H2
Leslie Kern, "It's not all coffee shops and hipsters: what we get wrong about gentrification"
Source text type: article| Assignments | |
|---|---|
|
1.
Describe the process of gentrification and the resulting changes in neighbourhoods according to the article. |
30% |
|
2.
Analyse how the author conveys her attitute towards gentrification. Focus on communicative strategies and use of language. |
30% |
|
3.
Choose one of the following tasks:
3.1
Taking the article as a starting point, write a letter to the editor of The Guardian, commenting on the effects of a globalised culture on urban neighbourhoods.
3.2
Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is part of the UN agenda and based on the idea that all people have civic responsibilities on a social, political, environmental, and economic scale to the world as a whole rather than just to their local communities or countries. Discuss the need to make GCED a higher priority in schools. |
40% |
"It's not all coffee shops and hipsters: what we get wrong about gentrification"
by Leslie Kern
1
On a trip to Mexico City, a bus tour whisks me through neighbourhoods teeming with
2
cool cafes, elegant wine bars and stylish twentysomethings. Starbucks are surprisingly
3
thick on the ground. When I ask my Spanish teacher about these areas, he rolls his
4
eyes and rubs his thumb and fingers together: a universal sign for too expensive and
5
full of unpleasant people.
6
You don’t need to be a gentrification researcher (although I am one) to read these signs
7
and immediately understand what is happening here. Gentrification feels, sounds and
8
looks familiar wherever you are: young hipsters transforming neighbourhoods according
9
to a remarkably homogeneous global code of taste and style.
10
As accurate as that narrative might feel, the story we tell ourselves about the changing
11
face of our inner-city neighbourhoods is far too basic. Vilifying the markers of
12
gentrification alone fails to get to the root of the problem – and trust me, it’s not as
13
simple as pour-over coffee – and lacks any useful ideas for countering the larger forces
14
at play that have brought artisanal doughnuts to your community.
15
It’s true that we can identify gentrification through certain styles and sites of
16
consumption. This has been the case since the slow creep of a neighbourhood “on the
17
up” was first noticed and named in north London in the 1960s. Since then, the tastes
18
of gentrifiers – from what they wear, to what they eat – has generated endless
19
commentary. Their preferences have been viewed as the harbingers of doom for
20
working-class, minority communities in cities around the world.
21
Sites that seem to embody these changes are easy targets. The now-closed Cereal Killer
22
cafe in east London is one such example. Viewed as a sign of everything that had gone
23
or could go wrong in this low-income, predominantly minority ethnic community, the
24
purveyor of overpriced breakfast grains was targeted by protesters, vandals, and graffiti
25
writers who warned of a gentrifier takeover. We love to hate these spaces and their
26
seemingly oblivious owners. After all, they put a face to what seems like an insur-
27
mountable problem caused by distant forces.
28
But the question we should be asking is whether closing a coffee shop is going to prevent
29
gentrification. The answer is no, even if we acknowledge that places such as this do
30
play a role. Today, however, the cultural capital of the avocado toast class is worth little
31
compared with the might of the billion-dollar, multi-national, real estate investment and
32
development industries – and their government partners – who now control our cities
33
and neighbourhoods, as well as their potential for social and economic transformation.
34
If we truly want to push back against gentrification, we are misplacing our energies by
35
focusing primarily on superficial markers of taste. They are little more than symptoms
36
of much more disruptive forms of urban change that are enriching the few at the ex-
37
pense of the many. The destruction or market-led “regeneration” of council housing is
38
one such form; luxury high-rise development is another. Large-scale eviction processes,
39
accelerated by the end of pandemic-era protections, are overtly enabling gentrification,
40
especially in minority neighbourhoods. The rise of short-term letting through platforms
41
such as Airbnb is helping to raise housing prices beyond the reach of even the middle
42
classes.
43
These processes are driven by the search for new ways to generate capital and wealth
44
from urban space. The developers, speculators and investment firms that push these
45
changes are able to do so because of government policy that not only allows, but often
46
actively encourages, such developments. Whether it is through tax incentives,
47
rezoning, or government-led “revitalisation” schemes, the state facilitates gentrifi-
48
cation on multiple levels.
49
When your corporate landlord is trying to evict you so that your building’s units can be
50
renovated into luxury suites, a nearby coffee shop serving a £6 flat white certainly adds
51
insult to injury. Don’t get me wrong, the cafe is part of the problem: it’s capitalising on
52
and attracting the kind of changes that may be about to boot you from your community
53
for good. However, the seeds that created the conditions for that cafe to take root were
54
planted long before it even opened its doors, by actors with a tremendous amount of
55
power. In other words, that expensive coffee is certainly not helping you but it’s not the
56
entity “renovicting” you, either.
57
Feel free to protest about the cafe, but your energy might be better placed organising
58
the tenants in your building to fight against unfair evictions. This lesson applies more
59
widely to the battle against gentrification. For all of us worried about the changes in our
60
communities that are displacing longtime residents, council housing tenants, senior
61
people, people who are immigrants, young people and many others, we must be stra-
62
tegic and focused in our struggle. This means not letting governments and corporations
63
get away with bulldozing (literally and figuratively) our cities, while we’re distracted by
64
annoyingly high-priced breakfast foods.
65
Admittedly, redirecting our attention to Goliath – indeed, multiple Goliaths – is
66
daunting. However, one of the reasons these groups succeed with their agenda to
67
remake the city for profit, not people, is that we have come to accept the story that
68
rampant capitalist interests cannot be defeated, or even slowed down. But resistance is
69
possible. It can come through rent strikes, squatters’ movements and the growth of
70
community-led models of development, such as community land trusts and cooperative
71
housing. We can push governments to use the regulatory tools at their disposal:
72
eviction bans, rent stabilisation, community benefit ordinances, zoning and taxation.
73
You don’t have to like the latest vegan bistro-pub in your neighbourhood, but let’s
74
remember to focus on the nefarious agents at play behind the trendy frontages. These
75
powerful forces are dismantling people’s ability to live and thrive in our cities today. A
76
different kind of future is possible, but only if we demand it and demand it from the
77
right people.
Source 986 words
Weiter lernen mit SchulLV-PLUS!
monatlich kündbarSchulLV-PLUS-Vorteile im ÜberblickDu hast bereits einen Account?
Please note: The solutions presented here are just one possible way to approach the task. There are often multiple valid methods and perspectives, and alternative approaches may be equally effective.
1.
The article “It’s not all coffee shops and hipsters: what we get wrong about gentrification” by Leslie Kern, published in The Guardian on 04.09.2022, describes the process of gentrification in cities worldwide and comments on the resulting changes in neighbourhoods.
Kern, a gentrification researcher, explains that gentrification is a global phenomenon driven by powerful multinational corporations, investment firms, and governments. It affects especially poorer parts of cities where working-class and minority communities live. According to Kern, gentrification often begins with the arrival of young, stylish residents—sometimes called “hipsters”, who are drawn to lower-income areas. These new residents bring with them a globally homogeneous taste in food, fashion, and leisure, leading to the opening of trendy cafés, bars, restaurants, and shops. However, these new businesses are not the main cause of gentrification. Instead, Kern emphasizes that behind these changes are much larger forces: multinational corporations and real estate developers working together with governments. The process of gentrification includes the replacement of council housing with luxury apartments and upmarket businesses. This often leads to extensive eviction processes and the rise of short-term letting platforms like Airbnb, which drastically increase housing prices. As a result, long-term residents, especially those from low-income, working-class or minority backgrounds, are displaced from their communities. The arrival of gentrifiers can also cause tensions within neighbourhoods. Protests against gentrification have occurred, such as the case of the Cereal Killer Café in London, which became a symbol of the problem and was vandalised by angry residents. These conflicts reflect a deeper frustration with the unfair urban changes driven by profit rather than the needs of the people. In conclusion, Leslie Kern highlights that gentrification is not only about expensive coffee or avocado toast, but about the powerful systems behind these surface changes. The article calls for strategic resistance, including tenant organising and policy change, to protect communities from being pushed out of their homes.
2.
In her article “It’s not all coffee shops and hipsters: what we get wrong about gentrification”, published in The Guardian on 04.09.2022, Leslie Kern expresses her critical attitude towards gentrification as a global issue. Through various communicative strategies and linguistic devices, she conveys concern, criticizes misdirected public reaction, highlights the damage done by gentrification, and encourages readers to take political and social action.
Kern begins the article with a personal anecdote: “On a trip to Mexico City, a bus tour whisks me” (line 1) and “When I ask my Spanish teacher” (line 3). This strategy immediately shows her personal involvement in the topic, making the article more relatable for readers. By hinting at her own expertise - “You don’t need to be a gentrification researcher (although I am one)” (line 6) - she subtly builds credibility, positioning herself as both a knowledgeable and personally affected voice. The use of enumeration and inclusive pronouns in phrases like “Gentrification feels, sounds and looks familiar wherever you are” (lines 7-8) underscores the global nature of the phenomenon and implies that everyone, including the readers, is or could be affected. Throughout the text, Kern condemns misdirected criticism of gentrification by using descriptive and ironic language. The image of the Spanish teacher who “rolls his eyes and rubs his thumb and fingers together” (lines 3-4) and the metaphor “harbingers of doom” (line 19) dramatize the situation and criticize how easily people identify visible symbols like cafes as the main problem. By referring to “the cultural capital of the avocado toast class” (lines 30-31) and contrasting it with billion-dollar real estate firms, she uses irony and comparison to downplay the influence of hipster cafés and redirect attention to more powerful actors. Her contrastive statement “We love to hate these spaces and their seemingly oblivious owners” (lines 25-26) shows that people react emotionally rather than rationally. Kern strongly criticizes the destructive nature of gentrification through the use of negatively connoted vocabulary and vivid imagery. Expressions such as “slow creep of a neighbourhood” (line 16), “bulldozing … our cities” (line 63), and “nefarious agents at play” (line 74) convey the gradual yet deliberate and harmful transformation of urban spaces. She further exposes the manipulation behind gentrification by placing euphemistic or technical terms like “regeneration”, “revitalisation”, and “renovicting” in quotation marks, suggesting that such language masks the real damage done to communities. To mobilise readers, Kern uses inclusive and direct language. She speaks directly to the audience with phrases like “When your corporate landlord” (line 49), “Don’t get me wrong” (line 51), and “For all of us” (line 59), establishing a close connection and shared responsibility. She encourages action with imperatives such as “Feel free to protest” (line 57) and “we must be strategic and focused” (lines 61-62). The biblical allusion to “Goliath” implies that although the powers behind gentrification seem unbeatable, ordinary people can resist and succeed. Finally, Kern uses repetition and parallelism in “but only if we demand it and demand it from the right people” (lines 76-77), reinforcing the urgency and clarity of her call to action. In conclusion, Leslie Kern effectively conveys her critical stance on gentrification using personal engagement, expert authority, vivid and emotional language, and strong appeals to collective action. Her communicative strategies and language serve to raise awareness, redirect blame, and inspire her readers to fight against the deep-rooted causes of urban displacement.
3.1
To the Editor,
I am writing in response to Leslie Kern’s insightful article “It’s not all coffee shops and hipsters: what we get wrong about gentrification” (2022), which exposes the often-misunderstood consequences of gentrification, especially in the context of a globalised urban culture. As Kern rightly argues, the real culprits behind neighbourhood transformation are not artisanal cafés or overpriced breakfast grains, but the multinational real estate investors and policy-makers shaping our cities behind the scenes. The article raises important concerns about the multiple negative effects of gentrification, which can be viewed as one of the most visible urban symptoms of globalisation. Local businesses that once served working-class communities are pushed out by global chains. Rents and property prices rise dramatically, leading to the exclusion and displacement of longtime residents. The character of entire neighbourhoods changes rapidly, replacing vibrant, culturally rooted communities with homogenised spaces that evoke resentment and a sense of loss. What results is an aggravated socioeconomic divide and fragmentation of formerly cohesive communities. This is not merely a local issue. Globalised culture imposes a shared aesthetic across cities worldwide: hipster cafés, co-working spaces, and boutique gyms, while sidelining local traditions, dialects, and food cultures. As global brands dominate the urban landscape, cultural diversity is slowly eroded. Communities become increasingly dependent on international corporations not only as consumers but as employees caught in precarious jobs, or as tenants in buildings owned by anonymous corporate landlords. Local governments often lose the ability to control urban development, with decisions made by global players whose interests rarely align with those of the communities affected. Nonetheless, globalisation also brings opportunities. In some cases, gentrification has contributed to better infrastructure, increased public safety, and the renovation of decaying urban spaces. It can attract investment, introduce technological innovation, and facilitate cross-cultural exchange, potentially helping to break down stereotypes and promote more inclusive urban identities. Yet these benefits often come at a high cost and the burden is not evenly shared. To preserve the soul of our cities, we must question who profits from change and who is left behind. As Kern powerfully concludes, our focus must shift from symbolic protest against cafés to strategic resistance against the global forces of profit-driven urban development. Sincerely, Liv Smith
3.2
Should Global Citizenship Education (GCED) be made a higher priority in schools?
In an increasingly interconnected world, the importance of Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is becoming ever more evident. As part of the United Nations’ agenda, GCED promotes the idea that individuals bear responsibilities not only to their local communities or nations but to the world at large. Given the complexity of today’s global challenges, I am of the opinion that it is essential that schools make GCED a higher priority in their curricula. One key reason for elevating the importance of GCED is the growing difficulty of understanding a world shaped by rapid and ongoing globalisation. Political conflicts, economic crises, environmental disasters, and pandemics no longer affect only one region—they ripple across continents. As the world becomes more interdependent, young people need the tools to make sense of global systems and their impacts. Moreover, citizenship involves both rights and responsibilities. GCED encourages students to engage actively in social, political, environmental, and economic processes. It helps them understand that their actions, such as how they consume resources, vote, or express opinions, have broader consequences. Educating future generations about their roles in a global society is essential if we hope to address issues like inequality, climate change, or global conflict collaboratively and effectively. Another urgent reason to promote GCED is to raise awareness of the social inequalities that globalisation creates. While some benefit from open markets and new technologies, others are left behind. GCED aims to make students aware of these disparities and to foster empathy and a desire for social justice. Furthermore, as challenges like global warming or pandemics increasingly disregard national borders, we must teach students that lasting solutions require international cooperation, not isolation. Equally important is the development of cross-cultural understanding and shared human values. GCED promotes analytical and evaluative skills that encourage critical thinking and tolerance. This “world-mindedness” prepares students not only to understand diverse perspectives but also to work towards inclusive solutions in an increasingly multicultural world. Some critics argue that GCED is too vague or impractical. Questions remain about whether a unified concept of global citizenship can exist, and which aspects—social, political, environmental, or economic—should be prioritized in teaching. Others point out that many of these topics are already covered in subjects such as geography, history, or ethics. Additionally, schools often face pressure to focus on job market-oriented skills or urgent local issues like healthcare or economic development. While these concerns are valid, they do not outweigh the broader necessity of preparing students for the realities of a globalised world. Rather than treating GCED as an optional add-on, schools should embed it more deeply into existing curricula. Far from being a distraction, it equips students with the understanding and responsibility needed to navigate both their local communities and the global landscape. In conclusion, Global Citizenship Education must become a higher priority in schools. As globalisation continues to shape every aspect of our lives, students need the knowledge, values, and critical skills to face complex global challenges with informed compassion and a cooperative spirit. Investing in GCED today is an investment in a more just, sustainable, and peaceful future.