Better transit as a "gentrifying" force

Interestingly, on the same day that the Post runs a story about neighborhood change in Seattle and Portland--"Parts of U.S. Northwest, a Changing Face," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer runs a story about the impact of light rail on an area of the city, in the article "Rainier Valley fears losing 'home' to rail: City looks for ways to curb downside of new development." From the article:

It's hard for Heidi Dang to believe the day will ever come when the street in front of her Sunlite Hair Salon is no longer a morass of orange barriers, construction debris and plywood sheets covering holes. But with three years left on her lease -- about the time when the Sound Transit light rail line, now under construction outside her shop door, is scheduled to start operating -- she plans to stick it out.

Now, city officials and Rainier Valley residents want to head off another threat from the transit project: the potential displacement of ethnic businesses and longtime residents by rising rents tied to a light rail development boom.

Remember back to the early 1990s, when U Street was all torn up to build the Green line, using "cut and cover" rather than underground tunneling--driving on railroad ties, the difficulties that businesses had in staying open and serving customers? (See "Metrorail Mid-City Line Opening," for more information about this.)

We forget sometimes the link between better transit connections in the U Street area, and the often controversial changes that are occuring today, in part because after they were finished tearing up the streets and even after the Green line opened in 1999, it still took about five years, and other even more significant changes and trends, to begin attracting new residents, especially non-African-American residents, to the U Street corridor. (These changes were a marginal increase in demand for urban living, and an improvement in city services and amenities, in large part due to the election of Mayor Williams in 1998, and the post-Barry era.)

Working throughh these wrenching changes are what led to the dissolution of the 14th and U Main Street program, as well as to the continuing anger over what some see as a focus on calling attention to and building upon the neighborhood's historical culture and identity as a revitalization strategy, without ensuring that the people who are in fact a part of this culture are able to stay.

This was the subject of a very spirited dinner discussion in New Orleans with Kathy Smith, Alex Padro, Priscilla Francis and myself (Alex and Priscilla are with Shaw Main Streets).

Sometimes it may appear that I am less conscious of this dilemma, because I tend to focus on what I perceive to be a lag in appreciation for urban living on the part of many African-Americans, which continues to fuel outmigration on the part of middle- and upper-income African-Americans, while whites and others are moving back to the center city.

But the fact is, we haven't done a good job in the city of developing programs to ameliorate these problems. Seattle has a very strong Department of Neighborhoods and a "bottom-up" neighborhood development tradition, albeit with some problems.

From the article:

Community leaders concerned about gentrification are hoping to launch a broad conversation about ensuring that wealthy newcomers aren't the only ones to benefit from the profound changes under way in Rainier Valley. Toward that end, the city is considering creating a community renewal agency with the power to assemble or condemn land, in order to ensure development projects will include low-income housing, entrepreneurial businesses or other provisions to aid the neighborhood.

"It's very clear to me that we have a window of opportunity that's fairly short to get ahead of these issues," said Glenn Harris, the city's neighborhood coordinator for Rainier Valley, which has long lured immigrants and young families with its affordable housing....

City officials are exploring several other ideas to stimulate development around light rail stations while minimizing displacement of residents and businesses:

-- Change zoning to allow more density but require developers to provide affordable housing or other community benefits.
-- Buy apartment buildings whose landlords seem likely to drastically raise rents or convert to condos.
-- Work with a community land trust to develop an inventory of homes that remain permanently affordable.

In DC, I don't think we've done a very good job about staying ahead of this problem, or in utilizing city-owned property to help address these concerns. (For example, you could develop a 100% affordable housing project on top of the Fire Station on the 1600 block of U Street NW).

And, I wrote about another Seattle article about this issue last August:

The Pacific Northwest Magazine of the Seattle Times has an interesting article about the construction of a streetcar line in a neighborhood similar to Anacostia. "MLK Way: More than a highway or a piece of the next grand plan, it's home." Change is painful and the pain is undeniable.
Seattle Times graphic.

Index Keywords: transit