Akın 1

Contents

1
Abstract
2
Introduction
3
Urban Conservation
4
Gentrification with and against the Local Residents
5
A Thematic Discussion on the Concepts of Conservation and

Gentrification
6
The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City: Inequality

and Crime
7
Conclusion: The Outcomes and the Consequences

Bibliography

Abstract

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 2

With particular regard for drawing a certain borderline

between urban conservation and gentrification, in the first

section, the concept of urban conservation is going to be

taken into consideration to impede a range of implicit

understandings. Parallel to the stated notion, the following

section will be spared for the concept of gentrification in a

focused scope. Intended as a comparison section of the paper,

a thematic discussion on the phenomena of urban conservation

and gentrification is going to be provided. Subsequently, the

selected case study of Brooklyn Heights, NY representing the

issues of inequality and crime discussed in the gentrification

section will be given a part before to finalize the paper by

discussing the outcomes and the consequences in the conclusion

section.

Key words: Urban Conservation. Gentrification. Brooklyn

Heights, NY, Inequality. Crime.

Urban Conservation

A historic urban city is an accumulation of

archeological layers of past and present turning into a

heritage respected as something needed to be conserved that

has been stemmed from the sense of feeling responsible for

both previous and future generations and an enduring

discernment of wonder for the past that is both more

accessible and more vulnerable than ever before according to

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 3

Lowenthal.1 2
Indeed, the very idea of conservation of urban

heritage lies at the basis of the following notion explained

by Orbasli as "the interaction of human beings with the past

and the present, with buildings, spaces and one another

produces an urban dynamism and creates a spirit of place". 3

Apart from the conceptual definition, two types of situations

defined by Chau can be taken into account that "the first is

to conserve historical buildings located in intensively

developing cities, and the second is when it is more feasible

to repurpose rather than redevelop relatively modern

functional buildings that are in good condition, such as

factories, warehouses, and schools".4 Along with, a range of

constituents like international and local regulatory

frameworks, financial arrangements, political forces,

architectural constraints, and innovative ideas influence the

effectiveness of these situations.5

1
Orbasli, Aylin. Tourists in Historic Towns Urban Conservation and
Heritage Management. London, England: E & FN Spon, 2000, 8.
2
Roca, Pere, Lourenc̦
o Paulo B., and Angelo Gaetani. Historic
Construction and Conservation: Materials, Systems and Damage. New
York, NY: Routledge, 2019, 1.
3
Orbasli, Aylin. Tourists in Historic Towns Urban Conservation and Heritage
Management. London, England: E & FN Spon, 2000, 8.
4
Chau K. W., Lennon H. T. Choy, and Ho Yin Lee. “Institutional arrangements
for urban conservation.” J Hous and the Built Environ (2018) 33:455–463
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9609-2,456.
5
Chau K. W., Lennon H. T. Choy, and Ho Yin Lee. “Institutional arrangements
for urban conservation.” J Hous and the Built Environ (2018) 33:455–463
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9609-2,457.

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 4

Gentrification with and against the Local Residents

The concept of gentrification, first coined by the British

sociologist Ruth Glass, can be defined as the ostensible

process of “changing a working-class or vacant area into

middle-class residential or commercial use”, which has

economic, cultural, political, social, and institutional

repercussions.6 Had ideological and theoretical value, the

concept of gentrification may have been stemmed from the

notion of ameliorating the existing condition of the subjected

area by offering urban regeneration and alleviating the socio-

economic status of the local residents; yet, the indispensable

ramifications like social exclusion and polarization are

likely to occur because the racial, ethnic, class, gender and

sexual identities generating demographic characteristics of

local residents and gentrifiers diverge.

A Thematic Discussion on the Concepts of Conservation and

Gentrification

It may seem both concepts have been driven by the idea of

giving human being the central place by either protecting the

valued historic heritage or alleviating the existing condition

in an urban extent; nonetheless, as it is delineated in the

previous sections that gentrification managed in the global

market serves to capitals and has resulted in antagonistic

6
Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. Gentrification. New York, USA:
Routledge, 2008, 3.

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 5

outcomes, which make the concept quite removed from the notion

of being respectful, responsible and prudent. In order to

enhance the clarity, to provide a more extended comparison

between the concepts would be beneficial, since both are quite

complex phenomena differing in reasons, processes, and

outcomes. In the interest of examining the reasons driving the

occurrence of these phenomena, the aspects of conservation and

gentrification are needed to be examined within the light of

the answer to the question of for whom they have proceeded.

Authenticity and integrity appear as the most important

aspects of conservation, concomitantly a value-based approach

is given a crucial place beside the concepts of 'assortment in

cultural identities' and 'sense of place'. On the other hand,

gentrification which is a sort of alteration in an urban scale

that as a displacement of so-called 'hackneyed' buildings

occupied by low-income households with the luxurious ones

offering an improved neighborhood. When the approach in the

conservation process is declared in Burra Charter as "changing

as much as necessary but as little as possible", in

gentrification a measureless changing procedure, on which

embellishment has based, is the case. Moreover, it must be no

harm to state that in this embellishment based changing

'values', 'assortment in cultural identities' and 'the sense

of place' are disregarded since rather than to respect and to

protect, the observed actions in gentrification are to despise

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 6

and to dispel.7 In this concern, the question ‘for whom ?’ can

be given an answer as for the past, present, and future

generations when the concept of conservation is taken into

consideration, for the wealthier is the answer for

gentrification. To move on with the comparison of the

processes, to have a comprehensive understanding about how

sophisticated conservation process is, The Burra Charter can

be taken into account as the reference in which the steps of

the process are categorized under seven subtitles which are in

respect to order i) "to understand the place", ii) "to assess

cultural significance", iii)"to identify all factors and

issues", iv)" to develop policy", v) "to prepare a management

plan", vi) "to implement the management plan" and vii) "to

monitor the results and to review the plan". 8 Conversely, the

process of gentrification is managed by capitals having an

economic-based policy by disregarding the significance of the

place, and the present and future condition of the local

residents. Ultimately, before to finalize the section, the

outcomes of conservation and gentrification can be mentioned

in a general context since both concepts have a quite complex

process varying in results one case to another. Resulted from

a range of different influences, the outcome of a long

7
“Burra Charter-The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural
Significance.” Australia ICOMOS Incorporated International Council on
Monuments and Sites, 2013, 3.

8
“Burra Charter-The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural
Significance.” Australia ICOMOS Incorporated International Council on
Monuments and Sites, 2013, 10.

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 7

development of conservation is stated as the consciousness of

the significance of the common heritage.9 On the contrary,

"moved into very different urban contexts like rapidly

urbanizing, post-colonial, post-communist, or

communo/capitalist that all overlaid by a diversity of

cultural and religious forms"; gentrification, in this regard,

has various outcomes having social, cultural, economic,

political dimensions besides substantial physical

alterations.10 Hence, in consideration of discussing

gentrification's relation to the concept of urban

conservation, and the outcomes of it in a more focused scope,

the selected case study is to be reckoned under the subsequent

heading.

The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City:

Inequality and Crime

To start with the gentrification in the case of Brooklyn

Heights and its relation to urban conservation, there must be

no harm to state that the examples of the traditional or

classic form renewed by individual gentrifiers through

extravagant interior renovation and adding of new paving,

9
Jokilehto, Jukka. “A History of Architectural Conservation.” Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999,301.

10
Atkinson, Rowland, and Gary Bridge, eds. Gentrification in a Global
Context: The New Urban Colonialism. Firsted. New York, USA: Routledge,
2005, 12.

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 8

ramps, lighting, recreational areas, and gardens are likely to

be observed in the case of Brooklyn Heights.11

Figure.1. A four-bedroom,

five and a half bathroom,

two family rowhouse, built

in 1899 on 0.05 acres,

listed for $4.35 million.

R

12
etrived from “Fort Greene, Brooklyn: Riding the Wave of Gentrification.”

While the competition for land uses and concomitantly

preservation of the common good are concerned by urban

conservation; in addition to conserving historic heritage and

repurposing it; a completely reverse approach is likely to be

perceived in the Brooklyn Heights case since the main concern

is to serve to the richest rather than to preserve, although

11
Brown-Saracino, Japonica. The Gentrification Debates: a Reader. London:
Taylor and Francis, 2013, 48.
12
Lasky, Julie. “Fort Greene, Brooklyn: Riding the Wave of Gentrification.”
The New York Times. New York USA: November 6, 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/realestate/fort-greene-brooklyn-riding-
the-wave-of-gentrification.html.

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 9

historic buildings are kept in a good situation as part of

subject gentrification.13

Figure.2. Income Change in Brooklyn Heights, 1970-2000.Retrived from

Gentrification by Loretta Lees and Tom Slater.14

To emphasize the situation of intensified gentrification,

named by Lees with a new conceptual phenomenon, super

gentrification, the case of Brooklyn Heights can be regarded

as a model of "intense investment and conspicuous

consumption".15 Not only a higher level of gentrification but

also superimposed on an already gentrified neighborhood is

indicated with the term.16 Supplementarily, “a dramatic increase

in income and the progressive displacement of lower-income

families by higher-income families” have been demonstrated in

13
Chau K. W., Lennon H. T. Choy, and Ho Yin Lee. “Institutional
arrangements for urban conservation.” J Hous and the Built Environ (2018)
33:455–463 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9609-2,456.
14
Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. Gentrification. New York, USA:
Routledge, 2008,152.
15
Brown-Saracino, Japonica. The Gentrification Debates: a Reader. London:
Taylor and Francis, 2013, 31.

16
Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. Gentrification. New York, USA:
Routledge, 2008,152.

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 10

census data from 1970 to 2000 provided in Lees's analysis (See

Figure 1.).17 Class segregation perpetuating the system of

social stratification has been created by gentrifiers, which

consequently has been creating social inequality according to

DeSena.18 In this connection, the status of a substantial income

difference between gentrifiers and local residents, which has

been given birth by the waves of densified gentrification,

demonstrates an indisputable inequality in the socio-economic

condition that has a penchant to lead an increment in the

crime rate of the region. As an attempt for being more

expository, to provide the relevant section from the article

entitled “Gentrification and Violent Crime in New York City”

seems like a plausible step that "gentrification should be

positively associated with crime as the process introduced

young, middle-class professionals into disadvantaged

neighborhoods populated by impoverished residents who were

often resentful that gentrification was occurring in their

neighborhood".19

Bibliography
17
Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. Gentrification. New York, USA:
Routledge, 2008,154.

18
DeSena, N., Judith. Gentrification and Inequality in Brooklyn: The New
Kids on the Block. New York, USA: Lexington Books, 2009,57.

19
Barton S. Michael. “Gentrification and Violent Crime in New York City.”
Crime & Delinquency 2016, Vol. 62(9) 1180 –1202.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714549652,5.

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 11

Atkinson, Rowland, and Gary Bridge, eds. Gentrification in a Global

Context: The New Urban Colonialism. Firsted. New York, USA:

Routledge, 2005.

Barton S. Michael. “Gentrification and Violent Crime in New York

City.” Crime & Delinquency 2016, Vol. 62(9) 1180 –1202.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714549652

“Burra Charter-The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural

Significance.” Australia ICOMOS Incorporated International Council

on Monuments and Sites, 2013.

Brown-Saracino, Japonica. The Gentrification Debates: a Reader.

London: Taylor and Francis, 2013.

Capps, Kriston, and Kriston Capps. “Study: No Link between

Gentrification and Displacement in NYC.” CityLab, August 14, 2019.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/07/gentrification-displacement-

link-children-nyc-medicaid-data/594250/.

Chau K. W., Lennon H. T. Choy, and Ho Yin Lee. “Institutional

arrangements for urban conservation.” J Hous and the Built Environ

(2018) 33:455–463 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-018-9609-2.

DeSena, N., Judith. Gentrification and Inequality in Brooklyn: The

New Kids on the Block. New York, USA: Lexington Books, 2009.

Huynh, M., and A. R. Maroko. “Gentrification and Preterm Birth in

New York City, 2008–2010.” Journal of Urban Health 91, no. 1

(November 2013): 211–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-013-9823-x.

Jokilehto, Jukka. “A History of Architectural Conservation.” Oxford, UK:

Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999.

ARCH 411_ Section II

 Akın 12

Lasky, Julie. “Fort Greene, Brooklyn: Riding the Wave of

Gentrification.” The New York Times. New York USA: November 6, 2019.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/realestate/fort-greene-brooklyn-

riding-the-wave-of-gentrification.html.

Lees, Loretta Conway. A Pluralistic and Comparative Analysis of

Gentrification in London and New York. Great Britain: University of

Edinburgh, 1995.

Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. Gentrification. New York,

USA: Routledge, 2008.

“Mapping Displacement and Gentrification in the New York

Metropolitan Area.” Mapping Displacement and Gentrification in the

New York Metropolitan Area | Urban Displacement Project. Accessed

November 26, 2019. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/ny.

Orbasli, Aylin. Tourists in Historic Towns Urban Conservation and

Heritage Management. London, England: E & FN Spon, 2000.

Roca, Pere, Lourenc̦

o Paulo B., and Angelo Gaetani. Historic

Construction and Conservation: Materials, Systems and Damage. New

York, NY: Routledge, 2019.

ARCH 411_ Section II