Just came across this NY Post article (via Brownstoner) which discusses three differing urban planners’ perspectives on the link between neighborhood “authenticity” and urban development and gentrification:

It’s an old story: As cities gentrify, educated urbanites come to prize what they regard as “authentic” urban life, says Brooklyn College Prof. Sharon Zukin, from aging buildings to art galleries, small boutiques, upscale food markets, funky ethnic restaurants, and old, family-owned shops.

But just what does authenticity mean, and who is really allowed to claim it?

Assertions of authenticity inevitably lead to one of the most contentious and important issues for New Yorkers: Who legitimately speaks for your neighborhood? Who gets to say what old building is or isn’t demolished, what valuable site is or isn’t developed?
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/books/naked_city_ZL14H4rK9UWTiQWd7krOyL#ixzz0cUs3SqcW

I’m definitely one of those “educated urbanites” who was lured to this neighborhood because of its “authentic” character.  And apparently I’m not alone.  One of the top things that our poll respondents said that they appreciated about Crown Heights is its “authentic” feel.   Yet, according to argument explored in the article, that could very well mean that Crown Heights is on a course to lose it’s authenticity.

I won’t delve too deep into this.  Just though it was an interesting read.  Weigh in if you’d like.

Popularity: 7% [?]