Gay People Make Better Communities
There's a new study out that makes this claim. Well, duh.
We've known this for some time, whether it's the Castro in San Francisco, Dupont Circle in DC, the Fabourg Marigny in New Orleans, Boston's South End, or in any small community where gay people decide to rut--we increase housing values and make neighborhoods a place where straight people want to live. You know, after we wave our fairy wand and make crack be gone, as well as chipped paint and broken windows.
This study quickly devolves into academic jargon that I have no patience for, but it does remind me of how amazing we are, and how far we've come. In the 70s, 80s, and even the 90s, to an extent, our middle-class gay ass arrived in broken neighborhoods where the rich did not want to invest, without great wealth, often in an attempt to find safety in numbers (our local political power was developed in these communities), and we created aesthetically enhanced, thriving communities due to our artistic taste for beauty and intrinsic desire to create it. While I'm starting to believe that it's in the bible that anytime two gays shall meet, the sacrament of real estate must be discussed (and inspire me to vomit blood), I'm compelled to pause and realize that we've fought hard to develop our communities, and we should commend ourselves for not only our efforts but for the value we place on creation and beauty.
However, questions remain unanswered for me. Do lesbian and minority populations feel that they have succeeded in being a part of this gentrifying process? Are the gay communities in the 21st century now too upscale to "buy-in" if you are a middle-class or poor gay person? What happens to our communities if we are no longer a "ghettoized" culture? What will the gay communities of the near future look like? Thoughts?
5 comments:
personally, i don't want to succeed at being a part of a gentrifying process. anybody seen the documentary flag wars about the tension between a historically black comm. in columbus and gay gentrification?
there were people fighting for shaw & logan in the 80s & 90s, they just did it the old-school way, and that doesn't hold a candle to shit tons of disposable income.
OK so I guess it is pretty cool to be anti-gentrification. But is it wise to say "I don't want to be part of a gentrification process." What is the alternative, continue greenfield development at the urban fringe? Because that is what the young middle class default to when they can't find appealing options in town. While I suppose it hasn't been found in DC yet, there is a way to accomplish urban redevelopment (gentrification?) while still respecting the communities that exist.
As far as what the gay communities of the future will look like, I think we are already getting a hint. Rather than single-center, concentrated communities like Dupont through the late 90s we will see multiple centers connected by the networks of people who live in those places.
I'm really torn about this issue. On the one hand, urban neighborhoods are necessarily dynamic and to say that one group or other should have a permanent claim is just silly nostalgia. It's a little patronizing, in my opinion, to assert that white gay males just "happen" to these black working class communities and they have no recourse but to "be pushed" out like debris. Why isn't it plausible to acknowledge that these people, much like middle class whites mid-century, are taking advantage of opportunities presented by economic advancement and moving to places where they can get more square footage for their money and chase the dream of a better life for themselves and their families? On the other hand, it is really unfortunate that these neighborhoods have become so monochromatic. Public/subsidized housing almost never works and there are never enough lower-income units. The focus should be on creating incentives to draw these middle class minorities back to the urban center much like successful efforts to draw suburban whites have contributed to the current demographic situation. Don't assume that these people want, anymore than you do, to live in run-down "ghettos" with poverty and crime run amok. A brownstone in dupont may be out of their financial reach, but a ranch home in landover offers a much more appealing option than a socially-ill, blighted cityscape. Just some thoughts. Great discussions about race and class lately, btw. I've been waiting for some of this.
I'm giddy about this recent topic, Ben. Race and ethnicity issues in the gay community was the subject of some major research of mine last year. While I didn't focus on gentrification specifically, your questions here are reminiscent of the ones I had with respect to coverage of gay communities of color (specifically with regards to the AIDS issue) in The Advocate over the last 30 years. My findings were pretty revealing, yet, speaking as a fortunate and educated gay person of color, they were not that surprising. Gay people of color, especially the poor, have largely been ignored, especially in our communities unofficial news magazine of record. If this is the case for gay media, I imagine the same probably holds true for the gentrification process.
Now, whether they want to participate is another question (though their participation is mostly involuntary as they are slowly squeezed out), but I suspect that they too would appreciate well-appointed homes and picturesque yards.
I don't know what gay communities of the future will look like, but I'm glad we're having this dialogue so that we make sure they're as inclusive as possible. It's about time.
last time i checked minnie mouse isn't gay.
Post a Comment