It could be the beginning of a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, before the inevitable darkness seeps in, but rather it’s the backdrop of a budding aesthetic movement called cottagecore, where tropes of rural self-sufficiency converge with dainty décor to create an exceptionally twee distillation of pastoral existence.
The modern escapist fantasy has been around for ages but became increasingly popular around 2020, especially on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram. The cottage core aesthetic was likely embraced partly as an antidote to the panic and stress of living in close proximity to others during the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, this popular aesthetic does not account for its gentrifying effects on rural communities. Rural gentrification refers to the migration of affluent urban and suburban residents into rural places. This process can lead to real consequences – some of them negative – for rural residents. As Pilgeram wrote in an In These Times essay:
One example is Gunnison County in Colorado. The county has scenic lakes and mountainous landscapes, which are an ideal backdrop for the cottage core aesthetic. The area has attracted many affluent families who have purchased second homes. The surge of wealthy residents, however, has left a housing shortage and accelerated income inequality. This forces the valley’s low-paid seasonal and service workers to pay more than average for housing:
Although only the wealthy few can afford second homes in these rural communities, the need to buy into an aesthetic can lead to real and catastrophic effects. When the trend starts to fade away, rural residents are forced to deal with the aftermath.
To learn more about rural gentrification, see How and why Democrats are failing to attract rural voters: Is it the economy, stupid? and On rural gentrification, and the ensuing housing shortage, in coastal California.
However, this popular aesthetic does not account for its gentrifying effects on rural communities. Rural gentrification refers to the migration of affluent urban and suburban residents into rural places. This process can lead to real consequences – some of them negative – for rural residents. As Pilgeram wrote in an In These Times essay:
These include the displacement of poor, working-class, and middle-class people from areas experiencing gentrification because of the increasing price of housing and land, sometimes pushing existing residents into communities that are considered “chronically poor,” where they can afford housing. Thus, these demands create new opportunities and tensions within the community, particularly its land-use patterns.The trend encourages consumers to buy land and homes in picturesque rural towns so that they, too, can cultivate a romanticized country lifestyle. These “rural gentrifiers” are usually more abundant in picturesque towns located in the West and Midwest, but no region is exempt from the force of rural gentrification.
One example is Gunnison County in Colorado. The county has scenic lakes and mountainous landscapes, which are an ideal backdrop for the cottage core aesthetic. The area has attracted many affluent families who have purchased second homes. The surge of wealthy residents, however, has left a housing shortage and accelerated income inequality. This forces the valley’s low-paid seasonal and service workers to pay more than average for housing:
According to Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit research firm, Gunnison County’s workers devote 32% of their income on average to rent, compared to 19% in non-tourism-based economies.The housing in Gunnison County is in such short supply that many of the local motels have become month-to-month rentals for low-income families. Long-time rural residents are thus forcibly displaced as families are made more vulnerable and a cultural rift divides the community.
Although only the wealthy few can afford second homes in these rural communities, the need to buy into an aesthetic can lead to real and catastrophic effects. When the trend starts to fade away, rural residents are forced to deal with the aftermath.
To learn more about rural gentrification, see How and why Democrats are failing to attract rural voters: Is it the economy, stupid? and On rural gentrification, and the ensuing housing shortage, in coastal California.
4 comments:
Such an interesting topic, Simran! This made me think a lot about how some rural areas are becoming popular tourist destinations, like Jackson Hole, Wyoming (which is a place that I admittedly would like to go). This article talks about how housing prices in Wyoming are increasing due to billionaires moving there: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wyoming-jackson-super-gentrification-income-inequality/. After doing more research on this topic, it looks like a lot of remote workers are moving to places like Jackson Hole and buying property, mirroring the issues you wrote about in Gunnison County. It seems like some urban people will move to a place that they think is “cute” or “aesthetically pleasing” like you talked about which is definitely problematic. This also reminds me of how tourists will move to Hawaii and raise housing prices as well.
I really enjoyed this perspective. We often don't discuss the potential ramifications of wealthy individuals migrating to rural areas and the effect they have on the people there. It's interesting because we have the problem of rural deserts, meaning that the inhabitants of these rural areas lack resources like healthcare, legal care, and education. Yet, when these wealthy individuals migrate to rural areas, access to these resources becomes available. Yet, migration also brings with it rising living costs, something you pinpointed in your post. The dichotomy is ironic in that (1) rural residents suffer from lack of resources, (2) rural residents attract wealthy people and professionals to their rural area, (3) the resources once lacking begin to be provided in abundance, and (4) the once rural area's cost of living becomes so high that the longtime residents are forced out.
I think the end of your post makes a great point that I had not really considered before. What will happen to gentrified rural communities when the “cottage core” trend goes away? It seems inevitable that those who bought second homes as part of this trend will dispose of the property in a way that further drives up housing costs. Another place this post made me think of is Northern Michigan, particularly Petoskey. Living in Petoskey costs as much as living in Michigan’s college towns and bigger cities, with far fewer rental options available. Meanwhile, the upper coast of Michigan is lined with mansions that sit empty for most of the year.
I really enjoyed this read! While reading, I was thinking about how the recent trad-wife movement on social media also fits into this idea of using rural spaces as an aesthetic. Specifically, a few months ago a big story was online about “Ballerina Farm.” A former Julliard Ballerina moved from New York to buy a farm with her husband in Utah. She has become a social media influencer through videos of domestic activities like making food for her children and doing chores on the farm. There has been a rise of women idealizing a 1950s housewife, and I think a lot of times the actions they perform for views are what someone on a farm in a rural area would have to do daily. It’s an interesting dichotomy to have these influencers doing chores and making millions off it, whereas most people have to do these tasks because their livelihood depends on it.
Post a Comment