The Aesthetics of Gentrification
by Ellie George
Appearing in urban areas throughout the United States are boxy, bright, “modern-looking” multi-unit complexes such as the following:
(Source: Getty Images)
Since the 2008 recession, this architectural style has dominated apartment and condominium development. What's especially peculiar about these buildings, however, is their stylistics and visual homogeneity. Development used to create unique urban landscapes—causing Seattle, for example, to use an architectural style distinct from Minneapolis or Los Angeles—has created a universal aesthetic across America. Online reactions mockingly call it “Developer Modernism,” “Millennial McMansions,” and “Genericana,” pointing to these buildings as the culprits behind America’s fading architectural interest and bland, corporate-driven development. But despite the joking nature of these names, these users point to an apt thread of truth: these buildings do emerge in up-and-coming areas marked by displacement—as one user puts it, “gentrificationist architecture.”
However, whether intentionally or not, these responses create something implicit: they link an aesthetic style with the process of displacement. For example, the name “‘Millennial McMansions’” attributes the McMansion—an architectural style designed to maximize profits and prioritize perceived social status over economic or historic value—with Millennials, the now-mid career demographic born between 1982 and 2000. It suggests the particular forces compelling this style of architecture simultaneously cause a demographic change in historically disinvested neighborhoods—or, as it is known today, gentrification.
To better understand the critical response to these new developments, it is first important to understand why they’re being built. “‘Gentrification buildings’” emerge due developers’ desire to maximize the restrictions offset by strict building codes. Building codes are set in place by both state and local governments and dictate what kind of structures can be built and where. This is why you won’t see a skyscraper in the middle of suburbia. New York City, for example, has laws that dictate “building setback,” or the portion of a building that recedes from the base.
(Source: NYC Building Codes)
Combined with the “Sky Exposure Plane” requirement which provides light to the street level in medium and high-density districts, buildings in these zones will be required to take a certain form in order to accommodate both requirements.
(Source: NYC Building Codes)
Therefore, there’s a disjunction when people criticize an architectural choice: despite criticizing the architects, developers, and designers who don’t necessarily have complete creative freedom, they’re actually criticizing the series of constraints that are set by the building codes. ‘Gentrification buildings’ are the product of setback and sky-exposure regulations, along with a whole host of others such as building envelopes, curb-cuts, and dwelling units. One feature that gives the gentrification building its boxy and utilitarian look, the flat window, is chosen due to its ease-of-compliance with the code regulations and its cost-effective nature. This contrasts the endearing architectural details possessed by older buildings, which were often built before such codes existed. So really, when criticizing modern architecture like “‘gentrification buildings’” the criticism ought to be directed towards the development process—the groups constructing the new projects, how they’re funded, and the regulations they must adhere to. The names ‘Developer Modernism,’ ‘Millennial McMansions,’ and ‘Genericana’ sound like a critique of an aspirational aesthetic, as if pointing and saying “A person should not aspire to live here.” While criticism of a gentrification building’s appearance is a matter of personal preference, it isn’t necessarily true that the style of gentrification buildings was also born out of architects’ and designers’ personal design tastes. Instead, the gentrification buildings and their criticism highlight the same fact: new development is largely informed by budget and building code limitations, and while the output—boxy, bright, ‘modern-looking’ multi-unit complexes—makes the most of these limitations, it is heavily criticized by the public. If designers had a free design range and an unlimited budget, perhaps new development would look radically different.
The irony of criticisms of gentrification buildings is that the aspects that are mocked—the boxiness, facadism, and the “copy n paste” elements—are also found in designs now considered ‘endearing,’ such as New York City brownstones.
(Source: Getty Images)
​
Similar development patterns of monotonous, repetitive designs are evident all over the globe, spanning multiple time periods—from the mid-19th century NYC brownstones to Soviet-era brutalist apartment complexes. Originally, they were all created in response to the need for mass housing in emerging cities, but ultimately transformed into coveted architectural darlings. Brooklyn brownstones, for example, now sell for millions of dollars. This transformation represents an overall pattern in architecture where new architectural styles are met with disdain by the public. Time is part of what gives architecture its value and charm, so when design trends change, formerly ‘modern’ styles are instead deemed ‘vintage’ or ‘historical’ and come to symbolize wealth and class. Just as the public’s perception regarding previous mass housing such as the brutalist soviet style apartments or NYC brownstones changed over time, it’s too early to say if gentrification buildings will ultimately follow or deviate from this pattern.
This raises the question: how much of the criticism towards gentrification buildings is due to general adversity towards new architectural styles versus their effect on the surrounding communities? While it may be true that these buildings emerge in areas of rapid development, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they are the cause of displacement. In most cases, it’s actually the opposite: ‘gentrification buildings’ are being used to solve the problem at the root of gentrification—creating access to more housing.
Cities around the US are facing housing capacity pressures. As cities grow in population, the amount of housing must expand to accommodate an increased number of residents. Gentrification occurs when there is not enough mixed-income housing in a neighborhood, causing all the available housing to be bought by a higher-income demographic. Therefore, folks who can’t afford the higher rents are pushed out, resulting in neighborhood displacement or demographic change. This process is particularly prevalent in historically-disinvested neighborhoods since housing is usually less expensive to begin with, resulting in an increased probability of demographic change.
While it is important to criticize the causes of displacement as cities and housing should be accessible to all, it is essential not to conflate the causes of displacement with all new development. If the root criticism of new housing development is that it should be accessible for all people, the aesthetics of gentrification buildings—boxiness, genericness, and omnipresence— are deceiving. Despite being associated with an upper-class demographic, the style of gentrification buildings is actually used for housing across income levels. Buildings that take on this aesthetic aren’t always lofts in trendy neighborhoods, this development style is also used for low-income housing as well.
Correlating buildings that emerge in rapid-growth neighborhoods with the causes of displacement is dangerous. Of course, new multi-unit complexes are built in areas of rapid urbanization—developers want to capitalize on a popular area’s desirability. Gentrification is the most visual outcome of inequality in urban life; it represents whose experience is prioritized in a changing city, often reflecting legacies of racism, classism, and disinvestment. People don’t live in these new multi-unit housing complexes because they necessarily admire the style, but because they merely need a place to live. The residents of ‘gentrification buildings’ aren’t always “maligned hipsters” that use “their parents’ savings to secure a place to live” and “buy organic products like Horizon milk for $6 per half-gallon and overpriced but aesthetically satisfying coffee shops.” Their tenants are high and low-income residents alike. Therefore the existence of gentrification buildings across neighborhoods is a reflection of the desperate need for housing rather than aesthetic preference.
One distinction remains clear: if the public believes that all new development exacerbates the housing affordability crisis and results in gentrification, by this logic, the same public would oppose the tools being used to solve it. In order to create a more equitable city where housing is available for people, attention should focus on the slippery policies behind urban disinvestment and the unequal distribution of urban resources and infrastructure. Currently, it’s unclear if building and zoning codes exacerbate disparities in life quality across urban neighborhoods. However, until this is proven, the word “gentrification” may not be the best word to uniformly label new development. Until there is enough varied housing in cities to meet the needs of residents, ‘gentrification buildings’ should be viewed as what it ultimately is—more housing.