Book Review - Maria Popa

Lance Freeman’s There Goes the Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up discusses the effects of gentrification on the original residents of a neighborhood undergoing gentrification. Freeman conducted his research in the gentrifying neighborhoods of Harlem and Clinton Hill where he interviewed and befriended the original residents. His book provides an “overview of the evolution of Clinton Hill and Harlem from homes for the upper middle class, to depressed inner city neighborhoods, and finally through the beginnings of gentrification” (17). As he believes that minority groups are the ones to suffer from gentrification and the whites the ones to benefit, he focused his research on minority groups; eighty five percent of the people he interviewed were African American and the other fifteen percent were Latino.

Freeman argues that the “black inner city is unique and set apart from the rest of the metropolis;” (4) its residents create a strong bond within the community and establish a unique culture. He described Harlem as the “physical manifestation of the new negro – rather than relying on whites, the new negro would blaze his own trails and knock down barriers before him. He acted to improve his conditions, and those of his race.” (21) But both Harlem and Clinton Hill were transformed into slums because of the “color line” that limited their residents’ employment opportunities to low paid jobs in retail and personal service industries, and because there were better housing options in other parts of the city that appealed to the wealthier residents.

Freeman discusses how both areas were initially populated by artists and affluent members of the African American community but once “demographic, economic, and political changes created a new middle class that was attracted to the city” (57) both neighborhoods began going through gentrification. One of his main arguments is that there is not enough gentrification literature concentrating on the losses experienced by low income residents, such as losing their homes and the support networks they formed in the community. Therefore he tries to shed light on what these residents go through. Freeman argues that even though some residents welcome gentrification and see it as a way to “bring their neighborhoods into the mainstream of American commercial life with better services that others might take for granted and achieve upward mobility without having to escape to the suburbs or predominantly white neighborhoods.” And most residents appreciate the better produce in groceries stores, the neighborhood’s improved physical appearance, and the increased government responsiveness in providing social services such as trash pickup and public safety, they are skeptical about these improvements and see them as meant for the outsiders not for themselves.

Freeman’s analysis of gentrification reminded me most about our discussion regarding gentrification in Bushwick and the debate on the Atlantic Yards. We discussed in class how the government tries to push out the poor by demolishing public housing and creating mixed income housing. Freeman also focuses on efforts to “deconcentrate the poor” that makes some view gentrification as “state sponsored gentrification” (126). Another point that Freeman focuses on that we discussed in class is how the poor view themselves as powerless. Freeman notes that residents of minority communities wonder “how can neighborhoods under the same mayor be treated so differently” – with better schools, better police protection, cleaner streets, and the like, and they attribute such these differences to the relative power of certain groups…white are clearly viewed as the more powerful group” (108).

What I found most interesting in Freeman’s book is the fact that Harlem was originally intended for upscale whites but it became a mecca for African Americans because of the “consciousness of decisions of African Americans to develop a community in Harlem” (20). He also attributes Harlem’s poverty to the “various types of retail outlets that now sell alcohol in Harlem” (33) and I never made a connection between the two. Finally, the last fact that surprised me was that “blacks lived in Fort Greene since its initial development, [and] in 1860 half of Brooklyn’s population lived in Fort Greene”(38), a neighborhood of which Clinton Hill is a part of but was given a new name “as a marketing ploy to attract a more upscale clientele” (35).