Summary Of There Goes The Hood By Lance Freeman

444 Words1 Page

Lance Freeman tackles the issue of gentrification from the perspectives of residents in the gentrified neighborhood. He criticizes the literature for overlooking the experiences of the victims of gentrification. The author argues that people’s conceptions on the issue are somewhat misinformed in that most people consider it as completely deplorable, whereas in reality, it benefits the community by promoting businesses, different types of stores, and cleaner streets. These benefits are even acknowledged by many residents in the gentrified neighborhood. However, the author admits that gentrification indeed does harm. Although gentrification does not equate to displacement per se, it serves to benefit primarily homeowners and harm the poor. Additionally, …show more content…

Prior to this, I had never heard of any benefit of gentrification; rather, I had the typical preconceived notion that Freeman discusses: gentrification is a demonic force that inflicts suffering in all poor people in a gentrified neighborhood. However, reading excerpts from “There Goes the ‘Hood” encourages me to rethink my position. One of my questions from the reading pertains to the “race” part of the author’s argument. Although Clinton Hill and Harlem are both predominantly comprised of African Americans, I wonder how low-income white residents feel about gentrification. I am curious about this because a friend of mine, a white Irish, was displaced from her home in Sunnyside, Queens last summer because of increasing rent. From this experience, I think that seeing low-income whites’ outlooks on white gentry would be interesting. Furthermore, I question the validity of the author’s selection on some of the participants for his interview, particularly those whom he recruited in a conference on gentrification (page 12). One could imagine that community members who attend such a conference would hold strong opinions about gentrification. However, would not this contradict his earlier point that “the most active and vocal residents are not necessarily representative of the entire neighborhood and are likely different” (page 7) and thus undermining the integrity of some of his

Open Document