G-E-N-T-R-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N

Out of the entire course, the word "gentrification" is my favorite. It refers to the process when real estate people realize that their poor neighbourhood can get a facelift. That will allow them to kick the poor residents out and pull the new rich residents in. Example: Toronto's artists were kicked out of their Queen Street lofts so non-artist types could move into the artists' district. Thus, the artists that created the neighbourhood and added to its appeal were the ones who weren't welcome there.
Blackwell mentions that North America is following European footsteps in using "culture" as incentive for urban planning and development. Later, Blackwell traces the history of the term. Personally, I am eternally grateful to Ruth Glass for producing "gentrification" in 1964.

What drives gentrification-izers? The greed for money- they can make X times more money by charging X times the rent on the same property by giving it a facelift. Example: Toronto! Industrial tenants no longer needed downtown Toronto. Working class neighbourhoods were no longer appealing because of their "prime" location. They were also aging. This drove the value of these neighbourhoods down. Then came redevelopment in the 1990s. Former industrial zones became homes and businesses. Two Kings project rezoned industrial areas around Toronto and mixed uses. This increased the value of land in certain areas, and real estate boomed in downtown Toronto. Low income tenants and businesses were forced to leave. Public spaces became unrecognizable. Toronto had a rebirth.
Blackwell also relates global causes that led to the gentrification of Toronto: labour relations changed, telecommunication networks improved, financial investment was preferred over industrial investment, etc. The government did not want to invest in housing, while foreign capital did. Prices skyrocketed. The investors made a lot of money.

Toronto is going through a "cultural renaissance", a cultural utopian state. It is also going through a criminal state. Blackwell says that this double existence of Toronto is because of gentrification; culture is concentrated in rich neighbourhoods that focus on consumption, and the poor neighbourhoods are broken away from culture due to highways and other infrastructure. These neighbourhoods are isolated and fragmented even amongst themselves. Personally, I don't completely agree with this point. It does not make sense to assume that there is gun crime in Toronto because poor youth did not have acess to the Mirvish District? Drug dealers did not become dealers because they didn't get a chance to visit the Princess of Wales Theatre as children. Prostitutes did not reach "Hooker Harveys" (Gerrard and Jarvis) by avoiding art classes in high school. Oh and by the way, Hooker Harveys is not a myth. It does exist. And hookering does go on there in a very public space. Cops drive by, johns drive by, hookers in cabs drive by. And if you make the mistake of taking a picture of them for a documentary project, like I did, well....don't!!! Getting death threats from a group of shrewd, loud, skimpily clad yet sexy women is scary.

Toronto, in the 1970s, was about to go through major changes- the Spadina Expressway was planned, as well as efficient housing in sky scrapers. Activists did not let this happen, and Toronto managed to preserve its flavour and neighborhoods a the same time as producing new housing developments.

Hans Haake argued that "art is often asked to function as cultural legitimation for the most unsavory techniques fo capitalist accumulation". I would like to bring up the example of "Rent" (a broadway musical and now a film). Many themes from our class have been addressed in Rent, and I find it surprising that it hasn't been brought up in class. The film is about the gentrification of Manhattan's East Village- very similar to Toronto's Queen West. Residents of a certain building are asked to either pay rent, or stop their friend from protesting. The friend, Maureen, is protesting the takeover of her studio by landlords so they can build a cyber cafe in its place. This is gentrification in a visual/musical form. The film also addresses AIDS, different sexualities, drugs, mixed race couples, and more. The song La Vie Boheme sums up the entire film/play, and in some ways, it sums up our entire course too. Maybe it can be shown in class next year?