gentrification and tallinners blog

"No more yuppies, please! Thank you" says one piece of New York anti-gentrification graffiti.

Gentrification is a process, in which an area’s existing low-income residents are replaced by a more affluent section of society. This is a process that also involves investment into an existing residential area that is initially marked by low cost properties. The first people who begin this process and move into these areas are initially drawn by low prices. However, these areas often have a sense of authenticity and bohemian character about them, which before long, becomes attractive to the existing middle class or the new middle class, the young urban professional or ‘yuppie’, who are – in a certain sense - buying into history… ‘’Oh, I fancy Kalamaja, it would be cool to live there!’’ Thanks to process of gentrification, former blue-collar worker areas, turn to white-collar residences.

Like all things, there are two sides to this issue: firstly, the renovation of dilapidated houses and buildings of historical significance, alongside the opening and development of new social gathering places etc, can only be considered a positive change. Conversely, as an area moves ‘up market’, the original inhabitants are eventually ‘priced out’ of their homes, as value increases due to demand, and succeeding generations of original inhabitants are forced to look for property in other areas.

In Tallinn the process of gentrification is apparent in the ‘wooden-house’ areas such as
Kalamaja, Kassisaba, in Kadriorg. Here a huge amount of buildings have been renovated. However, some buildings stand empty - sometimes due to uncertain ownership, or sometimes simply because the new owners don’t care about them. Perhaps their aim is to damage the buildings in the hope of receiving planning permission, when they would simply tear down the existing building and build new one – bigger of course?

The Estonian ownership reform has been very influential in this process of gentrification. This reform granted the return of properties, which had been nationalised during the Soviet regime in the 40s, back to their former owners - and in the event that the previous owners were no longer living, then to the closest relatives. However pleasant this may sound for the receiving parties, the returning of old property now meant extra subtenants and extra problems for the new owners. While the issues related to new ownership such as unwanted subtenants, and real-estate markets are very complex and difficult, they undoubtedly have had an influence on the developmental process. Because city support to these areas is very poor - only protected buildings and some certain details (for example, historical doors) have received financial support from the City’s Cultural Heritage Department – the responsibility for this culture depends upon the inhabitants and the owners.

As an art historian, I welcome the processes that give shape to a neighbourhood’s physical appearance, especially when it comes to renovation and redevelopment. In Kadriorg, several buildings have been restored, and the overall appearance of the streets has changed tremendously. Of course we must be aware that there can be bad examples as just easily as good examples.

With all this in mind, my question is this…. Is it necessary to bring in the yuppies to save our cultural heritage?