1. Introduction

Gentrification, a term coined in the mid-20th century, encapsulates a complex urban phenomenon that has reverberated through neighborhoods worldwide. It embodies the transformative process wherein areas, often characterized by disinvestment or neglect, undergo economic revitalization and cultural renaissance. Gentrification mainly consists of four parts: capital reinvestment, social upgrading by high-income in-movers, landscape changes, and displacement of low-income groups, finally reshaping the physical and social landscape, so various communities affected by gentrification often exhibit resilience and resistance [1]. Researching its patterns and outcomes contributes to a better understanding of global urbanization trends with several crucial events such as the economic recession during WWII and the development of globalization, at the same time, allowing for cross-cultural comparisons and the development of strategies applicable in various contexts [2].

At its core, gentrification is a double-edged sword. While it brings economic growth and aesthetic enhancements, it frequently leads to the displacement of longstanding communities, altering the social fabric and cultural identity of a place [3]. The allure of SoHo's unique character, coupled with strategic urban development initiatives, ignited multiple stages of gentrification. Originally an industrial hub, SoHo evolved into a haven for artists in the 1960s and 1970s, drawing creative minds into its expansive lofts and repurposed spaces [4]. Nowadays, the district is characterized by eclectic galleries, avant-garde boutiques, and an atmosphere teeming with luxury outlets. This paper embarks on an exploration of the historical layers embedded in SoHo's streets, with the investigation of mainstream community and individual costs such as house rent, to understand how economic shifts and cultural transitions in the US have shaped and continue to shape the district's identity. By unraveling the complexities of SoHo's past, this study aims to shed light on the broader implications for urban planning and development in an ever-evolving global landscape, the insights gained from studying SoHo have implications for understanding and addressing similar issues in other cities worldwide, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of urbanization.

2. Double stages of gentrification in SoHo

The narrative of gentrification in SoHo unfolds as a layered tale, marked by not one, but two distinct stages of transformation. As a microcosm of urban evolution, SoHo's journey from an industrial landscape to an artistic enclave, and subsequently to a thriving commercial district, showcases the nuanced dynamics of double-staged gentrification, and this paragraph is going to introduce three different stages from the 1900s to now, evaluate how does the gentrification start to take shape from two distinctive communities respectively.

2.1. Stage1: Industrial community (Early 1900s – 1960s)

In the early 20^th century, SoHo underwent a transformative shift from its industrial roots tied to the Industrial Revolution [5]. As the bustling heart of industrial activity, the district was witness to the dynamic changes spurred by the upward migration of New York City residents, with expanded job opportunities in the burgeoning commercial industries located in the northern parts of Manhattan, middle-class denizens steadily moved northward on Manhattan Island during the late 19th century. On top of that, the northern neighborhoods offered a perceived escape from the congestion and pollution associated with industrial areas. This migration caused a decline in SoHo's population during that era, as a significant portion of its residents relocated to the burgeoning northern neighborhoods, somehow became one of the reasons, other than geological factors, that there is a cluster of skyscrapers downtown and another one in Midtown, but few in between nowadays. This demographic shift opened the doors for businesses and corporations to seize opportunities in the vacated spaces, not only the loft buildings and warehouses that are well-suited for the storage and display of goods, making them ideal for businesses involved in the trade of mercantile and dry goods but also the access to major transportation networks such as the South Street Seaport and various rail lines facilitated the movement of goods in and out of the district. Therefore, SoHo swiftly evolved into a hub for the mercantile and dry goods trades. However, the aftermath of World War II brought about a significant change in the district's landscape. The textile industry, a major player in the area, underwent a mass exodus to the South, known as the "Southern textile boom." Industries were drawn to the South due to favorable economic conditions. Southern parts were less unionized than their northern counterparts, providing textile manufacturers with a more flexible and cost-effective labor force, leading to the establishment of new manufacturing centers in states like North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia [6]. Moreover, lower Manhattan experienced challenges related to aging infrastructure and rising urbanization costs, leaving numerous large buildings in SoHo unoccupied. In response to this vacancy, warehouses and printing plants found a new home within some of these structures, altering the character of the district. By the 1950s, SoHo had earned the moniker "Hell’s Hundred Acres", a desolate industrial wasteland characterized by sweatshops and small factories during the day, but eerily empty at night. Paradoxically, this desolation inadvertently laid the groundwork for a different kind of transformation.

Meanwhile, New York City embarked on an ambitious journey to rejuvenate the SoHo district through an aggressive urban renewal initiative. The concept of urban renewal, prevalent across the United States during the mid-20^th century, aimed to revitalize urban spaces by implementing strategic changes [7]. In practice, however, this often translated to the wholesale demolition of existing neighborhoods deemed as slums. The city's overarching objective during the 20^th century was to reshape and reconstruct neighborhoods to align with modern ideals. Yet, this vision inadvertently inflicted significant harm upon the SoHo area, primarily due to its unique industrial landscape. Although the area seems like an industrial wasteland as mentioned before, more than half of the structures in SoHo served as vital hubs for small business activities [8]. The repercussions of the urban renewal process were keenly felt by the industries and their employees, as the very essence of the community was upended. At the same time, businesses, deeply rooted in the historic edifices of SoHo, found themselves displaced, faced challenges in finding affordable alternative spaces, and struggled to adapt to changing economic landscapes, contributing to a disintegration of the vibrant economic ecosystem that had thrived for years. The intricate tapestry of commerce that had woven its way through the narrow streets was unraveled, leaving behind a void that echoed the loss of a once-bustling community [4]. Simultaneously, several features and ambiances from this once-prosperous block somehow brought several benefits to the local artists, reforming the SoHo district into the next stage and concluding the industrial era.

2.2. Stage 2 (First gentrification): Art Community (1960s-1975)

In the tumultuous landscape of the late 1960s, the SoHo area became an unexpected heaven for artists, albeit in a somewhat clandestine manner. The allure lay in the affordable rent and the capacious interiors of former Loft-style spaces that provided artists with ample room to pursue their craft. The spacious lofts in SoHo, a stark contrast to the living spaces available in Brooklyn and Midtown Manhattan, proved advantageous for artists whose work demanded significant room [9]. Firstly, Loft-style buildings typically feature open floor plans and high ceilings, providing artists with expansive and unobstructed spaces, allowing for greater flexibility in arranging workspaces and accommodating large canvases, sculptures, or other artistic endeavors, the absence of dividing walls also fosters a sense of freedom and encourages experimentation. Secondly, loft spaces are often blank canvases themselves, allowing artists to tailor the environment to suit their needs, and the open design facilitates easy modification of the space, enabling artists to create dedicated work areas, studios, and exhibition spaces [10].

However, the city, staunch in its enforcement of eviction policies, and more notably, the landlords of these unconventional living spaces, exhibited a less-than-hospitable attitude toward their artist tenants.

In defiance of zoning regulations, these creative minds established their abodes in zones designated for business purposes, a technically illicit but financially pragmatic choice [11]. After that, faced with the looming threat of eviction and the inhospitable actions of their landlords, SoHo's artistic denizens united in the early 1960s, forming coalitions to champion their cause. One notable entity that emerged from this collective spirit was the Artists Tenant Association (ATA), a formidable coalition comprising approximately 500 artists. The ATA, born out of necessity, sought to challenge the city's stringent eviction policies and advocate for the rights of artists in unconventional living and working spaces. In a bold and unprecedented move, the artists of SoHo, under the banner of the ATA, initiated a form of peaceful resistance in the early 1960s. Frustrated by the antagonistic policies they faced, this coalition decided to leverage the power of their creations by withholding their art from the traditional art galleries nestled within the confines of New York City. This act of protest not only symbolized their solidarity but also underscored their determination to be recognized as integral contributors to the city's cultural landscape, challenging the status quo and setting the stage for a transformative chapter in the history of artistic expression in New York City.

This initial success fueled the aspirations of artists in SoHo, propelling the establishment of the SoHo Artists Association (SAA) in 1968. The SAA aimed to further redefine the zoning regulations for SoHo buildings, specifically advocating for residential designation [12]. In a noteworthy triumph, the City Planning Commission responded positively, opening up over a thousand lofts in SoHo for residential purposes. While this marked a victorious moment for the artistic community, the ensuing decades witnessed transformative shifts within the area. This transformative period brought about not only changes in the demographic composition of SoHo but also in its overall character. The influx of diverse residents and interests contributed to the evolution of the neighborhood's cultural and socioeconomic landscape, becoming a focal point for urban development and cultural dynamism, navigating the delicate balance between preserving its artistic roots and adapting to the evolving demands of a burgeoning metropolis.

2.3. Stage 3 (Second gentrification): Luxury district (1975 – Now)

In the early 1970s, many people who wanted to live in the heart of New York City were drawn to SoHo by the allure of stylish lofts. These expansive spaces, originally used by artists as creative havens, became emblematic of a unique and avant-garde lifestyle. Life in the lofts of SoHo was passionately promoted by various newspapers and magazines, a newspaper article from the New York Times written in 1971 details this. The article states that “SoHo zoning, approved by the commission eased existing restrictions on the use of loft space for residential use…the neighborhood is not one that would be generally considered residential but for many artists, the lofts’ space and light more than compensates for such disadvantages as the noise of the districts’ heavy truck traffic” [13], enticing many to yearn for a life that resembled that of the artists who had built an existence in the sprawling spaces.

By 1973, the atmosphere in SoHo had fundamentally changed, transforming the neighborhood from an enclave of artists' studios into a fast-paced commercial center. The first floors of former industrial buildings, once havens for creative expression, succumbed to the pervasive influence of retail stores, solidifying the neighborhood's commercial metamorphosis. With rents often surpassing $25,000 a month, Greene Street, in New York's SoHo neighborhood, can already boast stores run by the likes of Dior, Versace, Loewe, and Acne Studios [14]. This change was not without consequences, as SoHo has been plagued by escalating rents since the early 1970s. In 1969 a 3,600-square-foot building sold for around $10,000, and in 1974 those prices jumped to anywhere from $25,000 to $45,000. That means within only one year, the prices of living in SoHo went up from 150%, being the lesser, and to 350% being the greater [15].

SoHo today is a captivating destination that draws visitors with its mix of stores, history and diverse culinary offerings. The commercial pulse stretches across Broadway from West to Sixth Avenue and from Houston Street to Canal Street. Broadway, the neighborhood's bustling thoroughfare, is home to global brands alongside charming boutiques. This juxtaposition creates a shopping experience that appeals to a wide variety of tastes and epitomizes SoHo's appeal through the seamless fusion of upscale retail and local boutique charm. According to 2015 American Community Survey data and a breakdown of the distribution of artists in New York City, the study found that there were 56,268 artists living in New York in 2015, an all-time high and an increase of more than 17% from 2000. However, in neighborhoods such as Greenwich Village, Chelsea and the Lower East Side, the number of artists declined dramatically over the course of 15 years [16].

3. Analysis of the two-sides of gentrification

Accordingly, from the transformation of different stages in SoHo, challenges arise as rising property values displace lower-income residents, jeopardizing housing affordability and contributing to social inequality. While gentrification can attract investments in green infrastructure, it may also lead to increased environmental footprints. Balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability becomes crucial. Additionally, cultural and social changes may enhance public spaces but can erode community cohesion. To sum up, these outcomes disobey the principle of sustainable urban development from two aspects. Firstly, as the definition of sustainable development first appeared in 1980 in the "World Conservation Program" developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN) with the support of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) [17]. A representative view is that sustainable development is based on the coordination and common development of society, population, resources and the environment, and its purpose is to meet the needs of the present generation without posing a threat to the development of future generations, with the balanced and lasting development of the present and all generations as the central task. As the influx of new residents during gentrification may alter the cultural fabric of a community, leading to the loss of historical and cultural heritage, which negatively influences the ability of future generations to connect with their community's history and identity. Secondly, gentrification can be seen as conflicting with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) due to its potential negative impacts on social, economic, and environmental dimensions. For instance, gentrification can exacerbate existing social inequalities by displacing marginalized communities and fostering a divide between affluent and lower-income residents, conflicting with SDG 10-Reduced Inequality. In addition, gentrification increases consumption, as wealthier residents often have higher consumption patterns and demand for new infrastructure, potentially impacting the local price level, contributing to the conflict with SDG 12-Responsible Consumption and Production [18].

Gentrification is a global phenomenon that is spreading beyond North American metropolitan areas to thriving cities around the world, particularly in rapidly developing middle-income countries (MICs) such as China and India. The Puxi area of Shanghai is a good example of this. As the origin of China's commercial center and an early pioneer in urban regeneration, Shanghai faced challenges due to modern urban expansion and dwindling land ownership. To counteract this, the city adopted a "zero growth" approach to urban planning and turned away from the traditional model of "new development". Shanghai's urban renewal, exemplified by the transformation of the Shikumen construction site into Shanghai Xintiandi, has led to pronounced gentrification effects. Xintiandi, once a residential area, is now the epitome of modern leisure living with luxury brands and boutiques. During construction, property prices rose from 7,000 to 20,000 yuan/square meter [19]. This upscale development forced the original residents to move to the outskirts of the city, creating impoverished areas. At the same time, the government enforced segregation and separated the upscale neighborhoods from the open ones, resulting in social stratification and blurred city boundaries.

4. Conclusion

Looking back from the early stages of gentrification, the exodus of local industries and businesses from SoHo was triggered by the proposal for urban regeneration, which was exacerbated by historical factors. The transition from the Industrial Revolution to the post-World War II period led to a decline in demand for large manufacturing operations such as the textile industry, resulting in a transformation of neighborhoods. In the ensuing phase of gentrification, many artists and long-established residents were pushed out of the neighborhood, leading to fears about the erosion of the neighborhood's special character. This phenomenon can be linked to more general trends of globalization and burgeoning tourism. The increasing connectivity and mobility of cities are attracting international investment and encouraging the development of high-end real estate tailored to a global elite. As a result, property values are rising, tourist-friendly amenities are increasing, and sometimes residents are being displaced as a result of these changes.

In essence, the gentrification process in SoHo serves as a microcosm of the complex dynamics reshaping urban environments worldwide. It highlights the balance of economic development with the preservation of local character, fostering inclusive growth that benefits both new and established communities. In summary, understanding gentrification within this broader context is essential for shaping sustainable urban futures that prioritize the diverse needs of residents while embracing the inevitable transformations brought about by global forces.