“Public art”, also street art, as the name suggests, is for and by the public. In evolving cities and fleeting streetscapes, this form of art is always dancing on a thin line between being a voice for people and displacing those very people. Urban renewal projects have been using street art as a catalyst; it thus becomes necessary to examine its effects on architecture and society.
What is gentrification?
Gentrification is the transformation of low-income neighbourhoods into ones with high market value. This can be fueled by investing in the existing infrastructure, working on lowering crime rates and enhancing the overall culture of the place by some means. Urban placemaking, whilst highlighting the public spaces and making a locality richer in terms of infrastructure, also sometimes adds to the probability of a neighbourhood becoming gentrified. It often includes strategies like redesigning facades, developing bus stations or making parks more inclusive, infill development, and transformation of old buildings into functional ones. This is done to uplift the urban fabric of the whole area. This cleaner look on the locality attracts people with high incomes to invest in real estate here, and the property values go up.
At the same time, what is not seen on the top layer is the fact that people from low-income backgrounds who used to live in the said locality are now being displaced due to the increasing property prices, which they cannot afford. The change in the architectural character, going from budget housing to an apartment complex with luxury flats in a culturally equipped neighbourhood, becomes a visual and economic sign of who the area now belongs to. It removes a layer of cultural identity and contributes to creating a more inequitable society.
Brixton- an artsy city or a city that smothered artists
To understand gentrification with an example, the Brixton area of London was an Afro-Caribbean community. In the 1940s, when its great location was realised, developers took up the mission of cleaning up the area and keeping up the newly built interest of the investors. The original architecture was preserved selectively to maintain the authenticity of the town thoroughly. Further, the character of the area was advertised as an artsy hip region with a taste for graffiti, music, food, etc. The mural-covered walls and the remnants of old architecture became a curated aesthetic for this new town. This was the gentrification of Brixton. Due to this, the Afro-Caribbean community was displaced, and the population decreased from 12.5 to 8 per cent. The shipping containers, which were covered in illustrations and called “pop-Brixton”, were local cafes and boutiques for the artists and the railway arches on the same street housed independent businesses, which have now been evicted to make space for shops that attract a richer community. Art once again became their tool, but this time for a protest against gentrification and for protecting the locals. The locals claim that through art, they express their solidarity against gentrification.
A Guide to the Visual Divide Between Street Art and Graffiti
Graffiti is an uninhabited form of art which is often perceived as rebellious and aggressive. It is recognised by cheap spray paint, markers and less to no regard for the underlying rules, nicknames of the artist, strong political messages, etc.
Street art, on the other hand, is a commissioned piece of art done using mediums that respect the surface and the piece, though done on walls or other public areas, is legal within its limits. It is also being commissioned by real estate developers and architects to add to the new development.
A major difference here is how these two make a locality look. Graffiti makes a neighbourhood look like it would have high crime rates, the infrastructure starts seeming daunting, and the low-income tag makes it undesirable for people with higher incomes.
Street art makes a neighbourhood look artistically and culturally richer. A new narrative and a few strategies here and there are what make a city richer. Art galleries commissioning street art pieces, local mural festivals, and an array of paintings one can cross on their way from home to work, change the prospective inhabitants, especially the younger generation and the people involved in any sort of art.
At the same time, this visual and narrative shift is what the developers are profiting from.
Ghent- From Concrete Playground to a Commercialised Art Hub
The city of Ghent in Belgium used to have a town called the “Old Docks”, which had an abandoned concrete factory. Artists made it into their creative playground and used it as their canvas. They said it was the urban decay aesthetic with the old cement gunnies, crumbling walls, etc., that made it an artist hub. It was a space where they could come together and practice their freedom of expression. Soon, this area came under the improvement scheme, where the cultural character of a town is developed. This is primarily to see a boost in the overall economy, but it is also advertised as a boon for the local communities. This factory in the old docks region was demolished and replaced by a residential building. The whole area was redeveloped into a town with a commercialised art culture: galleries, festivals and no space for artists to revel in their creativity or express it freely. Murals and art pieces are seen throughout the city; they are catalysts for tourism, and with the aid of digital media, the city has gained the persona of an artistic and vibrant city. These art pieces are funded by developers and big corporations as they increase the cultural relevance of the given region.
Fast forward to 2009, when Ghent was put on the list of creative cities for music, the government decided to make the city more inclusive and supportive of all forms of art. Multiple placemaking strategies were adopted, but the most significant one is the annual “SNS: Sorry Not Sorry” festival of street art. The second and third years were seen as tributes to the ‘concrete playground’. A calculated move was made when renowned artists were called to celebrate this festival instead of the local artists who, in the first place, shaped the whole art culture. The voices that built the identity of the place were muffled, much like how the original structures were demolished to make way for a colourful city of glass and concrete.
Another contradiction arose when the municipality guaranteed an inclusive neighbourhood, but the property prices kept skyrocketing. The most neglected part of these projects was the social housing, which was also only 20% of the whole. This inclusivity essentially should’ve catered to the original dwellers- the artists. What is happening is that they are being ‘used as pawns’ for revitalising the area, and then being put under the circumstances to move out of the said area because they cannot afford it anymore. A vicious cycle!
Are Placemaking Strategies a Disadvantage?
What must be taken into account is that these placemaking efforts cannot be simply classified are good or bad for the community. At their core, they help groups of people living in a certain area understand the culture and associate themselves with it, such that they feel included and are comfortable enough to take responsibility for the social spaces around them. These communities shape architecture, and the town reflects and respects their history. The execution and exploitation of these efforts are what make a difference.
What can be seen in this case study is how street art became the polished form of graffiti, new docks became a revitalized and inspired form of the old docks, the concrete playground was demolished, artists were replaced by influencers and all this is symbolic of what happened with the residents, they were replaced by newcomers with shinier bills. Now, the question is, where do these residents go?
Bogota and Medellín- Somewhere Between Revitalisation and Removal
Bogotá is the capital city of Colombia, also referred to as the street art capital. It is a city with both Spanish colonial architecture, a great art scene, bustling culture and modern skyscrapers, but this wasn’t always the case. For years, graffiti was considered a criminal offence. The first shift came when street art was decriminalised in 2013 after the police killed a young street artist, Diego Becerra, and it sparked outrage in the communities.
Murals with diverse art styles and mediums have popped up on walls, underpasses, near bus stops, etc, each corner of the city becoming a corner that sparks a thought. Some of them speak of injustice or environmental degradation, and others celebrate pride in their traditions.
While Bogotá has seen a strong case of reformation, the city of Medellín, which was infamous for violence and related issues, has evolved with the support of street art initiatives like “Comuna 13: graffiti tour”, Medellín Graffiti Festival and numerous other ones. They have become tourist hubs and are often called “open-air museums”. The revitalisation of communities and spaces created a more holistic environment for all the people, tourists and residents and promoted economic prosperity.
In neighbourhoods like La Candelaria and San Felipe in Bogotá, the increase in tourism and rising rents have pushed the long-term residents and artists to the outskirts of the city.
In the end, street art holds the power to shape the way a city is experienced and can be a true catalyst in shaping it. The answer to the question of whether it revitalises a city or creates an identity crisis lies in how equitably it is executed to suit all the stakeholders involved. All in all, as a social experiment, gentrification did prove the efficiency of placemaking strategies like the use of street art in renewing underdeveloped neighbourhoods, but it doesn’t entirely consider the alarming need to protect the residents inhabiting those neighbourhoods.
Citations:
- Alioto, Daisy. “How Graffiti Became Gentrified.” The New Republic, 19 June 2019, newrepublic.com/article/154220/graffiti-became-gentrified
- “Bogotá, Colombia | EBSCO.” EBSCO Information Services, Inc. | Www.ebsco.com, 2022, www.ebsco.com/research-starters/geography-and-cartography/bogota-colombia. Accessed 7 July 2025.
- Clados, Christiane. “Grafficity. Visual Practices and Contestations in Urban Space.” Wilhelm Fink, 2015, www.academia.edu/download/112383503/338815544.pdf#page=223. Accessed 4 July 2025.
- Popken, Bart. “From Graffiti to Gentrification: The Rise and Fall of Ghent’s Concrete Playground.” University of Groningen, 6 May 2024, www.rug.nl/frw/education/related/human-geography-remastered/from-graffiti-to-gentrification-the-rise-and-fall-of-ghent-s-concrete-playground?lang=en. Accessed 4 July 2025.
- Schulkind, Rudy. “Should We Blame Art for Brixton’s Gentrification?” New Statesman, 5 July 2017, www.newstatesman.com/business/economics/2017/07/should-we-blame-art-brixtons-gentrification?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Accessed 7 July 2025.
- The. “Colombia’s Street Art and the Transformation of Public Spaces.” LatinAmerican Post, 15 Mar. 2024, latinamericanpost.com/life/entertainment-en/colombias-street-art-and-the-transformation-of-public-spaces/. Accessed 7 July 2025.
- Yakubu, Paul. “How Neighbourhoods Rely on Graffiti to Protest Gentrification.” ArchDaily, 4 Aug. 2023, www.archdaily.com/1004971/how-neighborhoods-rely-on-graffiti-to-protest-gentrification.
