11.a.1 Number of countries that have national urban policies or regional development plans that (a) respond to population dynamics; (b) ensure balanced territorial development; and (c) increase local fiscal space

QUICK LINKS:

 

Gentrification: Definitions, Manifestation, Versions, and Case Studies 

 

Snapshot: Equitable Urban Development across DC

 

Gentrification: Definitions, Manifestation, Versions, and Case Studies

The central question discussed in this paper is whether exclusionary zoning and housing policies are a cause or a consequence of gentrification. In this paper we dive deeper into both the zoning and housing policies as well as the development of gentrification in three cities in the US: Washington, DC, Denver, CO, and San Francisco, CA. To engage with the question of cause or consequence it is imperative to understand gentrification and how it comes about, as well as looking closer at how gentrification developed in the three cities previously mentioned. With the background on policies that have created socio economic inequality laid out in the previous literature review, in this literature review, the first section looks at the definition of gentrification. Section two looks at how gentrification manifests in different ways as well as the severity of the types of gentrification. The third section focuses on the development of gentrification in the three cities.

Definitions & Gentrification Effect

            Since the introduction of the term gentrification in 1964 by Ruth Glass, gentrification has had many definitions. In its simplest form, gentrification has been defined as “the transformation of a working-class or vacant area of the central city into middle-class residential and/or commercial use.” However, many scholars in the literature have been critical of gentrification, creating nuanced definitions focusing on factors such as race and displacement:

• • Many anti-displacement activists define gentrification, in a broad sense, as a profit-driven, race, and class change of a historically disinvested neighborhood.
  • Other scholars critical of gentrification focus on the racial and cultural aspects, and define it as the process by which middle-class individuals (often White) move into lower-income neighborhoods (often Black), consequently displacing existing residents and changing the neighborhood’s social character.
  • Some scholars focus on the movement of people as a result and define gentrification as the process whereby the character of a poor urban area is changed by wealthier people moving in, improving housing, and attracting new businesses, typically displacing current inhabitants in the process.

However, while in literature, often scholars have been critical of gentrification, there has been research done on both the positive and negative impacts of gentrification on the area:

Scholars who emphasize the positive impacts of gentrification have highlighted that gentrification can cause an area to improve economic opportunity, lower crime rates, and increase property values. And by increasing property values, more tax revenue goes into facilities such as schools, which has positive dividends on the future generations who can take advantage of the recourses.

Additionally A recent research study on gentrification in Washington, DC showed that gentrification might have the possibility for desegregation of schools when paired with the right policies on student school assignment.  

On the other hand, scholars who emphasize the negative impacts of gentrification highlight that gentrification displaces current residents because of increased cost of living in the area. This displacement negatively impacts the displaced residents in a variety of ways:

• • We have seen that displaced residents experience negative health impacts as a result of gentrification. Studies have found that populations displaced by gentrification, as compared with those who remained, typically have a shorter life expectancy, higher cancer rates, more birth defects, greater infant mortality and higher incidence of asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. And with the separation from their primary care provider (doctors, hospitals, etc.) many displaced residents struggle to gain access to health recourses.
  • We have seen negative impacts to mental health for displaced residents as a result of gentrification. Studies have shown that displacement can cause increased risk of psychological stress levels, anxiety, and depression.Displaced residents have also emphasized higher levels of anxiety due to changes in neighborhood character, feeling unwelcomed and social isolation, all likely due to a loss of community whether that be family, friends, or local facilities and places (i.e. restaurants, stores). Additionally, one study found that displaced residents were 19% more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health-related condition.
  • Displacement also forces families to change their children’s schools (often to lower performing ones) which negatively impacts the educational trajectory of displaced children.

Along with the negative impacts on displaced residents, there also negative impacts on the residents that stay:

• • Long-term residents also have negative impacts to their mental health as a result of disruption of long-time residential ties and the sense of community diminishment caused by weakened social networks.
  • Additionally, as a result of paying higher costs for living in gentrified areas, a recent study found that food insecurity levels increased for long-term residents who had to sacrifice prioritizing personal health to continue to afford to stay.
  • Studies have also shown that racial tensions between new and long-term residents in gentrified areas brings a sense of unwelcomeness for both sides. The lack of social cohesion between the old and the new creates an unhealthy social atmosphere, as well as increases displacement pressure for long-term residents who have lost their core community.

Additionally, while gentrification improves the newly reinvested area, scholars point out that gentrification increases economic inequality (largely due to generational wealth differences as a result of racially exclusionary housing policies in the 20^th century).

It should also be noted that while a large portion of the gentrification literature is focused on economic forced (rent, cost of living), and social forces (displacement pressures, and loss of community) for African American or Black communities, those same experiences are shared by other minorities such as Hispanic and Asian populations. Although, as seen through the case studies discussed below, unlike with African American/Black communities (in these cities where a steady decrease has been seen in the population percentage), there has actually been—for the most part—an increase in the population percentage of Hispanic and Asian residents. 

Manifestation

Gentrification can manifest in three different ways:

• • Supply side factors: In this scenario, prices of the area have declined to the point in which the land in the area becomes desirable to outsiders to buy and reinvest in the land or home for a profit.
    • Often the area has been become undesirable as a result of high levels of crime.
    • Housing price levels can also decrease in the wake of large social uprisings or large destruction of infrastructure. An example of this would be riots in Washington, DC, after the death of MLK.
  • Demand side factors: In this scenario, contrary to the boom of the suburban expansion, and “White flight”, many jobs are now moving back to the cities and so it becomes more convenient and desirable to live closer to the city. This desire causes richer families who can pay more for housing to displace the current residents of the area.
  • Policy factors: In this scenario policy makers make the disinvested area more desirable to gentrify. This could be offering tax breaks for first-time homebuyers, or mortgage programs meant to encourage more lending in “under-served areas.” Additionally, public investment in factors such as transportation and public resources can make an area more attractive and trigger the gentrification process.

With the three ways in which gentrification manifests, there are different results depending on factors of the city. There are four types of gentrification dependent on when the population hit 50% of its peak, and the racial/ethnic makeup of the city in 1970:

Table 1.  Summary definitions: How Gentrification Manifests

• • Expansive Gentrification: Expansive Gentrification is possible when the community reached 50% of their peak population before 1940 and has a Black/African American population that is less than 25% in 1970. With this type of gentrification, it spreads throughout most of the city and has impacts on the entire community. Examples of cities that have experienced Expansive Gentrification are New York and Boston
  • Concentrated Gentrification: Concentrated Gentrification is possible when the community reached 50% of their peak population before 1940 and has a Black/African American population that is more than 25% in 1970. This type of gentrification is when gentrification is concentrated in certain areas of the city (or region) and eludes the heavily African American parts of the city. Example cities for this type of gentrification are Chicago and Atlanta.
  • Limited Gentrification: Limited Gentrification is possible when the community reached 50% of their peak population after 1950 and has a Black/African American population that is less than 25% in 1970. This type of gentrification takes place in cities that came of age with the car as the dominant mode of transport. These cities are also often ones that are seeking ways to catalyze their inner cities, with greater tangible investments in public transit and mixed-use development. Often cities that experience this form of gentrification go through what scholars call Transit-Induced Gentrification (TIG) Example cities for this type of gentrification are Los Angeles, and Dallas.
  • Nascent Gentrification: Nascent Gentrification is possible when the community reached 50% of their peak population after 1950 and has a Black/African American population that is more than 25% in 1970. This type of gentrification is rare and a distinctly Southern phenomenon, and by all appearances gentrification activity lags behind other cities, with sprawl still the dominant development engine. Example cities for this type of gentrification are Charlotte and Tampa.

Cases

In each of the three cases (Washington, Denver, and San Francisco) gentrification developed differently with different results:

• • Washington, DC, started out as a majority White city, and stayed that way up until the 1950s and 60s in the midst of White flight to the suburbs. By the 1970s, DC’s population was 70% Black and earned the unofficial name the “Chocolate City.” Since, the 1990s, we have seen two things: First, an increase in the White population moving back to the city. Second, we have seen an increase in the Black population moving from DC to areas outside the city.

Gentrification in DC has been a concentrated gentrification, so gentrification has been seen in various neighborhoods rather than the entire city. However, while in most gentrification cases, there is seen both high racial turnover rates, as well as gentrification. In Washington, DC, it is a mixed bag. Some neighborhoods have had high racial turnover, with no change in class, and vice-versa.

For many of the neighborhoods in DC that have experienced gentrification it has been supply side factors as the main drivers.

• • On H Street, as a result of the riots after the assassination of MLK, the housing values declined to a point where the area market became desirable for outside buyers. H Street is largely home to DC’s Chinatown, which has seen many changes since then. Since the riots Chinatown has seen local businesses be squeezed out by bigger corporations and even the addition of the new Capital One stadium in 1997. With all these changes only 300 Chinese Americans remain residents in Chinatown.
  • Similarly, in Logan Circle, the area used to be a very dodgy neighborhood whose prices became a draw for buyers. Both neighborhoods have seen tremendous changes to the quality because of the gentrification and have become some of the more affluent areas.
  • LeDroit Park on the other hand has seen improvements through gentrification, however, the majority Black/African American presence that has been prevalent there has made it so that while the area has been positively impacted by gentrification, there has not been a loss of the community in those that originally lived there.
  • In Columbia Heights we have seen a large impact on the Hispanic community. From 2000 to 2010 the Hispanic residents decreased by 11% as majority White new neighbors moved in. Additionally, many new policies in the neighborhood, such as park hours, as well as increasing security of public amenities have been discriminatory to Hispanic families increasing their sense of unwelcomeness. So, while the city of Washington has seen increases in its Hispanic population, certain neighborhoods have seen heavy displacement of minority residents.

In Washington DC, from 2000, to 2019 we have seen changes in both racial/ethnic makeup of the city, as well as increases in socioeconomic factors as a result of gentrification:

• • For racial change, looking at the Black or African American percentage of the population: In 2000 it was 60%,in 2010 it was 51.2%, and in 2019 it was 45.4%. So, from 2000, there has been nearly a 15% decrease in the population percentage that identifies as Black or African American. So, while the Black and African American population still is majority in DC, it has declined significantly since the 70s. On the other hand, looking at the White population percentage we have seen increases from 31% in 2000, to 40.2% in 2010, to 42.5% in 2019. In Washington, DC, unlike for the Black/African American communities who have seen decreases in the population percentage in the past decades, the Hispanic community has actually seen increases to its population percentage. We have seen increases in the Hispanic population from 9% in 2000, to 9.1% in 2010, to 11.3% in 2019. Similarly, even with the major loss of community in Chinatown, the Asian population percentage has increased from 2.6% in 2000, to 3.6% in 2010, to 4.1% in 2019.
  • Regarding housing for residents in DC, it is important to first look at the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner in order to better understand comparative affordability of houses: In 2000 52.5% of homes were owner-occupied, in 2010 42.5%, and in 2019 41.5%. For the other (roughly) half of residents who rent homes in DC, the median rent has increased from $1,198 in 2010 to $1,603 in 2019.
  • In terms of socioeconomic success of residents in DC, it is necessary to look at median household income, as well as education attainment. The median household income has increased from $43,405 in 2000, to $50,046 in 2010, to $92,266 in 2019. Then, in terms of education attainment, looking at the population percentage that has attained a bachelor’s degree or higher, it increased from 54.6% in 2010, to 59.7% in 2019.

• • In Denver the gentrification has been limited gentrification, so the gentrification has been mostly seen around the city working to catalyze their inner-city growth and development, specifically through transit induced gentrification as well as policy supported gentrification. The main transportation project in Denver has been the light rail, introduced in 1994. The increased support for public transportation successfully catalyzed urban development. Since opening, the neighborhoods within a mile radius of the light rail in Denver have seen socioeconomic increases in both education levels, and average median household income.

Also contributed to Denver’s gentrification is urban agriculture. Urban agriculture is the practice of cultivating, processing, and distributing food in or around urban areas. In the case of Denver, urban agriculture played a role in changing the cultural and social climate in many Denver neighborhoods.  Using space for agriculture that were formally used for other purposes. Urban agriculture is an example of the incentivized private investment that is commonplace in Denver. The incentivized private investment is controversial because it may benefit some residents, but depending on socioeconomic status, other residents feel investments should be need in other programs, e.g. schools.

Looking at the demographic change in Denver between 2000 to 2019, gentrification has caused some change:

• • For racial change, looking at the Black or African American percentage of the population: In 2000 it was 11.1%, in 2010 it was 1%, and in 2019 it was 8.6%. So, from 2000, there has only been a 2.5% decrease in the population percentage that identifies as Black or African American. Although that 2.5% is not as significant as the 15% in DC, the starting percentage was also significantly lower in Denver than in DC. On the other hand, looking at the White population percentage we have seen increases from 65.3% in 2000, to 69.8% in 2010, to 77.2% in 2019. So, gentrification has only increased the firm grasp White residents have on being in the majority in Denver with a 11.9% increase in the past two decades. Unlike DC, the Hispanic population has seen a slight increase then decrease in their population percentage from 31.7% in 2000, to 31.9% in 2010, to 29.3% in 2019. But along with the decrease in Hispanic population percentage came a small increase in the Asian population from 2.6% in 2000, to 3.6% in 2010, to 4.1% in 2019.
  • Regarding housing for residents in Denver, first looking at the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner in order to better understand comparative affordability of houses: In 2000 52.5% of homes were owner-occupied, in 2010 65.4%, and in 2019 61.4%. For the residents who rent homes in Denver, the median rent has increased from $855 in 2010 to $1,097 in 2019.
  • In terms of socioeconomic success of residents in Denver, looking at median household income, it has increased from $35,616 in 2000, to $65,712 in 2010, to $75,646 in 2019. Then, in terms of education attainment, looking at the population percentage that has attained a bachelor’s degree or higher, it increased from 46.3% in 2010, to 53.1% in 2019.

• • In San Francisco, we have seen expansive gentrification, so the changes have been widespread throughout the city. This gentrification has been largely driven by demand. In the past few decades San Francisco became one of the biggest technology hubs in the United States. Starting with the Dot-com bubble in the late 1990s and early 2000s and now with the second wave or Tech-Boom 2.0 (known to some scholars as the rise of techno-imperialism) led by companies such as Facebook, Apple and Google has resulted in massive increases in the people moving into the city to be closer to their work. And given the lucrative nature of the technology of the tech industry, the new residents can outbuy many of the current residents, forcing displacement.

Additionally, San Francisco invested in improving its public transportation systems, causing further displacement as some homes needed to be taken out to make way for new stations. However, it should be noted that San Francisco made attempts to limit the widespread displacement as a result of the influx of new residents such as requiring that 20% of all housing near the new stations be dedicated to affordable housing.

One area in San Francisco that has been hit hard by gentrification—triggered by the Tech-Boom 2.0—has been Chinatown. There are four areas to Chinatown (Chinatown North, Polk Gulch, Nob Hill, and Chinatown). And while the Asian population in central Chinatown has not been heavily impacted by economics induced gentrification, the outer areas have been hit quite hard, and have lost culture, community, as well as affordable housing.

Looking at the effect of gentrification in San Francisco, from 2000, to 2019 we have seen socioeconomic and racial demographic changes.

• • For racial change, looking at the Black or African American percentage of the population: In 2000 it was 7.8%,in 2010 it was 6.1%, and in 2019 it was 5.5%. So, from 2000, there has only been a 2.3% decrease in the population percentage that identifies as Black or African American. On the other hand, looking at the White population percentage we have seen increases from 7% in 2000, to 51.5% in 2010, to 45.2% in 2019. So, San Francisco is an interesting case, because while we have seen a decrease in Black and African American population percentage (which is common with gentrification) the White population has overall seen a decrease as well (which is uncommon with gentrification). Regarding the Asian population, we see an increase from 30.8% in 2000, to 33.4% in 2010, to 34.9% in 2019. And for the Hispanic population an increase from 7.9% in 2000, to 9.1% in 2010, to 11.3% in 2019.
  • Regarding housing for residents in San Francisco, looking at the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner in order to better understand comparative affordability of houses: In 2000 35% of homes were owner-occupied, in 2010 36.6%, and in 2019 37.1%. For the residents who rent homes in San Francisco, the median rent has increased from $1,385 in 2010 to $1,959 in 2019.
  • In terms of socioeconomic success of residents in Francisco, looking at median household income, it has increased from $43,405 in 2000, to $71,745 in 2010, to $123,859 in 2019. This is a clear sign of the lucrative impact of the tech companies coming into San Francisco in the last decade. Then, in terms of education attainment, looking at the population percentage that has attained a bachelor’s degree or higher, it increased from 39.5% in 2010, to 59.2% in 2019.

Narratives and Power

            Another element of gentrification that is discussed in the literature is narratives. Scholars who focus on narratives emphasize that in gentrification there are two side of the story. On the one hand, there are the affluent residents who get to enjoy the benefits of the gentrified area, whether that be the better houses, new amenities, etc. On the other side are those individuals who end up having to move or lose community as a result of increased housing values.

Those in power who dominate policy discussions have used their power to paint gentrification as a beneficial thing for a community, such as “it improves schools and community amenities” or it will make for “safer areas for the children.”However, In this field of academia, scholars challenge the dominant narrative and showcase the unheard voices of marginalized groups. These scholars emphasize the need to contemplate the dynamics of power in the politics of gentrification.

• • Along with the narratives of the current residents in areas being gentrified, it is also important to understand that there are other ways to control narratives. One way in which policy makers have controlled narratives to trigger gentrification is renaming and rebranding areas that have been deemed as undesirable. A prime example of this is in San Francisco. There was an area of San Francisco called Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard which was brought to its socioeconomic knees as a result of racial turmoil and rioting in 1966 after the police shooting of a Black teenager who was escaping a crime scene. Since then, the area’s name has been changed from Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard to the San Francisco Shipyard. This change in name does two things: First, it’s crossing out of the “Hunter’s Point” is a way for the city of San Francisco to try and wash away the racial turmoil and rioting that took place there. Second, by renaming it, it is an attempt to show to the outer communities that the area has changed, and there is hope for improvements to the area. The changing of the name was very successful in the triggering of gentrification, and as a result the San Francisco Shipyard has seen extreme changes to its demographics as well as its socioeconomic status and amenities.

Snapshot: Equitable Urban Development across DC

By Griffin Wray, UNA-NCA Legal Fellow

Per the EPA, equitable development “is an approach for meeting the needs of underserved communities through policies and programs that reduce disparities while fostering places that are healthy and vibrant.” Those underserved communities are almost exclusively lower-income and people of color. Equitable development is often a solution to gentrification, the process by which the original, lower-income residents of a neighborhood are displaced by rising housing costs and expensive developments as wealthier, higher-educated residents move in when the original residents move out, or are priced out by increasing rents.

DC is naturally an area of focus concerning equitable development. Between 2010 to 2020, DC’s population swelled from 602,000 to 689,545, the 7th highest in the country (although by the end of the 2010s that trend had slowed, and the onset of the pandemic reversed those gains). Accordingly, the population in the surrounding metro area has increased as well. That population growth comes with demographic change, however. DC’s growth has been driven by an influx of white residents, with the city’s historically majority Black population dropping significantly. In 2010, DC had a Black population of 305,125, or 50.7% of the District’s population; by 2020 that number decreased to 285,810, or 41.4% of the population. Economically, that shift has meant that DC has experienced some of the worst displacement of low-income residents (mostly Black) in the country, with nearby Prince George’s County being the most likely to receive them. 

At first glance, that change is perhaps nowhere more evident than in Eckington in Northeast DC. Eckington was originally an Italian neighborhood bound up in racially restrictive covenants– contractual provisions that barred the sale of homes to African American residents–until the Supreme Court ruled such covenants unenforceable in the 40s. The neighborhood subsequently experienced white flight from the 40s to the 60s, becoming an almost entirely black neighborhood by the 70s. During the 80s and 90s, Eckington was on the periphery of Truxton Circle, then “one of the biggest open air drug markets in the District.” Though considered somewhat safer than its neighbors, Eckington nonetheless suffered from similar problems, where the area described as “a lot like a warzone” with regular reports of gun battles and stabbings in the early 1990s, and even opposition to homeless shelters and boys’ homes due to crime, drugs, and prostitution.

However, under the aegis of Anthony Williams, DC’s mayor from 1999 to 2007, billions of dollars in real estate and business development flooded the city in a successful attempt at revitalization and population growth. As part of that development boom, the city and developers saw an opportunity in NoMa (an abbreviation for “North of Massachusetts Avenue”) thanks to the large number of vacant lots and warehouses, and built the Red Line NoMa-Gallaudet Station in 2004. Since the 1990s, commercial and residential development has exploded, and like the surrounding NoMa area, Eckington has become an attractive neighborhood for younger, college educated professionals, reflected in the racial and economic makeup of its residents:

Described in 2020 by the Washington Post as offering “an oasis of calm amid [the] commotion of the city,” Eckington is attractive for those seeking a quieter, more residential feel than the bustle downtown and neighborhoods like AdMo (Adams Morgan) and NoMa. Besides single family residential dwelling, however, mixed-use developments, businesses, and public improvements have accompanied the changing population. Eckington Yards, centered around cobblestone Quincy Lane, opened in 2021 with 681 units as a large mixed-use development advertised as “the new epicenter of Eckington.” The lane is flanked by City Homes (offering townhomes starting at $700k), 1625 Eckington (offering condominiums from $400k to over $1 million), and two apartment buildings that feature Union Kitchen Commissary, a flower shop, and D.C. Bouldering Project (a climbing gym) on their ground floors, with more shops to come. 

The development won zoning approval in 2016 after working out a compromise with the DC Department of Housing and Community Development (DHDC). DHDC’s Inclusionary Zoning program requires that “most new (and some renovated) residential developments include some affordable homes.” The DHCD requires developments with more than 10 units to set aside 8-10% of their floor area for affordable units, and households that make 50%, 60%, or 80% of the Median Family Income (MFI) may qualify. However, the 2022 MFI for a family of four is $142,300. And while median income for the overall DC population increased 95% from 2005 to 2019, median income for Black households increased only 50%. That disparity equates to a median household income of $149,734 for white residents, while only $49,652 for black residents.

The developers of Eckington Yards originally offered 55 affordable dwelling units (ADUs) at 60% area median income (AMI) (now called MFI), which was $106,800 in 2016, better than DC inclusionary zoning requirements, but wanted residents to apply directly to the development, not through the DHCD as required. When the DHCD rejected this proposal, the developers complied with the inclusionary zoning requirements, making half of the 55 apartments affordable to households earning up to 50% AMI and half affordable to households earning up to 80% AMI. As a result, the average maximum household income for the affordable units became $70,590, $6k more than the 60% AMI proposal.

Across the street, at ONE501, where “every fixture has been chosen carefully, every material made impeccably,” there are 327 units. Studio apartments start at upwards of $1,700. Per DHCD’s Inclusionary Zoning requirements, that means roughly 30 units must be affordable. The Gale, next to Eckington Yards and boasting 603 units, offers a similar rate, putting its number of affordable units at 50-60. And just down the road on Florida Ave, The Burton offers 387 luxury-style apartments and opened in 2021 as part of the Washington Gateway development in NoMa, with a neighboring luxury building soon to begin construction. 

Of note is that all of these developments are Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), a form of zoning relief that allows developers to build a project that differs from what is allowed in its zone if the project provides some form of benefit to the community (affordable housing being an accepted benefit, along with cash contributions to local community organizations). Eckington Yards, the Gale, and ONE501 all sit in a Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) zone, DC’s designation for industrial zones, whereas The Burton sits in a Mixed-Use zone (MU).

All of these developments sit along or near the Metropolitan Branch Trail, or MBT, an 8 mile long running/walking/biking trail that runs from Union Station to Silver Spring, MD. Dotted along the trail are dog parks, a brewery, developments such as The Chase at Bryant Street (touting a private dog park, rooftop pool, and the Bevy Food Hall, DC’s “newest foodie haven”), and the Fort Myer asphalt plant. Spewing pollution across Eckington and running a significant length of the trail, in 2017 the Eckington Civic Association (ECA) pushed to rezone the plant’s area for retail and commercial development and higher-density housing due to lack of housing. However, those proposed amendments to DC’s Comprehensive Plan were ignored in favor of keeping the area designated for PDR, leaving the ECA essentially voiceless concerning future developments, since the planning process could take another 8 years while development continues.

While the DHCD has requirements such as Inclusionary Zoning for residential developments, that does little good when considering the types of businesses amongst which those developments rise. In 2016, REI opened its DC flagship store in the old Washington Coliseum right across from the NoMa-Gallaudet Metro Station, near Union Market. A Trader Joe’s opened nearby in 2018 on the ground floor of The Edison, another luxury apartment building opened in 2017. These are only two of countless other businesses in the Union Market and Eckington area that are major indicators of gentrification.

What both developments and businesses indicate is an increasingly inequitable neighborhood. Despite ADUs and Inclusionary Zoning, such measures only go so far for residents who cannot afford to enjoy its amenities or are priced out as expensive developments are built and prices rise for single family residences (the median price in June 2022 was $725,000). Despite Mayor Bowser’s repeated pledges to draw in more investment and build more affordable housing across the city, housing continues to remain unaffordable to many of those residents who need it. Of the 21,915 new housing units built during her administration, less than 19% are considered affordable to families earning 80% of median area income or less (who are specifically those most at risk of displacement). And, as residential concerns are ignored in the zoning process, further development spells trouble as new businesses open and new residences continue to rise. 

The Purple Line and Langley Park

Unsurprisingly, proximity to transit is a critical indicator for increases in assessment land value and rent. Like the new developments and businesses rising in Eckington, concerns about equity surround the under-construction Purple Line addition to WMATA. And although there are already plans to build affordable housing along the line’s route, with construction typically comes development that disadvantages or displaces those who live nearby. The line runs through Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, places where housing is already an issue and affordable units have dwindled while incomes have grown, most glaringly along transit routes.

Despite a long delay in construction (which resumed in 2022), businesses and rents have already been affected. And while there are 17,000 affordable units for households earning $70,000 per year or less along the line’s route, rents are expected to continue to rise while housing stock fails to meet demand. Communities such as Langley Park elicit the most concern, where a station will be added to the Purple Line and zoning changes will open the area to higher-density housing. Such a zoning change, known as upzoning, provides more housing, but also has the potential to spur or worsen gentrification. 

Langley Park is a predominantly Hispanic or Latino (82%), low-income neighborhood especially vulnerable to inequitable development because many of its apartment buildings are aging and neglected. Despite efforts including the right of first refusal law and a county plan that called for inclusionary zoning and ordinances aimed at creating and preserving affordable housing, in November 2021 Prince George’s County Council approved the Countywide Sectional Map Amendment. 

Although hailed as a much needed update to the county’s aged zoning regulations, the new zoning plan transforms much of Langley Park from medium-density neighborhoods into higher-density transit zones, thereby positioning Langley Park for a potentially drastic change in landscape and residents. Whether current housing is preserved or higher-density developments are built, Langley Park’s are still likely to face displacement with the arrival of the Purple Line.

Langley Park/Takoma before, left, and after, right, the Map Amendment.

What Langley Park and Eckington present is something of a before and after portrait of the impact of transit and housing development. Langley Park is poised for potentially heavy development, high-rises and luxury apartments akin to those now emerging in Eckington. As was the case in Eckington, rising home and rental prices and the arrival of a new metro station may be harbingers of these potential changes, and, as in Eckington, Langley Park could see the same sort of flip in its demographic makeup. Despite some of the aforementioned efforts like right of first refusal and Inclusionary Zoning, the phenomenon of “transit-induced gentrification” may prove too powerful as people move out of the District itself and into surrounding suburbs.