 So we're going to get started. Today, welcome again to the Lectures in Planning series. Today we have Ingrid Gould-Ellen, who is the Paulette Goddard Professor in Urban Policy and Planning and the Faculty Director at the NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. Professor Ellen's Research and Choice Center on Housing and Urban Policy. She's the author of Sharing America's Neighborhoods, the Prospect of Stable Racial Integration, and more recently, the editor of the Dream Revisited Contemporary Debates about Housing Segregation and Opportunity. She has written numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters relating to housing policy, community development, and school and neighborhood segregation. Professor Ellen has held visiting positions at the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Urban Institute, and the Brookings Institution. She attended Harvard University, where she received a bachelor's degree in applied mathematics and MPP and a PhD in public policy. With that, let's please welcome Professor Ingrid Gould-Ellen. Thank you. I'm very happy to be here. And I should say up front that I'm also I'm very happy to take questions throughout if you have questions, especially questions of clarification or really any questions. And there'll probably also be time at the end. Hopefully they'll leave time at the end as well. But feel free to jump in. I should say I'm doing something I don't usually do, which is maybe ill-advised, which is I'm sort of going to be bridging a lot of different papers, a lot of different projects that I've worked on, and trying to sort of tie them together. And I will say I'm not. I don't have all my co-authors listed here, but there are many of them. They come from lots of different backgrounds, planners, and sociologists, and legal scholars, and economists. And so, but anyway, let me just generally give them credit for this. So we have long-expected homeowners to resist growth in their communities and to oppose new development, especially multifamily development, most especially affordable multi-family development. Large and large part of concern that that development will reduce their property values. But I really don't want to demonize NIMBY homeowners. I think that we all see our communities as havens and from which we draw strength. And I think we naturally, it's almost instinctual, I think, to sort of defend them and protect them from change. And in fact, recently we've even seen renters in urban neighborhoods and even affordable housing advocates opposing change and opposing development. And counter to traditional NIMBY opponents of growth, these activists question the premise that new development and then new supply is going to reduce property values and rents. And some even argue that new development will increase the rents and prices of the immediately surrounding neighborhood. But these, Vicky Bean and Kathy O'Rean and I have sort of dubbed this new form of this new type of development opponent supply skeptics. And generally the supply skeptics are opposing proposals like this one to upzone East Harlem to allow for more development and more generally argue for downzoning and growth moratorium and more rigorous approval processes. And in fact, there are many of them that feel that they can both sort of oppose growth but also embrace inclusion. So many like this is a homeowner, actually, I don't know if it's a homeowner, but a resident in Minneapolis that both is sort of putting up signs to sort of oppose the Minneapolis 2040 plan which bans single family zoning and allowed for higher density long transit corridors and then also has it all are welcome here. So I'm not going to say that's contradictory, but I will say that the YIMBY, yes, and my backyard activists certainly argue that those positions are inherently contradictory because they see sort of the only path to a truly inclusive city is growth and allowing more housing. And the YIMBY movement started in Toronto about 10 years ago. And YIMBY activists generally argue for more housing, more affordable housing, more market rate rental housing, more condominiums, just more housing. And they see that building more housing is really the only path to creating more cities that are more inclusive to newcomers, cities that are more walkable and cities that are more environmentally sustainable. And I think that there is this sort of, this represents this fundamental tension, the sort of YIMBY versus YIMBY tension between existing residents who resist changes to their neighborhoods on the one hand and on the other hand advocates for sort of more housing, denser living patterns and growth. And I think this is something that as planners, this is sort of a key challenge for 21st century. It was a key challenge for 20th century planners but certainly a key challenge for 21st century planners. So how do you balance this desire for neighborhood stability against sort of broader societal interests in growth? And to what extent should we be adopting policies that to help people remain in neighborhoods that are physically unchanged, that are culturally unchanged and that are demographically unchanged? And I think that for many progressives, the answer to that question about the balance was easy when we were talking about wealthy white homeowners and exclusive single family home suburbs like Scarsdale. I think that probably if I asked you, maybe I'll ask for a show of hands. How many of you would say we should let this wealthy community you know prohibit the construction of a new multi-family apartment building, the opening of a homeless shelter or the extension of a rail line? What would you say? Should we let them ban it? No, okay, lot of no's, right? But your perspective might change if I ask you those very same questions, right? In the context of a low income urban neighborhood community of color like East Harlem, that is pictured here, okay? And I'm gonna come back to whether we should think about those contexts, whether those contexts matter. I will come back a little bit to that question. But for now I just wanna argue that this tension between wanting to sort of promote stability for the interests of legacy residents and stability and sort of broader societal interests and growth and change I think is runs through and is undergirds a lot of today's sort of current and most contentious urban policy debates, right? From gentrification to rent regulation to residency preferences, even short term rentals is not up on the list, okay? And so what I would like to do today is sort of talk through, I'm gonna focus on these first three on gentrification, historic preservation and rent regulation. All three of which I have done research on and all three of which I think are characterized by this tension between the interests of legacy residents in community stability and broader societal interests in growth and change. And I'm gonna mostly talk about gentrification, which I think is probably the most difficult case for progressives and I've been doing some, and well, and there's obviously, there's growing concern around and growing anxiety about gentrification in cities across the country, especially coastal cities. I don't have to tell a New York City audience that there's anxiety about gentrification. But it is also emerging in cities across the country even in Detroit, okay? And I don't, and let me sort of back up, I say like I do not want to belittle or, or you know, downplay the anxiety that people feel about the changes that are going on in their neighborhoods, right? People around the country, renters around the country are facing crushing affordability pressures and rent burdens and they're genuinely concerned about their ability to stay in their homes. But I think that the debate about gentrification, right? And certainly this is not withstanding Lance's excellent work on the topic, but still the debate about gentrification generally takes place in kind of an empirical vacuum. And so I have been building on Lance's work over the last couple years and doing some research on gentrification and on the impacts of, causes actually also, though I'm not gonna talk about that today, but the consequences of gentrification. And I wanna start by just sort of a few just basic facts to sort of just say that despite the fact that especially in New York we talk all the time about gentrification, I think it is important to just put that in context and say that even in the 21st century that most low income neighborhoods in this country remain persistently low income, right? Most low income neighborhoods are not seeing any signs of gentrification. This just is one measure of gentrification that 85% of neighborhoods that were around the country, of census tracts around the country that were low income in 2000 either experienced a loss in income between 2000 and 2014 or saw their incomes be stable. So only 15% actually saw significant gains. So this is urban and urban, this is just urban, sorry. Yeah, this is just urban. This is just central city neighborhoods, that's a good question, yeah. And that being said, right? We have seen an increase in prevalence, right? That gentrification, people it's not unexpected that people are feeling more anxiety that gentrification has become more common and more pervasive since in the first decades of the 21st century as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century. And what these, and you can do this sort of, I've done this with multiple measures of gentrification but this basically shows that the share for instance, the share of low income central city tracts that saw a large gains in the percentage of adults with college degrees relative to their metro rose from about sort of 25% in the 1980s and 1990s to 35% in the first decade of the 21st century, right? The share of low income central city tracts that saw large gains in rent relative to the rest of the metropolitan area rose from like 10% in the 1990s to almost a quarter in the first decade of the 21st century. So gentrification again, it's still experienced, it's a minority of neighborhoods but it's a growing minority of neighborhoods. And this is happening, I mean, you're seeing more gentrification coast but you are seeing maybe not Detroit but you're seeing gentrification is many cities across the country are seeing some neighborhoods now experiencing gentrification. And there are a lot of concerns about that gentrification. There's, and I wanna start, I'm gonna walk through all of these but the first concern and I think the one that's that to a fault is kind of, I feel like that the conversation is almost exclusively focused on direct displacement and the fear that gentrification will directly push people, legacy residents out of their homes and out of their communities. And I have done some, written a couple papers over the last year using on the impacts of gentrification in New York City using New York State Medicaid claims data. So this is I think one of the benefits of being in sort of a multi-disciplinary school is that I have health colleagues who work with Medicaid data and it turns out that Medicaid data have a lot of advantages for studying spatial urban issues and spatial phenomenon that first of all they have a, it's basically offer you a near universe of all the poor and near poor children in New York City, actually around New York State as well but this paper just looks at New York City. And I think that poor children, this is the population we should arguably be most concerned about being affected by gentrification. Second, that they're longitudinal so they track children over time so we can see children every single year, right? And we see third, they have this incredible spatial detail so we know the precise addresses where kids live every year. We can see them moving from one neighborhood, from one building to another. We know the exact building they live in. We know whether they live in subsidized housing. We can sort of look at whether they move to lower or higher quality buildings over time. And they also provide, it also provides some measure of outcomes of wellbeing which is looking at sort of health and wellbeing through it. Albeit kind of more short term right now but we get some measure of that. And let me just say a minute about how we defined gentrification. I'm gonna kind of go through this quickly but definitely let me know if you have questions. But essentially what we do which is sort of common in the research on gentrification is we start by identifying sort of the set of gentrifiable neighborhoods which we define as the neighborhoods sort of the bottom 40% of neighborhoods in New York City with respect to income. That have the 40% of neighborhoods that have the lowest income in New York City as measured by the 2005 to 2009 ACS, right? And then we divide those neighborhoods up into sort of three buckets depending on their trajectory of change between 2005, 2009 ACS and 2000 and 2011, 2015 ACS, okay? And the first are those that rapidly gentrify and so they experience sort of top-descile growth in socioeconomic status. Those that moderately gentrify, so those that experience growth in socioeconomic status between the 10th and the 25th percentile and that those that we say remain persistently low socioeconomic status and those that are in the bottom 75th percentile, okay? We do in the last couple of years we do in these papers we experiment with multiple definitions of neighborhood geographies. We look at sort of larger neighborhood geographies, the neighborhood tabulation areas that city planning produces. We look at multiple measures of changes in socioeconomic status. We look at changes in income. We look at changes in rent. We look at changes in the percentage of adults with college degrees. I'm gonna focus on that latter just for today. I will say the results are very consistent across the different measures that we use. I think we use 10 different measures of gentrification but I like the growth in percent of adults with college degrees because it's sort of, it can be more certain that that's capturing an increase in the entry of new higher income households rather than just sort of the incumbent upgrading that the existing legacy rent residents may be seeing increases in income and it also captures the entry of sort of young professional, college-educated professionals who might not have high incomes today but they have high earning potentials and therefore they can spend more on rent, right? And so that may be significant, so okay. So this just shows you the sort of the map of the rapidly gentrifying, the moderately gentrifying, the persistently low income neighborhoods. You can see that the gentrifying neighborhoods tend to sort of cluster in North Brooklyn on the Queens Waterfront, upper Manhattan. They're a little sort of further radiated away from kind of core Manhattan because this is sort of a later stage of gentrification, the period that we're looking at. They're, in terms of our sample, basically what we do is we look at the universe of children on Medicaid, right? So these are poor and near poor children who were born in New York City between 2006 and 2008. So we look at this cohort. They lived and they lived in multifamily rental housing in December 2009. We don't want to capture homeowners, right? And they are continuously enrolled, they were continuously enrolled in Medicaid so we make sure that we can see them every year. Now that does diminish the sample because there are some kids who cycle on and off of Medicaid, but there's no difference in the attrition rates between the kids who are born into neighborhoods that rapidly gentrify and those that remain persistently low socioeconomic status. So, and when we don't, when we relax that, restriction would get the same. So let me just show you, I'm just gonna show you sort of pictorially kind of what we do. So I hope this is helpful. So great. Not that we would want to do this ethically, like as a researcher, what you'd really want to do is randomly assign people to different neighborhoods, right? You want to sort of randomly assign similar kids, some to sort of drop into a neighborhood that then gentrifies and some to drop into a neighborhood that looks exactly the same today, but that will later remain persistently low income. Now, obviously we can't do that, right? But what we can do is we can sort of try to approximate that by selecting children who again are born, these are all poor and near poor children who are born in similar buildings in observationally identical neighborhoods, both in terms of current socioeconomic status and past trends. And then, but some were born into neighborhoods that experience a different trajectory that gentrified between 2009 and 2015 and some are born into neighborhoods that remain persistently low, high poverty or low income, over that period. And then we track the outcomes, we then observe the outcomes of those sort of two different sets of kids and we track their mobility patterns between 2009 and 2015. And we also track their neighborhood and health outcomes in 2015, we compare them, their neighborhood and health outcomes in 2015 to 2017, okay? So does that kind of make sense as the research set up? Okay, figure that's as goofy as that picture is better than the equations, right? So, okay, so what do we find in terms of results? The first thing that, and I really wanna emphasize this, right, is just look at the difference between the bars, the market rate and the subsidized bars, right? So there are that children who live in these poor and their poor kids who live in subsidized housing are much less likely to leave their homes and their neighborhoods, right, over this period, okay? Much less likely. And they're much more stably housed, okay? However, right, the second thing to notice though is that there is no difference within these groups, there's no difference in the mobility rates of the kids who are born, who sort of, who are sort of born into market rate rental housing in gentrifying neighborhoods. And even for these in market rate housing, those who are born into gentrifying neighborhoods and those are born into persistently neighborhoods that remain persistently low income, okay? Yeah. Where is rent stabilization? So rent stabilization is, well rent stabilization is in both buckets actually, the way the city works. You know, we don't have, Pernama certainly knows this, right? We don't have great data on rent stabilized stock. There's a data set that's publicly available that tells you whether there's at least one rent stabilized unit in the building. That's the only thing that's publicly available. And so we use that, it didn't make any difference. So we just, but we don't think it's great data. So we basically are just defining these. So there are gonna be some stabilized buildings, which I think is, well, we'll come to this, right? That's relevant for generalizability, right? And Lance has certainly made this point, right? In the work that he's done in New York, right? That New York city does have more robust tenant protections than many cities. So I think I can, I'm gonna talk a little bit about work in other cities, but you should take this as findings about New York City. Okay, yeah, we're enough. So I'm gonna show that a little bit, there are very few of them, and it didn't vary. Actually kids, if I'm remembering correctly, I think the kids actually in persistently low income neighborhoods were slightly more likely to move out of New York City altogether, which was surprising. So basically, like I said, we're seeing, we see no difference between in the rates of residential mobility that there are kids who are born into neighborhood, low income neighborhoods that then gentrify, are no more likely to leave their homes than kids who are born into neighborhoods that, the low income neighborhoods that remain persistently low income, okay? But I wanna be clear, because I feel like this finding is often, and Lance, I know you have found this, right? That this finding is often misinterpreted, oh, there's no displacement, right? Lance Freeman says there's no displacement, okay? That's not what Lance Freeman says, right? This work says, and it's not what this work says, right? What this work says is that there's no evidence that displacement and mobility are any higher in gentrifying neighborhoods than they are than they are in other neighborhoods, right? What it says is that people, our families with children are no more likely to be displaced in gentrifying neighborhoods, but they're displaced in all sorts of neighborhoods, okay? Yeah, that's a good question, so I don't think I'm gonna show that, but, so, and then, but I'm saying, but in some ways also this is a, this is a limited question, right? Because it could be that, okay, but maybe what's going on is that the kids and the families who are leading gentrifying neighborhoods are less likely to make sort of upwardly mobile moves and more likely to make downwardly mobile moves. So maybe they're less likely to sort of voluntarily move, but they're more likely to involuntarily move and sort of on net, there's no difference in overall mobility, so the overall mobility, that's not really a very good measure. And so what could we do? I mean, we can't really see, we don't know when people are pushed out, but what we can do is look at the neighborhoods that changes whether people move to different neighborhoods. And so what we do, if you look at the movers, this shows the change, the difference in the poverty rate between the neighborhood that they moved to and the neighborhood where they started. And you can see basically there is no difference, right? Basically both the kids, the families with kids who are leaving gentrifying neighborhoods and persistently low-income neighborhoods are basically moving into neighborhoods that have the same poverty rates as their origin neighborhoods. Now, when you look at nonmovers, the families that stay in place, those that stay in gentrifying neighborhoods actually see a reduction in the poverty of their neighborhood of about close to two percentage points and those that stay in persistently low-income neighborhoods actually experience an increase in neighborhood poverty of about 2.5%. So on net, if you look sort of an aggregate at low-income kids who sort of are born into neighborhoods that then gentrified, they end up in lower-poverty environments than those that are born into neighborhoods that remain persistently low-income, okay? But that's driven by the stairs and not by the movers, right? Now, there is some difference in the mobility patterns across, I mean, this is to Bernat's question, in between movers from gentrifying neighborhoods and movers from persistently low-income neighbors and particularly the movers from gentrifying neighborhoods move farther away. They move to homes that are farther away from their existing homes and they're more likely to move to a different zip code. They're more likely to move to another borough. Now, these are not huge differences. I think these are relatively small differences but they may feel really salient to people. So this could be meaningful to people. Now, again, is this just New York, okay? Well, I think that, and I should, Lance, I should have, these are just sort of the two most recent studies up here but Lance's work, national work basically doesn't find evidence of much of heightened mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods and cities across the country. Leading and Jackie Wong have found, they found no evidence of heightened mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods in Philadelphia but they did find that when disadvantaged renters move from gentrifying areas, they tend to move to somewhat higher poverty areas. Now, Quentin Brumman and Daven Reed more recently looked at, they vary terrific paper where they link to sedial census to ACS using internal census data and they find modest increases in 15-year mobility for less educated renters in gentrifying neighborhoods across the country. They find that movers over this period, the less educated, these are renters without any college education. I think 68% of them moved in over this long time period in the persistently low income neighborhoods as compared to 72% in gentrifying neighborhoods but they found no difference if they were pushed to higher poverty or more disadvantaged neighborhoods. These findings are a little bit contradictory but I'd say that the consistent finding is that we're not seeing sort of wholesale displacement, okay? Yeah, yeah. So people would be moving from one area to another area so how do I make sure to see what the new areas and it's not like it's just more people are coming in and it's not plus or another and she didn't know there's like a little displacement but they've come to the front. They have a 40-matter house from the location. They're mostly moving to very similar neighborhoods where they started. So, I don't think they're not moving to neighborhoods where they would be perceived as very different. So, generally. So, but again, so, again, even if there is a wholesale displacement, right? There is still other costs to gentrification and again, displacement still certainly happens. First is an increase in cost of living, okay? And it's very clear that rents increase in gentrifying neighborhoods more than they increase, and it's almost by definition, more than they increase in persistently low-income neighborhoods, especially since 2000, that's happened. But the rent increase actually may not be as large. There's some research that suggests that rent increase is not as large for vulnerable legacy renters, partially some of them live in subsidized housing and then again, Quentin Brum and Devin Reed, they actually find that renters without college degrees see no increasing rent in gentrifying neighborhoods because they argue that they're living this sort of the housing market is segmented and they're living in the types of housing that aren't as attractive to gentrifiers. But I think we need more research here and I think then there's very little research on other costs, other things like day-to-day costs like groceries. I sort of stuck this in really, but okay. Which is, this is actually research from my doctoral student, Joudie Lee, but I also just wanted to say that there's also a lot of concern that and a lot of debate right now about whether or not new development, new market rate development of housing and new high-rises increase rents and prices in the immediately surrounding area and there's I think two really good new papers. Joudie is one of them and also a paper by Brian Asquith, Evan Mast and Devin Reed, two of whom were from the Upjohn Institute, which finds basically they use kind of similar methods and find that market rate housing does not increase the prices and rents of nearby properties despite I think what many believe to be true. Yeah. This is just New York City, but the other research that Brian Asquith and Mast and Reed do is national, they look in 25 cities around the country. We've seen that control would be regulation that Jason took. Yeah, I mean this is basically, yeah I don't want to spend too much time on this, but basically she's looking at, her strategy is to sort of look at new apartments, the changes in rents surrounding new market rate development, new high-rises that are built and market rate high-rises as compared to the prices and rents surrounding parcels where developers have received permits to build, but there was sort of for idiosyncratic reasons there was a delay. So these are both places where developers want to build, but when the building actually goes up, you don't, you see actually if anything, reductions in rents and immediately surrounding area. Okay, so there's also I think a significant concern about what I think Peter Marku's first called labeled sort of secondary displacement, which is basically describing the fact that when gentrification happens that it makes it more difficult for low-income families in the future to move back into, to continue to move into that neighborhood. And I think this is something that is incredibly important and not talked about as much. That said, not every gentrifying neighborhood can completely re-segregate. So, well, let me just say that we're doing, I'm doing some work with actually someone now who was on the sociology department here at Columbia looking at sort of the long-run stability of incomes in gentrifying neighborhoods and we're finding kind of, there's a lot of variation. So there are a lot of neighborhoods that gentrify and then they remain, they may see, you know, they remain sort of, they see little income change after that. And some see continued increase, some see decline, but there's a lot of variation. And there's similarly a lot of variation when we look at racial change in gentrifying neighborhoods. So this is a paper where we looked at the long-run trajectory of predominantly minority tracks that gentrify during the 80s and 90s. And this shows that of the predominantly minority neighborhoods that gentrified during the 1980s, basically two-thirds of them remained predominantly minority. In 36 years later in 2016, about a third of them were racially, had transitioned to become racially integrated, and only 4% had to be segregated to become predominantly white. Now, the big caveat here is that, you know, we can only look long-term at neighborhoods that gentrified historically, the neighborhoods that are gentrifying today are more likely to be experiencing racial change as they gentrify. So, you know, I think probably you would see more racial change if I, you know, did this 20, 30 years from now and showed you these pictures of the racial composition neighborhoods that gentrified during the 2000s, but obviously we can't do that. Yeah. No, this is national. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm flipping back and forth. This is national. Yeah. You know, it is that there's more racial change in New York. We should pull out New York. We did, and now I don't remember, but it wasn't quite as dramatic as I thought it was gonna be, but it is, there is more racial change in New York. So, the last set of concerns I wanna talk about of identification are the most difficult to quantify, which are, but that doesn't make them any less important, which is anxiety and fear of displacement and also concerns about culture of displacement, right? The idea that people feel as their neighborhoods change, that they feel anxious about being able to stay in their communities. They feel sort of alienated from the changes. They feel like their history, their culture, their communities are being erased and taken away from them. So, that again, difficult to quantify. One thing we did with the Medicaid data is we did look at changes in the diagnoses of kids, of the share of kids diagnosed with anxiety or depression. And we did see that's a place where we saw significant change. So, now that we saw kids who were grown up, who were born into neighborhoods that then gentrified were more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety, sort of. Now, these are small differences. They were very significant. It is very statistical, significant and robust, but because it's small, there are not that many kids that actually are diagnosed with anxiety and depression at this age. So, I think we hope to sort of follow these kids over time. And as they attract what happens as they age into later adolescence, when anxiety and depression are more common. But we saw no other physical difference. So, another thing that I did is we worked on a study a few years ago, sort of a mixed method study where we looked at the experience of public housing residents in gentrifying or gentrified neighborhoods like the Chelsea neighborhood. We looked at the, we hired local public housing residents sort of young adults to be served as community ethnographers and do rapid ethnographic assessments of their neighborhoods. And it was fascinating, we found, I mean, for, I'm just pulling out some quotes from Chelsea that the residents really appreciated. Some of the changes that were happening in their neighborhood, they particularly appreciated the greater safety that they sensed, the sense that there was so much activity going on. On the other hand, they felt like they weren't necessarily seeing expanded opportunities, they felt like the changes weren't for them, they didn't feel like they had a voice in the changes. And they felt like they really felt sort of a concern about the disappearance of the neighborhood retail, which they felt like this was one mom in pop shop, which they described as sort of a comforting part of the environment. So the effects I think are more nuanced than many critics assume. Gentrification may not force many more legacy renters to move, renters end up in similar lower-poverty neighborhoods. There doesn't seem to be, there seems to be little or no effect on long-run employment earnings, physical health, but change still may bring costs, right? And that's in terms of a higher cost of living and a sense of anxiety, alienation and a loss of belonging, okay? There are other debates, let me just really quickly say there are other debates that sort of pit advocates of stability against proponents of growth and change for historic preservation. This shows the lovely neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights. Historic protections can benefit current residents by creating certainty about future development, helping to build social cohesion and maybe strengthening neighborhood identity, but at the same time, these supply restrictions may lead to, they're gonna limit growth, lead to higher prices and rents that may actually serve as exclusionary barriers and lead to sort of demographic changes in the neighborhood. And I've done some co-authored a paper with Brian McCabe and Dora Torres-Benosa showing that after neighborhoods are designated in New York City, designated as historic district, they on average experience a reduction in poverty and an increase in the share of adults with college degrees. So that's another trend. Rent regulation is another really good example, right? On the one hand, rent regulation, the battles of our rent regulation are heating up around the country. They pit sort of existing residents against the development community and landlords. I mean, but rent regulation on the one hand benefits existing renters by shielding them from large rent increases, allowing them, helping them to stay in their homes in communities and preserving the fabric of existing communities. On the other hand, rent regulation is limits the growth and entry of new renters, right? By reducing the number of rental homes overall, by increasing rents in the uncontrolled stock and that it may facilitate discrimination as well. So how do we balance, right again, as planners, right? How do we balance these competing interests? How do we balance the interests of residents, legacy residents of staying in place, of feeling secure, of feeling at home against these sort of societal interests in community change and expanding the supply of housing and inviting new households into cities and accommodating growth, increasing population density to make cities more sustainable, breaking up segregated living patterns, right? How do we balance this tension? And does it matter should we be thinking differently about how to balance this tension in Skarsdale as compared to East Harlem, okay? And I think the answer is yes, we should be thinking differently. And I'm gonna, you know, I'm running out of time, but I'll just say that I think the residents of, you know, and let me say there's sort of four differences, right? One is ability to exit. So I think residents of lower income urban neighborhoods are often less able to exit and move to sort of exercise the exit option, right? Both because of the lower incomes and because of often because of their racial backgrounds, it's, they have, they face a more limited set of alternative neighborhoods. And they also may be sort of more tied to the social networks in the neighborhood and make more difficult for them to leave. They're less able to exercise voice, residents of low income urban neighborhoods, they wield less political power over their local government since suburban neighborhoods often, I mean suburban residents often have more homogeneous interests, you know, the legacy residents of urban neighborhoods are competing with other neighborhoods to sort of get the attention and to persuade their government. They also suburbs are more likely to have access to sort of public and private land use controls. Third, local culture urban neighborhoods are more likely to have minority ethnic cultures that, you know, that we might feel that are more important to help people, help their residents and help support residents. Can you think about what is it, what culture are you preserving in sort of an affluent white suburban and why would you need to preserve that culture when they are part of the dominant culture and society and finally density. I mean, urban neighborhoods are already high density in many cases, right? They're sort of higher density. So I think there are good reasons to be more deferential to interests in neighborhood stability and lower income urban neighborhoods but that doesn't mean we should halt all growth. We still need more housing. And so the question is what can we do? Well, from policy responses, I think there are some policies that we can adopt to mitigate costs and enhance benefits for existing residents and I think there's some policies we can adopt to sort of ensure some long run stable diversity in neighborhoods. And maybe I'll just go through these really quickly and then just take questions about them but in terms of mitigating costs enhancing benefits, we can help legacy renters stay in their homes but again, in all neighborhoods, not just gentrifying neighborhoods, right? Because low income residents in cities like New York, they're vulnerable in every single neighborhood, not just gentrifying neighborhoods. We can work with local businesses and community groups to connect residents to emerging opportunities and legacy residents to emerging opportunities in their neighborhoods, to jobs, to job training, to maybe after school. We can invest in social infrastructure to help and that helps to promote a sense of belonging. So I think that the Schomburg Center for Research and Biculture in Harlem, I think is a great example of the kind of social infrastructure, the kind of cultural institution that brings people together that celebrates the black culture, that celebrates also the history of the neighborhood. There, I think you can also, we can partner with community-based organizations who can help sort of engage local residents in local civic life and help resolve cultural conflicts. The Hudson Guild is one of my favorite settlement house. One of the, there are a number of settlement houses across the city but it's a terrific one in Chelsea that works with the residents of the public housing campuses in Chelsea but also integrates the rest of the community. We can incorporate legacy retailers into redevelopment plans. The Flatbush, the Cayton Market and Flatbush is a nice example of this. This was an outdoor market that had about 40 Caribbean merchants and when there's sort of a new development proposal in the neighborhood that actually they incorporated, they sort of gave the, they're giving the market a space, an indoor space inside that will allow them to operate for all seasons. So, you know, these are hard questions and mitigating costs for who's interest should we prioritize, right? Is it the residents who have lived in the neighborhood longer? Is it the local merchants? Is it residents with children? Is it residents who belong to ethnic communities? Whose voices are heard? Who are the self-designated neighborhood representatives who sort of claim to speak for the neighborhood? And so, but I think, you know, there are things we can do to sort of make people continue to feel like they belong in the community and we can ensure some, do more to sort of lock in the diversity over the longer run, right? It turns out, again, neighborhood's changed not because of who moves out, oops. I just went on my screen, that's fine, it's there. Not because of who moves out of them, but because of who moves into them. And so, we need to ensure that we have a diversity of housing. We're building and preserving a diversity of housing in gentrifying neighborhoods to ensure that sort of the door stays open to a variety of households and with different income levels over the longer term and that we can create new affordable housing. We can preserve subsidized housing. It turns out that actually, we did work at the Furman Center that I think 12% of all the housing in neighborhood and community districts that we deemed as gentrifying our public housing units in another quarter are privately owned subsidized housing units. So this is a really important source of anchoring and a long run diversity in neighborhood. So, you know, I think that none of these debates that I'm highlighting today are new. I think there is a sense that they feel that the stakes are higher today, that they feel more urgent. There are, you know, there is now, now it's not just developers who are arguing for growth. It's increasingly Gimby advocates who are arguing for growth as a way to both address climate change and also as a way to address the housing crisis. There is a growing concern. I think the fact that sort of rents continue to rise and rent burdens are climbing up the economic ladder means that they're touching a broader swath of the population feels sort of the pain of the rental affordability crisis. But that also means that's also pushed, I think, more legacy renters to dig in and feel anxious and fearful that there's sort of a vanishing set of alternative neighborhoods where they can afford to live, okay? And I think there's also mounting concerns about cultural displacement in this political environment where people feel like their culture isn't valued and many communities feel threatened by the increased influx of young white college graduates. So, you know, I'm not gonna resolve this debate today. I certainly have not resolved this debate in the last 45 minutes. And I'm not sure it can ever be fully resolved. I think that, but I do think we need to figure out ways to sort of push for change that can at least preserve some of the fabric. I mean, push for growth at the same time preserving some of the fabric of urban neighborhoods. And while this may seem inherently contradictory, I think we can have some of them both end. And I just sort of wanted to end with what I think is sort of a beautiful and poetic summation of sort of urban policy that from Adam Gopnik that cities are contradictions with street lights or else they're not cities at all. So, thank you. Sorry to talk. I used my New York word. I believe that actually competing quite to growth. I mean, these neighborhoods have a lot of anger. And I know that there are significant households in, you know, hadn't that have been angered in the neighborhoods of that age but that they also serve as kind of points of entry for more immigrants. So, I'm curious if there's research on that or if you're thinking about kind of like, actually like different models for growth and like how do you kind of, like somehow these like contributing to the growth of young college-educated and some other types of contribution. I mean, the problem is is that what I think the research shows is that if you don't build housing that those new commerce are gonna come anyway and what are they gonna do? They're just gonna bid up the price of the existing homes and there's gonna be a much greater risk of displacement than if you build new housing that can help to accommodate and absorb some of the demand for that neighborhood. You know, I mean, I think that in my ideal world we would be building a mix of different housing targeted to different income levels in communities so we're not just building market rate housing but I think that we wanna build a range and that's gonna help to sort of again, absorb to house some of those newcomers so keep them from competing on the housing market for existing units. Yeah. Is there any work comparing different cities for instance in Milwaukee, and Marines on the victory? Yeah. And comparing that to New York City which has strong rent regulation laws that were heavily strengthened last June when the Democrats took over the state senate and also laws providing attorneys for tenants which helped to keep them in this kind of general party? Yeah. So I think, I mean, Lance has done some of this work nationally. I think that the Davenry and Quentin Brummett have done this work recently. I mean, the trick is that sort of the national work covers more cities but then you get a really small sample in each city and so it's difficult to make meaningful comparisons across those cities. I mean, look, New York does have more robust tenant protections and that may well help to keep, to allow more legacy renters to stay in their neighborhoods, right? And we also have more subsidized housing although again, when we pull out the subsidized housing but so I think all of those tools are important. It's just, my point is that we shouldn't be focusing those tools only on gentrifying neighborhoods, right? We should be because you've got, you've got renters that are facing, you're seeing rent increases and housing instability and I think Matt Desmond's incredible book is sort of case in point is that he was, he showed these incredible housing instability faced by low income families in neighborhoods that were seeing no sign of gentrification, right? That wasn't about gentrification, that was about economic instability. Yeah. Do you feel like the topic of gentrification gets an appropriate amount of attention in the discourse around housing and planning generally? Oh. You know, I think probably, nationally, it probably gets a little too much attention. You know, I think, like I said, I just think it's very salient to people right now. I think people are feeling these, these crushing rent burdens but they're feeling crushing rent burdens in cities and in neighborhoods that are not seeing any gentrification and I worry a little bit that the discourse, often you see sort of efforts to, proposals to reinvest and make really important investments that will improve the quality of life in communities that are blocked out of concern that they're gonna gentrify neighborhoods and I think the answer can't be that we're not gonna reinvest in low-income neighborhoods, right? And so I worry a little bit that the pendulum has swung a little too far that we are too focused in, and again, and I say that I don't mean to be, I don't wanna be diminishing the pain that families and the anxiety, legitimate anxiety that people are feeling, but yeah, plans? Next slide, during the question. So you mentioned that you felt that communities of color should be used so much differently than other communities. How would you operationalize that, or what would that mean in terms of? Yeah, so I mean what I said was low-income communities, right? And so I'm thinking sort of low-income neighborhoods, often they are more likely to be communities of color, right? So it's a really good question. I mean I think in my perfect world we would have some kind of a fair share system or a zoning budget system where every neighborhood would have to be taking on some new development, but I can imagine giving somewhat more deference to community planning in lower-income neighborhoods. They were, I mean in the California SB 50 proposal that was now I think the third time that that bill has not passed, has failed, but in this latest round there was sort of more, there was, they gave communities another couple years to develop community plans and more, and maybe more effort to sort of incorporate legacy retailers, more effort. So I think there are ways to do that, but again I still think that we need growth everywhere. So I'm not letting every sort of different communities off the hook, but I do think that given the historic disinvestment and again given the lack of the differences in political power, the differences in the exit alternatives, I think we should be somewhat more differential. I mean community preferences could be another one. I'm not a huge fan of community preferences though. Yeah. I do wonder about some of the themes. Yeah. So do you mean in terms of if we looked a few more years out, would we see more displacement? I mean, yeah, so I'm definitely worried about the time span sensitivity of sort of the impacts. And I didn't talk much about that, but we had a whole paper looking at health outcomes of children. I just showed one slide from that. And now I look, we're only, we're looking at very short-term outcomes. And I think ultimately the question, I really want to answer is not so much whether people are, are, you know, whether they're elevated rates of mobility. I think that's the question we have tended to focus on. I'm more interested in sort of what are the impacts on the long-run well-being of children. And I think we don't have enough years yet. You know, in terms of the, I mean, there are the, because of the Davenry and Quentin Brum study, they are able to look over about a 15-year time period. So that's a longer time horizon. And they see no impacts on changes in well-being, depending on, no, but it impacts on differences in well-being, longer well-being between the kids who grew up in neighborhoods that's gentrified and those that grew up and persistently along. Very small thought on that, and my types of services and how we would access them, and how we would diagnose different types of neighborhoods. That was so complicated, and that was sort of possible. Yeah, that's true. But with more Broadway and kind of meta, I remember you were speaking here four years ago. A lot of historic preservation. Many times. As an example of big findings and also nuance with clarity. And I remember just kind of how you as a scholar and also somebody aged in the policy districts decide at what level you want to operate at in terms of big findings and heavy conveying. And then you mentioned planners and some of the planners in the balancing interests. Not to mention, you know, we are big planners for city policies, but that all of the findings are about the heavy conveying and clustering them as you do. I see it as a model for finding work or something that I would aspire to, but I'm just curious how you can make those decisions. Yeah. Also, that's a big question. It's a really good question. And I think it's sort of study specific. I mean, I am a big believer in studying heterogeneity. I just think that these, the way sort of, you know, economic social phenomenon hit our cities and communities, they're just, you know, they don't hit communities in the same way. And that you look at something like, I mean, a lot of work on the foreclosure crisis, right? If you just sort of look at average effects of the foreclosure crisis and you don't, and you didn't look at differences by race and, you know, racial and ethnic composition of the neighborhood, you would miss a big part of the story. So I think on the other hand, you don't want to sort of fish and just sort of, you know, cut the data every single way possible. So I think you have to sort of go in with some theoretical reasons for why you think you would see heterogeneity, right? And I think like I said, there are lots of reasons to think that you'd see heterogeneity across communities based on racial composition, across individuals based on racial background by income. But I think that's, but I think starting with more theoretical based foundations for what dimensions of heterogeneity you explore, okay? Can I, can I, we can talk more? I know we, no, sorry, we'll come back here in a minute. And what the process is for- Yeah, sorry, during the whole process, like if we evolve into a community setting, we don't want this. Yeah. They're ready to set this about. Yeah. What happens in those communities afterwards? You know, that's interesting. There's actually, there's a wonderful new book that I would recommend to all of you by Kate Einstein and co-authors. She's a political scientist at BU. And she, and it's called Neighborhood Defenders. And she basically gets, she got data in Massachusetts. They're required to make transcripts of every single zoning and planning board meeting publicly available. And so they went through all those transcripts and she studies sort of the various, they don't so much look over time at what happened to those developments, but it gives you an incredibly nuanced story about sort of who's participating in the community, in these community meetings, who's opposing these developments, what are their reasons. So it gives you a really rich story of the politics. But I think, and there's certainly anecdotes in that book of, often what happens is you see a development, but it's radically downsized from what was originally proposed. So that's, I think, what kind of reasons I've found. Thank you so much for your lecture. I totally understand the rational opportunity of creating this is what I taught me at the University of Indies. But I think a lot of activists would say, we're not in low income communities, but I would say we're not Indies, we're actually Finvies. We are before development, if it were public housing or affordable at a rate at which the current constituents of Neighborhood could afford. And I wonder what you think about that sort of proposition, specifically at this time where we're looking at housing finals sort of getting tackled on the national stage, people are talking about investing in housing more than ever before, and at the presidential level, in terms of how the Democrats are proposing their housing plans, in our city and the state in particular, in terms of the sort of gains that the housing movement has seen in terms of state legislation. And yeah, I wonder how you position that sort of. Yeah, that's a great question. And I almost added it last night. I was like, okay, now I already have like 67 slides. I can't put this in. So I'm glad you asked that question. So on the one hand, I mean, I am sympathetic to that concern. And I certainly would like to see a diversity of housing types built in some of those units, whether it's through inclusionary programs. I think we absolutely must preserve the public housing, the developments that we have in this city and around the country. They're really a critical resource for low-income families. But I worry a little bit about the arguments that we should only be building homes in communities and low-income communities that are affordable to the current residents of those communities. Because what does that do? That really sort of, that further deepens what perpetuates concentrations, economic segregation, and potentially racial segregation too. And so I'm not, like I said, so I'm not, I would, in my perfect world, you would see sort of mixed in, or a range of housing units built that are affordable to a range of income levels. But I don't think we should only be building units that are affordable to extremely low-income households in East New York. And then we should be building market rate housing in the Brooklyn Queens waterfront, whatever. It's like that, that's just, that's gonna just perpetuate segregation. So I think, and that's something I feel like is not something that I feel like is sufficiently, that tension is sufficiently engaged with. I think Ed gets to a really good job with the topic. Good. Yeah. I think he touched upon that sort of notion of it. Receiving communities tend to be low-income communities because that's where land is cheats. That's right, that's right. And it also may be sort of a political power question too. Absolutely. Yeah, again. So again, and I think that this sort of gets to Lance's question too, it's kind of like, if you do nothing, then where is development gonna happen? It's gonna tend to go into lower income communities of color and so I feel like sort of trying to, if we're serious about sort of holding every community accountable and say every community has to do their part and accept some new development if we need to grow, then we have to sort of tip the scales a little bit. So, yeah. And then. Okay. Are you gonna challenge that? Good. I guess my first question now being a living person is, the media gets really excited when you find large empty public buildings will look faster. Yeah. And so I guess my question is to what extent have really reflected in the data? And then if we're talking about policies, what have got the prospects of the kind of policies that are remaining sort of higher in demand and the use of the spaces housing as opposed to sort of one right and one left and right? Yeah. So that's a really good question. I mean, I think on the one hand it is, it is certainly looking across the country. That's a very, it's a very unusual phenomenon. It's sort of Uber luxury buildings. It is, you know, but there are some, there are definitely some under-occupied, high-end buildings in Manhattan, right? It's not even really true. It's not even true outside of Manhattan. I was not sure it was sort of outside of core Manhattan. You know, I don't think, I think part of the issue is it's actually the regulatory restrictiveness actually pushes the market, it pushes developers to build towards the high end of the market, right? And so that's one response. Another response is sort of their other ways to deal with that. I mean, one is sort of, you know, and markets like that. I mean, we can have an aggressive inclusionary housing program, which I think, you know, the Pueblo's administration did adopt, and you really can, you can demand more from developers when the profit margins are that high. And you also can be, you know, think about Piedoterra taxes, non-resident taxes, vacancy taxes. You know, I think we should be, we should seriously explore those options. And that to me would be a better way of addressing it rather than saying, no, you can't build, right? Let's build, but let's extract, let's extract some value there, which then we can redistribute. Thank you.