Gentrification: a benefit or disaster

 

The Twin Towers next to the Hyatt.

      Every family dreams of owning their own home. Within urban areas there is not much of a choice as to the type of home they must own. In the last blog post, I discussed the negative aspect of housing within the capital city. The aspect that dealt with state housing and its effect on urban dwellers. But the capital city does not only house low-income apartments. There are also larger buildings that are built in order to encourage investment and progress. Countless number of times I have listened to my father complain about these big buildings in the capital city that are built and then left empty because the rent is too high. This occurs on numerous occasions where more ‘glass’ buildings are being implemented. The picture shown is of one of the twin towers located on the waterfront at the Port-of-Spain port. It is not a picture of a building that was meant to provide a home for families. It was meant for business and offices. However the rooms located in this building are still empty because of their rent rates. Partially also because the government cannot afford to rent these offices.

            The increase in high rise buildings can be as a result of gentrification of this urban area. According to Hall and Barrett, gentrification is defined as ‘the transformation of a working-class or vacant area of the central city into middle-class residential or commercial use’. A clear example of gentrification was found in the Express newspaper. “It is a community of less than 2,000 residents, but for the past two months, their grief, concerns and calls for justice have echoed across the nation. As they mourn another loss today... news of plans to relocate everyone brings more anxiety to an already emotionally exhausted Sea lots community.” stated the Express newspaper regarding Sealots residents. The newspaper discusses the belief that the government wants to relocate Sealots residents in order to expand the port. This leads to the displacement of many low-income households. On several occasions, residents within a community are relocated in order to make way for more economic investments. This can be both detrimental and/or beneficial to any community.

            I personally believe that gentrification of an urban area can result in a loss of culture as well as history of the specified area. The encouragements of new investments are positive and will create new jobs but again at what expense? Who really benefits from these new decisions?