Hill, where he is specializing in Housing and Community Development. Before returning to school, Joe worked as an assistant teacher in Carrboro and an urban education fellow in Brooklyn, experiences which continue to shape his understanding of and interest in cities. Outside of planning, Joe enjoys running, watching baseball, and visiting the zoo.
We are beyond excited to get to work on the next volume of the Journal and another year of insightful blog posts. The 2024/2025 academic year marks a major anniversary for both institutions – the 50th volume of the Carolina Planning Journal and the tenth year of Angles – and we have some big ideas to look forward to (and to look back on). If you’re interested in being a part, email carolinaplanningjournal@gmail.com or reach out to Samantha or Joe directly.
Revitalizing Midwest Cities: Turning Riverfronts into Catalysts for Urban Renewal
Midwestern cities, often lacking the natural allure of coastal landscapes like those in Seattle or Miami, face unique challenges in urban planning and revitalization. Without an ice-age on the calendar or a mass flooding event, Midwest cities are left to make do with the natural environments they have. So, what can they do? One effective strategy for overcoming this lack of coastline is the transformation of neglected urban riverfronts into vibrant community assets. This approach leverages the natural scenic and recreational potential of riverfronts and stimulates economic growth and civic engagement, as shown by the successful revitalizations in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Cincinnati, Ohio.
Chattanooga, Tennessee:
Chattanooga’s approach to revitalizing its downtown through its riverfront is a compelling story of urban renewal, leveraging both its historical assets and modern capabilities. Before its transformation, the downtown area was notably industrial, characterized by factories and disconnected from the Tennessee River that flowed beside it. The riverfront itself was underutilized, serving mainly as a barrier from the industrial buildings rather than a beneficial feature of the urban landscape. This all changed with the election of Mayor Bob Corker, who directed the city’s focus towards revitalizing the downtown waterfront, transforming it into a central hub for community and economic activity.
The Chattanooga Riverfront, January 1940.
Corker’s administration initiated significant changes by rerouting the Riverfront Parkway, a 4-lane highway that prevented any development within a half mile of the riverfront, to better connect the city to its river. The plan included expanding pedestrian access to the riverfront, creating park spaces, and developing attractions such as boat docks and concert venues. More specifically, this included such things as narrowing the previously expansive roadway to make it more pedestrian-friendly and integrating significant cultural institutions, like the Hunter Museum of American Art and the Creative Discovery Museum, into the riverfront’s landscape.
This transformation was aimed not only at beautifying the area, but also at making it a vibrant, accessible public space that could attract tourists and residents. When the area was finally pedestrian friendly, it was eventually time to commercialize. These restoration efforts culminated in the 21st Century Waterfront Plan, which transformed 129 acres of riverfront land into a mixed-use development.
Chattanooga Riverfront Parkway, before and after highway removal in 2004.
This comprehensive redevelopment dramatically increased the liveliness and interest of Chattanooga’s downtown, spurring economic growth by enhancing tourism and local business investments. The riverfront, once a neglected aspect of the city, became a central feature of Chattanooga’s identity, contributing to its recognition as a top place to visit and live.
Rendering of River City Company’s ONE Riverfront Plan.
Statistically, Chattanooga’s transformation has been marked by positive trends in property values, business growth, and demographic shifts. The population of downtown Chattanooga has grown by 11%, reversing decades of decline. This revival has not only increased the density of economic activities in the area but has also enhanced the city’s cultural and social fabric.
Chattanooga’s strategic focus on inclusive planning and community participation has led to it being widely regarded as one of the greatest urban transformations in recent years. This holistic approach to revitalizing the riverfront has not only improved the quality of life for residents but has also positioned Chattanooga as a model for other mid-sized cities aiming to leverage their riverfront assets for economic and social revitalization.
Cincinnati, Ohio:
Cincinnati, a city previously grappling with urban decay and a declining population, is witnessing a dramatic turnaround, largely due to the transformation of its riverfront. The city’s center right on the waterfront, once a bustling industrial center, days, was now filled with empty storefronts and abandoned warehouses. The urban core was starved of the vibrancy that once defined it, leading to economic stagnation, and massive out-migration of residents.
Historically, Cincinnati’s downtown on the Ohio River served as a bustling trade and transportation hub during the 19th century, seeing more than 30 steamboat visits a day. However, by the 20th century, as industrial activities declined, so did the riverfront area, with businesses moving inland due to pollution and decay.
Arial View of Downtown Cincinnati, 2007.
In 2007, the city launched a significant project known as The Banks. The Banks development transformed 18 acres of underused riverfront into a lively mixed-use area, featuring luxury apartments, restaurants, retail spaces, and sport venues. The project included crucial infrastructural enhancements like new parking garages and street grid improvements, essential for supporting the new developments.
The Banks Development Plan Rendering
This revitalization of the river has triggered significant residential and commercial growth. The mixed-use developments and public spaces, such as Smale Riverfront Park, have not only enhanced the aesthetic and functional appeal of the riverfront, but have also become a magnet for economic activity. Moreover, this redevelopment has been instrumental in attracting both new residents and tourists, reversing the trend of population decline and significantly boosting tax revenues, providing the city with resources to fund further improvements. Economically, the revitalization has attracted new businesses and investments, including a General Electric facility that promises 1,400 jobs. Socially, it has turned the riverfront into a desirable residential area, blending natural beauty with urban living.
Downtown Cincinnati in 2017, Post Construction of The Banks
The Cincinnati experience shows how deliberate land use planning and targeted urban development can effectively leverage natural assets like riverfronts to revitalize city centers. The transformation has turned the riverfront into a hub of activity that draws both residents and tourists, creating a lively, engaging space that contributes significantly to the city’s economic health and social vibrancy.
Improving The Midwest:
Both Chattanooga and Cincinnati exemplify the potential for Midwestern cities to breathe new life into their urban cores by reimagining and revitalizing their riverfronts. These case studies demonstrate not just the transformation of neglected zones into thriving spaces, but also underscore the broader theme of urban regeneration through strategic use of natural assets. This approach not only beautifies these cities, but also serves as a catalyst for economic and social revitalization.
Looking ahead, cities like St. Louis and Indianapolis have similar opportunities to transform their underutilized riverfronts into vibrant areas that could significantly impact their urban vitality. St. Louis, with the Mississippi River, and Indianapolis, with the White River, possess untapped potential that, if developed thoughtfully, could replicate the successes seen in Chattanooga and Cincinnati. By integrating mixed-use developments, enhancing connectivity, and promoting accessibility, these cities can foster environments that attract residents, businesses, and tourists alike.
The transformations in Chattanooga and Cincinnati are not just about adding parks or apartments; they are about rethinking how a city can interact with its natural environment to create spaces that offer economic opportunities and enhance quality of life. As more cities recognize the value of their riverfronts not just as borders or barriers but as frontiers for development, the Midwestern urban landscape can look forward to a future where riverfront downtowns are not just places to work but places to live, play, and thrive.
Sawyer Husain is a second-year undergraduate from Indianapolis, IN studying public policy and geography with a minor in urban planning. At Chapel Hill, he is actively involved in local historic preservation and affordable housing projects, with a specific interest in the ways arts and culture can enhance urban landscapes. Outside of school he enjoys running, videography, and travelling.
In these turmoil times, we need to hold the things we love close to us. And we also need to hold them accountable. I love Weaver Street Market – its colorful chairs, proximity to good food and fun drinks, and overall mission. I am not alone in this feeling: Weaver Street Market’s lawn is a beloved gathering space in Carrboro.
It is because of this love and appreciation for the space that we must hold a critical lens toward it. Weaver Street Market, despite its community-owned business model, is located on private property. This creates inherent restrictions to engagement and access, and tensions in its use and function.
This digital zine aims to inform Carrboro residents of these restrictions and tensions by highlighting the space’s Open Space Policy. It discusses both the origin of these policies and their consequences. Being aware of this history helps us better understand our rights in the space and support advocacy for a true public space going forward.
Kathryn Cunningham is a second-year master’s student with the Department of City and Regional Planning whose interests include climate change adaptation, community development, and public space. She studied Environmental Studies at Williams College and before coming to graduate school, she was in the San Francisco Bay Area managing sustainability projects for a law school. When not in class, she enjoys reading, running, and checking out all of the many concert venues the Research Triangle has to offer.
Capital injections by public and private investment to catalyze the revitalization of long neglected communities is often lauded as a process that saves struggling neighborhoods. Local politicians and development practitioners tout reductions in blight, improvement in infrastructure, high wage jobs, and increased amenities as clear indicators of a city’s success. Yet, for many low income communities, such changes bring about a type of reinvestment in their neighborhoods that often invoke worry instead of celebration. How might we understand this contradictory response?
Revitalization, which is defined as “giv(ing) new life, strength, and vitality to an area,” typically through improvements in physical infrastructure, lifestyle amenities, and social policies, does not necessarily equate to gentrification (Holland 2014). Gentrification is “the process by which central urban neighborhoods that have undergone disinvestments and economic decline experience a reversal, reinvestment,and the in-migration of a well-off middle- and upper-middle-class population” (Stein 2019). Revitalization becomes gentrification when an area’s former residents are pushed out of their neighborhoods by new residents with higher incomes who hope to gain access to the area’s new “vitality.”
Research illustrates that investment in high skilled jobs and urban revitalization can create large benefits for wealthy homeowners and higher income renters. Yet, alone, these initiatives can spur displacement pressures and cause significant harm to low income renters (Zuk 2017; Qian 2021). Without policy mechanisms in place to protect low income residents, investment in the economic vitality and lifestyle amenities of a city often results in an increase in homelessness, increase in evictions, and significant demographic change, which together destabilize the tenure of longstanding communities. Though revitalization tends to create benefits for some community members, it comes at the expense of others. Real estate actors have little incentive to ensure the wellbeing of a city’s most vulnerable residents, making the role of government in guiding development critical to protecting communities and maintaining healthy neighborhoods. State and local policy mechanisms play a significant role in governing real estate investment and tenant protections, both of which have an enormous impact on whether or not low income communities are helped or harmed by economic development. To ensure that everyone benefits from economic development and revitalization, it is essential for local governments to tie capital injections into previously disinvested areas to policies that aim to reduce displacement of low-income residents.
Literature Review – The Global Financial Context of Development
I will situate my analysis of revitalization and gentrification in Kansas City through the lens of what urban scholar Sam Stein deems “the real estate state.” This literature review aims to explore the existing research on the relationship between economic development and gentrification within the real estate state.
Financialization of Real Estate
The real estate state is defined as the inordinate power of real estate capital to influence the shape and use of urban space as a result of the financialization of housing and real estate. The financialization of real estate refers to the integration of financial markets with real estate markets. This trend shifts the idea of homes as an individual asset that serve as a shelter for families and individuals to that of an asset class that can be traded like any other financial instrument.
One example of real estate financialization is evident in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis with the proliferation of speculative real estate investing in single-family housing. Institutional investors purchased millions of foreclosed homes in 2007-2010 (Teresa, 2022). Investors made large profits off of purchasing foreclosed homes at far below market rate from the government, and holding these assets until prices rebounded, either selling them to other real estate institutions or holding them as rental single-family housing stock. Millions of families lost both their physical homes that had significant familial and sentimental worth as well as any personal equity held in these homes. Unfortunately, because sophisticated and highly professionalized real estate actors were able to acquire thousands of foreclosed housing units, a large portion of the US’s single-family units were transformed from family homes owned by individuals to financial instruments owned by multinational corporations (Axel-Lute 2022). Real estate actors who now own a significant portion of the US housing stock view homes as a financial product, instead of a place of shelter, safety, and generational wealth building. This has led to an incentive structure that pays little mind to the impact of the real estate market actions on the families living inside homes they are no longer able to generate equity and stability from.
Since the financial crisis, institutional real estate investors have continued to grow dramatically in capital and in power. In 2021, institutional investors purchased almost 25% of the single-family homes on the market across the United States (Henderson 2022). Similarly, since the financial crisis and most dramatically in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, institutional investors have begun focusing more heavily in multi-family housing as an asset class and are reaping high returns on purchasing and trading both single and multi-family rental housing. In tandem with this increase in financialization, the Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate sector (FIRE) has become one of the most powerful lobbying sector in the United States and has poured millions of dollars into creating favorable conditions for real estate investment and development on a federal level on both sides of the aisle (Teresa 2022). Scholarship produced by Raquel Rolnik (2019) delineates how the financialization of housing has become a global phenomenon that has influenced the urban landscape of countries across the world.
Neoliberal Urbanism & Financialization Linked to Gentrification
So how does the shift in viewing housing, and real estate more broadly as a personal asset to a financial instrument lead to gentrification? Real estate investors often have greater power at the local level, where the majority of land use and development decisions are made. Stein (2019) outlines how local governments’ dual mandate of making cities more profitable while also making them more equitable creates perverse and contradictory incentives. In short, this means that local governments are caught in a difficult bind, where they must invest tax dollars in a way that will increase tax revenue in the future, while also considering how to increase the overall wellbeing of their residents.
As local governments are predominantly funded through property taxes, in order to increase government revenue that can be invested into services needed by residents, governments rely upon the growth of their tax base. In order to do so, cities strive to increase the value of land and property and increase the wealth of its population. Seeking to increase the land and property value of a city brings local governments’ incentives in line with real estate investors who hope to purchase undervalued land, redevelop it, and reap profits off of the increase in value (Stein 2019; Teresa 2022). The logic follows that then, attracting wealthy residents from other cities appears to be an easier and more lucrative political undertaking than lifting low-income families out of poverty through wealth redistribution and other means.
How Gentrification Occurs
Prominent urban scholar Neil Smith (1987) outlines the concept of land rent gaps, where the current price of land is not valued at its maximum potential. In the United States, land rent gaps in metropolitan areas have come about in large part as a result of segregation, white flight, and suburbanization following World War II (Boulay 2022). As white-middle-class people fled inner cities for the suburbs, low-income families of color (primarily black and latine) were financially trapped in underfunded neighborhoods with smaller and smaller tax bases. This white exodus from cities led to significant disinvestment in most central cities in the US (Rothstein 2017).
Increasingly, researchers have looked to understand contemporary investment and development patterns in cities, increasingly finding consensus in the characterization of these emergent patterns as gentrification. Scholars like Stein (2019) define gentrification as “the process by which central urban neighborhoods that have undergone disinvestments and economic decline experience a reversal, reinvestment, and the in-migration of a well-off middle- and upper-middle-class population.” This process of gentrification has begun to occur as central areas of cities have become culturally and financially more desirable for predominantly white professionals around the same time speculative real estate investment has become more sophisticated and professionalized.
Though gentrification can happen as a result of individual actions, such as entrepreneurial members of “the creative class” moving into neighborhoods with land rent gaps and flipping a small number of homes themselves, the process happens more quickly and on a much larger scale as real estate investors purchase large number of homes or multi-family buildings in neighborhoods that have historically experienced disinvestment (Florida 2002; Raymond et al. 2021). When investors purchase land in disinvested areas, they are willing to pay higher than the current market value because they believe the current value does not match the potential value (Raymond 2021). In order to bring land to its potential value, investors inject capital into buildings and/or neighborhoods that have experienced decades of disinvestment. This capital injection allows formerly low income areas to become more desirable to young professionals and the middle class who are able to outbid lower income families, spurring displacement. Due to historic patterns outlined above, these areas are disproportionately Black and Latine. Although this appears to target place-based benefits within these areas, without any protections in place, it concentrates risk. Research from the Center for American Progress found that more than 110,000 Black residents and 24,000 Latine residents were displaced from urban areas between 2000-2013 as a result of gentrification. This underscores the dramatic impact of gentrification on displacement in racialized communities.
Gentrification and Local Governments
Smith (1987) also describes how local government’s choice to invest or disinvest in certain areas can create land rent gaps as a function of state power. As demand for city living across the United States increases, cash strapped local governments that have neglected infrastructure and economic development in many of their lower income neighborhoods are now incentivized to create more favorable conditions for private developers to engage in redevelopment with private funds (Stein 2019). This incentive structure is defined by economic geographer David Harvey (1989) as “geobribe(ry)” and has been rebranded by Stein (2019) as “geoextortion.” These terms describe a neo-liberal municipal governance structure where in order to attract enough capital and resources to provide basic amenities such as high wage jobs and a safe and liveable environment, cities must hand over significant power and tax revenue to private corporations to create local environments that are appealing to new residents and businesses. The insurgence of geoextortion across American cities contributes significantly to the real estate state, especially at the hyper-local level. Stein (2019) believes that this flow of capital and power leads to local governments that are more endowed to the needs of developers and large national corporations than to the wellbeing of longstanding and current residents.
Often, economic development carried out by local governments is conducted for the primary purpose of attracting private investment, with little thought to the impact on affordability for long-time residents. Without guardrails put in place to protect low income residents from displacement following influxes of both public and private investment, such residents are often priced out of their own communities. Almedia (2022) and Zuk (2018) found that local economic development and infrastructure investment drive up land values, as demand to live in an area increases as amenities and economic opportunities increase. However, Almedia also found that in the Global South, public policies aimed at reducing displacement and/or economic inequality, and other cultural factors can significantly mitigate the process of gentrification.
Gentrification and Displacement Indicators
There is much debate among scholars, practitioners, and activists about how to measure gentrification (Finio 2021). Yet, there is general consensus that several indicators are widely used by scholars to track gentrification in an area. Those indicators are listed below and will be used to inform the study of gentrification in Kansas City.
Increase in rents
Increase in the number of individuals who are rent burdened
Increases in evictions and homelessness
Demographic change such as racial makeup, income, and education. Typically areas that have higher percentages of Black or Latine residents and/or those with lower incomes transforming into areas with higher percentages of white residents with higher incomes.
Increases in the turnover of properties and renovation of properties
Increase in institutional and out of state property owners
(Finio 2021; Raymond 2021)
Citations
Almeida, Renan, Pedro Patrício, Marcelo Brandão, and Ramon Torres. 2022. “Can Economic
Development Policy Trigger Gentrification? Assessing and Anatomising the Mechanisms of State-Led Gentrification.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 54 (1): 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X211050076.
Boulay, Guilhem. 2022. “Gentrification and the Real Estate Market: What Can We Learn from the Rent Gap Theory?” Hal Open Science.
Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of The Creative Class.
González-Pérez, Jesús M. 2021. “Racial/Ethnic Segregation and Urban Inequality in Kansas City, Missouri: A Divided City.” City & Community 20 (4): 346–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1535684121990799.
Raymond, Elora Lee, Ben Miller, Michaela McKinney, and Jonathan Braun. 2021. “Gentrifying Atlanta: Investor Purchases of Rental Housing, Evictions, and the Displacement of Black Residents.” Housing Policy Debate 31 (3–5): 818–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2021.1887318.
Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our GovernmentSegregated America.
Sassen, Saskia. 2003. “Global Cities and Survival Circuits.”
Smith, Neil. 1987. “Gentrification and the Rent Gap.” Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 77 (3): 462–65.
Stein, Samuel. 2019. Capital City.
Teresa, Benjamin. 2022. “The Financialization of Housing and Its Implications for Community
Qian, Franklin and Tan, Rose, The Effects of High-skilled Firm Entry on Incumbent Residents (December 11, 2021). Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) Working Paper 21-039, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3982760 orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3982760
Zuk, Miriam, Ariel H. Bierbaum, Karen Chapple, Karolina Gorska, and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. 2018. “Gentrification, Displacement, and the Role of Public Investment.”Journal of Planning Literature 33 (1): 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412217716439.
Nina is a graduating city planning masters student at UNC with a bachelors in Business Economics and Public Policy from George Washington University. Nina is passionate about homelessness, racial justice, and affordable housing. Following graduation, they will be working in affordable housing finance in Colorado.
In my last blog post, I encouraged you to explore the hidden secrets of buildings by simply looking up. To continue on this path, I wanted to share a few details of other buildings across UNC’s campus, each harboring its own narrative etched in bricks and mortar.
Person Hall
You can tell a lot about a building by its brick. If you ever talk to historic preservationists or an architectural historian, you may be surprised to learn how much the conversation focuses on brick. Brick is a powerful tool for building construction that dates back thousands of years, and yet, not every brick is equal. In fact, as we walk around UNC’s campus you will notice hundreds of different types of brick. Sometimes, a single building may have several different types of brick, such as Person Hall across campus from New East.
If you look closely, you can see the different variations in brick color at Person Hall.
Person Hall exhibits a mosaic of brick varieties, indicating multiple renovations throughout its existence. We can also see sections of the brick that are deteriorating, a direct result of the University sandblasting the building to remove the original stucco.
A view of Old East. Look at the third floor brick and try and find the different patters compared to the first two floors.
Adjacent to New East stands Old East, a testament to the revelation’s brickwork can unveil. Looking at the third floor of the building, you will notice that the pattern is different than the first two stories. The first two are what’s known as a Flemish bond, where every row has a short brick and a long brick. The third floor transitions to a common bond, which has a row of short bricks, and then several rows of long bricks, and then another row of short bricks.
To the left of the cutter downspout, you will notice a line in the brick.
This gives us a clue that something has happened to this building, but the telltale sign that there was a change in the building is located at the northern end of the building. Adjacent to one vertical row of windows, you can see a line in the brick to the left of which there is a different brick pattern. Ultimately, the third floor and northern portion of Old East were added at a later point.
Playmakers Theatre
Our final stop on campus is the Old Playmakers Theatre. One of two National Historic Landmarks on campus, the Old Playmakers Theatre is a neoclassical-style building modeled off of a Greek temple. If you glance up at the columns on the front of the building, you might guess that they are traditional Corinthian columns, a standard column used in neoclassical buildings. But if you look closer, you will realize that they are made to depict corn!
To “Americanize” the Greek Temple, corn was used in the capital of the column.
This is an excellent place to end our tour, as it proves my point that if you stop, look up, and really take an opportunity to appreciate the buildings around you, you never know what detail you may find.
Sam Hayes is a second-year master’s student in the City and Regional Planning program at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. At UNC-CH, he specializes in housing and community development with an emphasis on how historic preservation can be used as an anti-gentrification tactic in changing communities. Sam loves hiking, reading, and spending time exploring cool historic buildings. When not in Chapel Hill, you will probably find Sam in Hendersonville, NC with his boyfriend Kane, dog Canyon, and cat Lucille.
I love digging into the history of the built environment of places I live in. It enriches my understanding of the area, and gives me a greater appreciation for it. However, in any circumstance, I find that is only so much that you can learn from books and the internet, and the most helpful thing one can do is walk around and look at the buildings.
So, when was the last time you gazed up at a building? I encourage you to make it a habit to look up more frequently at buildings around you. I’m going to share some of the insights I gained as I explored UNC Chapel Hill’s campus, and I hope to inspire you to be more observant of the built environment around you.
Let’s begin with New East, which has housed the planning department for decades. Built in 1858, it originally served as a residence hall. When you gaze up at the building, your eyes might be drawn to the trim adorning the space between the second and third floors. In comparing New East to its sister building New West, the location of the trim is a giveaway to a key difference between the two buildings.
New EastNew West
New East stands four stories tall, while New West is only three stories. However, this doesn’t signify superiority or greater importance. Instead, it reflects the historical context when the buildings were constructed and the pursuit for symmetry on either side of campus. Due to Chapel Hill’s sloping topography, New East needed an additional level to appear symmetrical to New West.
If we stand near Davie Poplar and look towards South Building, we can see the symmetry come to life
Continue your upward gaze at New East, and you’ll spot brackets positioned directly beneath the roofline. These brackets serve as a distinct feature of the Italianate architectural style in which the building is designed. Another characteristic giveaway is the low-pitched roof crowned with a cupola. The cupola would have also been functional at the time of construction since there was no air conditioning in the building, a feature that has thankfully been installed.
Brackets on New East
New East also harbors a secret. Several years ago, a paint analysis was done on the building to determine the original color it would have been painted when it was first constructed – a surprising shade of pink! Though it was briefly restored to its original color, it was so jarring to people that when it came time to repaint, it was returned to the creamy white that it is today. The only hint of the pink it used to be is a small patch of pink under exterior lights on the side of the building.
The only trace of pink left on the building
I encourage you to look up a little bit more and think about why buildings are the way they are. In my next post, I will talk about some other hidden features around campus that you may have never noticed before.
Sam Hayes is a second-year master’s student in the City and Regional Planning program at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. At UNC-CH, he specializes in housing and community development with an emphasis on how historic preservation can be used as an anti-gentrification tactic in changing communities. Sam loves hiking, reading, and spending time exploring cool historic buildings. When not in Chapel Hill, you will probably find Sam in Hendersonville, NC with his boyfriend Kane, dog Canyon, and cat Lucille.
This is Chapter One of Joan Lyon’s upcoming book Women Moving People. More information on the book and how you can contribute can be found on her website.
Trigger Warnings: Sexual Harassment, Stalking, Depression, Ageism, Sexism, PTSD, Anxiety
Fresh out of the Netherlands, I was ready to solve our nation’s problems when it came to city planning, and design. I applied for jobs everywhere. Washington, D.C., Seattle, Denver, Palo Alto… you name the bigger city, I probably applied to a job there. The search proved to be difficult. The planning and design space in the US context tends to favor degrees from North American planning programs, which I had been told previously, but didn’t realize how difficult it was. I likely applied for over 100 jobs before I found success in Grand County, Colorado.
Having grown up ski racing in the county, I knew I loved the Fraser Valley, and was desperate to find something. The County was looking for a new planner, and I immediately applied and interviewed the following week. I packed all of my bags and took the journey to the Western Slope to live in a rural community for the first time at the ripe age of 22. I had lived alone before, but not in a county of less than 5,000. Because I was familiar with the area after spending every weekend of my childhood here, I wasn’t nervous in the slightest. My first day went well. I met all of the other friendly people I worked with and saw how the public interacted with staff at our planning and building windows. The future looked bright for me!
Day two hit me like a load of bricks.
Our office had an open door policy so that everyone could hear what our community was requesting from the windows for service. On day two, someone requested me by name. My administrative assistant walked into my office and told me that someone wanted to see me, and I figured that that person was someone my family knew or that I grew up ski racing with. But I asked her to go back again and ask the person again for their name since I didn’t recognize it. She returned, and I still was unsure of the individual’s relation to me but walked up to the window. The person was someone I had met once before in my life two years prior in Denver, two and a half hours away from my office. We hadn’t spoken since then, and this person did not tell me they were coming to visit me in my office. In short, I was stalked at my place of employment, and was mortified as my new colleagues listened to the conversation I had with this person.
“Hi Joan, it’s been a while since I’ve seen you, but congratulations on your new job! I saw you got it on LinkedIn, and was in the area, so I figured I’d stop by.”
“Hi there! I’m sorry it took me so long to come out. I didn’t recognize your name, but upon seeing you, I immediately realized who you were. I hope you are doing well.”
Even though my colleagues had just met me, they could sense the uncertainty in my voice as we talked. I tried to play it cool, acting as if nothing was wrong, but immediately as I finished and he left, I talked to my female colleagues in the office about the situation.
The questions I kept asking myself were “Why didn’t this person reach out to me to let me know they were coming? Had I done something wrong posting my new job on LinkedIn? Why did this man do this? Should I be concerned for my safety?”
In short, the situation was the start of my welcoming to the male-dominated industry of planning, engineering, and design.
Fast forward to 2021, and I’ve landed a different job managing a team of four at a transportation non-profit in Boulder, had met the love of my life and gotten engaged, and was in the process of moving across the country and planning a wedding. Life was good. I worked with a team of primarily all women, felt supported in my environment and workplace, had a job that let me work primarily from home to have work life balance.
One week before I got married, someone that I had worked closely with at the Colorado Department of Transportation prior to going to grad school was messaging me. The messages were incoherent. At first, I thought this former colleague’s child had taken their phone to send me texts about “loving me”, that I was “cute” and “looked good”. I thought nothing of it and moved on with my day. The following day that person apologized for messaging me, and I realized this person was intoxicated, married with kids, and sending inappropriate messages.
I was devastated.
I respected this person immensely, but never spoke to them again. Tears were shed. I asked myself questions again “why would they do this? Did I do something wrong 4 years prior to make them think I liked them like that? Do they know I’m engaged? Why, why why?”
Beyond these two devastating situations, I’ve experienced blatant ageism, sexism, and seen racism within workplaces. When I reflect on the situations, I feel as if I’ve lived an entire lifetime in the workplace even though I’m only 28. Handling all of the weight of these heavy topics hit me hardest in 2022. I had gone so fast for so long, experienced so much, that it all came crashing down one day. All of the transitions seemed to catch up to me. At first, I thought I was sick. At the time, I was in the process of reading Body Keeps the Score by Dutch author Bessel van der Kolk. I knew at that time that the body presents stress and trauma in a multitude of ways but had never experienced it myself until then.
I was depressed, anxious, and had been diagnosed with PTSD by my therapist. The things that brought me joy normally felt bleak. It was a very dark time in my life – one of the absolute darkest times to date. My conversations with my therapist, Roxanne, normally went somewhere along the lines of this:
“How has your week been Joan? How is work?”
“It’s okay, here’s what is happening at work.”
“It sounds like you are having a fundamental disagreement with the way things are done morally in your industry. Are you sure that this is your career path?”
“I don’t know.”
I would sit in my bedroom and cry for hours after each session. My head would be throbbing in pain from the tears and mental capacity shed. I’d sit and ask myself
“Why am I doing this? Do I really want to be in my industry? Why is this so unbelievably hard? Why can’t I get better? Would people miss me if I died today? How did I even get to this place?”
After months of weekly therapy sessions with Roxanne, we concluded that I needed to channel my frustrations to something bigger, which she had been hinting at this entire time. While I had been changing the structural systems of my industry over time in small ways, I was ready to tackle something bigger.
Since then I’ve secured bipartisan support for funding limitations of transportation projects in North Carolina, identified changes to design standards to make our communities better for all and advocated for them, secured spots on local non-profits in my area, volunteered my time to important causes to me, and more.
I still am challenged every day as a young female in the industry and am constantly fighting to be in the room, and for my seat at the table.
This industry is tough and brutal. It will chew you up and spit you out. But slow down. Reflect. Change the things you see as problems when you have the energy and time for the younger generation. They will thank you along their journey.
End of Chapter Activity:
Journal: What experiences in the workplace have been hard for you? If you don’t work, have you experienced discrimination before in your lifetime? Write down those experiences. Take deep, long breaths as you reflect, and pause to recognize that this can be hard to reflect on. Heal, grieve, and recognize that you cannot change others behavior and mindset. You are doing amazing and thank you for showing up to try this exercise. Sometimes just showing up is enough.
Mentor: Find someone at your work, school, or anywhere you go regularly that reminds you of yourself. Maybe it’s someone younger, maybe it’s someone who is just starting out in your industry that made a career change… If you feel you connect with them, consider meeting up with them regularly to be a mentor. Take the hard things you’ve learned and share your story with them. Find ways you can support them through their hard times. You’ll be surprised how much you likely have in common.
With a passion to improve the infrastructure of cities at the local, regional, national, and international level and implement successful projects, Joan Lyons is a committed certified planner with experience in North Carolina, Colorado, the Netherlands, and Louisiana. Her experience in the profession centers around the fields of transportation (bicycle, pedestrian, multimodal, transit, rail, micro mobility, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)), affordable housing, accessibility (ADA), social justice, sustainability, climate, historic preservation, and participatory planning in communities. Joan is a Senior Planner at Johnson, Mirmiran, and Thompson (JMT) where she leads planning efforts throughout the Southeast and Colorado. In the Fall of 2023, she served as a Lecturer at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill’s Department of City and Regional Planning, where she taught Planning for Natural Hazards and Climate Risk.
Accolades:
During her time in the profession, she has been recognized for her work by the Women in Transportation Seminar (WTS) and received the Activist/Community Organizer Award in 2022, and received the Association for Commuter Transportation (ACT) 40 Under 40 Award in 2020. She currently serves on the Oaks and Spokes Board of Directors, Alliance for Disability Advocates Board of Directors, and Skate Raleigh Advisory Board.
