Photo by nicomachus on Flickr.
A plan to widen the bike lane on Portland’s N. Williams Avenue has reignited an ongoing debate over whether cyclists serve as the front line of gentrification. Jonathan Maus of Bike Portland reports that many in the neighborhood believe the attention given bicycle safety issues, in a community where pedestrian safety has long been ignored, represents a double standard. At a public meeting about the North Williams Traffic Safety Operations Project last month, Donna Maxey was among the attendees who raised these concerns:
"What is causing the anger and resentment is that it's only an issue of safety now that whites are the ones who are riding bicycles and walking on the streets. Because we have been in this community for years and it has not been an issue and now it's an issue. So that's the resentment you're hearing...years of people being told, you don't count, you don't matter...but now that there's a group of people who's coming in that look like the people who are the power brokers — now it's important. That's the anger. That's the hurt."
DC bike lane photo by DDOTDC on Flickr.
This is only the latest salvo in a debate taking place in many of the nation’s cities over bike lanes and how they affect disadvantaged communities. In Washington DC, where a 31% increase in white residents in the past decade has been met by an 11% decline in the black population, debates over gentrification have reached a fever pitch. As a recent New York Times article notes, in some DC neighborhoods bike lanes are seen to indicate the impending displacement of low-income communities:
Some of these poorer residents saw revitalization as code for efforts to drive them out, and the building of dog parks and bike and streetcar lanes as efforts by affluent whites to re-arrange spending priorities to suit themselves.
This echoes sentiments voiced in a 2009 Portland Mercury article:
"When initiatives for cycling come through, there are questions about who will benefit from bike lanes," says Paige Coleman, director of the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods. Coleman says conversations about biking being a "white thing" have come up often in recent years. "Some communities call the bike lanes the 'white stripes of gentrification,'" she adds.
As a white male who uses a bike as my primary mode of transportation, my initial reaction to these reports was one of reflexive defensiveness. After all, the health and environmental benefits of cycling are well-documented and universally beneficial. But it’s worth reconsidering our assumptions. The pet causes of affluent whites have long received more attention than immediate issues affecting those in disadvantaged communities. And while making bicyclists safer on the road might seem to benefit everyone, such city infrastructure initiatives have complex political, race and class components.
Community Cycling Center photo by eldan on Flickr.
In Portland, the Community Cycling Center (CCC) is researching the resistance to cycling in low-income and non-white communities, and opening a dialogue that gives all stakeholders a place at the table. Operating under the slogan “the bicycle is a tool for empowerment and a vehicle for change,” one of the CCC’s primary initiatives is the Understanding Barriers to Bicycling project. The project’s 2010 interim report provides a limited but compelling look at bicycle usage in the city’s African American, Hispanic and African communities in north and northeast Portland. Though 52% of the respondents to the surveys conducted at six neighborhood events stated that they rode a bicycle, the survey revealed disparities in the attitudes toward bicycling between the three groups. Cost was considered to be a major barrier for a majority of Hispanic and African respondents, while African-American respondents were more likely to be concerned about their lack of knowledge about bicycling laws and rights and the feasibility of traveling with children.
Non-white cyclists also contend with issues that their white counterparts rarely face. The Portland Mercury notes that racial profiling is a common concern among potential black bicyclists:
Some people of color who attended Graves' workshops were nervous about biking because they feared the police will racially profile them and pull them over, says Graves. In September, African American Portlander Robert James tried to fight a drug charge on the grounds that the arresting officer may have racially profiled him for ostensibly rolling through a stop sign on his bike.
Many of the comments to the original Bike Portland post indicate that this discussion has inspired the same reflexive defensiveness among some cyclists that I experienced. But institutional racism exists whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, and evading the issue only continues the cycle of disenfranchising the poor and minorities from city planning processes. Angie Schmitt at Streetsblog eloquently articulates what’s at stake:
Changes to our streets are often the most visible signals of government power in most of our lives. As such, infrastructure decisions are inherently political, and those with greater resources have always held an advantage in seeing their wishes enshrined in concrete and pavement, or whatever the case may be.
Photo of a demonstration organized by San Francisco's Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition by Bringo on Flickr.
Improvements such as bike lanes increase the perceived “livability” of a neighborhood, serving as a sign to developers and housing speculators that a neighborhood is open for business. In this way, bike lanes play at least an indirect role in making neighborhoods too expensive for low income residents. In addition to discussing these issues, there must be serious consideration of alternative housing models that reduce the displacement of low-income communities. Commons-based housing models such as limited equity cooperative housing and community land trusts could serve as a corrective to real estate speculation and help preserve the character, culture and diversity of these communities.
Gentrification is a significant problem in our nation’s cities, one that relatively affluent white people are complicit in, no matter their intentions. This is an ongoing conversation that we must make space for, and not mistake bike-centric urban development to be a universally-beneficial effort lacking racial or class components. Bernie Foster, publisher of Portland’s African American newspaper The Skanner, urged his readers to get involved in the discussion, writing “often the squeaky wheels are the ones that get the grease.” It’s a sentiment that will sound familiar to cycling advocates, who have struggled for decades to be included in infrastructure decisions. In this case, they’re the ones who must listen.
Comments
Stay Woke wrote on 08.31.11, 7:33pm:
@redbikegreen Red, Bike and Green
I posted 32 photos on Facebook in the album "RBG 1st Friday Ride :: August 5, 2011" http://fb.me/Jpq3HUel
Common Sense wrote on 09.01.11, 7:54am:
"while African-American respondents were more likely to be concerned about their lack of knowledge about bicycling laws and rights and the feasibility of traveling with children"
Really? My goodness! When are we going to STOP pandering! This is a RIDICULOUS article! If you want to be informed, GET INFORMED. NO ONE is stopiing ANYONE........ridiculous............
Mark Elliot wrote on 09.01.11, 12:25pm:
The issue raises interesting questions indeed. Our experience in Los Angeles, though, turns some common notions on its head. Here, cycling emerged as more of a bootstrapping thing because auto operation is prohibitively expensive, inaccessible or plain illegal for some of our folks, and thus they turn to bikes. We have an emerging ecosystem of bike coops and coalitions to support it, and getting city attention and dollars focused on safe active transportation improvements has been the challenge.
Likewise, in Beverly Hills, where I advocate for improvements, policies, and programs to make cycling more attractive, the city has profoundly lagged - even though our population by the numbers suggest a concern for safe streets and perhaps cycling.
That said, Southern California communities are always in flux:
African Americans displaced by Latinos could be expected to be sensitive to any change in their community, especially as they've been deprived of any investment for decades.
Asians have reshaped many of our communities, but even though relatively affluent on average, they have shown little interest in non-auto transportation.
Most whites remain locked in auto dependency, especially in Beverly Hills. We've simply not asked it of our leaders.
Across the region, though, there emerges a very small minority opting to bike - but they are to be distinguished from those who don't have the choice.
Bike Hair wrote on 09.01.11, 12:38pm:
Does not infrastructure and public funded amenities always the go back to the squeaky wheel$$? That conversation goes way beyond bike lanes. The bike lane/gentrification debate needs to be taken in context of the auto obsessed infrastructure financing has historically done to people of color, and will continue to do so if left to its own trajectory. Though I concede that adding more bike lanes does not address housing inequity, when poor families are priced out of cities and contend with housing at the edges, only to be met with the cruel irony of escalating gas prices that eliminate or reverse the savings of cheap housing.
Though, I know from experience what the reliance on the bike does for the overall cost of living. That surveyed participants reference the cost of bicycling as an impediment is what to me reveals a flaw in the rationalization, that perhaps is more attributable to behavior pattern in ample supply that knows no ethnic distinction...laziness, though if I condemn I will meet my own accuser.
All contention aside, I'd like to point to the solution offered in the article that could be applied more broadly to both genuinely address the politic-economics of exclusion as well as work to reverse our own economic misfortunes:
"Commons-based housing models such as limited equity cooperative housing and community land trusts could serve as a corrective to real estate speculation and help preserve the character, culture and diversity of these communities."
Ride a bike, plant a garden.
seen it all before wrote on 09.01.11, 12:51pm:
We've had the same problem in the past with sidewalks and paved roads. Once you put those in, it's a sure sign the neighborhood is gentrifying. Watch out! Before you know it, there will be streetlights! Before you know it -- INDOOR PLUMBING!
It's insidious, I tell you.
Jen wrote on 09.01.11, 4:02pm:
Part of the problem lies in the perception of individuals being responsible for the collective failings of society at a level far beyond that of the fair level of their individual responsibility as a member of society.
Bicycling is good. Bike lanes are good (so say most people). Having a home that is not expensive is good. Gentrification as in displacement is bad. Confusion reigns.
Charges of privilege should not be ignored nor should they be used as a bludgeon to end conversation.
Nathan Landau wrote on 09.01.11, 5:27pm:
Facile sarcasm doesn't help. Let's try a little empathy here. Bike riders might cringe when the first Lexus starts parking on your block, though it's just another car, relax. In an ideal world, cities would make the improvements they're able to in the neighborhoods that needed them the most, regardless of race, color, income etc. In the real world, cities often look to leverage improvements in "upgrading" neighborhoods. And yes the new young gentrifiers usually know how to make noise to get what they want more effectively.
The message isn't "don't put in bike lanes in gentrifying neighborhoods." The message is create a transportation system, make transportation improvements for everyone, whether they're in a gentrifying neighborhood or not.
Nicholas wrote on 09.02.11, 11:09am:
wow, you really don't see how what you just said is the problem
Nicholas wrote on 09.02.11, 11:11am:
(to "common" sense)
Tim wrote on 09.06.11, 8:33am:
Since when did bikes become a symbol of ruling class? How is "expense" a barrier to entry, when you can buy a functioning bike for less than $100. All the parts are exposed, there's no licensing or insurance necessary... it's the ultimate in DIY empowerment. In fact, there are NO barriers to entry other than ignorance, laziness, or just bald-faced stubbornness.
I really can appreciate neighborhood involvement in allocating funds for improvements, but based on the logic within this article, we should be embracing devolution to dirt roads in order to maintain a high level of neighborhood shittiness and low property values. Down with infrastructure spending and neighborhood development, simple survival takes less work!
Tim wrote on 09.06.11, 8:38am:
And Nathan, I'm not going to hold back on identifying with or improving my neighborhood just because I'm capable of enacting those changes. This is no time to embrace inaction just to wait on someone else to get their shit together. I am very capable of listening to other priorities and ideas; it's my job as an urban planner. If someone else has other priorities, let them speak up or continue to hold their peace.
Tim wrote on 09.06.11, 8:44am:
Finally, while low house values are good, static land values within entire communities gives no incentive to invest in the place. People who are invested in their neighborhoods look for ways to improve it and thus improve their own investment.
I don't want to see massive displacement, so there needs to be more attention given to including disadvantaged populations in the road to wealth. Look to Clinton Hill and Ft. Greene in Brooklyn as very good examples of neighborhoods improving across the board, with minimal displacement of productive and involved residents.
Arthur wrote on 09.06.11, 10:21am:
In my experience, some of the more distressed parts of St. Louis, MO have bike lanes as well as boulevard type planning - the City and its residents in no way consider these areas places of potential (but that may be an internal issue with creativity and vision) - these were throwaway budget items and not harbingers of gentrification. While I think it is honorable that Portland desires to diffuse bike infrastructure across its landscape, it seems less a tool of community connectivity as much an icon of progressive leadership. When cities choose to spend $2 million on a bikesharing program instead of sidewalks (Portland), they are asking for animosity from all sides. If the goal is to increase ridership, then increase the number of individuals on bikes in these communities by providing vouchers for cycles, helmets, and locks.
Does CCC provide bike tours of the neighborhood? Do they have free classes for community members? Being in a community does not mean you're part of a community, or that you understand the dynamics of a community.
Stay Woke wrote on 09.06.11, 11:09am:
CCC may want to contact Renee Rivera of East Bay Bicycle Coalition ( http://www.ebbc.org/?q=node/8690 ) and, as mentioned above, Jenna Burton of Red, Bike, & Green
( http://oaklandlocal.com/article/11-11-red-bike-greens-jenna-burton-promo... ) to get their perspectives on how to proceed.
jim wrote on 09.06.11, 11:13pm:
as someone who doesn't own a car, uses a bicycle as their primary mode of transport and who otherwise speaks a political language similar to that of the author . . . you sound ridiculously out of touch both in relation to the rest of the cycling public and in your paternalism towards those you deem to be less well off and/or politically capable. This is the sort of thing that I read from time-to-time that reminds my why I never want to live on the west coast. get a grip. it's a bike lane. poor(er) people don't get displaced from neighborhoods because all of the sudden rich(er) people figure out how to get there.
Betty Barcode wrote on 09.07.11, 4:36am:
Here in Buffalo, NY, oft-touted as the nation's 3rd poorest city, about 30% of households do not have a private automobile. Cycling is therefore relatively common for low-income people and people of color. Our problem is how to destigmatize the bicycle for those who are not poor. In this context, bike lanes are a form of social justice.
And another observation: what you call gentrification, I call the law of supply and demand. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise, whether it is for seats for a Lady Gaga concert or housing in the context of a growing population.
If you have more people than dwelling units, count your blessings. It is better than the alternative: disinvestment, deindustrialization, and more dwelling units than people. So if you are priced out of Portland, folks, insanely beautiful Queen Annes can be yours very inexpensively in Buffalo.
Tim wrote on 09.07.11, 5:10am:
Good point, Buffalo. This sounds like a very Portland problem; we have too many people that want to spend money on our city... woe is us, where is the justice!
Moshe wrote on 09.07.11, 7:16am:
I've long thought of my bicycling advocacy as an extension of my fight for diversity and equality. Studies have shown that while advocates generally come from more privileged classes, the demographics of cyclists nationwide more closely match the demographics of the nation as a whole. We've long repeated the idea that a single (presumably privileged) rider can make it safer for all other (especially non-privileged) riders just by cycling safely and legally, making their behavior more predictable in the eyes of drivers.
I've been aware of the argument that appears at the end of the article that bike lanes may lead to a rise in property value which may lead to a decrease in affordability by renting locals. However, I'd suggest that in many cities the bike lanes are being painted in locations primarily for privileged riders, likely due to their voices being projected by privileged advocates, and what needs to change is not halting bike lanes in non-privileged areas but the striping of bike lanes spreading outward from the privileged areas. Providing access everywhere at once raises the standard of living for everyone together, and the trap we face as advocates is fighting for our lot above others'.
Maryland Biker wrote on 09.09.11, 2:01pm:
This is just plain dumb idea. This idea places the responsiblity of displacing economically disadvantaged communities soley on the back of cycling advocates. Even if the cyclists turned around and said that this ridiculous article somehow made sense, there is absolutely nothing they could do to fix the displacement of disadvantaged communites. If it is going to happen it is going to happen. Who needs to be targeted are those that make decisions on land development.
I can take this exact article and replace every word "bike lane" with the word "brick paved sidewalks", and the article would read exactly the same way. When do you find brand new brick paved sidewalks in poor communities? You don't. If you do, those communities usually don't last much longer after they are put in because the "livability" of the community goes up.
My biggest gripe with this idea is that there are no real solutions proposed. It simply complains. The fact is, developers will keep developing because according to this article its not their fault that communities are being displaced, its cyclists faults. So as long as they don't build bike lanes, they are in the clear to build whatever they want and not be blamed. So developers will still build, and people will still be displaced. Its true that the squeaky wheel does get oiled, and now this idea has created another squeaky wheel that may just get some oil, however, it will only backfire in people's faces and only do more harm to the people that it claims to be helping.
I live in the richest majority black county in the Country (Prince George's County Maryland). The part of the county I live in is very affluent and wealthy compared to the rest of the county, but still majority black in many neighborhoods. Bike facilitiies have been growing in these neighborhoods over the past few years and its not displacing blacks. In fact, the black population continues to grow. So that example completely invalidates this argument that is based on race alone. It has to do with income level, not race.
Brian Morrissey wrote on 09.14.11, 2:01pm:
There's no doubt this is not a racial issue, and is definitely one of income and economics. Cheap energy drove the migration to the suburbs 60 years ago, taking a large percentage of investment with it, leaving dead urban cores and worthless real estate. As the now exponentially increasing costs of energy drive investment back into cities in search of car-free lifestyles, bike lanes are a definite indicator. But certainly not a root cause of it.
Here in Chicago, this key dynamic of energy prices and land use is recognized and much work is being done to proactively engage those most affected by this epochal shift. Our move back urban cores once abandoned is inevitable, but the goal should be make this fundamental reorganizing of our society a positive experience for everyone.
mightystudents wrote on 11.17.11, 6:12am:
you sound ridiculously out of touch both in relation to the rest of the cycling public and in your paternalism towards those you deem to be less well off and/or politically capable o developers will still build, and people will still be displaced. Its true that the squeaky wheel does get oiled, and now this idea has created another squeaky wheel that may just get some oil
Neal Gorenflo wrote on 11.17.11, 1:29pm:
True mighty students that this specific article isn't for the mainstream cycling public.
The mainstream would probably assume gentrification is inevitable. We don't think it's inevitable. We believe that there have been policy decisions that have shaped the market resulting in housing become unaffordable. This is not just a problem for the working class or working poor. It's now a middle class problem.
So, just because we do not go along with mainstream assumptions does not mean we are out of touch. Our aim is to point to a different possible future, one in which good housing is accessible to everyone.
Not necessarily, IMHO. I'm BLK. I bike. I live N an area considered by some 2 B a ghettrio. Most bike riders I see are people of color. (No offense to those of predominately European extraction who identify/live as people of color.)
The folks up in OakTown are making it work:
http://www.redbikeandgreen.org
Listen to RBG on Making Contact's KPFA's segment, "Being Black and Green: African-Americans & the Environment" http://fb.me/19yxpZsZd