This New York City neighbourhood - part of Manhattan borough - has long been home for its large proportion of African-American residents and businesses. After being associated for much of the twentieth century with crime and poverty, it is now experiencing social and economic gentrification.
As a settlement, it traces its routes back to the early Dutch pioneers - it's named for a Dutch city - and became part of the city of New York in 1873, after its value as an independent agricultural centre had declined.
The arrival of the elevated railroad seven years later brought a new rush of fortune to the area. A period of rapid property development followed, but an oversupply of new buildings and delays in the extension of the New York subway network sent prices into a downward spiral.
The low property prices proved attractive to emigre Eastern European Jews - something which caused consternation amongst landlords, who feared that the presence of so many recent arrivals would drive rents further down - a similar sentiment would be expressed later as African Americans moved into the neighbourhoods in larger numbers.
As early as 1880, there had been a black presence in Harlem, focused around 125th Street and West 130th Street. In 1904, though, another real estate crash and the worsening conditions of other black neighbourhoods led Philip Payton to create the Afro-American Realty Company. This business encouraged relocation for black families from areas around the Tenderloin, San Juan Hill and Hell's Kitchen - leaving behind areas which had been the focus of anti-black riots in the early years of the century - and for families whose homes were being demolished to make way for Penn Station. As the families moved in, so businesses and churches followed.
By 1920, central Harlem was predominantly black. By the 1930s, the black population was growing, fuelled by migration from the West Indies and the southern US. As more black people moved in, white residents left; between 1920 and 1930, 118,792 white people left the neighbourhood and 87,417 black people arrived. Some attempted to resist change in 'their' neighbourhood, entering into pacts to not sell or rent to black people; others attempted to buy property out from under black tenants - prompting the Afro-American Realty Company to reverse the process with properties from which it would evict white residents.
Employment amongst black New Yorkers started to fall during the 1930s - and, with such a large black population, Harlem felt the effects of this strongly. Riots in Harlem in 1935 and 1943 made the situation worse - fear keeping away customers from the entertainment venues which had provided much employment. War brought a brief upturn in prospects, as war often will, but these new jobs vanished after the armistice and decline took hold once more.
With New York's black population growing at a time when many city landlords would refuse black tenants, rents at Harlem rose faster than those in the city as whole, but precious little of this found its way into building maintenance - a 1950 census found that almost half of housing in Harlem was unsound. The high rents encouraged blockbusting, where speculators would buy one house in a block, renting to black tenants with much publicity and alarm amongst owners of neighbouring properties. These owners could often be relied upon to bail out quickly, allowing the blockbuster to acquire their properties cheaply; these, too, would be rented to black families.
With a relatively poor section of society being asked to pay relatively high rents, the consequence was a sardine-can like squeezing of people into buildings. While Manhattan in 2000 had a population density of 70,000 per square mile, Harlem in the mid 1920s crammed 215,000 souls into each square mile. It would only be the abandonment of buildings too expensive to keep habitable, or impossible to make a profit from while paying city fines and taxes, that would see density drop back to more normal levels in the 1970s. The outcome was municipality taking ownership of two-thirds of the real estate, and many empty blocks and buildings making the neighbourhood less attractive still to investors.
Cramped in, bitterly poor - generally, unemployment rates in Harlem would be double the general rate across New York - Harlem was an unhealthy place to live. A 1990 study suggested life expectancy for a 15 year-old female resident of Harlem would be roughly on a par with a that of a fifteen year-old girl living in India. She'd have about a 65% chance of surviving to 65 - while a black man would have about a 37% chance of making it to the same age, on a par with an Angolan male. As with other areas of deprivation and desperation, crime and drug abuse took a hold; at the same time, Harlem was the focus of a vibrant black culture and a strong religious life.
It also provided a focus for political activism, too - the National Association For The Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) became active in Harlem in 1910, rapidly becoming the largest chapter of the organisation, while Marcus Garvey's Universal Negro Improvement Association started campaigning from 1916. The Great Depression proved a rallying point - the Don't Buy Where You Can't Work campaign successfully forced shops to hire black employees in the 1920s; in the 1950s and 60s, rent strikes and pressure groups campaigned on housing, education and employment issues.
The frustrations often found more violent outlets, too. A 1935 (false) rumour that the police had killed a shoplifter sparked a riot which saw 600 stores looted and left three dead; in 1943, the shooting of a black solider by a policeman caused a second outbreak of rioting - this time claiming six lives. The 1964 riots brought to a head tensions between locals and theNYPD - at the time, only one out of every seven cops in the district were black. Harlem was always an attractive recruiting ground for those beyond the mainstream of American politics - Communists were active in the 1930s; Malcolm X's Nation of Islam was just the highest-profile of dozens of black nationalist groups who found support or made their bases in the area and in 1966 The Black Panthers were organising in the neighbourhood.
The 1970s were the bottom for Harlem - those who could afford to flee did; those who remained mainly did so not through choice, but because of lack of other options. Attempts by the City Of New York to return confiscated properties to the market were quickly beset by scandal, fraud and allegations of profiteering without doing much to improve conditions for the general housing stock or those living in it.
Things improved in the late 1990s, as changes to federal and city policies drove down crime and focused redevelopment efforts on the retail corridor of 125th Street. The Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone channelled cash into the area from 1994; the area also was boosted as the forces genrtifying the rest of Manhattan and Brooklyn had completed much of their task and needed new areas to conquer with coffee bars and loft-style apartments. During the 90s, Central Harlem property values increased threefold, to the point where an empty shell could command a resale value of almost a million dollars.
But what of the future?
This brief history of Harlem, based on an edited version of the Wikepedia entry for Harlem, highlights the significance of the area for the African-American population of New York for more than a century.
This has been an area where they have found a home and space of cultural and poltical empowerment, at the same time as being subject to very high levels of poverty, ill-health and unemployment. It is thus no surprise that the gentrification of Harlem over the last couple of decades has been highly contentious and contested.
Gentrification is never a neutral process. Much of the academic literature on the subject has highlighted the ways in which processes of gentrification have forced low income households out of gentrifying neighborhoods as the middle class households move in, taking advantage of low housing costs and often architecturally appealing buildings.
Gentrification is thus argued to increase housing inequalities and disadvantage poorer households who cannot afford the rising prices and are thus displaced. In the case of Harlem this process has considerable impacts on the African-American community for whom the locality has been home as well as a site of empowerment in a sometimes hostile world.
Other writers focus on the advantages accruing to the middle class households who are able to buy relatively cheap housing and do it up to their own tastes, bringing in their wake a revitalised neighborhood of particular production and consumption patterns - the cappuccino café society - of a bourgeois bohemia . For others, gentrification is cast as the best way to revitalise inner cities, even if this causes the wholesale displacement of long established poorer communities.
The Harlem edition of Thinking Allowed – an association between the Open university and the BBC - grapples with these thorny issues.
Take it further
Listen to Samuel Bordreuil and Laurie Taylor discussing Marseille's experience of gentrification
Read Sophie Watson's explanation of why rich people are attracted to 'poor' neighbourhoods
Find out about Sociology and Society, an Open University course which includes study of urban life.


















![Polling Station signage [Image: kagey b under CC-BY-NC-ND licence]](/openlearn/files/ole/ole_images/places/general-urban-scenes/polling-station-sign/polling station sign_0_0.jpg)


Login or Register to post comments
Thinking Allowed: Harlem Gentrification
Is getting the middle class to move into city centres the best way to reduce crime and make them a better place to live? Does it mean that poorer people have to move out to make room for wealthier people - and if so isn't that just moving the problem of poverty elsewhere?
Harlem Gentrification
Is getting the middle class to move into city centres the best way to reduce crime and make them a better place to live? Does it mean that poorer people have to move out to make room for wealthier people - and if so isn't that just moving the problem of poverty elsewhere?
Charlie Taylor - Thinking Allowed producer
Re: Harlem Gentrification
I find the suggestion that crime might be moved elsewhere as a result of inner city gentrification problematic for two reasons. Firstly, it implies that only poor people commit crime. As the previous poster reported, the people who move to the gentrified areas might also be criminals, but perhaps criminals whose actions are less obvious. Secondly, the notion of crime moving, being displaced, implies that there is something constant about crime, it suggests that crime will occur regardless of where people, in this case poor people, live.
If middle class gentrified inner city areas see a reduction in crime, and there is general agreement that the social class of the inhabitants has a direct bearing on this, then there can only be a couple of possible explanations. Perhaps the geographical area in which the crime takes place has become dispersed and, as a consequence of this fragmentation, a reduction in the extent of the criminals social infrastructure has caused a drop in the total instances of crime. Alternatively, and more insidiously, there is the suggestion that the new middle class inhabitants bring with them more law abiding habits which inspire the poor criminals to do better things with their lives. The effects might be technological (burglar alarms, CCTV, for example) or behavioural (a morally superior, Daily Mail reading tribe). Neither of these arguments, in light of the widespread nature of crime throughout the spectrum of social class, appears satisfactory.
The question reflects a popular notion that 'contemporary lifestyle appartments in the vibrant heart of the city' (as they are so often described) are far more preferable than former urban commercial/industrial areas where a few people with dubious aspirations live in basic housing. It is a telling reflection of our times that this type of gentrification does not include shops, libraries, green spaces, bus stops, schools, etc. Certainly it doesn't in the city I live in (Bristol, south-west England). Just massive bill boards advertising the high quality of the built-in kitchen appliances, wooden floors and a painted pipe in the middle of the lounge for that 'loft' feel. I often wonder what these developments will look like in twenty years time - perhaps no better than the crummy council block on the other side of the roundabout/river/canal. With gentrification we are seeing the replacement of one sort of poverty with another.
I do not think that getting middle class people to move into city centres is the best way to reduce crime and I do not think that this makes city centres a better place to live. If people move in, then people have to move out, regardless of how much they earn. Not only does gentrification move one problem out of the city centre, it moves another in.
Re: Harlem Gentrification
I listened to the discussions on urban regeneration, gentrification, displacements waiting to hear about the people displaced into the next life. I mean the elderly persons whose lives are shortened and ended by these upheavals. Not a word.
The analyses in terms of race and class might be thought to include the drastic impacts on the elderly, disabled,ill, but no one said so.
An investigation of the great slum clearances programme in Britain before and after the War would show that while many younger people gained a lease of life from their new homes too many elderly persons did not survive the forced change.
[ Between 1945 and 1970, 750,000 homes were demolished. 1,232,983 people were moved. 123,613 of these were single people. A fair guess would be that these were mainly the elderly. Which implies a huge body count hidden from history. (Housing Returns. 1945-1970. Gov. publication).
For the Left, slum clearance was always too little too late. For a significant number of residents it was too soon, too much.
Social studies (eg Willmott and Young) missed it. They bemoaned the death of 'community'. 'They pitied the plumage and forgot the dying bird'.]
In scattered homes now caught up in the 'Pathfinder' programme in Northern England the same killing anxieties must be at work.
I have been involved recently with residents in prefab replacement schemes in Bristol and Newport (Gwent). Nothing has been learnt. These were populations of predominantely elderly people. Persons in their '70s 80s, 90s were stuck with sleep destroying stresses lasting months, years...
What they said, their families and neighbours said and what actually happened to them is unmistakeable evidence of this cruel process. But dismissable as anecdotal, sentimental, nostalgic.. 'They'll get over it', by those with large financial interests in displacing them. Which includes town councils, alas.
The silence, blindness of social scientists to this way of ending citizens' lives gives aid and comfort to the powers that be.
Neat bungalows stand where the prefabs did. No one wants to count in the cemetery, or recall the agonies along the way.
Some quotes from Bristol and Newport prefab residents:
She loved the place. It belonged to the family she loved. She had a massive heart attack at 68. It happened when she was trying to get her key in the door of the new flat. The place was soulless for her.
I am being treated for stress caused by this you have imposed on us. I would not treat a dog like this. I hope you can sleep at night because I cannot.
They never showed any sign throughout it all that they knew they were dealing with old people.
We don't believe a word they say. And they don't believe a word we say.
My husband prays to God to get us out of all this. He thinks he will but I doubt it.
(Bill had probably prayed the same prayer dodging the bullets under the Rhine Bridge.)
Daren't comment. (92 year old)
Re: Harlem Gentrification
Rather than a notion that poor people commit crime, I think the main argument used about reduction of crime is that the middle classes are better at arguing for services and getting them -- so they bring a higher police presence to an area causing crime to drop. Certainly, in Harlem we noticed a lot of police on foot and in cars and, anecdotally atleast, it seemed it was once a very rare sight to see police simply beating the streets. Not surprisingly people thought this objectionable -- why should the poor not get the same public service as the rich?? why should people wait for the middleclass to arrive before getting proper police cover??? -- but it seemed an accepted truth nonetheless.
Re: Harlem Gentrification
I lived in Brixton - London's Harlem? - during its much heralded 'gentrification'. I don't have the statistics to back this up, but my feeling was that when we first moved in - attracted by an affordable family house -we thought we were very likely to get burgled, mugged or car-jacked because the area was generally depressed and there had just been a riot. In fact, none of these fears were borne out.
By the time we moved ten years later, there were prostitutes on every street corner up and down the main road into Brixton (word had it they were pushed south after the gentrification of Streatham), drugs were being dealt openly and the police were fighting a losing battle against crack houses. But, a lot of money had been spent tarting up the housing estates, new schools had been built, the underground station had been totally revamped and they were considering making the high street one-way and creating a community zone. It's a complicated process but in my experience of Brixton, crime came with gentrification.
We took advantage of the spike in property prices, trebled our money and ran into the suburbs for safety...
Re: Harlem Gentrification
I think the run to the suburbs is just about it! I don't entirely blame you but I expect your kids, as they grow up will want to come into town and gentrify, regentrify or 'super-gentrify' the inner city again...ad infinitum.
What I found so suprising was that in gentrified areas -- where all you can see are estate agents, winebars, gift shops and rip-off coffee joints the majority of the residents are NOT middle class. Assuming the expert on the programme was right, then the working class -- or non-posh people of the neighbourhood are actually the majority but are blotted out - made invisible by other's superior spending power.
Re: Harlem Gentrification
Having recently left inner city Bristol for a small mountain in South East Queensland, it was interesting to listen to the gentrification discussion and to hear Ruth Glass's original definition stretched to include any manifestation of urban change that has a class, race or gender dimension: difficult to imagine any form of development that didn't affect someone in these terms.
It would also be mildly distracting to plot the residential location of academics specialising in gentrification and to factor in their self-declared class, gender, ethnicity and so on in order to have some insight into their impact on the neighbourhoods of their choosing.
Re: Harlem Gentrification
"Having recently left inner city Bristol for a small mountain in South East Queensland", I feel particularly smug.
Those people who can't be bothered to polish their shoes everyday deserve to walk around in shoes with no polish on them.
In fact maybe they don't deserve polish or even shoes at all.
If they can't be bothered to appreciate the glory of life then let them stew ...I love my country
Re: Harlem Gentrification
The city I live in, they converted all the business space down town into flats - irony, though, they were so expensive only the drug dealers could afford to live there - the council reduced crime by bringing in the criminals!!!