Chapter Two Workshop
Speculative 1
Gentrification as defined by chapter two, Diverse Truths, is the renewal and rebuilding that accompanies the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.”
I think that the sequence of events related to Kitty Foster and the site of her home would have been different had gentrification of the area not occurred. Granted gentrification is defined as renewal and rebuilding, but it is also defined by displacement of the lower class. Even if gentrification had not occurred at that time, I think that it is safe to say that eventually it would have occurred in the future. What would have happened to the site until then? The Charlottesville paper describes the area as a “public nuisance and plague spot,” and refers to the place as horrid. Perhaps this is true and it was not the best place in the world. But that could be said for many places that were racially segregated and discriminated against at the time. The site would have continued to decay and fall into ruin as time went on until action was taken and gentrification would occur. But what would this mean for the events following? The commemoration of the site and ultimately the free and enslaved African Americans who had worked on and for the university would, in my opinion, not be as celebrated. Why? Because the fact that gentrification of the area took place around 100 years ago serves to define not only the people but that period of time, as opposed to if the site had only recently been gentrified in the last five or ten years and had been continually falling into disrepair.
Gentrification does renew and revive an area, but on the other hand it displaces not only poor residents as a physical element, but the culture and history of the poor residents as abruptly erased as rebuilding and moving in of higher class people takes place. It appears in the case of Kitty Foster and the site of her home that gentrification occurred almost overnight, the area was razed and no more thought was given to the area. I don’t want to say that the razing of the site was due to racial tension at the time, or that the act in itself was an act of racism towards African Americans everywhere, though it could be possible. I do want to note, however, that it was done in such a careless way (the site was built upon and covered up), that it is obvious that little or no importance was placed on the area, or even the gravesites. But what did come out of this careless act of gentrification is the fact that the site remained untouched until it was excavated around one hundred years later. I don’t want to say that is a good thing in itself, but it did help preserve the site, whereas if gentrification had not occurred at that time, the area would probably not be as preserved.

















