This week, I met with Bob Goldman, a sociology professor at Lewis & Clark who’s done work on how the logic of gentrification is internalized and expressed through home improvement shows. We mostly discussed recent trends in gentrification in Portland, including his theory that we are seeing a fourth stage of gentrification (building, presumably, on the three stages described by Hackworth and Smith (2000))—distributed gentrification. Here, gentrification becomes a dominant, geographically dispersed phenomenon, no longer tied to specific neighborhoods but spreading as a patchwork across the metropolitan landscape to anywhere deemed good enough and sufficiently central. Teardowns and infill development pop up with little regard for the presence of traditional gentrification amenities or locales, extending far beyond the disinvested central areas with historical housing stock. Bob cited St. Johns as an illustrative example of this process, but noted that it characterizes much of the eastside west of I-205 and even pockets of southwest Portland.
Bob and I then discussed how we should interpret transit’s role in gentrification, in light of the said distributed nature. Considering the relatively major changes to the forthcoming 2035 Comprehensive Plan, I think the answer partly lies in running up against the zoned development capacity, especially in the Inner Eastside, where many of the currently developable parcels have been taken. This may be driving proposed rezoning of most eastside arterials (Division, Hawthorne, Powell, Sandy, Belmont, 82nd Ave, Foster) with frequent transit from storefront or general commercial to mixed-use commercial. Pop-up gentrification and demolitions can thus be regarded as something like the city loosing control of revitalization, the current (transit-supported) centers and corridors unable to fully absorb the capital inflows. We may also view the Residential Infill Project as an attempt to systematize distributed gentrification and development, aimed at maintaining the grand bargain of the Comp Plan (growth focused inward on arterials and centers, while single-family zones are left relatively physically unaltered) against the restlessness of homeowners fearing a loss of neighborhood character and widespread anxiety over unabated property appreciation.
One major recent trend in urban thought is the emergence (or at least supposed emergence) of a positive feedback loop between density and home values. This logic posits that an increase in housing supply will actually increase demand for housing, by reshaping the neighborhood into a more attractive locale for the incoming gentry. Densification may still be relatively unpopular among local residents—few laypeople accept the maxims of Jane Jacobs-inspired urbanism, seeing density as medicine swallowed to appease market demands and protect the countryside from development, not as improving quality of life in cities in its own right. Nevertheless, the notion that new apartments drag down property values has more or less vanished, at least from the City of Portland itself.
We also discussed the possibilities of westside gentrification, still in a relatively nascent form. Bob pointed out that a rent gap has opened up in Southwest Portland, with homes selling for dramatically less than on the east side of the river. As capital abhors a vacuum, we can expect at least some transformation of the area in the coming years/decades. The draft 2035 Comp Plan rather explicitly targets Barbur Boulevard for the bulk of the changes, with the present strip malls and auto-oriented commercial set to be dramatically upzoned in conjunction with the construction of the Southwest Corridor light rail. A similar situation is shaping up on 82nd Ave. The area surrounding the intersection of SE Division St and 82nd Ave is being rebranded as the “Jade District” (with a new Tax-Increment Fund created to fund investment) and the entire 82nd Ave corridor is in for upzoning to mixed-use development alongside street improvements and a possible streetcar. These two areas represent the planned expansion of the gentrification frontier even as the generalized logic of property value appreciation takes root throughout the city.
For moving forward on my thesis, one set of questions I have relates to examining the relationship between previous transit expansions and associated neighborhood changes by station.
Guiding question: What are the extents and limits of transit’s role in gentrification in Portland?
Research question: What effects have new MAX lines (Orange & Yellow) had on property values and demographics in Portland and Milwaukie? How have residents interpreted changes associated with the transit expansions?
Drawing on Immergluck’s (2009) work on the effects of plans themselves on property values, even preceding their formal adoption, I may alternatively wish to focus on the nascent land value uplift and gentrification associated with the extended planning process. To wit:
Guiding question: How do transit-oriented development and revitalization plans shape the geography of construction and equity?
Research question: What, if any, effects have recent integrated land use-transportation plans in Portland had on property values? What policies are proposed to deal with potential displacement arising from these plans?
Leave a Reply