Gentrification and the Everyday

By Edward Sanderson

Part 2
In the previous part, I ended by providing a definition of gentrification, as I believe it is generally understood. But, going beyond this and thinking affectively, my original comment on Michael’s post suggests:

“…an insidious insinuation and transformation of a situation, initially through a process of ‘filling a gap’ or perhaps ‘taking advantage of an opportunity.’ At that stage not necessarily a negative activity, but one which opens the door—provides justification—for the ‘real’ ‘gentry’ to usurp those conditions which initiated it…”

In that comment I went on to question whether the Heyri community in Seoul was gentrification per se. This broader definition of gentrification is something I’ve begun to come to terms with in my alternate example of New Malden (brought up in Part 1 of this series).

I also suggested that the nature of the changes typical of the strict definition of gentrification perhaps more applicable to the Beijing situation in which HomeShop finds itself (a subject that Michael began to deal with in his original post), in terms of the socio-economic changes that it represents.


Moving in

For a geographical area, to occupy is an extreme form of attention-giving. To move in is to have (at the very least) an economic effect on the area. One is occupying a site, which either takes advantage of the inability of the “locals” to occupy it, or even prevents them from occupying it, hence altering the balance of occupants from “locals” to others.

As in the changes evident in New Malden, this is a consequence of the combined economic, social or political situation in an area. If the Danwei dormitory had not become obsolete due to changes in the social/political organisations in China, it would not have been available. Once available, the inevitable result is that either someone will occupy it or it will remain abandoned and potentially become derelict. That someone or that dereliction marks a change in the local environment.
The result is a continual change in the make-up of the community. The newcomers attract others, at first temporarily, and then some may stay permanently (or at least for long enough to be considered permanent).

HomeShop is but one such effect on an area – local government plans are another, of a different order of magnitude.
There is a suggestion that over the next few years the whole area around HomeShop will be redeveloped into a cultural zone. Government plans don’t necessarily make for gentrification in themselves, gentrification is but one possible result when the plans are put into effect. But the area attracts the attention of the local government due to prior developments: pre-existing historical aspects of the area, or an initial influx of creative workers (HomeShop playing its own small part in this), for example. The groundwork is always already laid, attracting the attention of other forces who build on that to create their own vision, justified in hindsight as a plan that was already in process.

But the reality of this is fraught, in that the plan may have little to do with the locals’ (or even the most recent entrants’) needs or desires for the area. Indeed the plan often has the effect of making the area undesirable for all those currently in place, creating a persuasive force to encourage them to move away (or causing them to be actively moved), to be replaced with a group representing the plans’ aspirations. This would then be gentrification – it is perhaps a feature of gentrification that its effect is (ironically) based on the existing potential of an area, built up by those which it perforce must displace.

It remains to be seen what the effect for the Beixinqiao area is in practice, but I think one can assume the government plan will undoubtedly increase the economic level of the area, putting it out of reach for some and making it more desirable for others. And so the balance of the area will continue to change on a level far more extensive and faster than HomeShop could ever effect, but ultimately following similar urges.

The Everyday

As a counter to this, I would like to focus on one aspect of HomeShop’s activities. One which (in its way) sits within the process and non-process of gentrification described above: the notion of the Everyday.

This idea originally came up in another piece I wrote about HomeShop, where I linked them to Vitamin Creative Space, via their shared concerns with what they both term this “Everyday.” The two organisations’ share the word as a descriptor of a source for their activities, but the results are very different. Via the Everyday, Vitamin seems to become an ethereal space for reflection on this subject matter, producing somewhat whimsical results, appearing withdrawn from its source; while my interpretation of HomeShop’s activities seem to actively situate themselves within the Everyday to directly take part in it.

So, I think this Everyday deserves some attention, especially in its significance for the process of gentrification.
It’s possible to see the Everyday as what makes the norms of an area: it is tied to geography and the social mix; but is also an immediate reaction to the sum of effects within that area. If the Everyday are those formative things that happen everyday, what does that mean in the context of the transformative nature of an art or an organisational practice?

When HomeShop or Vitamin use the term, they seem to be referring to the environs into which they insert themselves and somehow feed off (as I suggested, Vitamin perhaps has a more disjointed relation to this, to the extent that their “everyday” is closer to their imaginary, their projection). Perhaps their aim is to leave it unaltered, while playing a part in it. But therein lies a problem, as the activity is also intimately related to transformation, in a way that could become gentrification. Is it futile to try and prevent the effect one has on ones’ space when you are that effect; you are gentrification?

Reflecting on my comment reproduced at the beginning of this part, I would position HomeShop’s existence and move to its new premises as a symptom, and even a necessary consequence of gentrification.

It’s perhaps too easy to read the road to this particular result (gentrification) in a negative fashion (although this is exactly what I did in my comment). However, I wouldn’t discount the action so swiftly, if it is done in the best of faiths and contains within it the potential not to be usurped, or form the step towards its own replacement. For this to happen I think the answer is for it to continually hold its resolution or realisation in abeyance, continually keeping its own development at bay.

This may be approached as a continual questioning of motives and actions, and a refusal to accept an end point or conclusion to the activity. I am tempted to say the activities should forever remain in the process of becoming something else, without adopting any status, and perhaps avoiding institutionalisation thereby (I understand this is a very idealistic and probably tiring proposal!).

Everyday Life

In the next and final(?) part I’ll bring us back to the Everyday, to demonstrate that in the realisation of the Everyday as “Everyday Life” it can be productive material in the interruption of gentrification and as such a political tool.