Since 2018, the redevelopment of Topeka’s Hi-Crest neighborhood has been framed as a revitalization effort—an attempt to bring new life to an area that has long struggled with economic hardships, crime, and disinvestment. However, critics have raised concerns about whether this transformation amounts to gentrification, ultimately pushing out the very residents it seeks to help.
Following our initial reporting on the subject, we spoke with Jonathan Sublet, one of the key figures behind this effort, to gain further insight into his approach and motivations.
The Philosophy of Action: “I Can’t Just Do Nothing”
Sublet acknowledges that his work in Hi-Crest will likely lead to rising property values and, consequently, higher property taxes—one of the hallmark effects of gentrification. However, his guiding principle is that he “can’t just do nothing.” He views his work as necessary, despite the potential drawbacks, because the alternative is continued neglect and stagnation.
“When you seek to solve one problem, you will likely create another,” he said, recognizing the complexities of neighborhood transformation.
Unlike larger development firms often criticized for profit-driven motives, Sublet emphasizes his deep personal investment in Hi-Crest. “I care for my neighborhood. I live in my neighborhood, and most of my staff live in this neighborhood,” he stated. He takes issue with comparisons to developers like Jim Klausman or Eucalyptus Real Estate, whom he sees as detached from the communities they reshape.
Balancing Revitalization and Displacement
One of the main criticisms of redevelopment efforts in historically lower-income neighborhoods is that they often lead to displacement. Higher property values and taxes can force long-term residents—especially renters and lower-income homeowners—out of their homes. Sublet does not dispute this potential outcome but argues that mixed-income neighborhoods fare better than those concentrated with only low-income housing.
His newest housing developments are not just targeted at the lowest-income residents but at middle-income workers, such as teachers and government employees, who currently lack affordable real estate options in Topeka. “Our homes are not for low income, [per se], they are for teachers and government workers that have no real estate choices in our community and have been left out,” he explained.
Beyond Real Estate: Addressing Community Needs
Sublet is not just building homes—he also operates a food bank that serves 600 families per month. This, he argues, demonstrates his commitment to the broader well-being of the neighborhood, not just its physical transformation.
While he was not pleased with our initial reporting, we both recognize the reality of what is happening in Hi-Crest. The disagreement is not over the effects of redevelopment—higher taxes, shifting demographics, and new economic realities—but rather over whether these changes are ultimately beneficial.
The Ongoing Debate: What is Best for Hi-Crest?
The debate over gentrification versus revitalization is not unique to Hi-Crest—it’s a challenge facing many urban communities across the country. Sublet’s efforts may indeed lead to displacement, but they also represent a proactive approach to improving a neighborhood that has been left behind for decades.
As Topeka continues to evolve, the question remains: Is there a way to revitalize without displacing? Can economic development be achieved without sacrificing the existing community? These are complex issues with no easy answers, but they deserve ongoing conversation and careful consideration.
We appreciate Sublet’s willingness to engage in this discussion and will continue to follow the developments in Hi-Crest to see how this transformation unfolds.
