How to Kill a City is a very eye-opening book. I really appreciated the familiar language that the author used to describe the inequities and long-term effects of gentrification. Oftentimes, the term is loosely used and the impact is left unclear. I’m glad the book references several cities to demonstrate that gentrification is not coincidental. The author provided historical context and real-life testimonials to further prove their argument. As a native Detroiter, I saw firsthand the financial lift that Downtown Detroit received over the years. It’s a completely different space than it was a few years ago, which is amazing because over time cities should change and grow. However, Downtown Detroit is not the only area in Detroit that could be revitalized. Also, the lack of community focus in the development of Downtown Detroit is disappointing. As the book mentioned, the gentrification of Downtown Detroit negatively affected residents. Families that lived in that neighborhood for years were evicted from their homes due to upcharges on rent. They had to move somewhere else, which often meant somewhere less accessible and familiar. It’s imperative that changes in a city should focus on the best interests of the community. The revitalization of cities should not land in the hands of people who pursue financial gain over the welfare of the people who belong there.
1 thought on “Week 4 Blog”
Comments are closed.
Hi Wisdom, I like what you said about how the term gentrification is “… loosely used and the impact is left unclear”. I agree, and find that people in the book such as Pashak, and his personal dislike of the term gentrification since he believes that it just means that “people are against change”. When using the word it is important to highlight the impact, structural roots, and causation/context to avoid sentiments such as Pashak’s clouding the reality of what Detroit residents who have been affected by gentrification face.