In a time of mass deforestation and urbanization, encouraging the creation of green spaces seems like a no brainer. This is the conclusion that countless cities around the world have come to: new sustainable buildings and curated green spaces will not only benefit the people living in said cities, but will also help the environment. A double win! People get to enjoy the new parks, public paths, and rooftop gardens, while the environment gains trees that cool rising temperatures and improve air quality. Yet this process, known as “greening,” is not as straightforward as it initially appears. Proponents of greening have good intentions, but what often follows in the footsteps of greening is what is known as green gentrification. This is the process by which areas that have experienced greening become more desirable, leading to a higher cost of living and often the displacement of current middle/lower class residents. Green spaces are designed with the intention of improving the quality of life for neighborhood inhabitants, but the accompanying rise in housing prices forces them out, meaning they never benefit from these improvements. As such, green gentrification is the consequence of not considering equity alongside sustainability when conducting new builds in cities. In a time when housing is in high demand, it is essential that the greening of new housing developments does not continue the cycle of housing insecurity, but rather addresses the intersectionality of gentrification and the environment.  

One example of a city that followed the pipeline from greening to green gentrification is Atlanta, Georgia. Once the terminus of several continental railroads, by the 2000s Atlanta was encircled by railroad tracks that were no longer in use. Ryan Gravel, an urban planning student at Georgia Tech at the turn of the millennium, saw the potential to convert these unused paths into a green walking trail connecting some of the oldest neighborhoods in Atlanta. Passing through low-income neighborhoods, the idea was to encourage public investment and revitalization in these neighborhoods, alongside the goal of fostering connection in a city where the history of racial segregation is alive and well. This envisioned revitalization included sponsoring restaurants, shopping, art, public parks, and housing developments alongside the trail, called the BeltLine. Although the founder, Ryan Gravel, stressed the importance of ensuring housing remained affordable along the BeltLine, this has largely failed, causing Gravel to leave the organization in 2016. Instead, the BeltLine has become a twisting thread of expensive apartments, luxury retail stores, and high-end restaurants. As the BeltLine expanded through each neighborhood, the development brought gentrification rather than revitalization. As property taxes rose in parallel with rent increases, the predominantly Black and lower-income residents of the neighborhoods that the BeltLine traverses were pushed out from their homes. Housing in Atlanta was also directly impacted by the crisis in 2008, as 7,000 low-cost rental units were lost from 2010-2019 while over quintuple the amount of building permits were issued in the same time period for more expensive builds. In 2017 the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that 600 units of affordable housing had been built so far – a far cry from the numbers necessary to reach the goal of 5,600 by 2030. In a study conducted from 2011-2015, housing values rose between 17.9% and 26.6% for homes within a half-mile of the Beltline compared to housing further away. The case study of Atlanta and the BeltLine demonstrates that green gentrification is a real threat to affordable housing if not addressed intentionally and relentlessly during greening projects. 

Another American city experiencing the effects of green gentrification is Boston – however, in a distinctly different way than in Atlanta. As a harbor city, Boston faces the threat of rising waters due to climate change. The East Boston neighborhood, home to lower-income and immigrant residents, notably contains one-third of 90,000 homes in Massachusetts at risk of chronic flooding by 2100. Previously an undeveloped shoreline, in the past decade development of luxury waterfront apartments boasting green spaces, running trails, and sustainable infrastructure has driven out most of the locals. According to PBS, developers neglected to set pricing for these new high-rises, letting the potential buyers set the market - which had disastrous consequences. PBS reported that an apartment of 1,500 square feet went for no less than 1 million dollars. In a Boston Herald article, they noted that apartments were being rented at $5,000 a month for a two bedroom – vastly exceeding the price range of the average East Boston resident earning $52,000 a year. Furthermore, these soaring prices are not confined to the luxury developments themselves. In a snowballing fashion, these highrise developments, accompanied by new outdoor spaces, have increased the desirability of the whole neighborhood. This means that the cost of living in the whole neighborhood, not just on the coastline, has tripled in the past twenty years, with average rent for a one bedroom rising from $875 to $2600. This has already begun to force lower-income residents out of their own neighborhoods, leaving some students to walk an hour to school when it used to be only ten minutes. Once again, Boston demonstrates the massive cost of neglecting affordable housing when pursuing greening developments. The intersection of affordability, sustainability, and equity is manifested in green gentrification and its consequences. 

So, what can be done? Green infrastructure must be directly linked to equity goals in order to prevent the disenfranchised from being displaced. James Connolly, a researcher at the University of Vancouver, states that “the only responsible agenda is when greening happens in relation to [housing policy and other land use controls]”. Greening projects must be held to certain policy standards to ensure that equitable development and affordable housing follow in its footsteps. In order to achieve this, there must be an emphasis on working with the local and potentially vulnerable populations in order to protect them in the long term. Such a strategy means that all stakeholders have a role to play, and tactics for preventing green gentrification are known as Parks Related Anti-Displacement Strategies (PRADS). PRADS vary depending on the target of such strategies – whether it be related to the residents, the businesses, private-sector housing developers, public park funding agencies, or any other type of stakeholder. For example, a PRADS directed at renters might include rent control or anti-eviction protection. For private sector housing developers, PRADS might look more like making developers pay the fees to the city to be used towards building affordable units. That said, PRADS are often disregarded or not brought into discussion until after development of a new green space has begun. Some suggestions to increase their efficiency are to bring the local community into dialogue with elected officials and developers, create collaboratives that can advocate for policy change, and combine the preservation of affordable housing with initiatives to create better jobs in the neighborhood. Ultimately, PRADS are only successful when the entire community is involved and informed. In order to work towards a more sustainable and affordable world, equity must be at the forefront of development.