Analysis Of Naked City: The City That Lost Its Soul By Sharon Zukin

The conclusions of gentrification has shifted in recent years, whether it stands for its moral or corrupt. In the course text from the Sharon Zukin’s article, “Naked City: The City That Lost Its Soul”, argues that gentrification is often detrimental to low income/longtime residents, destruction and the end of old authentic neighborhoods. Zukin argues, based on the facts on white-collar men and women have taken up all space, development of new residents and creating a cultural/economic barrier between rich and poor, young and old. Vice Versa, according to recent studies and new formulas of gentrification, it is an effective urban planning strategy because it minimizes the growth of slums, prevents crime and causes growth in the economy. Therefore,

On the contrary, it was documented that low-income people were being forced out of a neighborhood whose rents and housing prices were high did not mean that gentrification itself was causing the displacement of the poor. It was noted that poor people often move away from non-gentrifying neighborhoods too instead of moving into one. John Buntin’s article “The Myth of Gentrification”, economist Terra McKinnish from University of Colorado in 2010 has found that “gentrification created neighborhoods that were attractive to minority households, particularly households with children or elderly homeowners. They found no evidence of displacement or harm. While most of the income gains in these neighborhoods went to white college graduates under the age of 40 (the archetypical gentrifiers), black high school graduates also saw their incomes rise. They also were more likely to stay put. In short, black households with high school degrees seemed to benefit from gentrification” (Buntin). Buntin clearly proves and explains that gentrification is for a good cause because it is contributing to our youngsters; college graduates and that gentrification are created for the present population that is seeking resident there. He explains how low-income people are tend to be black and the high-income people are the whites. Therefore, he argues how black high school graduates (low-income people) saw their income rise and they were likely to stay put because of the benefits that they were receiving such as more job opportunities and improved schools. In addition, from the article, economist found no evidence that poor people moved out of gentrifying neighborhood. Many of us assume that gentrification causes the low-income people for instance the black to move out because the high-income whites have moved in. Moreover, this is not the case because as mentioned from the article “The Myth of Gentrification” there is no evidence or harm found against gentrification so I strongly state that we