As professionals in the real-estate industry most of us have heard of the term gentrification. To those involved in property development, gentrification often translates to wider profit margins. However, to the current residents of an area undergoing redevelopment the term gentrification often means the dislocation of the economically challenged. Simply put, forcing the poor from their homes to make way for individuals in a higher income bracket; hence, destroying the original community that occupied the area. But, what most of don’t know is that there are three primary ways to gentrify an area and not all of the methods are destructive to the existing community.

The three predominate methods of gentrification are what I call publicly funded, privately funded, and community funded.

Publicly funded gentrification often yields the most dramatic results but completely decimates the original community. Giving way to the reality that most publicly funded gentrification projects occur in some of the most blighted communities of a geographic area, supporters of this form of gentrification often justify the actions by calling upon deviant behavioral statistics (theft, drugs, prostitution, etc.) or the waste of usable land such as the presence of warehouses, derelict buildings, etc.

When publicly funded gentrification occurs, entire blocks of neighborhoods are torn down. During the process, the area often looks as though it has been victimized by a nuclear bomb. Roads, sidewalks, and curbing are the only signs that a community once existed in the area.

Then, the city calls upon the nostalgic roots of the area to create a mythological image. Sometimes these images are fairly accurate and other times only a fraction of the image is accurate. However, with this image comes comodification of the area and hence property values increase.

Supporters of this form of gentrification cite the many wins of developers, property owners, and the city itself, by way of increased profits, equity, and tax revenues. But, to the displaced former residents, this form of gentrification often leads to increased beliefs that the individual has little control over their personal destiny, which often translates to increased deviant behaviors because of the belief that one has nothing to lose.

The next form of gentrification is privately funded. This form often calls upon large foundations or wealthy individuals who go into communities and erect grand public facilities such as recreation centers, law enforcement stations, libraries etc.

These individuals often purchase large segments of a community with the intent that their philanthropic contributions will jump-start the community into further community-initiated gentrification. This form of gentrification can have positive or negative attributes depending upon how the gentrification activities are implemented.

When private funders enter a community without community involvement the actions are often met with hostility. Vandalism by way of broken windows and graffiti often plague the new development because this is the only way that the community residents believe they can mark the new development as being a part of their territory. Many studies show that graffiti is a symptom of community members believing they are powerless in defining their territory (wealthy residents use fences, and the control of businesses in their community to define their territory). When the community is not involved in the gentrification process the new developments tend to take on the appearance of the former community or the former community members become displaced. It generally will take up to five years for this mutation to occur.

However, when the community is involved in the new projects, the community embraces much of the development. Unfortunately as the equity in owned property increases, many property owners sell and purchase in other low-income communities because that environment is what they are familiar with and feel the most comfortable residing within.

The loser in these types of gentrified communities is the renter constituency because as the former owners sell to realize their increased equity, others purchase the property and need to either evict the renters so that they may occupy the property, or increase the rent so that they can compensate for the increase in monthly bills (the mortgage). These renters then find themselves homeless, doubling up in existing rental units, and/or being displaced to other low-income communities.

The last form of gentrification is one that is not planned, but evolves with the community constituency. This form of gentrification occurs when community members take the initiative to renovate properties one at a time until the majority of the community has been rehabilitated.

One of the communities that has repeatedly shown success with community-initiated gentrification is the gay and lesbian community. Much of the success experienced by the gay and lesbian community has been attributed to a typically higher than average disposable income, more free time to explore creative talents, and the traditionally tight community bonds. In the recent past, the gay and lesbian community have adopted areas where there is a high elder constituency with properties in decay. The selection of these areas has to do with a perceived sense of safety, the typically ornate architecture of older homes, and the ability for the lower income gays and lesbians to reside within the community. Since the 1960’s the gay and lesbian community has successfully gentrified communities throughout the nation without the immediate negative impacts as other forms of gentrification.

When we look at all of the gentrification occurring in the new millennium it is clearly best to look at gentrification that has been community initiated. This method is a win situation for the residents, developers, and the city. However, community-initiated gentrification is not an easy task to plan because it depends on the perception and ambition of the existing constituency with regard to their future.

Knowing that the gays and lesbians have been so successful due in part because of greater disposable incomes, cities might consider bigger tax breaks for those wishing to rehabilitate property. These tax breaks can be amortized over several years ensuring that increased maintenance occurs periodically in order to receive these tax credits. Clearly, dismantling entire communities for redevelopment is not the most socially ethical method, and random developments with the intent of sparking gentrification is useless when the community is not involved and has many unintended consequences that call social ethics into consideration.

Gentrification is not an easy or quick process, but done correctly and with patience it can have longer lasting results.