Municipal governments have incorporated brownfield redevelopment programmes into urban sustainability plans to encourage the redevelopment of these sites into productive uses. The combination of government support and developer initiatives indicates potential for the gentrification of brownfields. However, developer proposals to expedite the conversion of contaminated properties along the Gowanus Canal in New York City into residential and commercial venues resulted in the addition of the canal to the US National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous sites, rendering the site less attractive to developers. It is argued that the listing process became an effective tool in the struggle to resist gentrification in the Gowanus Canal neighbourhood. Place stigmatisation slowed developer-driven redevelopment and the NPL designation allows for a comprehensive remediation approach and increases opportunities for community input. This study provides an interesting case study of resistance to developer-driven ‘smart-city’ planning that represents a meaningful departure from neoliberal urbanism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlberiniA.LongoA.ToninS.TrombettaF.TurvaniM. (2005) The role of liability, regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and redevelopment: evidence from surveys of developers, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35, pp. 327–351.
2.
BergerJ. (2005) Many Gowanus residents want its collar to remain blue, New York Times, 28November.
3.
BondiL. (1996) Gender, class and gentrification: enriching the debate, Environment and Planning D, 17, pp. 261–282.
4.
BourassaS. C. (1993) The rent gap debunked, Urban Studies, 30, pp. 1731–1744.
5.
BoydM. (2005) The downside of racial uplift: the meaning of gentrification in an African-American neighborhood, City & Society, 17, pp. 265–288.
6.
ClarkE. (1995) The rent gap re-examined, Urban Studies, 32, pp. 1489–1503.
7.
CoxK. R.MairA. (1988) Locality and community in the politics of local economic development, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78, pp. 307–325.
8.
CurranW. (2004) Gentrification and the changing nature of work: exploring the links in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Environment and Planning A, 36, pp. 1243–1260.
9.
DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) (2011) Combined sewer overflow (CSO). DEC, New York State (www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/48595.html).
10.
De SousaC. (2005) Policy performance and brownfield redevelopment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, The Professional Geographer, 57, pp. 312–327.
EPA (2010) Support document for the revised national priorities list final rule—Gowanus canal. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
16.
EPA (2011) Gowanus canal: NPL listing history. EPA Region 2 Superfund Records Center, New York.
17.
GothamK. F. (2005) Tourism gentrification: the case of New Orleans’ Vieux Carré (French quarter), Urban Studies, 42, pp. 1099–1121.
18.
GreenbergM. (2003) Reversing urban decay: brownfield redevelopment and environmental health, Environmental Health Perspectives, 111, pp. A74–A76.
19.
HackworthJ. (2002) Postrecession gentrification in New York City, Urban Affairs Review, 37, pp. 815–843.
20.
HackworthJ.SmithN. (2001) The changing state of gentrification, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 92, pp. 464–477.
21.
HammelD. J. (1999) Re-establishing the rent gap: an alternative view of capitalised land rent, Urban Studies, 36, pp. 1283–1293.
22.
HamnettC. (1996) Social polarisation, economic restructuring and welfare state regimes, Urban Studies, 33, pp. 1407–1430.
23.
HurdB. H. (2002) Valuing Superfund site cleanup: evidence of recovering stigmatized property values, Appraisal Journal, 70, pp. 426–437.
24.
KatzC. (2004) Growing up Global: Economic Restructuring and Children’s Everyday Lives. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
25.
KeilK. A. (1995) Measuring the impact of the discovery and cleaning of identified hazardous waste sites on house values, Land Economics, 71, pp. 428–435.
26.
KnoppL. (1990) Some theoretical implications of gay involvement in an urban land market, Political Geography Quarterly, 9, pp. 337–352.
27.
LeesL. (2003) Super-gentrification: the case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City, Urban Studies, 40(12), pp. 2487–2509.
28.
LeesL.BondiL. (1995) De-gentrification and economic recession: the case of New York City, Urban Geography, 16, pp. 234–253.
29.
LewineE. (1998) The Gowanus canal: an appreciation, New York Times, 30August.
30.
LeyD. (1996) The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
MahlerJ. (2001) Once a mess, canal aspires to beauty now, New York Times, 8June.
32.
NavarroM. (2009a) City proposes new plan for Gowanus canal cleanup, New York Times, 2July.
33.
NavarroM. (2009b) On the Gowanus canal, fear of Superfund stigma, New York Times, 24April.
34.
NavarroM. (2010) Gowanus canal gets Superfund status, New York Times, 2March.
35.
NewmanK.WylyE. K. (2006) The right to stay put, revisited: gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City, Urban Studies, 43, pp. 23–57.
PearsallH. (2009) Linking the stressors and stressing the linkages: analyzing human-environment vulnerability to multiple hazards in New York City, Environmental Hazards, 8, pp. 117–132.
38.
PorterM. (2011) The rent gap at the metropolitan scale: New York City’s land-value valleys, 1990–2006, Urban Geography, 31, pp. 385–405.
39.
RandolphE. (2009) From Gowanus to Venice, New York Times, 30May.
40.
RobinsonT. (1995) Gentrification and grassroots: resistance in San Francisco’s tenderloin, Urban Affairs Review, 30, pp. 483–513.
41.
SantoraM. (2011) In Gowanus, big development can wait, New York Times, 29July.
42.
SchmelzkopfK. (2002) Incommensurability, land use, and the right to space: Community gardens in New York City, Urban Geography, 23(4), pp. 323–343.
43.
SimonsR. (1998) Turning Brownfields into Greenbacks. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
44.
SmithN. (1987) Gentrification and the rent-gap, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77, pp. 462–465.
45.
SmithN. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London: Routledge.
46.
SmithN. (2002) New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy, Antipode, 34, pp. 427–450.
47.
SullivanE. (2005) Estimating environmental liabilities: one price does not fit all, Risk Management, 57, pp. 24–30.
48.
SussnaS. (1989) Concept of highest and best use under takings theory, Urban Lawyer, 21, pp. 113–115.
49.
TamE. K. L.ByerP. H. (2004) Estimating the liability of redeveloped contaminated lands, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 130, pp. 184–185.
50.
WeberR. (2002) Extracting value from the city: neoliberalism and urban redevelopment, Antipode, 34, pp. 519–540.
51.
WotapkaD. (2010) Toll Brothers pulls out of Gowanus, The Wall Street Journal, 4March.
52.
WylyE.HammelD. (2001) Gentrification, housing policy, and the new context of urban redevelopment, in: Fox-GothamK. (Ed.) Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment, Vol. 6, pp. 211–276. London: Elsevier Science.
