Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentrified architecture

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Gentrified architecture

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Gentrified architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source used the term "gentrified architecture". Outside of a font called "Gentrified architecture" that term doesn't really come up in google. This seems to be turning what many of the citied source point out as the architectural styles you typically see with gentrification into a new concept called "gentrified architecture". This article is implying this a new style of architecture being built. At best this should titled "architectural styles associated with gentrification" and the intro should be changed as not to make the author believe that these styles are not directly gentrification but just commonly found near where gentrification is occurring and not necessarily the cause of it. That alone I don't think merits it's own page. Architectural styles are already covered in Gentrification and could expanded with some of these sources but I don't think this page, describing an observational phenomenon on it's own, is notable.

While I agree it's true there is a pattern and look to some of the housing that goes up when gentrification occurs (as also citied), gentrification can only be determined in context as even the sources here state and involves more factors than simply the style of the building. I can't find any source that is making a claim like this article puts forward in it's intro. Also many of these sources cited describe how new architecture is simply changing the character of neighborhood without necessarily discussing gentrification, which also makes me feel like this page is more original research than based off discussion of this topic in external sources. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 18:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I found a few sources that referenced gentrified architecture, but I think there's a fine line here to avoid OR. A merge into gentrification would also be appropriate. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• Merge into gentrification or delete. This isn't a real thing; at most it's an academic phenomenon notable in that some people mistake changes in the built environment for changes in the people who live in it, but it's not anything meaningful about the actual process of gentrification. grendel|khan 01:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete None of the sources use the term "Gentrified architecture" and this is just orginal research and synthesis. Architecture changes over time, and just because something new is built and is perceived as gentrifying the area doesn't mean the architecture itself is gentrified or is a style itself. Everything the nom says is correct, and this is not something that should be merged as it is. Reywas92^Talk 16:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, don't merge. The article's sole author (User:Xicanx, now retired) argues for a concept and point of view that is insufficiently supported by the cited sources, and contradicts other, more notable views on gentrification - for example the widely held notion that traditional architecture can be a major aspect of what makes an area or building attractive for gentrification. I checked two of the given citations, both of which unraveled on closer inspection:

The construction of buildings in a gentrified architectural style increases appeal for outsiders, who are often tourists, and wealthy future residents, who see an area as "revitalized" or "redeveloped" because of its presence. This creates space for more developmental projects in a gentrified architectural style, as the buildings increasingly serve as invitations to outsiders while communicating to the current residents that the space is not for them or their communities.

The cited thesis says nothing of that sort on pages 38 and 39. Rather, it criticizes a decision by the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) "to 'revitalize' through helping build a garage [which] speaks volumes about the city’s push to create spaces for white tourists and white (future) residents. In short, a parking garage communicates to the surrounding community that this recreational space was not specifically built to address their blighted community." More specifically, that decision was about "allocating $52 million for a garage structure for Eli Broad’s museum in downtown L.A. while simultaneously only securing $5.2 million in public help for Watts [...] While the Broad museum is a valuable addition to the city of Los Angeles, it is predominantly a tourist destination rather than one aimed at assisting residents of a blighted neighborhood." But that criticism is about prioritizing of funding, not at all about architecture. The source doesn't even talk about the design of said garage (it may well be an underground garage, i.e. have no publicly visible parts), and in any case it's not about construction in an area that is being gentrified but rather a downtown location that is already dominated by the avantgarde architecture of the existing museum building and the adjacent Walt Disney Concert Hall.

Gentrified architecture may drain the presence of color from certain areas. For example, in Santa Ana, California, the "colorful pastel tones of the commercial buildings that used to represent a symbol of Mexican architectural design" were replaced with "neutral tones."

Here, a single case where a particular kind of architecture from a particular nation was replaced during gentrification of the Fiesta Marketplace in Santa Ana is misrepresented as an "example" of a general property of the supposed architectural style, without anything in the cited source supporting the claim that "drain[ing] the presence of color" is typical of "gentrified architecture." (It's also interesting that in the illustrations that Xicanx themselves compiled for the article, the supposed examples of gentrified architecture are clearly more colorful than e.g. the early 20th-century building in Mexico City that they are being contrasted with.)

Note also that the article's author has created other articles that have been described by various editors as having very similar problems, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing (where one commenter referred to WP:FRANKENSTEIN to describe the way in which various incongruent citations had been cobbled together to support a particular POV).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.