By David Forbes

Gentrification is a subject of major debate these days in Asheville. As affordability has declined, rents have risen sharply and wages have remained largely stagnant, there’s a worry that many parts of the city’s population will increasingly be pushed to the periphery, leaving the city more homogenous and exclusive than ever before.

That worry even extends to City Hall. Late last year, developer Harry Pilos moved forward with the new 209-unit RAD Lofts project. Asheville City Council approved the development unanimously, but expressed concerns about the lack of a single unit of affordable housing.

It turns out, the rush of more expensive housing into the RAD alarmed Asheville City Council members and city staff, who shortly after decided to study gentrification in the area and some possible ways to encourage development without pushing out existing populations or making the area unaffordable. Since then, debate has only grown, as recent weeks and months have seen artists forced out of studios the city declared unsafe and a major, controversial overhaul for public housing move forward.

The study groups several neighborhoods — Southside, South French Broad, the River Arts District — under the heading “East of the Riverway” in a swath ranging from the edge of West Asheville to the outskirts of downtown, and including everything from Mission Hospital to public housing and artists’ studios. It then outlines their history, as well as some programs pursued in other areas to check gentrification, programs that might work here in Asheville.

The study (Alternatives to Gentrification in East of the Riverway) was composed by Sasha Vrtunski, a local planner who’s worked with the city on a number of occasions, notably on the Downtown Master Plan, along with local economist Tom Tvedit and assistance from planner Lucy Crown. Notably, Michael Brown of Burlington Associates, a consulting firm that specializes in analyzing gentrification and models for development intended to correct its problems, also worked on the plan.

Here’s a rundown of the diagnosis and remedies the study recommends.

How gentrification happened and what it means

The swath of Asheville the report focuses on has “a rich history, some marked with pain,” as the report puts it, noting the devastating impact of the “urban renewal” programs that demolished many African-American-owned homes and businesses in the 1960s and ’70s, displacing thousands. The memory remains, and “there is a concern another wave of displacement is coming.” According to the study, 3,271 people now live in the area and wages remain far lower than the rest of Asheville; 57.3 percent of the population lives on less than $25,000 a year, compared to 29.5 percent in the city as a whole.

Despite increasing economic activity in the area, the report finds that locals aren’t seeing much of it. “Jobs at Mission Hospitals, New Belgium and the burgeoning entertainment businesses feel very out of reach for folks currently living in these neighborhoods.”

While historically home to some of the city’s most affordable housing, prices shot up drastically — more than 74 percent — from 2000 to 2010, leaving them close to the median home price across the city and the county.

Meanwhile, between 1990 and 2010, the African-American population in the area declined from 79 to 56 percent of the population, and “artists report increasing challenges in locating affordable work and gallery space in these neighborhoods.” On top of all that, the vast majority (62 percent) of the area’s population rent, rather than own, their housing, meaning they can be pushed out more easily as gentrification increases.

As for the artists, the study includes a survey of 71 in the area. While many felt their space was affordable for the time being, almost all of them said they were deeply concerned that it will not remain so in the future.

As the report concludes:

an analysis of demographics and market trends demonstrate that these neighborhoods are already experiencing gentrification, as wealthier people and businesses that cater to them are moving in, drawn by the location, the diversity and “feel” of these neighborhoods. Some of this change is driven by public sector infrastructure investment, while some is fueled by “urban pioneers” and entrepreneurs acquiring “fixer-upper” buildings and major redevelopment projects like the New Belgium Brewery. The impacts on the neighborhoods already are both notable and severe…

If this process continues, the report notes, it might undermine the very reasons more people are moving to the area in the first place.

However, the study finds that the area is still in the “middle” stage of gentrification, meaning that there are still some options. While there are sharp rises in home and rental prices, along with some displacement happening already, some affordable housing still remains and there’s still vacant land to use in ways that don’t further gentrify the area.

What can be done

Gentrification has, and continues to, strike a number of areas in Asheville. So what, according to the report, can be done?

“What is required to keep these neighborhoods from becoming more homogenous and exclusive is a swift intervention of targeted, long-term public sector/private sector partnerships and collaborations,” it asserts. “The most effective strategies to combat gentrification and prevent displacement are measures that local government can adopt and implement.”

Which strategies exactly? The report goes through a number, ranging from anti-speculation taxes to restrictions on converting rental housing to condominiums to using local government resources to preserve areas for affordable housing and community space.

However, while it draws strategies from across the country, local and state rules vary widely, and the report notes specific advantages and disadvantages with each, before focusing in on the ones it recommends local government pursue.

In this case, the report recommends that Asheville’s local government pursue “inclusionary zoning,” requiring that new development in the area have a designated number of affordable units, in exchange for signficant development incentives. Alternatively, developers who didn’t include affordable units might have to pay a significant amount to the affordable housing trust fund. The city could also issue bonds, backed by future tax revenues from the developing area, to bankroll more affordable development in the area, including live-work cooperatives for artists.

Further, the study recommends looking into community land trusts, a public-private partnership where an organization buys and controls land for a specific purpose and guarantees the affordability of the space forever (the report emphasizes that last word in italics). Those with homes or artists’ space on the land would own or lease the buildings, but the trust would control the land itself, meaning they could set conditions about affordability, use or resale.

City staff and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee already broached land trusts earlier this year as a possible way to curb Asheville’s rising unaffordability.

To succeed, however, the report asserts that a new “community-controlled organization is needed to honor the history of this multi-neighborhood area, preserve and promote its character, and plan for its future,” and that such a group will need investment from city and county governments as well as the private sector to succeed.

Gentrification’s a major issue throughout Asheville, and increasing by the day. If the “swift intervention” the report recommends can halt it is a matter for speculation, but it’s now a topic that a signficant number of city decision-makers feel they must pay attention to.

Image link for Clingman.

David Forbes is a local journalist and editor of the Asheville Blade, a reader-supported site for sharp news and views.