as you like it -- who plans the renaissance village?: a case study of

Transcription

AS YOU LIKE IT -- WHO PLANS THE RENAISSANCE VILLAGE?:
A CASE STUDY OF NON-GENTRIFIERS' PERCEPTIONS
OF A GENTRIFICATION PROCESS
by
Michele M. Rossi
A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Affairs
and Public Policy
Fall 2015
© 2015 Michele M. Rossi
All Rights Reserved
ProQuest Number: 10014744
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 10014744
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
AS YOU LIKE IT -- WHO PLANS THE RENAISSANCE VILLAGE?:
A CASE STUDY OF NON-GENTRIFIERS' PERCEPTIONS
OF A GENTRIFICATION PROCESS
by
Michele M. Rossi
Approved:
________________________________________________________
Leland Ware, J.D.
Interim Director of the School of Public Policy and Administration
Approved:
________________________________________________________
George H. Watson, Ph.D.
Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences
Approved:
_________________________________________________________
Ann L. Ardis, Ph.D.
Interim Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the
academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Signed:______________________________________________________________
Jonathan Justice Ph.D.
Professor in charge of dissertation
Signed:_______________________________________________________________
Karen Curtis, Ph.D.
Member of dissertation committee
Signed:_______________________________________________________________
Robert Warren, Ph.D.
Signed:_______________________________________________________________
Audrey Noble, Ph.D.
Signed:_______________________________________________________________
Brian Doucet, Ph.D.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I must acknowledge my late mother, Mary C. Rossi, who demanded that
education be a priority in my life. I hope that I have made her proud. My father, Albert
J. Rossi, has endured the years of my doctoral program and been my primary support
in many ways, but mostly emotionally. I don't know that I would have been able to
finish this program without him. He is simply the finest person I know.
I am also grateful to the support of my family, both in the United States and in
Italy. I am especially thankful for the inspiration and advice of my older sister, Dr.
Kristine McGuinn, who was always calm on the other end of my frequent panic attack
phone calls during the dissertation process.
I could not have started this program without the recommendations of my late
advisor, Dr. Gary Copeland and my former professor Dr. Carolyn Walter. I deeply
regret that Gary did not live to see me graduate.
My dissertation committee went though changes as three members retired
during my writing process. Without the help and advice of my original chair, Dr.
Karen Curtis, I am not sure I would have stayed past my first semester. However, with
her firm, wise guidance, I did stay and am especially grateful that she demanded that
my dissertation include a theoretical framework and pushed me to have an article
published (which she co-authored). Dr. Robert Warren was a gentle and delightful
teacher, advisor, and ardent defender of graffiti artists. Finally, Dr. Audrey Noble
literally led me step by step through the process of analyzing qualitative data, even
making trips up from her home at the beach to take me through it yet one more time.
v
All three of these wonderful educators could have said, “Sorry, I'm retired,” but they
didn't. Thank goodness.
My luck continued when Dr. Jonathan Justice agreed to be the new chair of my
committee. He is a self-proclaimed nerd's nerd, a consummate scholar, and has a
wonderful sense of humor. His input made my work better. His comforting voice and
demeanor got me through many crises. Excelsior! (His favorite cheer.) Finally, I am
extremely fortunate that Dr. Brian Doucet from the Utrecht University in the
Netherlands, whose work confirmed that mine had a chain with which to link, agreed
to be my outside reader and committee member, though we have never met in person.
I could also not have done this without my fellow students. First, there was my
"buddy" Dr. Cara Robinson, whose sweet support was always welcomed. Without the
tutoring of the men of my cohort: Dr. Bakry Eljack Elmedni, Dr. Geoff EdwardsCollins Edlins, Dr. Kerrin Wolf and Dr. Greg "Lishy" Benjamin, my brain would be
mush. Dr. Benjamin also went above and beyond in trying to help me learn how to use
a computer program to analyze my data. Other fellow students, Dr. Kevin Adkin and
Dr. Erin Kirby Knight have never stopped urging me on. Finally, I would not have
finished this dissertation without the help of Dr. Tracy Lee Mann, who went above
and beyond— helping me with data analysis and with editing and proofing my final
draft.
I also want to thank Ms. Clara Simpers from the Research Office, who
patiently answered many questions and Ms. Ginny Redmond, from IT, expert
formatter.
In our department, almost nothing gets done without the indispensible Ms.
Linda Boyd. It would take another 200 pages to thank her adequately. Finally, does
vi
anyone get a graduate degree from the University of Delaware without the magic of
Dr. Mary Martin? I doubt it. Thank you, a thousand times, Dr. Martin, for allowing my
father to see me get my doctoral hood.
There were many, many professors and other professionals who responded to
my "out of the blue" emails with kindness. A special thank you to Dr. Tom Slater, who
pointed me toward helpful resources and also recommended that I contact Dr. Brian
Doucet. Internationally known author, social critic, public speaker, and blogger James
Kunstler became an email friend and educated me about American planning.
I thank Mr. Jon Rolph and his late wife Ms. Dottie Rolph for telling me their
story of living and leaving Brookview. I am also greatly indebted to members of the
New Castle County Council, including County Executive Tom Gordon; Councilman
Robert Weiner; Councilman John Cartier; Assistant to Councilman Cartier, Mr. Brian
Holajter; and Mr. James Smith, Assistant Land Use Manager for their patience in
answering many questions and assistance in locating documents. I must also thank
Brett Saddler, Executive Director of the Claymont Renaissance Development
Corporation (and my neighbor!) for his assistance in gathering facts and other
information. I am forever grateful to the residents and merchants of Claymont, who
volunteered their time to be interviewed for my study.
Finally, I could not have gotten through without the cheering squad of friends
like Gary Soulsman, Dr. Eileen Starr, Lisa Weber, my co-workers at MidAtlantic
Behavioral Health, my fellow band members of Dodging Cupid and countless friends
on Facebook. A very special thanks to my study buddy, Dr. Jennifer Fulton, for our
great Sundays together, and for being treated to her husband Howard's wonderful
meals after a full afternoon of work.
vii
Last, but never least, thanks to my fiancé and chief hugger, Paul Gildea, Sr.
This dissertation is dedicated to the people of Claymont, who never give up.
(My apologies to the great Leo Tolstoy for rivaling the length of his most famous
work.)
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... xiv ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. xv
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 Problem Statement.............................................................................................. 2 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 2 Contributions to Research .................................................................................. 3 Brief History of Gentrification Project ............................................................... 4 New Urbanism .................................................................................................... 9 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................... 12 Components of Theoretical Framework ........................................................... 12 Neoliberalism ............................................................................................. 12 Governmentality ......................................................................................... 14 Discussion......................................................................................................... 16 Brief Description of Findings ........................................................................... 18 Contents of This Study ..................................................................................... 19 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 21 Discussion of Theoretical Framework.............................................................. 23 Neoliberalism ............................................................................................. 23 Neoliberalism at Local Levels .................................................................... 26 Governmentality ......................................................................................... 27 Relationship between Neoliberalism and Governmentality ....................... 32 The Crisis of Neoliberalism: The 2008 Housing Bubble ........................... 34 Gentrification .............................................................................................. 36 Overview of Gentrification Research Via "Wave Theory" ........................ 39 First Wave Gentrification ..................................................................... 39 Second Wave Gentrification................................................................. 40 ix
Third Wave Gentrification ................................................................... 41 Fourth Wave Gentrification .................................................................. 44 Empirical Studies of Gentrification Focusing on Non-Gentrifiers................... 46 Paul Levy: Queen Village, Philadelphia .................................................... 46 Elijah Anderson: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania............................................. 49 Daphne Spain: Lancaster County, Virginia ................................................ 53 Lance Freeman: New York City, New York .............................................. 57 Caitlin Cahill: Lower East Side, New York City ....................................... 61 Daniel Sullivan: Portland, Oregon ............................................................. 63 Brian Doucet: Leith, Scotland .................................................................... 64 New Urbanism .................................................................................................. 66 Hope VI and New Urbanism ...................................................................... 69 New Urbanism Creating Community ......................................................... 70 New Urbanism and Neoliberal Development............................................. 71 Research Presuppositions ................................................................................. 72 Summary........................................................................................................... 74 Discussion......................................................................................................... 75 3
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 78 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 78 Rewriting of Research Questions ..................................................................... 80 Why Qualitative Design and Why A Case Study? ........................................... 80 Sampling ........................................................................................................... 83 Place Identity .................................................................................................... 86 Reliability and Validity .................................................................................... 87 Credibility ......................................................................................................... 89 Transferability .................................................................................................. 91 Dependability ................................................................................................... 92 Confirmability .................................................................................................. 92 Personal Biases ........................................................................................... 93 Data Analysis.................................................................................................... 98 Summary........................................................................................................... 99 Limits of the Study ......................................................................................... 100 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS................................................................................ 102 x
Introduction .................................................................................................... 102 Timeline .......................................................................................................... 104 Findings .......................................................................................................... 104 Glory Days................................................................................................ 106 Victimized Suburb .................................................................................... 108 Cautiously Hopeful Community............................................................... 115 A Special Claymont Tradition— The Christmas Weed ................................. 122 Summary......................................................................................................... 125 5
RESEARCH FINDINGS (Cont'd) ................................................................. 127 Introduction .................................................................................................... 127 Findings .......................................................................................................... 128 THEME I: NOSTALGIA FOR A STABLE COMMUNITY ................. 128 Class Ambiguity ................................................................................. 128 Conflicting Sense Of Reputation ........................................................ 129 Optimistically Cynical About the Future of the Town ....................... 134 THEME II: MAKING SENSE OF THE GENTRIFICATION
PROCESS ................................................................................................. 135 Razing a Community .......................................................................... 135 Misunderstanding/Skeptical Feelings about the Town....................... 138 Marginalizing Local Businesses ......................................................... 140 Attracting Outsiders............................................................................ 143 Understanding The Plan ..................................................................... 143 Critiquing The Outcome So Far ......................................................... 146 THEME III: THE COMMUNITY'S FUTURE ........................................ 148 Questions About The Future Of The Plan And Impact On Town ...... 148 Should The Town Incorporate? .......................................................... 149 Summary......................................................................................................... 151 6
DISCUSSION................................................................................................. 155 Introduction .................................................................................................... 155 Discussion of Findings via Research Presuppositions ................................... 158 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................. 165 Policy Implications ......................................................................................... 166 xi
The Slum Cycle- The Power of the Landlord .......................................... 170 Success Requires Tenant and Community Involvement .......................... 173 Implications for Future Research ................................................................... 176 Extension of the Current Study ................................................................ 176 General Implications ................................................................................ 176 Transferability .......................................................................................... 177 Limits of the Study ......................................................................................... 180 Contributions to the Literature ....................................................................... 180 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 182
Appendix A
B
C
D
E
F
CLAYMONT RENAISSANCE STAKEHOLDER LIST ............................. 195 RESEARCH CODE BOOK ........................................................................... 198 MEMBER CHECK LETTER AND BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS ..................... 205 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS..................................... 209 IRB LETTER OF EXEMPTION ................................................................... 212 HACKWORTH & SMITH'S SCHEMATIC HISTORY OF
GENTRIFICATION ....................................................................................... 215 xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Changes in Claymont CDP Population and Household Units 19902010 ........................................................................................................... 6 Table 3.1 The following chart represents the organization of the research: ............ 79 Table 3.2 Table of Reliability and Validity ............................................................. 88 Table 4.1 Timeline of Significant Events in Claymont ......................................... 104 xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Location of Claymont in Delaware ........................................................... 5 Figure 1.2 Claymont CDP within Claymont............................................................... 7 Figure 1.3 First Row of Darley Green Homes, 2011 ................................................ 17 Figure 1.4 Home Directly Opposite Darley Green Entrance- Typical
Neighborhood Style ................................................................................. 17 Figure 3.1 Area of Interviews (inside oval) .............................................................. 85 xiv
ABSTRACT
In 2007, the Brookview Apartment complex in the industrial suburb of
Claymont, Delaware was razed for the development of a high density, mixed use New
Urban village called Darley Green driven by a collaboration of local government and
several local organizations. Through a case study analysis of interviews, newspaper
articles and other resources, this dissertation investigates the perceptions of nongentrifying residents and merchants, an under-studied population in gentrification
research. First, an historical context that led to a community renaissance is elicited
from resident interview and various resources. The consensus is that the town began a
downhill trend when, post-desegregation, the town's school district and high school
closed in 1990. This time is mourned as the end of the town's best days. Respondents
indicated dismay at the influx of a "drug culture." Secondly, a group of 16 residents
and merchants, chosen for proximity to the gentrifying site were interviewed. Using a
theoretical framework combining critical interpretations of neoliberalism and Michel
Foucault's concept of governmentality, this study found that despite their proximity,
respondents are confused about the development plans and skeptical about the motives
of local government and agencies. Most were in favor of the demolition of the rundown Brookview, but blamed its condition on a combination of lack of county
oversight and "slum landlords." They concur that Claymont needs revitalization, but
they are wary about high density development as the centerpiece of this renaissance,
indicating a lack of understanding about the basic design tenets of New Urbanism. The
choice of a New Urban design is discussed.
xv
Prior to demolition, the Brookview complex fell into slum-level disrepair, and
respondents indicated concern that the new development would suffer a similar fate.
However, respondents are cautiously optimistic that the town can rebound. To that
end, a policy recommendation for formal tenant organization to better utilize property
code enforcement is offered. Further critical analysis of the current trend of state-led
gentrification is encouraged. In addition to adding to the dearth of gentrification
research focusing on non-gentrifiers, this work also contributes to a growing body of
research about suburban gentrification.
xvi
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Let the people think they govern, and they will be governed. –William Penn
Decisions made about redeveloping large parcels of property in a community
invariably, at the very least, attract the attention of the members of that community,
and often attract much more— sometimes support, sometimes resistance, often a bit of
both, along with a good measure of indifference. This research focused on a
gentrification project in the non-incorporated town of Claymont, Delaware. Brokered
by politicians, non-residents, and self-appointed civic leaders, this effort enticed a
developer to agree to purchase and raze a former large (60+ acres) rental community
and replace it with a high density New Urban village called Darley Green. These
actors did not and do not refer to this project as gentrification, but a feasibility study
conducted to determine the commercial possibilities of the project stated, "The
introduction of many new households of higher income is necessary" (ZHA, Inc.,
2002, p. 44). A polite way to say— we need richer people, and many of them— and
the best place (called the Study Area) we have is occupied by poor renters and
fortunately owned by a single family.
The first part of this study focuses on the perceptions of the changing "place
identity" of Claymont over the past fifty-plus years from five interviewed individuals
connected to key organizations in the community, supported by quotes from various
documents. Place identity refers to how place becomes an important component in the
1
way in which individuals include place in their own sense of identity. This section
provides context for the changes happening in Claymont.
The study then focuses on the non-gentrifying residents' and merchants'
perceptions about their community as a whole over the past fifty-plus years, their
assessment of the planning process of this new development, whether they felt
included in the process, and their concerns, hopes and predictions about its future
impact on their community.
Problem Statement
The specific foci of this research are 1) to discern the change over time, if any,
of the place identity of Claymont residents that led to the need for a renaissance and a
large gentrification project and 2) the perceptions of non-gentrifying Claymont
residents and merchants of the planning and ongoing development of the high-density
New Urban village, Darley Green.
Research Questions
The research questions are as follows:
RQ1. What is the historical context of the changing place identity of Claymont?
RQ2. How do the residents and merchants perceive Claymont now?
RQ3. What are perceptions of residents and merchants concerning the removal of
Brookview and the development of Darley Green?
RQ4. What are the general expectations of the residents and merchants for the
future of Claymont as the gentrification process continues?
2
Contributions to Research
Gentrification is not a new phenomenon by any means. It is a process that
began on small scales in various U.S. cities in the 1950s through the 1970s and then
began to spread on a larger scale to cities around the world in the 1980s, and evolved
greatly during the recession of the early 1990s (Hackworth, 2006). Throughout the
more than sixty years of gentrification research, there has been little attention given to
the impact of this process on the residents (and merchants) who remain around or next
to a gentrified area (Doucet, 2009) and limited attention to gentrification in suburban
areas (Niedt, 2006; Charles, 2011). Darley Green meets both these criteria.
In defending his research into the opinions of the non-gentrified working-class
residents of Leith, Scotland, a working class community that recently experienced
gentrification through the addition of upscale housing and shops in the area’s
waterfront, Brian Doucet writes,
What about those residents… who have been able to stay in place in
their neighborhoods? This is one segment of the population directly
impacted by gentrification that academic research has largely
overlooked…. The experiences, expectations, perceptions and anxieties
of these groups have yet to be fully developed in the voluminous
literature on gentrification.” (2009, p. 300)
Tom Slater (2006) echoes Doucet’s call for research concerning what I refer to
as gentrification “host community” residents: “…there is next to nothing published on
the experiences of non-gentrifying groups living in neighborhoods into which
the…middle class is arriving en masse” (p.743). In addition, this gentrification
research is unusual in that it "straddles" the biggest economic crisis in the United
States since the Great Depression--- and it happens to have been, of all possible
markets, the bursting of the housing market bubble.
3
Suzanne Charles studied the gentrification of suburban neighborhoods in the
Chicago, Illinois area over a period of ten years, 2000-2010. She remarked there are
few studies that focus on suburban gentrification:
'Suburban gentrification' of older, inner-ring suburbs is an emerging
phenomenon that has the potential to transform American metropolitan
regions. It may foreshadow shifts in household location patterns and
changes in the socio-economic composition of neighborhoods, similar
to the examples of classical gentrification observed in central cities.
Yet, few empirical studies specifically address the transformation of
older, inner-ring suburbs through gentrification. (Charles, 2001, p.1)
In addition, this author divided respondents into residents and merchants from
the start of research, reasoning that the two groups would have different agendas and
concerns. This practice was not found in the other empirical studies of non-gentrifiers.
Brief History of Gentrification Project
The New Urban development, Darley Green, is the most ambitious part of a
larger plan called the Claymont Renaissance to renew the "town" known as Claymont,
Delaware. Claymont is actually an unincorporated place located at the northernmost
tip of the State of Delaware, bounded on its eastside by the Delaware River and to the
north by the state line of Pennsylvania. It is located approximately 8.5 miles north of
the state’s major city, Wilmington, and roughly 2 square miles in size.
4
Figure 1.1
Location of Claymont in Delaware
Darley Green is being constructed (after a delay of two -three years due to the
housing market crisis) on the razed site of the former prize-winning Brookview, a
1950s era working-class development that had become run-down due to landlord
neglect. It had also become the locus of drug-related criminal activity and the topic of
5
community conflict (Chadderton, 2007). A 2012 News Journal article reported on
Brookview's early history:
The 633 unit Brookview Apartments was built on the McComb's
property in the late 1940s. When Brookview opened in 1952, it was the
largest post-war apartment complex. But…the complex was in financial
trouble more than 10 years later. The federal government moved to
foreclosure on a $3.9 million FHA mortgage in 1967. The complex
never recovered (Milford, paras. 8,11, 12).
The “host” community of Claymont is defined by the US Census Bureau in
two ways: as a Census Designated Place (CDP), roughly the former Claymont School
District, or a Census Zip Area, which is roughly twice the size and population of the
CDP. Although the proponents of this gentrification project use the Zip Area (perhaps
to tout the larger populations and a slightly higher median income) the main focus of
renewal efforts have been thus far located in the CDP.
Table 1.1
Changes in Claymont CDP Population and Household Units 1990-2010
Year
CDP population
Number of
Housing Units
Source: US Census
1990
9800
2000
9220
2010
8353
4075
4193
3664
Bureau1
As Table 1.1 indicates, the population and number of housing units in the
Census Designated Place of Claymont has dropped steadily since 1990. The number of
housing units went up slightly from 1990-2000, then dropped by 529 in 2010. Much of
1
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-9.pdf
6
these two net decreases is most likely from the razing of Brookivew, a 15 percent drop
in CDP population and a 10 percent drop in housing units. This decrease negatively
impacted some local merchants as will be discussed in the findings section.
Figure 1.2
Claymont CDP within Claymont
7
The Claymont renewal came about due to the efforts of [New Castle County
Councilman Robert Weiner and] a core group of non-elected Claymont representatives
[led by businessman Brett Saddler, who now heads the Claymont Renaissance
Development Committee] some residents, some non-resident business owners,
members of the Claymont Community Coalition, who worked in concert with
planners, private developers and county officials (Chadderton, 2007). Darley Green
developers were able to obtain special financing through two county bond programs.
One, called Tax Increment Financing, was used for the first time in Delaware for this
project, and allows the county to sell up to $20 million of bonds to be used as a loan
for developers to help with the costs of infrastructure (such as updating sewer lines).
As the value of the property increased, the additional taxes go toward paying off the
loan. In addition, Darley Green was also granted status as a "special development
district," which also raises funds via bond sales, but in this case, the funds are
recouped by collecting fees from the owners (Basiouny, 2008, September 17).
Torti-Gallas and Partners, a firm nationally recognized for designing New
Urban communities, created the design after a week-long process called a charrette, in
August 2005, which invited comments and suggestions from members of
"stakeholder" groups and also the public. Brett Saddler was careful to point out after
the charrette process that "while the design phase is considered final for the public
input phase, it is still a draft..." (Schalen, 2004, p. 1). In other words, although input
was considered, the developers made final decisions on the plans.
The initial approved plan allowed for 1,226 units and 50,000 square feet of
commercial properties. The first homes opened in September of 2009, (Basiouny,
2009, September 18) two years after Brookview had been demolished, and in the
8
midst of the national housing crises. The developer, Commonwealth, tried to sell, but
had to hold on until June, 2012, when the property was bought by Louis Capano III in
what was termed a "friendly foreclosure" at 30 cents on the dollar (Taylor, 2012).
During this time, changes to Darley Green's plans were made by New Castle County.
"The residential component of Darley Green…was reduced… to just fewer than 1,000
[units]…" (Taylor, 2014, p.1). However, even a decrease to roughly 1,000 in Darley
Green alone will return the number of housing units in the CDP of Claymont to above
pre-1990 totals when completed.
The first units sold in mid- $200,000 range (Basiouny, 2009, September 18).
The developer also agreed to build 10% "workforce housing," or housing that is priced
below market rates, under another first of its kind agreement for Delaware called
"inclusionary zoning" (Basiouny, March 2, 2008). Another stipulation is that Darley
Green home owners must agree to stay in their homes for ten years (Personal
Communication, New Castle County Councilman Robert Weiner, November 5, 2013).
New Urbanism
By design, a New Urban development plan is meant to improve a “distressed”
neighborhood or reduce suburban “sprawl,” and encourage an active community
within the proscribed boundaries of the new village, as well as stimulate economic
growth in the “host” community. New Urban communities, according the Charter of
New Urbanism, are designed to appeal to a market that prefers an "urban" feel—
tighter spacing of higher density housing that includes a mixture of ethnicities, income
levels and small, boutique style shops and restaurants. This type of housing has been
found especially to be favored by older, "empty nester" baby boomers and their
children, the "millennial" generation, born 1981-1996 (Doherty & Leinberger, 2010).
9
Following the economic setbacks of 2008, the inclusion of new a town library
in Darley Green, and the sale of the entire property to a new developer, the density
was reduced to approximately 800-900 units and the commercial space reduced as
well (New Council County Councilman John Cartier, personal communication,
February 12, 2014).
New Urban proponents also favor mixing income levels, including public
subsidized housing. They have advocated moving in lower income residents in to
higher prices housed first, with subsidies and getting them used to maintaining their
properties. In the 2001-2002 edition of New Urbanism: Comprehensive Report &
Best Practices Guide, contributors Langdon and Harrison cite the federal Hope VI
program as providing guidelines for socio-economic diversity in a New Urban
community, especially in "showing that middle- and upper-income America will share
neighborhoods with subsidized housing" (New Urban News, 2001, p. 19-11). In one of
their case studies of a Hope VI project in Louisville Kentucky, the developer's scheme
of selling the most expensive units first was quoted:
We gave them a [building] lot for $1,000 and a $27,500 subsidy just to
move in and to be present, water their lawns, and do the stuff that rich
people do in $250,000 houses…. And that turned out to be absolutely
critical in order to sell the core products, which are essentially
$100,000 to $120,000 houses targeted to middle income families. (New
Urban News, 2001, p. 19-10)
However, in the case of Darley Green, the county has asserted that Darley
Green will "never" contain Section 8 housing. (Brian Holajter, NCC Council
Legislative Aide, personal communication, April 29, 2014). The supposed success of
Hope VI as a precursor to New Urbanism will be examined more closely in Chapter 2.
10
Researchers have pointed out that developers that choose to build high density
must do so carefully to appeal to the suburban market:
Designs that reflect local building traditions also enhance the value of
higher density development. Projects that fit their surroundings are an
easier sell— to both local officials and consumers— than those that
seem out of context. This point is especially important when building
affordable suburban housing, which often meets resistance from local
homeowners. Higher density projects featuring housing that resembles
more modestly sized version of single family homes found throughout
the community will gain better acceptance. (Danielsen, Lang, & Fulton,
1999, pp. 525- 526)
Ultimately, however, research has shown that Americans "want a detached
home with a lawn" (Easterbrook, 1999, p. 545). For a number of reasons, including
social, economic and psychological, Americans prefer sprawl, not high density
(Easterbrook, 1999; Meredith, 2003).
Author James Kunstler, famous for his stance against post-war suburban tract
sprawl in his 1993 book The Geography of Nowhere and proponent of New Urbanism,
argues that while the United States is still an automobile/oil dependent country
without a strong mass transit infrastructure, actual New Urbanism will really not be
possible:
I think the movement and its work are misunderstood. Its main
achievement was the retrieval of knowledge and principle from the
dumpster of history, not the TNDs [traditional neighborhood designs]
and projects (many of which were badly compromised by
circumstances). In the future their work will be regarded as
transitional— a way station between the car-dependent absurdities of
suburbia and the stringent return to tradition in the decades ahead (J.
Kunstler, personal communication, August 23, 2010).
11
Theoretical Framework
This study utilizes the combined, related theories and critical discourses of
neoliberalism and Michel Foucault's governmentality construct as a framework
through which to examine the perceptions of residents and merchants of the
motivations and actions of the major actors who claim to be lifting a community that
has fallen to its social and economic nadir via this gentrification. Like so many similar
mill towns, Claymont’s residents have suffered from the past thirty years of a declined
and de-unionized manufacturing economy, and the aging and marginalization of many
of its neighborhoods.
Components of Theoretical Framework
Neoliberalism
The modern origins of neoliberalism, according to Marxist geographer David
Harvey, date back to post-WWII years when a society formed by neoliberal
economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek gained the support of wealthy
individuals and corporate executives who feared government intervention of any kind
(Lilley, 2006). Freidman, a leading scholar at the Chicago School of Economics, is
often touted as the “father” of neoliberalism as it was promoted during the Reagan and
Thatcher administrations— that is, a rejection of Keynesian welfare-state capitalism
and an embracing of “the constitution and extension of competitive forces…married
with aggressive forms of state downsizing, austerity financing, and public service
‘reform’” (Peck & Tickell, 2002, p. 381).
The decline of major manufacturing industries in the late 70s and early 80s
resulted in crushing job losses to union workers, and led to a neoliberal change in the
12
government’s response to employment crises. As Harvey explains, prior to this time
the federal government’s policy was to support full employment, but after
deindustrialization, then Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volker reversed that goal,
using drastic means to fight inflation, which resulted in massive unemployment in
addition to losses in the manufacturing sector and loss of power to unions. Harvey sees
this as the government’s way of “disciplining” union workers into accepting lower
wages and benefit cuts (Lilley, 2006, paras. 22, 23).
Thus, the U.S. working class, once the post-war pride of the nation, was now
represented, especially by Reagan administration officials, as greedy, overpaid and
anti-competitive, which delighted capitalist corporate leaders (Zweig, 2000). As Peck
and Tickell observe, this was a time of a “ ‘deconstruction’ of institutions like labor
unions and social welfare programs…and usher[ed] in a new regime of highly
competitive interlocal relations, such that just about all local social settlements were
becoming tangentially subject…to the disciplinary force of neoliberalized spatial
relations” (Peck & Tickell, 2002, p. 386). In other words, local and regional
governments, under the regime of neoliberal devolution or a “pulling back” of federal
regulatory controls as well as fiscal support, have become burdened with more and
more responsibilities, and therefore less responsive to local social welfare sentiments.
The redistribution of wealth to the wealthy is the signature action of
neoliberalism. During the 80s and 90s, the expression “the rich are getting richer and
the poor are getting poorer” was in fact true, as the working class became the
“working poor” in many instances. Bernstein, McNichols & Nichols, in a 2008 joint
analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy
Institute, reported that “On average, incomes have declined by 2.5 percent among the
13
bottom fifth of families since the late 1990s, while increasing by 9.1 percent among
the top fifth…. For very high-income families— the richest 5 percent— income
growth since the late 1990s has been especially dramatic, and much faster than among
the poorest fifth of families” (p.1). An unfettered market is crucial to neoliberalism
(and pure capitalism), but it has not proven to be useful to the poor.
David Harvey calls much of what has happened during the global procession to
neoliberalism “capital accumulation by dispossession” (Lilley, 2006, para 39). In the
U.S. he cites the increased use of eminent domain, unchecked health care costs and the
loss of pensions from bankrupt companies such as airlines as some of the ways capital
has moved to an ever-smaller elite group of super-rich (Lilley, 2006).
French sociologist Loic Wacquant comments on the rise of neoliberalism as a
…New penal common sense aiming to criminalize poverty— and
thereby to normalize precarious wage labor – having incubated in
America, is being internationalized, under forms more or less modified
and misrecognizable (including sometimes by those who propagate
them), in the manner of economic and social ideology, founded on
individualism and commodification…. (Wacquant, 1999, p. 326)
The evolution of neoliberalism and its impact at local levels of government in
the United States will be more thoroughly discussed in the literature review.
Governmentality
French historian and philosopher Michel Foucault’s theory of governmentality
(a term he coined) began as an idea he put forth in a lecture series about government in
1978. Governmentality is Foucault's name for his analysis of how discourse on
government eventually, over three centuries, transformed from feudalism to
colonialism. He also addressed the late 18th- early 19th century reappearance of
Machiavelli's The Prince as a vehicle for discourse about the state and power. In short,
14
he makes the argument that with the growth of agriculture, the great increase in wealth
and most importantly, the great increase of population toward the end of the 18th
century, government became less about protecting the sovereignty of the ruler
(prince), and more about the rise of economics from the household to the population
of the state. That is, the father of a family practiced "economics" in managing the
welfare of his family members and his goods and wealth, a state leader brought
economics to the management of the "things" (things include people and their
intersection/overlapping with other things such as climate, epidemics, fertility,
customs, habits, etc.) and the relationships of these things in his country to achieve
desirable ends (Foucault, 1991).
Foucault further explains about the importance of the rise of "population" as
that which is managed via "economics" instead of the family:
…. population comes to appear above all else as the ultimate end of
government. In contrast to sovereignty, government has as its purpose
not the act of government itself, but the welfare of the population, the
improvement of its condition, the increase of its wealth, longevity,
health, etc.; and the means that the government uses to attain these ends
are themselves all in some sense immanent to the population; it is the
population itself on which government will act either directly through
large-scale campaigns or indirectly, through techniques that will make
possible, without full awareness of the people, the stimulation of birth
rates, the directing of the flow of populations into certain regions of
activities, etc. The population now represents the end of government
than the power of the sovereign; the population is the subject of needs
of aspirations, but it is also the object in the hands of the government,
aware, vis-à-vis the government, of what it wants, but ignorant of what
is being done to it (Foucault, 1991, p. 100).
It is not surprising, then, that one of the first tactics or "techniques" through
which the state controls the population per Foucault, is the usage of statistics—
15
replacing the individual with a number— the use of data as tools to govern, to create
science of political economics.
Discussion
The theories discussed above combine to provide a useful framework in which
to study the ways Darley Green New Urban village became a reality in Claymont and
the extent to which its surrounding neighbors are impacted on various levels by its
existence. There is little doubt that this development serves a dual purpose; to rid the
area of the blighted Brookview, inhabited by “irresponsible” Section 8 residents, and
to encourage the in-migration of middle class commuters who can afford housing that
their immediate neighbors cannot. A feasibility study commissioned by the Claymont
Renaissance Development Corporation, and funded by money raised from public and
private stakeholders (Arnold, 2002) concluded: “A Town Center is feasible in the
Target Development Area [the former Brookview] only with the introduction of a
significant number of moderate to high income households” (ZHA, Inc., 2002, p. 53).
A list of stakeholders can be found in Appendix A.
A critical component of New Urban design is the “corridor” concept— a
physical link between neighborhood and districts, and range from “boulevards and rail
lines, to rivers and parkways” (New Urban News, 2001-2002, p. 1-11), it is also not
clear that these corridors are intended to facilitate community interaction in the way
that New Urbanism supports neighborhood intra-action. Community cohesion across
Darley Green's edge may prove to be vital to returning a sense of community cohesion
to Claymont. In addition, The Charter of New Urbanism states: "Architecture and
landscape design should grow from local climate, topography, history, and building
practice" (Congress for New Urbanism, 2014).
16
Figure 1.3
First Row of Darley Green Homes, 2011
Figure 1.4
Home Directly Opposite Darley Green Entrance- Typical Neighborhood
Style
17
As A. Joan Saab, an art history professor, warns, the philosophies of New
Urbanism may incorporate wholesome community ideals as a result of a kind of
“historical amnesia”— a nostalgia for the good old days of American neighborhoods,
which never truly existed, or for previous utopian experiments which resulted in nonutopian conditions (Saab, 2007). She adds,
“In theory, the New Urbanist manifesto is revolutionary. It calls for the
total restructuring of American demographics in the name of ecological
preservation and increased social awareness. To be fully successful
however, a New Urbanist agenda must be applied to the entire
landscape; otherwise New Urban communities such as Baxter [a New
Urban community visited by Saab] become just another housing
development in the middle of massive sprawl. (Saab, 2007, p. 196)
Brief Description of Findings
This research found that residents and document sources indicated that
Claymont's history has led to this point in which "place identity" (a concept fully
explained in Chapter 3) has become skewed toward the negative. In light of the many
negative changes that have occurred for several decades, there is a sense that this time
a fragile tipping point. Respondents are cautiously hopeful about the Claymont
Renaissance and Darley Green, but years of feeling neglected by government and
scorned by the press has left them wary. And they have observed the process of
planning and building of Darley Green with some cynicism. There is concern, that if
not handled differently than Brookview, Darley Green, in time, will degrade into a
slum.
Businesses adjacent to the Darley Green site were hurt when Brookview was
demolished, and they have been pushing through the ensuing delay caused by the
housing crisis. They are hopeful that Darley Green residents will become their patrons.
18
Some already have, so this is encouraging. But it will be years before Darley Green
will house the number of residents lost from Brookview, and their socio-economic
status by design will be quite different than that of Brookview's residents; their retail
preferences are predicted to be different than the current choices offered in Claymont.
The theoretical framework combining neoliberalism and governmentality,
combined with an understand of New Urbanism and its history, was helpful in
situating this gentrifying redevelopment in a context that is logical and historically
relevant. While Brookview was in terrible condition, it was also deemed a cash cow
by the public and private concerns that worked together to apply special zoning and
other available "technologies," allowing Brookview to become a highly attractive
property to developers at just the right moment, at the height of the inflated housing
market. The added context of the high-density New Urban design adds to the
neoliberal goal of producing the greatest amount of capital possible, although some
crucial aspects of New Urbanism, such as a much wider range of inclusionary housing,
have been purposefully left out of Darley Green. Finally, what some scholars are
calling the "crisis of neoliberalism," the post housing bubble recession, is precisely
what has caused much concern for the future of the entire project.
Contents of This Study
The contents of this study are as follows:
Chapter 1 has provided an overview of the case being studied as well as introduction
to the theoretical framework. It includes the Problem Statement and
Research Questions.
Chapter 2 provides an in depth discussion of the theoretical framework and also a
review of relevant literature. It includes research propositions.
Chapter 3 describes the design research and methodology and the limits of the study.
19
Chapter 4 focuses on the historical context findings leading to gentrification; the
results pertaining to Research Question 1.
Chapter 5 focuses on the findings related to Research Questions 2, 3 and 4, in the
context of the theoretical framework.
Chapter 6 discusses the overall findings and relates them to propositions made by the
author. This chapter also includes policy implications and implications for
further study.
20
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, literature concerning the history and basic tenents of
neoliberalism and governmentality, the basis for the theoretical framework of this
study, will be reviewed and discussed. This includes a how neoliberalism, a global
economic theory, has played out at local levels. Michel Foucault's theory of
governmentality, a theory of how humans become subjects of political power, will be
examined to explain one theory of the mechanisms or "techniques" of government
control. The relationship between these two theories is also discussed, as is the
"crisis" of neoliberalism— the housing bubble crash of 2008.
The next section of this chapter begins with a definition and critique of
gentrification, followed by a brief history of gentrification via the "wave" theory. This
theory follows gentrification through economic recessions and recoveries. Empirical
examples from each wave are included.
This is followed by a review of seven empirical studies of gentrification that
include those who are "left behind" in the process; they are neither the incoming
gentrifiers nor the displaced. This is the focus of this dissertation as I found, as did
other scholars, that this population is greatly under-researched. These seven studies
are: Paul Levy's seminal work in Queen Village, Philadelphia, Queen Village; The
Eclipse of Community; Elijah Anderson's book Streetwise about two adjoining
Philadelphia neighborhoods which he names "the Village" and "Northton." Daphne
21
Spain's research in rural Virginia called Been Heres vs.Come Heres. Lance Freeman's
work, There Goes the 'Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up, a study of
two well-known New York City neighborhoods, Harlem and Clinton Hill. In her
study, "At risk"? The Fed-Up Honeys Re-present the Gentrification of the Lower East
Side, Caitlin Cahill teaches six women a research method called participatory action
research to document and express their feelings concerning the gentrification of their
neighborhood on New York's Lower East Side.
A Research Note by Daniel Sullivan
entitled, Reassessing Gentrification: Measuring Residents' Opinions Using Survey
Data, is a survey study of two gentrifying neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon. The last
work presented here is Brian Doucet's, Living through gentrification: Subjective
experiences of local, non-gentrifying residents in Leith, Edinburgh.
The next section of this chapter concerns the planning philosophy being used
in Darley Green, Claymont, New Urbanism. It includes a brief history and critiques of
the philosophy, a short piece concerning how New Urbanism has been used with the
federal Hope VI program, followed by a discussion of whether New Urbanism has
been creating the "community" it claims to create through its built form. Finally, this
section concludes by tying New Urbanism into gentrification on a wider scale.
The last section of the Literature Review is a list of "presuppositions" or,
hypotheses, proposed about this research after completing the literature review.
Gentrification is the general subject of this research, but the perception of
gentrification by the respondents as a “technology,” or a "technique," of governance in
the neoliberal-Foucauldian sense, is the primary focus.
22
Discussion of Theoretical Framework
Many researchers (Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Smith, 2002; Lees, 2012) agree
that land use, and in particular, New Urbanist gentrifying schemes, have become a
model of a neoliberal governance at local levels, systematically removing structures
and opportunities for the “individual entrepreneurial” behavior expected of the poor by
this same ideology. In towns such as Claymont, the past four or five decades have
been a bewildering time— long-standing problems such as poverty, underemployment, and a lack of quality affordable housing have produced a climate ripe for
opportunistic (neoliberal) private interests.
Neoliberalism
As briefly described in Chapter 1, neoliberalism began as a counter philosophy
to the Keynesian welfare states as early as the post-war years, and it is, like all
political movements, an ongoing process, developed in various ways in different
countries and at different governmental levels using existing structures to advance
neoliberal goals (Wilson, 2004).
David Harvey, who has produced seminal, often solidly predictive analyses of
neoliberalism, has recently written about its global stronghold, even in these difficult
economic times:
[Neoliberalism] refers to a class project that coalesced in the crisis of
the 1970s. Masked by a lot of rhetoric about individual freedom,
liberty, personal responsibility and the virtues of privatization, the free
market and free trade, it legitimized draconian practices designed to
restore and consolidate capitalist class power. This project has been
successful, judging by the incredible centralization of wealth and power
observable in all those countries that took the neoliberal road. (Harvey,
2010, p. 10)
23
In their 2012 work, The Arc of Neoliberalism, Centeno & Cohen, provide three
helpful perspectives from which to view neoliberalism's rise and development:
(a) a technical policy debate regarding the best mode of operating an economy;
(b) an institutionalized crisis containment strategy involving political choices
and power; and (c) the rise of a hegemonic ideology or system of thought.
(p.318)
Neoliberalism as a technical policy was a response to crises in the Keynesian
"managed" economy that began in the late 1960s as world markets began shifting. The
oil crisis of the early 70s ultimately led to what was known as "stagflation"— a
combination of "rising prices, an economic slowdown, and a rise in unemployment"
(Centeno & Cohen, 2012. p. 319).
This economic downturn greatly affected the wealthy, who saw their wealth
(as opposed to income) devalued. Capital accumulation was threatened. The markets
had to be freed up in order to boost the economy, especially for the upper classes.
“Greedy” unions had to be quashed, as did any type of collective organization that
advocated for workers’ rights. Individualism was stressed. As Centeno and Cohen
explain, " …The Washington Consensus [became the general term] for fiscal austerity,
market-determined interest and exchange rates, free trade, inward investment
deregulation, privatization, market deregulation, and a commitment to protecting
private property" (2012, p. 319).
The political aspects of neoliberalism were embodied in administrations of
Ronald Reagan and Britain's Margaret Thatcher. (Mrs. Thatcher's famous neoliberal
moment was her assertion "there is no such thing as society" as a way of saying that
each individual had to find the means to survive without government assistance.) The
famous (or infamous) policy marking the neoliberal shift in the US was Ronald
Reagan's signing the extension of the Airline Industry Bill, at which time he stated:
24
With the signing of this legislation, I reaffirm that this administration is
committed to full deregulation of the airline industry, to the sunset of
the CAB no later than January 1, 1985 (the date scheduled in the
Airline Deregulation Act), and to having airline mergers, acquisitions,
consolidations, and interlocking relationships reviewed by the
Department of Justice under normal antitrust standards and procedures,
as is the case for other non-regulated industries. (Reagan, 1982)
Neoliberalism was the right answer at the right time for those in power and for
the powerful; especially those at the top of the corporate world, whose constituency
are shareholders, not the general public. Although presented as a solution that would
“lift all boats”— an increase in wealth for the wealthy (via ever-more unregulated
market schemes) would result in increased opportunities all down the class chain
("trickle-down economics") this ideology has proven much different in reality
(Harvey, 2005). As Peck and Tickell explain, “following the blue collar shakeouts of
the 1980s and the white collar downsizings of the 1990s, the attention of policy
makers has focused with increasing insistency on the challenges of reproducing
regimes of precarious work and mobilizing the poor for low-wage employment” (Peck
&Tickell, 2002, p. 392).
The above sentiment is echoed by Centeno and Cohen in their characterization
of neoliberalism as a system of thought or culture that was greatly popular in the
1980s:
Neoliberalism involved a set of often unacknowledged choices. It
privileged aggregate growth, stable prices, productivity, and efficiency
enhancements, as well as the protection of private property over
distributional equality, guarantees of personal income or access to
essential goods and services, leisure (or non-work) time, and
environmental sustainability. (2012, p. 328)
25
Neoliberalism at Local Levels
There has been increasing attention to the geographic levels or scales at which
neoliberalism has been developing. Erik Swyngedouw has coined the term
“glocalization” to refer to the way scalar development of neoliberalism has occurred
simultaneously at both global and local levels, as part of the process of
decentralization (Swyngedouw, 2004).
As “glocalization” has unfolded, taking advantage of various scales of
government (for example, by working across levels, or intra-scalar, and establishing
new scales) it is seen by many scholars as a strategy, used by various actors, to
advance the prime neoliberal objective of maximizing market and power advantages
(Swyngedouw, 2004; Fraser, 2010; Brenner, 2001). Gordon MacLeod elaborates:
“…at all spatial scales of government, political endeavors to fully extend social
citizenship are continually being trumped by the perceived imperative to appease
‘business interests” and a related clamor to cut taxes and boast fiscal prudence”
(MacLeod, 2002 p. 609). Peck and Tickell add “…it must be acknowledged that
neoliberalism has demonstrated a capacity variously to spawn, absorb, appropriate, or
morph with a range of local institutional (re)forms. Thus, neoliberal rule
systems…operate between as well as within specific sites of incorporation and
reproduction, such as national and local states" (2002, pp. 399-400).
While the literature indicates that neoliberalism has been employed at all scalar
levels from the global down to the neighborhood, there has been an increasing
emphasis on the use of urban spaces as critical strategic sites to achieve neoliberal
goals (Peck, Theodore, & Brenner, 2009; Jessop, 2002; Hackworth, 2006). As urban
(and suburban) areas attempt to cope with stressors related to economic downturns, the
26
loss of the welfare state and the increased responsibilities that have come as a result of
devolution,
…cities and their suburban zones of influence have become
increasingly important geographical targets and institutional
laboratories for a variety of neoliberal policy experiments, from placemarketing, enterprise zones, local tax abatements, public-private
partnerships and new forms of local boosterism, through to workfare
policies, property redevelopment schemes, new strategies of social
control, policing and surveillance…. (Peck, Theodore, & Brenner,
2009, p. 58)
Public-private partnerships, particularly those favoring powerful private capital
interests, are a key feature of neoliberal governance and policy-making at urban levels
(Jessop, 2002; Raco, 2005). Gordon MacLeod (2002) posits that “…public-private
coalitions have taken the lead in brokering the regeneration of erstwhile industrial
enclaves and abandoned neighborhoods, which have been scrubbed clean and
dramatically reinvented…” (p. 604). These partnerships are justified as a way to
improve local economies, by using existing public institutions to support market-based
redevelopment plans. This is a major irony of the neoliberalization process; that a
philosophy that decries government interference or regulation actually requires it in
order to protect market-based schemes (Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Geddes, 2005;
Harvey, 2005). Geddes (2005) claims that “the rise of these partnerships, as an elite
form of local governance, implies a decline in the influence of politicians…and
political parties as key actors and forums in within which decisions were made in
traditional local government (p. 363).
Governmentality
Governmentality is a concept developed in a series of lectures by the late
philosopher Michel Foucault, in his effort to define the ways in which humans
27
(especially as individuals, but also populations) have become, in the modern era,
“subjects” of political power and how that power is employed to achieve specific
results, through as he called them, “techniques and procedures for directing human
behavior” (as cited in Rose, O’Malley, & Valverde, 2006, p.83). This notion of
“subjection” according to Foucault, can result in the “...non-reversible subordination
of one group of people by another, the ‘surplus’ power is also fixed on the same
side…” (as cited in Deacon, 2003, p. 235).
Foucault also explains in particular how neoliberalism shifts capitalism from a
system of exchange to a system of competition. He considers classical liberal
exchange to be the inherent system of how “homo economicus” behaves, but
neoliberal competition as “an artificial relation that must be protected against the
tendency for markets to form monopolies and from interventions from the state.
Competition [entrepreneurialism] necessitates constant intervention on the part of the
state, not on the market, but on the conditions of the market” (Read, 2009, p.28).
Neoliberalism is a kind of governmentality that exchanges the focus of a
juridical (relating to the rule of law as a scheme of power and punishment) system of
rights and laws for a system of “interest, investment and competition…. The state
must make desirable activities inexpensive and undesirable activities costly” (Read,
2009, p. 29). As Dean (1999) further explains, “thus the liberties of individuals as
economic subjects [homo economicus] with interests and as property owners is one
part of a secure order” (p. 117). Without the “freedom” of the markets, society is less
secure per this way of thinking.
A critical characteristic of neoliberalistic governmentality is the concept that
power is no longer centralized in the state, but is diffused through collaborations of
28
public and private institutions (Raco & Imrie, 2000; MacKinnon, 2000). Michael
Marinetto (2003) refers to this as “the policy-network approach that looks at how the
policy process is the outcome of emerging institutional arrangements between central
government and a range of other agencies. Government is not regarded as a unified
body but as a highly disaggregated institutional entity composed of a loose and
informal network of agencies” (p. 626). This arrangement allows processes to occur
in some opacity; private interests and other agendas can be more easily inserted into
what might previously been a more open governmental process.
Governmentality in the Foucauldian sense, is the deployment of strategic
practices and use of available technologies to influence the actions of a subject
population. The use of the above-mentioned collaborations as “neoliberal
governance” was discussed in Chapter 1 as a broad type of technology of population
influence. This governance via collaborations is how neoliberal competitive agendas
are promulgated as “an art of governing that arises as a critique of excessive
government” (Rose, O’Malley, & Valverde, 2006, p. 84). This has often been called
“governing at arm’s length or governing at a distance” (Larner & Butler, 2005; Raco
& Imrie, 2000). It is also what has been called the “Trojan Horse of collaboration”;
while it seems that in a neoliberalist political climate, government control or
interference has been reduced, it is in fact more insidiously and more intimately
implemented via various, usually local, agents (Swyngedouw, 2005; Miraftab, 2004).
Foucault also elaborated this distancing further by “arguing that what defines a
relationship of power is that it is a mode of power that does not act directly and
immediately on others. Instead it acts upon their actions…” (as cited in Cruikshank,
1993, p. 32). These governance bodies also employ varying technologies to influence
29
the actions of subject populations in order to “promote individual and institutional
conduct that is consistent with [neoliberal] government objectives” (Raco & Imrie,
2000, p. 2191). These techniques are wide-ranging, and include the use of
technologies of data gathering and analysis, as well as those that seek to compel
“competition, risk-taking, benchmarking and best practice” (Joseph, 2009, p. 426).
Dean (1999) refers to these as “technologies of performance” that then in turn
“represent themselves as technologies of restoring trust” (p. 169).
Governance relies on a technology called “problematisation” that is, “… the
differential ways in which the parameters of programmes are defined…. [sometimes]
to the extent that people and places become pathologically labeled as undeserving
‘others’…” (MacLeod, Raco, &Ward, 2003, p. 1665.) Applying neoliberal thinking to
these pathologized and targeted populations, for example, would mean that they must
find entrepreneurial ways in which to help themselves (as they would not able to offer
desirable conditions to invite investors). This keeps with Foucault’s understanding of
how certain subjects are “punished” via governance (Dean, 1999). A form of this
technology, called “revanchism,” (from the French for revenge), will be discussed
later in this chapter. Foucault studied the history of human power in the forms of
discipline and punishment, from ancient penal systems and the use of torture, up to
modern neoliberal systems in which he sees the state, using tactics discussed,
engaging in the discipline and punishment of citizens, and also in persuasion and
rewarding in a way that constructs a society in which ostensibly “free” subjected
individuals govern themselves toward and away from certain actions (Deacon, 2003).
Dr. Mitchell Dean, widely known for his work on Foucault's philosophies,
explains that the basic concept of governmentality is that government is the “conduct
30
of conduct”— and to use the word conduct in all of its three meanings: as the verb “to
conduct oneself”— or the way in which one “controls” one’s “conduct” (behavior or
actions) and the way in which we are “conducted” or influenced by government or
other forces. In this sense, government “entails any attempt to shape with some degree
of deliberation aspects of our behavior according to particular sets of norms and for a
variety of ends” (Dean, 1999, p. 10).
Governmentality is concerned with the “how” of government power— the
methods employed by government to conduct the conduct of others. Per Foucault,
governmentality presupposes a government that seeks economic control of a
population to ensure its prosperity (especially health and welfare— what Foucault
called bio-politics); that government is concerned with forms of power, such as
sovereignty and discipline, and finally, that a government employs “apparatuses of
security” (police forces, educational systems, management mechanisms). Therefore,
the modern government must have the knowledge and technologies to achieve health,
welfare and security (Dean, 1999). Foucault tried, in a sense, to make visible what is
“invisible” to everyday citizens, who “conduct” themselves without (perhaps) the
realization that their conduct is influenced by external forces.
This does not imply that individuals are void of autonomy, but rather that there
is a tension between the governors and the governed— called “power.” Foucault has
described this as “relations between technologies of the self and technologies of
domination” (Foucault as cited in Lemke, 2000). Foucault regarded power in three
aspects: strategic games among liberties, government and domination. “Strategic
games” refers to the everyday practice of power brokering between individuals— via
argument, coercion, advice, etc. Government is the systematic regulation of conduct
31
via appropriate technologies (for example, police forces) and domination is the
“asymmetrical” power relationship— where one side is subordinate due to lack of
freedom of choice (Lemke, 2000, pp. 5-6).
Relationship between Neoliberalism and Governmentality
Jonathan Joseph, a professor of politics and international relations at Kent
University in the UK, defines neoliberalism as “an advanced state of
governmentality….Modern society’s ability to employ more sophisticated methods of
discipline and regulation, utilizing new technologies of observation, calculation and
administration” (Joseph, 2007, p. 3). Under the neoliberal system, responsibilisation is
extended to mean that the individual, including (and perhaps especially) the poor
individual, must become more enterprising and entrepreneurial in the free marketplace
(Joseph, 2007). Furthermore, this self-fulfillment should not rely on
“interdependence” or assistance from others in society, but rather maximization of the
self via “ ‘micro-moral domains’ or ‘communities' ”— family, workplaces, schools,
leisure associations, neighbourhoods” (Rose, 1996, p. 57). The rise of the “Moral
Majority” and its eventual takeover and funding of the Republican Party exploited this
notion via the “family values” campaign. According to this group, the social welfare
state technologies had failed miserably to engender a sense of responsibility in
citizens, and in fact had resulted in a poor population reduced to a state of perpetual
laziness and dependency.
Neoliberlism does not mean a total departure from formal government— on
the contrary— it has spawned the devolution of much power to local governments,
and relies on local governments to form partnerships with non-government entities to
32
protect local markets, while the federal government does its part to keep the national
and global markets free from regulatory interference.
As Brenner and Theodore observe, “On the one hand, while neoliberalism
aspires to create a ‘utopia’ of free markets liberated from all forms of state
interference, it has in practice entailed a dramatic intensification of coercive,
disciplinary forms of state intervention in order to impose market rule upon all aspects
of social life” (Brenner & Theodore, 2002, p. 352). These authors go on, to define
categories of “Destructive and Creative Moments of Neoliberal Localization” and list
under Mechanisms of Neoliberal Localization, “restructuring of urban housing
markets,” which are linked with the Moment of Destruction as [in part] “razing public
housing and other forms of low rent accommodation” and finally linked with the
Moment of Creation as [in part] “creation of new opportunities for speculative
investment in central-city real estate markets” (Brenner & Theodore, 2002, p. 370).
Thus, urban restructuring can be characterized as a technology of governance
(governmentality) for the neoliberal agenda.
Another governance “technology" that may support neoliberalism is that of the
scale of the area to be governed. Mark Purcell discusses the need for critical inquiry
into issues of democratic participation and inadvertent advancement of neoliberal
strategies at various sizes of governments (Purcell, 2007). He remarks that
participatory democracy has “recently enjoyed a great surge in popularity, especially
in urban planning” (Purcell, 2007, p. 199). He goes on to add, however, that unless
carefully orchestrated to be widely inclusive, this participatory process can actually
result in further disenfranchisement of poorer, less politically powerful factions of the
community— and therefore feed the neoliberal agenda, especially at larger scales.
33
The type of democratic participation desired (who is to be empowered and who is to
be disenfranchised) is strategically correlated with the scale of the population who will
participate (Purcell, 2007).
The Crisis of Neoliberalism: The 2008 Housing Bubble
Scholars have been analyzing the so-called bursting of the US housing market
that began in 2008 and positing that it may mark the end or at least the beginning of a
radical change in neoliberalism and neoliberal governmentality (Kotz, 2009; Dean,
2010; Centeno & Cohen, 2012). Economist David Kotz believes that this crisis the
latest in a series of crises (The Great Depression, for example) that have arisen during
the history of capitalism, each of which resulted in a major systemic course correction
(Kotz, 2009).
Kotz explains that the neoliberal changes in many institutions including
industry deregulation (discussed above), reductions in state social spending, and the
shift from long-term to part-time and temporary employment, among others:
….gave rise to three important developments, which together
promoted a series of long economic expansions but also contained the
seeds of an eventual systemic crisis. These three developments are the
following: 1) growing inequality, within the capitalist process between
wages and profits, and within society as a whole among households; 2)
a financial sector that became increasingly absorbed in speculative and
risky activities; and 3) a series of large asset bubbles. (Kotz, 2009, p.
309)
Centeno and Cohen (2012) posit that neoliberalism created a [false] way of
thinking that "highlighted the senselessness of creating government-imposed rules that
would steer individual behavior effectively. Regulations could be, and often were,
circumvented, leaving economies open to fraud and black market activity" (p. 330).
34
Thus, ever more complex (and one could argue unethical if not illegal)
schemes of producing capital began to arise in the financial sectors. In short,
neoliberalism grew a large wealthy class that needed new investment opportunities, so
the market created them (such as removal of regulation from the Savings & Loan
industry in the late 1980s, which also resulted in a burst asset bubble). The latest
scheme is explained by Kotz:
After 2000, the deregulated financial sector found ways to make huge
profits from making mortgage loans to a broad swath of the population
including those with moderate or low incomes, through subprime
mortgages, alt-A mortgages, and other new types of mortgages. Any
undue risk was transferred by the issuers onto others through
securitization of mortgages, with compliant security rating agencies
often giving undeserved AAA ratings to such securities. Furthermore,
such loans seemed safe as long as housing prices kept rising, since
foreclosure would bring the creditor institution an asset that was
appreciating in value. (2009, pp. 312-313)
Foucault scholar Mitchell Dean claims Foucault's governmentality lectures
anticipated the rise of neoliberalism. He writes: "One of the features of
governmentality studies …was the use of 'neo-liberalism' and 'advanced liberal
governments' as a frame in which to understand contemporary techniques and
rationalities of government" (Dean, 2010, p. 261). He adds that there is now public
discourse concerned about too little government regulation and oversight, especially in
the financial sector. He hopes that studies of governmentality continue to be especially
mindful of what is now problemization of neoliberalism and the public and political
cry (from the left) for an enhanced sense of responsibility (Dean, 2010).
Finally, Centeno and Cohen encourage readers to consider two conclusions
from the "arc" of neoliberalism: "First, it is imperative to recognize the cultural or
ideational element in economic governance. Second, it is equally important to
35
recognize that economic policies do not exclusively involve the search for universal
principles, but rather also involve political choices about who wins and who loses"
(2012, p. 332).
Gentrification
The term “gentrification” originated in 1964 by British sociologist Ruth Glass,
who observed an influx of middle class (gentry) “fixer-uppers” into run-down
working-class parts of London, where they upgraded old Victorian homes and thereby
began a process of displacement by making these dwellings too expensive for former
tenants (Glass, 1964). Since that time, this process has been repeated many times over
in various parts of the world and has been studied from many perspectives—
sociologic, economic, geographic, etc. The term itself has evolved to describe more
specific sets of circumstances:
Gentrification is a process involving a change in the population of landusers such that the new users are of a higher socio-economic status than
the previous users, together with an associated change in the built
environment through a reinvestment in fixed capital. The greater the
difference in socio-economic status, the more noticeable the process,
not least because the more powerful the new users are, the more
marked will be the concomitant change in the built environment. It
does not matter where, it does not matter when. (Clark as cited in
Butler, 2007, p. 166)
Kennedy and Leonard, writing about gentrification for the Brookings Institute,
expanded on the above notion of marked change, as
…result[ing] in the changed character of the neighborhood. This is a
much more subjective feature of the definition, but one that is critical.
Gentrification is not only attracting higher income households who
replace lower income households in the neighborhood; it is attracting a
sufficiently large number such that the unique social fabric of the
neighborhood is changed. (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001, pp. 5-6).
36
Researchers have begun to refer to three “waves” of gentrification (discussed
further below), the first being the initial wave of post-war, federally sponsored “urban
renewal” projects of the 60s, the second being the urban pioneer movement of the late
70s and throughout the 80s and finally the current “third wave” (Smith, 2002;
Kennedy & Leonard, 2001; Hackworth & Smith, 2001). This third wave of
gentrification is happening in the “suburban periphery” (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001, p.
3) and is involving large-scale development, often with government collaboration.
In this neoliberal third wave era of gentrification, the process is often called a
renaissance, or neighborhood revitalization, or renewal, or re-urbanization— a whole
list of upbeat “r” words— by those who perceive a market solution as the best way to
address devolved responsibilities (Atkinson, 2003; Slater, 2009; Smith, 2002; Wyly &
Hammel, 2008). 2
As Wyly and Hammel (2008) conclude:
…after 40 years of neo-liberal and neo-conservative attacks on the
social safety-net of the welfare state, after so many years of privatising
and pricing of nearly every domain of individual and community life…
after all of these changes in the context in which gentrification takes
place, there is no need for us to support, defend or justify it through the
passive-aggressive language of social sustainability, social mix,
regeneration or whatever other new euphemism is produced tomorrow.
(p. 2647)
2
It is interesting to note that Darley Green was originally called Renaissance Village,
and the community organization formed to promote the hometown overlay is the
Claymont Renaissance Development Corporation. An official from the development
corporation explained that Renaissance Village was “awkward and difficult to spell”
and the new name was “more marketable.” http://www.delaforum.com/2009/Jan
37
The tenets of neoliberalism, as discussed above, have provided impetus for
state and private coalition planning schemes, the “renaissance” schemes, favoring
home ownership and reducing the number of low-priced rental units. These plans are
often promoted as ways to increase the variety of class representation and to increase
“community” (Slater, 2006).
However, urban studies scholar Roland Atkinson, who conducted a metaanalysis of English-language research on gentrification, including these type of urban
revitalization movements, reports that, “research evidence suggests that gentrification
has been a largely negative process driven by capital accumulation and resulting in the
breaking-up and displacement of poorer communities” (Atkinson, 2004, p. 126).
Revanchism has been cited by several scholars as a form of punitive (in sense
that Foucault regarded "punishment" via various techniques) neoliberal governance,
and it is has been linked to actions, such as ridding a city of the homeless, drug
addicts, and other marginalized, powerless groups via policing tactics and other
policies. These actions are specifically intended to garner support for gentrification
(MacLeod, 2002; Slater, 2004). Neil Smith (1998), in a scathing article reviewing the
extreme revanchist tactics used especially against the homeless during Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani’s regime in New York City concludes: “Revanchism blends revenge with
reaction…. It represents a reaction against the basic assumption of liberal urban
policy, namely that government bears some responsibility for ensuring a decent
minimum level of daily life for everyone…. Blaming the victim has been raised from a
common political tactic to a matter of established policy (1998, p. 1). In this type of
punitive environment, it is clear what kind of resident is welcomed and protected, and
38
what kinds have been reduced to so many “broken windows rather than people”
(Mitchell as cited in Smith, 1998, p. 17).
Overview of Gentrification Research Via "Wave Theory"
According to scholars, particularly David Harvey and Neil Smith,
gentrification "follows the money"— that is, it following the cycles of disinvestment
and reinvestment, the development will take place in the bargain acquisition of (often
abandoned) rental property and creating property that is attractive to a higher
socioeconomic class of property owners (Carpenter & Lees, 1995). Hackwork and
Smith (2001) have charted this movement of gentrification in three "waves" and note
how state (local and federal) assistance and resistance to gentrification has varied due
to political and economic conditions (Appendix F). A fourth wave of gentrification,
has been proposed by Lees, Slater, & Wyly (2008), and will be discussed below.
First Wave Gentrification
Hackworth & Smith (2001) define first wave gentrification:
Prior to the economic recession that settled through the global economy
in 1973, gentrification was sporadic if wide-spread. Disinvested innercity housing within the older northeastern cities cities of the USA,
Western Europe and Australia became targets for re-investment….
these instances of gentrification were often significantly funded by the
public sector…. The effect was of course highly class specific.
Conditions generally worsened for the urban working class as a result
of [state] intervention (p. 466).
Two early first wave gentrification projects that have been the subjects of
research are Park Slope in New York City and the Barnsbury neighborhood just
outside the center of London. Park Slope and Barnsbury were both built in the
nineteenth century as professional middle class neighborhoods; both fell into disrepair
39
following the Great Depressions and World War II and became inhabited by working
class residents. Post War suburbanization coupled with federal incentive funds then set
the stage for the "flight" of middle classes from these areas (Carpenter & Lees, 1995).
In U.S., public utilities, banks, and eventually the federal government urban
renewal programs assisted gentrifiers in obtaining housing in Park Slope. In the early
days of the movement, private investment groups bought up homes in the Park Slope
area, to ensure that while collar workers could get affordable mortgages in the
neighborhood. In the U.K., the government made funding available to subsidize
mortgages for professionals wanting to move into Barnsbury and similar city areas
that had declined. (Lees, et al., 2008).
Second Wave Gentrification
The second wave of gentrification, which is identified as beginning in the late
1970s and continuing into the 1980s, produced large-scale "spectacle" developments,
such as Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Boston's Faneuil Hall (Bounds & Morris, 2006).
These projects were led by aggressive, entrepreneurial developers and owneroccupiers, "while local state efforts shifted away from direct orchestration of
redevelopment to public- private partnerships and laissez faire subsidies" (Wyly &
Hammel, 2001, p. 217). They also often involved "cultural" aspects, such as support of
museums and other artistic institutions (Lees, et al., 2008). These large developments
were meant to attract upscale residents who would be drawn by the new cultural
amenities, and push poorer residents out of existing neighborhoods.
The "classic" example of second wave gentrification is the redevelopment of
Bilbao, Spain, a city in the Basque region that had experienced decline in the 70s and
80s similar to other industrial cities worldwide. The Bilbao City Council and other
40
local municipal and provincial entities plotted a renaissance that included an
extraordinary flagship institution; a sister to the original New York City Guggenheim
museum, and designed by renowned architect Frank Gehry. This and other
investments turned Bilbao into a world-famous tourist destination, and this would later
be referred to as the "Guggenheim Effect" in reference to the massively economically
successful transformation of this city (Vicario & Monje, 2003). Bilbao's
transformation was based on a six-point plan, which included "altering the city's image
and… an explicit focus on the downtown and its derelict areas" (Lees, et al., 2008, p.
177). One such "derelict area," a poor neighborhood called Bilbao La Vieja was the
target of this "state-led tourism gentrification [that] integrated semi-peripheral
residential spaces into the circuits of economic valorization" (Janoschka, Sequera, &
Salinas, 2014, p.1241). Bilbao La Vieja became a valuable area for contemporary art
galleries and a handicraft industry (Plaza, Tironi, & Haarich, 2009).
Third Wave Gentrification
Third Wave gentrification is the subject of this research. It involves direct
governmental impetus and partnering with private organizations, and its goal is large
capital accumulation; it is a neoliberal process (Hackworth & Smith, 2001; Lees, et al,
2008). Powell & Spencer (2003) add:
The state, at various levels, is fueling the process of gentrification more
directly than in the past, largely due to increased devolution. It sets the
rules for development…. The private sector could not possibly succeed
in gentrifying without government support for major infrastructural
improvements and public intervention in the form of historical
designation, code enforcement, zoning changes and conversions. (p.
450)
41
Hackworth & Smith (2001) identify four aspects of Third Wave Gentrification
that differentiate it from the previous waves. First, this wave of gentrification has
expanded beyond urban centers; second, changes in local and global economies (such
as the inflated housing market) brought investment from large development concerns;
third, there is very little resistance to gentrification and fourth, as mentioned above,
state or governmental involvement is direct.
A "textbook" example of third wave gentrification, and a scenario quite similar
to the one studied in this paper, was researched by Hofstra University sociologist
Christopher Niedt. Niedt conducted a yearlong case study of Dundalk, an
unincorporated Baltimore suburb, via interviews, archival research and participantobservation. He focused on the growing trend of gentrification in the “industrial
suburb,” suggesting that much urban gentrification had run its course. The industrial
working class suburb is a different climate than that of the upper-middle class suburb.
It usually contains cheap real estate, as a result of the decline of industry, and can
often qualify for government subsidies to encourage development of desirable homes
rather than rental units (Niedt, 2006).
Niedt makes an argument that the white working class, who had achieved
home ownership in the suburbs, became the target for not so thinly veiled conservative
“pro-white” actions in the civil-rights era. In the 70s, as working class unions lost a
great deal of power, conservatives again took advantage of this disenchanted class,
struggling to maintain their own standard of living, while become more outraged at
what they were told to perceive as “hand-outs” to the poor and especially minorities.
This attitude made a “perfect storm” of opportunity for pro-gentrifying parties such as
developers in a neo-liberal climate, as the poor, and especially minority poor, moved
42
into these declined suburbs to take advantage of lower rents and increasing numbers of
Section 8 units (Niedt, 2006).
Thus, as Niedt (2006) states, “Gentrification— when articulated as a deliberate
strategy of replacing problem people and land uses with affluent property owners and
higher-value land uses— offers several advantages as a discourse of community
improvement in the industrial suburbs” (p. 104). He also sees this “improvement”
strategy as a way that white working class pro-gentrification groups can duck
accusations of racism. This played out in Dundalk, a World War I era steel town that
had strong unions and political clubs united to maintain the “understood” segregation
of races. Black residents lived in their traditional neighborhood, and white working
class residents lived in theirs. This status quo was threatened during the civil rights era
and after the defeat of union power to uphold “white seniority” in steel plants in the
early 1973. Moreover, political clubs lost their patronage power in the new era (Niedt,
2006).
As the percentage of African Americans residents in Dundalk grew steadily,
conservative factions blamed increased crime, drug use, and falling property values on
this invasion of formerly urban minorities. Under these conditions, organizations that
were once shadowed by the powerful unions and political clubs, such as
neighborhood, taxpayer and business associations, organized to fight the perceived
threat an increasing population of minority poor, and the labeling of Dundalk as a
“redneck” or “white trash” area— stigmas proliferated by a local deejay. These
groups defeated a pilot poverty de-concentration program, as well as a housing
desegregation suit brought by the ACLU (Niedt, 2006, p.109).
43
These actions, writes Niedt, (2006) “…set the stage for gentrification….
Merchants and residents formed a new Dundalk Image Group, which soon re-formed
as the Greater Dundalk Alliance (GDA). In both incarnations, the group popularized
the idea that Dundalk could no longer develop autonomously and had to improve its
image if it hoped to attract new residents and investment” (p. 109). Eventually, after
several successful developments were built in nearby communities at the sites of
former “blighted” neighborhoods, a Dundalk Renaissance Corporation was established
which ran a charrette to develop community renewal plans. In neoliberal, third wave
style, the state helped Dundalk and other communities in the region to gain privatesector investment. The county executive also started a developer-friendly Renaissance
Pilot Project, and offered other incentives to council districts such as suspended
zoning laws and expedited plan reviews. One Dundalk community openly fought to
displace a poorer community for its renewal plans (Niedt, 2006).
Niedt (2006) concludes:
…arguments between those who envision gentrification as driven by
capitalists and those who envision it as driven by gentrifiers must be
reframed. As gentrification diffuses to new locations, homeowners like
those in Dundalk can become gentrification’s most enthusiastic
advocates and can hold considerable power within new coalitions
between developers, states, and communities. (pp. 117-118)
Fourth Wave Gentrification
Lees, et al. (2008) identify a fourth wave of gentrification as taking place
mainly in the United States. They point to "years of work by operatives in
conservative think tanks" to support an environment in which individuals must fend
for themselves in an [ever- more neoliberal] free market, and the city they cite as the
model of this fourth wave is post-Katrina New Orleans. Jamie Peck (2006) wrote a
44
scathing critical article citing multiple examples of the impact of neoliberal
conservative think-tank influences on revanchist policies to rebuild New Orleans that
saw the storm as almost biblical retribution for decades of corrupt local government
and an out of control welfare state:
Early narratives emphasizing victimization, particularly along race and
class lines, were progressively displaced by a familiar discourse of
individual responsibility, even personal culpability. Most egregiously,
this is exposed in the portrayal of New Orleans residents choosing to
disregard evacuation orders in anticipation of beginning of-the-month
welfare checks and post-hurricane opportunities for looting. It was
therefore not a lack of resources, private transportation, or out-of-town
support systems that placed some of the most-needy New Orleans
residents in the storm’s path; it was the long-run consequences of urban
welfarism—and its racialized cast of supported characters including the
workless, the feckless, the lawless, absentee fathers, inert mothers, and
criminalized youths. (p. 706)
New Orleans was seen by conservatives as an "clean slate that would become a
free-market city-state ruled by the principles of small government, low taxes, and a
sacred commitment to property rights….thus, an unprecedented opportunity for a
more pure, harsh fourth wave of gentrification" (Lees, et al, 2008, p. 185). Renters
were left out, no federal voucher programs were offered, and conditional aid was
offered to homeowners to either rebuild in New Orleans or move away for a lesser
compensation. New Urbanist guru Andrés Duany was hired as a consultant on the
design of the re-built city (Lees, et al., 2008).
Brian Doucet (2014) comments on the fourth wave proposed by Lees, et al.,
and notes that this wave has been viewed as "more of an extension or modification of
existing policies, rather than as a bold departure from existing urban forms and spatial
locations" (p. 128). This work, he notes, was published just as the 2008 economic
45
crisis was unfolding, which delayed or even halted many gentrification projects
(including the one studied here).
Empirical Studies of Gentrification Focusing on Non-Gentrifiers
As referenced in Chapter 1, geographer Brian Doucet (2009) has noted a dearth
of empirical studies that focus on the working class (or sometimes lower middle class;
there is no standard definition of either) residents who remain behind during a
gentrification process. Tom Slater has added that studies that have used mobility and
displacement data from municipal surveys, such as the New York City Housing and
Vacancy survey, “cannot capture the struggles…working-class people endure in the
face of neoliberal restructuring” (Slater, 2009, p. 299). In researching the literature, I
found few studies that focus on or even touch upon the effects of gentrification on
those residents (or merchants) who remain in an area undergoing gentrification.3 They
are examined below in chronological order.
Paul Levy: Queen Village, Philadelphia
Paul Levy’s study of early gentrification in urban Philadelphia focuses mainly
on the non-gentrifying, poorer residents of what became known as Queen Village. The
study, published as a small book entitled, Queen Village: The Eclipse of Community
was conducted for a local non-profit group, the Institute for the Study of Civic Values,
and funded by the Public Committee for the Humanities in Philadelphia, which
3
These do not include studies of activist groups that protest or support gentrification
plans, nor studies that measure via demographic statistics, gentrification’s impact on
poor communities. My interest is in qualitatively based research that focuses on nongentrifying community residents and merchants experiencing gentrification.
46
received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Levy bases this
work on the study of the “humanities,” defined in the book’s foreword as “fields of
study such as history, philosophy, literature and the law” (Levy, 1978, p.4).
In his opening, Levy raises philosophical and moral questions that he believes
need to be put to those involved in urban revival. Essentially, he is posing what has
become (for some) a central question concerning gentrification; what ends (economic,
environmental, political, etc.) justify the means of disrupting or even destroying
communities? Levy (1978) proposes that the humanities be brought out of academia
and into public discourse, especially in the area of public policy via studies such as
his.
The study, which took place over an eight-month period, includes an historical
background component (an examination of newspapers, planning documents, census
data and other written materials), and an oral history component, during which taped
interviews were conducted. Those interviewed included new, longtime and displaced
residents, members of local civic associations, members of local service agencies and
officials of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority and City Planning Commission.
A 32 minute slide presentation was produced from the historical information and more
than 70 hours of interviews, which was then shown to various groups in various public
and academic settings over the final four month period of the project (Levy, 1978)
The report begins with an excerpt from a book about Philadelphia’s immigrant
populations and their cultures from the period of 1880-1940, written by University of
Pennsylvania history and city planning professor Carol Golab. Her piece provides an
understanding of the importance of tight-knit ethnic communities and local proximity
to family members to immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. These values are
47
the main cause of the clash between long-time residents (some whose family date back
several generations) with incoming urban professionals, as well as the loss of housing
due to the building of the Interstate I-95 highway. This excerpt is followed by a
transcript of the slide show, theoretical essay related to the humanities, and a critical
analysis of the study and policy recommendations (Levy, 1978).
This work is an invaluable, intimate documentation of the struggle for place
identity in South Philadelphia in the 1960s and 1970s. This struggle is poignantly
symbolized by the disappearance (during renovations) of traditional “stoops” from the
front entrances to row homes, where generations of families had sat after their evening
meals and on weekends to socialize. Long-time residents lament this loss again and
again in interviews, and also question early newcomer’s interest in historic
renovations. (This happened especially during a period of “pioneering” gentrification
in the 60s.) The sons and daughters of long-time residents, who had always assumed
they would marry and move to another house in the neighborhood, were priced out.
Tax assessments increased as much 700 percent (Levy, 1978).
Levy’s conclusion to this work is a call for some of the “walkable community”
values of the New Urbanists, but he also adds that the importance of the ethos
espoused by the humanities and the recognition of the “local wisdom”:
Ultimately, we must realize that each neighborhood knows its own
needs best; and with the proper knowledge and self-education is quite
capable of fashioning its own future. Only with such a balance between
local and regional needs, and with careful attention to all those nonquantifiable values that the humanities remind us make life truly
worthwhile, do we have the opportunity to shape our cities in the image
of the diverse human communities that live with them. (1978, p. 95)
Paul Levy is currently a lecturer in city and regional planning at the Fels
Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania.
48
Levy's study greatly impacted this dissertation. Levy's seminal work
concerning gentrification of a Philadelphia community includes an in-depth historical
background portion, written by an historian. This context sets the stage for the conflict
that Levy documents and is, in a sense, a discussion of "place identity." He also argues
for a moral aspect to gentrification— that will be picked up by Tom Slater in an article
referenced in Chapter 6. (It could be argued that from a neoliberal/neo Foucauldian
perspective, this moral aspect is irrelevant.)
In addition, Levy argues in favor of allowing a neighborhood to be educated
and led to design its own development according to what its residents perceive is most
needed. This is a privacy vs. community question. Do the residents of a neighborhood
have the right to dictate the design or use of private property, regardless of the size of
the property or potential impact? This continues to be confusing; opportunities for
input are offered, but to what extent are they honored or even necessary, beyond
politically? In a larger historical view, the circle of destruction and creation is always
ongoing. Studies of gentrification will continue to encounter these questions. Levy is
concerned beyond the theoretical and focused on the ideas and needs of the longtime
residents that were not honored in such a manner that perhaps both gentrifiers and
longtime residents and their children could live side by side. Inclusivity, both in the
process and the final outcome, has proven an elusive goal in much of what happens in
the name of "renewal."
Elijah Anderson: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Streetwise, by Elijah Anderson, currently a distinguished professor of
sociology at Yale University, won the 1991American Sociological Association’s
Robert E. Park Award for the best published book in the area of Urban Sociology. It
49
is an ethnographic study of two adjoining urban neighborhoods in Philadelphia, PA,
which he called “the Village” and "Northton” for his publication, from 1975-1989,
when Anderson and his family lived in the area. Anderson intensely studied the area
and its residents, participated in community events, and videotaped street life. He
became a participant-observer, and he became active in community organizing.
Anderson’s work was supported by the US Census Bureau contract and by grants from
the National Institute of Justice and the United States Department of Health and
Human Services (Anderson, 1990).
The Village is the neighborhood that was undergoing gentrification, and
Northton is a primarily black neighborhood immediately adjacent to it. Anderson
became especially interested in the interactions between the residents who lived at the
border of these neighborhoods, and how the gentrification activities impacted them.
The gentrification story of the Village is fairly standard, similar to that described in
many other studies. Young professionals renovated inner city homes inexpensively,
and gained proximity to the city work environment. Housing prices, rents and taxes
rose in the Village, forcing poorer (mostly Black) residents to what Anderson calls the
“ghetto” of Northton (Anderson, 1990, p. 2).
The book begins much like Levy’s study, with a section explaining the
histories of both neighborhoods, including the long-time presence of a strong Quaker
community in the Village neighborhood. The Quakers also clashed with the later
“yuppie” gentrifiers, and espoused values of community diversity and tolerance,
including encouraging an inter-racial residential mix and opened a highly regarded
integrated elementary school (Levy, 1978).
50
Northton had been mostly populated by Irish and German immigrants, who
wanted to live close their factory jobs. A large post-war northern immigration brought
blacks to work in these same factories, sometimes as union strikebreakers. The
resulting tensions led to the now-familiar white flight to the suburbs, and Northton
became a strong black neighborhood, where residents were able to take advantage of
opportunities gained in the civil rights and equal housing movements. However, just
as in many other urban areas, industrial jobs began to disappear, and the neighborhood
declined deeper and deeper into an impoverished drug culture. Anderson notes the
great loss of male and female community elders, called “older heads” who had
traditionally modeled hard-working family values for younger people. They became
disgusted with the growing illegal and, as they saw it, immoral drug culture. The older
people disengaged and the new young drug lords became the new “heads” to the
younger residents in Northton (Anderson, 1990).
Anderson focuses a great deal of his attention on the plight of poor, young
black males, who, without the employment opportunities that their elders had, become
caught in the underground economy of the drug scene, and demonized by residents
from both neighborhoods. The “street wisdom,” referenced in the book’s title, is a set
of learned coping mechanisms residents adopted to deal with the fear of the violent
young black male drug culture in public places, especially in the Village. What is
interesting is that this street wisdom was needed by both black and white middle class
residents in the Village, where the appearance of any strange black male was cause for
alarm (Anderson, 1990).
Anderson’s focus in this book is about the class struggles that ensue from
changing urban economies (which allows gentrification to happen) and specifically the
51
plight of the young urban black male. At the border of the two neighborhoods, there
was a “spill-over” effect from Northton, as Anderson calls it, that lowered market
values in that area of the Village, and sometimes slowed gentrification. A larger
domino effect of changing economies is summed up by Anderson in his conclusion:
In the Village-Northon area there are thus multiple victims of the
changing economy…. The yuppie who is mugged and the kid who does
it; the old head who loses the respect of the kid; who impregnates the
teenage girl, who goes on welfare, which raises taxes, which drives out
local companies, which causes unemployment, which causes crime,
which depresses property values and drives out middle-class residents,
which further isolates the poor and criminal. (p. 251)
Interestingly, Anderson describes a process that neoliberalists often use against
the poor. They argue that low-income citizens must be made, via welfare reform and
other methods, to become independently responsible for their own “bootstrapping” out
of the poverty cycle. The poor are expected to do so in spite of economic changes and
disparities in education, transportation, health care and so on, over which they have
little control.
This long-term in-depth study characterizes gentrification as a symptom.
Anderson won great acclaim for this work, but his methodology was called into
question. Hunter College anthropologist Ida Susser found Anderson’s ethnographic
techniques sloppy and suspect:
[Other researchers]… are careful to describe individuals, follow
situations, and trace events creating a body of literature and thick
description clearly judged by anthropological standards. Anderson’s
adoption of participant observation follows no such disciplinary tenets.
He summarizes and quotes without describing in their full context and
varied interconnections the people and events from which his
evaluations are derived. (1996, p. 425)
52
Sociologist Daniel Monti (1992) who generally praises Anderson’s work in
Streetwise, also criticizes him for caring so much for some of the residents he got to
know that he “slid too easily into commentaries about aspects of racism or social class
bias for which even anecdotal evidence was not provided” (p. 330).
Elijah Anderson focuses on the "border" between the area gentrified and the
area(s) adjacent to it. This border area is also the area of interest in this study in
Claymont. It would stand to reason that a border area would be an area of greatest
tension and knowledge of any building processes. Because Claymont's gentrification
is an unfinished project, it followed that the razing of Brookview and planning and
initial building processes of Darley Green were main topics for my respondents.
It is interesting that both Anderson's study and this dissertation find "older"
generations pitted against the drug culture of poorer residents who lack access to
higher paying industrial jobs that have long vanished. In the current study, the older
residents are triangulated between the incoming gentrifiers and the disenfranchised
younger residents as well as current merchants, who stand to be pushed out if the
neighborhood is "revitalized" by the gentrification process over time.
Daphne Spain: Lancaster County, Virginia
Daphne Spain, professor of urban and environmental planning at the
University of Virginia, conducted a 1990 study of rural Lancaster County, Virginia,
involving the attitudes of long-time residents (“been-heres”) and incoming, gentrifying
residents (“come-heres”) about community identities and ongoing and future
development. In this study, aptly entitled Been Heres vs. Come Heres, she compares
her findings with those of Paul Levy, discussed above.
53
Spain’s planning analysis students were able to collect survey data from a total
of 287 residents via phone interviews in the Lancaster County, Virginia area. The data
was tabulated and is reproduced as a two useful tables in the study. One is a table of
percentages of positive reactions to various community issues (such as “parks should
be open to non-residents” or “build apartments near towns”) and the second around the
specific issues of waterfront (Chesapeake Bay) ownership. The answers are divided by
“come-heres” (residents ten years or less) and “been-heres” (residents more than ten
years). The data is all nominal level, yes/no questions, and some statistical analyses of
association were run (Cranmer’s V and phi values), these are noted, along with
significance, at the bottom of the tables and in symbols next to some listed categories,
but Spain chooses not to discuss these data via statistics.
This study is aimed at arming planners with information to help mediate
conflicts and better plan for a sense of community and ensure democratic processes for
new and old residents. “The issue facing planners,” writes Spain (1993), “is how to
facilitate the change from the imagined past to the imagined future” (p. 157). Both
groups have idealized versions of a place that planners must work to both make plans
more realistic while accommodating the visions of residents.
Spain (1993) concludes there are three structural similarities in gentrification
of both rural and urban areas: A private sector impetus for migration [neo-liberalism],
a period following "decades of national economic restructuring" [fall of the industrial
sector] and a frontier mentality of the gentrifiers — pioneering, salvaging, [or more
lately] promoting a renaissance (p. 158). In all of these structures, the poorest of the
original residents are at a disadvantage (Spain, 1993).
54
Spain cites examples of the clashes between original residents and gentrifiers
who come up against one or all of these structures in both Levy’s urban Philadelphia
study and her own. Queen Village (formerly Southwark) was one of the earliest postwar gentrified communities in the country; much of the industrial work of the area,
which centered around the waterfront on the Delaware River, was lost during a period
of shipping industry modernization. In the early 70s, a portion of the 1-95 corridor was
cut through the neighborhood, destroying whole streets and displacing families. The
renaming of the area rankled long-time residents, many of who had family ties to the
area for generations. Then, following a period of rehabilitation of abandoned
residential properties, the real gentrification came as young professionals returned to
the area, seeking close proximity to new white-collar job opportunities in the city.
Housing prices, rent and taxes rose, leaving the area divided between the incoming
professionals and the long-time residents (Spain, 1993).
In Lancaster County, Spain’s students also found a community divided at a
waterfront, the Chesapeake Bay. In the national recession of the early 80s, depressed
land values along the Chesapeake made the area attractive to the newly retired, who
sought waterfront property with direct private access to the bay for their boats. These
newcomers formed a corporation and collaborated with local environmental groups to
control waterfront development. The newcomers were retired white-collar
professionals, seeking a quiet, attractive retirement community. But the long-time
residents saw them as privatizing access to the shoreline, as well as limiting
commercial fishing opportunities and competing with local farmers by starting “hobby
farms.” Spain was able to document impact on commercial activity, as this author
decided was important to take into consideration, in addition to impact on residents.
55
New residents were seeking recreation; long-time residents were scrapping for
livelihoods. In the rural form of the gentrification story, the long-time residents
wanted increased (affordable) residential and commercial development, while the
newcomers (the gentrifiers) were more interested in preserving the area’s scenic and
environmental value and views of the bay (as it kept their property values up). This is
similar to residents in urban areas who seek historic area designation (as in Levy's
study), to return an area’s architecture to “original” forms (Spain, 1993). Spain’s
work in finding structural similarities in both urban and rural gentrification deftly
distills a complex process, and gives planners a kind of diagnostic tool for anticipating
potential conflicts that may arise in a new planning projects that involve combining
disparate populations.
Daphne Spain's "mission" to assist planners in bridging change from a
"imagined past to an imagined future" is an apt description of what this researcher
found in Claymont. As discussed in reference to New Urbanism's goals, residents of
any town may have an over-idealized version of their town's past and both current
residents and planners/gentrifiers may have an over-idealized vision for its future.
Spain implies that planners must assist in offering realistic solutions to the present
situation of a place. Her study also notes the impact on commercial fishing
opportunities and local farms that non-gentrifying resident feared would be lost if
incoming gentry controlled access to the town's waterfront and dabbled in "hobby
farming." This supports the importance in noting the impact of gentrification on
businesses as separate from impact strictly on residents— these groups would
logically have different agendas. This dissertation separated these groups from the
outset.
56
Lance Freeman: New York City, New York
In contrast to the informality of Streetwise is the meticulously documented and
researched There Goes the ‘Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up by
Columbia University urban planning professor Lance Freeman. Freeman documents
the slow gentrification of two well-known black New York City neighborhoods,
Harlem (where Freeman lives) and Clinton Hill, and focuses on the reactions to this by
“indigenous residents,” which he reports as being a rarely studied perspective. He
describes his findings as a more “nuanced” perspective of gentrification, as many of
them go against stereotypical and historical understandings of gentrification (Freeman,
2006).
Freeman offers a brief explanation of his methodology (a detailed account is
added in an appendix) in his introduction. He used purposeful and snowball sampling
to interview a total of 64 residents from both neighborhoods. He notes the deviations
in his samples from the overall demographics. A research assistant completed a
separate 21 interviews, which were compared to Freeman’s to increase rigor and
dependability. He also wanted minimize his bias as a resident. Freeman attended
community conferences and meetings, and was, of course, a participant-observer in
Harlem (Freeman, 2006).
As with other studies, Freeman starts with histories of the two neighborhoods,
including the post-war migration of southern blacks mentioned in Anderson’s book.
His histories are augmented with historical and modern photographs and also with
census bureau tables to illustrate changes in demographic and economic conditions in
the neighborhoods. The history of Harlem is fascinating, as is that of Clinton Hill, a
neighborhood that is part of the former site of one the country’s first housing projects,
Fort Greene, built in 1944. The stories of the rise and fall of these neighborhoods are
57
not different structurally than those of other gentrified areas studied above. What sets
these neighborhoods apart is an historically unique racial and class mix— which
informs, per Freeman, the mixed reactions by residents to changes. Harlem, for
example, went from a heyday in the 1920s-30s during the first Harlem Renaissance,
when middle- and upper-class blacks occupied Harlem, to a ghetto of poor blacks
living in the former luxurious Victorian mansions in the economic downturn of the
Great Depression. What followed was a continuous downward decline for all the usual
urban economic and shifting demographic reasons. It was not until the economic boom
of the mid-late 1990s that a second Harlem Renaissance began to be discussed, and a
slow but steady process of gentrification began, albeit with a mixture of white and
black gentrifiers. Unlike other gentrified urban neighborhoods, Harlem remains
predominantly black (Freeman, 2006).
The history of Clinton Hill differs somewhat from that of Harlem. Once an
upscale Victorian white neighborhood, Clinton Hill was already in decline at the turn
of the 20th century, becoming a neighborhood of boarding homes, and continuing its
downward slide through the Great Depression Years. It was targeted for “urban
renewal” in the mid-1940s, with project-style housing built in the Clinton Hill portion
of Fort Greene. In a now-familiar story, southern black migration to the north led to
white flight to the suburbs. Incoming blacks were relegated, as usual, to run-down
areas of the city via redlining practices (which also prevented blacks from moving to
new suburbs). Gentrification of Clinton Hill began in the early 1970s, early in the
general history of U.S. gentrification. Mainly white “brownstoners” moved into the
neighborhood to restore the old walk-ups and to take advantage of low prices and
access to the city. Clinton Hill also benefitted from gaining Historic District status.
58
But gentrification in Clinton Hill was slow and spotty, with many areas still
considered “bad” into the 1980s and 90s. Despite continued renewal and
gentrification, spurred by changes in mortgages practices and strong community
development activities, Clinton Hill remains a majority black neighborhood. The
difference from the typical gentrification story is that many later gentrifiers were
middle-class blacks, some returning to the place where they grew up. Many black
gentry in Clinton Hill also belong to the “artsy” class— musicians, painters, movie
and music industry stars (Freeman, 2006).
In sum, what Freeman discovered through his research that longtime, returning
black residents in both neighborhoods do not necessarily feel comfortable with the
arrival of any gentrified whites. (Freeman notes most respondents glossed over
reactions to gentrified black families, although there were a fair number, especially in
Harlem, and especially around the “arts” scene. Freeman chalks this up to a long
continued presence of middle-class blacks). But, in spite of their wariness of increase
in white populations, and in spite of some displacement, black respondents enjoyed
the improvement in retail and public services brought about by gentrification, as well
as the clean-up of many vacant lots and derelict resident buildings. Many were
especially happy about the appearance of good local grocery stores. The availability of
fresh, quality food is missing from most impoverished neighborhoods (Freeman,
2006).
This combination of attitudes that Freeman (2006) heard in his interviews is
what he feels is often missed in gentrification literature. As he puts it “Why shouldn’t
residents of gentrifying neighborhoods want their home to be viewed as desirable and
a place that others want to live?” (p. 71). At the same time, residents keep watch for
59
signs of white influx. Freeman shares a 2004 flyer in his book inviting black residents
to citywide conference on gentrification entitled, “The State of Black New York”
sponsored by The Black Power Movement, New Black Panther Party, Black Lawyers
for Justice and African Nationalist Pioneer Movement. But despite the dire alarms
sounded in this flyer, Freeman heard “relatively few anti-white sentiments” from
interviewees (Freeman, 2006, p. 85). Freeman also points to the desire of blacks to
carve out black middle class urban niches— neither conforming to “white” standards,
nor “the conservative social ethos that dominates much of black America” (Freeman,
2006, p. 196).
Finally, Freeman acknowledges that neoliberal policies led to much of the
private lending and policies that encouraged middle class residency and new
opportunities. He acknowledges that neoliberal policies are not meant to eliminate or
even limit poverty (Freeman, 2006). Freeman concludes that gentrification “can help
minimize the extent to which various aspects of life are dependent on one’s class….To
the extent the poor share residential space with those more affluent they will benefit
from some of the amenities the more affluent are able to command and the "disamenities" they are able to avoid” (Freeman, 2006, p. 205). Freeman emphasizes that
such mixed income communities have the potential to benefit all class levels— but
only with significant policy change and citizen activism (Freeman, 2006).
Lance Freeman's work makes the case that non-gentrifiers can benefit from
incoming amenities, such as improved supermarkets, and the loss of "disamenities"—
in Claymont, these would be a reduction in pay-day loan and dollars stores, for
example. This is important to the Claymont residents interviewed, but threatening to
some of the merchants. In addition, he raises the point that not all non-gentrifiers are
60
going to automatically be against upgrading the community— some welcome the
changes, and as he asks, "Why wouldn't they?" If changes will make a community
more attractive and desirable, why wouldn't some residents be in favor of it, despite
negative factors, such as the displacement of an entire rental property? This attitude
was certainly evident in the responses from Claymont residents and merchants.
Caitlin Cahill: Lower East Side, New York City
In her 2006 essay, feminist participant-observer and University of Utah
environmental psychologist Caitlin Cahill summarizes the “ ‘inside perspectives’ of
six young working-class women of color” who experienced the rapid gentrification of
their neighborhood in the Lower East Side of New York City in the 1990s" (p. 334).
The six women, ages 16-22, who call themselves the “Fed-Up Honeys” were part of a
research project called “Makes Me Mad: Stereotypes of Young Urban Womyn of
Color” supported by a fellowship awarded to Cahill by the American Association of
University Women. Her published work is called, “At risk”? The Fed-Up Honeys Represent the Gentrification of the Lower East Side.
The six women were involved in what Cahill calls participatory action research
(PAR), “a collective process of looking critically at their social and environmental
contexts and [were] trained…in social research methods” (Cahill, 2006, p. 336). The
young women chose to focus on the stereotypes that they felt heavily influenced
incoming gentrifiers when thinking of young urban women of color. The researchers
reported feeling as disinvested as the run-down buildings and areas in their
neighborhood, and reported that these feelings affected their self-esteem and selfviews. They noted the slow changes of the gentrification process— a corner grocery
store becomes a boutique, a wine bar— an area becomes a “bohemian retail outlet.”
61
The women, especially, as Cahill (2006) notes, in the neoliberal atmosphere of selfresponsibility, feel even more stereotyped as “lazy” and “likely to be teen moms” (p.
339). The women reported feeling defined by what they did not have, did not
consume, and especially by their “non-whiteness.” They reported the anguish and
confusion of watching formerly familiar and locally owned stores and buildings
transformed to places that were clearly not marketed to them, but to incoming white
“yuppies” (Cahill, 2006).
The experiences and struggles of these young women, in addition to their own
programs of stereotype “busting” that they designed and implemented, are welldocumented in Cahill’s essay. The depth, breadth, and integration of Cahill’s research
concerning the history of the stereotyping of people of color (specifically young
unwed women), of social construction and of gentrification and its implications, as
well the added complex layer of neoliberal governance is impressive. The PAR
process, as explained in another of Cahill’s publications, involves an intense critical
inquiry of the self by the researcher, complete participation in designing research by
the researchers (rather than relying on established methods) and then determining how
to react, to take action, according to the analysis of findings (Cahill, 2007). Cahill
(2006) concludes, “The critical insight the young women identified in their research is
that power lies in controlling how you are defined” (p. 353).
Cahill's study, though limited to six females, puts the personal damaging
aspects that can be caused by gentrification (especially as class change) in stark relief.
While in the end, her study turns more to the empowerment of these young women
through the expression of their dismay, it is a reminder that gentrification "happens" to
people, to communities, and should not only be viewed from theoretical perspectives.
62
This is the perspective intended for the research in Claymont; to explore the impact of
gentrification at the "ground" level, while acknowledging that greater forces, such as
neoliberalism (which Cahill acknowledges as well) are at work.
Daniel Sullivan: Portland, Oregon
In his Research Note, Reassessing Gentrification:Measuring Residents'
Opinions Using Survey Data, sociologist Daniel Sullivan, of Portland State
University, reports on his surveys of residents in two gentrifying Portland
neighborhoods, Elliot and Alberta. Both gentrifiers and non-gentrifiers are studied.
This is a quantitative study, using data collected from face to face surveys of 460
residents over a two-year period. There were two dependent variables in the study:
opinion on neighborhood changes in the preceding five years and that of the future
five years. Statistical and regression analysis were used to correlate responses to
individual demographic variables (Sullivan, 2007).
Sullivan found that (in answer to a general question), 62 percent of the
respondents from both neighborhoods felt that their neighborhoods were changing
positively. (Does this imply that 38 percent thought it was changing negatively? It is
not clear.) However, following the regression analysis, differences began to break out:
homeowners were more likely than renters to feel positive about gentrification
changes. However, there was no significant difference based on education level, which
surprised Sullivan, as he was using education levels as a substitute for income. (He felt
respondents would be uncomfortable answering income questions face to face.) Black
residents who lived in their neighborhoods for more than ten years were less likely to
approve of change. Older (as in more elderly) residents were more likely to approve of
changes that had occurred in the previous five years (Sullivan, 2007).
63
Sullivan concludes that homeowners approving changes due to gentrification
was to be expected, as they had more to gain in increased property values. Renters
would be subject to increased rents for the same reason, and therefore were less
approving, also an expected result. He questions the reasons for the differences
between long-term and short-term black residents. He posits that newer black residents
knew of changes when they moved in, or were less attached to institutions that were
eliminated due to gentrification. He concludes that a mixed-method study, that
included income information, would better “plumb the depths of residents’ complex
opinions about gentrification….” (Sullivan, 2007, p. 591).
In spite of the limitations of this piece, Sullivan's reference to residents'
complex opinions is supported by his interest in discrete populations. He broke the
non-gentrifying groups down by age, race, length of residency and educational level.
While he was dissatisfied with using education levels as a substitute for income, he did
find measurable differences among these sub-groups. This again, supports the opinion
of this researcher, that studying non-gentrifiers as one homogenous group would miss
important sub-contexts. Indeed, Sullivan's attempt to break out the non-gentrifiers by
multiple variables is ideal, but difficult to manage in a case study.
Brian Doucet: Leith, Scotland
Brian Doucet, as a doctoral student at Utrecht University, Netherlands,
conducted a qualitative case study which was later published in 2009 and entitled,
Living Through Gentrification: Subjective Experiences of Local, Non-gentrifying
Residents in Leith, Edinburgh. The town had been going through a period of extensive
residential and retail area gentrification, especially along its waterfront. He conducted
42 in-depth open-ended interviews of non-gentrifying residents (a mixture of
64
homeowners and renters and social renters) in the heart of the town’s historic district.
His interviews focused on three areas: social cohesion, values and norms and place
attachment. He also interviewed key informants and covered these same three areas, in
addition to each interviewee’s area of expertise. The interviews were then transcribed
and analyzed for major themes; he presents much of his findings in direct quotes from
interviews. Doucet (2009) explains, “the exact words of the residents were important
for understanding their perceptions of the changes” (p. 304).
Doucet found a mix of responses from those he interviewed. He noted that
while the residents felt some pride in the improvements to the area, they felt that the
improvements were not for them— but for the new residents and shoppers. The
pattern of behavior as reported by the interviewees is that longtime residents used their
same traditional pubs and stores, while the new residents used the new amenities. The
residents reported distinct feelings of “us and them”— and a kind of resignation that
this was the way that things in general progressed, but they were not particularly
resentful of the process, nor was any animosity toward the gentrifiers expressed.
However, it was clear that the two groups lived separate lives in the same town.
Doucet concludes that this represents a much more “nuanced” understanding of
gentrification impact than focusing only on “winners and losers” (Doucet, 2009).
While Doucet’s research methodology is simple and straightforward, he
demonstrates an in-depth knowledge of the topic of gentrification in general, and of
the specific literature (what little there is) that examines the impact on non-gentrifying
working class residents. He succinctly summarizes the literature that evaluates both
gentrifiers and displaced residents, as well as the literature that focuses on the impact
on the poor who remain in gentrifying areas. He also notes literature concerning open
65
conflict between residents and gentrifiers, but adds that is not what he found in Leith.
He used the information from “key informants” mostly to explain how some of the
development choices were made, and some of town’s history. What he finds to be
lacking in the empirical literature, is what he attempts to address in this work: “the
viewpoints of ordinary residents” (Doucet, 2009, p. 300). It is not clear if there was
formal representation from Leith residents in the planning process of the newly
developed areas.
Doucet wanted to document the reactions to large-scale, state-led gentrification
through interviews with "everyday citizens" and this author has tried to "extend"
Doucet's work, and the work of others cited in this section to understand
gentrification, as Doucet explains it, in a more "nuanced" way (Doucet, 2009, p. 313).
New Urbanism
New Urbanism is a both a philosophy of planning and of a particular
architecture that proposes to imitate the urban neighborhoods of America’s past,
neighborhoods that included storefront shops, small cafes and recreational areas,
where residents could walk to school and work, and because of closer proximity,
interrelate more as members of a community. Planners Andrés Duany, Jeff Speck,
and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk are generally regarded as the leaders of the New Urban
(or neotraditional) movement (Saab, 2007). The Charter of New Urbanism represents
the ideals of the members of the Congress for The New Urbanism, an organization of
planners, designers, policy advocates and scholars. It reads, in part:
The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central
cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and
income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and
66
wilderness, and the erosion of society’s built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge.
We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within
coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs
into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the
conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built
legacy. (Congress for New
Urbanism, 2001)
New Urbanists believe that because the American suburb is too spread out,
lacks communal spaces, forces residents to be automobile dependent and has led to the
loss of “community,” in the social sense. New Urban designers believe that planning is
a matter of function following form; build what looks like a community, and a truly
cohesive community will follow. Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck (2000), contend that
the design of the typical American tract suburb is not only wasteful of space and
automobile dependent, but is the cause of a number of negative sociological effects on
children and teens, including teen automobile deaths. They describe the “cul de sac
kids” and “bored teenagers” who live in such safe environs that they “cannot practice
being adults… frozen in a form of infancy, utterly dependent on others,[for
transportation], bereft of the ability to introduce variety in their own lives” (pp.116117). In defending New Urban development, especially green field [new]
development, Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck (2000) advise that, “designers should
endeavor to ensure that what gets built…is environmentally sound, economically
efficient and as socially just as possible"(p. 185). According to the American Planning
Association code of ethics (http://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode.htm) this is
essentially a description of responsible planning, and is not specific to New Urban
planning.
67
Canadian planning scholar Jill Grant has devoted a considerable amount of
research and attention to New Urbanism. And while she admires the architectural
beauty of some New Urban enclaves, she has serious reservations about New
Urbanism’s fit as a true planning theory. She writes:
In my view, planning must deal with issues of equity, power and
environmental sustainability. Can new urbanism deliver on its
promises in these areas? I find it deeply troubling that new urbanism
may provide justifications for reducing the number of public housing
units in the USA at a time when so many are homeless. I reject the
implicit new urban argument that growth can be good only if we get the
form correct: this logic ignores the environmental consequences of
escalating consumption processes and the social consequences of
economic stratification. I am dismayed that many new urbanists can
suggest that affordable housing is merely desirable, while they insist
upscale housing is essential. (Grant, 2006b, p. xvii)
New Urbanism has received a great deal of criticism for not actually
addressing the problems essential to the practice of planning, as Grant notes above, but
for marketing a nostalgia for the built form of an urban neighborhood without the mix
of classes and cultures (with accompanying conflicts) that characterize urban life. In
an opinion piece directed at New Urbanists, Alex Krieger, then Chairman of the
Department of Urban Planning and Design at Harvard University's Graduate School of
Design wrote:
To date you have helped produce: More subdivisions… than towns; an
increased reliance on private management of communities, not
innovative forms of elected local governance… relatively homogenous
demographic enclaves, not rainbow coalitions….The places you have
designed may express repressed longings for town life, but in fact are
sanitized versions that avoid the messier attributes of town life with
which Americans seem disenchanted…. (1998, para. 9)
Legal scholar Jeremy Meredith complains (2003) that while New Urbanists, in
their charter and elsewhere, recognize the need for dispersing poverty enclaves and for
68
equitable sharing of expanded tax base incomes, they offer no specific solutions, only
that these needs should be somehow addressed. He adds: “The failure to cure
segregation can in part be attributed in part to the high price of New Urbanism
dwellings. A residence in their communities comes not only at a high absolute price,
but also at a premium over similar properties in the market area” (2003, p. 492).
Hope VI and New Urbanism
In 1992, the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
Veteran’s Affairs created a program [via the Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act of 1993 [Pub.L. 102-389)] called Hope VI, to “eradicate severely distressed public
housing” (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2015). Under HOPE
VI, housing projects were razed, and housing voucher systems established, with the
goal of deconcentrating poor populations by distributing households into private
housing markets. When possible, new housing developments were built to replace
those demolished, using New Urban principles, and with the intent of including
residents that represented a mix in both income levels and racial demographics (Wyly
& Hammel, 2008). One of the criticisms of the Hope VI program is that it “allows
municipal governments to remove public housing units for the purpose of
redevelopment without one-for-one replacement” (Hackworth & Smith, 2001, p. 469).
In addition, local governments sold the land that former projects occupied as prime
gentrification real estate. Some former public housing project residents accepted
housing vouchers, but then were unable to find affordable units (Grant, 2006b). These
findings paint a substantially different picture of creating a "mixed income" Hope VI
neighborhood than that presented by the New Urban News staff, discussed in Chapter
1.
69
Tom Slater (2008) commented in an article which, in part, discussed the use of
Hope VI and New Urbanism in the reconstruction of post Katrina New Orleans (the
so-called Fourth Wave gentrification, as discussed above) : "… a vastly different
American urban landscape is being created by HOPE VI, an aggressive statesponsored gentrification strategy that has led to large-scale displacement of
predominantly black working-class people from central city neighbourhoods across
the country" (p. 213). He adds that the New Urban plan that was adopted to
reconstruct the devastated Ninth Ward "is not a plan that welcomes back all former
residents" (Slater, 2008 p. 220).
New Urbanism Creating Community
One of the main "selling points" of New Urbanism is that its "form"— more
explicitly housing that is close together, with short setbacks from sidewalks— will
naturally increase communication between neighbors and in turn increase a sense of
community, at least within the edges of the New Urban community itself. However,
researchers are at best ambivalent that function follows form in extant New Urban
developments (Clarke, 2005; Talen, 2000; Marcuse, 2000).
In the first place, how is community defined? Planning scholar Emily Talen
(2000) bemoans the historically elusive nature of this term, while noting its place as
the Holy Grail of the urban planner, and specifically of New Urban planners. Talen
(2000) questions whether the creation of community should even fall under the
purview of planners:
The compulsion of planners to hinge some of their activities on the idea
of creating a sense of community is, to many, both obvious and
warranted. But if this ideal is situated as an end goal rather than as a
fluid process, the ideal is difficult to support. To some extent, the
70
promotion of false connections between physical design and
community trivializes the concept of community. (p. 181)
Pro-New Urbanism author James Kunstler, in his 1996 book Home from
Nowhere, is more to the point:
A greater threat to the New Urbanism than ambitious stumbles like
Laguna West are the half-baked knockoffs and rip-offs that are
proliferating across the country, using the rhetoric about community as
a sales gimmick without delivering any real civic amenity. This kind of
fraud is pretty easy to pull off in a nation full of people who long to live
in real communities, but who have only the dimmest idea of what that
means in term of physical design. (p.194) 4
New Urbanism and Neoliberal Development
New Urban design has been call “neo-traditional” as it harkens back to design
resembling 19th Century urban neighborhoods of cities like New York and Chicago.
The main design principles include mixed-use (residential and commercial) buildings,
pedestrian-friendly, “walkable” and interconnected streets, well-defined civic centers
and limited automobile usage. Setbacks are short, and the village has a recognizable
“edge” (New Urban News, 2001). Housing design is to be high quality and varied
(Grant, 2006a) including town homes and free-standing single-family units, as well as
rental units if desired. These neighborhoods are meant to be within safe walking
distance of elementary schools and, whenever possible, close to public transit stations.
(Claymont’s aging train station is to be renovated as part of the larger redevelopment
scheme.) New Urbanism also purports to promote community via a participatory
design process known as a public “charrette” and by encouraging neighborly (albeit
4
Laguna West is a so-called "new urban" community developed near Sacremento, CA
in the early 1990s. It was later deemed to be in violation of many basic New Urban
tenets. http://www.demographia.com/db-nu-calgw.htm
71
within the village) interaction and patronage of village shops and restaurants (New
Urban News, 2001).
Planning scholar Jill Grant has been following the growth of New Urbanism;
she argues that, “Affordability, equity, and participation have sometimes proven
secondary to getting new urban projects built. While new urban principals promise
affordability and integration, to date most projects have created expensive and
exclusive enclaves” (Grant, 2006a p. 170). Professor of Architecture Paul Walker
Clarke is highly critical of New Urbanism, most especially for its “marketing” or
“commodification” of community. He questions the proof of “endangered”
community that required salvation via a set of specific design elements and also
wonders if a poor community has been proven to automatically be a “weak”
community. He concludes that “the essential question is whether community is a
construct of isolation, or can it be a celebration of racial, cultural, ethnic and economic
diversity?” (Clarke, 2005, p. 44). He also notes that while a few New Urban style
projects have been developed using Hope VI subsidies (discussed above), most New
Urban developments in the US have been privately built, and thus subject to the
neoliberal market-driven value of maximizing profits, which often prevents any
realization of economic diversity (Clarke, 2005).
Research Presuppositions
When thinking early on about my dissertation, I had presuppositions as a
resident of Claymont, about what my research might find. As I began to read empirical
gentrification research and also learn more about my theoretical framework and New
Urbanism, these presuppositions were developed further and are presented below.
Their veracity is examined in Chapter 6.
72
•
The place identity of Claymont had changed in a negative direction, especially
since the closing of Claymont High School in 1990, for enough certain selfappointed residents and merchants to seek a way to revitalize and save Claymont.
They reached out to private investors, local business and scholarly advisors and to
the County— which ultimately ended in the development of The Claymont
Renaissance Movement and the Hometown Overlay Plan that includes Darley
Green.
•
In an effort to achieve this “development deal,” the residents of Brookview, which
was owned by one landlord, were “demonized and punished” (technologies or
strategies of governmentality) for the development becoming run-down and crimeridden— even though residents’ complaints about poorly maintained units were
many. In a neoliberal way of thinking, the poorer residents living in Brookview
failed to muster the “entrepreneurial” (neoliberal) solutions required to save
themselves. The poor conditions and crime were seen as mainly their fault from
the perspective of those working to broker the development deal. Investors and
developers were enticed by county incentives (sewer access assistance, density
bonuses) to purchase and raze Brookview, with plans to triple housing density, in a
place where the main advantages are access to I-95 and Amtrak and a lower tax
base than neighboring Pennsylvania and New Jersey suburbs. Thus, out-of-state
middle class commuters, seeking “upscale” housing and sold on the promise of the
“walkable community” of new urban village are the target market. This is
neoliberal governance in full swing; the capital gains are of utmost importance.
•
Finally, because of the county’s redevelopment codes and rules, although there are
some benchmarks that a developer must achieve during this process (especially as
regards workforce housing), they are easily re-negotiated and there is no real timelimit on project completion. In essence, the property where roughly 450 residents
previously lived, presently exists mainly as mounds of weed-covered, fenced-in
dirt and can remain so indefinitely, although building has begun on one perimeter,
and units have been sold. This advantages the developers, who can presumably
also sell these “approved plans” to another developer without any additional
approval process when the time is right to turn a profit or to take advantage of a
capital loss tax write-off. This is, again, a neoliberal style system that favors even
the potential market gain, in spite of what a slowed, stalled process could mean to
the place identity and future hopes of the host community residents and merchants.
•
It was my assumption that I would find that many residents and merchants were
not at all involved in the processes that led to the choice to develop a “New Urban
Village” in Claymont. I suspected that many will be resigned to its incongruous fit
with its surroundings as part of a process that happens “somewhere” but whose
central actors do not feel compelled to make more than the minimum required
efforts to elicit community input. I am especially uncomfortable with the way the
73
residents of Brookview were summarily “eliminated." I personally know people
who were living in Brookview before it was razed— they agree that there were
severe problems, but also that many who lived there were long-time neighbors and
had nurtured a culture that was not acknowledged. Improvements in a town do not
always have to be for capital gain alone— yet, as some of the empirical literature
reviewed above shows, it is seldom that other goals, such as the provision of
affordable housing for the poor and elderly, and the preservation of identity, are
seriously considered unless residents can muster the capacity to fight for them.
I am most interested in how this New Urban project (with its promise of
“community”) is perceived by the remaining residents and merchants as the solution
that was the “best fit” for our ailing hometown, and whether there was effort to elicit a
desired new “place identity” during the planning process.
However, I must consider that my opinions may be mine alone; many may see
this as Claymont’s great, and perhaps, last hope for any kind of revival, and do not
care that they were not consulted. I hope to have a better understanding via this
research.
Summary
This chapter includes reviews of literature pertaining to the two elements of the
theoretical framework for this study, neoliberalism and governmentality, including the
2008 neoliberal "crisis" in the bursting of the housing bubble. It also includes an
overview of gentrification and a brief history of gentrification via the "wave theory"
with empirical research examples of each wave. Empirical studies that focused on
non-gentrifiers; the gap in gentrification research this study set out to address, are
reviewed in detail, and their implications for this research are discussed. This is
followed by an overview and critique of New Urbanism and its role in current
gentrification efforts. Finally, this author offers four presuppositions, or "hypotheses"
that were formulated prior to beginning the case study interviews.
74
Discussion
The literature reviewed above provided this author a rich context with which to
analyze respondents' perceptions. Governance via public-private collaboration,
especially in the run-down industrial suburb, is recognized as neoliberalism operating
at the grassroots level; as a way to rally support for to take advantage of market-driven
capital production. Property redevelopment (including gentrification) is cited again
and again as one of the main engines of this production, with the goal of improving
local economies. These efforts privilege private capital gain over inclusive, equitable
redistribution of wealth and opportunity. In addition, as Claymont is an unincorporated
town, the public-private partnership (which includes Claymont organizations
comprised of unelected residents and merchants) is its de facto municipal government.
Govermentality meshes with neoliberalism as offering an explanation of the
manipulation of populations— the "how" of the work of these public-private
governance collaborations— which are not easily recognized or observed by the
public. This manipulation, according to Michel Foucault, is achieved via various
"techniques" including the use of statistics, policing efforts, market studies, inclusive
planning processes— even neoliberal theory itself, etc. to encourage a population to
favor the agenda of the collaborators. Gentrification is a technique, re-imagined in its
third wave as a noble-sounding "renaissance" effort. Revanchism, the targeting of a
particular area or population in a way that incites public opinion against it is a
neoliberal Foucauldian technique of particular interest to this study.
The "crisis" of neoliberalism, or the bursting of the housing bubble is
especially important to this research, as the actions of Claymont's gentrification
straddle this event. The timing of Claymont's renaissance and effort to nearly triple
the housing units in an area during an inflated housing market could hardly be a
75
coincidence. However, this "bursting" became an ugly incident of a neoliberalist
"blindness" in a catastrophic, indeed, criminal failure to regulate such an important
part of the US economy. The effect on this current research, the stalling of the entire
process, will be examined in the findings.
Gentrification and its generally negative history are obviously important to this
author's research. By definition, gentrification, whether called urban renewal or
renaissance, involves the displacement of some portion of a community and change, of
varying degree, to the essential character of that area of a community (if not the entire
community). It most often involves a portion of a community that is already
disadvantaged economically and in its agency. The "wave" theory of gentrification
notes that the process logically follows economic cycles and opportunities.
An empirical study in 2006, representing the third wave, a study of an
industrial working class suburb of Dundalk, Maryland conducted by Christopher
Niedt, is similar in many ways to this author's research, and as such, provided
important perspectives. Niedt notes that industrial work class suburbs like Dudalk and
Claymont, are markedly different from upper class suburbs in several essential
characteristics— especially changes (discussed in detail above) that resulted in
working class residents struggling to maintain home ownership while real estate
values dropped, making it easier for poorer renters, especially Section 8 renters, to
move in. Eventually, these communities became ideal for targets for developers to
take advantage of government and privately-backed gentrification schemes.
The empirical studies of gentrification that included or focused on nongentrifiers provided this researcher with support to examine this phenomenon at the
"human" rather than theoretical level. Data was resourced by either quoting material
76
from documents or from excerpting transcribed interviews. In this way, the
perceptions of those living through the gentrification process remains the central
focus, as was the original intention of this researcher.
New Urbanism literature was studied as the developers of Darley Green and
the leaders of the Claymont Renaissance prominently featured this planning style as
part of marketing schemes. New Urbanism is touted as the answer to "suburban
sprawl" and automobile dependency. It is by design, high density development,
making it attractive to developers and politicians alike. Reactions to the philosophies
and architectural standards of New Urbanism (discussed above) are part of this
research, especially its claims to create a diverse "mixed economy" community and to
blend newly built new urban homes and shops with the older architecture of the area.
77
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
As described in Chapter 1, this research focuses on the perceptions of a
gentrification project called Darley Green, in Claymont, Delaware. It also highlights
the effects of “Neo-Foucauldian,” neo-liberal governance process, in which major
decisions for a community are made via collaborations between official and nonofficial parties for capital gain. In the case of Claymont, there is the additional
condition of the lack of a local municipal government; Claymont is an unincorporated
town.
78
Table 3.1
The following chart represents the organization of the research:
RESEARCH QUESTION
DATA SOURCES
METHODOLOGY FOR
DATA ANALYSIS
News Journal Articles
Document /archival analysis
RQ 1.
What is the historical context
of the changing place identity
of Claymont?
Brandywine Community News
Delaforum Blog
Delaware Today Magazine
County Documents
Semi-structured interviews of
five residents chosen for their
specific community ties using
purposeful sampling.
RQ2.
What kind of town is
Claymont now?
Qualitative data analysis, open
coding
residents and merchants using
Theoretically-informed
qualitative data analysis,
theoretically informed and open
coding.
coding.
coding.
RQ3.
What are perceptions of
residents and merchants
concerning the removal of
Brookview and the
development of Darley
Green?
RQ4.
What are the general
expectations of the residents
and merchants for the future
of Claymont as the
gentrification process
continues?
79
Rewriting of Research Questions
The four research questions above were not my original research questions.
The original three were:
RQ1: What is the historical context of the changing place identity of Claymont?
(Unchanged)
RQ2: What are the changes, if any, of the place identity of Claymont (the host
community) for residents and merchants due to the removal of Brookview
and the development of Darley Green?
RQ3: What are the general expectations for the future of Claymont of the
residents and merchants?
After discussion with my dissertation chair, I changed my research questions to
more accurately reflect what I was attempting to research. Early in my research
process, I realized that I wanted to learn more about the entire project. I still was
interested in the change in "place identity," but I was also interested in the
interviewees' views of the gentrification process and the future of their town. Robert
Stake (1995) discusses changing research questions in case study research: "Initial
research questions may be modified or even replaced mid-study by the case
researcher…. If the early questions are not working, or if new issues become apparent,
the design is changed" (p. 9).
Why Qualitative Design and Why A Case Study?
In choosing to study this process in Claymont, I chose a qualitative approach
for traditional social science reasons: “to provide illumination and understanding of
complex psychosocial issues… humanistic ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions” (Marshall,
1996, p. 522).
Joseph Maxwell (2005) breaks qualitative research into five intellectual goals:
understanding meaning, understanding particular context, identifying unanticipated
80
phenomena, understanding process and developing causal explanations and three
practical goals: generating results and theories that are understandable and
experientially credible, conducting informative evaluations, ones that are intended to
help improve existing practice, and engaging in collaborative research or action with
practitioners or research participants (pp. 22-24).
I chose the case study methodology, because it is meant to provide the
researcher with the opportunity to pursue information until saturation is reached—
enough information to make some fairly reasonable conclusions about that particular
case. Yin (2009) describes the scope of a case study as "an empirical inquiry that: [a]
investigates a contemporary phenomenon in-depth and within its real-life context,
especially when [b] the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly
evident" (p. 18).
Yin also recommends a case study for researchers who want to understand the
"how and why" of a particular contemporary phenomenon. My research intentions
were just that, with the caveat of understanding the "how and why" of this via the
perceptions of respondents; to understand their versions of the how and why of this
process. As one of my advisors astutely pointed out in my proposal defense, the how
and why of this situation via the agendas of the political, commercial and community
leaders was easily found in the press. I therefore dropped my original intention to also
interview members of these groups, although I did have contact with county officials
and the head of the Claymont Renaissance Corporation periodically throughout the
process, to obtain factual information I could not find in other ways. Listening to their
"side" of things also helped keep by personal biases in check.
81
In his book, The Art of Case Study Research, Robert Stake (1995) writes, "We
study a case when it itself is of very special interest. We look for the detail of
interaction with its contexts. Case study is the study of the particularity and
complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important
circumstances” (p. xi). This is exactly what I wanted to do with this research,
understand how this particular type of gentrification happened to a particular town
called Claymont and even more specifically, how this was perceived by those who
live/work close to the site of the gentrification development.
Why choose this smaller set? In my work as a medical social worker, I worked
mainly with cancer patients. I learned that when a patient is found to have what
appears to be a cancerous growth, the "sentinel" lymph node or nodes, that is, the
lymph nodes closest to the growth, is often removed first, to see if the cancer has
spread outside the site of original tumor. The term "sentinel" is used for its original
meaning; these first nodes "guard" the tumor, as a sentinel soldier might guard a
tower. I decided to, in a broad sense, speak to the "sentinels" of this gentrification
process; those residents and merchants who stand to take the greatest impact, being
very close, if not immediately adjacent to the gentrification site.
After studying a particular case, the researcher can then back out to a wider
view of the problem and extrapolate to general conclusions on a limited basis— this
and issues of validity and reliability will be discussed in depth later in this chapter.
The overall structure of my research is the “case” of the development of Darley
Green in Claymont, DE. I obtained much information and guidance from the
structured interviews. These interviews are “large enough to be considered a whole,
and small enough to be possible to keep in mind as a context for the meaning unit [or
82
coding unit] during the analysis process” (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004, p. 106). The
specific unit of analysis in this case study is the process by which Darley Green came
to be and its effect as perceived by members of the public.
Sampling
For Research Question One, I gathered historical information about the “place
identity” of Claymont, covering the period from approximately 1955 until the present.
An informal discussion with a member of the Delaware Heritage Commission
revealed some of the possible reasons that Claymont did not incorporate, as well as the
de facto leadership and town identity that developed over the years. For example,
among other organizations, he explained that for many years, the Lions Club was a
powerful force in Claymont, the members serving as the town’s “elders”— therefore, I
interviewed a long-time Claymont Lion’s Club member. Claymont High School was
an important unifying force in the town— with many residents attending the school’s
football games and other activities. When the high school closed its doors in 1990, it
was an enormous let down for the area which had already suffered from loss of many
high paying steel mill and other manufacturing jobs. Therefore, I interviewed two
individuals (one former parent and one alumna) with connections to Claymont High
School. The Claymont Fire Company has also been a well-known "center" and
meeting place for the town— a member of the fire company was interviewed as well.
Finally, the maintenance of Claymont's heritage has long been important to many
residents, and has been a unifying force in the town. A member of Claymont's
Historical Society was therefore also interviewed. These interviews took place at
either the respondent's homes or places of association to Claymont between June 2011
and January 2012. The interviews ranged from roughly 45 to 90 minutes in length.
83
For these five interviews only, respondents were shown photos of Claymont
landmarks, some in present form and some in past, in the hope of eliciting
memories/reactions. These respondents were two men and three women, ranging in
from 56 to 89 years of age.
For Research Questions 2, 3, 4, I interviewed eight merchants and eight
residents. "Merchants" are either the owner or the manager of a business. The
interview respondents ranged in age from 30 to 79; four females and twelve males.
The interviews ranged in length from 15 minutes to more than one hour, with an
average length of about 40-45 minutes. These interviews were conducted in the
merchants' place of business or the residents' homes, with the exception of one
resident, who was interviewed in a local restaurant. These interviews took place
between January and November, 2013. All of these respondents where chosen for
their location quite near to or immediately adjacent the gentrification site.
84
Figure 3.1
Area of Interviews (inside oval)
Revealing the nature of the merchant's businesses would allow them to be
easily identified, so I have deleted any direct references, or disguised them with a
neutral word such as "business" instead of steak shop, as an example.
These interviews were transcribed and coded by the author. First, the
interviews were coded based on the theoretical framework components: neoliberalism
and governmentality and also for factors concerning place identity and new urbanism.
More inductive codes were added as the interviews were re-coded for a total of 79
codes. Based on an inductive process, categories were created with the codes. Using a
similar inductive process, patterns among categories yielded three themes. This
analytic structure is illustrated in the codebook that can be found in Appendix B.
85
Place Identity
Place identity is a term that used here to describe how individuals related to
and felt about Claymont, and their opinions of any changes, positive or negative, that
occurred in the town. This was meant to illustrate a "civic climate" that contributed to
the Claymont renaissance movement.
Environmental and social psychologists define "place-identity" as part of an
individual's overall identity— which includes an individual's thoughts about place. As
social psychologists Lee Cuba & David Hummon (1993) explain:
Like other forms of identity, place identity answers the question— Who
am I?— by countering—Where am I? or Where do I belong? From a
social psychological perspective, place identities are thought to arise
because places, as bounded locales imbued with personal, social, and
cultural meanings, provide a significant framework in which identity is
constructed, maintained and transformed. (p. 112)
In a separate work, David Hummon (1990) extends this to "community
identity":
A community identity may be thus defined as an interpretation of the
self that uses community as a locus of attachment or an image for, or an
image for self-characterization…. [Community identity] identifies the
individual with place through the construction of ties to a form of
community (p.143.)
Hummon (1990) goes on to discuss the cultural ideals of forms of the
community—cities, suburbs, small towns, villages and rural areas. He then proposes
that these "ideals" are what individuals use to account for problems such as crime,
unfriendliness, crowded living situations, etc.
Claymont began as a small town, and then suburbs replaced the rural areas that
previously surrounded it. The ideals of both small town and suburban life are reflected
in the respondents answers, and they did, indeed, as Hummon suggested, use the ideals
of these spaces to explain what has changed in Claymont over their various lengths of
86
residencies or work/volunteer tenures. Their approval/disapproval of these changes as
well as their explanations and even solutions of problem changes is part of what was
sought by this research. The two concepts cited in existing literature of place identity
and community identity in combination, give the reader a better understanding of the
original intent of this research.
Reliability and Validity
Issues of reliability and validity have long plagued qualitative research, and to
some, render it “less rigorous” than quantitative studies. Much work has been done to
battle these negative opinions. Andreas Riege, a marketing and business researcher,
analyzed the ways in which qualitative researchers, and specifically case study
researchers, have addressed the issues of construct, internal and external validity as
well as types of reliability. He further breaks these down by paradigm and gives
examples from authorities:
87
Table 3.2
Table of Reliability and Validity
PARADIGM
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY
Yin, R. (1994)
Denzin & Lincoln
(1994)
Lincoln & Guba
(1985)
Construct Validity
Internal Validity
External Validity
Reliability
Hirshman (1986)
Miles &
Huberman (1994)
Robson (1993)
Construct Validity
Internal Validity
External Validity
Reliability
(revised edition)
POSTITIVISM
Construct Validity
Internal Validity
External Validity
Reliability
REALISM (PostPositivism)
Credibility
Trustworthiness
Confirmability
Dependability
Objectivity,
neutrality
Credibility
Transferability
Dependability
Confirmability
CRITICAL THEORY
&
CONSTRUCTIVISM
Credibility
Transferability
Dependability
Confirmability
Source: Excerpted from Riege, 2003, p. 80
Credibility, Transferability, Dependability and Confirmability are concepts
attributed to Lincoln & Guba (Marshall & Rossman, 2006) but all the “authorities”
above reference them. These terms will be explored further below as they have been
applied to qualitative research and more specifically, case study research.
In their book, Naturalistic Inquiry (1985) Lincoln and Guba reflect on the rise
of the “naturalistic” paradigm (which for them includes post-positivism, qualitative,
case study, etc., as terms for non-quantitative research) challenging the scientific
empirical paradigm, and in fact arguing that some of the tightly held tenets of
88
positivism (such as the lack of any effect on outcome by the nature of the
experimenter) are not on such solid ground (p. 7). They go on to instruct the reader on
how to conduct “naturalistic” or qualitative inquiry, and address matters of validity
and reliability, what they generally call “trustworthiness” with the four concepts
mentioned above.
Credibility
Credibility, per Lincoln & Guba, “is the naturalists’ substitute for…internal
validity…[and] becomes a two-fold task: first to carry out the inquiry in such a way
that the probability that the findings will be found credible is enhanced, and…to
demonstrate the credibility of the findings by having them approved by the
constructors of the multiple realities being studied” (1985, p. 296). How does the
researcher ensure that the qualitative research is credible? Techniques include member
checks (returning to interview respondents and have them review the results of their
own contributions), triangulation of information via documents and observation, and
clear representation of the researcher’s biases and theoretical framework, selfmonitoring, e.g., journaling (Riege, 2003). The explanation of the conduct of the
research should also be transparent, as well as the limits of the study, in such a way
that all involved in the subject would recognize and agree that it is a true
representation (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Qualitative case study techniques
corresponding to internal validity include explanation building— presenting an initial
“theory” of the case and then building and revising the explanation via an iterative
process that includes several examinations of data, as well as purposeful identification
of rival explanations of the data that shows these are not supported (Yin, 2009).
89
To these ends, I kept a paper as well as electronic record of each interview.
Interviews were conducted face to face, and respondents were asked to be contacted
again for follow-up questions and/or “member checks” to ensure credibility. A guide
for semi-structured interviews was prepared, and some background information about
each respondent was collected to help interpret responses. Interviews were held in
quiet spaces whenever possible (Bryman, 2004). I also kept a running list of memos
as I transcribed interviews, read and processed additional material, and when I formed
ideas that I deemed warranted further investigation. Since this document was not
dated, it cannot be properly defined as a journal, but it has served the same purpose.
For Research Question One, triangulation was established via the use of
multiple data sources that included document sources and quotes from stakeholders
via newspapers and other publications.
For Research Questions Two, Three and Four, member check packets, which
included a letter, a list of finding highlights as well as more an in-depth explanations
of findings were sent to all 16 respondents who were asked to respond within a twoweek period. There were also informed that I would be adding theoretical analysis to
these findings. It was implied in my member letter that if I did not receive a response
by a given date, the assumption was that the respondent did not wish to add input.
There were two responses, both of which indicated that the respondent was satisfied
with the summaries and there were no returned letters. In addition, some issues of fact
were checked against documents and through personal communication with officials.
The member check letter and highlights summary can be found in Appendix C. Since
the time of the member check, my analysis has continued through more iterations.
However, the summaries adequately represent the major findings.
90
Transferability
Transferability is Lincoln & Guba’s equivalent term for external validity or
generalizability. As they note, the notion of producing a “generalized theory” is
contrary to the very nature of specific context-oriented research. They also note that
even scientific information is really only generalizable from lab to lab— as this is
really the only way to control variables— a situation which is impossible in the field
(Lincoln and Guba, 1986). The researcher can also compare his/her findings to extant
literature concerning a similar subject and population (Riege, 2003).
Joseph Maxwell (2005) refers this aspect of case study research as being
“particularistic as opposed to generalistic”— that the case study can “confidently
answer” questions about a particular situation (p. 71) and that its value is its depth of
investigation (using “thick” or detailed description). As Robert Stake (2010) explains
about generalization and qualitative research: “The purpose of qualitative research is
usually not to reach general social study understandings, but understandings about a
particular situation. By understanding better the complexity of the situation, we should
contribute to setting policy of professional practice” (p. 65).
In addition, Stake describes all research, quantitative and qualitative as an
accretive process. Researchers are slowly building up an ever-more complex and
informed understanding of various phenomena. And because researchers themselves
are human, they enter their practice with their own initial encounters of the subject that
have produced experience and expectation. He explains, “Even as we particularize,
such as writing about one clinic or one firehouse, we make petite generalizations….
We generalize. We transfer. We extrapolate. It is difficult to specify the limits or risks
of the generalization, but we often generalize from specific situations” (Stake, 2010, p.
198).
91
Stake also refers to "naturalistic" generalization from case study research. In
this, he refers to a researcher's ability to provide a reader with such an evocative
description of the context of findings that the reader can easily (or naturally) see its
application in similar contexts, even if the actual research subject is quite different. To
use classic gentrification research as an example, when one group or population is
displaced by another, there is an impact on the displaced group. This specific context
of displacement could be applied or transferred to other gentrification or nongentrification scenarios (Stake, 2010).
Dependability
Dependability is the qualitative equivalent to reliability. Dependability is
concerned with consistency in both process and design. As Riege (2003) explains,
dependability should answer the questions: “Are the research questions clear and are
the features of the study design congruent with them, and have things been done with
reasonable care?” (p. 82). Dependability is meant to be part of the initial case study
research design process (Riege, 2003; Yin, 2009).
Confirmability
Per Riege (2003), confirmability is “analogous to the notion of neutrality and
objectivity in positivism, corresponding closely to construct validity…[and] assesses
the extent to which the conclusions are the most reasonable ones obtained by the data
(p. 81). While confirmability may be ultimately judged at the conclusion of my
research, I elicited the advice of colleagues and advisors throughout the process, to
maintain mindfulness of my own biases, and reviewing early conclusions (Marshall &
Rossman, 2006; Riege, 2003).
92
Personal Biases
My personal biases are certainly many; I was raised in Claymont and I returned
there ten years ago to purchase and live in my childhood home. I have fond memories
of Claymont High School and Claymont-sponsored recreational activities, and had
friends that lived in Brookview, the development that was razed. My own place
identity of Claymont is that it is my hometown and that it is a working class town—
the steel mill glow and the smell of nearby chemical plants and refineries, the sounds
of fog horns on the Delaware River and late night freight trains are still part of my
daily life. (And, we are a union family— my father worked for the CSX railroad and is
still a member of the United Transportation Workers union.) I do not like that many
of the stores I grew up going to on Philadelphia Pike (the main corridor through
Claymont) have been replaced by title loan stores, dollar stores, nail salons and
gambling parlors any more than the people I interviewed do. But I understand, from
my social work perspective that these stores serve the poorer residents, who can walk
or take buses to these stores. In this case, I felt less resentment about these stores than
those I interviewed.
I first learned about the plan to raze Brookview when I was working at a local
hospital as a social worker; this was several years before I entered graduate school. I
happened to care for the step-mother of one of the initial investors. His father, who
was often present, and with whom I developed a relationship, proudly told me of his
son's involvement. I am first and foremost a social worker, so my first thought was
about the implications for the people who were being displaced. Where were they
going to go? How could this happen? Truthfully, I did not think much more about it
until I began graduate school in 2008. At the same time, I was running a brain cancer
support group at a local non-profit. A couple in the group happened to be Brookview
93
residents who were to be displaced. The husband was very involved in the tenants'
organization; I eventually sat down with them to hear their side of the story. Again,
my social worker self was upset, as now I knew two people were affected, but the
husband's militant attitude toward some of the county officials and other involved
parties threw me— I knew some of them as well. I felt compelled to defend them.
Still, I was upset by the situation. On the other hand, as a local resident, I knew how
bad Brookview was; I knew it was a drug and crime hotspot. I had started to hear
stories about how bad some of the units were in terms of sanitation. Now my social
worker self wanted to get those people out of there— I was told the county was
helping with relocation, and even spoke with the county official who had been in
charge of that process, albeit for another school project. I felt a bit relieved, but I heard
some stories about the older people who were displaced— that they missed their old
neighborhood, stores, etc. Still, I felt they were better off. But my major bias was that I
felt that the minority population in Brookview was being targeted. I had heard people
call the residents "low lifes" and other derogatory names. This did not sit well with my
liberal self. I felt righteous indignation that the residents of Brookview were being
"demonized" as monolithic group.
Then when I heard what type of development was coming in to replace
Brookview and that some of the homes would be priced as high $500,000, I realized
that this was gentrification. I did not know much about it, but now I was going to
study it. I watched a video called "Flag Wars" that focused on the gentrification of a
mostly African-American neighborhood with a gay population that was also wealthier.
This was good for me, as now I was torn between the rights of two groups for whom I
am sympathetic politically. Still, it seemed the gentrifiers were more organized and
94
more powerful than the original population. As I learned more about gentrification,
this seemed to be the norm.
Finally, I identify myself teasingly as a "Claymontser." This term originated at
the high school, but over the years, after Claymont being repeatedly referred to in the
local press and a "gritty, blue collar working class town," and truthfully, as Claymont's
population seemed to change and get poorer and tougher, the term came to have a
different meaning. I feel a smug pride about coming from such a "rough" place.
People are surprised when I tell them I am a "Claymonster." But actually, I would not
have even gone to Claymont High School; by the time I was ready to go, my
development had been put into the Mount Pleasant District. I was also destined for
Catholic High School, but even so, I did not like it. I had gone to the local parish
school, first through eighth grade; many of my former classmates went to Claymont
and I played summer recreational sports with them. Also, I remember community
work I had done in the 80s, when I learned how distraught the men were who had been
let go from high-paying jobs at the steel mill. There were rumors of suicides, and
parents working three and four jobs to try to maintain their lifestyles and keep their
children in college, etc.
All of this later led me to choose my theories for my framework as I felt both
neoliberalism and governmentality fit my own perceptions of what was happening.
My committee chair at the time, who shares my political leanings, was fine with these
choices. However, she and other advisors warned, as I knew, that I had to be very
careful when doing my interviews, especially in the main "research" section— those in
the second group. For that reason, I made sure I didn't interview anyone I knew other
than by remote acquaintance. Also, having worked as a mental health clinician since
95
1995, I am used to having to guard myself during interviews. I felt certain I could
maintain a neutral "tone" throughout the interviews. I feel that I did so; especially
since I was surprised by much of what I heard. Sometimes, in an interview, a person
would ask me a question that might head toward me supplying them with
information— I would just shrug or smile and indicate that I couldn't speak to that
during the interview. I also decided to interview residents who live very close to the
development site and not spiral out to the newer suburbs as had been discussed at one
time. I did this because that was the group I was interested in, but also, I live in on the
other side of town, and I knew that my experience of this development as just a town
resident, had been completely different. It impacted me not one bit.
During the interviews, I felt I was neutral. I did not hide that I was from
Claymont— but a few people did apologize for their negative views of the
development and for damning politicians, assuming that's not what I wanted to hear. I
told them I only was interested in what they thought, and reminded them I would not
be identifying them. I learned so much from them and then learned the counterpoints
from reading interviews from stakeholders and also periodically sitting down with or
contacting New Castle County and Renaissance officials to clear up some confusing
aspects about the planning process itself. I contacted James Kunstler, an
internationally known social critic and also a pro-New Urbanist. At first he read me
the riot act for being a kind of "bleeding heart liberal social worker" and then he
taught me some things about New Urbanism, which I reference in this document.
During the analyzing process, and while writing up findings, especially for the
second set of questions— the more central of my research" questions, I was mindful of
trying to be "fair" and not just present opinions with which I might agree. This led to
96
my putting in nearly every response to each question, which was going too far— so I
had to go back and take out quotes, or mention opinions as part of the general write
up. As I have come to understand, when people recommend another person for an
interview, they are most likely going to recommend someone with like-minded
opinions. This is a research limit I mention later. I re-read the interviews for the
second set of research questions again after several drafts of write-ups, and modified a
few places. It is difficult; there were very few all or nothing responses, which is good
for nuance, but adds complexity to deciding how to categorize responses.
Because there were many sources for the first research question, and it is
intended to provide historical context, I was a bit more concerned with not including a
response I knew to be historically untrue or distorted. Naturally, those posting to a
Claymont High School Alumni website are going to be negative about their school
being closed down, so the balance of information from news sources was good. I
knew two of the respondents for the history section— one only as the father of large
family in our Parish, one of them a fellow classmate. The other was a friend, and while
I expected her to have some of the same political views as I did, I also knew that she
would have no problem speaking her mind, even if she thought it was contrary to what
I thought. She had gone to Claymont High School, and I wanted to speak to someone
who had attended the school in its "hey-day." As with all of the interviewees, I
learned things from her that I never knew before; we had never discussed it. Writing
up this section was just more complex, trying to interweave the various sources in a
way that made narrative sense and also remained as "factual" as possible while
conveying the "place identity" context I was looking for.
97
With my personal biases clearly revealed, the importance of checking and
verifying data and early synthesis throughout the process cannot be overstated. As
Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers (2002) state: “We suggest that by focusing on
strategies to establish trustworthiness at the end of the study, rather than focusing on
processes of verification during the study, the investigator runs the risk of missing
serious threats to reliability and validity until it is too late to correct them” (p. 14).
Data Analysis
In conducting this research, I transcribed interviews myself, which was a long
process, but one that allowed me time to develop a better understanding of the
responses. As previously stated, this process is iterative, therefore, as per Bloomberg
and Volpe's (2008) advice; I re-read transcripts, documents, memos and notes and
began to distill codes from this process. This was repeated several more times,
especially when new material came to light (Côté, Salmela, Baria, & Russell, 1993).
New insights were added throughout the process.
After codes were established, coded material was evaluated and grouped into
categories that seemed logical according to content. However, I asked one of my
advisors to look at my first pass at my developing my code book. She determined that
I needed to reorganize my code and categories in a way that more closely matched
what I was after: perceptions of my respondents. With her guidance, the revised
categories were then again scrutinized and grouped together in an order that produced
themes, which, in turn, provided a basis for a narrative description of the data and
emergent findings.
Using this method, I hope I achieved what Seidel (1998) describes: 1) to make
some type of sense out of each collection, 2) look for patterns and relationships both
98
within a collection, and also across collections, and 3) to make general discoveries
about the phenomena [I am] researching (p. 5). Finally, I compared the themes and
patterns that emerged from my various sources, and constructed a narrative that
includes exemplars (representative quotes) and supports my conclusions and
recommendations.
Summary
Qualitative research, as physician and researcher Kirsti Malterud (2001) aptly
explains, generates “large amounts of information, and analysis implies abstraction
and some degree of generalization… analysis of qualitative data involves
decontextualization and recontextualization” (p. 486). My research generated a great
deal of data, both from transcribed interviews and from documents and other sources.
As Malterud indicates, this process then involved dismantling what I had gathered, in
order to identify information relevant to my research questions, and then reassembling
my findings and conclusions about those findings into a narrative that stays true to the
factual elements as well as captures the essence of human experiences.
Therefore, as an overlay to these “contextual, personal” theories, I added the
theoretical framework that views this process as neoliberal governance, with economic
gain as the presiding goal of coalitions of private, quasi-governmental and
governmental agencies working in concert to achieve it. This may be just another way
of stating the facts of what happened and not a judgment.
I hope, to the best of my abilities, that I have been able to “remain open, use
sensitivity, creativity and insight, and be willing to relinquish any ideas that are poorly
supported” (Morse, et al., 2002, p. 18). As has been discussed above, I bring my own
preconceived theories and assumptions as any researcher does to my work, and the
99
reflexive and iterative elements— the many checks and balances— of qualitative
research are not meant to hide my biases, but to allow them to become a transparent
part of the final narrative.
This research was conducted from a critical theory perspective; I hope that my
research enlightens those who are interviewed and places the process of land use
planning in a larger context of governance, albeit at a local level.
Limits of the Study
As illuminated above, I strove to maintain intellectual rigor in my qualitative
research via various trustworthiness strategies, in the way that a quantitative or
“scientific” researcher does through careful control, randomness, etc. But unlike
quantitative researchers— I cannot use the world as my research population, nor
control for the infinite number of variables and possible rogue exceptions.
As Marshall & Rossman (2006) explain, “ Limitations derive from the
conceptual framework and the study’s design…[it] is bounded and situated in specific
context” (p. 42). Therefore, as I looked at what occurred during this development
process in a small town in a small state, I also tried to observe this process through the
lens of “neoliberal governmentality.”
In this work in particular, because I am close to the subject matter, my biases
are important limitations, but also added a perspective unique to that of an “insider.”
Other limits include the small sample, purposeful sampling, and Claymont's own
unique qualities as a non-incorporated town, a border town, and a town with a long
history before it became suburbanized.
Other more practical limits are the availability and cooperation of respondents,
and this author's time limits to transcribe and analyze interviews. Interviewing
100
merchants close to the site skewed my sample to the male side; all merchants but one
were male. Interviewing residents close to the site, I also did not capture any renters—
all residents interviewed were home-owners.
Another limitation was the lack of a complete indexed resource for the main
local newspaper, The News Journal. Therefore, the author had to rely on the private
collections of friends, some respondents, the incomplete collections kept by The
Wilmington Public Library and Delaware Historical Society libraries as well as the
database ProQuest, which covers the paper from 1999, albeit selectively. Some older
clippings and even newer downloads from ProQuest are missing author or pagination
information.
The design of this research purposefully limits information from major key
informants and investors, in order to focus on the perceptions of the desired target
groups. This gentrification project is also just beginning.
101
Chapter 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
RQ1 What is the historical context of the changing place identity of Claymont?
Introduction
The first research question posed is meant to elicit a sense of how the residents
and former residents of Claymont feel about and refer to the town, defined as place
identity for this study, and how this identity has changed since the late 1950s, if it has
at all. This is inferred through the words of its citizens from direct interviews by this
author and from quotes or direct attributions from various documents; therefore, the
information gleaned is meant to express the subjective place identity of those cited.
There is no attempt by this author to validate historical information provided
by these sources as the research interest is in perception. However, some factual
information is provided to promote the narrative. What is sought are the sentiments of
those quoted expressed directly or by inference about Claymont as it has changed
since the post-WWII era, to establish a context, or "back story" for the more recent
actions of the Claymont Renaissance, and specifically, its premier project, the Darley
Green gentrification project, and main subject of this research.
Five interviewees were chosen by recommendation for their connection to
Claymont organizations, as discussed in the previous chapter.
The other main resources for this chapter (which are meant to triangulate
interview information, or provide some factual information) are articles from
102
Delaware's main newspaper, The News Journal, and articles from various printed and
electronic sources.
Claymont, similar to many small towns along the East Coast, has a long, welldocumented history, dating back to aboriginal settlements during The Middle
Woodland Period, from 1200-1600 BC (Scheik & Hester, 2000). Its growth after
World War II followed a pattern that would probably describe any number of North
American coastal towns and regions: when the post-war suburban expansion began,
Claymont had mainly been a small, "company mill town," and much of its non-farm
housing was built by the owners of the industries that grew there in the early 1900s.
Developers grabbed up farmland and other lots during the post-war boom, and later,
"white flight" from troubled urban areas increased demand for single-family homes
and rental housing, accommodating the growing automobile-centered life in the US
(Scheik & Hester, 2000).
Claymont, like many "places" in Delaware, has no municipal authority of its
own. There are only 57 incorporated villages, towns or cities in Delaware according
to the US Census Bureau. This is the unlike the neighboring states of Pennsylvania
and New Jersey, where unincorporated places must be attached in a formal way to a
governing municipality. Claymont is recognized by the Census Bureau as both a CDP
(Census Designated Place) and as a Zip Code.
In Claymont, the first level of elected government authority is New Castle
County. In place of a local elected authority, voluntary representation via civic
associations and other organizations has acted as the de facto organizing and
governing system in Claymont (Scheik & Hester, 2000). Before being dismantled in
1980, the Claymont School District was also a leading organizing body for Claymont.
103
Timeline
It may be helpful for the reader to have a basic timeline of events in Claymont that are
touched upon in this chapter:
Table 4.1
Timeline of Significant Events in Claymont
1924
Claymont High School Opens
1950
Brook-view opens
1955+
Post-WWII Sub-burbs Built
1950, '60s, 70s
1978
Late 1970s+
Claymont Thrives
Desegregation Ordered
Drug Culture Grows
1980
Claymont District Closes
1987
Steel Mill Closes
1990
Claymont High School Closes
1995+
Steering Committee Forms
2002
Ren. Forms
2007
Brookview Razed
Findings
Residents have nostalgia for the "good old days" of the high school and note
the town's current run-down state, and that Brookview became the symbol of all that
104
had gone wrong. There was public recognition that the complex had been neglected by
the county for too long. By the time the New Castle County Residential Rental
Property Code was established in 2004, plans to sell, raze and redevelop Brookview
were being formulated through the Claymont Renaissance movement, which was
driven by a non-elected group of residents and merchants, members of the county
council and private developers. Thus, the local culture greatly changed which, in turn,
impacted place identity, which in general, is that of a small town rather purely
suburban. As mentioned in the methods chapter, suburbs wrapping around former
small towns is not an unusual phenomenon in the U.S. As most of the respondents
quoted here were or are quite involved with the "town" aspects of Claymont, this view
understandable. There are mixed feelings about identifying with the "modern"
Claymont.
This author decided to include a section about the Claymont Christmas Weed,
as it seems to neatly illustrate the more current place identity of Claymont residents—
mixed feelings about this tradition, and mixed feelings about the possibilities for
Claymont's future via the Renaissance, and more particularly Darley Green.
Claymonters are aware of the stigma of their town as a tough dangerous place—
Claymont's "outside identity" is shameful to them. This will also be discussed in the
next chapter.
After coding interviews, and reviewing documents, one major theme emerged:
DISMANTLING AND REVITALIZING A COMMUNITY
Three categories were developed to support this theme: Glory Days, Victimized Town
and Cautiously Hopeful Community.
105
Glory Days
Overwhelmingly, respondents cited Claymont High School, which was built as
part of the Green Street School, grades K-12 in the 1924-1925 school year and
accredited in 1931 (Scheik & Hester, 2000, pp. 11- 12), as the central dominating
social institution of the town. It was the main source of place identity even for those
who had no formal ties to the school. Claymont, even though it is unincorporated, has
retained an identity unique in the Brandywine Hundred (A "hundred" is an old precolonial term for an area of land in Delaware.) — it is referred to as a town, while
other places in the area are identified by development, or simply as "North
Wilmington." This further supports the place identity of this time as a town identity.
There is little doubt that the long identification with the high school, its teams and its
school board are part of the reason for this continued identification.
Respondent 2: And when I came here in 1969, I came from Bucks County
where it was kind of a suburban sprawl thing, but in Claymont
it was a close-knit community, and it was a great situation for
educators at that time, cause you had wonderful parent
support—after a football game, for example, the school
cafeteria was filled with parents and friends for an after-game
social gathering kind of thing.
Respondent 5: I have all sorts of stories about CHS— it was what you did—
you walked down the street and went to school, along with
hundreds of other people, who were walking back and forth to
school. It would never occur to the parents to drive us, unless it
was so rainy you couldn't walk ten feet, or on special occasion
days. People just walked to school, so there was just a lot of
people about on the streets…. Claymont HS was well, busy. It
was a busy, vibrant school. You know, it was a high school.
Football games, basketball games…. I was in the band— we
went to Florida one year…. the school was the central focus
that I was aware of…. But you know— that's where all the
stuff happened…. So that's the big change— you know—
106
there's no school in Claymont anymore, so it's not a central
place to be— people drive out of Claymont rather than driving
to the school, walking to the school. There's no school.
One alum wrote a piece for publication:
This [Claymont] school system was the glue for the community that
had no, nor needed, any government. There was a superintendant [sic],
6 principals, and many great teachers. From that system, community
bonds were forged stronger because individual parents and students
were its lifeblood. The superintendant[sic] and his staff worked with
the state on funding and other issues, but the community gave it life. It
was predominantly blue-collar middle class families. We cared nothing
about a family’s race or religion. If they lived in Claymont, Delaware,
they were welcomed (Ward, 2010).
http://www.wealthvirtues.com/journal/2010/11/30/a-30-year-bond-withguaranteed-high-interest-my-high-school-reunion/ Downloaded April 20,
2012.
Clearly, from the response of interviewees, and those quoted from the News
Journal, the school district, and especially the high school, allows them a perception of
Claymont as a wholesome hometown. They are sentimental for this time of football
games, parades and other events that took place at the school. This is most likely
similar to the sentiments of others who grew up in mill towns that have fallen on hard
times.
Many in Claymont self-identify as "blue collar" or are aware Claymont has
long been known as being a "blue collar" or "working class" mill or industrial town.
Respondents seemed proud that they or their parents worked at hard jobs to support
their kids.
Respondent 4: Of course, we were a blue collar area— a lot of people worked
at Phoenix Steel—I worked at Sun Oil, or people were working
at the refineries….and as a result, [Claymont] was considered a
blue collar area….
107
Respondent 5: [People who lived] here?-- working class people or school
teachers, or there were a couple cops— there was a Hell's
Angel that lived on Burns Rd. These people were just kinda
getting started in life and then a lot of people just stayed
here….. Oh yeah—all kinds of people in this neighborhood
[Ashbourne Hills] worked for the mill or worked for Sun Oil in
Marcus Hook— a lot of people from this neighborhood— I
guess as you know, moved in from Chester [PA]… because it
was a step up.
In his 2007 book, Promises to Keep, On Life and Politics, Vice President Joe
Biden supports this theme, recalling when his family moved into a brand-new
Brookview apartment complex across from the Raskob mansion (later his alma mater,
Archmere Academy):
We were moving into a brand new neighborhood, a brand new
house…. Right in the middle of this working-class steel town, not a
mile from the mills and directly across from the entrance of Brookview
apartments, was the first mansion [Archmere] I'd ever seen. (pp. 5-6)
Victimized Suburb
In the 1970-80s, significant events negatively impacted Claymont;
desegregation, which ultimately led to the closing of the Claymont School District and
its schools, and the loss of many jobs at Phoenix Steel, a major source of high-wage
blue collar jobs— these factors combined with several nationwide recessions left
Claymont a different place.
Respondent 3: …. the community churches are suffering. So at one time they
were really there for the community. I mean, they're still trying
to do their work and it's kinda tough, because the younger
people are not supportive of what they're doing, so they're
fighting a financial battle. Even in the fire service, the
volunteerism is down over the years… So people are out there
struggling, so things are really changing…
108
Claymont High School made history in 1952 by self-integrating eleven Black
students who lived on Hickman Row, a street of row homes built by the original
owners of the steel mill for its Black workers. There were other stories of a
community defense of racial tolerance— one famous story is when a 1960s football
team coach refused to let his Black players be treated badly at a Maryland Restaurant,
cancelled a huge order and drove them to a non-discriminating restaurant in Delaware
(Prado & Miller, 2006).
But in 1978, federal desegregation orders were issued, and busing between
Claymont and the city of Wilmington led to many families pulling their children out of
the Claymont District. The Claymont School District was ordered, along with other
districts, to form the "New Castle County School District." In 1980, this district was
reformed by legislative order to become four smaller districts: Brandywine, Red Clay,
Christina and Colonial, which still exist (Delaware Public Archives, n.d.).
These desegregation orders, a lack of resident turnover, and the dismantling of
the Claymont School District marked the beginning of the closing of schools in
Claymont. In 1990, the high school closed, and according to respondents, this marked
a sharp change in Claymont's identity. Even twenty-five years later, many are still
outraged at the decision to strip Claymont of its schools, especially the high school.
When the reality of the current situation of Claymont, without a school district, is held
against the ideal of the former Claymont and the bustling activities of students, it adds
to the overall theme of being treated badly, or even cheated, by outside forces— to a
confused sense of identity.
Respondent 1:
….and the government tried to take away the library and they
were met with quite a fight—because the high school was
taken away you know it's like—how much can you do to a
109
community before it just folds and dies? And this community
said no way, you're not doing it.
A special 2006 supplement to a small local newspaper group, The Community News,
entitled The Lost High Schools of New Castle County reported:
In 1990, the ripple effect of the order reached Claymont. Despite its
place in history as a frontrunner in peaceful integration, the
Brandywine Board of Education closed it due to declining enrollment
and a racial imbalance. Its population, which had the highest
percentage of black students among Brandywine’s schools, was
redistributed throughout the district’s other three high schools
(Brandywine, Concord and Mount Pleasant), according to Dr.
Raymond Wolters, a history professor at the University of Delaware.
'It was certainly a victim of busing because enrollment did drop
after busing,' said [then] House of Representatives Majority Leader
Wayne A. Smith (R-Clair Manor). 'The closing of Claymont High
School was one of the greatest tragedies ever in this state. In Claymont,
my constituents still feel like they were robbed.' Ironically, it was the
busing order that created Claymont’s overrepresentation of blacks. The
high school had been racially diverse for decades, but became “racially
identifiable” as Wilmington students, predominantly black, were bused
to Claymont. (Prado & Miller, pp. 14-15)
Respondent 4:
… people would come down from Philadelphia and buy land
in Northridge to make sure that their kids went to Mount
Pleasant school instead of Claymont— but why I don't know,
I don't remember— maybe some were concerned about
Blacks, I think maybe part of it, because the Black population
was increasing at that time…
Respondent 1:
…we could tell that something had happened in the
neighborhood and we didn't know what– something kind of
sad. And it took a while to figure that out because when we
looked at houses we were told this was a close-knit
neighborhood…. it turned out the high school the year before
had been closed and the high school was the heart of
Claymont and it became pretty apparent pretty soon that that's
what was missing and I live down the street from the high
school and it was like what the heck is that building you
know… but a nothing is going on and people were just
110
dragging you could feel the whole neighborhood was kind of
oppressed because something was gone.
A November, 1975 News Journal article reported that:
Carl Aley, president of steering committee for [then] proposed
Claymont Christian School: that children would be accepted 'without
regard for race….This is not a racial issue. We would have set up this
school whether or not there is forced busing or a voluntary integration
plan." Aley, also [then] president of the Ashbourne Hills Civic
association [of about 50 members] which set up the steering committee
that reported: 'The 'vast majority' of Ashbourne Hill residents feel that
the recent decisions of the federal courts have 'completely disregarded
the rights and welfare of suburban parents and children.' (Bloom, paras.
2,4,7,9,10)
In an August, 1976 News Journal article, Archie F. Raposelli, member of
Claymont School Board said that "accepting more whites into the district would only
take district further away from the court's goal and force more Claymont students to be
bused out of the district." In the same article, Frank J. Furgele, then Claymont
Superintendent "told the board that many students in the district were enrolling in
private and parochial schools in the area, he assumed, in anticipation of the
desegregation plan….The district's enrollment is expected to be 2,948, down from
3,306 last year" (Bloom, paras. 4, 11, 12).
In May, 1977, Claymont School Board member John Fannin told the News
Journal: "Declining enrollment and the prospect of school busing this fall are
Claymont's biggest problems…" Fannin added he is "vehemently opposed to busing"
(The News Journal, para. 5).
In a December, 1993 News Journal interview, longtime community activist
and wife of a Claymont school board member Evelyn Tryon recalled a busing-related
sale of land:
111
Much of the land of the Claymont schools was given so that it would
always be school property. Whenever we bought land, we bought it
with local funds. The agreement was that it would be used for school
purposes was in the school board minutes and not in the deeds. So then
you come along with federal busing. So we had to turn all of our land
over to the county, which turned it over to the Brandywine School
District. And they sold some of our land. I resented it terribly
(Bauman, paras. 4, 25, 27).
The loss of the vibrancy of children and teens walking to and from schools,
congregating at corner stores, playing and running outside, riding by on bikes, the
sounds of a high school band practicing on an autumn afternoon or the cheers from a
Friday night game— these are important in the life of a town, and Claymont was
wounded by their loss.
Respondent 4: …near the corner of Green Street and Pennsylvania Avenue
there was a little store that people sold candy and small things,
and I think it was originally Mrs. Fantini and then after that
Davinni's took over—the kids would always go down there get
their penny candy and then after DiConstanza's bought it out
and had a sub shop.
Respondent 5: No, when I was kid—it was just children everywhere- people
ran through each other's yards, and played and had fun-- it was
a neighborhood full of kids running around…. Down at the
creek, I don't know if you ever go down there anymore, down
at the creek it was a ripe place for kids to play. And now it’s all
graffitied and people are afraid to go down there—they even
made a little park where the Radnor Green pool was—and it's
just a big grassy knoll where people are afraid to go and some
people poop their dogs there-- that's pretty much the only
thing that happens. That's the biggest change—it's not a
friendly neighborhood particularly—it's aged quite a bit—
clearly cause a lot people who lived here in the 50s 60s 70s are
still here and now they're old and kinda grumpy. There's a lot
of foreclosures about. So there's empty homes.
In November of 1987, the two-year shut-down of Phoenix Steel Claymont (the
parent company went bankrupt) ultimately resulted in the sale to a Chinese concern
112
and a drop in workforce from a peak of roughly 800 to between 250-300. Many union
members as well as politicians felt that the Chinese buyers violated a rehiring
agreement by not hiring union workers back in large numbers (Wilson, 1989).
A November 26, 1987 News Journal article quoted former steel worker Francis
DaCosta: "I feel sorry for a lot of people who hoped to work there." His home
remodeling business partner, Ed Conrad added, "It will be hard on people who were
depending on going back…. But you have to adjust." The same article quoted thenDelaware Secretary of Labor Mathias J. Falls: "Although the loss of prospective reemployment is bad news, it does remove impediments to steel workers making new
lives for themselves…. Some people were hesitant to find new work because they
hoped to hope to go back to work there…." (Bauers, p. A 19).
Former director of the Claymont Community Center, Stephen Autman,
discussed working with a man who had been laid off from the mill in a May 8, 1988
News Journal article:
He had worked there for 19 years. Now he was working as a car
salesman at much lower pay. They [the family] had lived in an
apartment complex for 16 years, and now, because he couldn't pay the
rent, was facing eviction…. He couldn't see a way out. He was facing
the prospect of being evicted or living there in the dark, without
utilities….He has so much less now than what he had before…. He has
to accept the fact that circumstances will never be the way they were.
The best he can do is accept help and work toward a slow recovery.
(Lewis, p. A13)
Another News Journal article, from February, 1987, also noted that Claymont
businesses were affected by the changes in mill workforce. The article cites several
businesses, including a "blue collar" bar, a liquor store, a barbershop and a deli, whose
owners reported feeling the loss. It also noted that the local Catholic Church, Holy
113
Rosary, was preparing for when families need food. The manager of Claymont Steaks,
Mike Kowalski, was quoted, saying:
It's a sad situation. Your heart has to go out to the workers. You can't
really think about the businesses one way or another because they'll all
survive but you've all those families without paychecks….Where else
are they going to find a job? Where are other steel mills in this area?
There's not….They're [the steel mill] liable to reopen and hire
everybody back for $5 or $6 an hour. That's what everybody's saying.
(Canavan, p. F1)
Interview respondents didn't have much to say about the impact of the loss of
steel mill jobs. They note its presence in the community, but none of the five
personally felt impacted; none had worked there, nor had family members who
worked there. This interviewer did not ask if they personally knew others who were
affected by the situation.
In addition to the closing of the schools and the loss of most of the steel mill
jobs, one interview respondent cited a growing drug culture and an influx of "poorer"
residents as contributors to what they saw as a downward trend in Claymont and
specifically Brookview, which had always been rental housing. The onset of drug
problems in the late 60s and 70s impacted the entire country, including the
development of a drug crime infrastructure (Illegal Drugs in America: A Modern
History, n.d.,).
Before eventually moving to the empty school buildings on Green Street, The
Claymont Community Center was founded in a small building just down the street in
1975, with a mission to address the growing youth drug and crime problem, and was
described by its second president, Betty McMullen as "a center of the people, for the
people and by the people…of Claymont." (Burroughs, 1977).
114
Respondent 2: Of course the old, old high school is now a community center
and offers a number of services there, that's a big change, too,
in the community.
Respondent 5: By the late 70s drugs had sort of enculturated themselves— is
that a word? …there was a lot of drug stuff going on in
Claymont. So, I think there were a lot of good people living
there in Brookview and I would probably say most of them
were good people who had lived there most of their lives and
then because it was cheap a lot of scary druggy, thuggy people
started moving in.
Respondent 1: But the reputation of Claymont was lower class, working
people, Brookview with the drug dealers, and the drug users,
but that wasn't true—only in part. In any neighborhood you
might have some characters who are undesirable….
Cautiously Hopeful Community
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a steering committee (a precursor to the
Claymont Renaissance Development Corporation) was formed to explore ways to
"revitalize" Claymont along a specific stretch of Philadelphia Pike. The cornerstone
project of the revitalization effort became the razing of Brookview and the
development of Darley Green in its place (County Councilman Robert Weiner,
personal communication, October 24, 2013). In February 2002, the firm ZHA (cited in
Chapter 1) was contracted by public and private donations by "stakeholders"
(Appendix A) and the Delaware Economic Development Office to implement a retail
feasibility study, and, as previously noted, all but named gentrification as the solution
(Arnold, 2002). ZHA (2002) also recommended "…the Idealized Build-Out Plan is
buttressed by significant market-rate residential development to the north. Brookview
is redeveloped into a new urban community with a mix of market rate housing units
(p. 45).
115
In 2004, New Castle County approved a unique zoning district called a
"hometown overlay," for much of the "original" portion (pre-1950s suburban
expansion) of Claymont. A planning firm was hired to conduct community "visioning"
meetings throughout 2001-1002, in cooperation with the Claymont Community
Coalition, Claymont Business Owners Association and the Claymont Historical
Society, as well as the New Castle County Department of Land Use (Thomas
Committa Associates, Inc., 2004, p. I-1). Input from attendees is published in "lists"
in an appendix of the final report and included under the heading Weaknesses: " 'Bad
Reputation (due to lack of safety, blue-collar to lower class, industrial, rental housing;
lack of community pride. Brookview Apartments (reputation as 'mud huts,'
'Claymonsters' 'barracks')" (Thomas Committa Associates, Inc., 2004, p. A-3). The
report does not list who attended the visioning meetings, or how many people
participated in the visioning process. Respondent Three supports these sentiments:
Respondent 3: Actually the community is really going downhill. Years ago you
used to drive through a neighborhood and people really took
pride in their places, you'd drive through a neighborhood and
you would see it was really very well kept up. But I don't see
that as often as I used to.
This "overlay," according to the final report:
…is intended to foster redevelopment primarily along the Philadelphia
Pike and to enhance and preserve Claymont’s existing historic
neighborhoods. It encourages the development of compact, mixed use
(both horizontally and vertically) urban buildings that complement the
historic development patterns of surrounding neighborhoods with
support by existing and planned transportation networks, both
automobile and pedestrian. (Thomas Committa Associates, Inc., 2004,
p. II-I)
New Castle County Councilman Robert Weiner recalls his role in the process that led
to the gentrification now in progress on the former Brookview site:
116
I was elected to County Council in November 1996,[and the] Claymont
Civic Association [Claymont Community Coalition]had just been
organized in 1995. I attended my first Claymont meeting while still a
candidate for office…. I actively participated in almost every monthly
meeting from its inception in 1995 until 2004. We identified crime and
Brookview as major impediments to the revival of Claymont.
(New Castle County Councilman Robert Weiner, personal communication
November 5, 2014)
In a 2004 email, Councilman Weiner summed up his enthusiasm concerning the
project, and his support of New Urbanism:
(Recipient's name withheld)
I just met with Robin Williams, Senior VP with Ideal Realty Group in
Potomac, MD. Ideal Realty has the listing for Brookview
Apartments…. that will become the centerpiece of the new urbanist
community in Claymont, DE. … I anticipate that there will soon be a
purchase, by nationally well-known new urbanist development firm,
which will purchase the 67 acre apartment complex….
Bob
(New Castle County Councilman Robert Weiner, personal communication,
November 5, 2014)
Brookview had been targeted.
In 2005, after Brookview had been purchased and plans to develop Darley
Green (first called Renaissance Village and then changed because it was decided that
"renaissance" was too difficult to spell) were approved, a Brookview residents' council
called the Council of Concerned Citizens was formed. (When this author questioned
some former long-time Brookview tenants, none could remember it ever having a
tenants' council prior to this.)
Zelma Gary, president of The Council of Concerned Citizens, was quoted in a
News Journal article:
Many of the hard-working residents of Brookview are not only
consumers in this area, but also employees of the local malls and
shops," she said. "Many children attend local schools. We feel that all
aspects of the revitalization process need to be looked at very carefully
117
with proper consideration and opportunities given to those who desire
to stay in Claymont but of low to moderate income. (Miller, July 22,
2005)
Other council members also commented about the cost (approximately 125K
for a single unit) of proposed "workforce housing," which developers agreed to
include in return for increased density:
Matthew Labrador, Brookview resident: "What the developers call affordable
housing, we can't really afford."
Jon Rolph, member of the council: "Why should we have to leave just because
they want to put houses in here that we can't afford?.... They've
got a few million dollars on the table, but we've got our lives."
Mary-Anne Mason, council member: "But we hope that as a society we
understand that pure capitalism by its very nature creates a
substandard underclass that does not partake in the wealth of the
group" (Basiouny, December 3, 2005).
Other tenants commented:
Tenant David Orant: "I'm willing to take the bull by the horns…. I support
tearing Brookview down, but not putting in $500,000 houses. I
also don't support another crop of Section 8 housing" (Miller,
May 18, 2005).
Tenant Rebecca Lawler: "I believe there will be a lot of tenants out on the
street with no place to go…. I moved here because it was the
first place that approved me. I have bad credit and they
approved me for the two bedroom… My kids have never been
in a shelter before.
Tenant Clinton McClease: Some of us in this complex have one foot in the
grave and the other on a banana peel. I'm 65 years old. Where
the heck am I going to go? … But how much weight will this
council carry against this developer?
Robert Donnelly, Claymont resident: …. it would be better for Claymont to
incorporate and elect leaders who would have to answer to
voters. "The coalition was not elected by the Claymont
community…. I agree with what they're doing, but not how
118
they're doing it…. Brookview will fall through because there
will be so many demands on [the developers] (Miller, 2005,
May 10).
Incorporation will be discussed in the next chapter, but one respondent in my
study, who has an historical view commented:
Respondent 4: …at one time they were talking about organizing as a city—
incorporating as a local government—two or three attempts- it
never got very far….We were all concerned about taxes –
having people—because there wasn't that much to do for any
local government and they wouldn't have the power to do too
much and so I think that's one of the reasons it never got very
far—because we were so small and NCC was expanding and a
lot of construction was going on and moving south of
Wilmington, so any political power would be down where the
population was—and we were an old settled population and as a
result, we wouldn't have much impact.
In November 2007, demolition of Brookview apartments began, after residents
were relocated— some assisted by New Castle County, some by other concerned
organizations. Some were able to stay in the Claymont area, but many were not.
Respondent 1: I knew a Girl Scout leader who lived in Brookview also very
nice, raising her daughters as a single mom um, but there were
drug dealers in there and there were unsavory characters in
there. And um so, to see it go was kinda like, well, OK, you
know, on one hand, you know, it had been kind of an historic
place, you know built I guess after or guess in response to
WWII after the war the soldiers needed a place to live their
families and growing population but it was kinda like, they had
let it run downhill so far that I don't know if it was savable.
The late George Losse´, a Claymont resident and then president of the
Claymont Community Coalition, commented: “This [Brookview] has been a big
problem for us for a few decades now, so I’m glad to see this come down,” he said.
“This is an important step forward for Claymont” (Chadderdon, 2007 pp.1, 17).
New Castle County, Ideal Realtors and the Commonwealth Group worked with
the Clark family, sole owners of Brookview, using both "stick and carrot" methods,
119
citing multiple rental code violations but also touting the density bonus offered under
the Hometown Overlay (New Castle County Councilman Weiner, personal
communication, October 24, 2013).
The anguish and confusion of the Brookview residents is understandable, and
their mistrust of the forces behind the development echoes through this case study
from others. The sense of Claymont being a warm, friendly community dissolves as an
entire neighborhood of people was eliminated to make way for an upscale
development. This goes against traditional town place identity; respondents are
conflicted in their desire to rid Claymont of slum-level housing, but balk at summarily
ousting neighbors.
However, the group of non-elected residents, business owners and public
officials who spearheaded this project saw Brookview as the best option for creating a
new (ironically titled) "town centre"— and while some efforts were made to help
Brookview tenants relocate, their plight was lost in the promotion of a "new urban
village," where housing would be too expensive for Brookview tenants to consider
returning to their home in Claymont. This is a typical result of gentrification, in all
four waves (even projects intended as low income housing)— the "improvement"
makes the community unavailable to some portion of the populace.
In 2008, the United States "housing bubble" broke, and The Claymont
Renaissance and the Redevelopment plan were not immune. The first 18 town homes
were built in Darley Green in September, 2009, two years after the demolition began
(Basiouny, A., September 18, 2009). The respondents have mixed feelings about
Darley Green:
Respondent 1: I think historically it would have been great to keep the
buildings, but they were in such bad condition, there were
120
undesirable people living there. So, have it be something else is
a good idea. I'm not personally crazy about how they're
crowding the buildings in Personally, I don't think that fits this
area. They're too tall, they're too crowded. That's my personal
opinion…. And the tallest buildings that are here are-- they
might be three story buildings but they're two and half stories
high, you know the old buildings, and I would have kept that
more in line, instead of going for three story buildings, it just
doesn't fit. Some of the looks of the buildings don't fit here
either. You know, we're a community that has low-lying
buildings.
And I know they want to make a town center I think it's going
up Manor Avenue, and that's great— bringing more business
here would rejuvenate the area, hopefully. And that's the idea to
make this a walkable town again. And that's great, too, so there
are a lot of good things about that. I might not always agree
with how they do it, but in the end if it works, I'll be happy.
Respondent 4: I thought it [Darley Green] was a good idea, yeah, I thought it
was good. We couldn't see how people could make it, cause we
couldn't see how people would buy houses in there. But to our
surprise, they seem to be selling houses left and right. And
when Superfresh was there and they moved out and of course
Food Lion went in when Darley Green started— I guess they
have a captive clientele that way, so that helped. But it took a
long while— a lot of communication between the developers of
Darley Green and the county. And the county had to pass some
bond bills to— the county guaranteed the bonds— for some of
the streets, construction in Darley Green. And that took a lot of
persuasion and somewhere around that time we had an
economic crisis, which made financing questionable for a while.
This all put everything under a spotlight— and there were a big
lot of "ifs" Finally then went ahead, and looked at what's there
for long range because Darley Green, being near the railroads,
and the intersection of 95/495. They are emphasizing the
closeness to Philadelphia and Pennsylvania has a state income
tax and a lot of people would come down to Delaware to buy
stuff …. So all these factors heavily made Claymont more
enticing because of Pennsylvania's tax laws.
121
Respondent 5: ….they're doing a shitty job of it. You know, I'm glad the
library is in there, cause that will change it a little bit, just trying
to pack all those houses in such a greedy way— and greedy is
the word— is fucked up. And they did this before they did any
of the other stuff that they promised— we're going to have a
main street, and vital businesses and this and that— they didn't
do any of that— so the first thing they did was just started
piling townhouses— ten feet from the road. I'm sure they're fine
to live in and I'm sure there are people who are grateful to live
there, but they could have done it a lot nicer. They could've
taken Brookview and left some of those apartments and redone
them and put other buildings in there. I mean, it could have
been done a lot more aesthetically. And I hated— hated, how
they displaced all those people. That was heartless. There's
nothing else to say about that.
A Special Claymont Tradition— The Christmas Weed
In mid-December 1993, a weed grew in the median strip at the intersection of
Interstate 495 and Philadelphia Pike. Residents decorated the weed as a Christmas
Tree, and the saga of the Claymont Christmas Weed began. The first weed was
removed by DELDot. Residents replaced it. The second edition was stolen. The
process repeated until weed number 8. The News Journal hired a guard to watch over
the tree. Presents were even placed under number 8. Eventually, the (last) tree and the
presents were donated to charity, but a tradition had started that still continues. Every
year since 1993, a "weed" is chosen, decorated, placed in the median strip, where it
plays a significant role in the annual Claymont Christmas parade.
For some residents, the weed is a positive and apt symbol of Claymont. For
others, it is all too "apt," as evidenced below:
Respondent 5: I love that— I think it's incredibly symbolic. Cause we're still
here— you know? Seems like everything that happens in
Claymont never turns out that great. You know it did for a
while, but now— it's like the renaissance— what a bust. You
know— trying to do things with not enough funds— I
122
understand having worked for a non-profit— it ends up getting
done half-assed. And that's what happens a lot in Claymont. I
love what they're trying to do at the Darley House— that looks
great— I can't wait to go in there. You know, I love what they
tried to do at the Robinson House, but I mean, look where it is.
Who wants to go there? And I'm afraid the same thing with the
Darley House. So, there's things that get done in Claymont—
but it always seems that it doesn't quite get there. So the
Christmas weed is symbolic of that— it doesn't quite come to
fruition. But it is what it is and you can have some humor about
it. And that's one of the good things about Claymont is that
people can laugh at themselves. One of the things I've like about
living in Claymont is that people don't have airs. People are
who they are. Even if they're awful, they are who they are.
In 2004, a resident commented in the News Journal: "God, I don't know why
but I think we all love the thing," said Marty Kirkland, 43. "It's kind of a symbol for
Claymont. No matter what happens, no matter how bad things get, we survive, just
like weeds I guess" (Billington, 2004, p. B3).
Dee Whilden, long time member of the Claymont Historical Society was
quoted in 2011. "While each year's parade differs a little, Whilden feels sure it and the
Christmas Weed that started it will endure for generations. 'Absolutely, it's a tradition
that's got to go on,' she said. "It's a real symbol of the tenacity of the people of
Claymont ' " (Brown, 2011).
In a 2011 News Journal opinion-editorial, resident Arthur Prelle is not
enthusiastic about the Christmas Weed:
I am writing to comment on the recent article, "Claymont each year remembers
that plucky plant on Philly Pike" (Tuesday).
As a resident of Claymont, I find the story and intent degrading to the citizens
of Claymont and Delaware. The Christmas weed has been an eyesore to the
community, and its sight brings to mind visions of trailer trash and poorly
educated people.
It is a self-fulfilling statement that shows low worth and self- esteem of the
123
residents.
The Christmas weed is obviously funded by the dirty industry of Evrez Steel.
Evrez Steel is in a class-action lawsuit for continuing to violate EPA pollution
standards of lead and manganese by over 300 percent. (Prelle, 2011)
There may be an agenda to why the Christmas Weed tradition was adopted by
Claymont Historical Society (part of the Claymont Community Coalition); the Weed
is has been featured in the New Journal one way or another (in one year, a reporter
contrived a whole "Night before Christmas" style story about it) every year since that
first weed was guarded on the median. This is rare positive press for Claymont, per
some of the respondents. The Christmas Weed is what started the now traditional
Christmas Parade in Claymont, which attracts politicians, special guest emcees and
tourists. It has also become a way for all parts in Claymont to be involved: each year a
different development is chosen to "host" the weed, and lead the decoration of it,
which takes place at the end of the parade. A Christmas Weed song was composed
and is sung at the decorating. The weed is then placed back near the spot where the
original weed first sprang up (Brown, 2011).
That first spot is in desolate part of Claymont, on the median strip of a section
of I-495 that connects to I-95, which, when constructed, required the razing of some
historical homes and footbridge to be constructed to allow residents from Knollwood,
next to the steel mill (a particularly poor neighborhood that was once housing for mill
workers) to safely walk to "town." As the Weed has become a tradition, many (not
all) Claymont residents have rallied around it as a sign of the town's perseverance— a
plant pushing its way through concrete, and surviving the mill and traffic pollution to
become Claymont's symbol of a season of hope. This corresponds to some
respondents place identity of Claymont.
124
Summary
There is no doubt that busing and the loss of the Claymont School district,
especially the high school, changed Claymont in many ways. One interesting factor,
considering the principles and values of New Urbanism, is that Claymont became less
"walkable." Residents referred with nostalgia to a time when people, especially
children, walked all over Claymont, to and from school and to neighbors' homes with
little or no fear. Busing is recalled as not so much a racial issue (many Claymont
residents continue to take pride in the high school's historic self-integration), but one
of illogical transport of children out of their local communities, where neighbors could
"watch out" for them. While many Claymonters still identify with being "blue
collar"— well-paying blue-collar jobs gave way to the growing service economy. The
loss of these jobs also impacted the local businesses that supported this workforce.
(Unfortunately, the steel mill, currently Evraz steel, a Russian concern, recently closed
in December 2013— perhaps for the final time.)
The place identity of the residents of Claymont, that of a small town, has been
damaged since the times of desegregation, the loss of union level unskilled and semiskilled labor jobs at the steel mill and the general downturn of the US economy in the
early 1980s. Residents feel that Claymont is on "the wrong side of the tracks" in
North Wilmington, and that historically, "outsiders" and non-elected leaders have
made significant decisions for them. Therefore, some imply that they are residents
living on the "wrong" side of town— as patsies who are not asked for their opinions,
as people who were victimized by local courts, as, as such, whose children didn't
experience the same town they did. That some identify with a weed is fairly telling of
how they think of themselves— tough, yes, but still, having to scrap to be noticed.
125
They want to go back to the "small town" time, when kids could roam freely, attended
by caring adult neighbors and teachers.
However, some remain optimistic that Claymont somehow manages to survive,
and look to the Renaissance and Darley Green with cautious optimism:
Respondent 1: I've seen a lot more civic pride. I've seen more interest in the
community. I've seen the kinda the spirit—kinda come back—
in little ways.
Not unlike feelings about the Claymont Christmas Weed tradition, some feel a
resignation to a "never quite gets there" town while others tenaciously, and proudly,
hope for the best. They hold their present day "problem" town against the ideal of the
former Claymont and find it wanting. All, then, agreed that Claymont was ready for
positive change— and a new identity.
126
Chapter 5
RESEARCH FINDINGS (Cont'd)
RQ2
How do the residents and merchants perceive Claymont now?
RQ3. What are the perceptions of residents and merchants concerning the
removal of Brookview and the development of Darley Green?
RQ4
What are the general expectations of the residents and merchants for the
future of Claymont as the gentrification process continues?
Introduction
These interviews comprise the main focus of this research. The aim was to
gather, as Brian Doucet mentioned in his study, the nuanced perceptions of the
residents and merchants who were neither those uprooted by gentrification, nor the
gentrifiers themselves (Doucet, 2009). In the first section, an effort is made to tie in
with the place identity of those interviewed or quoted in the previous chapter— to
determine if there were any major differences— there were not.
These respondents were purposefully separated into two groups, merchants and
residents, as the researcher assumed that the two groups would have different personal
agendas and perceptions about this gentrification project. As it happens, only one of
the merchants is a current resident, another had been a resident in the past, and one of
the residents had been a long-time merchant.
The voices of the respondents speak in this section. However, as in the
previous chapter, when the author deems necessary, certain information from other
sources is included for context, and to bring perceptions into high relief.
127
Findings
These interviews were transcribed and analyzed by the author. They produced
three major themes supported by eleven categories, which are discussed below:
THEME I: NOSTALGIA FOR A STABLE COMMUNITY
Class Ambiguity
Respondents gave interesting answers when asked what socio-economic
class(es) of people live in Claymont, and also gave equally interesting definitions of
classes. Thirteen respondents said that Claymont was a town of "blue collar" or "hardworking class." Some then added that there are areas of "poor" people and then some
of the very same respondents added middle class. It was clear that the definition of
middle class is especially difficult to define. One respondent decided that blue collar
(or white) was the type of work and middle class is the income amount.
Considering the rise in inequality between classes (discussed earlier),
especially since the 2008 recession, and that one's "identity" in terms of class could be
skewed by a number of historical, cultural, educational, and psychological concepts,
it's not surprising that the respondents gave answers that were somewhat ambiguous.
Additionally, Claymont has long been referred to in the local press as a "gritty, blue
collar town" or some similar description, and, in general, Claymont residents tend to
be proud of this identity, which to them means "hard working and tenacious"— hence
the popularity of Christmas Weed.
128
Conflicting Sense Of Reputation
As was demonstrated in the history section, many people who are long time
residents and/or merchants in Claymont have nostalgia for times past— and talk of
when things felt safer, happier, especially when Brookview was considered a great
"starter" community for young couples. Ironically, it was also a time, (mainly in the
70s and 80s) when Claymont was more "walkable." There was more variety of stores
on the main road (Philadelphia Pike), from a shoe store to a pet store to a hardware
store. There were also candy stores and soda fountain shops on the routes to schools.
And because it was a time when more women stayed home, kids were "watched" in a
more informal way. This is true of much of America, particularly small towns.
However, it does not seem clear to the respondents how the Claymont Renaissance is
planning to return to that "walkable" town outside of the "edges" of Darley Green. It
simply may be impossible until the wealth of the town reaches a certain higher point in
order to draw more of a variety of businesses and keep them.
Without schools, respondents have struggled with what it means to be a
"Claymonter"— the loss of the school district greatly impacted the local identity. The
school district also acted as a de facto authority for the entire town— seats on the
district board were hotly contested, and the board faced making historical choices,
especially during the era of court-ordered busing. According to Nobel Laureate
Eleanor Ostrom (1993), historically, school districts have been a main source of
municipal governance in the United States. Claymont's school board members loomed
large in the community. They were coaches and business people. Students were valued
and the schools were well-monitored.
It's important to note that Claymont High School was more than its sports
teams. According to several respondents, the school was very active in the performing
129
arts; Claymont musicals attended by many in the community and even those from
nearby communities. Claymont High School musicians were in State Band and
Chorus. Its after-school clubs were active and interacted with other community
entities.
Resident 6:
Because when Claymont had a high school, it was like the
center of the community. My 80 some year old Uncle over in
Overlook Colony loved it when they had home football
games— and he would walk up to watch the football games…
There was something about it that just drew everybody— pulled
everybody in…. something definitely died when we lost them
[schools]— we lost our identity.
This sentiment was echoed again and again from many of the respondents—
both residents and merchants. They wistfully remember the school as the heart of the
town, and see the district's downfall as the beginning of Claymont's downfall, and also
evidence of Claymont as a "victim" of outside forces, with no way to fight back. Even
though the high school closed in 1990, the problems with drugs and crime started
earlier.
These respondents indicated that they are aware that Claymont has a negative
reputation, mostly outside of Claymont, but also within the community, as they
believe there are some areas where there is a lot of crime and illegal drug activity and
areas where a "lower" class of people live. Some agreed that it deserves that
reputation, especially more recently. Several respondents complained about a lack of
police presence or slow police response time to Claymont, which does not have its
own police force.
Merchant 7:
Claymonsters says it all. I mean that's sad in my opinion, but
they celebrate it in the parade. I mean— they seem to embrace
the scumminess.
130
Merchant 8:
It's not what I was expecting…. [I expected] more upper class
people. I've found there to be a lot of lower class people. I've
found there to be a lot of people who have problems with drugs.
(He said junkies after recorder off.) I notice a lot of theft.
(Note: The moniker "Claymonsters" is actually a source of amusement and
pride for people who grew up in Claymont. There is a Claymonsters Facebook page,
and they run annual reunions. It grew from a drawing made by a CHS student—
eventually the name stuck. But it has grown to have a darker meaning.)
This poor reputation is no doubt what the Claymont Community Coalition, and
the Claymont Renaissance Development Corporation are trying to reverse. Claymont's
downtrodden reputation, and the place identity of the residents and merchants
indicated that people were more than ready to do something to re-ignite Claymont.
Several respondents claimed that Claymont is unfairly represented in the press;
that only bad news about the town is reported. Still others recognize that for many
reasons, Claymont is a place where there is a higher than average amount of
inexpensive and subsidized rental housing. Respondents correlated rental housing,
especially Section 8 rental housing, with a culture of residents who don't maintain
property, who use drugs and/or engage in crime related to a drugs. Certainly the
growth of services at the Claymont Community Center, once contained in a very small
one story building, and eventually took over much of the former Claymont Middle and
High School buildings indicates that the needs of the poorer and senior residents of the
community have grown. As the Claymont Community Center advertises:
Claymont Community Center, a social service organization, along with
our community partners, is committed to provide life-enhancing
social interaction, life skills training, and human services for our
communities. Our primary programs include the following: Claymont
Family Health Services, a Food Closet, Counseling Center, Learning
Center for children and adults, and the Brandywine Senior Center. We
are also home to several other community partners,
131
including Headstart, Girls Inc., and Brandywine Child Care Center. The
Center is also the official State Service Center for the area, where
people may apply for TANF, SNAP, WIC and other federal and state
assistance programs. Downloaded from http://www.claymontcenter.org
on March 20, 2014.
Resident 6:
I just felt that decisions that are made about Claymont are made
by people who don't live here. And this is one of the sore spots
with me. When one of our elected officials comes up and says,
in Darley Green, we need more affordable housing— and I'm
thinking— have you looked around Claymont lately? That's all
we've got is affordable housing. We want more high-end
housing here, the kind to change our reputation. But he doesn't
want it in his neighborhood, so let's dump it in Claymont. And
this has been the attitude of a lot of people. Section 8? We don't
want it out there in Talleyville, but let's put more Section 8 in
Claymont. Then the county will have the appropriate amount of
Section 8 housing it needs. So, we're all sarcastic about it. We
know we're the dumping ground.
This notion (repeated by others) that there is a "conspiracy" to "dump" poorer
people in Claymont is very much in line with Foucault's governmentality and use of
"techniques" such as using statistics concerning class and income and that there is a
perceived "plan" to ensure that wealth stays in one part of the county by funneling low
income families to Claymont. Another neoliberal governnmentality aspect is the
sentiment that residents were not included in the decision-making, but it is not quite
clear who exactly made these decisions— a coalition of private-state parties were the
stake holders/decision makers who drove the Renaissance and the final designs for
Darley Green. (See Appendix A for list of stakeholders.)
The respondents are dismayed that many current businesses are those that are
historically used by a lower socioeconomic class (some relate this as synonymous with
high percentages of renters and Section 8 renters in particular) and worry about what
the existence of these businesses (pay day loans, etc.) "says" to the greater community
132
about Claymont. They see these businesses as painful symbols of Claymont's poor
reputation.
What is ironic is that not one of the respondents seemed to be aware that there
are not enough "middle class" Claymont residents to attract more upscale businesses
(that was the impetus behind Darley Green). This may be a bit of a "place identity"
blind spot, of not wanting to identify with a community that supports these businesses.
That the border location of Claymont (next to the Pennsylvania state line and close to
a bridge from New Jersey) is attracting low-income shoppers and loan-seekers from
other states was also not mentioned, nor was an understanding of usury law.
More simply, this is a matter of "what the market will bear."
Resident 8:
You know you see the Rent-A-Centers popping up— I mean,
you gotta rent your furniture? Come on! You know I don't
think that helps with the area as a whole, when there's people
getting loans for their cars, against their cars, and renting their
furniture and going to the dollar stores and massage parlors
opening up. It just weakens the community I think. It just
ruins— the moral value is just going down the toilet!
As retail research indicates, "Extreme Value Retailers" such as "dollar stores"
target low-income shoppers (Weitz & Whitfield, 2010, p. 95). Critics of payday loan
operations argue that "payday companies conduct predatory lending that takes
advantage of lower income groups that lack lower price alternatives" (Lawrence &
Elliehausen, 2008, p. 315). At the time of writing this paper, in a 2.5 mile stretch of
Philadelphia Pike that runs one length of Claymont's geographic limits, there are two
dollar stores and five pay day, "instant" or car-title loan stores.
133
Optimistically Cynical About the Future of the Town
In spite of the concerns cited above, respondents were tentatively hopeful for
Claymont's future, and anxious to see its reputation improve; a few mentioned that
Claymont has pride in its colonial history, and are glad that the Claymont Historical
Society offers public activities. There is hope that the newcomers to Darley Green will
infuse Claymont with younger, community-minded families. However, most were
realistic about the post-9/11 world, and the increase of crime and economic distress
everywhere. That these respondents have an eye on the global economy, is, for this
author, telling from a neoliberal sense; Claymont residents are aware that how the US
fairs in the world marketplace has a direct impact on the success or failure of even a
relatively small project like Darley Green, in a small unincorporated place like
Claymont.
Merchant 5:
It seems to me to be very dependent upon the economy. What
we're seeing in the United States now is the hollowing out of the
middle class for condominiums.
Resident 7:
You know, Claymont is its own responsibility, but if the gap
between the poor people and the wealthy people keeps getting
worse, then the poor people, many of whom live in Claymont,
well, I shouldn't say poor— but lower middle class on down—
as they keep getting a smaller and smaller share of the national
economy, Claymont's not going to do well.
The sentiment concerning the ever-widening division between the wealthy and
the middle or lower middle class is certainly in keeping with mood of the post-2008
housing bubble, which, for some economists, points to a "crisis" or "weakening" of
neoliberalism at every level (Centeno & Cohen, 2012; Dean, 2010). This is central to
the respondents' "place identity." These respondents, especially the merchants, have a
heightened sense of awareness of the instability of Claymont's economy, and do not
necessarily see that the work of the Claymont Renaissance is remedying the situation.
134
The merchants, especially, are wary of the perceived increase in criminal and drugrelated activity, in spite of the removal of Brookview. Among the residents, there is a
clear longing for the Claymont of the past, while still hoping that Darley Green will
mark a turning around point for their town. In addition, it was noted in the previous
chapter that Brookview started to "go downhill" in the 1970s-80s. By then, there were
not many families living in Brookview as "starter" homes as some of the respondents
had in the earlier years of the development. The economy had shifted to a service base,
especially in Delaware following pro-banking laws passed in the early 1980s. Gone
were the factory and mill jobs that allowed a working class family to be able to save
for the future and send children to college.
It is also significant that this gentrification projected started prior to the
recession, and has been greatly impacted by it. The sudden loss of a booming housing
industry and its inflated home prices and sub-prime mortgages has hit nearly everyone
hard. It is understandable that there is a growing sense of uncertainty and cynicism
about a project that was touted to be the beginning of a great turnaround for Claymont.
THEME II: MAKING SENSE OF THE GENTRIFICATION PROCESS
Razing a Community
Nearly all respondents agreed that Brookview's demolition was either needed
or inevitable. Some had lived there in earlier times, and expressed sadness at its
deterioration, and regret over the relocation of the residents, some of whom were
elderly and had lived in Brookview for a long time. Others had mixed feelings— that
bringing in new, wealthier residents and new housing was good— but perhaps not at
the expense of pushing out a large number of poor and elderly.
135
The U.S. shift to a more neoliberal economy, coupled with the current
economic crisis, has resulted in a criminalization of poverty. While none of the
respondents explicitly say this, it is more than implied that Brookview was a central
enclave of poor renters, ripe as the focus for change of some kind in the community.
As discussed in Chapter 3, revanchism (from the French for revenge) has been
cited by several scholars as a form of punitive (in the Foucauldian sense) neoliberal
governance. Revanchism has been linked to actions, such as ridding a city of the
homeless, drug addicts, and other marginalized, powerless groups via policing tactics
and other policies. It seems that some respondents do sense that Brookview was
targeted— some feel rightfully so— others are not sure.
Rather, several respondents were careful to mention how the living conditions
in Brookview had been "allowed" to deteriorate and also that that owner (landlord)
had in more recent years conducted obvious schemes to attract even more poor,
desperate people into Brookview, which increased criminal activity, especially the
drug trade.
Decisions concerning land use (often in the form of gentrification) is where
neoliberalism has taken hold at local levels, making use of the "mechanisms" of
demolition and capital real estate investment. Those displaced or affected (the
respondents), in Foucauldian terms, had been subjected (made subjects) and then
manipulated toward a desired outcome. New Urbanism was not intended as a
"gentrification" philosophy, but rather, a way to produce "mixed income"
neighborhoods— but as discussed in Chapter 3, it has turned out that many New
Urban developments do not include low-income residents and are in fact are mainly
comprised of high-priced homes.
136
Resident 4:
In the end I think it [Brookview] was a scary place to live, to
even drive through….. What happened, I don't know if you're
aware of it, but the man who owned it before it before then end
of the time it was knocked down was advertising in Delaware
County, PA., Philadelphia Co.. PA and we believe somewhere
in NJ, possible Camden area, that you could move in to
Brookview—the first month was free— and they got an awful
lot of riff-raff in there, people who were not to be trusted,
probably involved with drugs. They had more drug problems in
Brookview right before it closed, the police were there probably
2-3 times a day. A lot of problems almost every night, it seemed
like— we kept hearing about things going on. At that time
Green street extended into Brookview, you could have very
easy access from this street and we were always hearing sirens
going in there— there was an awful lot of bad publicity in the
paper about Brookview, and we were happy in one sense, when
it did close, because of what that owner did and how he
degraded Brookview. What he was trying to do is he wanted to
sell the place— he wanted to show that he, we believe, anyway,
had a higher percentage of occupancy, and this is how he
achieved it.
This "nuance" about the landlord purposively attracting "riff-raff" toward the
end of Brookview's tenure is what debunks the revanchist argument, at least for this
case. The respondents' answers could have been from a "socially acceptable response
bias" of not wanting to seem racist or elitist, but they seemed in earnest that the
landlords, and not the residents, especially long-time residents, were to blame for the
conditions in Brookview.
Resident 5
(A former two-time Brookview resident):The last landlord, the
county came in and hit them-- I think it was about 1,500 code
violations…. they got just an insane amount of code violations,
that I'm not sure they ever fully addressed…. It was a
succession of landlords that didn't really care. They were just
milking everything they could out of it and got rid of it.
137
The implication overall was that, if only Brookview had been properly
monitored and kept up, perhaps a different course of events may have been pursued.
Misunderstanding/Skeptical Feelings about the Town
Knowledge of the leading proponents and planners of the demolition of
Brookview and the development of Darley Green was mixed at best. The question
developed into roughly, "Do you know who the 'they' were, who are responsible for
this project?" Out of the 16 interviewed, only three or four had fairly accurate
understandings of the process and of the parties involved. Most answered that they had
no idea or guessed at organizations. This is especially interesting as the majority of the
respondents live or work very close or right next to the development.
Michel Foucault's theory of governmentality is represented here by the
seeming lack of knowledge of many respondents as to exactly who was "behind" this
project, their disgust that plans keep changing, and that their participation is pointless.
The arrangement of collaborations of public-private institutions allows actions to
occur in more "opacity," and favors those with capital gain motives.
In this case, these deals and agreements ultimately led to the demolition of a
"thing" called Brookview, and employed the "technique" of gentrification under the
guise of New Urbanism, to achieve the greatest amount of density, which some
respondents are reading as "another crowded development like Brookview."
Neoliberalism favors this kind of "governance," most especially in the arena of
land use and urban renewal. Councilman Weiner's campaign to bring New Urbanism
to Claymont fit perfectly with the goals of the nascent Claymont Renaissance and the
various non-elected coalitions that led to its development. Brookview was a perfect
target, having only one owner, who made an enormous profit. If the county also made
138
1.5 percent transfer tax on the sale— that is certainly incentive to produce competition
(via manipulating the kind of special zoning the land received and when) to drive up
the sale price of Brookview in the then-bloated housing market.
It is interesting that the respondents somehow seemed to miss that the high
density was a goal and a trade-off for inclusion of work-force housing as well as rental
housing. These facts were not hidden in the press, but as the first town homes of
Darley Green go up, the respondents were surprised by "how close together" the
homes are. A few respondents seemed to have followed the situation closely, but have
become skeptical in the ensuing years since the project first started.
Resident 4:
The they? Ultimately, it's NCC Council. A layer under that is
the Claymont Renaissance. And under that is the current
owner— whoever that might be at the time. Because that has
changed over time….[The Renaissance] I think, in the
beginning, they had a good idea, but I think it's not gone in a
good direction because I think they have lost sight of their
original goal and I think they're too hand in glove with the
politicians in the area, and I think they work with them too
much and give up their own goals— and not— I think they
should keep the blinders on and keep their goal— what they
started out from the very beginning— I think it's drastically
changed.
Resident 8:
Oh, the idea? I have no idea, I couldn't tell you. I don't know if
that was one of Bob Weiner's debacles or… I don't know. I
don't know if he had anything to do with it or not. I would
imagine he probably pushed for something, but I couldn't say
with any certainty. They had meeting about it and I didn't even
bother going. Cause after I heard they kept changing the plans
and changing the plans, I just said— pffffff— they're gonna do
what they want no matter what, they're not gonna listen to
what… New Castle County I guess had to approve everything.
There is a tone in these responses that represents the overall mistrust of the
situation that got worse, especially after the delay due to the sub-prime mortgage
139
crisis. It re-enforces the long-held belief, at least among those interview or quoted in
the previous chapter, that that only a handful of people (non-elected and elected) make
decisions for Claymont, and that frustrated and angered some of the respondents who
attempted to be involved. One merchant was the exception, having moved his business
to Claymont in to take advantage of the Renaissance. His business is not a locationdependent type of business (most activity takes place by phone or mail), so this has to
be taken into consideration. He was positive overall about Claymont, but has never
been a resident.
Merchant 4:
The reason I moved to Claymont is because of all the
development here. I've been trying to get in on the grass roots
floor of what's happening here…. So we moved here and we got
involved in a lot of the community functions and things of this
nature and got to be part of the development—getting on the
ground floor—constructing our building to make it look like
what they're trying to formulate this community for the future.
Marginalizing Local Businesses
Also caught in the breaking housing bubble were the merchants interviewed,
all of whom own or run businesses very close or immediately adjacent to the Darley
Green site. One resident interviewed had recently closed his business that was farther
away from the site, about .5 miles. Of those nine, five indicated that closing
Brookview hurt their businesses, three of these business were especially impacted by
the loss of the Hispanic residents in Brookview. This may not have been considered by
the actors involved with the Renaissance or Darley Green at the beginning, because
the housing bubble collapse was unforeseen. Five merchants claim to have had little or
no contact from the Claymont Renaissance Development Corporation (CRDC) or the
County to discuss the loss of business because of the delay or to discuss plans in
140
general. One had been contacted by the developer early on, asking for to do some
modifications to his property for the project, but then heard nothing after complying.
A second was welcomed by the director of the Renaissance, but knew nothing else
about organizers. One merchant (Merchant 4) had gotten involved in the Claymont
Businesses Owners Association, and so has been aware and involved, but his business
did not suffer from Brookview's closure.
Merchant 1:
…but for our neighborhood [business] here it hasn't been good
because as a neighborhood [business], we needed the
neighborhood and they tore down the neighborhood… it's not
even close to what it was when Brookview was here… which
was a good chunk of our patrons here lived there, walking
distance, what have you… eventually it might be good, but for
now we're hanging in there, but our business has tailed off since
all that.
One could argue that it was the business owners' responsibility to become
involved or to reach out or join organizations. The merchants themselves did not offer
reasons for a lack of proactive involvement. It seemed that several were just doing the
best they could to hold on to their businesses and hoping that new residents would
become customers. One merchant was quite frustrated with the Design Review
Advisory Committee (DRAC) regulations (part of the Hometown Overlay),
particularly concerning signage. His business had been negatively affected by the loss
of Brookview:
Merchant 7.
"I can't put a sign outside without going through a committee,
paying a fee. And even then it can't be lit up. I can only have it a
certain size— only facing a certain direction and it's very
restrictive."
As Doucet (2009) implies, the character of a "remaining" neighborhood can be
changed by gentrification. The "flavor" of Darley Green is decidedly upscale; and
while this author cannot reveal the businesses that were contacted (even the type of
141
business would reveal identity), they are, for the most part, not businesses one would
associate with an upscale community. Perhaps they are too small, or not the right
"type" of business to be considered worthy of stakeholder status— rather, they
represent the "old" neighborhood too much.
One merchant was quite upset at what he perceived to be a lack of community
input, and specifically about not being invited to share his opinions as a long-time
businessman:
Merchant 6:
And then they got to a point where people didn't like Brookview
and they were having trouble. And they started having some
meetings about Brookview— and I went – they had 125 chairs
set up at the fire hall and I walked in and there's about ten or
fifteen people sitting there. Six or eight political people and the
two people that are runnin' it—and I'm goin'—like— wow!
Don't they see this? And I left. And the next time— the same
thing. And I left, and I said— why this large situation that
they're trying to develop— There should be 15-20 people from
Claymont that have interest in it and form a committee and have
that committee decide what they would like to do. They never
did it…. Well, they put more and more townhouses and they
would squeeze them together and then all of a sudden they had
great big four story buildings with all condos in 'em. And all
those decisions were made by just a few people as far as I
know—but nobody ever knew…. in my wildest imagination I
can't believe that Councilman Weiner and Cartier and those
guys did not approach me and other people that have been
around here a long time and say— we want your input. They
didn't ask for anybody's input. And that's the most disappointing
thing— you can talk to anybody and that's what they'll say.
There was no input from Claymont people. None at all. Phew!
It's mind-boggling!
This merchant's claim is simply not true. Regular public meetings concerning
Claymont's future were held by the Darley Green planner Thomas Committa as early
as 2001 at the Claymont Community Center (Arnold, 2001, p. 3B). Councilman
Robert Weiner shared the week-long August, 1 through August 5, 2005 charrette
142
schedule, and it included meetings with stakeholders and public meetings. (New
Castle County Councilman Robert Weiner, personal communication, March 16, 2014).
Attracting Outsiders
The respondents were aware that the goal of Darley Green is bring in a "higher
class" of residents and for money to be made through taxes. Most understood that the
intended draw by the marketers of Darley Green is its location in a state with much
lower property taxes than neighboring states. They also noted the convenient location:
quick access to I-95 (and to Pennsylvania's "Blue Route"), I-495, and the train station
(rail access is integral to New Urbanism), which is slated for renovation. Claymont's
new library, located in Darley Green, opened in October of 2013 and was cited as an
unexpected, but welcomed bonus.
Respondents understand that someone behind the upscale Darley Green wanted
to make money, but some feel paranoid and manipulated about how things are turning
out. They seem surprised about the type of housing that is going up, and a few feel
uncomfortable about what happened to their former Brookview neighbors. They want
Claymont to change, and for it to lose its "bad" reputation, but some are not sure this
was the way to go, and they did not feel like their opinions mattered, or if they were
even seriously considered. On the other hand, they absolutely do not want more
subsidized or Section 8 housing, so if poorer residents were to stay, they did not offer
a way to accommodate them.
Understanding The Plan
The situation has been confusing, and as many point out, the plans have
changed over the years. Given the change in the markets and change of ownership plus
143
the addition of the library, changes in the plan would be natural, but the respondents
are wary— especially about incoming rental units.
The Claymont Renaissance and Darley Green are representative of "third
wave" gentrification— gentrification that is produced via state-private partnerships, is
large scale, in suburban areas and newly built. The land that the former "slum" of
Brookview occupied was sold as prime real estate, especially as the sale unfolded at
the crest of the housing bubble.
Resident 6:
So what they're trying to do is get the most money for the
county as they can and the more houses they build there, the
more money they get… that's a business over there— the people
putting DG together— the bottom line on the ledger is all they
care about. And whether or not the town of Claymont is
interested, you know— they don't give a darn. I learned that
from being in business all these years— the bottom line on the
ledger is all that counts— follow the money— and so, do they
really care what we think or what our opinion is? No. I know
that— so the DRAC committee was established to make us all
feel good that we have a say— when we really don't…. I see
people who are moving in, they look like they would be 30ish
and in their 40s— I haven't seen a whole lot of kids over there,
at all— but just upwardly mobile people…I think the
expectation is that it will help the real estate values around here.
That's the expectation.
This resident reported later in her interview that as far as she knew, no one
from the Claymont "public" brought up New Urbanism or higher density. She referred
to Darley Green as "sardineville." She added:
Resident 6: …what we wanted was just a nice upscale development.
Others saw promise in the development:
Merchant 3:
That draw that I would see is the location of it. …And the draw
could be— the one draw could be the train station, easy access
to Philly. We're only 30 minutes from Phillies stadium, 20
minutes from the airport, that could be draw. They're in their
144
own community. That part of Claymont, Darley Green and
going up in there, that that's all fine. I think the library is going
to be good for their children and things and it's in walking
distance of their homes.
Resident 2:
So we're getting a lot of the upper, what I call the yuppies
coming in there, well the beginning, I think it's good, it's good
for them cause they could just run down to the train station and
go into Philly and I think that's why that first little bunch was
sold.
A few respondents felt the buildings were overpriced for the area, and too
difficult to live in (due to the three full story design) for older people.
The tones of cynicism and confusion in some of these responses signals a
mistrust about the project in general. Is this a problem of poor communication on the
part of the developers and county government? Again, this is difficult to understand,
as the local newspaper documented the planning process, and according to local
politicians and community leaders, the visioning and charrette processes were wellattended and the plans circulated among neighborhood councils. A few of the
respondents reported being involved in early discussions, but were still confused or
cautious. It may be that the effects of the "bursting" of the housing bubble and the
resulting changes in the process have caused respondents to be wary. The lot remained
a vacant, ugly property that fronted the major thoroughfare of Philadelphia Pike from
the razing of Brookview in 2007 until building began in 2009. Still, others felt the
building looked nice enough— although one resident added he hoped it would be
"safe" neighborhood to walk through when the stores were opened. One merchant
called them "commuter condominiums." Resident 5 remarked, "It's better than the
ticky-tacky mud-huts from hell that was Brookview— I question the quality of the
construction."
145
The housing bubble and its subsequent crash play a role in the effort to build
Darley Green. When the idea to raze Brookview and build a high-density development
in its place, the housing bubble was at its peak, with inflated housing prices that must
have appealed to investors and developers. Initial advertising and signage indicated
that some homes would be sold for close to half of a million dollars. After the crash of
2008, the developers were scrambling to sell the entire property, but had no luck until
the so-called "friendly foreclosure" purchase by local developer Louis Capano.
Neoliberalism and its 2008 "crisis/demise" is a critical element of Darley Green's
history. It has certainly impacted the timing of building, the density has decreased, and
therefore some plans have had to change. However, residents expressed distrust of the
process itself as was reported in the previous chapter, regardless of the change in the
economy.
Critiquing The Outcome So Far
As cited in Chapter 1, Americans prefer a free-standing house with a large
yard. They prefer sprawl, for which New Urbanism is a purported "solution." This
could be another reason that the respondents dislike or don't understand the density of
Darley Green. Another New Urban philosophy is for new developments to fit in with
an area's existing architectural design. Darley Green's architecture does not look like
the homes that surround it, and respondents noticed. Others felt the construction work
was shoddy. (One resident called the brick layer's union as asked whether it is normal
to apply brick to untreated or uncovered plywood, which she claimed to have observed
happening at the Darley Green site. She was told no.)
Resident 8:
Some of the siding work they did—it almost looks like they had
a little bit of this left and a little bit of that left and threw it up
on the side. And I thought—they've got two different colored
146
sidings on the buildings here. It just looks like they're trying to
throw them up as fast and as cheap as possible. Cause they do
put 'em up quick. But I mean to have two different color sidings
on one building—I mean if you ride behind where Darley
Pharmacy see is and look over from the parking lot—it's like
there's beige on top and grey on the bottom—I'm like what is
that? —and it almost looks like—well we got half a house left
off of this job and a half a house left off of that and we'll just
put a line across the middle and make it look like we meant to
do that.
Resident 4
I wasn't sure it was going to work, because they were proposing
building a combination of condominiums, single family homes,
both higher end and lower end, they were going to have a
certain percentage of lower end housing in that first proposal,
which basically said they were going to have $150-175K homes
alongside 200-300 K homes…However, that idea didn't seem
to last very long, because it kept mushrooming, and growing to
the point where the last proposal was that they were going to
reduce the number of single family homes, they were going to
put more condominiums, to the point where they said they were
going to put 3 story condos directly behind our houses…. They
kept saying all along the housing they were going to put there
was gonna be commensurate with the neighborhood, and we
kept asking them— where in Claymont do you find 3 story
homes for one family?
Another resident had some conflicting feelings about the displacement of
Brookview's Tenants, but did think that Darley Green's architecture was attractive.
Resident 7:
I mean I think— I have some mixed feelings because obviously
the residents of Brookview had to go somewhere, and I don't
necessarily think it's a positive thing if they all just got moved
to another really poor community somewhere else. I mean that
just seems like shoving the problem off on somebody else’s
plate so that we can build these nice pretty new homes.
147
THEME III: THE COMMUNITY'S FUTURE
Questions About The Future Of The Plan And Impact On Town
One aspect of this particular research is whether and how well the "new"
residents will get along with the "old," or what is referred to in this study as the "host"
community. Fostering community is another selling point of New Urbanism, but it
may be that it is meant only inside the new development. Researchers are dubious as
to whether the built form of a neighborhood by itself can engender community. The
respondents ran the gamut on the question of whether Darley Green residents will
interact with long time Claymont residents:
Resident 5:
I think so— there is now. I mean, I don't think they'll be able to
get everything the need in there— a couple problems is they've
got the grocery store now— depends on what Capano puts in
for the retails space— but I think they're still going to have to
come out…. I think they have already— I've talked to a few
people who live in there and they consider themselves
Claymonters— people in Brookview considered themselves
Claymonters without a doubt. I think it will, when the project's
done, it will eventually replace Brookview hopefully in a better
way.
Merchant 8:
Nope. They're going to be the high class. They're going to stay
in their community amongst them. Their little development is
going to be about their little development. They're gonna forget
about the small people around here.
An interesting and unexpected finding was the concern expressed that Darley
Green would eventually become a slum like Brookview. Much of this seems to come
from its high density, and close proximity of buildings. Additional concern comes
from having lived through the decline of the once thriving Brookview, and previously
mentioned concerns about rental and especially subsidized rental housing.
148
Some respondents understood the New Urban concept of a mixed residential
and commercial design, but did not seem to understand that other elements, such as
shorter set-backs from roads, and subsidized housing, are also basic to a New Urban
village. However, even if a respondent didn't have any idea about New Urbanism, the
approved housing numbers were listed in the local newspaper.
Resident 8:
Because a 200K town home, you can't pay for it, you walk away
and it gets run down, so… I could be wrong— but I honestly
don't think it's going to be any better than Brookview, in fact it
might be worse, cause they're gonna put more of 'em in, than
what they had before… But you know, it is what it is, you cram
a bunch of people into a smaller area and sooner or later there's
no care or respect…It may take a little longer, cause people are
actually buying these places rather than rentin' them— you
know, what are the re-sales gonna be like later? Is it gonna be
$105K instead of $200?
Resident 5:
Ultimately I think Darley Green is a good thing. I want to see
how it ends up— there's a potential that those houses could
become slums— there's a potential that people could take care
of then and it could become a bright spot- we're still at a tipping
point I think…
Should The Town Incorporate?
The concern that Darley Green could become a slum like Brookview is related
to the earlier feelings expressed that Brookview had been "allowed" to fail. Without an
elected town government, residents and merchants have to rely on volunteers to
represent them as liaisons to county and state government. From what this author
could glean, Brookview never had a civic association until the very end of its
existence, when the county urged the tenants to form a council to participate in the
planning of their own displacement. And finally, the issue of incorporation brought
149
mixed response, (some were not aware that Claymont is not incorporated.) What is
clear is that the people interviewed would like to have a way to give input that
"counts."
Resident 4:
Well, it's a double-edged sword. We can see both sides of it. If
in setting up an incorporated town— if the town was taking
over the police and other...and the taxes went away for NCC,
then yes… and we paid the taxes to the city of
Claymont…yes—but— what I'm afraid is going to happen in
setting up an incorporated town in Claymont then we would just
be adding another layer of taxes— and people couldn't afford
that.
Resident 2:
I think it would be good if we had it [incorporation], I think
everybody would come together a little more and everybody
would cooperate…
What are the perceptions of these respondents concerning this gentrification
process in their town? Overall, most are hopeful, but as in the past, there is an "us and
them dynamic" that is present— but it is not the "us and them" that one might
imagine, that of the old residents versus the new. It is, as it has long been, Claymont
vs. New Castle County and whatever groups or individuals perceived to be allied with
the County. Many respondents cannot name the groups or individuals, or their elected
officials, but perceptions of somehow being fooled, or only told part of the story, or
being left out are prevalent, especially among the merchants. The individuals moving
in, for most of the respondents, are doing the same as the individuals who were lured
by the schemes of the last "slum" landlord/owner— respondents can understand
wanting to take advantage of low tax rates and access to transportation. These points,
as well as high density, walkable communities are supposedly what the "millennial"
150
housing market wants, but the millennial generation is represented by three
respondents, and two of them pointedly do not prefer these qualities.
Beyond all this, a clear understanding of how this gentrification project, or the
Hometown Overlay or the entire Renaissance "movement" will transform Claymont
back into what it used to be is not apparent to the majority of those interviewed. This
is where Foucault's theories of how government has shifted from motivating, moving,
punishing people directly, to using numbers and statistics and almost invisible
collaborations between government and various entities (like the "stakeholders," some
of whom were from out of state) to generate capital is applicable. People and buildings
just happen to be involved.
Summary
Foucault's overall work was describing the development and tools used by the
powerful to manipulate the less powerful— from torture, to prison, to the asylum, to
police, and even sex, and from power in the form of the state or the monarchy to the
power of the individual mind to discipline the individual self. The story of what
happened and is happening in Claymont is easily seen through his perspective.
Brookview residents, especially Section 8 renters, are to be moved, not helped. It has
been clear that things were going bad in Brookview for decades, but there was
apparently no remedy. When the housing bubble was peaking it made economic sense
to finally do something about Brookview and that something would be to demolish it
and sell it for much more money that anyone could have ever thought possible.
Foucault explained that economics became the powerful science that eventually
became the energy that fuels local-global actions. The distrust and lack of knowledge
of who the actors are behind this gentrification process expressed in these interviews,
151
and the fear that a slum could be "allowed" to happen all over again is completely
Foucauldian and the process neatly neoliberal. However, it is also, some would argue,
the ultimate failure of our unregulated markets that this bubble broke, and perhaps
Claymont's hope has broken with it.
Claymont has not been able to save itself since the shift to the service economy
in the 1980s. Store after store closed, replaced with the much-despised but wellpatronized payday loan stores, dollar stores, nail salons and fast food chains. Mills
jobs, other manufacturing "blue collar" jobs disappeared. Brookview residents and
other "poor" residents could not "save themselves via the market" as good neoliberal
citizens are supposed to do. Other poorer parts of Claymont, such as Knollwood and
Overlook Colony, both once thriving sections of mill and company housing, have had
to be helped via various government/private partnership programs.
Applying neoliberal and governmentality theories to what these respondents
have indicated, Brookview failed because the landlords and public-private
partnerships used the neoliberal markets to their benefit; the landlords "milked"
Brookview with rental schemes and by not keeping up the infrastructure, and the
public-private coalition were able to take advantage of an out of control housing
bubble (a product of neoliberalism) as an ideal time to broker a deal for an a large
property. It was also a time to make use of density bonuses to sweeten the deal. All
stood to make terrific profits. Brookview's residents could not use the same market to
help themselves. As mentioned in Chapter 3, industrial working class suburbs like
Claymont are good targets for redevelopment due to the decline of housing prices, and
eligibility for government subsidies.
152
Also discussed earlier is that so-called "participatory" processes, like the
charrettes, and programs related to Darley Green, can result in disenfranchisement of
poorer, less politically powerful factions in the community. This echoes the sentiments
of many of the respondents, that participation was marketing and that public input was
not seriously considered.
This makes the mixed response about incorporation interesting. It is important,
again, to note the unusual status of Claymont in the Brandywine Hundred. Claymont,
as far as this author knows, is the only "census designated place" in the Hundred to
have ever had its own school district. It is treated as if were an incorporated town; one
of the first actions of the Renaissance was to place "Welcome to Claymont" signs at
"entrance" spots along major routes. People refer to Claymont as where they live,
where as others from Brandywine Hundred usually refer to their development or just
use "North Wilmington" as a catch-all. (There are many separate developments in
Claymont.) However, Claymont also has a long industrial history and is more working
class than the much of the Hundred, and so incorporation would most likely be
prohibitively expensive for much of its population— and yet residents and merchant
respondents want meaningful voices in processes that affect them and greater selfgoverning status. Claymont residents and merchants, because of this history, (as noted
earlier) had a strong identity attachment to their "town" and are loathe to witness it
decline any further.
Overall, respondents want Darley Green and the Claymont Renaissance to
work, but with caveats: merchants need replacement customers and there is a wariness
about renters and subsidized renters in particular (even though the County has
"promised" there will never be Section 8 renters in Darley Green). They don't
153
understand that the density is an integral part of New Urban design and is the reason
that developers were drawn to the property. High density, to the respondents, equals a
potential re-do of Brookview. They are savvy to what can happen over the years to a
place that was once a shining new development like Brookview, and they are aware
that the overall economy, even at the global level, will impact the future of their town.
In sum, at least for the majority of these respondents, there was a failure of
communication by promoters of Darley Green. The respondents are stakeholders, but
they feel they have not been treated as such— or have only been treated as such in
name. The respondents know they have no real political power. It is an uncomfortable
position for them.
154
Chapter 6
DISCUSSION
Introduction
The purpose of this case study was to examine the perceptions of nongentrifying residents and merchants of a gentrification process currently taking place
in the unincorporated town of Claymont, Delaware. The study also included an
historical perspective component that included the perspective of respondents who
have connections to important institutions in the town, to provide context. This
chapter will include a summary of the findings via "presuppositions" made by this
author before beginning the research, the application of the theoretical framework, a
policy recommendation which arose from the findings, and a discussion of how this
work relates to and extends gentrification literature, and issues of transferability. The
limitations of this study and implications for future research are also presented.
In his 1976 seminal work about local governments and land use, The City as a
Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place, Harvey Molotoch made
observations that fit neatly with this study. He mourned that lack of scholarship (at
the time) that recognized that "land is the basic stuff of place, is a market commodity
providing wealth and power. And that some very important people consequently take a
keen interest in it" (p. 309).
Molotoch's observations from almost forty years ago somewhat parallel the
discussion of third wave gentrification, and in a more general way, gentrification
155
itself. Molotoch sees this "growth machine" aspect of place driven by elite actors who
stand to enhance their status and also those who stand to gain political power by
generating change that generates wealth. It is a neoliberal process. It is a process of
governmentality. Growth, or decisions about land use and the redistribution of
resources, is the political currency available to the "conductors of conduct" (as
Foucault might call local politicians) and, per Molotoch, is one of the main reasons for
professionals to become involved in local politics.
In short, what happened in Claymont is what happens when the conditions for
a significant change in the use of property are ripe for the local actors (politicians,
community coalition members, those who have a certain level of social capital above
that of the "everyman") to shift their weight and affect change. Claymont had fallen
into that ripe place: Brookview's buildings were in terrible condition, owned by a
single landlord. A coalition of local non-elected leaders and elected officials saw the
chance to gentrify a fairly large parcel of land and begin a renaissance. The growth
machine's switch was thrown on. In Molotoch's view, this was inevitable. In this case,
the growth machine used gentrification as its engine, and while there is hope that
bringing in middle class residents and merchants will spark a revitalization of
Claymont, there can be no doubt that there were people who were harmed in the
process.
In a tersely worded, sometimes sarcastic 2008 article, Tom Slater questions
what he perceives as the falling off of critical scholarship concerning gentrification.
He rails at "frumps"— formerly radical upwardly mobile professors, who have
decided that gentrification is an ever-growing and popular neoliberal public policy that
simply requires better management to ensure that the poor "have a place"— but not
156
necessarily where they were living. This gets their work noticed by politicians who
want to cite this research for "evidence-based" decision-making. For Slater, this
actually has resulted in "decision-based evidence making" with researchers' blessings,
even opting to use words like "reurbanization" for processes that are still gentrification
(Slater, 2008). What Slater is particularly wanting is research that re-focuses on those
who have been or have the potential to be harmed by gentrification.
This study aims a critical eye at a gentrification project, that indeed, is not
referred to as such by its proponents, and in particular at an overlooked group in the
long history of gentrification research; those left behind. The respondents in this study
make it clear that they understand the need to revitalize their town, but are not certain
about the New Urbanist style, as they ponder the choice of such a densely-packed
development. (However, they understand someone is trying to make as much money
as possible.) From neoliberal-governmentality perspective, this was a necessary,
capital producing re-shuffling of populations, and what happened to the former tenants
of the space is not addressed with a great deal of concern.
As the more than 600 residents of the demolished Brookvew and several of
Claymont's merchants can attest, gentrification does harm the poor and others, and as
this dissertation has pointed out, this type of "third wave" and especially New Urban
gentrification is happening across the county and, in fact, the globe. Slater cites the
work of Andres Duany, co-founder of the Congress for New Urbanism, entitled
"Three Cheers for Gentrification"— and reviles him as one of the planners who was
hired to create the Hope VI plan for post-Katrina New Orleans, a "mixed-income"
New Urban plan that left out many poor who once lived in the ill-fated Ninth Ward.
157
Discussion of Findings via Research Presuppositions
These presuppositions are repeated here in order to facilitate a discussion of
their accuracy and as a platform to present the overall findings:
•
The place identity of Claymont had changed in a negative direction, especially
since the closing of Claymont High School in 1990, for a group of selfappointed residents and merchants to seek a way to revitalize and save
Claymont. They reached out to New Castle County, which involved private
investor "stakeholders," scholarly advisors, and raised county and state funds–
ultimately leading to the development of The Claymont Renaissance
movement and the Hometown Overlay Plan that includes Darley Green.
Discussion:
As noted in both Chapter 4 and 5, the place identity of Claymont residents had
been greatly impacted since the turmoil of desegregation led to the closing of
Claymont High School. This action, and several national recessions, caused Claymont
to lose its vitality. Economically, the town lost many businesses that had served a
middle class population. These businesses have been replaced with dollar stores, payday loans, nail salons, and other businesses that the respondents feel devalue
Claymont, and hurt its reputation. The terrible conditions in Brookview and the rise in
drug use and related crime, caused members of the Claymont Community Coalition
and other local non-elected community organizations to work with New Castle County
and begin a Claymont "renaissance" and to target Brookview's demolition and
redevelopment as Darley Green as the flagship of this movement. This is where
neoliberalism and governmentality meet. As discussed, using New Urbanism's high
density philosophy and passing several special zoning exceptions (such as the
Hometown Overlay), allowed for the greatest amount of potential capital to be
produced— the hallmark neoliberal goal. This was accomplished during the peak of
the housing market inflation, when profit estimation would have been great.
158
At the same time, this collaboration of actors seemed to be almost "invisible"
to the respondents, as Foucault suggests that the actions of governmentality in action
can be. Then, as the housing market crashed, the two-year delay in Darley Green's
groundbreaking and changes to plans heightened paranoia among respondents that
Claymont was always getting "fooled" or that outsiders made decisions for it.
However, there has been no wide-spread organized protest of what is going on in
Darley Green or concerning the actions of the Renaissance. The respondents also
communicated a lack of "agency," that unlike "richer" residents in other parts of
Delaware, their voices would not be heard, or would not make a difference. The
respondents allude to "techniques" as Foucault would call them, of maneuvering
renters and poorer people to Claymont, to assure that the proper "statistics" (their
perceptions) were maintained in the County at the expense of Claymont's reputation.
In addition, Claymont's unusual "reputation" is relevant to the application of
governmentality to this study. Claymont is an unincorporated town; however, as
discussed above, it was once also an entire school district. It is also commonly
referred to as if it were an incorporated town— some of the respondents were
surprised to learn that is isn't incorporated. To highlight this, one of the first acts of the
Claymont Renaissance was to have "Welcome to Claymont" signs placed at several
geographical "entrances" to the "town." This perhaps adds to Claymont residents' and
merchants' strong sense of place identity, and contrasts their uncomfortable feelings
about being "decided for" by unelected officials and outside actors, and Countyappointed committees.
•
In an effort to achieve this “development deal,” the residents of Brookview,
which was owned by one landlord, were “demonized and punished”
(technologies, or strategies, of governmentality) for the development becoming
run-down and crime-ridden— even though residents’ complaints about poorly
159
maintained units were many. In a neoliberal way of thinking, the poorer
residents living in Brookview failed to muster the “entrepreneurial”
(neoliberal) solutions required to save themselves. The poor conditions and
crime were seen as mainly their fault from the perspective of those working to
broker the development deal. Investors and developers were enticed by county
incentives (sewer access assistance, density bonuses) to purchase and raze
Brookview, with plans to triple housing density, in a place where the main
advantages are access to I-95 and Amtrak/SEPTA commuter rail lines and a
lower tax base than neighboring Pennsylvania and New Jersey suburbs. Thus,
out-of-state middle class commuters, seeking “upscale” housing and sold on
the promise of the “walkable community” of new urban village are the target
market. This is neoliberal governance in full swing; the capital gains are of
utmost importance.
Discussion:
Per the respondents, the neoliberal "revanchist" strategy of demonizing
Brookview's residents that I assumed I would find was not evident, at least not outside
the coalitions that founded the Claymont Renaissance. They did not blame the
residents, even the "riff-raff" residents who were brought in from Chester and
Wilmington through special deals offered by the landlord. They seemed to understand
that people in need would naturally jump at these deals. Rather, the landlord was
demonized, as was the County for not taking action against this "slumlord" concerning
the terrible conditions that had existed in Brookview for decades. The Brookview
tenants themselves did not organize until the end— they organized to try to get the
best help they could for re-location. Overwhelmingly, the respondents felt that
Brookview had to be razed and they hoped that Darley Green would "jump start" a
renewal. But again, delays and other changes fueled the "victim" mentality of the
respondents. Similar to the respondents in Brian Doucet's 2009 study, they seem
resigned to their fate as being "acted upon" in the Foucauldian sense. Per Arnstein's
famous Ladder of Citizen Participation, the respondents are stuck on the bottom rung;
160
they feel manipulated and therefore cynical that their input would be worth giving.
They may have even attended planning meetings or participated in the charrette
process, but they don't believe their input had any real power (Arnstein, 1969).
In addition, the residents were acutely aware that Claymont's future is
dependent upon the national and global economies. If this latest recession is, as some
have proposed, the end of or a "crisis" of neoliberalism, what will the correction be,
and how will that affect the already "hollowed out" middle class? The respondents
seem to be trying to balance their pride as a working class community against the need
for those wealthier than themselves to invest in their town via populating Darley
Green and opening more middle class businesses there. On the other hand, their
concern over the density appears to be connected to their recent memory of Brookview
as an over-populated slum; while they do understand that the developers are trying to
maximize income. They are worried that Darley Green will include too many renters,
especially Section 8 renters (although, as noted, the County claims there will "never"
be Section 8 in Darley Green). They worry, that via the same actions that led to the
downfall of Brookview, Darley Green will become a slum. What if ownership gives
way to subletting and more renting? What if renters don't take care of the property like
owners do? The buildings are seen by some to be shoddily constructed; how long will
it be before they start to come apart like those in Brookview did? Will the new
residents of Darley Green patronize the stores that lost business when Brookview was
razed? Will new businesses be more appealing?
The neoliberal goal of maximizing capital gain via density bonuses was
discussed above. The location near vital transportation access is part of the New Urban
161
philosophy. Some respondents recognized this as well as Delaware's lower property
tax as being natural draws for commuters.
•
Because of the county’s redevelopment codes and rules, although there are
some benchmarks that a developer must achieve during this process (especially
as regards workforce housing), they are easily re-negotiated and there is no real
time-limit on project completion. In essence, the property where roughly 600
residents previously lived, presently exists mainly as mounds of weed-covered,
fenced-in dirt and can remain so indefinitely, although building has begun on
one perimeter, and units have been sold. This advantages the developers, who
can presumably also sell these “approved plans” to another developer without
any additional approval process when the time is right to turn a profit or to take
advantage of a capital loss tax write-off. This is, again, a neoliberal style
system that favors even the potential market gain, in spite of what a slowed,
stalled process could mean to the place identity and future hopes of the host
community residents and merchants.
Discussion:
Unfortunately, this has happened. Because of the post-housing market
recession, the original developers lost the property when developer Louis Capano
bought the note from a local bank at "30 cents on the dollar"— called a "friendly
foreclosure" in the press (Taylor, 2012). This led to some adjustments in the plans,
approved by the County. However, building has continued, and commercial sites have
been advertised. There is hope among the respondents that the new businesses coming
in will help raise Claymont's profile. However, the merchants interviewed are hoping
to stay afloat and also gain new customers. These two groups may be attracting
different clientele; there is hope that there will be enough business to go around.
•
It was my assumption that I would find that many residents and merchants
were not at all involved in the processes that led to the choice to develop a
“New Urban Village” in Claymont. I suspected that many will be resigned to
its incongruous fit with its surroundings as part of a process that happens
“somewhere” but whose central actors do not feel compelled to make more
than the minimum required efforts to elicit community input. I am especially
162
uncomfortable with the way the residents of Brookview were summarily
“eliminated." I personally know people who were living in Brookview before
it was razed— they agree that there were severe problems, but also that many
who lived there were long-time neighbors and had nurtured a culture that was
not acknowledged. Improvements in a town do not always have to be for
capital gain alone— yet, as some of the empirical literature reviewed above
shows; it is seldom that other goals, such as the provision of affordable
housing for the poor and elderly, and the preservation of identity, are seriously
considered unless residents can muster the capacity to fight for them.
I am most interested in how this New Urban project (with its promise of
“community”) is perceived by the remaining residents and merchants as the solution
that was the “best fit” for our ailing hometown, and whether there was effort to elicit a
desired new “place identity” during the planning process.
However, I must consider that my opinions may be mine alone; many may see
this as Claymont’s great, and perhaps, last hope for any kind of revival, and don’t care
that they were not consulted. I hope to have a better understanding via this research.
Discussion:
This premise has proven to correspond closely with the perceptions of the
respondents. A few were aware of the "actors" involved in the Claymont Renaissance
and the development of Darley Green, but most were not. A few were aware of the
New Urbanist plans; some had no idea what the term meant. Several mentioned that
they did not think that Darley Green buildings were architecturally "commensurate" to
those of the surrounding residences in Claymont; a violation of New Urbanist
principles. Some remorse about "moving the poor" to allow for Darley Green was
alluded to, but overall, respondents want an "upscale middle class community." Again,
this is not aligned with New Urbanist principles of mixing all levels of classes in a
community. One respondent complained about the affordable (workforce) housing that
was meant to be in Darley Green, feeling that Claymont already has a great deal of
163
affordable housing and did not need more. This respondent either missed that
workforce housing was a trade-off for the density bonuses, or felt that this wasn't a
good trade-off.
According to county officials and Brett Saddler from the Claymont
Renaissance Corporation, there were many, many chances for residents and merchants
to at least view Darley Green's plans and in many instances, give input. And it does
appear that some respondents took advantage of these opportunities. But still, there is
a lingering sense of "it doesn't matter." In part, perhaps, because it's essentially true;
developers with county-approved plans do not have to compromise with citizen's
groups. This was laid out in the local newspaper when residents in an upscale
community took on developers seeking to build a large commercial complex.
Community coaltions were formed to sue the developers. However, reporting about
developers Stoltz Real Estate Partners, reporters, Taylor and Livengood wrote in the
News Journal: "Under county law and the land's current office zoning designation,
Stoltz is legally entitled to build at that [original] density, according to the county
Land Use Department (2011).
It seems that there was a failure of communication between the promoters of
the renaissance and the respondents, all of whom live and work quite close or even
adjacent the Darley Green site; there is confusion about plans and goals and who is
ultimately in charge of the outcome.
Overall, residents and merchants are hopeful that some semblance of the "old"
Claymont, a more robust, interactive and safe place, will rise from the ashes of
Brookview and the recession, even if there is no return of schools. However, they are
cautious— this process has already hit snags, and they wonder what will happen if the
164
US had to weather another recession. The Christmas Weed remains Claymont's
emblem.
Theoretical Framework
Studying gentrification and its impact on non-gentrifying residents via the
development of a New Urban village within a neoliberal/governmentality framework
is supported in the literature reviewed above. Claymont had a population and location
(Brookview and its residents) that were easily “problematized” as suits a neoliberal
agenda. Driven by a group of non-elected community “leaders,” led by an ambitious
County councilman, and aided by a collaboration of academicians and private
investors, developers and contractors, a gentrification scheme is a likely method to
“produce” capital in an undervalued area. Brookview changed from the "ugly
duckling" to the "golden goose"— a very large property owned by a single family, and
one facing many outstanding code violation fines. They were eventually convinced to
sell for a tremendous profit. The over-priced housing market was a terrific enticement
for developers, as discussed earlier, especially when density bonuses were added that
would triple the density of Brookview. Foucault's governmentality concept highlights
the way in which citizens can be manipulated, almost "herded," by techniques the
favor the ends of those in power. The tenants of Brookview never had a chance to
broker a deal for some kind of inclusionary housing affordable to them. They were
simply a population "in the way."
Understanding the intersection of these two philosophies, as well as the
intentions versus the realities of New Urbanism proved helpful in forming the target
areas and questions for this research. Using this framework to study the development
of Darley Green does not imply that that anyone involved was consciously aware of
165
neoliberalism or of govermentality. However, as the empirical studies of these
concepts indicated, that does not mean that a “top-down” market-driven philosophy is
not influencing local policy as well as action. The poor are usually the “losers” (or at
best ignored) in the final analyses of neoliberal schemes, despite the original
neoliberal thinking that a freer market would “trickle down” and help them. The poor
who lived in Brookview certainly lost, and it remains to be seen how other poorer
Claymont residents fare post “renaissance.”
New Castle County, with a Triple A bond rating, has used its power over local
land use to promote growth, with the input from residents coming in the form of some
public and some "invitation only" presentations, although the input garnered from
these is not binding. Income from transfer taxes can be used to help ease the pressure
of increased social service responsibilities cause by neoliberal devolution. As
discussed in Chapter 1, razing rental property is considered a “moment of creative
destruction” in order to “create” opportunities for real estate investment. And since the
industrial suburb of Claymont has undergone the requisite economic and demographic
changes illustrated that are precursors to the third wave gentrification, its arrival is not
surprising.
Policy Implications
In Chapter 5, it was noted that respondents have real concerns that Darley
Green would become "another Brookview." This leads one to the question "how does
a slum become a slum?" It would seem that Brookview had been "going downhill"
since the late 70s, and ended in what even the local politicians described as
unthinkably horrible conditions:
166
New Castle County Councilman Robert Weiner shared the contents of a 2004
email from a concerned local church leader (name withheld here) concerning
Brookview:
"It has come to our attention that the living conditions at Brookview (and
perhaps even Edgemoor?) are unfit for human habitation. We have heard stories of
rats, broken water pipes, and unbelievable filth. Also, it has been said that about half
of the units are now vacant and that they are becoming havens as crack houses. What
do we need to do to get this situation cleaned up and brought to the attention of the
proper authorities?..." (New Castle County Councilman Robert Weiner, personal
communication November 5, 2014)
In an October 2004 News Journal article, Brett Saddler, then president of the
Claymont Business Owners Association, who eventually became the director of the
Claymont Renaissance Development Corporation claimed, "Neglect by New Castle
County has contributed to the slow decline in housing, economic development and the
environment…." Then New Castle County Councilman candidate John Cartier, who
won his seat and still represents Claymont added, "Edgemoor Gardens and Brookview
are a disgrace. The county should never have allowed them to slide downhill. The lack
of code enforcement is part of the neglect" (Besso, 2004, p. B-2).
In 2002, New Castle County established a working group to "find ways to
improve the quality of rental housing for tenants and the residents who live near
apartment complexes." (Hale, 2002, p. C1). The County eventually established a
rental code which was approved and signed in the summer 2005, adding Chapter 19 to
the New Castle County Code, (New Castle County Council, 2005) and. (It is puzzling,
that despite decades of complaints, the residents of Brookview didn’t organize a
167
residents' council until the end, when the decision to sell and raze was all but done.)
The Rental Code "directs NCC Code Enforcement to apply its best efforts to randomly
inspect 5% of the rental units registered with the County each year" (NOTE: it is
required that all rental units be registered biennially with the County). (James Smith,
New Castle County New Castle County Assistant Land Use General Manager,
personal communication, October 10, 2013.)
New Castle County code violations are not digitally recorded (Janine
Knierirem, Secretary, New Castle County Department of Land Use, personal
communication, November 18, 2013). In order to enquire about code violations
against a particular landlord, one would have to file a Freedom of Information Act
Request at one's own cost and a fair amount of time for staff research would be
required (New Castle County Assistant Land Use General Manager, James Smith,
personal communication, September 6, 2013). So, at least in New Castle County,
Delaware, in 2014, it would not be easy, inexpensive or quick to assess a prospective
landlord via his/her code violation records.
In terms of policy making, the decision to research and establish Chapter 19
appears to have been conducted in a thoughtful methodical manner, inviting input
"from all interested citizens and included more than three dozen members representing
diverse interest groups" (New Castle County Council, 2005, p 1) for almost a year.
One of its stated intended purposes is to "provide data on the effectiveness of the new
residential policies and to help determine if additional steps need to be taken" (New
Castle County Council, p. 2). A County Rental Housing Advisory Committee (also
established in Chapter 19 and charged with monitoring the code) might be charged to
do the above-mentioned staff-intensive research. In response to questions from this
168
author abut the effectiveness of Chapter 19, New Castle County Assistant Land Use
General Manager James Smith responded:
Most cases that are opened in NCC fall under one or more of the
following: Chapter 7 Property Maintenance Code, Chapter 6 Buildings
& Structures and/or Chapter 12 Drainage Code. Very few random
rental inspections [that happen under Chapter 19] result in the opening
of an actual case, because the problems are generally corrected after the
landlord is cited…. The Rental Code has been effective in finding
serious problems in Rental complexes around the County and getting
them corrected quickly.
(New Castle County Assistant Land Use General Manager, James
Smith, personal communication, July 20-21 2014.)
According to Councilman John Cartier (whose district includes Claymont), the
greatest accomplishment from Chapter 19, which he referred to as "a first step" toward
County rental regulation, has been that nearly all of the approximately 30,000 rental
properties in the County have been registered since its establishment 9 years ago.
However, he agreed that not having a digitized system (making it tedious to find
which landlords are getting cited) and a lack of funding resources, which only allow
for the 5% random inspection, make it difficult to asses the Code's effectiveness in
terms of preventing rental properties from falling into slum status (New Castle County
Councilman John Cartier, personal communication, July 21, 2014).
Chapter 19 was developed as a response to many years of constituent
complaints and, as noted above, admission by community leaders, including a county
council member, that the problem of properties falling into horrendous condition was
due, in part, to lack of county oversight. US Senator Chris Coons, who initiated the
process (per Councilman John Cartier) during his tenures as County Council President
and then County Executive, was able to take advantage of his position and initiated the
process of researching and developing a code.
169
As Mckee (2009) and Cruikshank (1993) discuss, one of the "techniques" of
governmentality is that of making policy that "empowers" citizens to act in a certain
way, and on their own behalf, enabling a citizens' agency. In this, writes Mckee,
"Foucault conceives power to be more about the 'management of possibilities: and the
ability to 'structure the (possible) actions of others' than recourse to violence or
coercion” (2009, p. 471.) Along with Chapter 19, a booklet was produced when Chris
Coons was still County Executive called "Top 10 Least Wanted List: Ten Most
Common Code Violations." This list includes a phone number for citizens to call in
order to make code violation complaints. Clearly, Mr. Coons was hoping to empower
citizens to make use of the Office of Code Enforcement. However, this policy does
not remove any of the "dangers" for poorer renters, as discussed below.
The Slum Cycle- The Power of the Landlord
As discussed above, Brookview had been allowed to deteriorate over several
decades. Why would an owner allow his/her property to decline to squalid conditions?
And why would the tenants put up with such conditions? This cycle of turning what
was at one time new, decent housing stock into "slums" is an age-old problem. At
some point, as stock deteriorates, a landlord can either make repairs or begin to rent to
a poorer tenant. (Or an area may become less desirable for any number of reasons, and
the landlord is forced to accept lower rents.) At this point, a cycle can begin: the
landlord keeps charging the same rent, but does not re-invest in property upkeep, and
therefore makes money from the poorer tenants. These tenants are usually limited in
their choice of housing, and are willing to accept poorer conditions, and do not have
resources to make repairs or improvements themselves. This cycle continues as the
170
property deteriorates, and yet some group is willing to pay for a place to live, and are
wary of complaining, lest they be evicted (Vaughn, 1968).
In addition, some tenants can gain "alternative value" from slum landlords
such as a "no question asked" policy— to be used for illegal activities (drug dealing,
gambling, and prostitution) or subletting to more tenants that are allowed, or the
tenants themselves are illegal immigrants (Blomé & Lind, 2011).
What about rental code enforcement? Rental code enforcement can favor the
landlord, for instance, if it is applied in some and not all units that a landlord owns.
Landlords can choose to make the appropriate repairs, etc. to the cited units and then
pass the costs on to the tenants, who may still be forced, for economic reasons to
remain in the same location, or other slightly less poor tenants can be lured away from
other low-rent housing landlords, or even those belonging to the same landlord, who
will then re-inhabit the "slummier" housing with more poor tenants (Ackerman, 1971).
There are still other schemes that have been identified that can benefit slum
landlords— despite rental codes. These are "exit strategies," referring to how the
landlord plans to exit the landlord business. One, for example, is quite like the way
that the owners of Brookview made their "exit." They sold valuable property at the
height of a housing bubble— the condition of the rental units themselves was
irrelevant (Blomé & Lind, 2011).
Simply put, in the neoliberal way of thinking, housing is a commodity, and
subject to the energies of the marketplace. You rent or buy what you can afford and
you are not "owed" more. However, there has been some form of fair housing laws
implemented in the US since New York City enacted The Tenement Housing Act of
1867 (Dorsey, 2005). At some point, when necessary, government should and does
171
intervene concerning conditions of housing and also provides subsidies (HUD Section
8) for those who cannot afford any housing at any regular housing rate. Still, those
subsidized units often remain in slum conditions. Even when a rental code exists, it
does not seem to be enough. Rental codes have also been selectively used against
tenants, in order to get properties condemned for redevelopment (Dorsey, 2005).
When New Castle County's Rental Code was being researched, there was a
clash between those who wanted mandatory inspection of all housing units, and
landlords who rebutted that mandatory inspections "potentially increase the time
between on tenant moving out and another moving in, leaving fewer properties and
forcing landlord to increase rents to make up for lost income" (Hale, 2002, p. C.1,).
As was discussed above— mandatory inspection of 30,000 + rental units is not
affordable.
A 2008 study of five small cities in North Carolina found that various forms of
proactive inspection and certification programs (violators were fined and/or cut off
from utilities) did decrease the number of housing complaints, but with a number of
problems and caveats: some cities took years to inspect all units, some employed
sampling methods— so every unit was not actually inspected. One town outsourced
inspections to private inspectors and passed the costs on to landlords. Landlords in
some towns formed their own organized opposition or were put on oversight boards.
One program folded altogether. The author concluded that some type of performance
measurement is critical:
Cities creating or administering rental inspections programs would benefit
from operational procedures and database technologies that enable staff to track
progress in individual cases and also create reports on program outputs and outcomes,
172
such as types of inspections, time to compliance and number of properties with repeat
violations. (Hickey, 2008, p. 5)
Success Requires Tenant and Community Involvement
In the late 1990s Columbia Heights, an area of Washington DC, was
threatened with gentrification from neighboring areas. The area was heavily populated
by Hispanics and Vietnamese residents. The District targeted "hot properties"
(properties that had excessive housing code violations) for demolition and in 2000,
sent out condemnation notices to five apartment buildings, giving tenants two weeks
to move out. The tenants and building owners sued the city claiming that "the District
failed to take less dramatic and less discriminatory measures to ensure the health and
safety of the tenants before posting closure notices and closing the residential
buildings" (Dorsey, 2005, p 453). The residents and owners won— and eventually, in
one case, the tenants themselves took ownership of their building. Landlords were
forced to pay for building restorations (Dorsey, 2005). Community organization was
the key.
A 2008 study conducted in the Netherlands by Helen Kruythoff of OTB
Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies also cites organization and
cooperation as crucial to returning some power and control to tenants. In 1998, the
Dutch government passed the Act on Tenant-Landlord Deliberation. It required
"deliberation" or discussion, a long held tradition in the Netherlands, between Housing
Associations (landlords) and Tenants' organizations. The Act stipulates a minimum set
of subjects about which a landlord is required to enter into deliberations with tenants
after informing them of some change to these subjects, including any changes the
landlord intends to make to rental properties. Housing organizations and tenants'
173
associations can also enter into further reaching covenants, which can be quite
complex and even allow for tenants to approve or disapprove in certain instances (for
which the original Act did not provide). One side or the other can introduce a subject
for deliberation, and there are time and cost guidelines attached to the process. As one
might imagine, this extremely "democratic" process can be slow and frustrating.
However, after in-depth analysis of a particularly complex landlord-tenant covenant in
Rotterdam, the author concluded:
In the end, despite the critiques of participants from both sides,
participation in the central deliberation meetings has proved effective.
Tenants had succeeded in exerting influence on the housing
association's policy in different cases and the participants have learnt
from one another. (Kruythoff, 2008, p. 655)
Finally, another form of tenant participation involves allowing dissatisfied
tenants to petition courts or other authorities to turn a property where egregious
problems have not been addressed by landlords over to a management company in a
form of "receivership." One such program is in place in New York State is Article 7A
of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. Section 770(1) of this law reads:
Grounds for the proceeding:
1. One-third or more of the tenants occupying a dwelling located in the
city of New York or the commissioner of the department of the city of
New York charged with enforcement of the housing maintenance code
of such city, or in the counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland and
Westchester may maintain a special proceeding as provided in this
article, upon the ground that there exists in such dwellings or in any
part thereof a lack of heat or of running water or of light or of
electricity or of adequate sewage disposal facilities, or any other
condition dangerous to life, health or safety, which has existed for five
days, or an infestation by rodents, or any combination of such
conditions; or course of conduct by the owner or his agents of
harassment, illegal eviction, continued deprivation of services or other
acts dangerous to life, health or safety. (New York State Housing
Court, n.d.)
174
Decisions about these cases are determined in New York's Housing Courts, in
which a judge can order a property into management or order the landlords to make
repairs, using the escrowed rents and sometimes state subsidies. A review of this
program prepared by Molly Wasow Park for Judge G. Oliver Koppel, notes: "The
better documented the history of maintenance failures, the less likely the judge will
allow landlords to make repairs independently. Non-profit organizations, working with
tenant groups, play a key role in establishing this history, and therefore bring a
building into the 7A program" (Park, 2003, p.1).
These programs corroborate the notion that tenant and community organization
can help level the playing field between landlords and tenants, using a variety of
underlying codes, laws or agreements to their mutual advantage. This author would
encourage rental properties in Claymont to form tenant's organizations— per
Councilman John Cartier, other than the organization formed to help Brookview's
tenants relocate, Claymont's rental developments have never had tenant councils (New
Castle County Councilman John Cartier, personal communication, March 14, 2015). I
would also encourage them to link to other agencies with similar constituents, and
actively interface with County Code enforcement officers as well as their landlords.
Councilman Cartier has also agreed to discuss digitalizing code violations with fellow
council members (New Castle County Councilman, personal communication, John
Cartier, February 19, 2015).
175
Implications for Future Research
Extension of the Current Study
Due to the delay in building, this study has focused the processes leading up to
gentrification and some experience with the first buildings and new neighbors. A
follow-up study or studies over time would be valuable to gentrification research, and
could include both gentrifiers (residents and merchants of Darley Green) and nongentrifiers. It would be interesting to again focus on merchants and residents who live
or work close to or adjacent to Darley Green, but then also move out from the
development in regular distances and compare results. As Daniel Sullivan suggested
in his 2007 study in Portland, Oregon, this might best be accomplished by a mixedmethod approach; using interviews and focus groups while adding survey data in order
to better capture the complexities of this subject.
General Implications
While it could be completely coincidental, it is interesting that the current
study as well as two other studies mentioned here that fit the "third wave" criteria
happened in unincorporated towns (Claymont, Dundalk, and Leith). Is it easier for
private/public partnerships to form and broker deals with developers if there is no
binding input from a local municipal government? A comparison study of
gentrification projects happening in incorporated and unincorporated towns could
prove quite interesting. The same neoliberal/governmentality theories could be
applied. Would the process be less "opaque" if the town undergoing gentrification was
incorportated? Would citizens feel more informed and powerful?
A study of other gentrification projects that were started immediately prior to
the 2008 housing bubble collapse may also prove useful to current research. Which
176
project survived and how did they survive? Were plans altered? Was the build-out
time framed altered significantly as it has been in Claymont? Which projects didn’t
survive? Are there half-started projects and are they inhabited or not? Were some
razed? In addition, projects started after the housing bubble collapse may have
markedly different qualities in their planning and execution processes which could be
useful to compare to those that started before.
Finally, this author found that social media was a rich resource for perceptions
about the history of Claymont and those of the gentrification project. But IRB
permission was not obtained for asking questions of these groups and so this was
abandoned. It seems logical that future research should tap into the social media
networks, even if as just a way to identify research participants who could then be
vetted as to their identity and backgrounds. As stated on the Research Information
Network Page: "Social media is an important technological trend that has big
implications for how researchers (and people in general) communicate and
collaborate. Researchers have a huge amount to gain from engaging with social media
in various aspects of their work" (Gray, 2011, para.1).
Transferability
As discussed in Chapter Three, transferability is related to generalizability in
quantitative research. In quantitative research, the researcher uses certain standards
including sample size and the validity of findings via statistical analysis to allow the
researcher to draw inferences about a larger population. The qualitative case study
researcher aims to provide the reader with enough detailed information and description
of the context of his subject that the it can be applied or "transferred" to a similar study
of the same subject or even to a study of another subject with a similar context.
177
In this study, the researcher was interested in the perceptions of nongentrifying residents and merchants of a gentrification process. What this research
found is that non-gentrifiers are valuable witnesses of the gentrification process. They
have their own perceptions, opinions and experiences of the history of the area, of its
key players and institutions, and the planning and execution of the gentrification
process, including whether it has or will affect them on any level.
As discussed in findings, the perceptions of the respondents in this case study
included that many felt a sense of mistrust of the entities, both private and public,
involved in the process that led to the razing and development of Darley Green, in
spite of many public demonstrations and hearings held by the developers and nonelected representatives of the town. They felt that others were making decisions and
plans for their community without their input, and that the decisions and plans kept
changing. Some were not at all able to identify who had been involved in the planning
process. And finally, the high density of the final plan led many to have concerns that
Darley Green would eventually become a slum, unless it was managed differently than
its predecessor, Brookview.
Asking about the respondents whether they knew what actors or groups were
responsible for razing Brookview and developing Darley Green was prompted by the
philosophy of governmentality. The respondent's answers demonstrate their
perception of the "opacity" of the planning process, and left them feeling manipulated
and anxious. The meetings held to gather input seemed like propaganda (techniques)
to some, and they felt that their input did not make a difference. The public-private
partnerships involved also made it more difficult for respondents to keep track of who
was responsible for various aspects of the projects and the deals made between
178
developers and County were confusing— leading to misunderstanding about density
bonuses and workforce (affordable) housing requirements. It may be that as residents
and merchants of an unincorporated town, it is always difficult to know who is in
charge; this allows for unelected actors to collaborate with other entities with more
ease. Applying this same line of questioning, with governmentality as a theoretical
basis, to other case studies of gentrification, especially those that focus on nongentrifiers, may yield similar rich "witness" information.
Another aspect of this study that can be transferred to other gentrification case
studies is breaking the respondents into the subgroups of residents and merchants. It is
natural for these groups to have at least some different opinions about a process that
will most likely affect them. In the case studied here, the respondents, both residents
and merchants, were chosen purposefully for their close physical proximity to the
gentrification site. This may have intensified the differences in the perceptions of the
two groups. Merchants were immediately affected by the razing of Brookview in the
loss of customers, and worry about the time it is taking for the project to be finished
post housing bubble. They are also impacted by new constraints enacted by the DRAC
committee. Residents are more concerned with the future impact of the development
on the overall community's image and survival. They are concerned that the
development be comprised of home owners and not renters, and most especially not
low-income renters. They have concerns about the architectural styles and the
soundness of building practices used in Darley Green. Merchants want their
businesses to survive the change in customer base. Applying the use of these
subgroups to other gentrification case is easily done
179
Limits of the Study
The limits of this study, in addition to being a qualitative study, and therefore
limited by the subjective analysis of this researcher include the following: There were
a small number of interview subjects: five for the first research question and sixteen
for the remaining and main four questions. The subjects were not chosen randomly,
but rather purposefully. The five for the first question were chosen for their
significant involvement with community institutions, as they were providing, along
with quotes from written documents, historical context for the study, and establishing
the sense of place identity than immediately preceded the gentrification process.
The interviews were not long; however, some of the shorter interviews
provided great insight. The main document source, The News Journal, lacks a reliable
and complete index, and therefore the researcher was limited to samples gathered from
various sources until those printed from 1999 on— which are selectively indexed on a
database. The building of the gentrification project had been delayed, and so the
interviews were mainly concerning the planning, design and early building processes;
the building continues as this study is completed. As the main interest of this
researcher was the perception of the respondents, personal contact with officials and
stakeholders was limited, and mainly to corroborate important factual information.
Other information from these sources was also derived from document research.
Finally, researcher bias, discussed thoroughly in the Methods Chapter, must be
considered a limitation, although the researcher strove to minimize subjectivities.
Contributions to the Literature
The findings in this study contribute to current gentrification research in the
following ways: as remarked upon previously, it adds to the limited research on non-
180
gentrifiers and to the limited but growing research on gentrification in suburbs. Nongentrifiers certainly have a stake in the outcome of gentrification, particularly the kind
of gentrification taking place in the "Third Wave" of gentrification, to which this study
also contributes. Third Wave gentrification often happens in the suburbs, is large scale
and involves neoliberal coalitions of private organizations and local government,
which is precisely what happened in Claymont.
This study also divides the research subjects into two groups, residents and
merchants. While this may seem an obvious distinction, it is not evident in other
research focusing on non-gentrifiers. Merchants and commercial changes are
mentioned in these studies, but merchants are not treated as primary respondents. This
is puzzling, because it would seem logical that an upward change in economic class of
a significant portion of any town or neighborhood would impact merchants who
serviced the previous lower class.
Finally, the perceptions of the respondents in this study bring some of the
"moral" issues of gentrification to the fore; a full circle from Levy's 1963 plea to
include the "humanities" in urban planning, to Tom Slater's more recent concerns. As
Levy warns in the final pages of his study:
In conclusion, it is no simply that we want to supply our future planners
or administrators with a variety of more alluring ideals, but more
immediately, we must broaden their knowledge of existing
realities….our planners and developers should… obligated to conduct
neighborhood or community impact statements. Beyond property
values and a broadening tax base, they must be compelled to consider
the non-quantifiable value of neighborhoods, parishes and the feeling
of loyalty to place. (Levy, 1963, p. 83)
181
REFERENCES
Ackerman, B. (1971). Regulating slum housing markets on behalf of the poor: Of
housing codes, housing subsidies and income redistribution. The Yale Law
Journal, 80, 1093-1197. doi: 10.2307/795276
Anderson, E. (1990). Streetwise: race, class and change in an urban community.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Arnold, S. (2001, March 22). Claymont residents seek sense of place, The News
Journal, p.3B.
Arnold, S. (2002, February 22). Claymont group ponders study, The News Journal,
p. B6.
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute
of Planners, 35, 216-224. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225
Atkinson, R. (2003). Introduction: Misunderstood saviour or vengeful wrecker? The
many meanings and problems of gentrification. Urban Studies, 40, 2343–
2350. doi:10.1080/0042098032000136093
Atkinson, R. (2004). The evidence on the impact of gentrification: New lessons for the
urban renaissance? International Journal of Housing Policy, 4, 107–131.
doi:10.1080/1461671042000215479
Bauers, B. (1987, November 26). For steel workers, the death blow finally comes. The
News Journal, p. A19.
Bauman, A. (1993, December 21). Talent an integral part of Claymont life. The News
Journal.
Basiouny, A. (2005, December 3). Forced to leave apartments, working poor find few
options: NCCo residents battle in crowded housing market. The News
Journal, p. A1.
Basiouny, A. (2008, March 2). Housing law depends on incentives. The News Journal,
B1.
182
Basiouny, A. (2008, August 4). Claymont Redevelopment Advances. The News
Journal, B1.
Basiouny, A. (2008, September 17). NCCo Council OKs special financing. The News
Journal, B1.
Basiouny, A. (2009, April 1). Work starts on homes at Brookview site. The News
Journal. B1.
Basiouny, A. (2009, September 18). Darley Green opens its first doors. The News
Journal.
Bernstein, J., McNichol, E., & Nichols, A. (2008). Pulling apart: A state-by-state
analysis of income trends. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities and Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from:
http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/4-9-08sfp.pdf
Besso, M. (2004, October 22). Candidates believe area underserved by county;
Redevelopment needed, resident says. The News Journal, p. B2.
Biden, J. (2007). Promises to keep: On life & politics. New York: Random House.
Billington, M. (2004, December 5). Claymont's parade has local treasure in tow. The
News Journal, p. B3.
Blomé, G., & Lind, H. (2011). The return of the Swedish slumlord: Analysis of a
recent case. Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm.
Bloom, M. (1975, November 26). Claymont group weighs own schools. The News
Journal.
Bloom, M. (1976, August 12). Claymont, Conrad taking blacks only. The News
Journal.
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation; A
road map from beginning to end (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bounds, M., & Morris, A. (2006). Second wave gentrification in inner-city Sydney.
Cities, 23, 99-108. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2005.09.001
Brenner. N. (2001). The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar
structuration. Progress in Human Geography, 25, 591-614. doi:
10.1191/030913201682688959
183
Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of “actually existing
neoliberalism.” Antipode, 34, 349-379. doi: 10.1111/1467-8330.00246
Brown, R. (2011, November 15). Claymont each year remembers that plucky plant on
Philly Pike. The News Journal.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Burroughs, B. (1977, February 20). Counseling by day, a gather place at night. The
News Journal.
Butler, T. (2007). For gentrification? Environment and Planning A, 39, 162-181.
doi:10.1068/a38472
Cahill, C. (2006). “At risk”? The fed up honeys re-present the gentrification of the
lower east side. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 34(1/2), 334-363.
Cahill, C. (2007). Including excluded perspectives in participatory action research.
Design Studies, 28, 325-340. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.006
Canavan, C. (1987, February 1). Merchants near mill make do and wonder about the
future. The News Journal, p. F1.
Carpenter, J. and Lees, L. (1995), Gentrification in New York, London and Paris: An
International Comparison. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 19, 286–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.1995.tb00505.x
Centeno, M. A., & Cohen, J.N. (2012). The arc of neoliberalism. Annual Review of
Sociology, 38, 317-340. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150235
Chadderdon, J. (2007, November 23). Demolition of Brookview Townhomes begins:
Renaissance Village planned for site. Brandywine Community News-East, pp.
1, 17.
Charles, S.L. (2011, July) Suburban gentrification: The spatial and temporal pattern
of residential redevelopment in the inner-ring suburbs of Chicago, IL, 20002010. Paper presented at the Research Committee 21 (RC21) on Sociology of
Urban and Regional Development Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Clarke, P. W. (2005). The ideal of community and its counterfeit construction. Journal
of Architectural Education, 58(3), 43-52. doi: 10.1162/1046488053420960
Congress for the New Urbanism. (2001). The Charter of the New Urbanism. Retrieved
from http://www.cnu.org/charter
184
Côté, J., Salmela, J.H., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1993). Organizing and interpreting
unstructured qualitative data. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 127-137.
Cruikshank, B. (1993). The will to empower: Technologies of citizenship and the war
on poverty. Socialist Review, 23(4), 29-55.
Cuba, L., & Hummon, D.M. (1993). A place to call home: Identification with
dwelling, community, and region. The Sociological Quarterly, 34, 111-131.
doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00133.x
Danielsen, K.A., Lang, R.E., & Fulton, W. (1999). Retracting suburbia: Smart growth
and the future of housing. Housing Policy Debate, 10, 513-540.
doi:10.1080/10511482.1999.9521341
Deacon, R.A. (2003). Fabricating Foucault: Rationalising the management of
individuals. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.
Dean, M.M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dean, M.M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Delaware Public Archives (n.d.) New Castle County School District. Retrieved
from: http://archives.delaware.gov/collections/aghist/8181.shtml
Doherty, P. & Leinberger, C. (2010, November/December). The next real estate boom:
How housing (yes, housing) can turn the economy around. Washington
Monthly. Retrieved from:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1011.dohertyleinberger.html
Dorsey, C. (2005). It takes a village: Why community organizing is more effective
than litigation alone at ending discriminatory housing code enforcement.
Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 12, 437-465.
Doucet, B. (2009). Living through gentrification: Subjective experiences of local, nongentrifying residents in Leith, Edinburgh. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 24, 299–315. doi: 10.1007/s10901-009-9151-3
Doucet, B. (2014). A process of change and a changing process: Introduction to the
special issue on contemporary gentrification. Tijdschrift voor Economische en
Sociale Geografie, 105, 125–139. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12075
185
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl
and the decline of the American dream. New York: North Point Press.
Easterbrook, G. (1999). Comment on Karen A. Danielsen, Robert E. Lang, and
William Fulton's "Retracting Suburbia: Smart Growth and the Future of
Housing." Housing Policy Debate 10 , 541-547. doi:
10.1080/10511482.1999.9521342
Fraser, A. (2010). The craft of scalar practices. Environment and Planning A, 42, 332346. doi:10.1068/a4299
Freeman, L. (2006). There goes the ’hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality, In Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The
Foucault effect (pp. 87-118), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Geddes, M. (2005). Neoliberalism and local Governance- Cross-national perspectives
and speculations. Policy Studies, (26), 359-377.
doi:10.1080/01442870500198429
Glass, R. (1964). Introduction: Aspects of change. In Centre for Urban Studies (Eds.),
London: Aspects of change. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Graneheim, U.H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing
research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse
Education Today, 24, 105-112. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
Grant, J. (2006a). The ironies of new urbanism. Canadian Journal of Urban Research,
15(2), 158-174.
Grant, J. (2006b). Planning the good community: New urbanism in theory and
practice. New York: Routledge.
Gray, L. (2011, February 7). Social media: A guide for researchers. Retrieved from
http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminatingresearch/social-media- guide-researchers
Hackworth, J. (2006). The neoliberal city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hackworth, J., & Smith, N. (2001). The changing state of gentrification. Tijdschrft
voor economicische en social geografie, 92(4), 464-477. doi: 10.1111/14679663.00172
186
Hale, C. (2002, September 22). Rental changes weighed. The News Journal, C1.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Harvey, D. (2010). The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hickey, C. C. (2008). Ensuring housing quality: Proactive housing code inspections
of rental properties in North Carolina cities (Masters thesis). Retrieved from:
http://ghc.illkd.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/enhancinghousingquality.pdf
Hummon, D. M. (1990). Commonplaces: Community ideology and identity in
American culture. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Illegal Drugs in America: A Modern History, n.d., Retrieved from
http://www.deamuseum.org/ida/index.html.
Janoschka, M., Sequera, J., & Salinas, L. (2014). Gentrification in Spain and Latin
America - a critical dialogue. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 38, 1234-1265. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12030
Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A statetheoretical perspective. Antipode, 34, 452-472. doi: 10.1111/1467-8330.00250
Joseph, J. (2007, April). Neo-Liberalism, governmentality and social regulation.
Paper presented at the SAID Workshop, University of London.
Joseph, J. (2009). Governmentality of what? Populations, states and international
organisations. Global Society, 23, 413-427. doi:10.1080/13600820903198685
Kennedy, M., & Leonard, P. (April, 2001). Dealing with neighborhood change: A
primer on gentrification and policy choices. Retrieved from:
http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/DealingWithGentrification_final.p
df
Kotz, D.M. (2009). The financial and economic crisis of 2008: A systemic crisis of
neoliberalism. Review of Radical Political Economics, 41, 305-17.
doi:10.1177/0486613409335093
Krieger, A. (1998). Whose urbanism? Architecture, 87(11), 73-76.
Kruythoff, H. (2008). Tenant participation in the Netherlands: The role of laws,
covenants and (power) positions. Housing Studies, 23, 637-659. doi:
10.1080/02673030802116730
187
Kunstler, J.H. (1996). Home from nowhere: Remaking our everyday world for the 21st
Century. New York: Touchstone.
Larner, W., & Butler M. (2005). Governmentalities of local partnerships: The rise of a
“partnering state” in New Zealand. Studies in Political Economy, 75, 85–108.
Lawrence, E. C., & Elliehausen, G. (2008). A comparative analysis of payday loan
customers. Contemporary Economic Policy, 26, 299–316. doi: 10.1111/j.14657287.2007.00068.x
Lees, L. (2012). The geography of gentrification: Thinking through comparative
urbanism. Progress in Human Geography, 36, 155–171.
doi:10.1177/0309132511412998
Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (2008). Gentrification. New York: Routledge.
Lemke, T. (2000, September). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Paper
presented at the
Rethinking Marxism Conference, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Levy, P. (1978). Queen Village: The eclipse of community. A case study of
gentrification and displacement in a South Philadelphia neighborhood.
Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Civic Values.
Lewis, C. (1988, May 8). Claymont center director describes two bewildered by
change of circumstances. The News Journal, p. A13.
Lilley, S. (2006). On neoliberalism: An interview with David Harvey. MRzine.
Retrieved from: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/lilley190606.html
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
MacKinnon, D. (2000). Managerialism, governmentality and the state: a neoFoucaldian approach to local economic governance. Political Geography, 19,
293-314. doi:10.1016/S0962-6298(99)00086-4
MacLeod, G. (2002). From urban entrepreneurialism to a “revanchist city”? On the
spatial injustices of Glasgow’s renaissance. Antipode, 34, 602–624. doi:
10.1111/1467-8330.00256
MacLeod, G., Raco, M., & Ward K. (2003). Negotiating the contemporary city:
Introduction. Urban Studies, 40, 1655-1671.
doi:10.1080/0042098032000106546
188
Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges and guidelines. The
Lancet, 358, 483-488. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6
Marcuse, P. (2000). The new urbanism: The dangers so far. disP - The Planning
Review, 36(140), 4-6. doi:10.1080/02513625.2000.10556727
Marinetto, M. (2003). The governmentality of public administration: Foucault and the
public sphere. Public Administration 81, 621–634.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.).
Marshall, M.N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13, 522525.
Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).
Mckee, K. (2009). Post-Foucaldian governmentality: What does it offer critical social
policy analysis? Critical Social Policy, 29, 465-486. doi:
10.1177/0261018309105180
Meredith, J. (2003). Sprawl and the new urbanist solution. Virginia Law Review, 89,
447-503.
Milford, M. (2012, July 29). History of site - from fine estate to eyesore. The News
Journal, paras. 8, 10, 11.
Miller, B. (2005, May 10). Climate seems right for Claymont renaissance:
Redevelopment of Brookview complex a vital part of vision. The News
Journal, p. A1.
Miller, B. (2005, May 18). Frustrated Brookview tenants discuss future: Many hope
organizing helps voices to be heard on proposed redevelopment of complex.
The News Journal, p. B1.
Miller, B. (2005, July 22). Brookview residents elect leaders: Tenants organize in
preparation for sale and revitalization. The News Journal, p. B3.
Miraftab, F. (2004). Public-private partnerships: The trojan horse of neoliberal
development? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, 89-101.
doi:10.1177/0739456X04267173
Molotch, H. (1976). The city as growth machine: Toward a political economy of
place. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 309-332.
189
Monti, D. (1992). On the risks and rewards of “going native.” Qualitative Sociology,
15, 325-332.
Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification
strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 14-21.
New Castle County Council. (2005). Ordinance No. 05-039 Adding New Castle
County Code Chapter 19, Establishing a Residential Property Code. 1-23.
New Urban News. (2001). New urbanism: Comprehensive report & best practices
Guide (2001-2002 edition). Ithaca, NY: New Urban Publications.
New York State Housing Court, (n.d.). 770 Grounds for the proceeding. Retrieved
from http://www.nycourts.gov/COURTS/nyc/housing/rpapl770_1.shtml
Niedt, C. (2006). Gentrification and the grassroots: Popular support in the revanchist
suburb. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28, 99-120. doi:10.1111/j.07352166.2006.00263.x
Ostrom, E. (1993). A communitarian approach to local governance. National Civic
Review, 82, 226-233. doi:10.1002/ncr.4100820305
Park, M.W. (2003). Review of the department of housing preservation and
development’s article 7A program. Retrieved from
http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/7amemo.pdf
Peck, J. (2006). Liberating the city: Between New York and New Orleans. Urban
Geography, 27, 681-713. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.27.8.681
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34, 380-404. doi:
10.1111/1467-8330.00247
Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2009). Neoliberal urbanism: Models, moments,
mutations. SAIS Review, 29, 49-66.
Plaza, B., Tironi M., & Haarich, S. (2009) Bilbao's art scene and the “Guggenheim
effect” revisited, European Planning Studies, 17, 1711-1729. doi:
10.1080/09654310903230806
Powell, J.A., & Spencer, M.L. (2002). Giving them the old one-two: Gentrification
and the K.O. of impoverished urban dwellers of color. Howard Law Journal,
46, 443-490.
190
Prado, A. & Miller A. (2006). A special community news series focused on the lost
high schools of New Castle County. Brandywine Community News - West. 139. http://communitypub.com/losthighschools/lhs_index.htm
Prelle, Arthur. (2001, November 19). Letter to the Editor. The News Journal.
Purcell, M. (2007). City-regions, neoliberal globalization and democracy: A research
agenda. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31, 197-206.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00714.x
Raco, M. (2005). Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable
communities. Antipode, 37, 324–347. doi:10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00495.x
Raco, M., & Imrie, R. (2000). Governmentality and rights and responsibilities in urban
policy. Environment and Planning A, 32, 2187-2204. doi:10.1068/a3365
Read, J. (2009). A geneology of homo-economicus: Neoliberlism and the production
of subjectivity. Foucault Studies, 6, 25-36.
Reagan, R. (1982, October 14). Statement on Signing an Airline Industry Bill.
Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=41867
Riege, A.M. (2003). Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature
review with “hands-on” applications for each research phase tests in case study
research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6, 75-86.
doi:10.1108/13522750310470055
Rose, N. (1996) Governing advanced liberal democracies, In A. Barry, T. Osbourne,
& N. Rose, (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism
and rationalities of government (pp.37-64), Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Rose, N., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of
Law and Social Science, 2, 83-104.
doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900
Saab, A. J. (2007). Historical amnesia, new urbanism and the city of tomorrow.
Journal of Planning History, 6, 191-213. doi:10.1177/1538513206296409
Schalen, J. (2004, August 12). Design firm reveals vision for Brookview. Brandywine
Community News, p.1.
Scheik, M., & Hester, R. (2000). Claymont (Images of America). Charleston, SC:
Arcadia Press.
191
Seidel, J.V. (1998). Qualitative Data Analysis. In The Ethnograph v.5 user's manual,
Appendix E. Denver: Qualis Research Associates.
Slater, T. (2004). North American gentrification? Revanchist and emancipatory
perspectives explored. Environment and Planning A, 36, 1191-1213.
doi:10.1068/a368
Slater, T. (2006). The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30, 737-757.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2006.00689.x
Slater, T. (2008). 'A literal necessity to be re-placed': A rejoinder to the gentrification
debate. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32, 212-223.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00781.x
Slater, T. (2009). Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement. City, 13, 292311. doi:10.1080/13604810902982250
Smith, N. (1998). Giuliani time: The revanchist 1990s. Social Text, 57, 1-20.
Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as a global urban
strategy. Antipode, 34, 427–450. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00249
Spain, D. (1993). Been-heres versus come-heres negotiating conflicting community
identities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59, 156–171.
doi:10.1080/01944369308975865
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R.E. (2010). Qualitative research: studying how things work. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Sullivan, D. (2007). Reassessing gentrification: Measuring residents' opinions using
survey data. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 583-592.
doi:10.1177/1078087406295828
Susser, I. (1996). The construction of poverty and homelessness in US cities. Annual
Review of Anthropology, 25, 411-435. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.411
Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and
rescaling. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17, 25-48.
doi:10.1080/0955757042000203632
192
Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of
governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42, 1991-2006. doi:
10.1080/00420980500279869
Talen, E. (2000). The problem with community in planning. Journal of Planning
Literature, 15, 171-183. doi:10.1177/08854120022092971
Taylor, A., & Livengood, C. (2011, October 16). Is bigger Stolz plan really a bluff?
The News Journal.
Taylor, A. (2012, June 9). ‘Friendly foreclosure’ planned for Darley Green
development. The News Journal.
Taylor, A. (2014, March 5). Some doubt Darley Green can fill the bill. The News
Journal, p. 1.
The News Journal. (1977, May 7). Claymont. The News Journal, para. 5.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (July 19, 2015). About Hope
VI. Retrieved from
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_hou
sing/programs/ph/hope6/about#4
Thomas Committa Associates, Inc., & The New Castle County Department of Land
Use. (2004, August 3). The Claymont community redevelopment plan: Manual
of design guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www.claymontrenaissance.org/pdfs/plandoc-design-guidelines.pdf
Vaughan, T. R. (1968). The landlord-tenant relation in a low-income area. Social
Problems, 16, 208-218. doi:10.2307/800006
Vicario, L., & Monje, P.M.M. (2003). Another 'Guggenheim Effect'? The Generation
of a Potentially Gentrifiable Neighbourhood in Bilbao. Urban Studies, 40,
2383-2400, doi:10.1080/0042098032000136129
Wacquant, L. (1999). How penal common sense comes to Europeans: Notes on the
transatlantic diffusion of the neoliberal doxa. European Societies, 1, 319 –352.
doi:10.1080/14616696.1999.10749936
Weitz, B. A., & Whitfield, M. B. (2010). Trends in US Retailing. In M. Kraft & M.K.
Mantrala (Eds.), Retailing in the 21st century: Current and future trends (2nd
ed., pp. 83-99). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Wilson, C. (1989, August). Through the mill. Delaware Today, 43-53, 112-113.
193
Wilson, D. (2004). Toward a contingent neoliberalism. Urban Geography, 25, 771783. doi: 10.2747/0272-3638.25.8.771
Wyly, E.K., & Hammel, D.J. (2001). Gentrification, housing policy, and the new
context in urban development. In K. F. Gotham (Ed.), Critical perspectives on
urban redevelopment (6th ed., pp. 211-276). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Wyly, E. & Hammel, D. (2008). Commentary: Urban policy frontiers, Urban Studies,
45, 2643–2648. doi:10.1177/0042098008097109
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
ZHA, Inc., (August, 2002). Retail market and development feasibility analysis:
Idealized build-out plan 2. Retrieved from http://www.idealrealty.com/landstar
Zweig, M. (2000). The working class majority: America’s best kept secret. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
194
Appendix A
CLAYMONT RENAISSANCE STAKEHOLDER LIST
Claymont Renaissance
c/o Claymont Community Coalition
14 Franklin Avenue
Claymont, Delaware 19703
(302) 792-2071
www.claymontrenaissance.org
The listing below represents the many organizations, legislators and agencies we have
supporting our initiative.
Principal Stakeholders
Claymont Community Coalition
Claymont Business Owners Association
Claymont Historical Society
Claymont Lions Club
Claymont Village
Darley Society
Civic
Ashbourne Hills Civic Association
Claymont Community Center
Claymont Fire Company
Darley Woods Civic Association
Delaware Greenways
East Coast Greenways
Friends of the Claymont Stone School
Knights of Columbus
Knollwood Development Corporation
Overlook Colony Civic Association
Preservation Delaware, Inc.
Radnor Green Civic Association
Riverside Civic Association
Rolling Park Civic Association
Women’s Club of Claymont
195
Technical Consultants
Thomas Comitta Associates Inc. (regional urban planner)
New Castle County Land Use Department
ZHA (national marketing firm)
Greystone Realty Advisors (commercial real estate consultant)
Governmental Agencies
Delaware Department of Transportation (DELDOT)
Delaware Economic and Development Office (DEDO)
Delaware State Planning Office
Delaware Transit Corporation
Delaware Division of Historical & Cultural Affairs
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration
Home Builders Association of Delaware
New Castle County Historic Review Board
New Castle County Land Use Department
U.S. Transportation & Community & System Preservation (TSCP) Wilmington Area
Planning Commission (WILMAPCO)
Legislators
Senator Joseph Biden
Senator Thomas Carper
Congressman Michael Castle
Governor Ruth Ann Minner
Lt. Governor John Carney
County Executive Thomas Gordon
Senator Cathy Cloutier
State Representative David Ennis
State Representative Greg Lavelle
State Representative Wayne Smith
State Representative Robert Valihura
County Councilman Robert Weiner
Educational
Archmere Academy
Brandywine School District
Claymont Elementary School
University of DE Center for Historic Architecture and Design
196
Religious
Ascension Episcopal Church
Holy Rosary Church
The Lighthouse Assembly of God
Methodist Episcopal Church of Atonement
Media
WDEL Radio Station
WRDX Radio Station
Businesses
Florida Power & Light (FP&L)
General Chemical Corporation
Struever Brothers, Eccles & Rouse
Sun Oil Corporation (SUNOCO)
Professional Organizations
Delaware State Chamber of Commerce
New Castle County Chamber of Commerce
New Castle County Economic Development Corporation
197
Appendix B:
RESEARCH CODE BOOK
198
RQ1 What is the historical context of the changing place identity of
Claymont?
Interviews were color-coded by hand and hand-sorted.
CODE
DEFINITION
CATEGORY
Sense of Loss/nostalgia
for
"old" Claymont.
Sense of Loss/nostalgia
for Claymont HS
Historical Claymont
Civic Pride
References to "better times"
in Claymont in the past.
Glory Days
Past Experiences/Nostalia
of Brookview
Stereotypical/class
Descriptions of Claymont
Nostalgia for Claymont High
School
Pride in various aspects of
community (during post-war
years).
Remembering better times in
Brookview.
Current Claymont Civic
Pride
Perceptions of Claymont that
become Claymont's "bad
reputation."
References to poor residents,
rentors, minorities, "bad
element" as implied or stated
reasons for decline of
Claymont.
References to steel mill
implying or stating its
negative impact on
Claymont—esp. pollution
References to deseg. of
schools in 1978 and Closing
of Claymont High School I
1990 and Claymont School
District
References to state or county
as being unfair to Claymont,
including Section 8 housing
References to larger society
economic problems that
negatively impacted
Claymont
Pride in various aspects of
community
Return of civic
Reference to community
Reasons or Groups to
Blame for Claymont's
Decline.
Negative attitudes toward
Steel Mill
Desegregation,
Integration/Busing
Negative Attitudes
Toward county or State
Governments
General Economic
Downturns
199
Victimized Town
Cautiously
Hopeful
Community
THEME
DISMANTLING
AND
REVITALIZING A
COMMUNITY
pride/hope
Positive Attitudes Toward
County or State
Governments
Positive attitudes toward
steel mill
Opinions of Darley Green
renewal or hope of renewal
of Claymont
References to state or county
assisting Claymont's
revitalization
References to steel mill
implying or stating its
positive impact on Claymont
Opinions of Darley Green
RQ2. How do the residents and merchants perceive Claymont now?
RQ3. What are perceptions of residents and merchants concerning
the removal of Brookview and the development of Darley Green?
RQ4. What are the general expectations of the residents and
merchants for the future of Claymont as the gentrification process
continues?
Using the software HyperRESEARCH 3.5.2., 79 original codes were
produced. Codes were then collapsed into categories that supported
three themes: Nostalgic For A Stable Community, Making Sense of
the Gentrification Process and The Community's Future
CODES
DEFINITIONS
CATEGORIES
Blue Collar/Working
Class
Lower socioeconmic
class
Lower Class/Poor
Mill/industrial jobs for good
wages
Lower socioeconomic class
CLASS
AMBIGUITY
Middle Class
Nostagia for "Old"
Claymont
Pro Return of Schools
Positive About
Claymont Community
Center
Needs assistance/live in
rental/Section 8
Affords certain things— need
no assistance/professional
Missing the earlier days of
Claymont-pre-school closing
Would like to see schools, at
least HS return
Claymont Community Center is
an asset
200
CONFLICTING
SENSE OF
REPUTATION
THEMES
NOSTALGIC FOR
A STABLE
COMMUNITY
Positive Opinion of
Hispanics
Neg. Claymont
Reputation
Positive Reputation
About Claymont
Positive opinion of
Brookview
Claymont poor
represented in press
Neg. experiences in
Claymont
Drug Culture
Claymont Dumped On
No Help from Leaders
or Politicians
Neg. opinion of
renters/Section
Dislike Current Stores
Dislike Current
Claymont Business
Dislike Newer
Claymont residents
Dislike political
districting in
Claymont
Loss of Claymont
businesses
Neg. Experience in
Brookview
Poor police response
Celebrate History
Positive Outlook for
Claymont's Future
Mixed Feelings About
Claymont's Future
Neg. Opinion
Claymont's Future
Hispanic residents have been
good neighbors
Aware of Claymont's reputation
as dangerous, run-down, drug
center, etc.
Feels that Claymont is a good
place
Feels that there were good
people in Brookview
Only bad news about Claymont
gets press
Has had poor or dangerous
experiences in Claymont
Upset about the illegal drug
activities in Claymont
Claymont is where state sends
the poor, renters, decisions are
made outside that are bad for
town
Experience receiving no
response from leaders or
politicians when needing
assistance
Feels that many renters/Section
8 residents devalue town
Would like different Stores in
Claymont
Current Claymont Businesses
Add to Neg. reputation
Newer Claymont residents are
not friendly
Claymont is "cut-up" into too
many political districts
Many middle class businesses
have been lost
Has had poor or dangerous
experiences in Brookview
Police response to Claymont is
slow
Celebrating Claymont's History
is good for the town
Optimistic about future of town
Not sure about future of town—
many variables
Pessimistic about future of town
201
OPTMISTICAL
LY CYNICAL
ABOUT THE
FUTURE OF
THE TOWN
Claymont Turning
Around
Impact of
national/global
economy on
Claymont's Future
Claymont has begun to turn
itself around
Claymont is vulnerable to what
happens to national, global
economically
MAKING SENSE
OF THE
GENTRIFICATION
PROCESS
Positive opinion of
razing Brookivew
Neutral opinion of
razing Brookview
Mixed opinion of
razing Brookview
Negative opinion
razing Brookview
Brookview
Landlord/Slumlord
Manipulation
Brookview Was
Allowed to Fail
Neg. Opinion of
Landlords
Neg. opinion of NCC
Council
Neg. Reputation of
History of Brookview
Targetting a
population
Time Factor in Getting
Darley Green Built
GovernanceNo/little/wrong Idea of
the "They"
Dislike Density
No understanding of
New Urbanism
Impact of Razing on
Land Near Site
Feeling Duped by the
County/All
Glad that Brookview was razed:
needed to be
No real opinion about razing of
Brookview
Glad that Brookview was razed,
but with some reservations
Brookview's razing was handled
poorly—perhaps some of it
could have been saved
Brookview and other rental
"slumlords" schemed to bring
very poor/criminal residents
State/County allowed
Brookview to fail over long
period of time
Landlords do not act in
residents' best interest
Feels New Castle County
Council is not doing job
Has heard about the negative
past of Brookview
Gentrification process went
after Brookview residents
Darley Green is taking a long
time getting built, wonders
when it will be finished?
Has no idea who the various
actor are who planned the Ren.
or Darley Green
Darley Green homes too close
together, setbacks too short
Does not know philosophy and
goals of New Urbanism
Land that was razed was left
poorly graded—bugs, water a
problem
County and Ren. did not do
what they said they were going
202
RAZING A
COMMUNITY
MISUNDERST
ANDING AND
SKEPTICAL
FEELINGS
ABOUT THE
PLAN
Starter Homes Needed
Here
Feeling Left Out of the
Decision Process
Problem with Traffic
Code
DG Plans Have
Changed A Lot
Financial Impact of
Razing Brookview
Merchants Ignored by
County/Authorities
DRAC Codes Hurt
Business
Gentrification
to do
Starter homes for young
families (like Brookview was)
are needed
Respondent felt that public was
not properly included in
decisions about Ren. and Darley
Green
Dislike new striping on
Philadelphia Pike
The plans for Darley Green
keep changing— hard to keep
up
Loss of Brookview residents
negatively impacted local
businesses
Business claims no contact from
Ren. or NCC
Design Review Advisory
Comm.— rules are too strict
for businesses
Neoliberalism/Making
Money
Bringing in higher class of
residents to replace lower class
Recognizes the draw of Darley
Green—location, lower taxes,
etc.
Does not understand draw to
Claymont- why move here?
Aware of leaders who led Ren.
and planned Darley Green
Has an understanding of New
Urbanism philosophy/goals
Not willing to be fully
optimistic about Darley Green's
impact
Aware that there were
partnerships between
government and private agents
Understands making money is
point of gentrification
Neoliberalism –
Advantage Developers
Understands that developers
were given deals by County
Proactive Contact
from Ren. or County
with business
Postitive about Darley
Green
Made contact with Ren. or had
contact from Ren. for business
Draw of Darley Green
No Draw to Claymont
Agency/Leaders of
Claymont
Understand New
Urbanism
Cautious about Darley
Green
Public-private
Partnerships
Darley Green is positive for
town
203
MARGINALIZI
NG LOCAL
BUSINESSES
ATTRACTING
OUTSIDERS
UNDERSTAND
ING THE PLAN
CRITIQUING
THE
OUTCOME SO
FAR
Darley Green Poorly
Constructed
Like Look of DG
Dislike Look of DG
Negative about Darley
Green
Darly Green is being shoddily
built, building going up so
quickly
Has positive opinion of the
architecture/ appearance of
Darley Green
Has negative opinion of the
architecture/ appearance of
Darley Green
Darley Green is overpriced/not
available to Claymonters
THE
COMMUNITY'S
FUTURE
Yes there will be
interaction with Darley
Green
Darley Green residents will
interact with more longtime
residents of Claymont
Mixed there will be
Green
No there will be no
Green
Negative about Darley
Green
Mixed Outlook on
future of Darley Green
Not sure if Darley Green
residents will interact with
Ideas About Future
Claymont Businesses
Impact of DG on
Local Businesses
Fear of DG turning to
slum
Pro Incorporation
Mixed Incorporation
Con Incorporation
QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE
FUTURE OF
THE PLAN
AND IMPACT
ON THE TOWN
Darley Green residents will
keep to themselves
Darley Green has been negative
for Claymont
Not able to be completely
optimistic about future of
Darley Green
Preferred businesses for
Claymont in Darley Green and
along Pike
Will new residents use current
local businesses
Darley Green might degrade
into "another Brookview"
Claymont should incorporate to
give residents/business more
input and increased services
Would be good to incorporate
to have more input/services—
but would be more taxes
No, incorporation would be tax
burden; current system works
fine
204
SHOULD THE
TOWN
INCORPORATE
?
Appendix C
MEMBER CHECK LETTER AND BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS
205
5/18/14
Michele M. Rossi
2522 Garfield Ave
Claymont, DE 19703
Dear Interviewee:
Once again, I'd like to thank you for allowing me to interview you for my doctoral
dissertation about the development of Darley Green and Claymont. I am in the writing
stages and preparing to submit my work.
Attached is a summary of the themes that emerged from all of my interviews. On the
first page, I have listed the themes and a brief summary description of each— that may
be enough info, or should you want more, you can read the entire description. In the
tradition of qualitative research, I would appreciate your review of this summary to
ensure that I have accurately reflected your comments in these themes. You may
notice that not all subjects that were discussed are summarized, as it was determined
that they were not to be included in my final analysis. Feel free to share comments that
build upon any ideas presented in the summary, as appropriate.
Please note that I will be using a theoretical framework to further analyze the
interviews.
You may provide any comments either by email (mrossi@udel.edu) or telephone
(302-798-1906). Thank you again for your participation in this project. I look forward
to hearing from you by May 30, 2014 in order to be included in my analysis.
Best wishes for a pleasant summer!
Sincerely,
Michele M. Rossi, BA, MSW
Doctoral Candidate
School of Urban Affairs & Public Policy
University of Delaware
mrossi@udel.edu
Home: 302-798-1906
Cell: 302-753-4146
206
Brief Descriptions For Member Check
Economic Class of People in Claymont: Respondents had some difficulty defining
what middle class means in Claymont.
Nostagia for Old Claymont: Many respondents were nostalgic for Claymont as it
was in the past.
Bring the Schools Back: Many respondents would like a return of schools, especially
the high school.
Claymont Reputation: The majority of respondents were aware that Claymont has a
negative reputation, mostly outside of Claymont, but also within the community.
Current Claymont Current Businesses: Some of the respondents didn't care for the
types of businesses that have come to Claymont, especially check cashing stores and
dollar stores.
Rental housing and Section 8: There was distress among many of the respondents
concerning the high percentage of rental units in Claymont, especially Section 8 or
"public housing."
Claymont in the Future: Overall, respondents were tentatively hopeful for
Claymont's future, and anxious to see its reputation improve, a few mentioned that
Claymont has pride in its colonial history. Concern over the global economy was also
mentioned.
Views on Brookview and Its Demolition: All respondents agreed that Brookview's
demolition was either needed or inevitable.
Losing Brookview Hurt Businesses/No Contact by Renaissance or County: The
majority of merchants indicated that the demolition of Brookview hurt their businesses
and that they had had little or no contact from the Claymont Renaissance or the
County.
Who Developed Darley Green: The majority of respondents had no idea of who was
involved in the development of Darley Green. Four had fairly accurate knowledge of
who was involved in the process.
Gentrification/Draw: The respondents were aware that the goal of Darley Green is
bring in a "higher class" of residents and for money to be made through taxes. They
are aware that the "draw" is location near highways and the train station and
Delaware's low property taxes.
207
Darley Green So Far: Some respondents thought the buildings looked nice. Others
felt the buildings are shoddy or not fitting in with local architecture. A few felt the
buildings were overpriced for the area.
Will Darley Green Residents Be Claymonters: Respondents were divided as to
whether Darley Green residents would interact with other Claymont residents.
The Future of the Project: It's Taking a Long Time and Plans Keep Changing:
Nearly every respondent wondered how long it would take for Darley Green to be
built, and many were also frustrated by the plans changing often.
Understanding New Urbanism: A few of the respondents had a grasp of the
components of New Urbanism.
Should Claymont Incorporate: Respondents were divided as to whether Claymont
should incorporate.
Fear of Darley Green Becoming a Slum: Many of the respondents expressed
concern that Darley Green would eventually become a slum like Brookview.
208
Appendix D
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
209
Semi-Structured Interview Questions
Research Question 1 What is the historical context of the changing
place identity of Claymont?
Would you please describe Claymont as it has changed?
Who have been Claymont’s leaders or leading organizations? Why would you
describe them as leaders?
(Show photos of various events and activities from Claymont since 1960.)
Can you talk about what these photos mean to you?
What do they say about Claymont?
What are your opinions about the removal of Brookview and the development of
Darley Green?
Is there anything you’d like to add?
RQ2 What are the changes, if any, of the place identity of Claymont
(the host community) for residents and merchants due to the
removal of Brookview and the development of Darley Green?
Would you please describe Claymont, as it is today, in as many ways as you can—its
size, its residents, merchants, the “kind” of town it is?
Who are the leaders or leading organizations of Claymont? Why would you describe
them as leaders?
What are your opinions about the removal of Brookview and the development of
Darley Green?
What do you know about the “urban village” design of Darley Green?
How would you describe your relationship with the current and future residents and
merchants of Darley Green?
210
RQ3 What are the general expectations for the future of Claymont
of the residents and merchants?
What do you think Claymont will be like in 10 years? In 20 years?
Do these descriptions reflect what you would like the town to become? Why or why
not?
If you had the power to change the future of Claymont, what would you change? And
why?
What would you NOT like to see change in Claymont? And why not?
Do you believe that Claymont should become an official town with a mayor and a
town council? Why or why not?
211
Appendix E:
IRB LETTER OF EXEMPTION
212
213
214
Appendix F:
HACKWORTH & SMITH'S
SCHEMATIC HISTORY OF GENTRIFICATION
215
216

as you like it -- who plans the renaissance village?: a case study of

Transcription

Similar documents

2007 Newsletter - Claymont City Schools

11.2 - Hosanna Community

Order Form - Jack L. Marcus Company Institutional Sales Catalog

July 2012 City Connection Newsletter

Solivita Brochure

in search of architecture

30 Oxford Street, Harrogate, HG1 1PP Tel

Deerlake brochure - Deerlake Village