GENTRIFICATION

GENTRIFICATION
\1

LORETTA LEES, TOM SLATER,

AND ELVIN WYLY

11
~~
Routledge
Taylar & Franc1s Group
New York London
 Contents

plates, Figures, Maps, and Boxes vii

Acknowledgments xi
xv
Preface
The Birth of Gentrification 3
1
Producing Gentrification 39
f2
Consumption Explanations 89
{outledge Routledge 3
Laylor & Frands Group Taylor & Frands Group 129
'.70 Madison Avenue 2 Parl. Square 4 The Mutation of Gentrification
>lew York, NY 10016 Milton Park, Ablngdon 163
axon OX144RN 5 Contemporary Gentrification
, 2008 by Taylor & Frands Group, LLC Gentrification: Positive or Negative? 195
6
'.outledge is an Imprint of Taylor & Frands Group, an Informa business
The Future of Gentrification? 239
'rlnted In the United Stales of America on acld~free paper
7
0987654
Bibliography
279
lternatlonal Standard Book Number~13: 978·0·415·95037·4 (Softcover) 978·0·415~95036·7 (Hardcover) 305
Index
fo part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic,
lechanlcal, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming,
nd recording, or in any Information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the
ublishers.

rademarlc Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarl.s, and are
sed only for Identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging·in~Publicatlon Data

Lees, Loretta.
Gentriflcation I by Loretta Lees, Tom Slater, and Elvln Wyly.
p.cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978·0·415·95036·7 (cloth)·· ISBN 978·0·415"95037·'~ (pblc.)
1. Gentrlficatlon. 2. Gentriflcation~·Case studies. I. Slater, Tom. H. Wyly, Elvln K.
III. Title.

HT170.L442007
307.2··dc22 2006103339

sit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

tp:llwww.tnyIorandfrancis.com
d the Routledge Web site at
tp:llww"w.routIedge.com
v
 Plates, Figures, Maps, and Boxes

Plates
Ll Gentrification 2
1.2 Brownstone Houses in Park Slope, Brooklyn 6
1.3 Gentrification Is Not 'Genocide' but 'Genesis' 8
1.4 Thornhill Crescent, Barnsbury 12
1.5 Stonefield Street, Barnsbury 15
1.6 An Islington Conservation Guide 18
1.7 6th Avenue and Berkeley Place, Park Slope 21
1.8 Wood Frame Row Houses in Park Slope 22
1.9 An Advertisement for a Park Slope House Tour 25
LlO Brownstone Brooklyn: 'A Place for All Reasons' 26
2.1 'Landlord Wants Us Out or Dead', Lower East Side, 1988 38
2.2 From Soho to SoBro and WoFal 40
2.3 New Luxury Condominiums on the South Side of
Chicago, 2006 60
3.1 'A Vegetarian Diet for Your Dog' in the Gentrifying Lower
East Side, 1988 88
3.2 'The American Gentrifier 109
3.3 Elm Grove, Toronto 114
3.4 Elm Grove, Toronto 115
3.5 Harbourside Development near Bristol Bridge 116
3.6 Greene Street, Soho, Manhattan 119
4.1 New-Build Gentrification along the Thames 128
4.2 Gentrification in Brighton 133
4.3 Fairview Slopes, Vancouver 142
4.4 Tony Blair's Richmond Crescent Home 152
5.1 Gentrification in Ostozhenka. Moscow 162
6.1 'There Goes the Neighbourhood', Toronto 194
6.2 Elephant and Castle in London 201
6.3 Cabrini-Green, Chicago 204
6.4 Child on His Bike in a Gentrifying Lane in Brooldyn Heights,
New York City, 2001 214
6.5 Media Coverage of Freeman and Braconi's (2002, 2004)
Gentrification Research 220

vii
 Plates, Figures, Maps, and Boxes • Ix
viii • Plates. Figures. Maps. and Boxes
178
5.3 Third-Wave Gentrification
6.6 'Class War' and 'Rich Pigs Go Away' Graffiti, Lower 196
6.1 The Positives and Negatives of Gentrification
East Side, 1988 225 232
6.2 Four Competing Strands of Revanchism
7.1 'Cooper Square Is Here to Stay-Speculators
7.1 The Fifth Avenue Committee's Advice on
Keep Away', Lower East Side, 1988 238 256
Resisting Gentrification
7.2 Woodward's Department Store, Vancouver 269

Figures
2.1 Gentrification as Bid-Rent Consumer Sovereignty 47
2.2 The Depression Cycle and the Rent Gap 52
2.3 Rent Gap Dot Corn? 78
2.4 Evolving Land Value Surfaces and the Expansion of
Gentrification 82
3.1 ellRoute's Top Ten Cool est Neighbourhoods (2002) 95
4.1 Income Change in Brooklyn Heights, 1970-2000 154
4.2 Is Gentrification a Dirty Word? 157
5.1 Hackworth and Smith's (2001) Stage Model of Gentrification 174
5.2 A Schematic History of Gentrification in the United States,
including a Fourth Wave of Gentrification 180
5.3 Household Capital Flows in the United States, 1999-2005 182
5.4 Mortgage Capitalization Ratio for New York City
Neighborhoods, 2003 183
6.1 A Revanchist Hierarchy ofU.S. Cities and
Florida's Creativity Index 227
7.1 Gentrifying the Headlines 244
7.2 Criteria for Eligibility to Receive Assistance from Fifth Avenue
Committee's Displacement Free Zone Campaign 255

Maps
1.1 Barnsbury, Islington, London 11
1.2 Park Slope, Brooklyn, New York City 20
1.3 The Park Slope Landmark District, 1973 28
7.1 Lower Park Slope, Brooklyn, New York City 251
7.2 The Mission District, San Francisco 257
7.3 The Downtown Eastside, Vancouver 265

Boxes
1.1 Clay'S (1979) Stage Model of Gentrification 31
2.1 Measuring the Rent Gap 61
2.2 Other Gaps? 69
3.1 Daniel Bell's Post-industrial Thesis 91
4.1 The Cases for and against New-Build Gentrification 140
5.1 First-Wave Gentrification 175
5.2 Second-Wave Gentrification 175
 Acknowledgments

Writing this book has been a rewarding experience for all of us, not least
because it has made us revisit many of the early writings on gentrification-
which have taught us a lot.
O"r professional acknowledgments are as follows:
Loretta Lees: I would like to thank Neil Smith for meeting with me in the
Lower East Side back in 1988, just before the Tompkins Square Park riots
when I was an undergraduate student embarking on my dissertation on gen-
trification. That meeting enthused me to continue studying and critiquing
gentrification. A special thanks to Robert Beauregard and James DeFilippis
for their supportive comments during the review process for this book and to
Dave McBride for being so enthusiastic about the book. Thanks to Tim Butler,
who has become a good friend and colleague, also to David Ley, Rob [mrie,
Rowland Atkinson and Mark Davidson. Thanks to Peter Williams for reading
and commenting on the discussion of fourth-wave gentrification in Chapter
5, David Reiss for hunting down back copies of The Brownstoner, and Dwight
Demeritl for loaning me his mini-library on brownstoning. Finally, a very
special thanks to Tom and Elvin for theIr wonderful work on this book.
Tom Slater: Gentrification has been part of my life since 1998, when [ was
displaced from my rented house in Tooting, south London, due to the land-
lord capitalizing on a gentrifying neighborhood, so [ would like to thank that
landlord for making me determined to do something about this disruptive
process. For helping me to understand the global imprint of gentrification
over the years, [ thank all those activists, displaced tenants, and interested
browsers for visiting Gentrification Web and contacting me with their locally
embedded experiences. Rowland Atkinson, Gary Bridge, Winifred Curran,
Mark Davidson, James DeFilippis, Dan Hammel, David Ley, Kathe Newman,
Damaris Rose, Kate Swanson, and Alan Walks are good friends and col-
leagues who never fail to Inspire me with their brilliance. Loretla and Elvin:
thank you for making this project fun.

Elvin Wyly:
'[ have gathered a posie of other men's flowers, and only the thread that
binds them is my own'.

-Montaigne

xi
 xii • Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments • xiii

I first encountered these words more than twenty years ago when I read the Elvin Wyly: My love for the inner city came from voices I hea~d in the
acknowledgments in Peter Gould's The Geographer at Work. Peter had first . hild Robert S Wyly and the late Florence A. Wyly built a won-
seen those lines four decades earlier in the title page of an anthology of poems dIstance as a c . . DC' th ars
d ful safe family life in the suburbs outside Washington, . . m e ye
committed to memory during the Second World War by Field Marshal A.P.. w~en ~he 'voices of decline' about America's cities reached peak volume. But
Wavell (Other Men's Flowers, Putnam, New York, 1945). The words come back h . 'The District' at a distance between 1966 and 1984 gave me an endur-
to me every Single time I sign my name as an author. As I gather the posie i:vm;'sion ever since for going to the very heart of the city,. any city. And now
of flowers from the Women and men who have taught me so much, I realize
that Montaigne and Gould taught me how to be a socialist scholar-a scholar
I'!~ound a city of and for life, my District, my Dream CIty, ~y New Urba~
. m'Peg
FrontIer, y , my Mission , my West End to Main Street: Id hke to dedl-
who understands that knowledge is like language, community, urbanization, cate this book to Jatinder Dhillon. .
and real-estate value: it 'is socially created and not something that belongs The authors would like to thank the following for cartographIc and photo-
to any individual' (see page 272 in this book). The value of my contribution raphic help: To Peter Howard, photographer, Department ~f Geography,
to this project, then, comes from what I've learned from others. I'm deeply ~ing's College London, for his expert help in getting all the Images m thIS
indebted for what I've learned from Tom and Loretta, brilliant and passion- book ready for production. To Darren Smith for Plate 4.2, and Oleg Golub-
ate co-authors. And I am also grateful to Dan Hammel, who first inspired a chikov for Plate 5.1. Map 1.1 was drawn by Roma Beaumont, cartographer
passion for mapping the frontiers of wealth and poverty as we wali<ed through (now retired), Department of Geography, King's College London. Map 7.2 was
countless streets and alleys in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Philadelphia, Boston, ver kindly supplied by Ellen McElhinny, cartographer, Depart~ent .of Geog-
Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, and so many other cities. I've taken out scores of
exotic low-downpayment, negative-amortization mortgages in an attempt to
raphy, San Francisco State University. Map 7.3 was drawn. by Enc Lem~erger,
cartographer, Department of Geography, University of Bnllsh Columbia..
repay what I've learned about the unfinished research and resistance agenda The authors and publisher would like to thank the following for grantmg
on gentrification from Neil Smith, Kathe Newman, Jason Hackworth, and permission to reproduce the material in this book:
James DeFilippis-friends and colleagues with whom I have been privi-
leged to collaborate. I am also indebted for all that I've learned from Mona Plate 1.1 Universal Press Syndicate
Atia, Robert Beauregard, Keith Brown, Holly Foxcroft, Dennis Gale, George Plate 1.3 TIle Brownstoner
Galster, Ed Goetz, Bria Holcomb, Steve Holloway, David Imbroscio, Larry Plate 1.10 The Phoenix
Keating, Bob Lake, Mickey Lauria, Liz Lee, David Ley, Peter Marcuse, Pat Plate 2.2 TIle New Yorker .
McCoy, Pablo Mendez, Chris Neidt, Jamie Peck, Kris Rengert, Matthew Rofe, Plate 3.2 Stay Free! magazine (http://www.stayfreemagazme.org)
Heather Smith, and Daphne Spain. And I've accumulated sizeable debts in Plate 6.5 USA Today/Associated Press . ..
what I have learned from those who might take issue with what I've writ- Figure 2.1 was reproduced from M. Schill and R. Nathan, .Rev,tallzmg
ten on the subject: John S. Adams, Brian J.1. Berry, Lance Freeman, John D. Americas Cities: Neighborhood Reinvestment and DISplacement,
Kasarda, David Listokin, David Varady, and Vernon R. Wyly. Finally, parts p 15 copyright State University of New York Press. .
of this book have benefited from extremely valuable critical comments and po ~2 ;a was reproduced from Blair Badcock, Annals of the Assoc,a-
editorial advice from Tyler Pearce. 19uretion. of American Geographers, (79 )1, p. 13 1, copyng
. ht Blackwell
Publishing.
On a more personal level:
Figure B2.1b was reproduced from Eric Clarl:, G:ograjiska Annaler, B70,
Loretta Lees: I would lil<e to thank my partner, David Demeritt, who grew no. 2, p. 241, copyright Blac1cwell Pubhshmg.
up as the son of a pioneer gentrifier in New York City and as such has long Figure B2.1c was reproduced from Dan Ham'."el, Urban Geography, 20,
taken an interest in my work. I would like to thank my daughters, Meg and no. 2, p. 116, copyright Bellwether Pubhsh1Og.
Alice, who continue to keep me grounded. I wish to dedicate this book to my F· B2 Id was reproduced from David O'Sullivan, Journal of
late father, Arthur Lees. 19ure . . Br/
Geographical Systems, 4, no 3, p. 251, copyright Spnnger er m
Tom Slater: This book is for Sara, Zach, and Poppy, and also dedicated to
Heidelberg. ... .
David M. Smith, whose devastating undergraduate geography lectures opened po e B2.2 was reproduced from Ludek Sykora, T'ldschriJt voor Econo-
my eyes to this wonderful subject and made me realize the role that geogra- 19ur mische en Sociale Geograjie, 84, no. 4, p. 286 , copyng
. ht Blackwell
phers can play in addressing and challenging urban inequality. Publishing.
xiv • Acknowledgments

Figure 2.4 was reproduced from Iason Hackworth, Urban Affairs Review
. 37, no. 6, p. 286, copyright Sage Publications. Preface
FIgure 4.2 was reproduced with permission from the Real Estate Board
of New York.
Figure 5.1 was reproduced from Iason Hackworth and N il S 'th
Tdlift e ml,
I se ~n 1I00r ECOl1011lisc/ze en Sociale Geografie 92, no. 4, . 467,
copynght Blackwell Publishing. p
Box 6.1 was reproduced from Rowland Atldnson and Gary Bridge eds Gentrification is deeply rooted in social dynamics and economic trends.
(2005), Gentrijicatioll in a Global Context: The New Urban Cololli~lism: Its signs, effects and trajectories are to a large degree determined by its
p. 5, copynght Routledge. local context; the phYSical and the social characteristics of the neigh-
bourhoods in question, the positions and the goals of the actors, the
dominant functions of the city. the nature of economic restructuring
and local government policy. The study of the city should pay heed to
this complexity.... In the end, the 'why' of gentrification is less impor-
tant than the 'how' and the repercussions of the process.
van Weesep (1994: 80)
Gentrification-the transformation of a working-class or vacant area of the \/
central city into middle-class reside' n or commercial use-is witliout
a doubt one 0 t e more popular topics of urban inquiry. Gentrification has
attracted widespread attention since its birth in London, England, and in a
number of east coast U.S. cities in the 1950s and 1960s. It is a process that has
attracted the attention of the media, national and local governments, urban
planners. architects and developers. conservation/preservation groups. bUsi-
nesses (from utility companies to wine merchants), city boosters, and political
activists. In the academic world it has been a central research theme in many
subdisciplines of urban social science, capturing the attention of geographers,
sociologists, anthropologists, housing economists, and political scientists, and
resulting in a substantial and diverse international literature. Although there
are numerous journal articles, a number of monographs and edited collec-
tions, and a 'Gentrification Web' (http://members.lycos.co.uk/gentrification/
2007), surprisingly no textbook has ever been published on gentrification. We
feel that there is a real need for a textbook on gentrification and one that is
aimed at a broad range of readers.
Although the academic study of gentrification has been ongoing for the past
forty years, the topic has seen a significant resurgence in recent years following
a brieflull in the early 1990s. Much of this work has integrated gentrification
theory and evidence into other important areas of urban research-globaliza-
tion and world cities, changes in urban policy language and practice, social
exclusion and polarization, debates on privatization, public space and citizen-
ship, geographies of consumption, shifts in mortgage lending and hOUSing
policy, mechanisms of community organization, and the material effects of
discourses of urban change. In short, gentrification has become a valuable

xv
 xvi • Preface Preface • xvii

lens through which to examine a variety of intersecting phenomena in a city between the rates of new housing construction and new household formation.
and/or neighborhood context. And over a decade later, during the worldwide economic recession of the early
Why has 'gentrification' attracted such widespread interest? Chris Ham c 1990s, Larry Bourne (1993a) too argued that gentrification was not long for
nett (1991: 173-174) outlines five reasons: this world. He said that a state of degentrification was emerging because
1. Gentrification has provided a novel and interesting urban phenom- the supply of potential young gentrifiers will be Significantly smaller,
enon for geographers and sociologists to investigate. given the passing of the baby-boom into middle-age, the declining rate
2. Gentrification poses a major challenge to the traditional theories of of new household formation, and the general aging of [the] population.
residential location and social structure. The expanding cohort of potential young gentrifiers will not be suffi-
3. Gentrification is a political and policy-relevant issue as it is con- cient to compensate for the rapid decline in the younger cohorts. At the
cerned with regeneration at the cost of displacement. same time, given widespread macro-economic restructuring, corporate
4. Gentrification has been seen as constituting a major 'leading edge' of down-sizing and a persistent recession, we might also expect slower
contemporary metropolitan restructuring. rates of employment growth in the service sector and associated occu-
5. Gentrification represents one of the key theoretical and ideological pations. (pp. 104-105)
battlegrounds in urban geography.
Brian Berry and Larry Bourne were both wrong. Gentrification is still very
It is the last of these five reasons, gentrification's ideological and theoreti- alive and very well, so that over a decade later we can add the following to
cal significance, that Hamnett (1991) places the most emphasis upon when Hamnett's list:
explaining why gentrification has stimulated such widespread and sustained
debate: 'The gentrification debate is one played for high theoretical and ideo- 6. Gentrification is the leading edge of neoliberal urbanism.
logical stakes' (p. 174), he argues, and it has become an 'intellectual battle- 7. Gentrification has gone global and is intertwined with processes
ground between competing and radically opposed theoretical perspectives' of globalization.
(p. 175). 8. Gentrification is no longer confined to the inner city or to First
:re would argue, however, that all of these reasons should be given equal World metropolises.
:V~l~ht but that some have been more important at certain times. For example, In late 1979, in the United States, President Jimmy Carter's Commission
lmhally reason 2 was more important because gentrification challenged the for a National Agenda for the Eighties suggested that central-city decline was
historical specificity of traditional models of urban residential location, mod- inevitable; in their minds, the central city's destiny was death (Holcomb and
els such as those of Burgess (see Park, Burgess, and McKenzie 1925) and Hoyt Beauregard 1981). But in the following years, deindustrializing and depopulat-
(1939). Before the 1970s, it was generally accepted that these ecological models ing American cities tried to attract private development and investment into
were fairly representative of urban structure; inconsistencies such as inner- their downtown areas in the belief that demand for services would be boosted,
city elite enclaves were usually dismissed as minor anomalies. Such models spending would increase, jobs would be created, and a positive triclde down
assumed an invasion and succession movement whereby more affluent house- would help adjacent neighborhoods. Commonly, convention centers, new sta- OPV
LP
holds would move further and further out away from the inner city with their diums and festival marketplaces were built and warehouses along rivers were ov l r
old houses being reoccupied by less affluent residents. Gentrification, by con- redeveloped as shopping and leisure complexes, for example, South Street '1
trast, was the inverse of these traditional models in that it involved the middle Seaport in New York City and Faneuil Hall in Boston. David Harvey (2000) /
classes moving back to the central city into working-class residentiaL areas. writes in detail about such urban regeneration in Baltimore and, against the
As WaIter Firey's (1947) study of Beacon Hill in Boston showed, older ~eigh­ tide of city boosterism in the United States, tells a disturbing story in which
borhoods were being revitalized by citizens using private resources. But as Baltimore today is in more of a mess than in 1969, when he first saw the city.
Rose (1984: 47) notes, gentrification was seen as 'a temporary and small-scale He asks, 'But how come it is that we are so persuaded that "there is no aIterna-
aberration in what is seen as a ... natural and dominant process of outward tive"?' (p. 155).
migration of people from inner cities'. Brian Berry (1980), for example, argued In 2007 in the United States and indeed around the world, these narratives
that gentrification would be short-lived because it was the result of a tem- of decline and death have been overtaken by a global neoliberal discourse of
porary squeeze or a cyclical hOUSing squeeze, where there was an imbalance regeneration and renaissance. As Davidson and Lees (2005: 1167) argue,
 xviii • Preface
Preface • xix

[A] gentrification "blue-print" is being mass-produced, mass-marketed,

Cities (DETR 2000b). As such, New Labour's concept of urban renaissan.ce
and mass-consumed around the world. As the urban-rural dichotomy
goes beyond physical environmental objectives to include concerns for soctal
has broken down ... as a significant part of the world has become
inclusion, wealth creation, sustainable development, urban governance,
increasingly urbanized and desirous of an urban(e) lifestyle, the result
health and welfare, crime prevention, educational opportunity, freedom of
seems to be that even some Third World cities and First World suburban
movement, as well as environmental quality and good design . .':hereas un~er
and rural areas are experiencing gentrification.
Margaret 'Thatcher urban regeneration was th~ urban med~c~ne for soctal
Lagging somewhat behind the United States, at the end of the twentieth de eneration, urban renaissance is New Labour s urban medlcme for urban
century in Britain, a New Labour government began to promote the 'urban aIse. It 1's important to point out that the term ' entrification' itself
magl' "
is bnot
renaissance' of British towns and cities. They prescribed concepts and ways used in thesepolicydocuments~d termslik .'ur)JJ1U.Lenaissance, ur an
of living that are closely tied to gentrification practices; in fact, Butler and regeneration', and 'urban sustainability' a[g...llsed in its pla~e. These ne,utered
Robson (2001a) have called their prescriptions 'a gentrifiers' charter', and Lees ten;s politely avoid the class constitution of the processes mvolved. :t.' hard
(2003a) 'text-book gentrification'. to be tor gentnl1cation', but who would oppose 'urban renaIssance, urban
The discursive construction of an 'urban renaissance' in the United King- regeneration', and 'urban sustainability' (Lees 2003a)?
dom began in 1998, when the architect (and now Lord) Richard Rogers was On looking at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban. Development
asked by then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to head an Urban Task (HUD) report State of the Cities (June 1999), the issues and solutIOns dIScussed
Force. Richard Rogers was to coordinate a group of experts from both the are very similar to those of the British Urban Task Forc~-the ~edevelopme~t
public and private sectors and a large number of working group members to of brown field sites (abandoned and often contammated mdustnalland), en~l­
identify the causes of urban decline in England and to 'recommend practical ronmental sustainability, livability, and the decline in a sense of commumty.
solutions to bring people back into our cities, towns and urban neighbour- To counter the loss of middle-class families in the inner city, HUD argues for
hoods' (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions [DETR] increased support for the revitalization initiatives of community-based orga-
1999: I). As their mission statement explained, nizations (read 'pro-gentrification groups'). As Wyly and Hammel (2005: 36)
argue,
The Urban Task Force will identify causes of urban decline in England
and recommend practical solutions to bring people bade into our cit- [T]he most durable result of gentrification may be its effect on ne~
ies, towns and urban neighbourhoods. It will establish a new vision priorities in the formulation of u.rban pOli:y. Inner city land use decl~
for urban regeneration founded on the principles of design excellence, sions come to rely on consideratIons of mIddle-class market demand,
social well-being and environmental responsibility within a viable eco- entrification underwrites new configurations of highest and best use,
nomic and legislative framework. (p. I) ;eallocations of neighbourhood public services, and realignments of
police practices and public space regulation. The i~herited I~ndsc~pes
As part of their research, the Urban Task Force visited not just English cities and potential expansion of gentrification are now cntICal co~slderatIons
but also cities in Europe and the United States. The Urban Task Force's final in many domains of urban policy. To be sure, the word (whIch w~althy
report was published as Towards an Urball Rellaissallce (DETR 1999) and set urbanites clearly understand as an epithet) almost never ap~ea~s m the
out their urban vision for England. This is an explicitly pro-urban document official discourse of renewal, revitalization, and market optImIsm. But
that contains a plethora of exciting ideas about how to make cities in England the interests and priOrities of gentrifiers are a foundational element of
better places. A year later, the government published its formal response to the post-industrial city as growth machine.
the Urban Task Force report, its 2000 Urban White Paper, Our Towlls alld
The latter is nowhere more obvious than in Jl.ichard Florida's ~2Oll~ much
Cities-the Future: Deliverillg all Urball Rellaissallce (DETR 2000a). This is
proclaimed book]!,e Rise of the Crea~~s, in which he argues that cItIes
the first white paper on urban policy in Britain since Peter Shore's Policy for
and regions can no longer compete economIcally by S1~ply attractmg com-
the Illller Cities (Department of Environment 1977), and it stands as a state-
panies or by developing mega-projects like sports stadiums and downtown
ment of the centrality of cities in contemporary British life. The scope of the
development districts; rather, to capitalize on the new economy, polIcy makers
2000 Urban White Paper is more comprehensive than that of the Urban Task
must reach out to what he labels the 'creative class', that is gays, youth, bohe-
Force report. The Urban White Paper draws on the Urban Task Force report,
mians, professors, scientists, artists, entrepreneurs, and the like. The cr:atIve
the work of the Social Exclusion Unit, and work such as The State ofthe Ellglish
class is seen to be the key to economic growth in the contemporary CIty or
xx • Preface Preface • xxi

region (see http://www.creativeclass.com). Florida's 'creative class' has a lot in . h I'n the United Kingdom this has not been the case until recently.
hlerarc y, ." .. ..
common with David Ley's (1980, 1994, 1996) gentrifying 'new middle class'. Now gentrification can be found m provmctal BntlSh clltes such as Man-
The interests and lifestyles of Florida's creative class and Ley's new middle class chester, Sheffield, and Leeds. There is widespread sch~larl~ ~greeme~t that
are different to the conservative middle classes whom cities have traditionally 'fication is expanding dramatically. At the same Itme It IS mutatmg, so
gent rt al 'fi'
tried to attract but who preferred to live in the suburbs. The creative class (or that we now have different types of gentrification such ~s rur gentn cat.lOn,
Bobos-'bourgeois bohemians') manages to combine a bourgeois work ethic new-build gentrification, and super-gentrification. ThIS has r~lSed all kl.nds
with bohemian culture. The creative class desires tolerance (Florida finds those of urgent questions about the implications of class transformatIOns, :"orking-
cities most tolerant of, for example, the gay population will be more successful low-income displacement andfor replacement, unequal expenences of
I f
cass ., , .. fi h
in attracting and keeping the creative class), diversity, bike paths, hiking trails, the city, power and resistance, and how gentnficatlOn threatens clt.les or t e
historic architecture, and so on. Florida's thesis, however, is an ambivalent many not the few' (Am in, Massey, ,"nd Thrift 2000). Th~re :an be httle douht
one, as he himself recognizes that his model of urban and economic renais- that the gentrification literature is overwhelmmgly crtltcal (AtlG~son 2002),
sance both invites gentrification and stifles the diversity and creativity that it but this has had little effect in curbing the expansion of gentnficatlDn. We feel
seeks. In his 2005 book Cities and the Creative Class, he laments, 'With gentri- that one possible reason for this is that the literature has never been sum~a­
fication comes an out-migration ofbohemians' (p. 25). Nevertheless, Florida's rized in one comprehensive, accessible introductory volume (complete wIth
(gentrification) thesis has become big business. He has been invited all over case studies), and disseminated to a wide audience. This book, theoretically
the United States (and, indeed, outside the United States) to tell cities and informed and empirically grounded, attempts to do just that.
states how to reinvent themselves and thus prosper. For example, in May 2004 Second, gentrification has worked its way into the planning manifestos of
almost 700 people from throughout Maine and other parts of New England urban policy agendas to improve the economic, physical, and social out~ookof
came together at the Bates Mill complex in Lewiston, Maine, to explore the disinvested central-city locations around theworId. Often dISgUIsed as regen-
creative economy in Maine. 'The occasion was convened by Maine's state gov- eration', 'renaissance', 'revitalization', or 'renewal', gentrification has become,
ernor, John E. Baldacci. In his keynote address at the meeting, Richard Florida in the words of one renowned gentrification scholar, 'a global urban strat-
praised Maine's creative and entrepreneurial spirit, quoting his mentor Jane egy' and 'the consummate expression of an emerging neo-liberal urbanism'
Jacobs, who said that 'new ideas require old buildings' (Maine Arts Commis- (N. Smith 2002). The British Government's Urban Task Force report (DE~R
sion 2004: 8). The belief that a creative workforce will lead the way in terms of 1999) and Urban White Paper (DETR 2000a) outlined above exemphfy
urban and economic regeneration and development is so strong that in late this neW trend, and it is time for a coherent and sensitive assessment of the
2004, Governor Baldacci accepted recommendations from a statewide com- impact of gentrification on urban policy and vice versa. Given the ~c~nt
mittee to foster 'Maine's creative economy'. Governor Baldacci believes, regard exhibited by these urban manifestos for fo~r decades of cntICal
scholarship on gentrification, a dialogue between polIcy makers, planners,
The Creative Economy is a catalyst for vibrant downtowns, expanding
and academics seems of paramount importance, and this book will put the
cultural tourism, encouraging entrepreneurial activity and growing our
case forward for such a dialogue by critically reviewing a new body of work
communities in a way that allows us to retain and attract creative work-
which has emerged to assess the gentrification-urban policy link (see Imrie
ers .. , an investment in a stable workforce and competitiveness. (Maine
2004 for a sensible and informed review ofthe recent debates about the lack
Arts Commission 2004: 3)
of engagement with policy in geography). In an article titled 'Geography
As geographer David Harvey (1989a: 355) states, '[T]he production ofimages and Public Policy', geographer Gilbert White (1972) said that he would not
and of discourses is an important facet of activity that has to be analyzed do research 'unless it promises results that would advance the aims of the
as part and parcel of the reproduction and transformation of any symbolic people affected and uuless [he was] prepared to take all practicable steps to
order'. This book undertakes that task with respect to gentrification. help translate the results into action'; we would like this book to be one step
This textbook is timely for two related reasons. First, the process of gen- in that direction.
trification has gone global (N. Smith 2002; Atkinson and Bridge 2005). It is
no longer confined to North America and Europe; it now spans the globe and The Arguments
can be found in Mexico, Israel, Japan, South Africa, and New Zealand, and Unlike standard textbooks, which tend to regurgitate other authors' argu-
indeed in many other countries around the world too. Although gentrification ments, in this book we want to make a number of our own arguments too.
in the United States has long been a feature of cities further down the urban In so doing, we want to challenge our readers to think critically about the
 xxii • Preface Preface • xxiii

gentrification process and to weigh up the arguments and debates presented. groups of people who share residential preferences. These approaches often
There are four lines of argument that flow through the book; these are not in make gentrification seem more chaotic and differentiated, with gentrifiers
any particular order, and to some degree they are interrelated. demonstrating important differences and distinctions (e.g., Butler with Robson
First, we want to hold onto the label 'gentrification' in response to those 2003). By way of contrast, scholars interested in the politico-economic aspects
who would argue that the term should be allowed to collapse under the weight of gentrification present the process as a much larger scale phenomenon. Rather
of its own burden (e.g., Bondi 1999a) or that alternate words such as 'reur- than connecting gentrification to individuals and researching the phenomenon
banization' should be used instead (e.g.. Lambert and Boddy 2002). Rather, at that scale, they regard gentrifiers as a collective social group (class) bound by
following Clark (2005), we advocate the idea of an elastic but targeted defini- economic rationality (e.g., Hackworth 2002a; N. Smitll 1996a). As such, they
tion of gentrification. We argue strongly that the term 'gentrification' is one of perceive no need to examine and explore the motivations of individual gentrifi-
t~e most political terms in urban studies (implyi!!ll~hlC-<kiigition...d<!l;s-based ers. Production-side scholars, therefore, USe research methods which are adept
dlsplacemeny, and to lose the term would be to lose the politics and political at capturing the structural, large-scale aspects of gentrification, such as chang-
purchase of the term.
ing levels of capital investment and neighborhood class turnover.
Second, we argue that the theoretical divisions between production and Fourth, throughout the book but especially in the conclusion, we argue for a
c.onsumption explanations have been overdrawn and that most gentrifica- critical geography of gentrification, one that follows a social justice agenda and
tlOn researchers now accept that production and consumption, supply and one that is focused on resisting gentrification where necessary. All three of us
demand, economic and cultural, and structure and agency explanations are have been involved in antigentrification activities, mainly in North America;
all a part of'the elephant of gentrification' (see Hamnett 1991). As Clark (2005: as such, we have had firsthand experience of the complexities of resisting such
261) argues, '[N]either side is comprehensible without the other, and all pres- a hegemonic process. We demonstrate throughout the book that cities and
ent theories of gentrification touch bottom in these basic conditions for the neighborhoods do not move from a state of decline to renaissance naturally
existence of the phenomenon'. Following Beauregard (2003a: 999), we want but that a plethora of key actors are involved in the process of gentrification-
to c.o~ceive.oftheory 'simply as knowledge that is consciously and explicitly from individual gentrifiers to landlords, realtors, developers, the state, corpo-
posItIOned III a field of mutually referential texts'. As he argues, '[T]extual rations, institutions, and so on-and they must be held accountable for their
positioning is central to the contribution that theorists make and the recog- actions. We are not the first to advocate a social justice agenda with respect to
nition their theories receive' (p. 999). Furthermore, we agree with Atkinson gentrification. Back in 1981, in their monograph Revitalizing Cities, Holcomb
(2003a: 2349), who argues that
and Beauregard's primary concern was with justice and equity, 'motivated by
the problem of gentrification is less its conceptualisation and more moral, philosophical. analytical, or practical imperatives' (p. iii). In particu-
about the need for a project which will begin to address the systematic lar, they were struck by the fact that the costs and benefits of gentrification
inequalities of urban society upon which gentrification thrives. were unevenly distributed relative to the needs of different urban groups. This
is still the case today. Like Holcomb and Beauregard (1981: v), we too are skep-
Third, we argue that gentrification researchers' methods and methodologies tical of capitalism and supportive of economic and social democracy, and we
are heavily implicated in the stories, explanations, theories, and conceptual- want to challenge our readers' critical spirit and encourage further inquiry.
izations of gentrification formulated. As Lees (1998: 2258) argues, We would like 'to see students, academics, and others involved in community
The importance of methodology has seld~m been stressed in studies of projects associated with gentrification, because such a grassroots experience is
gentrification, despite the long-standing interest in the differing out- invaluable in terms of a learning curve about this complex process and would
comes of different theoretical frameworks such as Marxism, humani~m aid in resisting the more pernicious aspects of the phenomenon.
and postmodernism. But different methodological frameworks result'in We are also critical of British and American policy ideas about gentrifi-
different outcomes of gentrification. cation and social mixing and the Netherlands' policy of <bousing rediffe~­
entiation'. These policy ideas seek to socially mix neighborhoods, assuming
One result of this is that the scale and scope of gentrification are presented that the benefits of gentrification (that is, middle-class residence in the cen-
differently. Those interested in the humanist and sociocultural side of gentri- tral city) will trickle down to the lower and working classes, for example,
fication tend to present the process at the scale of the individual (for example, that social capital will be passed from the middle classes to the working
Butler 1997; Butler with Robson 2003; Ley 1996). Using survey and interview or lower classes through neighborly mixing. As Holcomb and Beauregard
data, they connect gentrification to the individual decision maker and to small (1981: 3) note,
 xxiv • Preface
Preface • xxv

Although it is often assumed that the benefits of revitalization will

"trickle down" to the lower and worldng classes in a manner similar to urban planning, and political science. But we also want this book t~ be a useful
that hypothesized for the housing market ... in fact they are often com- resource tior Ph.D. students . academics , researchers.
.planners.
. . polIcy makers, .
pletely captured by the middle and upper dasses. d mmunity organizations interested in gentnficatlOn. L1ke Andy Mern-
an co "tIltal
fi Id (2002a) in Dialectical Urbanism, we see ourselves as orgamc 10 e ec u s,
Given that gentrification now seems rather inevitable given its mutating . e th t we want this text to speak to more than just university-based students
form. we want to be critical but also constructive; as such. we offer sugges- 10 a The
and researchers. d d
key to targeting such a wi e' au lence IS. b. Y approa ch'10 g
tions for making gentrification a more democratic and egalitarian process the textbook in an interdisciplinary manner and concentratmg on makmg
where possible. We do not want to suggest that the state should not invest in the book widely accessible in style and content. As such, we adopt a bottom-
central cities; rather, we suggest that they need to look more dosely at their erspective and a style of writing that constitutes a critical geography that
folicies and decision making. As Holcomb and Beauregard (1981: 70) argue,
~P
embraces ordinary experiences and commonsense vlewpom . ' t s.

[AJttachment to place deserves recognition, and social networks should not

How to Use This Book
be destroyed'. This is an argument that Dench, Gavron, and Young (2006)
make in their book The New East Elld, where an affordability crisis due to We have written Gentrijicatioll as a core text. and it can be used either as a
gentrification in an already hot London property market and the particulars resource for a fuIl module on gentrification or for part of a module on, f~r
of council housing aIlocations mean that members of the same family can example, urban geography or urban regeneration. The book has been wnt-
no longer reside in the same neighborhoodllocation and kinship networks ten to be used not only by both students and academics but also by planners,
are being destroyed forever. A sOcially just urban renaissance must seek to policy makers. and community organizations interested in gentrification. The
counter the negative aspects of gentrification; this requires the active support ways that these disparate readers use the book will be different.
~f local and national governments and committed political action by work- For students and academics, we have included textbook-style feature~ such
mg-class communities and organizations. For example. governments need to as case studies, boxes, activities, and further reading. In fact, we beglO the
exert stronger social control over developers-making Sure not only that they book with two detailed case studies because as weIl as outlining the theories
fulfiIl their low-income housing quotas but also that the low-income housing and conceptualizations of gentrification, we want to teIl the story of gentnfi-
they provide is of the same type and quality as the high-income housing, and cation from the scale of the neighborhood up to the scale of the global. Gen-
that it is not segregated off but rather integral to the main development. The trification began very much as a neighborhood process,. but it.is a process that
social. economic. and cultural segregation that exists in London's Docldands has escalated up the spatial scale, so that much of the dISCUSSIOn these days IS
stands as a testimony to what happens when developer-led regeneration is of a global gentrification. The boxes are learning aids, the activities are to get
aIlowed a relatively free rein. Local communities must be consuIted about readers to reflect more on the material presented in the book, and the further
the regeneration of their local area. and this must be more than a form of readings are a mix of some of the works referred to in the chapter, so that stu-
participatory tokenism. However. Iow-income communities rarely have the dents can read the most important ones in more detail, and new readmgs that
education, networks, or finances to play a key role in such participation, and back up the arguments in the text or offer alternative case studies. .
differences of opinion are always problematic to work through. Lessons can When reading the book, please note where we dIrect the reader to dISCUS-
be learned from reading James DeFilippis and Peter North's (2004) partici- sions and arguments in different, usuaIly (but not always) subsequent chapters.
pant observations on community organizing with respect to the regeneration We have designed the book so that the arguments made build on each other
of Elephant and Castle in central London. As Merrifield (2002a: 69) empha- throughout the book, hopefuIly strengthening our arguments as we go along.
sizes, '[Clommonality and togetherness in struggle has to be a prerequisite Some of the particular case studies of gentrification that we use are dIscussed
for any meaningful minority politics'; without it. resistance to capitalist not just in one chapter in the book but i~ a n~mber of different chapters. F~r
urbanization is extremely difficult. example, the case study of pioneer gentnficatlOn 10 Barnsbury 10 ChaTter 1 IS
brought up-ta-date in Chapter 4 in the discussion of the super-ge~tnficatlOn
The Audience
in Barnsbury. The case study ofpioneer gentrification in Park Slope 10 Chapt~r
Our aim is to provide a textbook for upper undergraduate and master's 1 is brought up-ta-date in Chapter 7 in a discussion of resistance to overspIll
students on the foIlowing courses (this is by no means an exdusive list): geo- gentrification in what reaItors have dubbed :South Slope' and :Lower Slope'.
graphy, SOciology, urban studies, anthropology, housing studies, policy studies, The example of Newcastle's New Labour-led GOIng for Growth urban regen-
eration strategy (thankfulIy now squashed) is used in both a dISCUSSIOn of
 xxvi • Preface
Preface • xxvii
new-build gentrification in Chapter 4 and a d· . , .
positive public policy tool' in Ch t 6 W £ lSCUSSlOn of gentnfication as a but also because it is in these countries that the most detailed and systematic
book more holistic bylinkin d.';:: er . I e eel that such a strategy makes the research has been undertaken to date. However, where possible. given word
g 1 erent c lapters together.
For p Ianners and policy al limits and other considerations, we discuss other cases of gentrification from
ers
the positive and ne ative o:c: , we sugge~t rea.ding and thinking more about around the world and proVide the reader with plenty of alternative references.
6). It seems that the ~egative im me; of gentn:catlOn (see in particular Chapter The preface which you are reading now acts as the introduction to the
ac
borhood scale, but at the citywiX s ~u~:e~g the positive impacts at the neigh- book. Here we outline why gentrification is an important topic of social sci-
lil,e you to read, and think abo ; ~~a et IS 'ds not necessarily the case. We would entiJic inquiry, and we discuss the aims of the book and why we have written
u, ese war s from Kate Shaw (2005):
ProgresSive local go it the way we have.
vernments can protect existing affordable h . Chapter I begins the book by discussing the birth of gentrification and the
pro d Uce more social h ' d ousmg,
able private housing .;;,~smg an enhcoura the production of afford-
ge coinage, by the British SOCiologist Ruth Gla§§., of the term itself. It highlights
I . Y can use t e planning system t . d·· I the existence of a number of other urban processes that were gentrification
app y maximum standards in dwelling siz dh I 0 JU IClOUS Y
of relatively low-cost apartm t LIe an e p to ensure a stock or are considered by some to have been processes of gentrification. To some
on their social and cultural ~7v:~~~' ~cae gove.rnmen~s can capitalize degree the emergence of the process of gentrification and the term itself are
residents in genuine consult r ty y ngagmg theIr lower-income contemporaneous, but there are Significant precursors to the coinage of the
ship in values as well as a/ve processes. They can provide leader- term. We then move on to discuss definitions of gentrification: the early defi-
social housing for exampPlrac Icde, s~pPlorting a culture of openness to nitions play off of Ruth Glass's definition, but later definitions (as we See in
, e, an actIve y dISC '. Chapter 4) try to accommodate the mutation of gentrification into different
prejudice. (pp. 182-183) ouragmg mtolerance and
Politicians ' pOI,·CyrnaI(ers. pIanners and carum "f h types. In Chapter I we discuss classical or first-wave gentrification in some
ine their cOmmitments to multicultural d' um. Ies ave to exam- detail, and we tell the empirical stories of two cases of classical gentrifica-
environmentally safe cities b h' lverse, socIally equitable and tion-one in London and one in New York City-to highlight the importance
. ecause t ese elements do t . of context in analyses of gentrification. We then turn to the early-stage models
expand of their own accord. (p. 184) no perSISt or
that were developed to explain the process. All the subsequent chapters play
. For community organizations and activists . off, in different ways, of this chapter.
wIth a view to understanding th ' we suggest readmg the book In Chapters 2 and 3, We discuss the main theoretical work on gentrifica-
causes and impacts-so as t b e bPlrocesbs of gentrification better-its multiple tion. Chapter 2 looks at the supply-side theories that have explained gentri-.()
o ea eta etterdevel t t .
that is not possible ameliorate th op s ra egles to resist or, if fication as a product of capitalist uneven development.~1
. ' e process. It is now mar d·ffi I h
to resIst gentrification because it . I e I cu t t an ever Smith's (1979) rent gap thesis and some alternative rent gap models. We also
class actions (if it ever w). th'S ~o. anger the result of indiVidual middle- crrnslder the central and very important issue of displacement of:[;;w-income
as ,ra er, It IS the result of a b f
actions, the most important of h' h . num er 0 actors and communities by the gentrifying middle classes. Of course, the explanations
gentrification into urban POlicy,:n~cin~e:~w ~he state. through the import of outlined here are only part of 'the elephant of gentrification'; and in high-
Chapter 7 we outline a numbe f I at er publIc polIcy, worldwide. In lighting the problems with production-orientated explanations, we point to
ro exampesofatte t t .
even if some of these have failed ( d.. mp s 0 reSISt gentrification, the demand-side arguments in the next chapter, for as Merrifield (2002b: 25)
19
[ 94: 81l believes that nothin an It IS
·11 h I . .
worth noting that Jan van Weesep
argues in his bookMetromarxism, '[Elverything is pregnant with its contrary'.
instrumental in highlightin ~Wl :1 t gentnfic~hon); at least they have been We conclude the chapter with a discussion of resistance, asking what forms of
g e pro ematlc pohtlcs of gentrification. ,
resistance these particular explanations inform.
The Structure
In Chapter 3, we turn to the consumption or demand-side explanations of
A textbook like this cannot possibl gentrification that have explained gentrification as a consequence of changes
The literature that has been selecter .cover all the literature on gentrification. in the industrial and occupational structure of advanced capitalist cities, ones
eral and of our mai . IS representatIve of the literature in gen-
n arguments m particular As su h th b I which have engendered particular social and cultural changes too. We con-
own intellectual predilections Th f . . c, e 00, reflects our sider theses on the new middle class by authors such as Tim Butler (1997),
tend to come from the Un·t d
1e
i<.edcases 0 gentnfication discussed in detail
mg om, the United States d Cd. . theses in which politics and aesthetics are central. We outline David Ley's
not only because that is where the b 11 f ' an ana a; thIS IS (1980) postindustrial and Chris Hamnett's (1994a) professionalization the-
U (.0 our research has been undertaken,
ses before paying attention to the roles of gender, sexuality, and ethnicity in
xxviii • Preface

gentrification, exploring Tim Butler's (1997) argument that gentrifiers seek

to live amongst 'people like us'. As in the previous chapter, we highlight the
problems and obfuscations engendered by these demand-side explanations,
offering suggestions out of these problems where possible. Again, we conclude
the chapter with a discussion of resistance, arguing that these explanations
are more about personal resistance to, for example, suburbia or to the 'straight
world' by gay gentrifiers.
In Chapter 4 we return to the definition of gentrification and ask, Is gen-
trification collapsing under the weight of its expanding definition? We look at
how gentrification has mutated from its classical form into rural gentrification
(which is not urban), new-build gentrification (which is not about renovating
old houses), and the more recent super-gentrification (which stands against
those stage models that assume an endpoint of mature gentrification in neigh-
borhoods). In the light of all this, we argue very strongly that we must retain
the term 'gentrification', despite the morphing of the process, because of the
political value of the term itself.
In Chapter 5 we look at the main features of contemporary gentrification
and how they differ from those of classical gentrification. We outline the char-
acteristics ofthird-wave or postrecession gentrification and the way that gen-
trification has gone global. We discuss globalization, which to date, we feel,
has been undertheorized in relation to gentrification. We relate the discussion
of globalization and gentrification to the changing role of the state and the
emergence of a local, national, and global neoliberalism. We identify a fourth
wave of gentrification in the United States and discuss this in relation to the
rebuilding of New Orleans. We conclude the chapter by promoting further
research on 'the geography of gentrification', a geography which takes both
space and the temporal dimensions of gentrlfication into consideration.
Chapter 6 asks two opposing questions: Is gentrification a negative neigh-
borhood process? and, Is gentrification a positive neighborhood process? It
weighs up the answers to both questions and relates them to the revanchist
city thesis and the emancipatory city thesis respectively. Such questions are
seldom asked outright, nor are the answers to them usually forthright.
Chapter 7 is the concluding chapter, and as well as pondering the future
of gentrification it sets out more fully our social justice agenda. This agenda
is first and foremost about resisting gentrification when and where necessary.
We outline three case studies of attempts to resist gentrification demonstrat-
ing the different tactics that have been used, and then some of the strategies
that low-income communities have developed to gain more control over, and
ownership of, housing.
Finally, we hope that this book provides 'effective communication of what
we already know' and stimulates 'principled public discussion about the nature
of the cities we want to inhabit in the twenty-first century' (Shaw 2005: 184).
 ~
ca 1
~il~'~i
Q)
'C The Birth of Gentrification
~

t!: ~~ ~"'
.
~
ca
~
§~~l~
l!s~
'>i~

!tr~. ---
~ ~~ . Sir. of all the tiresome emotive words coined by this generation "gentri-
\ ficalion" must rank among the worst. By its implication of class ridden
envy, peculiar I believe to this country and perhaps a symptom of our
current malaise, fears of "gentrification" threaten plans for the rehabili-
tation of many derelict areas of"listed" housing in London.
William Bell, member of the Greater London Council
for Chelsea and chairman of the Historic Buildings Committee,
in a letter to the Times (,Letters to the Editor' 1977)
More than forty years have passed since the term 'gentrification' was first
coined by the British sociologist Ruth Glass. In this chapter we show that it is
a slippery term, the problem being amplified by the preponderance of numer-
ous alternative labels for gentrification. We also look at the birth of gentrifica-
tion as a visible urban process. To some extent the coinage of the term and
the birth of the process are contemporaneous (although Clark [2005] would
argue otherwise). We also introduce the processes that are part and parcel of
classical gentrification to our readers through two neighborhood-based case
studies of classic gentrification in two different cities: New York and London.
As a result, the stories told here are partial; we halt our stories just as gentri-
fication becomes firmly anchored in these two neighborhoods, but we wiIl
return to the ongoing processes of gentrification in these two neighborhoods
in Chapters 4 and 7 in the book. By choosing examples of classical gentrifica-
tion from two different cities and countries. we demonstrate the necessary
preconditions for gentrification and the contextual differences between these
places (Carpenter and Lees 1995). We do not consider conceptual or theo-
retical debates about the process here; rather, we teli the empirical stories of
the processes of gentrification in these different places. But it soon becomes
apparent that gentrification is an economic, cultural, political. social. and
~

:3
~ institutional phenomenon-something that we argue more fully in Chapters
2 and 3. We tell the stories of how these two inner-city neighborhoods became
:::J

ffiz ~b~~:
m
u
m devalorized/disinvested and how they subsequently became revalorized/rein-
""
:s
~
vested. These stories involve various actors-from the state (who is implicated
N~~~tcl
~

'"
-Ri 00 d~~I :::;.i
in the process as both disinvestor and investor from quite early on) to private
~ institutions to pioneer gentrifiers. These stories demonstrate that processes
c: C
3
2
 4 • Gentrification
The Birth of Gentrification • 5
of gentrification, even of classical gentrification, are complex and that the
~re cl~sely related to the particular contexts of the neighborhoods and citie~ means the replacement of an existing population by a gentry. The term is also
Ill.whlch they a~e slt.uated. We begin the book here by focusing on individual ironic in that it makes fun of the snobbish pretensions of aflluent middle-class
~elghborhoods III FIrSt World cities; this is deliberate because gentrification households who would still prefer a rural, traditional way of life if given the
egan very much as a neighborhood-based process and a First World cit ro- chance (just think of all those classic gentrifiers' homes with stripped wood
cess, but as we shall see later in the book this is no longer the case tod~PW floors, Aga stoves, open fires, and natural wood and material furnishings).
end thIS c?apter by outlining the early stage models that sought to ex 'Iai~ There are parallels with notions of'rustification' (that connects it through to
gentr~fificat~on before moving on to a more rigorous analysis of explanatio~s of the rural gentrification discussed in Chapter 4). Indeed, the antiurbanism of
gentn catIOn m Chapters 2 and 3. English culture was a recurrent tbeme in the writings of Ruth Glass. Glass
identified gentrification as a complex urban process thatincluded the rehabili-
The Term 'Gentrification'
tation of old hOUSing stock, tenurial transformation from renting to owning,
As me~tion~d above, the term 'gentrification' was first coined by the Brit- property price increases, and the displacement of working-class residents by
Ish s~clOloglst ~~th Glass in 1964, although it is rumored that she used the the incoming middle classes.
term gentnfied III an unpublished study of housing in North Kensington in In her discussion of gentrification in London: Aspects of Change, Glass
1:>59. Ruth Glass was a Marxist, a refugee from Nazi Germany, and one of the went on to argue,
pIOneers of urban SOciology in Europe. She used the term 'gentrification' to
While the cores of other large cities in the world, especially of those in
d~scnbe some ,new and distinct processes of urban change that were be in-
the United States, are decaying, and are becoming ghettos of the "under-
mng to affect mner London; the changes she described are now I g
those 0 f' cIaSSlCa
. I gentnfication':
. mown as privileged", London may soon be faced with an embarrass de richesse in
her central area-and this will prove to be a problem too. (1964: 141)
One by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been
Glass here demonstrates her lack of knowledge of gentrification in the United
Illvaded by the middle classes-upper and lower. Shabby, modest mews
States at this time. But her predictions for the future of London are spot on
and cotta.ges-two rooms up and two down-have been taken over,
today, for the 2001 UJ( Census (National Statistics 2001) data shows that most
wh~n theIr leases have expired, and have become elegant, expensive of central London is now gentrified or gentrifying. And, as this book will
resl,dences. ~arger Victorian houses, downgraded in an earlier or recent
argue, gentrification is a problem too.
penod-whlch were used as lodging houses or were otherwise in mul-
tIple occupation-h~ve been upgraded once again. Nowadays, many of The Emergence of Gentrification
these houses are bemg subdivided into costly flats or "houselets" (in
Gentrification, however, began before the term itself was coined. As Clark
terms of the new real estate snob jargon). The current social status and
(2005: 260) points out, 'Ruth Glass did indeed coin the term in 1964, but it
valu~ of such dwellings are frequently in inverse relation to their status, is careless to turn this into an assumption that we have here the origin of
~nd Ill. any.case enormously inflated by comparison with previous levels the phenomenon'. Neil Smith (1996a: 34-40) outlines some of its Significant
III thel; n:lghbourhoods. Once this process of 'gentrification' starts in
precursors, for example, the Haussmannization of Paris. Baron Haussmann,
a dlstnct It goes on rapidly until all or most of the original worldn
a member of Napoleon IIJ's court, demolished the residential areas in which
class occupiers are displaced and the social character of the district i~
changed. (Glass 1964: xviii-xix) poor people lived in central Paris, displacing them to make room for the city's
now famous tree-lined boulevards which showcase the city's famous monu-
Ruth Glass's definition of 'gentrification' has long offered some form of ments. Strict guidelines applied to new building along the boulevards, and the
umty III the field. As Chris Hamnett (2003b) points out Ruth Glass' f residences there became the most exclusive in the city. Gale (1984) argues that
the ter ' t 'fi . . , s use 0
m gen n catIOn was deliberately ironic and tongue in cheek It by the late 1930s, parts of New York, New Orleans, and Charleston, as well as
rooted in the intricacies of traditional English rural class structure th t was the Georgetown area of Washington, D.C., were all experiencing gentrifica-
was designed to point to the emergence of a new 'urban gentry', p'ara~le~i~ tion. But the emergence of gentrification proper, we argue (contra Clark 2005),
the 18th- a~d 19th-century rural gentry familiar to readers of Jane Auste~ began in postwar advanced capitalist cities. Its earliest systematic occurrences
who compnsed the class strata below the landed gentry but ab were in the 1950s in large metropolitan cities lil(e Boston; Washington, D.C.;
far d ' ove yeoman
mers an peasants (p. 2401). So, literally, gentrification or 'gentry-fication' London; and New York City. In both the United States and in Britain, postwar
urban renewal meant the bulldOZing of old neighborhoods to be replaced by
 6 • Gentrification
The Birth of Gentrification • 7

modern housing and highways. As the destruction spread, so did the rebellion issues surrounding brownstones and their gentrification. Brownstoning was
against it. In the beginning the protesters were mainly historians and archi- stylized as an act oflove:
tecture buffs, but slowly these were joined by young, middle-class families
who bought and lovingly reconditioned beat-up, turn-of-the-century houses I think one should approach the acqUisition of a brownstone, the way
in 'bad' neighborhoods. In New York City, this was called 'brownstoning'; in one goes into a love affair: eyes open, but half closed too .... Pipes can
Baltimore, 'homesteading'; in Toronto, 'whitepainting' or 'whitewalllng'; and be fixed, cracked walls repaired, painted woodwork stripped, old heat-
in San Francisco, 'red-brick chic'. As Williams (1986: 65) argued, ing plants replaced. Those are only incidentals. What really counts is
love .... To the non-lover it is merely a rowhouse. To the browns tone
Many American analysts have been uncomfortable with the term "gen- connoisseur, it is part of an architecturally homogeneous cityscape,
trification" (with its obvious class connotations), preferring instead scaled perfectly for its function, hOUSing many but offering each person
labels such as "back-to-the-city movement", "neighborhood revitaliza- space and privacy and a civilized style of living. ('The Brownstoner' 1969;
tion", and "browns toning", all of which were indicative of underlying reprinted in 1991)
divergences in what was believed to be central to this process.
The Browllstoner got involved in the politics of gentrification. For example, in
Each term has its own little history. The term 'browns toning', for example, 1984 The Browllstollerpublished an article arguing, 'Gentrification is not "geno-
came Ollt of the brownstoning movemen't in New York City_ A brownstone is cide" but "genesis'" (,Gentrification: Genesis Not Genocide'; see Plate 1.3).
a bUilding constructed of, or faced with, a soft sandstone which weathers as a In 1972, the annual Brownstone Conference was established by a Brooklyn
chocolate brown color (see Plate 1.2). The progentrification group the Brown- realtor. Initially it was formed as a brownstone bank to alleviate the redlining
stone Revival Committee was founded in New York City in 1968 by Everett (the refusal of banks and mortgage companies to finance mortgages in risky
Ortner, a pioneer gentrifier in Park Slope (see case study 2 in this chapter). inner-city locations, granting mortgages on the basis oflocation rather than
The committee's magazine. The Bra1Vllstoner, advocated brownstone living, conSidering individual credit) of brownstones, then it ran an annual fair at
provided historical analysis and rehabilitation tips, and voiced news and the Brooklyn Union Gas headquarters and an annual ball at the Montauk
Club in Park Slope. The Back to the City Conference established in 1974,
Plate 1.2 Brownstone Houses in Park Slope, Brooklyn also by Everett Ortner, set out to promote historic brownstone living. The
first conference, held in New York's Waldorf-Astoria and sponsored by the
Economic Development Council of New York City, the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, the Municipal Art Society of New York, and Brooklyn
Union Gas, followed the themes of preservation, finance, and promotion:

The fact that the Brownstoners invested time and energy into using the
media and government indicates that they had, on some level, grasped
a basic fact about modern urban neighborhoods, namely that they exist
within a larger framework. To establish social or geographic boundaries,
neighborhood residents must have their claims recognized by external
factors in the city's polity and economy. (Kasinitz 1988: 169)
But what is particularly interesting is how the state in both the United
States and the United Kingdom, for some time now, has refused to use the
term 'gentrification', even when its policies were exactly that. As Neil Smith
(1982: 139) has argued, 'A number of other terms are often used to refer to
the process of gentrification, and all of them express a particular attitude
towards the process'. In New York City, for example, in the 1970s the term
'homesteading' was often used in place of gentrification. Homesteading was
These brownstones cost well over a million dollars each now.
Source: Photograph by Loretta Lees. a term derived from the U.S. Department of Housiog and Urban Develop-
ment's Urban Homesteading program that transferred vacant and abandoned
 8 • Gentrification
The Birth of Gentrification • 9

Plate 1.3 Gentrification Is Not 'Genocide' but 'Genesis'

Single-family houses to the city, who then offered them up for sale at a nominal
VDLtlHE 15 NUHlISR 2 JULY 19B4
sum, for example $1, to families willing to rehabilitate them and live in them
for at least three years. This scheme was instrumental in the gentrification of

,.~ $m• •1J" ••~~ neighborhoods like the Lower East Side in New York City (Lees and Bondi
1995). We return to the politics of the term 'gentrification' in more detail in
NEWSLEITER OF THE BROWNsmNE REVIVAL COMMlmE
Chapter 4.
200 MADISON AVENUE 3RD FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016

Genlrificalion - Clarified Definitions of Gcntrification

Brownslone - The Real Thing
THE Ifi'l'll OF GENTRIFlCATION hall nc"" bllll1l bluted by Early definitions of gentrification by authors such as Neil Smith (1982: 139)
a nllw. 15D-pagll rllp~t ralelllllld (Hnch 1984) by 'this art:.1cls by ROIl Roth, a /IIaIl!ber "'00 ha stud1l1d
thll NIIV 'lork. DIlpl1l:tment of Planning. The rllpcrt. IIrdt.ftsatlJIe at: !:he Call'mb.f" Un.1verJl1rg H111todc were closely aligned to Glass's (1964) description:
ordered by the Hlly.,r. ia titled, Private all_ Prll.!leNal:..ion Sdioal, a Atv.1a101l or thll Arcll1t"c-
blVellt:!nent IInd Nlliqhbol'hcod r:hllngll, IInd dOllS noth_ t:ural schaol, .1.7 1ntare.!lt:11l9 IUld 1lffDI'IIIat../.va. He
ing lelll thlI.n docUlllent over IInd over illgillin ",hillt hila 1111110 srud.tsd JlII!/chology IIInd hili belll] do\' JlII4Z'1I By gentrification I mean the process by which working class residential
City Pla.nning 1111110 illS the benllfits of the brolm_ 1f.1!:h t:he LandmarM Preserv"t:..lon CDambs10n bl r_
Stonll ItIOVelnlllt, IIlthaullh that phrallll naVllr IIPptlllrs 1I1111rcll tlnd dea1gn raviw. He 111 currently rmrk.ing neighbourhoods are rehabilitated by middle class homebuyers, land-
in ita pllgl!!" on tI book on ~St:arlight: Pllrk~, an lll:USO!:i!ent JlU'k
in !:he lIro/U' (1918-19461. One 14Z'gely COllCral:e lords and professional developers. I make the theoretical distinction
Another WQrd that doea not #lake In illppllarance ia b~.ud1ng (nav 11:1 lfl'A gutlgul 1Il:.1l1 stands lit era ••
~gantrifi~tion", ill word thillt hall come. to have a Brmut E.\'pre.ssWo!IlI o!It: 177eh Sl:rllat: ..hieb is t:hll gea- between gentrification and redevelopment. Redevelopment involves not
negativlI calU'lotation in INIny circlell. Thll City 9 rtlphic cantsr of !:hll B1:Drur, an the SmlU' R.tVIIl'.
clearly prllter!! thll word "reinveot:ment". BROWNSTOUE ia ill bulldinll qudity B&ndll:one Coal-
rehabilitation of old structures but the construction of new buildings on
Qentritication ducribee .IIrllillG in which dllvel.op_ p.oBed .ot IIlinllrAl grll.in. bel'" togllthu by 11 cllllllnt- previously developed land.
ment IIctJ.vity (whether private, lIovernmllllt-lIi4IId ing lIuboeance •. It Vllr,illlI in.lltrolCturll and compoli-
or 11 cll!llbination of both) rellUlts in thll cUspaclI_ ticm. S14bl ere qw.rrill4 t'= blldll \Ib.ich ran!lll frCIII
ment of lcnr- er ==derllta_inCQ11\8 tamUJ..8 by tho". fhllilll lleam. tl:I aeamllllls mII.UIIB. Aa in QthBr IlAnd_ By the early 1980s, the term 'gentrification' could easily be found in different
in highllr int:CmlS ClI.tfigCI::'iIlB. This ill regarded all lltonllll, hlllll bedding or crosll-9raJ.n ill cc=n tg
dllllir~lll by eDIIIII end unl~h!lsirllble by OthUII. 'I'he broWlllltonfl. PlIlall bllddJ.nq CII.UDe8 a !l'rllllt dllll1 Qf dictionaries-and the definitions mirrored closely that of Smith above. The 1980
lltu..,y 11 findingB, hOlnlver, lffiich arll bUad on sta- \fll.lltll o!Ind =kllll thll ltonll difficult to quarry IIZ1d
tilll:ical anlllyal.ll-_lnOltly Cllnlua d.a.ta--providll 8D1DII drllSS properly. SUch stQnll nlluly alwaYII 11l1.li al- Oxford American Dictionary defined 'gentrification' as the 'movement of middle
conpelling 8Uppert in fll.vor of the gllnl:rificllt1on te:rnllting Strllllkll and plI.t:ehell of finll-g'l:ained and
procllllll. CDU:rsll-qra.J.ned .tone. li'illl:4r in contact with brmm- class families into urban areas causing property values to increase and haVing
Puk Slope neighbarhood in Brooklyn and thll Upper Stonll can removll IIlmII of the ClIlIIellt and POrtionll of the secondary effect of driving out poorer families'; whilst the 1982 American
HlIst. Side in Ki!lnhatean were selllcted 811 Bubjllt:te ot thll IllinllraJ. ~lIinl which conlltitute thll 8l:I;l:111.
this etudy. Thlly WU BllleOted beclIUll, of thlir Likll aU other IlAndlltonell, thll bmwnll't.nnllll vary Heritage Dictionary defined it as the 'restoration of deteriorated urban property
vJ.aiblll privata inVIlIlt:lrlelnt: act:.!vity IInd their pro- trCIII tIIlCtuntll likll .hIIllla and slatell, to thll COll1"811
ximity to the citY'1I two major PArka, good publJ.c ccnglcmel:ate or pw'Iding IItcna. coarlll-'il:'ainlld especially in working-class neighborhoods by the middle and upper classes'.
eranaportac1on and thllir resurgence of llconemic VlIX'illtillll look well in =elt-face work. 'I'hll finer
ablo.phere. GentrUicacL:!n ia not: "glln.ocidll" grainfld varietilla UII bllt:ter for fina carving cr The 2004 American Heritage Dictionary has altered that definition only slightiy:
but -gllnlls1&-. 11 tool-drelllled lIlr:faclI, but can be adlwtll4 to roolc.-
tllnll work ea well. 'l'bll bllat texture ill hamogene- 'the restoration and upgrading of deteriorated urban property by middle class
Florida Art Deco - DUll thl:ougbouc and not: "11:1' caUIII, but 0 unUarmJ.y
OOll1"a&-g1:illin 11 bet:ter than 0 m.1.xture of finll Ilnd and affluent people, often resulting in displacement of lower-income people'.
COUIIII. Aa a rule tha coorlll!-g'rained aandsl:onllll
N"t:h.uUel Nendric1u, Presidenl:, RIIcle 1:0 the Ilrll =ora poroua Md lIbacrll vater IlIOrll freely, but The 2000 Dictionary ofHuman Geography, however, in an entry written by Neil
C1t!h Inc. llleo likely to bll lllminatlld or reedy, 1l1li1 Ihble
to ban e1Ily SIIIll!la, and qenllrlllly are eblll to be Smith, Signified that the term itself was bound to change as the process evolved:
VD:t:ud merll tndy in aU dirsctionll. Tlle fine-
grained aandBtanU UII qenarally atrcngar, bul: 11111111 gentrification The reinvestment of CAPITAL at the urban centre, which
e!lIatic, not tlo apt to dLsinl:llqral:e, but more apt:
to orack or shall. A rubbIId au:rf"eII iD the IIDllt is designed to produce space for a more affluent class of people than cur-
dealnble tiniuh ~or brDWllstona. Send WIll WIld for
the rubbing, m: BII.nd tollQwed by grit. rently occupies that space. The term, coined by Ruth Glass in 1964, has
Hiator1o 1It:rucl:ll%ell alvay. brinq m mind inVllt- All of 1896. raliable infDJ:1lll!CWn on different.
eral:e _gllll ot colonial fa:rahoU.IIIJ, fllderal style brmmstonlls WlllI "J:Y Bca:rctI and lIi4a1y IIClltterlld. mostly been used to describe the residential aspects of this process but
It iD believed ChIt thUII ill pzabably not: IUlDthU'
city hall., and tOI: II1II IIISPIICially, Brooklyn brolm-
IIItcnell and rDWhDUllIIII. So it. \fa~ a ahock to al. colar ~ in building lltonllllll that: ia as p!I:r;ma.- this is changing, as gentrification itself evolves. (N. Smith 2000: 294;
nant "nd lIa lit:tlll liablll to tarniah u brown.
bullaiDga af CUrquol8ll, yello"" pink and at:aJ.nle.JI
MhIll1 btlMlet.onll iD Ulllld to eJtOlIIl, particlIiluly emphaSiS in original)
11:11111 .men I enterlld hbtoric KiIuni Beach for Cbe
11th Annual Bi!lclr. tg" the city CmlterenclI. dark ubadlla and along narrow IItruca, it can bll
gloomy and Sc=brlll. ~. dark.r aM.das, how:ver, Dew
eaDtinulld an plIglI 7 dirt; and lll:a.J.n 111111. conl:1Dulld on plgll ID
It was apparent by the early 1980s that the residential rehabilitation that Ruth
Glass had described was only one facet of the gentrification process. As cities
The Brownstone ReVival Committee was adamant that gentrification was a pOSitive thing. sought ways to reimagine themselves out of deindustrialization, urban water-
Source: The Brownstoner, 1984. Reprinted with permission of The Brownstoner. fronts were redeveloped, hotel and convention complexes were built, and
retail and restaurant districts developed. These were deliberately constructed
as middle-class spaces in the central city. This led Neil Smith (1986: 3) to argue
that gentrification is
 The Birth of Gentrification • 11
10 • Gentrmcation

a highly dynamic process ... not amenable to overly restrictive defini-

tions; rather than risk constraining OUf understanding of this develop-
ing process by imposing definitional order, we should strive to consider
the broad range of processes that contribute to this restructuring, and to
understand the links between seemingly separate processes.
In Chapter 4 we will look at how the term 'gentrification' has changed and
mutated over time to accommodate this dynamic and changing process, but
first we take a look in more detail at classical gentrification because it is against
this early form that all other types of gentrification are compared.

Classical Gentrification
Classical gentrification is the type or wave of gentrification that Ruth Glass
(1964) based her coinage of the term on. Here, disInvested inner-city neigh-
borhoods are upgraded by pioneer gentrifiers and the indigenous residents
are displaced. Worldng-class housing becomes middle-class housIng. The
following two case studies of pioneer or classical gentrification, taken from
Lees (1994a), detail this process on different sides of the Atlantic, revealing the
multitude of actors. institutions, and processes involved.

Case Study 1: Bamsbllry, LOlldoll

Barnsbury is a residential neighborhood in the north London borough
of IslIngton, located approximately two miles from the City of London
(see Map 1.1). Barnsbury was built as an upper-middle-class suburb around
1820 on hilltop fields stretching northwards; the housIng is composed of
terraces and freestandIng villas (see Plate lA):
Unadorned Georgian streets lead to late Georgian stuccoed and balco-
nied houses by way of unique squares-the expansive ovate Thornhill
Square, the arcadian Barnsbury Square, the curiously Gothic Lons-
dale Square, and the elegant Gibson Square from which the starkness
of Milner Square's French Mechanical Style can be glimpsed. (Pring
1968/1969: 2) Map 1.1 BarnsburY,lslington, London
But after the Second World War, Barnsbury went into decline, and its upper- ., f h' 'ty This was further
of the suburbs and the devalonzatlOn 0 t e mner Cl .' 0
middle-class residents moved to the suburbs as swathes of suburban hous- ? New Town Development Act, whIch exported 30,00
ing were built around London. This was a process similar to 'white flight' in entrench ed byth e 195~ . 1
Londoners to expanded towns such as Bury St. Edmunds. The proper~es t lf~
the United States, but whereas Americans fled from race (Le., from people of
left behind rapidly went into multioccupation. In postwar London, the em;~
color), the residents of Barnsbury fled from the working classes: 'A combina-
for housIng was greater than the available supply, but the pressure cause y
tion of class fear and railway engineering turned a vast stretch of residential
demand was differential throughout London. In Barnsbu:r the pressure was
London into a no-mans land .... Camden Town, Holloway, Islington, were
great due to its large stock of privately rented accommodatlOn located mmutes
abandoned to the hopelessly entrenched worldng class' (Raban 1974: 80).
from central London. Those demanding housing in Barnsbury were too poor
As in the United States, the suburbanization of London was facilitated bythe
to bu and did not qualify for council (social) housing. In 19~1 13 percent of
the p~pulation were born in Ireland, Malta, Cyprus, and the BntlSh Canbbean.
state. Abercrombie's Greater LOlldoll Plall (1944), which became the blueprint
for the postwar reconstruction of London. institutionalized the valorization
 12 • Gentrification
The Birth of Gentrification • 13

ptate 1.4 Thornhill Crescent, Barnsbury £100 million available to building societies to increase owner-occupation
and invest in old property (Williams 1976: 74). This shift can be associ-
ated with the beginnings of gentrification in Barnsbury. The main influx of
middle-class people occurred from 1961 to 1975, when Barnsbury's professional
managerial class increased from 23 to 43 percent (UK Census). These pioneer
gentrifiers were architects, planners, university lecturers. comprehensive
school teachers, social workers, the police, and medical photographers, and
they were overwhelmingly Labour voting (Bugler 1968). As one pioneer gen-
trifier put it,
I like the place because there's such a lack of the products of English
public schools. My man, and all that. People aren't affected here as they
are in Chelsea, Hampstead or South Kensington. (Anthony Froshang,
graphic deSigner, in Carson 1965: 395)
But building societies only really began to take an interest in Islington after
1972, when increasing numbers of the middle classes bought homes in the
area (Williams 1978: 23-24). One board of directors visited an architect's
rehabilitated house to see what their loan had achieved; they were impressed,
and situations like this increased their confidence in the area (Williams
Barn.sbury has a number of squares and crescents, all of which have distinctive architectures. This 1976).
architectural aesthetic attracted pioneer and later waves of gentrifrers. The rapid tenurial transformation that occurred in Barnsbury between 1961
Source: Photograph by Loretta Lees.
and 1981 is quite strildug; owner-occupation increased from 7 to 19 percent,
furnished rentals declined from 14 to 7 percent, and unfurnished rentals from
Statistically Barnsbury was one of the areas of greatest housing stress in 61 to a mere 6 percent (UK Census). Bamnett and Randolph (1984, 1986)
London. In 1961 62 percent of Barns bury's households lived in shared accom- analyzed this tenurial transformation-the 'flat break-up market' in central
modation in c~mparison to only 30 percent in the County of London (London London-which emerged as part of a broader national trend where blocks of
Borough ofIsIIngton 1966: 6). In a 1968 pilot survey in Matilda Street, Barns- privately rented apartments were sold for individual owner-occupation in a
bury, by the London Borough ofIslington, out of 160 households interviewed, wave of conversions from the 1960s through the 1980s. These changes were
127 had no access to a bath, 138 shared a toilet, 15 had no kitchen sink and not purely the result of the actions of individual gentrifiers. Bamnett and
25 were living in overcrowded conditions (1969: 13). Barnsbury was an a:ea of Randolph's (1986) 'value gap thesis' (see Box 2.2) emphasizes the political
severe housing stress, as this vignette from the Matilda Street survey shows' and institutional context shaping the actions of developers, landlords, buyers,
'[~Jne old lady of nearly 80 could only manage to go to the outside WC b; and renters in central London at this time. It was the 'value gap' (the relation-
gOing down the 4 or 5 steps on her backside. The highest hopes she had were ship between a building's tenanted investment value and its vacant possession
that the c~uncil wer~ going to provide her with a commode'. The degree of value, the former being a measure of the rented building's annual rental
overcrowdIng found In Barnsbury illustrates the housing stress at the time income, and the latter a measure of the property's future sale price when it is
and the decline in overcrowding is directly linked to gentrification. In 1961: converted into owner-occupation-the landlord sells off the building when
20.8 percent ?f households lived in rooms of more than 1.5 people; in 1971, the gap widened sufficiently) and its attendant tenurial transformation that
12.4 percent; In 1981, 6.4 percent; and in 1991, only 1.8 percent. was the main 'producer' (see Chapter 2, on production explanations) of gen-
,. Pioneer gentrifiers began moving into Barnsburyin the late 1950s. However, trification in Barnsbury. The value gap became important in Barnsbury in the
It was extremely difficult to obtain funds during the 1950s and 1960s .... [FJor late 1950s and especially the 1960s, for landlords were getting a decreasing
house p~rch,ases: s~ccess in obtaining them was largely a reflection of personal return on their rented property (due to new rent control and occupancy regu-
con~ectJOns (Wllhams 1976: 76). There was little private finance in Barnsbury lations) and developers were realizing capital gains of £20,000 or so by buying
until the late 1950s, when the 1959 Housing Purchase and Housing Act made up rented property, evicting the tenants, and selling it in a vacant state. The
 The Birth of Gentrification • 15
14 • Gentrification

middle classes were a captive market, and building societies were releasing Piate 1.5 Stonefield Street, Barnsbury
more funds to inner-city property (Pitt 1977: 9). The turning point for
Barnsbury was associated with the 1957 Rent Act, which decontrolled
unfurnished tenancies during a time of increasing home ownership. Before
the act, rents were controlled at an arbitrary level, and the act was introduced
to alleviate the poor condition of housing and its poor investment value. It
allowed the landlord to change the market price of any property let after the
act, and those with security of tenure lost it if they moved out of their con-
trolled tenancies. The act made it legal, in London houses with a rateable value
of over £40, to give most rent-controlled tenants six months to quit after a
standstill period of fifteen months, or they could increase the rent. As a result
Barnsbury suffered many cases of winkling, where tenants were forced to
leave because of bribery and harassment.
In a report titled David alld Goliath, Anne Power (1973) recites the story of
Redsprings Property Company, who launched their property empire by buy-
ing a number of tenanted properties on Stonefield Street in Barnsbury from
the Dove Brothers landlords for £2,000 (see Plate 1.5). They had to remove the
tenants to realize their vacant value of £10,000-12,000. Tenants were bribed
with sums of £250-900, some moved out of London, and others were rehoused
In this street, and in many others, unscrupulous landlords tried to winkle tenants out of their
by Islington Borough Council. In one severe case of winlding, two tenants
had a bulging wall, and whilst they were out builders demolished the outer homes.
Source: Photograph by Loretta Lees,
wall of their living room and bedroom, providing a full view to the street. A
steel support was erected from the middle of one bed to the ceiling, and a note 1973: 42). The Greater London Council (GLC) eventually ju~ped on ~e
attached to it read, 'You dirty filthy bastard'! That same evening the law center improvement bandwagon, too, and developed its own brand of welfare wm-
worker who was chairman of the Tenants Association took out an injunction Iding'. A group of houses in Cloudsley Street and Batchelor Street were bo~ght
to prevent the landlords from undertaking any more building work. A screen by the GLC for £90 each in 1966 and 1970, rehabilitated, and re:let to h~gh­
was eventually placed over the gap, and six months later the wall rebuilt. The income tenants at £15 a week. Many of the original tenants w~re move,d mto
wall became 'a symbol in Stonefield Street of the tenants' determination and appalling short life houses in North Islington and left to rot m the midst of
the landlords' not-so-kid-glove winlding tactics' (Power 1973, cited in Lees slum clearance for over four years' (Cowley et al. 1977: 179). Then ill the mid-
1994a:140). There were other cases of'Rachmanism'. Rachmanism refers to the 1970s, the houses were offered to new tenants for £20,00,0 each. .,
unscrupulous tactics of the landlord Peter Rachman, who operated in London Returning back to Hamnett and Randolph's (1986) .value gap thesiS (see
in the 1960s (see Green 1979). His name is synonymous with winlding at this also Chapter 2), this is a useful one for explaining why different parts of Barn-
time. The Rachman expose came out of the Profumo sex scandal of 1963, and sbury gentrified at different times:
led to the Milner Holland Report of the Committee Oil Housing in 1964. Land-
lord David Knight was Barnsbury's Rachman. He evicted a twenty-three-year- In Barnsbury lease reversion assumed a particular importance for the
old teacher from her flat on Barnsbury Road. She had reported him to a rent gentrification process. Different properties in the are~ belong~d to
different landowning estates and their leases closed at dIfferent hmes,
tribunal to get herrent reduced, and in response he cut offher electricity, locked
depending on when the estates were built. ... The leases from the older
her out, and threw out her belongings. She received a letter in which he said he
would shoot her dead, then a week later a car pulled up to her and shone alight estates owned by aristocratic or institutional landlords folded between
1920 and 1940. These owners sold their freeholds to private landlords
in her face, and the next day she got a note saying, 'Cop it kid, we shot at you,
we missed by half an inch'! A telling sign of the times was a LOlldon Property because ground rents which had been high in the 19th Cen;ury ~ad
been eroded by 20th century inflation, because the landowner s capital
Letter that stated, 'Properly done, conversions are the next best thing to
was tied up and yielding no return, the security of tenure had been
counterfeiting for making money' (cited in Counter Information Services
 The Birth of Gentrification • 17
16 • Gentrification

With contacts in Fleet Street and Whitehall, the. Barnsbury Associati~n was
extended to lessees, and the big freeholders were being condemned as
able to get its approach accepted as official planmng polIcy for the area.
slum landlords. It was the new freeholders, the private landlords, who
were to profit from the flat break-up in central London after 1966, when The Barnsbury Association rapidly became the heroes of the planning
private rented flats were sold into owner occupation and gentrification. pundits; "this is the way to improve a twilight area" wrote expert Profes-
Developers and private individuals waited in anticipation. The London sor Peter Hall. Not one of the planning experts who commented on the
Property Letter (February 1970) circulated amongst estate agents referred widely publicized Barnsbury Planning Exhibition in 1968 asked who
to Barnsbury as a "healthy chicken ripe for plucking". (Lees 1994b: 202) was Barnsbury being improved for. (Cowley et al. 1977: 178)

The 1969 Housing Act demonstrated a new commitment from government The media connections of North London's pioneer gentrifiers we:e epito~ized
to rehabilitation instead of just renewal. The act provided local authorities . the cartoon strip Life and Times in NWl, which first appeared m the LIstener
with the power to allocate discretionary improvement grants. The improve- ~ 1967 and was featured in a pocket cartoon by Marc Boxer in the Times from
ment grants were £1,000 and £1,200 for conversions (tax-free and per dwelling 1969 to 1983. . .
unit created). As the grants had to be met pound for pound by the improver, After attaining conservation status in 1971, finance for r~palrs m
they automatically favored the more well-off Improver or developer (Hamnett Barnsbury waS also available from the National H~ritage M:monal Fund,
1973: 252-253) and aided the gentrification process in Barnsbury. Initially from the Architectural Heritage Fund, and from vano~s Housmg Act grants
there were no restrictions on the improvement grants; as such, a property (see Plate 1.6 for an example of an Islington ConservatIOn and. Mamtenance
could be sold Immediately after rehabilitation/conversion with vast profits Guide). But by the time the Barnsbury Action Group formed m 1970 as the
being realized. In 1971 56 percent of all Islington's improvement grants went 'official' opposition to the Barnsbury Association, the future of the area ~ad
to the wards of Barnsbury and SI. Peters (Power 1972: 3), revealing the extent already been determined (Cowley et al. 1977: 179). The Barnsbury ACl!~n
of renovation activity in the area at this time. Williams (1976: 74) found that Group was a small pressure group of about twenty-six people whose tact!Cs
up to 90 percent of those properties sold by estate agencies in Islington in included political lobbying, designing petitions, letters to the pre.ss, and so
the 1960s were of rented property converted into owner-occupation. By 1972 on (see Chapter 7 on resisting gentrification). They drew att:ntIon t~ :he
nearly 60 percent of Barnsbury's housing had been rehabilitated, and the new consequences of 'improvement' in Barnsbury, but in communlty orgamzmg
households consisted predominantly of middle-class owner-occupiers (Ferrls terms were not an unqualified success,
1972: 95). House prices had risen significantly over this period: for example, The social change that took place in Barnsbury was stark. During the late
a house in Lonsdale Square which had cost £9,000 in 1966 cost £18,000 in 1960s and early 1970s, when the most active and visible gentrification was
1969 and £35,000 in 1972 (nearly a fourfold increase in just six years). In occurring. class differences were overt:
1974 Islington Council placed restrictions on its improvement grants so that
applicants had to remain in their improved property for at least five years after One ofthe tips ofthat whole iceberg of social pressures whic~ is London
rehabilitation. is to be found in the Barnsbury district ofIslington. ConflIct IS anachro-
Other government schemes which aided the gentrification process were nisticallyvisible there in the outward appearance of houses side by ~ide
the deSignation of parts of Barnsbury as a General Improvement Area and with one another-some with all the marks of grey poverty; their neIgh-
a Housing Action Area. The former aimed to encourage voluntary action in bours smartly repainted and with all the externals of wealth. Whole
improving areas of private property by providing higher grants for properties streets in Barnsbury show these signs of transition; and neighbouring
and encouraging local authorities to undertake environmental improvements, squares can there find themselves each in a different camp-whether of
and the latter sought rapid Improvement through voluntary action byincreasing middle class contentment, or of slums. (Ash 1972: 32)
the improvement grants allocated to these areas. But the pioneer gentrifiers Space was one exemplar of class difference. Pitt (1:77) mentions four houses in
themselves were also instrumental in blocking local authority redevelopment Lonsdale Square: two contained single-family mlddle-.class. owner-oc.cupants,
initiatives in the area and promoting private rehabilitation instead. They did hilst the other two provided accommodation for forty-eIght smgle working-class
this through the Barnsbury Association, which they formed in 1964. This ;'nants in the furnished rented sector. Many of the worldng class 'resented the
amenity society wanted a policy of environmental improvement that would influx of"Chelsea-ites", that is, middle-class immigrants with totally different
preserve and enhance Barnsbury's unique nineteenth-century townscape.
18 • Gentrification
The Birth of Gentrification • 19

Plate 1.6 An Islington Conservation Guide

lifestyles and value orientations' (Ferris 1972: 44). Some disliked the pioneer
gentrlfiers as much as they disliked ethnic minorities:
CONSERVATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDE
1 used to live in Barnsbury. 1 never did like the n-----s even though I work

THE
with them and lived next door to one. Then Barnsbury types moved in
and started preaching to us we shouldn't be prejudiced and should love
the blacks and then the b-----ds turned right round and kid,ed them out
and then us after. (Power 1972, cited in Lees 1994a: 209 )
MID VICTORIAN VILLA As gentrification progressed, those tenants in bad housing who felt threat-
ened by the winkler were appalled to see the councU spending money on a

1850-1870
LONDON BOROUGII OF ISLlNGTON
traffic scheme, tree planting. and new iron railings in smarter squares. Local
residents were resentful that their children could not afford to live locally in
houses that they had 'saved' during the war. They wanted to keep small indus-
trial units in Barnsbury, whereas the incomers preferred antique shops and
small offices that offered no employment to the locals (Pitt 1977: 9). Some of
the pioneer gentrifiers wanted to live in a socially mixed neighborhood (see
also Chapter 6 on gentrification and social mixing):
The present trend towards a rising proportion of the middle dasses in
the population will continue. This will help create a better social bal-
ance in the structure of the community, and the professional expertise
I .: of the articulate few will ultimately benefit the underprivileged popula-
r.~ r,
. "-
-~
'
. tion. (Ken Pring, Barosbury pioneer gentrifier and architect, quoted in
Pitt 1977: 1)
Other gentrifiers. however, were much more negative about social mixing:
'I like to smile at them and stop for a talk. But 1 don't want to have tea with
them'; and 'I don't think they quite understand why we want to pay so much
money and go to so much trouble to live in these houses, which they don't lUte
very much. All they want to do is leave them, and live out of London' (Bugler
1968: 228).
By the late 1970s, property speculation had dampened significantly as
gentrification became firmly anchored in Bamsbury. In the 1980s, larger
conversions were replaced by smaller-scale conversions. for example the
conversion of single-family townhouses into one- or two-bed flats. We
continue the story of gentrification in Barnsbury in Chapter 4.
dThis.leaflet sets out to illustrate the common architectural
an~ [~tures of the mid-Victorian villa, and suggests what Case Study 2: Park Slope, New York City
to •are unP~tant to retain, restore and remsbte in order Park Slope is located in the Brooldyn borough of New York City (see Map 1.2).
unprove e value of the property and the street
Park Slope was one of the first residential suburbs in New York City and
experienced considerable growth in the last two decades of the nineteenth
century due to the settlement of merchants, lawyers, doctors, and other
professionals able to commute to Manhattan over the Brooklyn Bridge,
which was completed in 1883. Park Slope soon became an elite residential
 20 • Gentrification
The Birth of Gentrification • 21

MANHATTAN Plate 1.7 6th Avenue and Berkeley Place, Park Slope

These large brownstone single-family houses were some of the first properties to be gentrified in
Park Slope. For example, pioneer gentrifiers EvereU and Evelyn Ortner bought in Berkeley Place.
Source: Photograph by Loretta Lees.

dockland workers, and workers at the Ansonia Clock factory on 7th Avenue-
the largest of its klnd in the world by 1890 (see Plate 1.8).
Suburbanization affected Park Slope early, in the first decade of the twen-
tieth century, when the middle classes moved to the then suburb of Flatbush.
The brownstones they left behind became 'genteel' rooming houses and later,
with the advent ofthe Great Depression in the 1930s, low-class rooming houses
BROOKLYN
occupied predominantly by the Irish and Italian community. Over time land-
lords closed these buildings or let them decline into disrepair, and in the
Map 1.2 Park Slope, Brooklyn, New York City 1930s social planners began to call Park Slope a 'slum'. In the 1940s and 1950s,
approximately 75 percent of Park Slope's housing stock was rooming houses
with absentee landlords. The sections near Prospect Park retained their high-
commun~ty, second only to Brooklyn Heights in Brooklyn status, 'a magnet for
rent status, yet this area experienced the largest amount of subdivision (Justa
Brooklyn s well-to-do, a retreat for those who wished to live lavishly' (Jackson
1984). After the Second World War, another wave of suburbanization ensued
and Manbeck 1998: 165) away from the increasing density of Manhattan. The
aided by the construction of the Long Island Expressway (see Seiden Miller
up~lope sections of the neighborhood have long contained the more expensive 1979: 29) and the Verrazano Bridge, which opened in 1965 (facilitating the
reSl~ences that housed this elite: architecturally distinctive 3-4-story single- suburbanization of Staten Island), and the federal mortgage programs which
famIly browns tones, some of the finest Romanesque Revival and Queen Anne
made new suburban homes available for young families with little or no down
houses in the United States (see Plate 1.7). Further down the Slope, more mod-
payments. There was a white flight from Brooklyn of some 682,000 whites
est brownstones, brick-fronted properties, and 2-3-story wood frame row
between 1940 and 1970 (Seiden Miller 1979: 26-32). 'White flight' away from
houses were built to house Eastern European and Irish servants, store owners,
Park Slope was taklng place at a time of a significant increase in black and
 22 • Gentrification
The Birth of Gentrification • 23

Plate 1.8 Wood Frame Row Houses in Park Slope

ownership following tax subsidies for owner-occupancy. Indeed, since the
New Deal there had been attempts to increase owner-occupancy in the hope
that it would act as a social stabilizer (Berry 1980: 10-11). At this time, as
in Britain. there was a bias towards investment in new construction, rather
than investJuent in old property; this was a function of federal tax codes.
Suburbanization was part and parcel of the home ownership move in the
United States, and highway construction facilitated the process.
In 1965 the New York World Telegram called Park Slope '[tJhe run down
area of downtown Brooldyn' (Watldns 1984). Systematic disinvestJuent locked
the neighborhood into a spiral of economic decline ana devalorization, result-
ing in physical deterioration and residential abandonment which reached a
peak in Park Slope in the mid-1970s, particularly during the 1975-1977 fiscal
crisis of New York City (Carpenter and Lees 1995: 293). One resident, Michael
Eugenio, remembers, 'If you had anything worthwhile in your house, you had
break-ins, they'd rob you blind. Your car wasn't safe in the street, tires would
be missing, batteries would be missing' (Hodenfield 1986: 8). In 1972, there
was vicious gang warfare in Park Slope between the Italian 'Golden Guin-
eas' and the Puerto Ricans who moved into the area, some of whom set up
Wood frame row houses located mosti . th south dope rackets. That summer, dozens of people were assaulted, an eighteen year
the most part gentrified later than theYb'rnow et ern artnd eastern sections of Park Slope were for old had his legs blown off with a double-barreled shotgun, and a police car
ns one prope les.
Source: Photograph by Loretta Lees. was overturned and hit with Molotov cocktails. Squatters and drug dealers
moved into the abandoned buildings in the area, and candy stores did busi-
HisKank (~specially Puerto Rican) settlement in the neighborhood esp . 11 ness behind bulletproof shields:
m t e sectIOns closer to the Gowanus Canal. In 1950 P k SI ' eCIa y Right across from where I live I watched them sell, shoot up, keel over
cent white' by 1990 't ' ar ope was 99 per-
Slope s~ . 'hI was 52 percent white. Prank Torres, resident of Park from overdoses, and there were shootings, everybody diving under cars.
) manzes t e events of the time: We were prisoners in our houses and we started fighting. (Lew Smith of
[AJ lot of people round here were civil servants- olice Berkeley Place, in Hodenfield 1986: 9)
clerks-and around the middle 60s th' I ' bP men, token In the midst of all this, pioneer gentrifiers or brownstoners began to move into
d elf sa anes ecame nicer the
:~ar~~ ~aldng $15,000 a year and they really thought they had 'mad~ Park Slope, but in fact a matrix of groups, underpinned by state and federal
h: Ig tIme and nght away they had to buy a house with a garage and government legislation which encouraged reinvestment in 'rundown' neigh-
c Imneys .... They went to Long Island and New Jersey-if the went borhoods (Squires 1992), were responsible for reinvestment in Park Slope.
~ New Jersey they really wanted to go to California-and alr the Pioneer gentrifiers, neighborhood groups and organizations, public utility
e~azano B:idge was built they went to Staten Island, but they all left companies, and property developers all contributed to the revalorization of
~t t e same tIme, when the blacles and the Puerto Ricans moved' a Park Slope (Carpenter and Lees 1995: 295). In the pioneer phase of gentrifica-
mg the early 60s. That chased even the poor white people out m Aur~ tion, many gentrifiers undertook their own work; this was known as 'sweat
the landlords who were getting $45 to $50 rents from world~" c1~s equity'. 'Sweat equity' was a loan proVided to finance some of the rehabilita-
people found out they could get $150 to $175 f 1£ .g. tion costs of a property, where the prospective owners do much of the work
(Hodenfield 1986: 8) rom we are reCIpIents.
themselves. 'Homesteading' was another term for it. Brownstoning in Park
In the United States up until the Second World War, less than half Slope was initially undertaken often without financial assistance; indeed,
populatIOn was owner-occupiers and less than half of the availabl h of the in the 1960s and 1970s there was active redlining of the area. Jan Maruca
was Single-family units. The years 1948-1960 '. e ousmg (1978: 3) sums up the problem of gaining access to a mortgage for Park Slope
saw a maSSIve mcrease in home property in the 1970s: '[GJetting a mortgage might be compared to going on a
24 • Gentrification The Birth of Gentrification • 25

Big Game Safari: it requires careful advance preparation, proper equipment, Plate 1.9 An Advertisement for a Park Slope House Tour
skilful tracking-and still you may come home with an empty bag'.
In 1966, a group called the ParkSIope Betterment Committee bought houses PARK SLOPE: TIIEN AND NOW
and began to advertise them through brokers to 'white collar workers'; their aim
was to stabilize the area. This washeraIded as 'private initiative' (CivicNews 1969:
9). They were one of the first progentrification groups to emerge in Park Slope;
their founder, Everett Ortner, had moved from BrooIdyn Heights to Park Slope
in 1963. He said, 'I realized that unless other people learned an appreciation
for the community and began moving in, the area would eventually die'. Their
sole ambition was to 'drum up business' and recruit like-minded others to
establish Park Slope as a solid and vital community (MilkowsId 1981). Initially
each member pledged $250, and the money went towards putting up binders
for the purchase of houses that the committee thought would interest young
couples and for advertising the virtues of the neighborhood. By way of exam-
ple, a four-story brownstone came up for sale on 6th Avenue; Joseph Ferris,
then president of the Park Slope Betterment Committee, immediately placed
a binder on the house and called two friends-Everett Ortner and Robert
Weiss, a publishing executive. They called several friends, and the house was
bought for $18,000 by friends ofWeiss (Monaghan 1966). They sent brochures
to BrooIdyn Heights, Greenwich Village, and the West Side of Manhattan,
obviously having a particular set of people in mind-gentrifiers. They gained
the support of the Park Slope Civic Council, a not-far-profit organization that
grew out of the South Brooklyn Board of Trade, which was concerned with
civic issues in the area. The Fark Slope Civic Council had already organized
house tours in Park Slope: the first occurred as early as 1959, and such tours
were effectively a form of public real estate promotion (see Plate 1.9).
32nd Annual House Tour
In the early days, gentrification in Park Slope was not just about maIdng
profit. One journalist commenting on brownstoning in Park Slope noted, 'No
Sunday, May 19, 1991 Noon to 5 P. M.
one recommended buying brownstones as an investment per se. Most people Advance nckec;; $8.00 Day of Tour Ttclu:t5: $10.00
An lbuar, ~ Ninu. Si.
noted that if they put their money into US treasury notes, if not Big Mac Weddal"-nn auur, 197 SnmIhn=t~'&rond" ThinlS..,
W~-Kty F~ C<xno:rnfCarru/lSt. It ~ A~. ....J. Sa~ A"' .. l'lorIh_ a.mcr

bonds, they would realize at least the same return with less effort' (Gershun
presented by the Park Slope Civic Council - For More infonnauon caU (718) 788·9150
1975: 28). Gentrification was not just about economics, as Plate LlD shows. The
new breed of middle-class brownstone owner in Park Slope was characterized
as 'idealistic, unprejudiced, adventurous and energetic' (Holton 1968).
Rothenberg (1995) discusses how Park Slope became home to one of the
largest concentrations of lesbians living in the United States (see Chapter
3 on gay gentrification). Her account reveals the relationship between the
neighborhood's gentrification and the well-educated liberal politics of the
'alternative' people who moved in during the 1970s. She tells how lesbians were
attracted to the neighborhood's cheap housing and alternative community, Ironically, given the displacement that occurred, Park Slope's pioneer
and how mainly through word of mouth (Rothenberg's work is tellingly gentrifiers were interested in keeping a socially mixed neighborhood and were
titled "'And She Told Two Friends"" .'), Park Slope became a supportive, concerned with homelessness and public or low-rent housing (see Chapter 6 on
liberal, and tolerant queer space. gentrification and social mixing). Nevertheless, in the early 1970s there was a
 26 • Gentrification
The Birth of Gentrification • 27

Plate1.1D Brownston. Brooklyn: 'A Place for All Reasons' dual real estate market in Park Slope (O'Hanlon 1982: 145), one for blacks and
one for whites. Blockbusting real tors would send out information on houses
I being for sale that were not for sale to stimulate turnover in the neighborhood,
~
and brokers would buy houses from families in the poorer area west of 7th
I Avenue and sell them to blacks and Hispanics at twice the price.
Public utility companies were also active in the gentrification of Park Slope
f in an attempt to stabilize the area. Their initiatives were part ofthe 'greenlining'
"i movement designed to persuade banks to cooperate in the restoration of
Brooklyn's neighborhoods by providing mortgages and other loans. As early
as 1965, Brooklyn Union Gas restored a four-story brownstone in Park Slope
BROWNSTONE BROOICLYN: which was too large to be revitalized by the public. At this time there was no

fPla~!!; A".~~.
government aid for revitalization; therefore, people in Park Slope approached
Brooklyn Union Gas for help. The Brooldyn Union Gas Company 'saved'
Prospect Place, between 6th Avenue and Flatbush Avenue, by adapting three
old abandoned stores into one-story residences and renovating the exteriors of
other buildings on the block, including the trompe I'oeil paintings on the sides
of three of the buildings (Muir 1977: 33). The scheme was financed by Greater
New York Savings Bank and the Federal Housing Association. This and other
projects were referred to as the 'Cinderella Schemes': 'What was sound and
sturdy was restored! What was ugly was made beautiful-just like Cinderella'
('Civic News' 1972: 10-13). The Cinderella schemes attempted to bring about
change by stimulating the private sector to invest in the revitalization of
threatened neighborhoods. Brooldyn Union Gas also opened the Brownstone
Information Center, which gave the public information on the basics of reno-
vation and rehabilitation and sponsored workshops in conjunction with the
Park Slope Civic Council's annual house tours. In the early 1970s, William
E. Hand of Brooklyn Union Gas said, 'One of the vital signs of a healthy New
York City is the incredible rebirth of decrepit blocks into attractive middle
income neighborhoods' ('Civic News' 1973: 4). It was no coincidence though
that such revitalization stabilized Brooldyn Union Gas's customer base and
helped profit margins in decaying neighborhoods-note the references to gas
in this description of the restorations in the Prospect Place project mentioned
earlier: 'The gas-lit outside appeal of the new homes is complemented by the
comfort features inside: year round gas air conditioning and plenty ofliving
space that spills over into free-form backyard patios dotted with evergreen
shrubbery and gas-fired barbeques' (,Civic News' 1972: 12).
Park Slope attained landmark status in 1973-the landmark conservancy
offered tax rebates on bUilding restoration and maintenance or a tax remis-
sion to save certain landmarked buildings (see Map 1.3). Landmark status was
secured due to the activities of pioneer gentrifiers and the Park Slope Civic
Council. Evelyn Drtner, wife of Everett Drtner, documented the architecture
We get a ,Iear sense here of the economi, and cultural dim.nsions of gentrification-see Chapters 2 and 3 and history of Park Slope and sent this to the Landmarks Preservation Com-
Source: The Phoenix, 1975. Reprinted with permission of The Phoetli."C. .
mittee for scrutiny before landmark status was awarded.
 28 • Gentrification
The Birth of Gentrification • 29
- ·1973 LANOMARK PRESERVATION

1980s (Griffin 1982: 26). The three census tracts that border Grand Army Plaza,
prospect Park West, 1st Street, and 6th Avenue, had 72 percent of Park Slope's
cI,nv1ersi'Dn filings from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s. Indeed, between 1977 and
1984, applications were filed fur 130 conversions; thIs made up 21 percent of the
applications from the Borough ofBrooldyn alone (Lees 1994b: 148).
During this first anchoring phase of gentrification, redlining was still rife;
in one such example, in 1977 Bart Meyers and Alice Radosh wanted to buy
afour-story browns tone in Park Slope, which they planned to upgrade and
convert. The house cost $79,000; they had a deposit of $20,000 in cash, an
annual income of over $30,000, and no credit problems. They got the $59,000
mortgage they needed only after going to sixty-one banks, and then only
because of a personal connection (Fried 1978: 23). Private mortgages and cash
were consistently used to buy property in Park Slope between 1965 and 1988,
but bank mortgages became more important after 1975, probably due to the
1977 Federal Community Reinvestment Act, which outlawed the discrimi-
nation caused by redlining undertaken by specific financial institutions, and
the fact that in 1978 the act became state law in New York State. Probably
affected by the 1977 act and 1978 law and by grassroots pressure, local com-
mercial and savings banks initiated liberal mortgage programs in Park Slope
after 1978 (O'Hanlon 1982: 150). Chase Manhattan Bank produced the Urban
Home Loan Program, which was designed to booster the rehabilitation of
vacant 1-4-family homes, offering acquisition, construction, and permanent
financing in one package at its prime lending rate. Citibank became the main
lending institution; in fliers, it laid claim as 'the bank that helped preserve
Park Slope's history', and it even designed a Citibank tote bag with a distinc-
tive Park Slope logo. Although there were numerous federal programs at the
time providing capital for property rehabilitation (see Lees 1994b: 201-203),
most of the reinvestment in Park Slope seems to have occurred without the
assistance of public subsidies. Indeed, follOWing on the heels of the Cinderella
scheme discussed earlier, another utility company, Con Edison, offered simi-
Map 1.3 The Park Slope landmark District, 1973 lar help in the form of its 'Renaissance' housing rehabilitation programs. One
example was the former Higgins Ink building on 8th Street between 4th and
If ~ne adopts Nen Smith's (1979) 'rent gap schema' (see Chapter 2; see also
5th Avenues, which was converted into ten middle-income co-op apartments.
Paul Kerzer, an early coordinator of Con Edison's Renaissance program, said.
N. Sm.1th, Duncan, and Reid [1989], who operationalizedit using tax arrears data) to
establish the turning po' t t hich ell . 'We believe Brooklyn has embarked on a major renaissance of neighborhood
. . ill a W Sillvestment was succeeded by reinvestment
stability and of rebuilding our major preservation efforts' ('The Brownstoner'
m Park Slop~, 1t was 1976, for that year had the highest rate, 7.1 percent ofbuUdings
1981: 9). The Renaissance program was designed to make more co-op apart-
5;- quarters m tax arrears (calculated from data on tax arrears for {970-1980 in
ments available and offered legal, architectural, and financial services to the
o Hanl?n 1982: 20?). That cooperative (also Imown as 'co-op') and condominium
converSlOns began m 197~ (~ew York City Department of City Plarming 1985: 12) community. The state was also a player in the process of gentrification in New
York City and Park Slope at this time with federal policies such as Section
can~ot be consI~ered a cOincIdence, given there was no real interest from develo _
~rs m un,dertalong such conversions before 1977, that is, before the closure of ~e 203(k) Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance, Community Development Block
rent gap. Co-ops became very visible in the north and central Slope in the early Grants, and the lilce, and state government programs such as New York City's
)-51 Program (which gave tax exemption and tax abatement), which was used
 30 • Gentrification
The Birth of Gentrification • 31

to rehabilitate 9.7 percent of Park Slope's multifamily units between 1970 and
1980 (Lees 1994b: 210-211). Box 1.1
During this anchoring phase of gentrification, active displacement
Clay's (1979) Stage Model ofGentrification
occurred. For example, in 1981 the tenants of a Garfield Place apartment block
due to be renovated into six co-ops were harassed by the landlord cutting off Stage 1
their heat and hot water for ten days in October, sealing off the basement, and [A] small group of risk-oblivious people move in and renovate proper-
denying them access to fuse boxes and the baclcyard. One tenant said, 'There is ties for their own use. Little public attention is given to renovation at this
a large displacement going on in Park Slope and people don't have any place to stage, and little displacement occurs because the newcomers often take
turn' (Goodno 1982: 1). The politics of gentrification in the area were compli- housing that is vacant or part of the normal market turnover in what is
cated-the main grassroots actor in the area was, and still is, the Fifth Avenue often an extremely soft market. This pioneer group accepts the risks of
Committee, which was/is prorehabilitation but antigentrification (see Chapter such amove.
7 for a detailed case study of the Fifth Avenue Committee): Sweat equity and private capital are used almost exclUSively, since
conventional mortgage funds are unavailable. This first stage is well
There are few options for improving the quality oflife in the neighbor- under way before it receives any public recognition, although even at this
hood beyond bringing in capital. " .\But the question remains for whom. early stage the grapevine is spreading the word. The first efforts are con-
We want to attract capital into the area but we don't want to be washed centrated in very small areas, often two to three blocks. The first group of
out with it. (Fran Justa, former president of the Fifth Avenue Commit- newcomers usually contains a Significant number of design profession-
tee, quoted in DeRocker 1981: 6)
als or artists who have the skill, time, and ability to undertake extensive
From the mid-late 1980s onwards, a more mediated form of gentrification rehabilitation. (In Boston, San Francisco and other cities, respondents
became apparent when co-op and conda conversions began to dominate-the suggested it was the homosexual community who made up the popula-
developer as gentrifier was more noticeable, and <Ready Maders' were cre- tion. They seek privacy and have the money and the taste to take on this
ated (Draper 1991: 177-178) where the purchaser would buy a property with a challenge. One observer suggested that "Smart money will follow homo-
ready-made image. This marked the end of pioneer or classical gentrification sexuals in cities.")
in Park Slope. By this stage, the elite housing on Park Slope's upper slope was Stage 2
pretty much thoroughly gentrified. Later processes were quite different-by' [A] few more of the same type of people move in and fix up houses for their
the mid-1990s, the upper slopes were experiencing 'super-gentrification' (Lees
own use. Subtle promotional activities are begun, often by a few percep-
2000), a topic discussed in Chapter 4, and the much cheaper lower slopes were tive realtors. Small-scale speculators may renovate a few houses in visible
experiencing overspill gentrmcation (see Chapter 7).
locations for resale or rentaL Rarely does a large speculator come in at this
Early Stage Models stage, because capital for investors and residents is still scarce. Those who
come in at this stage seek units that are relatively easy to acquire-vacant
The early stage models of gentrification developed in the 1970s and 1980s to buildings owned by absentee landlords, city-owned or tax-foreclosed
both explain the process and predict the future course of gentrification mir- properties.
rored Glass's definition of classical gentrification and generally described the Some displacement occurs as vacant housing becomes scarce. Those
changes as a filtering process in the manner of some of the early ecologists. who come in stages one and two will later be considered the old-timers in
Clay (1979) produced one of the first major studies of gentrification. this new neighborhood.
Undertaking a survey of expert informants, he found that private urban If the neighborhood is to have its name changed, it often happens
reinvestment had occurred in all of the largest U.S. cities in the late 1970s. Most at this stage. New boundaries are identified, and the media begin to pay
of the American gentrified neighborhoods that he found were at least seventy- attention to the area ....
five years old, the houses were usually Victorian and occupied byworking-class In some neighborhoods mortgage money becomes available, but the
famllies, and some properties were abandoned. Clay (1979: 57-60) developed loan is more often secured by other property, given by the seller, or given
one of the first stage models of gentrmcation; he outlined a schema from stage 1 for a relatively low percentage of the total investment. Renovation spreads
(pioneer gentrification) to stage 4 (maturing gentrification) (see Box 1.1). to adjacent blocks.
32 • Gentrification The Birth of Gentrification • 33

Stage 3 downtown or a major institution. Rapid price and rent spirals are set off'.
[AJt this stage major media or official interest is directed to the neighbor- Displacement now affects not only renters but some home owners as well.
hood. The pioneers may continue to be important in shaping the process, Additional neighborhoods in the city are being discovered to meet the
but they are not the only important ones. Urban renewal may begin ... or increasing demand of the middle class. While some controversy emerges,
a developer ... may move in. Individual investors who restore or renovate especially related to displacement, relatively little is done to dampen
housing for their own use continue to buy into their neighborhood. The middle-class reinvestment.
trend is set for the kind of rehabilitation activity that will dominate. Phys-
Source: This is an abbreviated version of Clay (1979: 57-59).
ical improvements become even more visible because of their volume and
because of the general improvement they make to the whole area. Prices
begin to escalate rapidly. He based his model on observations and data from a number of cities, including
Displacement continues .... Boston's South End, Philadelphia's Society Hill, San Francisco's Western
The arrivals in this third stage include increasing numbers of people Addition, and Washington's Capitol Hill. He stated, 'The following elaborated
who see the housing as an investment in addition to being a place to live. typology of stages in the development of gentrification neighborhoods is
These newer middle-class residents begin to organize their own groups or useful for predictive purposes' (p. 57). But given that Clay's (1979) model
change the character of the pioneers' organization. was developed in the early days of the process, it is heavily skewed towards
The organized community turns outward to promote the neigh- descriptions of pioneer or first-wave gentrification (see Chapter 5 for a more
borhood to other middle-class people and to make demands for pub- recent stage model). Clay recognizes this; as he says,
lic resources. It turns inward to exert peer influence on neighbors and
to shape community life. Tensions between old residents and the gentry This short summary of the process is all that the present set of cases
begin to emerge. Social service institutions and subsidized housing are allows. Butthis is not the end ofthe story. Not all the units have been taken
resisted with passion. Protective or defensive actions against crime are by the middle class, and price and demand are still high. There is room
taken. If the new residents, especially the most recent arrivals, are less for substantial growth of the middle class population within the pres-
tolerant of lower or working-class behavior, these tensions may become ent gentrification areas"" Because relatively few neighborhoods have
serious. Banks begin to greenline the area, loolting for spatial patterns of actually completed gentrification, the mature gentrified neighborhood
reinvestment and then malting loans to middle-class buyers and investors cannot be described as confidently as the process. (p. 59)
within the limited area .... As such, it is much less useful as a tool for describing later processes of
The popular image of the process of change at this stage is clearly gen- gentrification in the 1980s and 1990s. Do note the assumption that the
trification and is treated as such by the media. The neighborhood is now neighborhoods will move towards a stage of complete gentrification, for in
viewed as safe for larger numbers of young middle-class professionals. Chapter 4 we will discuss new processes of gentrification that are occurring
Stage 4 that contradict such predictions of an endpoint of mature gentrification.
Clay's model is also a very American model-as such, some of the elements
[AJ larger number of properties are gentrified, and the middle-class con-
are not ones that wonld have been found in the United Kingdom, or elsewhere,
tinues to come. What is Significant about the new residents is that more
are from the business and managerial middle class than from the profes- at that time. But perhaps what is most strilting about Clay's model is that
sional middle class. '" it states Richard Florida's (2003) thesis on the creative class (see Preface)
twenty-three years before it was developedl And contra the new policy ideas
Efforts may be made to win historic district deSignation or to obtain
other stringent public controls to reinforce the private investment that has about gentrification and social mixing in the United Kingdom and elsewhere
taken place. (see Preface and Chapter 4), stage 3 suggests not harmonious mixing but
actual conflict!
Buildings that have been held for speculation appear on the market. ...
Writing at the same time, Gale (1979) formulated a classic gentrification
Small, specialized retail and professional services or commercial activi-
ties begin to emerge, especially if the neighborhood is located near the model that underlined class and status distinctions between old and new
residents in a gentrifying neighborhood. He drew on research in three
34 • Gentrification The Birth of Gentrification • 35

areas at different stages of the gentrification process in Washington, D.C. her criticisms, Rose has a go at defining gentrification based on population
Unlike with 'incumbent upgrading', where residents rehabilitate their own turnover defined on the basis of residents' incomes. At the end of Chapter 4,
homes without an associated population turnover, Gale's model of classical we discuss the conceptualization of gentrification as 'chaotic' and outline a
gentrification emphasized population change in terms of the displacement of less chaotic take on the process, drawing on Clark (2005).
former working-class residents. The gentrifier type is described by Gale as
follows: Summary
In this chapter, we looked at the birth of gentrification as a process and
The most typical such household is childless and composed of one or
the coining of the term. We looked at different definitions of the process
two white adults in their late twenties or thirties. College educated, often
and different terms for the process. The two case studies of classical
possessing graduate education, the household head is most likely a
gentrification-one in London and one in New York-show in detail the
professional or (less commonly) a manager. The annual household
neighborhood trajectories from disinvestment to reinvestment that are the
income ... is likely to range between $15,000 and $30,000 (the US median
focus of the production explanations in Chapter 2. Barnsbury illustrates
was about $14,900 in 1977) with several resettlers earning more tllan
the 'value gap', and Park Slope illustrates the 'rent gap'. The activities of
$40,000. (1979: 295)
pioneer gentrifiers that are the focus of the consumption explanations in
The differences between Clay's (1979) and Gale's (1979) stage models of Chapter 3 are also listed in detail-their sweat equity, the politicization of
gentrmcation indicate how different emphases and interests in gentrification interest groups and their greenlining activities, and their commitment to
research lead to different 'pictures' or 'stories' of the process (as we shall see in a new urbane way of life. We conclude the chapter with a look at the early
Chapters 2 and 3). stage models that were developed to try to explain the process before turn-
One of the reasons that stage models of gentrification were developed ing to explanations in more detail in Chapters 2 and 3, and updating these
was to cope with the temporal variations in gentrification that were already stage models in Chapter 5.
apparent in the 1970s. Gentrification stage models were designed to represent
gentrification in an orderly, temporal. sequential progression. Risk is center Activities and Exercises
stage in these models, for in the first stage or pioneer stage, risk-oblivious Watch the movies Batteries Not Included (1987; director: Matthew
households are seen to move into risky neighborhoods. The pioneer gentrifier Robbins; presented by Steven Spielberg) and/or High Hopes (1988;
works in the cultural professions, is risk oblivious, wants to pursue a director: Mil<e Leigh).
nonconformist lifestyle, wants a sOcially mixed environment, and rehabilitates Think about how Clay's (1979) gentrification stage model corresponds
his or her property using sweat equity. Then more risk-conscious mainstream to the case studies presented here of Barnsbury and Park Slope.
professionals move in, some with young families. Realtors and developers Read the critique of stage models of gentrification in Damaris Rose
start to show an interest, and as property prices increase the original residents (1984), 'Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development
might be pushed out. Over time, older and more affluent and conservative of Marxist Urban Theory: in Environment and Planning D: Society
households move in, attracted to what is now a safe investment. Eventually; and Space.
gentrification is seen to stabilize at an endpoint of mature gentrification. Read some different stories of pioneer gentrification: on the Lower
Rose (1984) was one of the first people to question the way that gentrifi- East Side, see Abu-Lughod (1994) and Neil Smith (1996a); on Kitsi-
cation was being conceptualized. She was concerned about the generalized lano in Vancouver, see Ley (1981, 1996); on the Lower East Side
descriptions of typical gentrifiers and typical gentrified neighborhoods. Rose and Park Slope, see Lees and Bondi (1995); and on Society Hill in
(1984) criticized stage models for lumping together different processes and Philadephia and False Creek in Vancouver, see Cybriwsky, Ley, and
effects; she preferred to see gentrification as a 'chaotic concept' in which Western (1986).
different actors, housing tenures, motives, and allegiances coexisted. For Rose, Read the conference papers in van Weesep and Musterd (1991),
'the terms "gentrification" and "gentrifiers" ... are "chaotic conceptions" which Housillg for the Better-Off: Gentrijication ill Europe, to learn about
obscure the fact that a multiplicity of processes, rather than a single causal gentrification in different parts of Europe and how it might differ
process, produce changes in the occupation of inner-city neighbourhoods from the cases shown here. On Amsterdam, read Neil Smith (1996a:
from the lower to higher income residents' (1984: 62). Interestingly, despite 166-173).
36 • Gentrification

Read Joseph Barry and John Derevlany (eds.), Yltppies Invade My

Holtse at Dinnertime: A Tale of Brunch, Bombs, and Gentrification
in an American City (1987; Hoboken, NJ: Big River Publishing). This
book is a collection of letters from the Hoboken Reporter that are
testimony to the intense gentrification that Hoboken, New Jersey,
underwent in the 1980s.

Further Reading
Badcock. B. (2001) 'Thirty years on: Gentrification and class changeover in Adelaide's
inner suburbs, 1966-96', Urbml Studies 38:1559-1572.
Carpenter, J.• and L. Lees. (1995) 'Gentrification in New York. London and Paris:
An international comparison', International Joumal of Urban and Regional
Research, 19.2: 286-303. Reprinted in M. Pacione (ed.) Land-Use, Structure and
Change in the Western City. val. 2 of The City: Critical Concepts in the Social
Sciences (London: Routledge) 544-5,66.
Caulfield, J. (1989) City Form and Everyday Life: Toronto's Gentrijication and Critical
Social Practice (Toronto: University of Toronto Press),
Glass, R. (1989) Cliches of Urban Doom (Oxford: Blackwell). (Read pp. 132-158 and
159-183.)
Holcomb, H. B.. and R. A. Beauregard (1981) Revitalizing Cities (Washington, DC:
Association of American Geographers),
Lees, L. (1994b) 'Gentrification in London and New York: An Atlantic gapl' Housing
Studies 9, 2: 199-217.
Lyons, M., and J. Gelb (1993) 'A tale of two cities: Housing policy and gentrification in
London and New York', Journal of Urban Affairs 15, 4: 345-366.
van Weesep, J•• and S. Musterd (1991) HOllsing for the Better-off: Gentrification in
Europe (Utrecht, the Netherlands: Stedelijke Netwerken).
Zukin, S. (1982) Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change (Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press),
 2
Producing Gentrification
cl.
m
~
""
~

i!!
~
oS
~
~
0 The urban wilderness produced by the cyclical movement of capital and
".s
~
its devalorization have, from the perspective of capital, become new
= urban frontiers of profitability. Gentrification is a frontier on which for-
""
0
0
~ tunes are made. From the perspective of working-class residents and
~
~
~
their neighborhoods, however, the frontier is more directly political
.2
~
> rather than economic. Threatened with displacement as the frontier of
~

= profitability advances, the issue for them is to fight for the establish-
= ~
m
~
ment of a political frontier behind which working-class residents can
"E take back control of their homes: there are two sides to any frontier.
.2
= ~
.!!!
~
N. Smith (1986: 34)
m

=
=
=
~
Forty years after Ruth Glass coined the term 'gentrification' to describe the
~
class transformation of urban space, the politics of naming seemed to enter a
.El
.!!! new, self-consciously satirical phase. One prominent epicenter of this shift was
.s New York City-birthplace of catchy monikers like SoHo, the area South of
Houston Street on the southern edge of Greenwich Village, which had inspired
= countless imitations in other cities from the 1970s through the 1990s. After
=
= an unusual recession in 2001 that was marked by especially fast house price
~

oS
= increases amidst failing interest rates, the speed of gentrification in New York
'"
1;;
m
"-'
intensified the competition to identify and name the latest, hippest edges of the
frontier. Among the most memorable (if annoying) labels that appeared were
:;;
Mea-Pa, the Meatpaclting District, with NoMeat just to the north; Rambo,
~'"
0

'0 Right Across the Manhattan Bridge Overpass (next to Dumbo, Down Under
m
~
the Manhattan Bridge Overpass, so known thanks to years of promotion by a
=:, '"
~
Single powerful developer); SoHa, South Harlem; and, perhaps most remark-
:; =
.~.....:!
~

= =i!! ~
ably, SoBro, the South Bronx urban disaster memory of arson fires in the 1970s
~
=>

'"
~
m
So
~

c'" ...,>-
~
E .0
0 -
'"
~
now celebrated on the front page of the New York Times as foilows: 'hundreds
of artists, hipsters, Web deSigners, photographers, doctors and journalists have
~
been seduced by the mix ofindustriallofts and nineteenth-century rowhouses'
-""
""
"E u
0 m ;r
'0
~ ~ (Berger 2005a: AI). Before long, humorists at the New Yorker found the name
m 'C
=" .8 game irresistible: in a short piece titled 'Top Brokers Spot the Hot New Neigh-
=
~
0

:::i m
~ ""'" borhoods', Bruce McCall (2004: 28) profiled the city's leading fictional brokers
"
~
.El
m
c:: ~ ~
~
at the most pretentious firms, including The Tweedy Group, Frick-Carnegie
~ ,;j Homes, and Muffy st. Barnabus and Partners (Plate 2.2). Brokers extolled
38
39
 40 • Gentrification
Producing Gentrification • 41

;he virtues ~fWoFa, the old South Flushing site of the 1964 World's Fair"
Queens' New Calvary Cemetery). But the very hottest listings were trumpeted
~efugees pnced out of Dumbo'; while other buyers were encouraged to ~o:r
l"rL"W 'TIlurn und Taxis:
slder Whog (between the Whitestone and Throgs Neck Bridges), BruBou (th -
Bruckner Boulevard school bus parking lot), or MausoQuee {Mausoleums ~ UnGeoWa is still more beachhead than neighborhood, but that hasn't
Plate 2.2 From Soho to SoBro and WoFa? deterred its growing population of New Jerseyites so eager for a Man-
hattan address that they're willing to swim the Hudson and set up house
lOP BROKEIIS SPOT "THE HOT NEW NEIGHBOIIHOODS BY BRUCE McCALL in old piano crates under the George Washington Bridge. Where else
but UnGeoWa offers instant Manhattan prestige, sweeping river views,
and home prices in the low three figures? (McCalI2004: 128)
It soon became clear, however, that the most bizarre images on the gentrification
frontier were not fictional at all. After adjusting for inflation, condo prices in
Manhattan stood at 138 percent of their level near the peak of the 1980s real estate
bubble-and the figure topped 225 percent for single-family homes, duplexes,
and otiler housing types (Bhalia et al. 2004: 95). The share ofhome owners in the
Bronx spending more than 60 percent of their income on hOUSing costs shot up
~There's vibrant new life among from 11.3 percent to 20.0 percent between 1999 and 2002, and more than a fifth
the ru.ins in WaFn, clu:! trendy South "To incrensing numben; of dis-
Flush10g arcn cobbled into being an criminating and unsentimental home of all renters in the city devoted more than half of their income to rent (Bhalia
the site of the 1964~65 New York buyers, the oCCllSionni fine for tomb et al. 2004: 115). Between 1999 and 2002, at least 2,000 New York renters were
World's Fair by refugees prit:ed aut desCCI:ltion seems a small price to pay
of Dumbo. TIle fonnedy forlorn !Or the Gilded Age splendor on offer forced to move by landlord harassment, more than 2,900 were evicted, about
gaggle of abandoned structures and m MnusoQuee, in the sylvan hush 600 were displaced by highway construction or other government actiVities,
cracked IlSpbnlt is a humming habitat ?f sprawling New Calvruy Cemetery,
for young wtiSI.ll, complete with all m ~eem. All-granite construction more than 5,000 were displaced by other private action, and more than 39,000
the amenities that define the bahe- marble floors, stnincd-glnsn window~,
moved because they needed a less expensive residence or had difficulty paying
~inn life style: no Sturbucks, no run- and perpetunllnwn care mnite muu-
mng w~ter, no street cleaning, and no ~oleum living gracious living, and the rent (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2002). And in early 2006, the Associated
converuem subway stops." It nU comes with u scnse of privncy
meant to last through the nj,"Cli." Press reported a proposal to redevelop the old Brooldyn House of Detention
(shuttered in 2003) as a mixed-use project with retail, hOUSing, perhaps a hotel,
and modernized cell blocks. The idea was proposed by Borough President Marty
Markowitz, who said, 'I've already called developers, and there is an interest'
(Caruso 2006). New condos are under construction not far from the old jail, and
brownstones in the vicinity are going for more than $1.5 million; Markowitz
argued, 'It would be foolish if the city does not take advantage of this super-hot
real-estate market' (Julian 2006: 27). The New Yorker observed that Harlem's

Plate 2.2 (Continued) New York's Soho, an acronym for an area south of Houston Street that saw dramatic
~Untillast week. "WllOg a stretth
of shoreline between the Wbitesrone
Chip17sumIJ.ndT=,
~The wced-chokerl rectangle of reinvestment beginning in the 1960s, inspired countless imitators in many cities. The tradition of creative
MtdJj SI. Damahru &I lItttnUJ
and Thrags Neck bridJ,tc5, wllslinle nspha1t that thcy're calling BruBou is names to promote the hottest, hippest new address has become especially competitive in recent years,
more than scrub grass and mud lapped catthing an fast with u'pper Manhattan's with accelerated gentrification in places like Oumbo (Down under the Manhaltan Bridge Overpass), NoMeat
by flotsam-littered tides. Now it has colorful bands of gyp!lies, Siruated on
"UnGeoWn is still mare beachhead the vast Bruckner Boulevard parking (North of the Meatpacking District), SoHa (Southern Harlem), and even SoBro-the South Bronx, a place
leaped to life as a pionel!ling outpost fur cllan neighborhood, but that hasn't
~ew York's surprisingly populous and deterred il.ll gnnvingpopulacion
lot, where hundreds of roomy school once firmly entrenched in the American imagination as a desolate wasteland of poverty, abandonment, and
liternlJy swinging bungee-jumping 5et buses (lots of windows!) sit empty
~Wn by the proximity of two towerin~
oENewlcrseyites so eager for a between clle hours of 5 P.r.L and 6 A.M. arson. This satire, which appeared in the New Yorkerin late 2004, captures some of the irrational exuberance
M~attnn address that they're willing
bndges and plentiful ambulance routes.
to !i'.Vlm the Hudson and setup house
BmBou is JUSt the place: for cl)e ' that infected the competition to coin the newest, most marketable names for the edges of the gentrification
There's nothing like a Sunday saunter peripatetic transient who doesn't mind
along \\fhog's ,vaterside, wbere young
in old piano crates under the George
moving in ~ry night and moving aut
frontier. Production accounts of gentrification emphasize that inner-city neighborhood transformation cannot
Washington Bridge.. Where clse but be understood simply as the product of consumer preference or middle-class demand; the need to pursue
daredevils gadlCf to!,'llZe skyward, amid every mornlOg. A tip for prospective
UnGeoWn offen; instnnt Manhattnn BruBou homesteadern: never buy
IlDnrse choruses of Jump!' or softly profits plays a crucial role in the actions of developers, investors, and many other powerful groups involved
murmured 'Uh-ohl's." prestige. SWl!eping river views, and a school bus from a gypsy if he offen;
home prices in the low three figures?" to throw in his niec!!," in the urban land market.
Source: McCalll7he New Yorker, ©2004 Conde Nast Publications, Inc.
 42 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 43

Parkside Correctional Facility is already going condo as '10 Mount Morris Park of capital in the urban environment. Next we consider how problems with mea-
West', and thus offers valuable lessons 'for anyone interested in breaking into the suring and interpreting the rent gap and other aspects of production explana-
correctional-conversion sector' (Julian 2006: 27). First lesson: . tions inaugurated a series of vibrant debates over the meaning and significance
of neighborhood transformation. Finally, we explore a new generation of studies
Pick the right neighborhood. Prisons aren't usually in affluent residen-
tial districts, so if the housing is to be high end (most of the Mount Mor- that analyze the evolving dynamicS of the production of gentrified landscapes.
ris condominiums will list for more than a million dollars) it will need Back to the City? The Limits of Neoclassical Economics
to be in a neighborhood (like the Mount Morris Park Historic District)
that is already being gentrified. (Julian 2006: 27) In the late 1970s, the future of old industrial cities seemed uncertain and
precarious. Especially in the United States, urban centers had been battered
These images constitute a tiny sample from the multitude of vignettes of by deindustrialization and suburbanization since the 1950s. Suburbanization
contemporary gentrification, which 'has become not a sideshow in the city, accelerated in the 1960s, when many middle- and working-class whites fled as
but rather a major component of the urban imaginary' (Ley 2003: 2527). And African-Americans sought to challenge police brutality, hOUSing and school
it is central not only to the urban imaginary but also to the hard-edged cal- discrimination, and other mechanisms of racial segregation and stratification
culus of speCUlation, risk, profit, and loss-and to the strong sense of entitle- (Jackson 1985; Sugrue 2005). At the same time, however, small pockets of the
ment expressed by Andres Duany's(2001) defense of the 'natural' process old inner city showed signs of reversal: in some places. government-driven
of home price appreciation. In this chapter, we consider the implications of urban renewal programs had created new offices, malls, or upscale residen-
Neil Smith's (1986: 34) insistence that gentrification is a 'frontier on which tial developments for middle-class, mostly white households. Elsewhere, there
fortunes are made', and we scrutinize the motivations and logic followed by seemed to be signs of 'spontaneous' neighborhood revitalization by middle-
aggressive developers, flamboyant real estate brokers, savvy buyers in the class households, many of them young, white, and well educated. After a
market for million-dollar con dos, and budget-conscious government offi- massive spike in gasoline prices in 1973 (a shock that was repeated six years
cials. We examine production explanations-theories that explain how the later), commuting costs spiraled for suburbanites even as the combined effects
possibility of winning enormous fortunes provides powerful incentives that of recession, inflation, and high interest rates played havoc with housing
shape the behavior of individuals, groups, and institutions that have a stake market activity. All of these trends seemed to call into question the survival of
in what happens on the urban frontier. Although individuals and organiza- the i\merican dream' of owning the Single-family suburban house.
tions certainly consider a wide variety of factors when they make the kinds of In the midst of this gloomy picture, signs of change in several inner-city
decisions that can affect a neighborhood, many of the constraints that narrow neighborhoods seemed to offer hope for a brighter urban future. Popular
the field of attractive choices can be traced to fundamental rules of economic media observations of inner-city change led scholars and policy analysts to
production in market economies. Production explanations show how neigh- see an encouraging 'back to the city' movement that might be able to reverse
borhood change is connected to underlying rules of the game-economic the effects of decades of white flight suburbanization. In 1977, Everett Ortner
relations, legal principles and practices, institutional arrangements, and pure (the Park Slope gentrifier we met in Chapter 1), the managing editor of Popular
political struggles-in which value and profit are produced and distributed. Science Monthly, claimed that '[black to the city is an important movement
In this chapter, we begin by tracing how production explanations emerged in that is going on in every city in the country' (quoted in Beauregard 2003b:
the 19705 in response to Widespread popular fascination with an urban 'renais- 207). That same year, in one of the first widely cited scholarly analyses of gen-
sance'. Many of the urgent questions people ask today about gentrification trification, Gregory Lipton (1977) suggested that
have been shaped in profound ways by the legacy of a previous generation of
scholars-and developers, policy makers, and investors as welI as displacees, [wlhile the dominant pattern may involve the loss of a middle- and
activists, protesters, and community organizers. We need to consider the his- upper-income, predominantly white population from the center and
tory of how certain urban processes have been understood at various points in their replacement by lower-income, predominantly black and other
time-while avoiding the temptation to see the history ofideas as a neat, orderly minority populations. a fairly large number of cities are experiencing
march of paradigms. Even today, perspectives on gentrification and neighbor- some population changes running counter to this major trend. (p. 137)
hood change remain the site of considerable disagreement. We then examine Most observers saw the changes underway as the result of middle-class life-
the single most influential production explanation, Neil Smith's rent gap frame- style changes that were altering locational preferences. For Lipton and many
work, and its position in broader political-economic theories of the circulation others, the distinctive features of the baby boom generation (postponed
 44 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 45

marriages, fewer or no children. and rising divorce rates) combined with- the was a back-to-the-city movement driven by changes in Iocational preferences.
rising costs in money and time spent for commuting all served to 'decrease the why were middle-class preferences changing? There was a palpable sense of
relative desirability of single-family, suburban homes compared to central city surprise and shock during these years, because gentrification was not at all
multiple-family dwellings' (Lip ton 1977: l47). A flood of statements appeared what neoclassical urban theory had predicted.
soon afterwards with the back-to-the-city theme, predictably accompanied - By the time Neil Smith was being asked at parties if he had invented
by euphoria over a timely possible remedy to decades of decay. In 1977, for gentrification, the dominant perspective in urban studies was a blend of the
example, Baltimore's Mayor Fred Schaefer trumpeted that 'people are starting social and spatial theories of the Chicago School of Sociology, and the meth-
to come back and live here ... they're beginning to find out there is something ods and assumptions of neoclassical economics. These frameworks portrayed
alive here. They're coming back for ... life, pride, activity' (quoted in Ley 1996: the suburbanization of middle-class and wealthy households as the driving
33). And for the preface of an edited collection titled Back to the City (Laska force of urban growth, suburban expansion, and overall metropolitan hous-
and Spain 1980), former New Orleans Mayor Moon Landrieu declared, ing market change. Among the many legacies of the Chicago School, one of
the most enduring was the idea that the urban environment tends towards
Americans are coming back to the city. All across the country, older
equilibrium much as an organism does, with individuals and groups sorting
inner-city neighborhoods are exhibiting a new vitality and a renewed
sense of community. (Laska and Spain 1980: ix) themselves into 'natural areas' that constituted a city symbiotically balanced
between cooperation and conflict (see Hiebert [2000] for a concise summary
This type of view had become mainstream through the 1970s. Although the of the Chicago School's influence on geography). This logiC laid the founda-
fate of the city was uncertain, the conventional wisdom held that a growing tion for ideas of spatial eqUilibrium and economic competition that were used
wave of young, well-educated professionals were choosing to come back to the to develop neoclassical models of urban land markets in the late 1950s and
city-and the choices of these 'urban pioneers' were helping to spur renewal, early 1960s (Alonso 1964; Muth 1969).fn,"ese models explained suburbani-
renovation, revitalization, and perhaps a full-fledged urban renaissance. At zation in terms of an overriding consumer preference for space, combined
the time, these sunny. optimistic terms overshadowed the cumbersome, class- with differences in the ability of high- and low-income households to engage
laden word 'gentrification'. Years later, Neil Smith reflected on his experience in locational trade-offs between access to centralized employment and the
coming from small-town Scotland to Philadelphia in 1976: cheaper land prices available on the lower-density urban frin~easuring
these trade-offs in terms of the costs per unit of area, the neoclassical model
In those days I had to explain to everyone-friends, fellow students, seemed to account for tbe.spa tia1 paradox ef4l.1e y S city- m;ddle-chlSS and
professors, casual acquaintances, smalltalkers at parties-what precisely
wealthy households living on chea suburban lan door and workin -
this arcane academic term meant. Gentrification is the process, I would
class households forced to crowd into dense apartment blocks on expensive,
begin, by which poor and working-class neighborhoods in the inner city
centrally located inner-city land. Layered on top of these models was the con "
are refurbished via an influx of private capital and middle-class home-
cept of residential 'filtering: advanced by Homer Hoyt based on his analysis
buyers and renters .... The poorest working-class neighborhoods are
getting a remake; capital and the gentry are coming home, and for some
of new kinds of housing statistics first collected by government agencies in
the 1930s and 1940s. Hoyt observed that new houses and new neighborhoods
1
in their wal<e it is not an entirely pretty sight. Often as not that ended the
were almost always built for higher-income households, and that as homes
conversation, but it also occasionally led to exclamations that gentrifica-
(and neighborhoods) aged, they 'filtered down' and became more affordable
tion sounded like a great idea: had I come up with it? (Smith 1996a: 32)
for progressively poorer groups (Hoy! 1939).
As the influence of neoclassical economics grew in the 1960s, many of the
Challenging the Sovereign Consumer
descriptive and qualitative accounts of the Chicago School came to be formal-
This sunny view of'revitalization' and 'renaissance' ignored the harsh realities ized and expressed in increasingly sophisticated mathematical and quantitative
of poverty, displacement, and chronic shortages of affordable housing. And terms. In the course of creating these formal models, however, the neoclas-
the popular debate began to expose fundamental flaws in the dominant sical urbanists had built everything on the foundations of equilibrium and
framework used to study cities and urban problems. Press accounts and quick- consumer sovereignty (Lake 1983). The form and function of the city, the argu-
turnaround tabulations of census data were producing a vast Jiteratllre that ment went, could be understood as the result of choices made by innumerable
for the mQst..parLdescribed changes jn lifestyle, demographic conditions, and individual decision makers. Consumers rationally choose amongst available
locational patter!l.s-while appealing to self-evident explanations. But if there options in order to maximize satisfaction or 'utility: subject to the constraints
 46 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 47

of their available resources. Firms compete to serve the needs of these utility- location of affluent neighborhoods near the central business district.
maximizing consumers, and in the case of neighborhoods and housing, ,the Economists would say that in such neighborhoods the bid rent curVe of
resulting market wili yield the spatial trade-offs between space and accessibil- the inmovers must be steeper than the curves of both the poor who live
ity that structure different residential patterns. If such a competitive market is in the central city and the inmovers' suburban counterparts. That is, the
allowed to operate free of cumbersome regulations and other distortions, the well-ta-do people who move into revitalizing neighborhoods value both
neoclassical reasoning continues, the incentives for both producers and con- land and accessibility, and can afford to pay for them both. They thus
sumers to optimize their behavior will push the urban environment towards outbid all other groups for land close to the urban core.
an equilibrium-such that there will be no systematic shortages of housing, for
example-while yielding the maximum amount of utility for the maximum Following this logic, gentrification is the natural outcome of shifts in the
number of people. The conceptual simplicity of such arguments-along with trade-offs between accessibility and space that make inner-city locations
the confidence of their moral implications and the mathematical sophistica- more attractive for wealthier households. It's just a new spatial equilibrium
tion of their expression in textbooks and articles-has allowed neoclassical (see Figure 2.1). But revising assumptions on consumer choices left critics
economics to play a decisive role in discussions among urban scholars and gov- wondering how useful the neoclassical models really were: was this explalla-
ernment officials with the power to shape the rules of the game of urban life. tion or description? And if so many consumers were changing their decisions
As new sources of data on urban population and housing proliferated, devel- in response to new conditions, why not reconsider the ideology of consumer
opments in computer technologies and applied multivariate statistics made it 'choice' and examine the role of those constraints instead? What about the
possible for the neoclassical urbanists to provide increasingly detailed mea-
sures. simulations, and predictions. Government planning efforts expanded, Figure 2.1 Gentrification as Bid-Rent Consumer Sovereignty. Neoclassical theory explains gen-
and neoclassical frameworks that had been devised to explaill urban structure trification as the equilibrium solution to a change in the housing and transportation trade-offs
came to be imposed 011 cities in the form of planning and zoning regulations, made by middle- and upper-income consumers.
transportation investments, and housing policies (Metzger 2000). Together, all In Revitalizing Americas Cities, Schill and Nathan
of these dominant tendencies in 1960s urbanism created a compelling nar- (1983) revised the dominant bid-rent model
rative-making it appear that suburban wealth and growth juxtaposed with (Alonso, 1964; Muth, 1969) to incorporate dif-
inner-city poverty and decline were all natural, logical, and inevitable (Beau- ferent assumptions on the preference for space
regard 1993; Harvey 1973; Hiebert 2000; Metzger 2000). and accessibility among higher-income consum-
ers. In the standard formulation, middle-class
Gentrification dlrectlycontradicted this narrative. The appearance ofsubstan-
and wealthy households have a preference for ,.",.",
tial pockets of gentrification in dozens of cities rendered consumer sovereignty spacious residential environments, and can eas-
explanations deeply problematic-challenging the foundational assumptions of ily afford the transportation expenses of distant,
spatial preferences and filtering, and perhaps the axiom of individual consumer low-density suburbs. Upper-income households A
choice itself On the one hand, initial proclamations of a back-to-the-city move- thus outbid lower-income households in the sub-
ment were contradicted by evidence that gentrifiers came mostly from other urbs, while lower-income households crowd into , ,
central-city locations (and not the suhurbs). As Beauregard (2003b) pointed out centrally located land in order to be closer to tllctonca from c:tlnler

when discussing the late 1970s, :Amid the good news about population growth work, which in the traditional model is assumed lowor,lnc:omftnou$~hcld
AA

in the cities, middle-income households were still fleeing to the suburbs' (p. 209). as the central business district. Schill and Nathan aD Upp",·lnccmll.uburbondwellor
CC Inmo,onocentorclly
(1983, p. 15) continue, 'Curve AA represents a
On the other hand, attempts to refine the standard neoclassical models raised
lower-income household's bid rent curve, BB represents an upper-income suburban dweller's, and
even more fundamental questions of interpretation. Gentrification certainly CC the inmover's.lf Xdenotes the center of the city, the inmigrant will consume land denoted by seg-
could be predicted with the standard approach if the model assumptions were ment XD, the poor household will locate on segment DF, and the upper-income suburban household
revised-to consider the effects, for example, if wealthier households become will live on land to the right of point F. Before reinvestment, the poor would have consumed segment
more sensitive to the transportation expenses of tl,e suburbs (Kern 1981; LeRoy XF.' Similar neoclassical accounts of gentrification include Kern (1981), LeRoy and Sonstelie (1983),
and Sonstelie 1983; Wheaton 1977). Schill and Nathan (1983: 15) offered the and Wheaton (1977). Updated and refined versions of the approach include Brueckner et al. (1999),
most explicit attempt to rework the Alonso-Muth bid-rent models: Brueckner and Rosenthal (2005), De Bartolome and Ross (2002), De Salvo and Huq (1996), Glaeser
(2000), and Kwon (2006).
Although these land use models have most frequently been used Source: M. Schill and R. Nathan Revitalizing Americas Cities: Neig!Jborlwod Reil1vest-
to explain the creation of affluent suburbs, they can also explain the ment and Displacement, pp. 15-16. © 1983 State University of New York Press.
 48 • Gentrification
Producing Gentrification • 49

choices available to the poor and working classes? Perhaps it would be best to
the principles of agricultural land-use patterns that had been devised by a
consider the limits on individual choice, the boundaries set by inequalities ,of
wealth and power. Prussian landowner, Johann Heinrich van Thiinen (1793-1850):

'We Wish the Theory to Become Not True' After an analytic presentation of the theory, Muth seeks to evaluate
the empirical relevance of the theory by testing it against the existing
Neoclassical theories continue to dominate urban theory and urban policy, and
structure of residential land use in Chicago. His tests indicate that the
several economists have worked to refine bid-rent models to chart gentrification
theory is broadly correct, with, however, certain deviations explicable
and other shifts in the contours of urban spatial structure (Brueckner et al.
by such things as racial discrimination in the housing market. We may
1999; Brueckner and Rosenthal 2005; De Bartolome and Ross 2002; DeSalvo
thus infer that the theory is a true theory. This truth, arrived at by clas-
and Huq 1996; Glaeser, Kahn, and Rappaport 2000; Kwon 2005). Yet Chris
sical positivist means, can be used to help us identify the problem. What
Hamnett's (1992: 116) merciless caricature of the approach sums up the frus-
for Muth was a successful test of a social theory becomes an indicator
tration of many urbanists:
of what the problem is. The theory predicts that poor groups must, of
It is only necessary to attend a few economics conferences or to read necessity, live where they can least afford to live.
some of the neoclassical literature to realize that this perspective is Our objective is to eliminate ghettos. Therefore, the only valid pol-
as vibrant and ill-informed as ever. The recipe is simple. Take a set of icy ... is to eliminate the conditions which give rise to the truth of the
behavioral outcomes, add a handful of socio-economic predictor vari- theory. In other words, we wish the van Thiinen theory of the urban
ables, whisk the mixture thoroughly until it has a thick consistency, land market to become not true. The simplest approach here is to elimi-
insert a regression equation for half an hour until half baked, garnish nate those mechanisms which serve to generate the theory. The mecha-
the results with a sprinkling of significance tests and serve with con- nism in this case is very simple-competitive bidding for the use of the
somme achoix. Voila! land. (Harvey 1973: 137)
This is surely a bit harsh-an unfair distortion of some of the work in the This is part of the context that shaped Neil Smith's reaction to the optimi~tic,
neoclassical tradition. But the sentiment was behind a sea change in urban
uncritical celebrations of an urban renaissance in the late 19705. And It IS
studies that revolutionized urban thinldng beginning in the 1970s and acutely relevant today, when neoclassical assumptions have been revitalized
continues to shape our understanding of cities today (Zukin 2006). David and hijacked by the poHtical triumphs of neoliberalism, such that city govern-
Harvey was the leading force of a new perspective that went back to the ments now act less as regulators of markets to protect marginalized residents
roots of contemporary neoclassical theory-the classical political economy and more as entrepreneurial agents of market processes and capital accumu-
debates between Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, and Marx-to understand lation (Harvey 1989b; Peck 2007; see Chapter 5). One of the recent descen-
the origins of urban inequality. Harvey's (1973) Social Justice and the City dants of the back-ta-the city tradition, for example, models high-income
was the manifesto of this new urban studies, which sought to understand households' locational choices as a function of spatial variations in the age of
how cities
housing, and calibrates equations to develop projections for the future mag-
are founded upon the exploitation of the many by the few. An urbanism nitude of gentrification: 'Such predictions are crucial for local policymakers
founded on exploitation is a legacy of history. A genuinely humanizing and real-estate developers who must plan for the future despite their limited
urbanism has yet to be brought into being. It remains for revolutionary ability to predict the city's evolution' (Brueckner and Rosenthal 2005: 1; see
theory to chart the path. (Harvey 1973: 314) also Vigdor 2002; Massey 2002; Rivlin 2002). There is a remarkable contin~ty
in the internal dynamics of the neoclassical approach, but the context of pohcy
Harvey offered a panoramic view of urbanism and society, and in Iat~r work
and politics has dramatically increased the risks for poor and marginalized
he outlined a comprehensive analysis of economic, urban, and cultural change
residents facing gentrification pressures. Unfortunately, estimating complex
(Harvey 1982, 1985, 1989a, 2000, 2003; see also Zukin 2006). But his attack on
models to show how elite locational preference narrows the options for lower-
the dominant neoclassical explanation of inner-city decline and ghetto for-
income households distracts our attention from the fundamental inequalities
mation is crucial for our analysis of gentrification. Harvey took aim at the
of class power. There is nothing natural or optimal about gentrification, dis-
models of urban structure that Alonso (1964) and Muth (1969) had built using
placement, and neighborhood polarization. Who stands to profit from these
 50 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 51

geographies of inequality? Why has consumer preference changed in such a of uneven geographical development (Smith 1982, 1984; Harvey 1973, 1982,
way that gentrification has swept across so many cities for nearly forty years? 2003). Capitalism is always creating new places, new environments designed
Neil Smith took a knife to the soft underbelly of mainstream thinking when for profit and accumulation, in the process devalorizing previous investments
he approached these questions: and landscapes. This paradox of development fascinated Marx and genera-
An the decision to rehabilitate an inner city structure, one consumer tions of political economists, and the process was distilled beautifully in the
preference tends to stand out above the others-the preference for early twentieth century by joseph Schumpeter's (1934) concept of creative
profit, or, more accurately, a sound financial investment. ... A theory destruction. But Neil Smith was the first to connect these fundamental
of gentrification must therefore explain why some neighborhoods are dynamics of capitalist development to the fine-grained circumstances of
profitable to redevelop while others are not. What are the conditions of individual land parcels in the inner city, where gentrified wealth collides with
profitability? Consumer sovereignty explanations toolc for granted the disinvested poverty.
availability of areas ripe for gentrification when this was precisely what In a competitive market economy. new urban development is geared to
\~ad to be explained. (Smith 1979: 540-541; emphasis added) maximize profit: landowners, developers, and everyone else involved in the
development process all have incentives to use a particular land parcel for the
Development, Disinvestment, and the Rent Gap most profitable function possible, given the available construction technol-
rThe logic behind uneven development is that the development of one ogy, prevailing regulations, building styles and fashions, nearby competitors,
area creates barriers to further development, thus leading to under- and local urban context. For some parcels, the economically optimal use-
development, and that the underdevelopment of that area creates what planners and economists call the 'highest and best use'-will be high-
opportunities for a new phase of development. Geographically this leads end retail; for others, upper-middle-class residential. Location is obviously
to the possibility of what we might call a "locational seesaw": the succes- crucial in deciding the highest and best use for a particular parcel-and once
sive development. underdevelopment, and redevelopment of given areas a structure is built, it is quite literally anchored to its location. The value of a
as capital jumps from one place to another, then back again, both creat- house, shop, condominium, or any other structure is the totallabor invested
ing and destroying its own opportunities for development. (N. Smith to create it, given a society's prevailing technologies, wage rates, and so on.
~82: 151) But if the structure is sold, the transaction sales price will also depend on
the relative attractiveness of the land where the structure is situated. Land
Geography creates powerful contradictions for capital investment. Particularly itself, though, has very little intrinsic value: particularly in the urban envi-
in the urban realm, massive investments are required to create the places that ronment, the attractiveness ofland is based mainly on location, accessibility,
must exist in order for profits to be made-offices. factories, shops, homes, and and the labor and technology devoted to improving a site. This means that
all the rest of the infrastructure that makes up what is often called the 'built the value of urban land is primarily a collective social creation: if a tiny piece
environment'. Yet once these investments are committed and quite literally of land located in the heart of a large, vibrant, growing city commands a pre-
put in place, capital cannot be quickly or easily shifted to newer, more profit- mium on the market, it is because (1) centrality and accessibility are valued in
able opportunities elsewhere. Technological change and expanding networks the society, and (2) collective social investments over time produced a large,
of trade, migration, and settlement-in short, every element of economic vibrant city. Private property rights, however, allow landowners to capture
development-can threaten and undermine the profitability of previous most of this social investment in the form of ground rent, which is Simply the
investments. Individual investors committed to older technologies in older charge that owners are able to demand for the rights to use their land (Ball
places lose out to those able to take advantage of new development in new 1985; Krueckeberg 1995~. For landlords, ground rent is received
places, while as a group capitalists are always forced to choose between invest- primarily as a stream of payments from tenants. Owners who prefer not to be
ing to maintain the viability of previous capital commitments or exploiting landlords forego this stream of payments, but.they can replace it by engaging
new opportunities (and neglecting or abandoning the old). Moreover, capital in economic activity on the site (essentially paying rent to themselves). And
investment is always animated by a geographical tension: between the need whenever an owner sells a piece of land, the price will incorporate buyers'
to equalize conditions and seek out new markets in new places, versus the expectations of the future stream of payments for the rights to use the land.
need for differentiation and a division of labor that is matched to various Ground rent, therefore, is capitalized for each, owner through some combi-
places' comparative advantage. The result is a dynamic 'see-saw' of invest- nation of tenant payments, entrepreneurial activity, and asset appreciation
ment and disinvestment over time and across space, in an ongoing process captured at resale.
 52 • Gentrification
Producing Gentrification • 53

Figure 2.2 The Depression Cycle and the Rent Gap are capitalized as nearly as possible up to the full potential. But the capital
invested to develop a place is now anchored there, and thus it is vulnerable
to anything that alters the urban-economic circumstances of that place. For
By definition, caplOlIi:ed ground n:m can ne....1!r!le higher a few years, Intensified development nearby may make it more accessible and
thun 1(5 fullllotomriul, th~ muxlmum llo1!lhl~ when ~ pared
11 put to IIlI hlghe.'!t and be.'!l me.But Initial dl!\'Clupment desirable-thus allowing an owner to demand higher ground rent, But the
usunlly 5ucce~h In caplmlt:lng nearly all of the full potl'ntial.
O\'Ct time, hUl'-1:Vt:r, It become.'! hUNer tll keep poce with the investment in a particular land use will eventually face an unavoidable depre-
steady rise In porential ground rent, which change.'l the
optimnl use of a land pared through ug!onal !:fOI\,h, economk ciation: buildings and other infrastructure age, and require ongoing labor
development, and technologh:al clmnlle. TIle re:nt ~... p widens
as the nmoum of ground rent capitalt:cd under an exlll(lng Use
and capital for maintenance and repair. As new urban growth adopts better
f.1.115 further below the full pmentlul rent thnt could be carned
fmm ~ different land use.
construction and design technologies. land uses developed in previous gen-
erations become less competitive and less profitable. With each passing year,
Potential Ground Rent
The Il!nx!muzn I'conOlnlc re:rum we are a bit more likely to see a divergence between 'capitalized ground rent'

I
from the righlll TO use the bOIl that can (the actual rent captured with the present land use) and 'potential ground
~ be captured If the lnnd Is put III illl
"o /
~hlllhl!5t nnd best" "'e. rent' (the maximum that could be appropriated based on the highest and best
.;; r_~,"·,",·'Vlllu~
use). Capitalized ground rent is constrained by the terms and conditions of
T
previous investments and commitments of labor. and is undermined by the
mounting costs of repair and maintenance. Potential ground rent, by contrast,
almost always increases steadily over time: so long as an urban region enjoys
some combination of population growth, employment expansion, and tech-
nological innovation, any particular location will become more highly valued
over time if an owner is willing to put the land to its optimal, highest, and
The ....~l"e of n house or mher smlcrun: Is the socially
best use.
neCC!!ury labot pov.'Ct n:quJrecl m Creale It, gil'Cn .I This cycle of depreciation and disinvestment is urban creative destruction
rechnologle.'l, ""'Uge rnn'3, regu];ltinrn, and other ro;;"d:~Iri~":~M:~'~~.:;;~'~~::;;;
n 'trUcture will decline through aJlln~ and deterio~ltlon; me.1.nwhile, with a vengeance. New development undermines older investments, and
~dvanCCli allow oth~r, newer ~trucrute\ to be built tu much higher ,tandurd.1 amount ofluhor ower.
~ j. possible m slow the dedme In \~Iuc of an aging strUcture: by im'C5ring labor for maintenance, But p ongoing depreciation forces owners to consider carefully before sinking more
ClC In~nnenlll become more: difficult to re=r, because the labor i5 lunk Inm a ~trUcture capital into aging land uses. When the contrast between old and new tends
that O\'Ct urnc fulll f.1.rthcr below the h!Jlhe.'lt nnd bat U5~ for IIlI lucatlon,
to have a clear spatial imprint-older land uses and structures near the core,
Tim~ fmm Construction Dllte
Initial for instance, and newer development on the fringe-then disinvestment can
Development become increasingly logical, rational, and attractive for those saddled with
older commitments. Landlords in poorer inner-city neighborhoods, for
The rent gap,. shown in the shaded area, is the shortfall between the actual economic return from a
example, are holding investments in buildings that may have represented
la~d parc.el given Its present land use (capitalized ground rent/ and the potential return if it were put
to Its opllmal, highest, and best use (potential ground rent). Nearly every aspect of urban growth, the highest and best use of a century ago; spending money to maintain these
Inno~allon, and tech~ological development will change the urban landscape of accessibility and assets as low-cost rental units becomes ever more difficult to justify, since the
acllvlty, prodUCing mismatches between existing land uses and optimal, highest, and best uses. investments will he difficult to recover from low-income tenants. It becomes
Urban Investment and growth thus Inevitably produce disinvestment and rent gaps for older portions rational and logical for landlords to 'milk' the property, extracting capitalized
of the urban fabnc. As the rent gap grows larger, it creates lucrative profit opportunities for develop- ground rent from the tenants, spending the absolute minimum to maintain
ers, Investors, home buyers, .and loc~1 governments to orchestrate a shift in land use~for instance, the structure, and waiting as potential ground rent increases in the hopes of
from working-class reSidential to mlddle- or upper-class residential. eventually capturing a windfall through redevelopment. In the early stages,
SOllree: Adapted from Neil Smith (1979).
disinvestment is extremely difficult to detect: we are not accustomed to taking
notice when an owner does not repaint the house. replace the windows, or
All of these elements cha~ge over time with urban development, spatial rebuild the roof. But gradually the deferred maintenance becomes apparent:
res~uctunng, and advances ID technology (see Figure 2.2). When a land par- people with the money to do so will leave a neighborhood, and financial insti-
ce~ IS newly developed, all actors in the development process work to maxi- tutions 'redline' the neighborhood as too risky to make loans. Neighborhood
mIze profitability: competition amongst and between buyers and sellers, and decline accelerates, and moderate-income residents and businesses moving
renters and landlords, ensures that the rights to use a particular land parcel away are replaced by successively poorer tenants who move in. In any society
 54 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 55

where class inequalities are bound up with racial-ethnic divisions or other becomes interwoven with the entire range of social and cultural dimensions
sociocultural polarization, this turnover almost invariably unleashes racist of individuals' choices of where and how to live in the urban environment.
and xenophobic arguments that a particular group is 'causing' neighborhood Even the most apparently individual, personal decisions turn out to be bound
decline. But poorer residents and businesses can only afford to move in after up with larger social and collective processes. An individual home buyer, for
a neighborhood has been devalorized-after capital disinvestment and the example, will carefully conSIder resale value when decldmg how much to
departure of the wealthy and middle classes. offer for a house; the buyer is not simply expressing an independent consumer
The disinvestment dynamic explains the apparent contradiction ofpoverty- preference, then, but is negotiating the tension between personal or family
ridden inner cities across so much of the developed world-the paradox ofpoor needs and the broader social relations of what ahouse means as an asset-as a
people living on valuable land in the heart oflarge, vibrant cities (Alonso 1964; vehicle for long-term savings and wealth accumulation.
Harvey 1973; Knox and MCCarthy 2005: 132-135). Ground rent capitalized One of the most important implications of the rent gap theory, then,
under an existing land use (e.g., working-class residential) falls farther below involves the way we understand the individual consumer preferences at the
the growth- and technology-driven increasing potential that could be cap- heart of neoclassical theory and in the glare of media fascination with the lat-
tured under the optimal, highest, and best use-for instance, if the land could est neighborhood 'frontier.' The rent gap places the experience of individual
be used for luxury residential or high-end retail. This divergence between land market actors in the context of collective social relations. In capitalist
capitalized and potential ground rentis the rent gap, and it is fundamental property markets, the decisive consumer preference is the desire to achieve a
to the production of gentrified landscapes. As Smith puts it, 'Only when this reasonable rate of return on a sound financial investment. And the rent gap
gap emerges can gentrification be expected since if the present use succeeded shows how this preference, once seen as impossible in the inner city. can be
in capitalizing all or most of the ground rent, little economic benefit could satisfied there once the process of de valorization is driven far enough bymetro-
be derived from redevelopment' (N. Smith 1979: 545). Changing the land politan growth and suburbanization. As Neil Smith (1979: 546) sums up,
use-so that a landowner can chase that ever-rising curve of potential ground
rent-can involve wholesale redevelopment on a neighborhood scale: [Glentrification is a structural product of the land and hOUSing markets.
Capital flows where the rate of return is highest, and the movement of
Gentrification occurs when the gap is wide enough that developers can
capital to the suburbs, along with the continual depreciation of inner-
purchase shells cheaply, can pay the builders' costs and profit for reha-
city capital, eventually produces the rent gap. When this gap grows suf-
bilitation, can pay interest on mortgage and construction loans, and
ficiently large, rehabilitation (or, for that matter, renewal) can begin to
can then sell the end product for a sale price that leaves a satisfactory
challenge the rates of return available elsewhere, and capital flows back.
return to the developer. The entire ground rent, or a large portion of it,
is now capitalized: the neighborhood has been 'recycled' and begins a
71," Relit Gap Debates
new cycle of use. (N. Smith 1979: 545)
Distilled to a potent ten-page essay in the October 1979 issue of the Journal
But redevelopment can also proceed block by block or house by house-the of the American Planning Association, Smith's rent gap hypotheSiS was a pro-
'spontaneous' revival that attracts so much popular attention-as middle-class vocative intervention in urban theory. Years later, Smith reflected, 'Long after
'pioneers' venture into poor neighborhoods in search of historic structures it was dispatched to an interested editor, my advisor delivered his own verdict
that can be renovated and restored. Moreover, the rent gap is often closed with on the paper: "It's OK," he muttered, "but it's so simple. Everybody knows
heavy assistance and subsidy by government action-clearing old land uses that'" (N. Smith 1992a: 110). Perhaps not. The rent gap has been at the center
through various forms of urban renewal, upgrading streets and other pub- of intense debate for more than a quarter century, which is appropriate if we
lic infrastructure. and providing incentives for developers. new businesses, consider the etymology of 'gap'-from the Old Norse for 'chasm', denoting a
or new middle-class residents. As we have seen in Chapter 1, the specific breach in a wall or fence, a breach in defenses. a break in continuity, or a wide
form of reinvestment, the physical appearance or architectural style, and the difference in ideas or views. The rent gap is part of an assault to breach the
particular coalitions of individuals involved vary Widely with the context of defensive wall of mainstream urban studies, by challenging the assumption
different neighborhoods. cities. and national circumstances; but one common that urban landscapes can be explained in large part as the result of consumer
element across all of these variations is the fundamental structure of incen- preferences, and the notion that neighborhood change can be understood in
tives in the capitalist city. Urban growth and neighborhood change proceed terms of who moves in and who moves out. Scholars. therefore, take its impli-
with the_dynamics of profit and accumulation, and so the calculus of capital cations very seriously.
 56 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 57

Disagreement persists in three areas. First, there are concerns OVer and neoclassical tradition as well as Marxist thought going back to Engels's
terminology. Some of these appear minor at first, but hint at deeper issues. 1/le Housing Question in 1872:
Smith's approach to the centuries-old literature on land rent led him to base
his concepts on Marx's labor theory of value, and so he was cautious to avoid The expansion of the big modern cities gives the land in certain sections
the common phrase 'land value' because housing is usually bought and sold of them, particularly in those which are centrally situated, an artificial
together with the land it occupies (although not always in the U.K.; see Lees and often enormously increasing value; the buildings erected in these
1994b), and land itself is not produced by human labor: 'Here it is preferable areas depress this value, instead of increasing it, because they no lon-
to talk of ground rent rather than land value, since the price of land does not ger correspond to the changed circumstances. Th~y are pulled down
reflect a quantity oflabor power applied to it, as with the value of commodities and replaced by others. This takes place above all WIth centrally. located
proper' (N. Smith 1979: 543). The ground shifted quickly, however, as most of workers' houses, whose rents, even with the greatest overcrowdmg, can
the subsequent work on the topic dropped 'ground rent' in favor of'capitalized never, or only very slowly, increase above a certain maximum. They are
land rent' and 'potential land rent'. Other ambiguities crept in with concepts pulled down and in their stead shops, warehouses, and public buildings
like Hamnett and Randolph's (1986) 'value gap' (which we turn to later in are erected .... The result is that the workers are forced out of the cen-
this chapter), which in technical terms shouid really be called a 'price gap'. ter of the towns towards the outsldrts. (Engels 1872/1975: 20, quoted in
And some of the confusion over terminology has become quite serious. Steven Clark 1988: 244)
Bourassa (1990, 1993: 1733) challenged the entire rent gap framework, largely As Clarl( (1988: 245) concluded, 'Engels and Marshall were early to articulate
on neoclassical economic grounds, and accused Smith of misusing 'terms that the idea; Smith and Asplund et al. retrieve it from oblivion a centur~ later'.
have well-established meanings in the land economics literature (Marxian as But a century of scholarship failed to produce any consensus on Engels s com-
well as neoclassical)'. Bourassa argued instead for definitions that would dis- ment that 'the buildings erected in these areas depress this value'. Bourassa
tinguish accounting, cash-flow concepts from the economic notion of oppor- argued that in classical economic theory, land rent is independent of land
tunity cost. Smith (1996b: 1199) fired back at Bourassa, use-invalidating Smith's definition of capitalized ground rent. But the dIf-
The first response to Bourassa's argument has to be a certain incredulity ficulty of distinguishing 'pure' land rent from returns on ~apital invested in
at its own terminological confusion. Here, for example, is a partial list buildings had long obsessed the classical political economIsts; the puzzle led
of the terms for rent, ground rent, and land price-crucial but different van Thiinen to use the illustrative case of a fire sweeping through farm build-
concepts in the rent gap theory-that show up in the first four pages of ings-immediately completing the disinvestme.nt process a.nd allOWing pure
the text alone: actual rent ... actual land rent ... actual ground rent ... land rent to determine the optimal land use WIthout the dlstortlOns created
potential rent ... potential land rent... potential value... ground by sunk costs in outdated buildings. He noted, 'Fire de~troys at once. T~me
rent ... potential ground rent ... land rent ... land value ... opportu- too destroys buildings, though more slowly' (van Thimen 1966: 21; CIted
nity costs ... latent opportunity cost ... cash flows ... accounting cash in Clark 1995: 1498). Sadly, such hypothetical experiments often shape the
flows ... accounting rent ... economic rent ... actual cash £lows ... con- everyday lives of residents in urban disaste~ zones-mo~t rece~tly in New
tract rent ... capitalized ground rent ... annual site value. Orleans, where local experts have been surpnsed at the pnces paId for flood-
damaged properties by investors moving into the market less than a year after
This struggle over words might seem obscure or tedious, stranding us 'on
Hurricane [(atrina (Saulhy 2006; see Chapter 5).
the desert island of terminological debate' (N. Smith 1996b: 1203). But words
Yet the conceptual difficulty of land rent and land use does have a solu-
are important (as we argue in Chapter 4 with respect to the term 'gentrifi-
tion. Hammel (1999b) noted that in his original formulation, Smith examined
cation'): it is only a slight exaggeration to say that the difference between
capitalized ground rent only at the level of the individual land parcel, and
'regeneration' and 'gentrification' is akin to the gap between 'terrorist' and
potential ground rent at the metropolitan scale. But capitalized ground rent
'freedom fighter'. Moreover, this terminological struggle blurred into a sec-
can also be influenced by conditions in the surrounding neighborhood:
ond set of more conceptual disputes. Chris Hamnett (1984) suggested that
the rent gap was nothing new, while Steve Bourassa (1993) claimed it was In urban areas, we have created a pattern of land use that, despite the
an unnecessary departure from conventional economic concepts with no pace of change, is often remarkably permanent. Inner-city areas h~ve
legitimate precedent. But Eric Clark (1988) had already provided a concise many sites with a potential for development that could return hIgh
review of several alternative formulations of the basic idea, in the classical levels of rent. That development never occurs, however, because the
 58 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 59

perception of an impoverished neighborhood prevents large amounts of these neighborhood-scale barriers are coming down, gentrification is moving
capital from being applied to the land. The surrounding uses make high into parts of Chicago's South Side (see Plate 2.3), and further into New York's
levels of development infeasible, and the property continues to languish. Harlem, Bed-Stuy, and SoBro, and even onto the edges of the dirty indus-
Thus, the potential land rent of a parcel based on metropolitan-wide trial Gowanus Canal, where one of the members of the Community Planning
factors is quite high, but factors at the neighborhood scale constrain the Board refuses to be diplomatic: 'They call it gentrification, I call it genocide.
capitalized land rent to a lower level. (HammelI999a: 1290) They're killing neighborhoods' (Berger 2005b).
Still, a third point of disagreement persists in the rent gap literatures. How
This integration of the rent gap with theories of scale resolves a number of do we translate all the concepts involved in the theory into 'an easily applied
crucial difficulties. Scale effects provide one way of explaining why the ten- language of observation' (Clark 1995: 1493)1 As David Ley (1987a) has empha-
dency for capitalized ground rent to fall over time-with the aging of buildings sized, empirical tests are essential to maintain accountability in our theoriz-
and the rising costs of maintenance and repair-can be resisted: if a sufficient ing and our thinking (but see Smith's 1987 response to Ley [1986] and Clarl,
number of property owners have the wealth to reinvest, and if this continued [1995]). Unfortunately, the rent gap involves concepts that are extremely hard
investment in the bUilding stock is geographically concentrated, the forma- to measure: nothing close to the phenomenon of capitalized ground rent
tion of the rent gap will be minimized and delayed. Even cities with vast areas appears in any public database or accounting ledger. To measure the rent
of poverty and disinvestment also u~ually have old, elite neighborhoods with gap properly. a researcher has to construct specialized indicators after sifting
many of the city's wealthiest families. through decades of land records and becoming familiar with the details of
But in the absence of an agglomeration effect among wealthy households historical market conditions, neighborhood settings, tax assessment practices,
strongly committed to a particular neighborhood, the devalorization cycle the provisions of government subsidies, and other factors. It's not surprising
will push capitalized ground rent farther below its potential. And here, scale that very few researchers have invested the time and effort (see Box 2.1). The
effects also help to resolve certain questions about where gentrification is results of these studies do provide qualified support for the rent gap thesis,
most lil,ely to take place. Although we might expect gentrification to begin with certain modifications and adjustments for local and historical context;
where the gap is greatest-where the potential for profit is maximized-in additional support for the framework comes from empirical studies that
most cities gentrification follows a different path: it often begins in a relatively measure other aspects of urban investment and disinvestment (Engels 1994;
depressed, devalorized, working-class part of the city-but not the absolute Hackworth 2002a; N. Smith 1996a; N. Smith and DeFilippis 1999). Never
epicenter of the region's worst poverty and disinvestment. The very poorest theless, conceptual and terminological debates over the rent gap persist, and
districts have the largest rent gap measured at the parcel level in relation to empirical research is unlikely to reconcile the fundamental interpretive dif-
the metropolitan level-but not when we consider effects at the neighborhood ferences between those steeped in the neoclassical economics tradition versus
scale. Neighborhood effects-entrenched regional perceptions of an area, the those worldng in the Marxist vein (Clark 1988, 1995). Moreover, debate over
physical location of social services and nonprofits serving the poor and the the rent gap has been complicated by the introduction of apparently similar
homeless, and the real and perceived risks of crime-all of these and many hypotheses-Hamnett and Randolph's (1986) theory of a 'value gap' driving
other factors mediate the operation of the rent gap. In other words, neighbor- the conversion of London rental flats to owner-occupation (see Chapter 1 on
hood effects determine whether it will be possible to close the gap between a Barnsbury), and Sykora's (1993) notion of a 'functional gap' describing the
,parcel's capitalized ground rent and the broader, metropolitan-wide poten- mismatch between urban core land uses under state-socialist conditions in
tIal ground rent. In New York, gentrification began in Greenwich Village and Prague as market conditions created a land market gradient in the early 1990s
the Lower East Side-not the far poorer (but more isolated and stigmatized) (see Box 2.2). Finally, the conceptual architecture of the rent gap-with its
neighborhoods of Harlem, the South Bronx, Bushwick, or Bedford-Stuyves- emphasis on landowners' absolute control over the rights to use and profit
ant. In Chicago, gentrification did not begin in the heavily disinvested South from land-has to be adapted to consider the different legal and political
Side; rather, it began first in a small pocket of poverty and disinvestment in circumstances of different historical periods, as well as different countries. A
the Near North Side, then expanded with heavy public subsidy to a some- new wave of empirical research from Eastern Europe and Sweden is providing
what larger poverty-ridden area just west of downtown. But many things have new insights even as it raises new questions, and Adam Millard-Ball (2000:
changed at the neighborhood scale in both of these cities, including major 1689) is surely right to identify 'the need for a wider conceptual framework
government action to demolish low-income housing projects and disperse for production-Side explanations of gentrification in countries with different
the residents into private-market rentals (see Chapter 6). And so now, once economic systems'.
 60 • Gentrification
Producing Gentrification • 61

Box 2.1

Plate 2.3 New Luxury Condominiums on the South Side of Chicago, 2006 Measuring the Rent Gap
The rent gap explains gentrification as the product of investment and dis-
investment in the urban land market. Over time, urban development and
expansion create a tension between 'capitalized ground rent'-the eco-
nomic return from the rights to use land, given its present use-and 'poten-
tial ground rent', the return that could be earned if the land were put to its
optimal, highest, and best use. As the gap between potential and capitalized
ground rent widens, it provides an ever more powerful incentive for land-
use change; residential gentrification is one way of closing the rent gap.
The rent gap has been one of the most hotly debated themes in the entire
study of gentrification, inspiring controversy that is perhaps second only to
the cultural and class implications of the term 'gentrification' itself. Why
such dispute? First, the hypothesis draws direct links between many local
empirical cases of neighborhood change-specific spaces undergoing com-
plex transitions and tensions-and the broad forces of urban development
and the uneven development of capitalism itself. Many people, therefore,
view it as an implicit claim that all cases of gentrification can, in one way or
another, be tied bacle to the workings of urban land markets under capital-
The rent gap suggests that gentrification provides one way to increase capitalized ground rent on ism. This perception makes the thesis a high-stakes battle between inter-
parcels that have been devalorized by obsolete land uses and years of sub urbanization. One of the pretations of dualisms-between the unique and the universal, between
major debates over the rent gap, however, has involved the empirical observation that gentrification human agency and structured constraint, and between individual choices
often begins not in the very poorest districts, but areas just a bit better off-for instance mixed and collective social forces. And the perception lends urgency to the second
working-class and poor neighborhoods that are not far from downtown employment centers, ;nd not reason for continued dispute: the extreme difficulty in operationalizing the
too isolated from remaining middle-class enclaves in the central city. Hammel (1999b) suggests that concepts in order to provide empirical tests for the hypothesis.
geographic seal: helps to explain this anomaly. Capitalized ground rent for an individual parcel is
It's surprising that there have been so few detailed empirical studies
Influenced by nelghborhood effects-by the social, institutional, and physical circumstances of sur-
that operationalize the rent gap. At first glance, this seems rather curi-
rounding land uses. Thus, a land parcel may have an enormous rent gap when its capitalized ground
rent IS measured against a steadily rising potential ground rent at the metropolitan scale, but rede- ous, because the rent gap was first developed more than a quarter cen-
velopment will only be feasible if the negative barriers at the neighborhood scale can be overcome. tury ago. To be sure, quite a few studies do offer fine-grained analyses of
In the case of Chicago, gentrification in the 1960s and 1970s began not in the city's poorest, heavily the gentrified landscapes produced through the dynamicS of urban prop-
dlSlnvested South Side, but closer to downtown in a smaller pocket of disinvestment on the Near erty markets: to cite only a few of the best examples, we can point to Ley's
North Side. But over the years, gentrification has expanded around all sides of the downtown core (1986) multivariate analysis including ratios between inner-city and met-
while the Chicago Housing Authority has used federal funds to demolish many low-income publi; ropolitan house values and rents for twenty-two Canadian urban regions,
housing projects and disperse the residents to the private rental market. In short, the neighborhood Neil Smith's (1996a) use of property tax delinquency to map the turning
scale has begun to change dramatically, and now new luxury homes are sprouting across Chicago's
points from disinvestment to reinvestment in parts ofManhaUan (see also
South Side. Some neighborhood effects persist, however, real and perceived concerns about crime
N. Smith and DeFilippis 1999), Engels's (1994) rich analysis of the linJes
on the South Side prompted this developer to assure prospective buyers that the building security
system is 'linked to [the] police department 24 hours a day'. between mortgage-lending practices and redlining in a gentrifying inner
SOllree: Photograph by Elvin Wyly. suburb of Sydney, Hackworth's (2002b) diagnosis of several real estate
indicators in several New York neighborhoods, and Hamnett's (2003b)
examination of a variety of indicators for London's housing market. But
none of these studies directly captures the elements of the rent gap thesis.
 Producing Gentrification • 63
62 • Gentrification

The concepts of capitalized and potential ground rent are extremely 120
residential units (separate houses,
difficult to measure. We can easily find a treasure trove of data on things uo - home unIL~. fiats.duplexes)
like home sales prices, but these data are useless for distinguishing ground __ vacant all-?tments (serviced and
<: 1500 m-)
rent-the economic returns from the use of the land-from house pricej 100

also, house prices are notoriously sensitive to such things as mortgage 90

interest rates, and house prices do not measure house value, which in the
80
rent gap framework is defined as the sociaHy necessary amount of labor ;;:
power invested in construction, periodic maintenance, and major renova-
tions. Getting at these key indicators requires an enormous investment
'"~" 70

of time to collect fugitive information, adjust it for variations in lot sizes ;: 60

c
.:<J
and other factors, and organize it in a way that aHows analysis of poten- c 50
rnc
tial and capitalized ground rents over long periods of time. Quite simply, c
it takes years of painstalctng work to sift through specialized historical
F '10
archives, gain knowledge of repres~ntative case studies of transformation, 30

or develop alternative ways of gaining insight into the contours of invest-

ment and disinvestment. The best evidence we have on the dynamics ofrent
gaps comes from Ludelc Sikora's (1993) analysis of the marlcet transition
and the emergence of a land price gradient in Prague, Czech Republic (see
Box 2.2); Blair Badcoclc's work in Adelaide, Australia (see Figure B2.la);
Eric Clarlc's work in Malmo, Sweden (see Figure B2.1b); Dan HammeJ's
Figure 82.1a The contraction of Adelaide's Rent Gap between 1970 and 19B5
worlc in Minneapolis, in the United States (see Figure B2.lc); and David
Source: Blair Badcock, An Australian view of the rent gap hypothesis, Allnals of
Q'Sullivan's microscale simulation model relating changes in individual
the Association of American Geographers, 79(1), p. 131. © 1989 Blackwell
buildings and lots to those of their immediate neighbors in an area of Hox-
Publishing.
ton in inner East London (see Figure B2.1d). Each of these studies provides
strong evidence that the trajectory of capitalized and potential ground rent rent itself, for instance, becoming globalized as local property transac-
does indeed foHow the general tendency theorized by Nen Smith (1979); tions are tied into world financial markets? Some indicators suggest that
but context also malters, and we should not be surprised that the lines do perhaps it is. In 2005, the Economist (in 'The global housing boom') noted
not always trace out perfect lines that suggest a trigger mechanism that can that the combined value of all residential property in the world's devel-
be used to 'predict' gentrification. Individual and coilective decisions mat- oped economies shot up by some $30 trillion over a five-year period, and
ter. But the evidence, despite its conceptual and empirical limitations, does adjusting for the total size of all these economies, the resulting bubble
support many of the claims and implications of the hypothesis. exceeded the stock market booms of the 1920s and the 1990s.
Still, there is much that we do not Icnow about the empirical facets of Blair Badcoclc (1989) assembled data on the average prices paid for
the rent gap: we need to understand how developers, investors, and gen- vacant lots, and for housing of all types, in each of the thirty local gov-
trifiers respond to rent gaps in different cities; to determine how their ernment areas in Adelaide, Australia. His reasoning was that the price
perceptions of prices, appreciation rates, and other market iridicators paid for a vacant lot represents the expected future income from its use.
compare to the concepts of potential and capitalized ground rent; and to and thus can be understood as potential ground rent; he suggested that
undertake comparisons of rent gaps for properties in areas that did expe- the house price data, by contrast, measure capitalized ground rent while
rience gentrification versus properties in areas that have not yet witnessed unfortunately also mixing in the value of improvements. Badcock then
reinvestment. Finally, we need research to measure how the concepts plotted these figures by distance from the central business district (CBD),
of potential and capitalized ground rent themselves are altered when a with separate curves for different time periods, and interpreted the cases
significant fraction of housing marlcet activity involves buyers and sellers where vacant lot prices exceeded dwelling prices (shaded in gray) as clear
working or moving across international boundaries. Is potential ground evidence of an inner-city re~t gap. Badcock's analysis provides compelling
64 • Gentrification
Producing Gentrification • 65

5[I('m' A
"" 40
...·I'LlI
.' 35
..' " c
,;: - - Cllpltullwd Land R~nt

~ (--_---'\.. ,._",. . .:j .'

cw :-,:j'--\./~:~:
~ 30
.. 25
~
- - Potent!al Land Rent

lS /~- : : -.... ~\_ nv ~ 20

II_~
"-
Inr,(I 1~811 1900 1'1lO \\I-I(J 1'1(>11
,
19~1J
lM~1 1~'ID
,nv
~ 15

"~
Janl) 19!XI l'T.!O !9(,(J
4. Sll'lIll\!nd 33 10
1>, St... lsund 3·\

SF."'",' 0
1;1; 1850 1870 1890 1911) 1930
/''-.rtn 1950 1970 1990
Yenrs
'00- ./
,../ CUI
B
...... 30
...........
r--\\_.--:.,,~···· .. · •
,;:
c
25
- - Capltalbed Land Rent

- - Potential Land Rent

" I ....... ----:,{--,_ J'
g-
:;; "0

"~
~~~:~"'S"'~";"'~';=J'~"~-/~~:=~~~;-
'" ,, ... \ DV
~ 15
'"W
I!. ""ntuI 1-10
d.I'ontu.ll_17 •
'a 10
"
SE"I",'
'00 ~ 5

..... rLn ,r,, 0

.../ '\,.•. 15- !\ 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

r---"--\ .-:.~; . . . . . /~\,..<.. -.~W"

~
~
Yenrs
cw ./ \
' ......'._.1····, ~- - : - ,.,
l. ............ ------.,,-'... . nv
<'L

- - - - - - - - - - - - --
~ )2...···
-..J
·······
1 -'. "',"..• C
45
" .f:--~F'_~,......~,......~,......~,......~ ,,-+-~r_-r-'-r_~r_r_r_r_r--r"';- - - Capitalized Land Rent
·10
f. Fn:u"1I U, 13 •
,;: 35 - - Potentia! Land Itent
Figure B2.1b Rent Gaps for Six Redevelopment Areas in Malmo, Sweden ~ 30
Jf25
Source: Eric Clark, The rent gap and the transformation of the built environment:
a 20
case studies in Malmo, 1860-1985, Geografiska Amwler. B70, 2:241-254. © 1988 ] 15
Blackwell Publishing. 8 10
~
support for the existence of a substantial rent gap in inner Adelaide in ~ 5
0
1970, and its closure by tbe early 1980s. But Badcock's data sources do 1850 1910 1930
1870 1690 1950 1970 1990
not correspond precisely to the rent gap hypothesis, because they measure Yearn
averages for different parts of the city, and measure lots and houses of dif-
ferent types and sizes; a more precise measure would involve tracldng both Figure B2.1e Rent Gaps in Downtown Minneapolis, 1870s 1960s
Source: Dan Hamme1. Gentrification and land rent: a historical view of the rent
capitalized and potential ground rent over time for the same parcels.
gap in Minneapolis, Urbml Geography, 20, 2,116-145. © 1999 Bellwether
Eric Clark (1988) has produced the definitive work on the history, Publishing.
theoretical roots. and empirical expression of rent gaps. His empirical
he combined several data sources to balance the strength and weakness
work is based on the long-term changes observed in several specific prop-
of each, separating estimates for the assessed value of buildings (BV) and
erties in inner-city Malmo that were first developed in the late nineteenth
the land they occupy while adjusting for inflation, the size of the lots,
century, and subsequently demolished to make way for new construction,
and other important factors. To measure potential land rent (PLR), he
mostly in the 1960s and 1970s. To measure capitalized land rent (CLR),
used bills of sale for vacant land parcels just prior to development and
66 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 67

'" • , paths depending on human agency and context. Yet despite these varia-
tions, there is 'a rather clear picture of the rent gap. The building capital
fixed to a piece ofland in connection with initial development maintains a
fair degree of appropriateness to its site over a period of time', but in
i , ,• -+ +

, • •
increasingly changed circumstances, the buildings become increasingly
! • anachronistic. Other forms of building capital would be better suited
• to realize a growing potential land rent, while the existing building
capital tends to hold down the site's level of realizable land rent: a rent
gap emerges. The property owner may either attempt through further
-. investments to keep the building appropriate to its site, or withhold
-Ill investment, minimize maintenance and variable costs, and milk it as it
!B51l Ul70 18911 19IU 1930 1950 1910 1~'II1
"fa",
stands, resulting in a broadening of the rent gap .... Eventually, the rent
• ,"mm" H"".. a H<nn<pin Cru"llt~ I. 5,mph"ny Plo« gap reaches a level when development firms find the property attractive .
lit M"'~U<tt.rlo,,, ZL",lnilO«rn 11".." '" l.n'III~Gl«nu"
... oo<T""O",", • "ill,",,,r.. ~T,,w.,,. _ 12IXI,," Ih.M.JJ
This signals the beginning of an upward trend in capitalized land rent,
resulting in a narrowing of the rent gap. (Clark 1988: 252)
,-
1t751 Dan Hammel (1999b) studied the history of nine groups of parcels that

,~ j
were assembled and redeveloped for middle-class and luxury apartments
in the 1960s. Adapting Eric Clark's approach, Hammel combined data
,=
from tax assessments and deeds of sale to measure capitalized land rent
,
i
'J!!'"
i
':15'"
i
'oI!""
i
'~5",
i
'51)'"
i
';""
"
'm~,~,!,~,
and potential land rent for each property from initial development in the
I I I 1870s and 1880s. He found substantial rent gaps for nearly all of the par-
1"" cels. The properties showing the clearest trends appear in Pigure B2.1c,

llX,

""
/:
"~ ~ L-~ ~j:'__ __ __
and led Hammel to suggest that rent gaps could develop not only through
absolute devalorization and falling capitalized rents, but also through sta-
ble or slightly rising capitalized rents that failed to keep pace with rapid
increases in potential land rent. Many of the other parcels Hammel stud-
ied, though, illustrated more complex rent gap patterns that could only
be understood by considering the specific local history of each property.
Figure B2.1d AMicrospatial Simulation Model of Disinvestment and Gentrification in Hoxton Nevertheless, the general pattern is clear, with rent gaps growing wider
Inner East london ' through the middie decades of the twentieth century until redevelopment
Source: David O'Sullivan Toward micro-scale spatial modeling of gentrification. in the 1960s. Hammel emphasized that the rent gap hypothesis does not
/oumal a/Geographical Systems: 4. 3:251-274. © 2002 Springer Berlinl lend itself to questions of precise prediction of the location and timing of
Heidelberg. redevelopment:
adjusted the figures to account for metropolitan population growth and [Gjentrification derives much of its significance from its links to the
total property value inflation. Clark offered detailed historical analyses of process of urban restructuring and uneven development. The rent gap
the development and redevelopment circumstances of each of the cases, hypothesis is useful in understanding gentrification not because it
showing how the particular experiences of individuals and institutions provides precise prediction ... but because it provides a theoretical link
working in particular neighborhood settings at various times will produce between gentrification and these larger processes. This study suggests
different kinds of rent gaps; in other words, the rent gap is not a mecha- that at least part of that linkage can be seen in the land-rent histories of
nistic device, but rather a general structural tendency that follows different gentrified parcels in Minneapolis. (Hammel1999b: 142)
68 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 69

Remarkably, the long history of multivariate quantitative analysis that Box2.2

was so pervasive in urban geography in the 1960s, and that persists today
in urban economics and regional science, has been rare in gentrification Other Gaps?
research. There are almost no multivariate studies. David O'Sullivan's work In 1979, the ]oumal of the American Planning Association published Neil
(2002) is a recent exception, and offers a fine-grained view of the complex Smith's 'Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement
interactions of different actors involved in urban real estate markets who by Capital, Not People'. Smith's specific explanatory mechanism, the
look closely at what's happening to individual houses, those next door, and rent gap, instantly became influential in the study of gentrification. But
those down the block. O'Sullivan develops something called a 'cellular Smith's explanation was based on theories in classical political economy
automaton' spatial model, which is essentially what happens if you mix and land rent that had been discussed since the middle of the nineteenth
geography and algebra: you get a series of rules that govern what happens century. Eric Clark (1988) has traced the history of both neoclassical and
to a property based on the condition and events observed for neighboring Marxian efforts to come to terms with the discontinuous, uneven process
properties. O'Sullivan's model relates several measures of property condi- of adjustment over time and space, as urban development, technological
tion and value with resident income levels for particular properties, and is change, and the depreciation of aging structures interact to create local-
designed to relate changes in over~ll neighborhood conditions over time ized mismatches between current and optimal land uses. Smith's concep-
with model parameters that capture specific aspects of how the market tion.is unique for its explicit consideration of gentrification. and for its
operates. For example, how fast does a decline in property values lead to connections to broader processes of uneven urban development; but it is
a corresponding decline in the incomes of buyers and renters who move not without precedent.
into the next vacant home in the area? And when and where will the cycle And it has also inspired other efforts to capture different kinds of
of disinvestment produce spatial pockets where it is profitable for entrepre- mismatches or disjunctures. Hamnett and Randolph (1986), for instance,
neurial types to take the risks of redevelopment to earn the profits of gen- developed a complementary alternative to the rent gap, proposing that a
trification? O'Sullivan's model translates these kinds of rules into a series value gap could explain the pressure to convert rental housing to owner-
of equations that simulate the long-term evolution of the rental and owner- occupancy (see the case study of Barnsbury in Chapter 1). Hamnett and
ship segments of the market in Hoxton, inner East London. His results Randolph analyzed the historical politics and economics of the 'flat break-
describe a complex, long-term trajectory of disinvestment and resurgence: up market' in central London, which emerged as part of a broader national
trend where blocks of privately-rented apartments were sold for individ-
From the 30th to the 35th years the neighborhood is very unstable with ual owner-occupation in a wave of conversions from the 1960s through
large numbers of rental properties. large numbers of sales. and continu- the 1980s. Market conditions in Britain had created two distinct methods
ing decline in mean household income and in the physical condition of ofvaluing residential property-one based on the stream of rental income
properties. At the end of this period, properties start to return to owner a potential buyerllandlord could expect from a particular property, and
occupation and the fall in both incomes and the conditions of buildings the other based on the sale value for owner-occupation; 'where the two
is halted. These effects combine to see the neighborhood's status sharply sets of values diverged ... a value gap could open up, thereby creating the
rise, and mean household incomes subsequently rise sharply. Within possibility of a profitable transfer of residential property from one tenure
a matter of only 3 years virtually all properties are back in owner- to another' (p. 133). And these values did diverge in the middle decades
occupation. (O'Sullivan 2002: 268) of the Twentieth Century. Owner-occupancy began to receive larger tax
and interest-rate subsidies, while tenant rent controls and occupancy regu-
In the end, O'Sullivan's approach offers a rare analysis of the dynam- lations made it harder for landlords to earn expected rates of return on
ics of extremely local events in property markets, and sheds light on the investments. Landlords responded with disinvestment through under-
dynamics of scale in neighborhood change; but he also notes that this spa- maintenance-until it became possible. thanks to the expansion of mort-
tial resolution comes at the price of certain simplifying data assumptions gage credit through building societies, to sell flats either to existing tenants
that make it impossible to capture the precise categories of potential and or to other prospective owner-occupiers. The resulting divergence in the
capitalized ground rent. economics of the two sectors 'had a fundamentally debilitating effect on
70 • Gentrification
Producing Gentrification • 71

the viability of the private rental sector' (p. 133) and culminated in 'the ';When centrally planned allocation of resources is replaced by alloca-
wholesale loss of rented accommodation through its transfer to owner-
tion ruled by market forces, freely set rents influence the distribution of
occupation' (p. 135).
functions in space. Thus, functions with an inefficient utilization of space
Implicit in all of this, of course, is that the basic processes at the heart may soon be outbid by more progressive functions with a highly intensive
of the rent gap are expressed differently in the urban landscape, depend-
space utilization. In this way, the functional gaps can be closed 10 a very
ing upon the kinds of rules governing a specific property market. Zoning short time without maldng huge investments'.
regulations, tax rates for different land uses, tax incentives designed to
encourage redevelopment, and other factors all help to shape the way deval-
orization works in a particular city, in a particular regional and national
context. Loretta Lees (1994b), for example, shows that neighborhood
change in London and New York (cr. Chapter 1) follows different paths,
what she terms an Atlantic Gap, thanks to contrasts in the rules of prop-
erty transfer, the capitalization of property through the housing finance
system, and in conservation and historic designation. She concludes that
'The rent gap is a more appropriate theorisation of gentrification in the US
than the value gap because of its focus on land, abandonment and place,
alongside relevant legal and political differences' (p. 216).
These legal and political differences are absolutely crucial. As an
explanatory tool and a framework for political-economic analysis, the
rent gap is a glimpse at one facet of the workings of capitalist property
markets. It is thus not surprising, then, that Millard-Ball (2000: 1688)
finds the rent gap and value gap oflimited use in understanding the effects
of state intervention and housing allocation policies in Stockholm: 'Much
Price/m2 (1,000 CS Crowns)
gentrification in Sweden appears to rely on non-market or quasi-market
c:=:JNonuctlon ~5.10
processes, which gap theories, based as they are on the operation of mar-
c:=:J<3 ~1O.25
ket forces and rational economic behavior, are ill-suited to analyze'. ~3-5 _>25
Elsewhere, these 'market forces' began to transform the urban envi-
ronment with the fall of repressive state-socialist regimes in the Soviet Figure 82.2 Average Prices Paid for One Square Meter of Nonresidential Premises at
Union and Eastern Europe. With the collapse of centrally-planned systems Privatization Auctions in 1991-1992, Prague
for housing and land allocation, cities in these settings began to change Source: Ludek Sykora, City in transition: the role of the rent gap in Prague's
rapidly with the emergence of sharp land-value gradients. Ludek Sykora revitalization. Tijdscllrijt lIoor Economisce ell Sociale Geografie, 84(4), p. 286, © 1993
(1993) examined the effects of market transition in Prague in the early Blackwell Publishing.
1990s, and was able to measure the average prices paid per square meter
at a privatization auction (see map below). 'The extreme center~to-edge GClltrijicl1tioll alld Ulleve/I Develop1lle1lt
variations 'reflect both the value of the location and the unnatural char- Millard-Ball (2000: 1673) notes that 'production-side explanations have come
acter of the artificially equalized price of land or rent under the social- to be virtually synonymous with 'gap' theories of genlrification', and Redfem
ist system' and this 'emerging price gradient' builds pressure to change (1997: 1277) observes, 'Normally, rejection of Smith's rent-gap model would
land uses. Sykora (1993: 287-288) drew a distinction between short-term appear implicitly or explicitly to mean endorsement of the consumption-oriented
adjustments in occupancy and use of existing structures-what he called accounts'. But the minutiae of the rent gap debates-important though they
a functional gap-and longer-term rent-gap pressures to reconfigure, may be to land rent specialists and empirical researchers-should not distract
rebuild, or redevelop: 'Functional gaps are caused by the underutilization us from the 'wider conceptual framework' for production explanations. Neil
of available land and bUildings relative to their current physical quality. Smith (1996b: 1202) emphasized that his original theorization was deliberately
72 • Gentrification ProdUcing Gentrification • 73

simplified: 'If the rent-gap theory works at all, it works because ofits simplicity When rates of profit begin to fall in the major sectors of industrial
and its limited theoretical claims. It should certainly be subjected to theoretical production-the 'first circuit' of capital investment-investors and financial
criticism, but I do think that this will be useful only if the theoretical premises institutions seek out more profitable opportunities in other sectors. At this
are taken seriously from the start'. And the central theoretical premise con- point, the 'second circuit'-real estate and the built environment-becomes
cerns the fundamentally social and political dimensions of economic power an especially attractive vehicle for investment. Capital switches away from
in urban land markets: all the lines in those graphs and curves of potential goods- and service-producing industries into construction and real estate,
and capitalized ground rent (see Figure 2.2) are the outcome of political con- driving building booms and rapid inflation in real estate markets until here,
tests and class relations. These contests and relations certainly vary widely too, overaccumulation drives down the rate of profit (Harvey 1978; Beaure-
from place to place, but the fundamental question is always this: who gets to gard 1994; Charney 2001, 2003; Lefebvre 1991). In the most extreme cases,
profit from capitalized ground rent? This is not simply an abstract theoretical property booms are leading indicators of recession, appearing as a 'kind
discussion of factors of production, but goes to the heart of the rules of the oflast-ditch hope for finding productive uses for rapidly overaccumulating
game in property markets. Analyzing the terrible racism and exploitation in capital' (Harvey 1985: 20).
Baltimore's inner-city housing market in the early 1970s, David Harvey (1974: Recessions and depressions ultimately require and allow spatial restruc-
251) seized on the fundamental social and political nature of rent: '[A]ctual turing of the urban economy. On the one hand, suburbanization created an
payments are made to real live people and not to pieces of land. Tenants are unprecedented spatial fix for the crisis of the Great Depression in the 1930s,
not easily convinced that the rent collector merely represents a scarce factor of with government-subsidized investment in highway construction and cheap
production'. More recently, surveying the growing competitive pressures for mortgages encouraging massive new residential development-creating
cities to mobilize their built environments as vehicles of capital accumulation, additional new markets for automobiles, consumer durables, and petroleum
Neil Smith (2002: 427) notes that these social relations are being reconfigured: products (Walker 1981). On the other hand, inner-city devalorization created
the urban scale, once defined in terms of the locally oriented needs of social rent gaps, creating the conditions for a locational switch of capital that seemed
reproduction, is now shifting to a definition 'in which the investment of pro- to accelerate gentrification during times of recession in the 1970s and 1980s in
ductive capital holds definitive precedence'. Ultimately, the rent gap remains the United States and Canada. For Smith, then, 'the gentrification and rede-
controversial not only because of its role in an explanation of gentrification, velopment of the inner city represent a linear continuation of the forces and
but because it weaves the explanation and interpretation of gentrification into relations that led to sub urbanization' (N. Smith 1982: 150). Ultimately, then,
a broader, critical perspective on capitalist urbanization and uneven develop- gentrification is tightly bound up with much larger processes: it is the leading
ment from the local scale to the global. edge of the spatial restructuring of capitalist urbanization, and it

Spatial Fixes a/ld Circuits oJCapital is part of a larger redevelopment process dedicated to the revitalization
Recall that urbanization involves massive capital investments that, once of the profit rate. In the process, many downtowns are being converted
committed, are tied up in buildings and other facilities for long peri- into bourgeois playgrounds replete with quaint markets, restored town-
ods of time, creating barriers to new kinds of investment in these places. houses, boutique rows, yachting marinas, and Hyatt Regencies. These
Geographical expansion provides a 'spatial fix' to this dilemma, allowing very visual alterations to the urban landscape are not at all an acciden-
capital investment to gravitate to new markets in new places that can be tal side-effect of temporary economic disequilibrium but are as rooted
built with the most current and advanced (and thus most profitable) tech- in the structure of capitalist society as was the advent of suburbaniza-
nologies. But as we have already seen, this spatial expansion accelerates the tion. (N. Smith 1982: 151-152)
devalorization of previous investments in older parts of the urban fabric:
'The movement of capital into suburban development', Smith observed, 'led And this also means that the negative consequences of gentrification-the
to a systematic devalorization of inner and central city capital, and this, rising housing expense burden for poor renters, and the personal catastrophes
in turn, with the development of the rent gap, led to the creation of new of displacement, eviction, and homelessness-are not simply isolated local
investment opportunities in the inner city precisely because an effective anomalies. They are symptoms of the fundamental inequalities of capitalist
barrier to new investment had previously operated there' (N. Smith 1982: property markets, which favor the creation of urban environments to serve
149). As it turns out, new investment opportunities are crucially important the needs of capital accumulation, often at the expense of the needs of home,
in the periodic crises that punctuate the boom-and-bust cycles of capitalism. community, family, and everyday social life.
74 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 75

The Problems with Production Explanations who are playing by those rules (Krueckeberg 1995; Lees 1994b: Blomley 2004).
We've deliberately simplified this overview of production theories. We've When gentrification inflates home prices in once-disinvested neighborhoods.
tried to accentuate the key challenges to the mainstream assumptions of it is common to find that poor home owners are suddenly eager to cash out
consumer preference. individual behavior, and benign spatial equilibrium. on the appreciation by selling and moving away; we should be sympathetic to
But in the last twenty years, production narratives have evolved in much this kind of accumulation, even as we remember that low-income renters don't
more subtle and nuanced directions in order to consider the interplay and have the same opportunity. Similarly, it is possible even in the tightest hous-
mutual constitution of production and consumption (Beauregard 1986; ing markets to find individual landlords who actually know their low-income
Clark 1995; Hamnett 1991; Ley 2003; Rose 1984; N. Smith and DeFilippis tenants as individuals-and who therefore resist the incentives to raise rents
1999; N. Smith 2002). These efforts-variously understood as reconciliation, or evict a vulnerable household (Newman and Wyly 2006). Consumption the-
integration, or complementarity-are the result of production theorists' orists are right: individual choices do matter in what happens in gentrifying
dialogue with social and cultural theorists studying a new middle class neighborhoods. But so are production theorists: a few landlords keeping rents
that seems to have distinctive values and political sensibilities that favor below rising market rates do not fundamentally alter the meaning of the
gender, racial, sexual, and class diversity at the neighborhood scale. These renter-landlord relation, and do nothing to advance us to a long-term solu-
social and cultural theories, which we examine more closely in the next tion that would protect what Chester Hartman (1984) famously described as
chapter, are quite distinct from the neoclassical economic tradition. But the 'right to stay put', or what David Imbroscio (2004) has proposed as a full-
both approaches share a reverence for understanding the motivations and fledged political philosophy for the 'right to place'.
decisions of individual actors, including gentrifiers. As the ambassadors These lands of conversations, though, become unproductive (pardon the
of the ruling conventional wisdom of policy and politics, neoclassical pun) as soon as a certain word is used. Production theorists are attacked for
analysts have rarely felt the need to respond directly to production-side their determinism. This is a prima facie irony, since if we are trying to deter-
challenges-although Berry (1999) unsheathed his sword when insurgents mine what causes something, determinism is precisely what we need. But the
rewrote his 'Islands of Renewal in Seas of Decay' to describe public-hous- critics do have an important point. Drawing on her research that showed how
ing projects surrounded by reinvestment as 'Islands of Decay in Seas of lower-middle-class women found the inner city more supportive than the
Renewal' (see also Byrne 2003; Vigdor 2002). The result is a curious state patriarchal low-denSity suburbs, Damaris Rose (1984: 56) tried diplomatically
of affairs: an intense, rich, and theoretically astute debate on the left, to remind us that 'gentrifiers are not the mere bearers of a process determined
amongst those who generally agree on the inadequacy of the neoclassical independently of them'. But Chris Hamnett (1992: 117) opted for flowery prose
approach, the significance of gentrification, and its costs and inequali- with sharp thorns, charging that Smith's 'opposition to any form of agency
ties. The key point of disagreement is the causal explanation: why? When? explanation reveals him as a structuralist for whom individual agency is
Where? reduced to the role of flickering shadows cast by the light of capital's fire'. And
It's a fairly simple matter to summarize the problems that have been asso- Chris Hamnettwasn't convinced byNeil Smith's attempts to consider the inter-
ciated with production explanations. First, the measurement and verification play of production and consumption: 'I sought to show that his later writing is
problems of the rent gap debates look settled by comparison with the contro- still unduly economist and deterministic and that he is unwilling to accept that
versy over attempts to document capital switching and other facets of uneven individuals may have any significant role in shaping their environment outside
economic development. Second, both Marxist and neoclassical accounts rely influencing the colouring on the cake' (Hamnett 1992: 117). Smith lit a Molo-
on the axiom of economic rationality, and downplay the significance of indi- tov cocktail and tossed capital's fire back at Hamnett, suggesting that Hamnett
viduals who (intentionally or not) defy the norm. And third, for many readers, had abandoned an earlier concern for class injustice in favor of a pro-gentry
drawing a direct link between so many diverse local cases of gentrification methodological individualism; perhaps this was part of 'the transformation
and the entire anatomy of global capitalism seems to imply that individual from the "young Hamnett" to the "old Hamnett", as it were' (N. Smith 1992:
gentrifiers behave first and foremost as ruthless capital accumulators. Some 114). Smith went on to advocate a 'non-essentialist' way of understanding gen-
do. But many are in contradictory class positions (to borrow the terms of the triflcation by using class as the 'point of entry' into the constellation of social
sociologist Eric Wright) shaped by inequalities of gender, race, ethnicity, and relations and social identities involved (N. Smith 1992: 114: see also Graham
sexual identity (Freeman 2006; Rose 1984; Lauria and Knopp 1985); we should 1990 and Gibson-Graham's 1993 recipe for smashing capitalism while working
always be careful, then, to focus criticism on the rules and inequalities of at home in your spare time). Still, the contingency of difference and identity
property and to think very carefully before villainizing the individual people should not blind us to the fundamental importance of class:
 76 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 77

[Llet's for a moment assume the priority of individual preference. Now 'neighborhood' is increasingly viewed in terms of the potential for
let us ask: who has the greatest power to realize their preferences? With- capital accumulation; and new sources of information may accelerate
out in any way denying the ability of even very poor people to exercise the competitive dynamics in areas of reinvestment (see Figure 2.3).
some extent of preference, I think it is obvious that in a capitalist sOciety The charge of determinism may well have been justified in seeking
one's preferences are more likely to be actualized, and one can afford causal explanations for the emergence of gentrification in the 1960s,
grander preferences, to the extent that one commands capital. We may but in today's climate such criticisms miss the mark. Gentrification
regret that economics so strongly affects one's ability to exercise prefer- is a fact of urban life, and its consequences take place in a political
ences, but it would hardly be prudent to deny it; preference is an inher- context that is quite deterministic. At a panel discussion in the 2002
ently class question. (N. Smith 1992: 114) meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Harvey was
Many consumption theorists are still not convinced. We'll see why in criticized for presenting an account of American imperialism that
the next chapter. But what we need to confront here is the matter of context. was 'a totalizing discourse'. Without missing a beat, Harvey replied,
TI;eoretical purity in the pages of academic journals, text con text jousting 'Well, it's a totalizing system'.
WIth charming, erudite wit is one thing; the lives of the poor and working 2. Capital switches have become 'mInd-boggling' (Blackburn 2006; The
classes whose homes, communities, and lives are gentrified are another matter Economist 2006). After many critics abandoned production expla-
entirely. In the years since the prodtlction-consumption debates reached the nations because of the mixed empirical results on rent gaps, capital
peak of sophistication and intensity in the late 1980s and early 1990s, each of switching, and other facets of uneven urban development, an acceler-
the major criticisms of production theories has been subverted by dramatic ating wave of innovation in financial markets produced a much larger
shifts in political context. Social inequalities have worsened with the consol- menu of complex financial instruments that operationalize many
idation of neoliberalism as a triumphant political movement that has been of these principles. These mechanisms have transformed much of
able to implement specific policy templates that dictate 'market justice'-the the system of housing finance allarge, and they have also lubricated the
principle that free markets are and should always be the undisputed arbiter process of unequal reinvestment and polarizing gentrification in the
of social outcomes (Tessop 2002; Kodras 2002; Peck 2007; see Chapters 5 and inner city (Ashton 2005; Hackworth 2002a, 2002b). When Harvey
6). As the 'cultural turn' has become more influential among scholars, eco- pointed out in 1978 that capital switching 'cannot be accomplished
n?mic. trends and national and city politics have gone in precisely the opposite without a money supply and credit system which create "fictional
dIrectIOn. And so we have three profound ironies: capital" in advance of actual production and consumption' (p. 103),
it was extremely difficult to find specific evidence on the neighbor-
1. Consumer sovereignty has become urban policy. As more scholars hood-level spatial dimensions of these dynamics. This has changed. In
have rejected the deterministic assumptions of economic rational- the last generation, fictional capital has expanded dramatically with
ity as a way of understanding social and cultural change, right-wing the proliferation of new types of hedge funds, real estate investment
political movements have implemented neoliberal policies explicitly trusts, risk-partitioned mortgage-backed securities, automated loan-
based on these assumptions (Tessop 2002; Kodras 2002; Mitchell underwriting systems, credit-scoring algorithms tied to risk-based
2003). Throughout the Global North, many national governments pricIng schemes, collateralized debt obligations, and so on; 'credit'
are pursuing policies that restrict the rights of Individuals as citi- has an increasingly complex vocabulary (B1ackburn 2006; Fabozzl
zens-redefining rights instead in terms of consumers and investors 2001). A new wave of research is documenting how at least some of
as cities seek to attract wealthy home owners and free-spending tour- these Instruments of capital accumulation mediate the dynamics of
ists. In the Global Soutl" many of these principles are imposed by the gentrification and the political strategies of those who stand to profit
'structural adjustment' dictates of the International Monetary Fund from it (Hackworth 2002a, 2002b; Lake 1995; Haclcworth and Smith
and other transnational financial institutions. Consumer sovereignty 2001).
is becoming policy-summarized best.perhaps by George W. Bush's 3. The politicS of methods have displaced attention from those dis-
notion ofthe 'ownership society'-such that individuals face increased placed by gentrification. The displacement of poor- and working-
penalties if they do not behave as Homo eC01l0miCllS in planning class residents was once a prominent concern across much of the
their home purchase, their retirement, and even the expenses oftheir political spectrum in gentrification research (Hartman 1984; Laska
own health care. In overheated real estate markets, the concept of and Spain 1980: chs. 15-19; Schill and Nathan 1983: ch. 5). But a
78 • Gentrification
Producing Gentrification • 79

widespread backlash against the model-intensive flavor of neod .

and qualitative methods (but see Lees 2003b; Ley 2003; N. Smith and
c,al ~rban economics turned off many political economists to q~:~­
DeFilippis 1999). Even fewer have the specialized expertise to engage
tltahve research, and the trend has accelerated as the 'cultural t ~
neoclassical analysts on the terrain of multivariate modeling and
focused new interests in the construction of identity d'ffi urn
. fi ' 1 erence, and longitudinal sociospatial analysis. As a consequence, when a series of
co~mumty or people living in gentrifying neighborhoods. This
socIal and cultural research is certainly important. Unfortun t I
even the ~ost sophi~ticated ethnographic accounts of the cha~;~
Figure 2.3 (Continued)
Orawing connections between gentrification and urban property markets invariably raises controver-
underway m dynamIc inner-city neighborhoods cannot be used to sial issues over the politics of data and methods. These politics have been the subject of academic
~am generalizable knowledge of certain consequences of gentrifica- debate for many years, but some facets of the disputes may be shifting in curious ways with the dra-
hon: ,anyone ,:ho participates in an interview or focus group in a matic expansion of the use of internet data providers. Back in 1986, Oavld Ley examined the factors
gentnfymg nelghborhood has, by definition, not yet been displaced correlated with gentrification in 22 Canadian metropolitan areas, and he included two measures
Very few gentrification researchers are able to integrate quantitativ~ Intended to measure the rent gap-the ratio of inner-city to metropolitan house values, and the
ratio of inner-city to metropolitan rental costs-and ultimately found no support for the hypothesis.
Neil Smith (1987: 463-4641 did not react kindly: 'The clumsiness of this translation from concept to
operational variable is astonishing ... this indicator does not refer to rent, nor does it even postulate
an economic gap in the central city. Both ingredients are missing in a two-ingredient recipe. Ley is
untroubled by the emptiness of his bowl, however, merely assuring us that the postulated ratios do
represent "one valid measure of the rent gap"....'. Ley (1987: 4681 tried to make a case that the mea-
sures did capture the essence of the theory, and then went on to lampoon Smith's use of the rent gap
to predict where reinvestment was most likely to begin: 'The devalorization cycle and the mystique
around the rent gap now become unnecessary baggage. All that is now required for gentrification to
occur is the potential for profit'. Two decades later, this spirited and charming academic debate now
takes place amongst homeowners and realtors. Zillow.com, a Seattle-based startup that attracted
nearly 2.8 million visitors to its web site after its launch in February, 2006, devised what it called
'zestimates', using models of local price trends to estimate property values for more than 40 million
homes nationwide. Heavy use by residents, journalists, and anyone else with an interest in property
values led the San Diego Union-Tribune to quip that 'the term "to zillow" has joined such phrases as
"to google'" (Showley, 20061. Millions of people can look up the zestimate for their home simply by
typing in the address, and 'While they are at it, users are looking up friends, neighbors, ex-spouses,
family members, bosses. It is also a gold mine of celebrity trivia, if you know the celebrity's address'
(Blanton, 20061. But when Zillow took the next step-aggregating its zestimates to create 'City
Heat Maps' of the estimated property value per square foot for homes-the result comes tantaliz-
ingly close to measuring the spatial imprint of devalorization. To be sure, the measure captures nei-
ther capitalized nor potential ground rent, nor their changes over time in the devalorization cycle; the
measure also seems to blend house price and lot price. Nevertheless, with a standard per-square-foot
indicator, the maps clearly highlight pockets of the city with low values surrounded by much 'hotter'
areas. The image above is a black-and-white version of the online calor map, but in general, dark
areas have relatively low per-square-foot values, while the brighter areas have higher values; note
the patchwork of dark and light areas near the downtown core and extending to the northwest. It's
not clear how individual consumer behavior may change with the diffusion of this kind of informa-
tion, which was until recently only available to professionals or researchers willing to sift through
specialized local property records. 'The launch of Zillow comes as homeowners' emotions are run-
ning high and house prices have begun to soften after years of rapid appreciation', reports the
Boston G/obe. 'The site's Zestimates also have become a point of contention for real estate agents
who feel threatened by Zillow's free access to information previously available only to professionals'
(Blanton, 20061.
Source; Zillow (2006).
80 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 81

studies based on government housing databases seemed to provide emergence of a distinct gentrifying class, part of an elite global community
evidence that gentrification was not actually displacing low-income . in which the construction of identity is increasingly corn modified and tied to
renters in gentrifying neighborhoods, few researchers were able to specific neighborhoods in the competitive real estate markets at the top of t~e
respond (Freeman and Braconi 2002; Freeman 2005; Vigdor 2002). world urban hierarchy. This commodification, he argues, erodes the symbolIc
These studies received enormous press coverage, punctuated by a significance of local gentrification processes: 'In order to maintain a distinc-
headline in USA Today: 'Gentrification: A Boost for Everyone?' (see tive identity, numerous gentrifiers are projecting their identity from the scale
Plate 6.5) Many community activists shouted, 'No!' and provided of the local onto the scale of the global. In doing so, these individuals actively
detailed accounts of the individual experiences of poor people whose position themselves as a global elite community' (Rofe 2003: 2511).
lives were damaged by gentrification. But in mainstream public and Second, the leading edge of uneven urban development has expanded dra-
policy discourse, such cases are always dismissed as 'anecdotal'. matically inside gentrifying cities. In other words, reinvestment has moved
beyond the comparatively small enclaves of gentrification, and is moving
Produci11g New Ineqllalities, New Scales, and New Struggles
deeper into other parts of the devalorized urban environment (see Chapters
Gentrification is nothing more and nothing less than the neighborhood 4 and 5). In many cities, this move supplies an endless stream of raw material
expression of class inequality. It should thus come as no surprise that recent for journalists, investors, and community residents trying to figure out pre-
paths of neighborhood change reflect,the well-documented increase in social cisely where the frontier is this month. The local details always vary, but the
polarization in urbanized societies throughout the world. Production accounts expansion is the logical extension of the rent gap framework (see Figure 2.4).
draw attention to three important shifts in the nature and implications of gen- As jason Hackworth (2002b: 825) observes, '[H]ousing markets are in flux as
trification in these times of worsened Inequality. the reinvested core-the area dose to the CBD [central business district] that
First, local rent gap dynamics have become much more tightly intertwined experienced the bulk of real estate investment during earlier waves of gen-
with transnational processes. In theoretical terms, of course, the rent gap trification-shoves the once-monolithic belt of disinvestment (the land value
has always been Inextricable from global uneven development and circuits valley) outward from the urban core' to more distant parts of the central city,
of capital. And for many years, major international developers have been and into the inner-ring suburbs as well.
key players in the production of large-scale gentrification landscapes (most Third, the politics of urban property markets have altered the terrain for
famously in the development of London's Canary Wharf by the Canadian opposition and resistance. Gentrification now receives more explicit govern-
firm Olympia & York). But in the last decade or so, other facets have been mental support, through both subsidies to large corporate developers and tar-
transnationalized as well. The vast majority of residenthil mortgages are now geted policies designed to attract individual gentrifiers. Expanded reinvestment
bought and sold repeatedly In pools of securities o!' world financial markets, has displaced and dispersed more and more low-income renters, effectively
such that local devalorization cycles and rent gap dynamics are lubricated by displacing opposition and resistance itself (DeFilippis 2004; Hackworth
shifts in interest rates, currency fluctuations, government budget deficits, and 2002b; Haclcworth and Smith 2001; Goetz 2003). But for low-income home
investor sentiment. These trends have been particularly pronounced in the owners and institutional property owners that serve worldng-class or poor
United States, where home-equity loans and 'exotic' mortgage products have clients, the expansion of gentrification is bittersweet: quite literally, these indi-
turned houses into virtual automatic teller machines; as the economist Paul viduals and institutions must decide whether and when to sell out and leave.
Krugman (2006) quips, '[W]e became a nation in which people make a liv- In this sense, gentrification is more than ever driven by the politicS of property
ing by selling one another's houses, and they pay for the houses with money rights-the social relations that underpin the entire rent gap framework and
borrowed from China'. This financial integration affects all kinds. of neigh- the struggles of who gets enriched by capitalized ground rent. Unfortunately,
borhoods, but there is evidence that it is particularly important in lubricating property rights have become so deeply enmeshed Into social and cultural tra-
rent gap reinvestment in the gentrifying inner city. Meanwhile, key segments ditions in many capitalist societies-values and symbols of individualism,
of locallabor markets in large cities are now interwoven into a world urban freedom, and the 'dream' of homeowners hip, for instance-that house price
system: local clusters oftransnational corporate services and headquarters not appreciation is now regarded as an individual entitlement or an inalienable
only generate demand for local gentrified residential space, but also serve to right of citizenship. Urban politicS have thus become much more vicious i~
weave this local demand into transnational circuits of lab or migration amongst terms of any issue believed to enhance or threaten property values. In Amen-
itinerant professionals on short-term assignments or freelance employment can housing markets, this has traditionally meant upper-middle-class white
contracts. Matthew Rofe (2003) goes so far as to suggest that we are seeing the suburbanites using 'property values' as code for racist practices of exclusion
 82 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 83

Figure 2.4 Evolving Land Value Surfaces and the Expansion of Gentrification and discrimination. But these practices are becoming increasingly common
among working-class home owners in aging inner-ring suburbs that are now
facing intensified devalorization and disinvestment (N. Smith et a1. 2001).
Indeed, there is evidence that the desire to protect property values is forging
a new kind of progentrification coalition in declining industrial suburbs in
the United States. Christopher Niedt draws on interviews, archival research,
and participant observation in a suburb of Baltimore, Maryland; he concludes
that white working-class home owners and community organizations in these
places support gentrification efforts and the resulting renter displacement,
CllyCenter because 'many of them have drawn from a resurgent national conservatism
to explain decline as an effect of government subsidies and "people from the
city'" (Niedt 2006: 99). Moreover, gentrification can produce physical land-
Seal9: City Cwnwr IIUll A
scapes that even steadfast tax-cutting, antigovernment conservatives regard
as attractive and successful; home owners who are otherwise ideologically
opposed to government programs will thus support publicly financed gen-
trification 'as a growth strategy that supposedly improves places by removing
problem people and land uses and replacing them with better ones' (Niedt
2006: 116).
We should not underestimate the stakes in these conflicts, and we must not
ignore the fundamentally political questions that masquerade as neutral rules
and laws governing urban property markets. Property is about power, control,

i and the right to exclude. And as the philosophy of market justice has been
used to justify extremes in wealth and power across more and more domains
of society, those who stand to benefit from gentrification have become bolder
in their claims. 'The clearest statement comes from Andres Duany. a prom-
inent architect and leader of the 'new urbanist' design movement who has
become a key figure in the production of many gentrified landscapes in the
United States. In an essay published by a right-wing think tank, Duany offers
'Three Cheers for Gentrification':

These days, whenever more than a handful of middle-income people

ScnJo:CIIy CGnlllrlJ'Clm A move into a formerly down-at-the-heels neighborhood, they are accused
of committing that newest of social sins: "gentrification". This loaded
term-conjuring up images of yuppies stealing urban housing from
Since the initial linkage between industrialization and urbanization in the nineteenth century, land rightful inhabitants-has become embedded in the way many activists
values have been closely tied to centralization (A). Industrialization typically created 'a 'peak land understand urban evolution. And the thinking behind it has become
value intersection' (PLVI) in a city's central business district (CBD), with later sub urbanization creat-
a serious obstacle to the revival of American cities .... Gentrifica-
ing smaller peaks at commercial nodes and along major transportation corridors. Suburbanization
tion rehalances a concentration of poverty by providing the tax base,
and the devalorization cycle, however, gradually created what Homer Hoyt (1933) called a 'land
value valley' (LVV) near the city center (BI; the LVV gradually moves outwards as various parts of the rub-off work ethic, and political effectiveness of a middle class, and in
urban environment are devalorized. After several decades of gentrification, the land value surface is the process improves the quality of life for all of a community's resi-
a complex mosaic of disinvestment and reinvestment (C). dents. It is the rising tide that lifts all boats ....
Source: Jason Hacbvorth, Post recession gentrification in New York City, Urball Affairs [Pleople should not be prevented from profiting on the natural appre-
Review, 37(6), p. 826, © 2002 Sage Publications, Inc. ciation of their neighborhoods. Not in America. (Duany 2001: 37, 39)
 84 • Gentrification Producing Gentrification • 85

This kind of reasoning-sort of a trickle-down theory applied to housing and example, Hamnett and Randolph's 'value gap' in London and Sykora's 'func-
neighborhoods-has become the most powerful ideological weapon among tional gap' in Prague. We pointed to some of the problems with production
developers, speculators. wealthy home owners, and other advocates of gentri- explanations, especially those that the consumption explanations in the next
fication (see Chapter 6). And the argument works by ignoring or suppressing chapter focus on. In so doing we highlighted some of the fiery words that
the fundamental question posed by production theorists: what produced the were thrown back and forth amongst gentrification researchers in the 1980s
'down-at heels neighborhood' that subsequently becomes a popular place to and 1990s, words which attacked and defended production (and consump-
invest and speculate? Ignoring the process of disinvestment and the creation tion) explanations. We ended the chapter by exploring a new generation of
of rent gaps allows advocates of gentrification to present reinvestment and work on production explanations. and we argue that production accounts
redevelopment-the closure of rent gaps-as nothing more than common are still very important today, especially in highlighting the increasing social
sense and good planning. injustice/inequality in cities around the world.
Unfortunately, the tax base benefits of gentrification invariably subsidize
more the gentrifiers or the institutions that serve them. The poor and working Activities and Exercises
classes have no less of a work ethic than today's gentrifiers, many of whose Read Harvey's (1973) Social Justice and the City. Focus on two argu-
main source of wealth is the 'natural' house price appreciation that comes ments: first, Harvey's argument that geogra h (and social science 11
from that collective social creation~urbanization itself. The politically effec- .2"lOre gene..rally: canno re~aI ' bjee-t.we' jn the face ~fu:ban ine~u~l- V
tive middle classes have been more willing in recent years to villainize rent- ity; and, second, his MarXIst argument that productIon IS the deCISIve
ers, the poor, the homeless, and any other individuals whose presence might phase but that it is determined by the demands of consumption.
pOSSibly undermine property values. And improvements in the quality of life Compare Smith's 'rent gap' thesis to Hamnett and Randolph's
for a community's residents simply cannot be enjoyed by those who lose out 'value gap'.
on the right to be community residents. In recent years, these rights become Compare Smith's 'rent gap' thesi!.to Sykory 'functional gap'.
more tenuous, as gentrification has accelerated and underminedl!:e security Study N. Smith, B. Duncan, and L. Reid (1989), 'From Disinvestment
of marginalized renters in many cities. But these rights are always bound up to Reinvestment: Tax Arrears and Turning Points in the East Village',
with the politics of production and consumption in the urban enviro~inent, Housing Studies, 4, 4: 238-252. This is one of the few pieces of work
creating possibilities for change. ''''\. that operationalizes the rent gap.
\ Try to think about what kinds of data one would have to collect to
Summary
show the operation of the rent gap in a city of your choice.
In this chapter, rather than just outlining production explanations per se, Before turning to Chapter 3, read J. Duncan and D. Ley (1982),
we situated them in debates from the early 1970s onward about the back-to- 'Structural Marxism and Human Geography: A Critical Assess-
the-city movement of middle-class gentrifiers in the United States. Of course, ment', Annals of the Association of American Geographers 72:30-59.
the history of production explanations about the back-to-the-city movement This article is a nice summary of the issues that gentrification authors
was not one that could be neatly ordered, for different explanations held such as David Ley had with Marxist-structuralist interpretations of
purchase at the same time. There was no simple Kuhnian paradigm shift the city. In particular, it argues that capital is more conservative
from one explanation to another. This state of affairs mirrors the situation than most structuralists would have us believe, and that inner-city
today, where there are many different explanations of gentrification. In the reinvestment would appear too risky for entrepreneurs until market
chapter we focused our lens on the most influential production explanation, demand establishes itself.
Neil Smith's rent gap thesis; we situated this thesis within wider political-
economic theories about the circulation of capital in the city, espeCially the Further Reading
theory of uneven development. We discussed how the problems of measuring Badcock, B. (1989) 'An Australian view of the rent gap hypothesis', AIl1/als oj the
and interpreting the rent gap and other aspects of production explanations Association oj American Geographers 79: 125-145.
lit a series of important debates about the meaning and Significance of neigh- Clark. E. (1988) 'The rent gap and the transformation of the built environment: Case
borhood transformation. The chapter was very much focused on production studies in M.lmo 1860-1985', Geografiska Am,"ier 70B: 241-254.
Clark, E. (1991) 'Rent gaps and value gaps: Complementary or contradictoryr in J. van
explanations with reference to the United States, but we pointed to some of
Weesep and S. Musterd (eds.) Urban Hotlsingjor the Better Off: Gentrijication in
the production explanations that have emerged outside the United States, for Europe (Utrecht, the Netherlands: Stedelijke Netwerken) 17-29.
86 • Gentrification

Hammel. D. J. (1999a) 'Re-establishing the rent gap: An alternative view of capitalized

land rent'. Urball Studies 36.8: 1283-1293.
Hammer, D. J. (1999b) 'Gentrification and land rent: A historical view of the rent gap
in Minneapolis', Urban Geography 20, 2: 116-145.
Harnnett, C .• and B. Randolph (1986) 'Tenurial transformation and the flat break-up
market in London: The British condo experience', in N. Smith and P. Williams
(ed,.) Gelltrijicatioll Of the City (London: Alien and Unwin) 121-152.
Millard-Ball, A. (2000) 'Moving beyond the gentrification gaps: Social change, tenure
change and gap theories in Stockholm', Urban Studies 37, 9: 1673-1693.
Rose, D. (1984) 'Rethinking gentrification: Beyond the uneven deVelopment ofMarxist
urban theory', Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1: 47-74.
Smith, N., B. Duncan, and 1. Reid (1989) 'From disinvestment to reinvestment: Tax
arrears and turning points in the East Village', HOllsil1g Studies 4, 4: 238-252.
SYkora. 1. (1993) 'City in transition: The role of rent gap in Prague's revitalization',
Tijdschrift voor Ecollo1l1isce en Sociale Geografie 84, 4: 281-293.
Wyly, E .• and D. Harnmel (1999) 'Islands of decay in seas of renewal: Housing policy
and the resurgence of gentrification', Housing Policy Debate 10, 4: 711-771.
 ro
~
D
=
~

=
D
~
3
~
~
'i3
Consumption Explanations
m
.le
lE
>
D
E
m
u
~
Q
U

'0
i? The crucial point ... is that "gentrifiers" are not the mere bearers ofa pro-
.~ cess determined independently of them. Their constitution. as certain
m
oS types of workers and as people. is as crucial an element in the produc-
2Q
Z tion of gentrification as is the production of the dwellings they occupy.
E
m
oS Rose (1984: 56)
=
-'"
.,;
ro
u
:§ At the end of the 1980s, the decade when the term 'yuppie' came into wide-
m
>
ro .'="
~
spread use on both sides of the Atlantic, John Short (1989: 174) summarized
=
m ro
~
the emergence of what he called 'the new urban order':
E m
D
~
:s!
~
~
ro 't>
In summary there has been a loss of manufacturing employment and
ro
~
m "-' an increase in service employment all against a background of rising
'Q. m
~
unemployment. The social effects have been a reduction in the power of
=
;::-3
Q
"
m the traditional male working class, an increase in female employment
=
=
:;:,1
~
~
ro
-oS
.= and the emergence of a new middle class. These trends have been given
"
~
oS m 2 popular recognition in the terms yuppie and yuffie, themselves part of
= 'i3
'"
't>
ro
=
'E =Q '"
Q a plethora of new words coined in the 1980s including buppies, swells
and (my favourite) lombards. A yuppie is a young upwardly mobile
"-'
lE
-"
m =
-~
Q
~
~

person though the u can also denote urban. Yuffies are young urban
~"
D

~
m
oS
~
D
~
ro
failures. If the yuppies are the successful new middle class, yuffies are
~ '0
~ ~2 the stranded and blocked working class. The other terms? Buppie is the
.to
~
:8:5
~= yuppie's black equivalent, swell is single women earning lots in London,
m E ro
<0
= ~ a term which summarizes the rise of the female executive and perhaps
m
oS
~
~
D
u
°em the beginnings of the end for the monopoly of the male domination of
.",
-~
=
'0 =
~ ~ senior and responsible positions. Lombard is lots of money but a right
Q

'" ~
.il -'"
ro
'"
~
~ dickhead, a term of abuse whose real quality is only recognized if you
'"
~....,
-,;
§'. :il ro

-
u
know that one of the main streets in the City of London is Lombard
~'"
."
];! " .,. ....,
m ~
~
~

m m
~

0 Street.
oS E
'"
~
-'" Q
>-
.c Short worried that his paper would immediately become a victim of history
." ==
ro
.<= m .<:
2m
,.
~
m
~
~

=" "
D

m =
- ~
m

~ B
0
g.
'"
and that the amusing terms above may have 'a very short shelf-life'. Whilst
most of the terms listed by Short have indeed disappeared from view, 'yuppie'
""
~

~
.<: has proven to be remarkably tenacious, not least because it is a key weapon in
~ ro 0<
..; ro .<= ~ struggles against gentrification. used to identify unwelcome new arrivals in
.S ro
2ro -:;; ~
~
~
S neighborhoods whose spending power threatens community, the longevity of
a:: ....
"" m
>
'"
88 89
90 • Gentrification Consumption Explanations • 91

affordable housing, and valued local amenities. Yet perhaps the most famous widow in her seventies, Mrs. Edna Shake!. who had just been evicted from her
critic of gentrification, Neil Smith, has warned that'the difficultyin identifying three-room apartment on a street in the gentrifying Fairview district that was
this new middle class, especially in economic terms, should give us pause eXperiencing rapid condominium development. To remain in that area, Mrs.
before we glibly associate yuppies and gentrification' (1996a: 104). Beauregard Shakel had to downgrade to a single-room apartment with a shared bathroom
(1990: 856-857) takes this warning further: (see Ley 1996: 1-3 for a fuller discussion). This encounter stimulated Ley's
lengthy research project on gentrification in Canadian cities, still ongoing (see
To attribute gentrification solely to yuppies is to eliminate quite com-
Ley 2003). The story of Ley's career to date has in fact been one of 'peopling'
plex processes and to shift the burden of the negative consequences of
human geography-he is a key figure in what became known as 'humanistic
gentrification away from factions of capital (for example, developers)
geography', which calls for a more sensitive incorporation of human agency
who often are responsible. Such a focus robs analysis of its structural
into geographical research focused on structural issues, especially structural
and political perspective.
Marxist work (Duncan and Ley 1982). This commitment to researching the
This chapter explores the consumption-side theories that have explained 'everyday lives' of people in geographical contexts shows no sign of weak-
gentrification as a consequence of changes in the industrial and occupational ening-a recent paper by Ley (2004) attempts to 'bring the issue of human
structure of advanced capitalist cities. This is the 'loss of manufacturing agency to a globalisation discourse that has frequently been satisfied with
employment and an increase in service employment' described by Short, speaking of a space of networks and flows devoid of knowledgeable human
which led to an expansion in the amount of middle-class professionals with agents' (p. 152).
a disposition towards central-city living and an associated rejection of subur- The year· after Ley arrived in Vancouver, the American sociologist Daniel
bia. In other words, our purpose is to introduce and analyze a vast (and still Bell published The C011lillgofPost-Illdustrial Society (Bell 1973), which became
expanding) literature that has explored questions of class constitution such extremely influential to Ley's interpretation of gentrification-so much so
as 'Who are the gentrifiers?' 'Where do they come from?' and 'What draws that it is often referred to as Ley's 'postindustrial thesis' on gentrification (see
them to live in central-city neighborhoods?' For some time now, there has Box 3.1). Bell's work was subjected to intense criticism, especially by schol-
been wide agreement that class should be the undercurrent in the study of ars on the left, who questioned the politics of an account which emerged to
gentrification (Hamnett 1991; Smith 1992a; Wyly and Hammel 1999), and challenge Marxist theories of societal development. In one scathing critique,
the research response has been to find out about the behavior of the middle Walker and Greenberg (1982) called the postindustrial thesis 'a rather broad
classes, particularly why they are seeking to locate in previously disinvested and vacuous set of generalizations' stemming from 'a fundamentally empiri-
neighborhoods. This is a surprisingly complex issue, and the reasons vary cist approach to social history in which overt "facts" are tal<en as the whole
from place to place. Over the years, there has been increasing theoretical of reality, rather than as the products of causal mechanisms or structural
sophistication in research undertaken in many different countries that seeks
to understand middle-class gentrifiers-a very diverse, ambivalent group that Box3.1
cannot be reduced to conservative, self-interested yuppies, not least because
the negative connotations of that term are at odds with the 'marginal' posi- Daniel Bell's Post-industrial Thesis
tion of some gentrifiers (Rose 1984), and the left-liberal politics that many Daniel Bell argued that there are four key features of a 'post-industrial
gentrifiers espouse (Ley 1994). If one thing above all was clear from the 1970s society' in emergence:
debates over a back-to-the-city movement across North America (see Chapter
a shift from a manufacturing to a service-based economy
2), it was that more sophisticated theoretical treatments of the pr,aduction of
the centrality of new science-based industries with 'specialized
gentrifiers were needed if the consumption aspects of gentrification were to
knowledge' as a key resource, where universities replace factories as
have explanatory merit.
dominant institutions
the rapid rise of managerial, professional, and technical
The Production of Gentrifiers: The Post industrial and
occupations
Profcssionalization Theses
artistic avant-gardes lead consumer culture, rather than media, cor-
In the summer of 1972, a young urban geographer called David Ley arrived in porations, or government
Vancouver to take up his first academic appointment at the University of British
Source: Ben (1973).
Columbia (where he remains today). That autumn, at a local church, he met a
92 • Gentrification Consumption Explanations • 93

relations which give rise to sensible phenomena' (pp. 17-18). Today, however, global cities, Hamnett came up with a 'professionalization thesis' to counter
It would take a brave voice not to accept that many of Bell's arguments were Sassen's polarization thesis:
remarkably prescient. The growth of professional and managerial employment
[T]here is evidence that a process of professionalisation is concen-
is nowa well-known fact; even David Harvey (1989a), one of the highest-profile
trated in a number of large cities with a strong financial/producer
Marxist voices, conceded that Bell's treatment of cultural transformation
service base . ... London experienced an increase in the proportion of
was 'probably more accurate than many of the left attempts to grasp what was
professional and managerial workers in 1961-1981, while the numbers
happening' (p. 353).
and the shares of all other groups declined. There is no evidence for
From 1972 onwards, David Ley sought to understand gentrification in the
absolute social polarisation in London in the 1960s and 1970s, and the
context of the emergence of the postindustrial city in a project that was at once
1991 census is most unlikely to reveal a sudden reversal of fortune.
historical and contemporary, and particularly concerned with the cultural
politics of gentrification, but not at the expense of economic change in Cana-
(1994b: 407)
dian cities, as many researchers incorrectly stated. Ley argued that postin- Hamnett's prediction of further professionalization evidence from the 1991
dustrial society had altered the rationale behind the allocation of land use in UK Census was indeed accurate (Hamnett 1996)-but how is this often rather
urban contexts in Canada, as new middle-class professionals (what he called numbing debate relevant to gentrification? The answer can be found in the fact
a 'cultural new class') were an expanding cohort with 'a vocation to enhance that these professional and managerial workers are gentrifiers, and a rapidly
the quality oflife in pursuits that are not simply economistic' (1996: 15). Ley expanding group exerting huge influence on housing markets and neighbor-
argued that gentrification represented a new phase in urban development hoods. In Hamnett's view, gentrification is a product of the transformation of
where consumption factors, taste, and a particular aesthetic outlook towards western cities from manufacturing centers to centers of business services and
the city from an expanding middle class saw an 'imagineering of an alter- the creative and cultural industries, where associated changes to the occu-
native u~banism to suburbanization' (p. 15) which could not be captured by pational and income structure produce an expanding middle class that has
explanatIOns of the process that privileged structural forces of production and replaced (not displaced) the industrial working class in desirable inner city
hOUSing market dynamics. areas. In sum,
In the 1990s, Ley's arguments were advanced further by another geogra-
pher, Chris Hamnett, who was impressed by how Ley's postindustrial thesis Not surprisingly in a market economy. the increase in the size and
was 'clearly rooted in the deeper changes in the structure of production, the purchasing power of the middle classes has been accompanied by an
changing division of labour, and the rise of a locationally concentrated ser- intensification of demand pressure in the housing market. This has been
vice class' (Hamnett 1991: 177). As we saw in Chapter 2, Hamnett has been particularly marked in inner London as it is here that many of the new
conSistently and highly critical ofNeil Smith's claim that the rent gap thesis middle class work. and this, combined with a desire to minimise com-
is integral to any explanation of gentrification (Hamnett 1984, 1991, 2003b). muting time, and greater ability to afford the cultural and social attrac-
For Hamnett (1991), '[I]f gentrification theory has a centrepiece it must rest tions of life in the central and inner city, has been associated with the
on the conditions for the production of potential gentrifiers' (p. 187). Soon growth of gentrification. (Hamnett 2003b: 2424)
after this 1991 article was published, Hamnett began a sustained assault on
Saskia Sassen's renowned work on global cities (Sassen 1991), with the produc- Ley's postindustrial and Hamnett's professionalization theses are tightly
tion of potential gentrifiers playing a lead role. He was bothered by Sassen's linked. and have proven very important in consumption explanations of
thesis of 'social polarisation' in global cities, which holds that changes in the the process (see Munt's 1987 study of Battersea, London, which is rooted
industrial and employment structure have produced growing occupational in these explanations). With increased recognition that any explanation of
and income polarization, or, in Sassen's (1991) words, 'a high-income stratum gentrification must incorporate both production- and consumption-side
and a low-income stratum of workers' (p. 13), with fewer jobs in the middle. explanations (Clarl{ 1992), it would ta]ce a determined structuralist not to
Hamnett argued that this thesis not only was a 'slave' of New York and Los grapple with the theses! At this stage in our discussion, we know why the
Angeles, but also contradicted other (and, in his view, more theoretically and new middle class is an expanding group, and that many of them are not
empirically valid) work on urban social change, especially Bell's arguments returning from the suburbs but choosing not to locate in the suburbs. How-
on the emergence of a postindustrial society and Ley's grounding of those ever, what we need to examine now is the vast body ofliterature which seeks
arguments in Canadian cities. Using evidence from London, one of Sassen's to explain why gentrifiers gentrify.
 94 • Gentrification
Consumption Explanations • 95
TI,e New Middle Class
1. Queen Street West, Toronto
People like us live in the inner London suburbs really. We wanted to 2. Le Plateau Mont·Royal, Montreal
h~e somewhere that was mixed and various and vibrant; full of young 3. Vieux·Montreal, Montreal
4. West·End, Vancouver
mIddle class people doing places up. 5. Little Italy. Toronto
6. Old Strathcona, Edmonton
Stoke Newington gentrifier (quoted in Butler 1997: 124) 7. The Exchange District, \X'innipeg
B. Lower Water Street, Halifax
In 1991, the British sOciologist Alan Warde observed, 9. Inglewood, Calgary
10. Le Vieux·QuE!bec, Quebec City
The fragmentation and fluidity of the middle-classes [are] a structural
Figure 3.1 enRoufe'sTop Ten Coolest Neighbourhoods (2002)
base. for a great variety of consumption practices .... To tie down the
details of consumption behaviour to closely specified fractions of these
classes is probably impossible. (p. 228) and unique histories, but for our purposes we must note what they share.
From the late 1960s onwards, they became arenas for the expression of the
While Wa~de was. correct to note a great variety of consumption practices countercultural politics of the emerging new middle class. Thus, a suitable
among a dIfferentIated middle class, the second part of this quotation today starting location for exploring the characteristics of gentrifiers is Canada, and
see~s a biza~re statement, as so mUGh work has appeared since 1991 along particularly the work oOon Caulfield and, again, David Ley.
pre.clsely the lmes that Warde thought impossible. A newcomer to the gentrifi- Gentrification accelerated across Canada in the 1970s during what has
~a~lOn Iit~rature will Soon encounter a substantial literature on the character_ become known as the <reform era' of Canadian urban politics (see Harris
IStICS of dIfferent types of gentrifiers, and their reasons for gentrifying-often 1987). For Caulfield (1994), 1970s and 1980s gentrification in Toronto was a
expressed in gentrifiers' own words, as a number of researchers have under- very deliberate middle-class rejection of the oppressive conformity of sub-
ta~(en qualitative work to track the movements and aspirations of the new urbia, modernist planning, and mass market principles. 'oriented toward
mIddle class. In this section We break down this work into several themes by reconstituting the meanings of old city neighbourhoods towards an alter-
~o mea.ns disconnected from each other, but a reflection of what can be fo~nd native urban future' (p. 109). The process was portrayed as a highly critical
m the hterature on the gentrifying new middle class. middle-class reaction (what he termed a 'critical social practice') to the city's
COllllterwltllrai Tdelltities, Politics, mId Education postwar modernist development Toronto's expanding middle-class intelli-
gentsia was instrumental in the reorientation of the city's identity away from
In A,rril 200~, Air Canada's monthly magazine, e/lRoute, ran an article enti- suburbia and back towards the central city. For the best part of two decades,
tled Canada s Top Ten Coolest Neighbourhoods'. Criteria for entry in the top Toronto's gentrification was in every sense a deliberate operation of resistance
ten of coolness, selected by a panel of thirty-eight prominent Canadians, were to everytlling that characterized urban development in the 1960s, and thus
set out as follows:
a practice 'eluding the domination of social and cultural structures and
Whe.n today's archetypal young graphic designer leaves home, he [sic] is constituting new conditions for experience' (Caulfield 1989: 624). In his inter-
100lGng for ~omething different than what his parents may have sought. views with the gentrifiers of Toronto, Caulfield observed that their affection
Often, he ,,:~lll~,ok for a "young" place inhabited by his peers. He will for Toronto's 'old city neighborhoods' was rooted in their desire to escape the
seek .o~t a fun place, where he can indulge in his favourite leisure mundane, banal routines that characterized suburbia:
aCll;ltles. But most of all, he will look for an area that makes him feel
Old city places offer difference and freedom, privacy and fantasy, pos-
dlstmct and at home at the same time, a neighbourhood that reflects his
sibilities for carnival.. .. These are not just matters of philosophical
tastes-a place that is cool. (p. 37)
abstraction but, in a carnival sense ... the force that [Walter] Benjamin
e/,Route's top :en coolest neighborhoods in Canada are listed in Figure 3.1. If believed was among the most vital stimuli to resistance to domination.
we dls~e~se wIth the arbitrary association of graphic designers with coolness. "A big city is an encyclopaedia of sexual possibility", a characterization
the strilGng feature of this list is the fact that every single neighborhood on to be grasped in its wider sense; the city is "the place of our meeting with
It has. expen~nced gentrification. In addition, arguably the two most famous the other". (Caulfield 1989: 625)
gentnfied nelghborhoods in Canada occupy the top two slots. These ten neigh-
This issue of 'the place of our meeting with the other' will be talcen up in
borhoods, where gentrification is generally well advanced, have interesting
Chapter 6; here, it is necessary to register that Caulfield's point was that
 96 • Gentrification
Consumption Explanations • 97

gentrification could not be separated from reform-era middle-class resistanc

_",n oprv"tiv'evalue, commonly attributed to gentrifiers. For Ley (and Caulfield),
to political and structural domination. e
>;'"iledivE new middle-class disdain for the monotony of suburbia, and for
A similar argument emerges from Ley's (1996) coverage of the intertwin_
the mass organization and repetition o~ post;var Fordism and its crushing
ing of gentrification and reform-era urban politics. Post 1968, the year when
nf iind.ividualism and difference (and entIre nelghborhoods, through freeway
the student protests against the repressive colonization of everyday life by an
overregulated society reached their peak all over the world (Watts 2001), man cons truction) . could not be divorced from the explanation of gentrijication
. . in
general, and the polities of gentrijiers in particular. Furthermore, thIS dISCUS-
centrally located neighborhoods in urban Canada saw their social and eco~
sion should not be treated as specific to the changing social status of CanadIan
nomic status elevate as the central city became the arena for countercultural
urban neighborhoods. There is evidence from cities in other parts of the world
awareness. tolerance, diversity. and liberation. This occurred in the context of
that left-liberal politics characterize the new middle-class professional, not
a laissez-faire state, the rapidly changing industrial and occupational struc-
least in Melbourne, Australia (Mullins 1982; Logan 1985), and in many Brit-
tu~e described earlier (where 'hippies became yuppies', as Ley so tellingly put . h cities (Savage 1991). In London, the gentrifiers interviewed by Tim Butler
It, In the shIft towards a postindustrial city), welfare retrenchment, a real estate
(1997) in Hackney demonstrated a Guardi~n-reading, La,bour-votIng,
IS . Ie ft·1St
and new construction boom. the advent of postmodern niche marketing and
ideological orientation. A commonly held vIew there was that a hIgh level o,f
conspicuous consumption (Ley and Mills 1993), and the aestheticization and
consumption is acceptable but that one should be taxed to pay for a safety net,
commodification of art and artistic lifestyles (Ley 2003). In the 1970s, neigh-
as evidenced by this gentrifier's comment:
borhoods such as Yorlcville and the Annex in Toronto, Kitsilano and Fairview
Slopes in Vancouver, and Le Plateau Mont-Royal in Montreal became hotbeds I am not sure that I buy the argument that I actually have to give up my
of 'hippie' youth reaction against political conservatism, modernist planning, Persian carpets for those people who are living under Waterloo Bridge
and suburban ideologies. to have homes. I am prepared to be taxed more heavily than I am and of
But what were the politics of these youth once they grew up and became course one is better off and it is difficult to see how one would feel if one
gentrifiers? What happens to voting behavior as social status rises? Suspi- didn't have this money. (Georgina, quoted in Butler 1997: 152)
cious of the empirical accountability of arguments from the United States These accounts challenge popular assumptions of gentrifiers as yuppie 'space
which alluded to a conservative 'adversarial politics' among middle-class invaders' (N. Smith and Williams 1986), and thus, as the quotation from Robert
gentrifiers, Ley (1994) provided evidence from 1980s electoral returns in the Beauregard highlights at the start of this chapter, demonizing gentrifiers for
three largest Canadian cities (Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver) to demon-
the negative effects of the process is probably unwarranted (although this must
strate that the principal gentrifying districts in each city in fact contained an
come with the caveat that care must be taken not to claim that all gentrifiers
electorate which predominantly sided with more left-liberal reform politics. are tolerant liberals!). As Rofe (2003) has recently shown in a study of Sydney,
Reform politics in Canada prioritize a more 'open' government concerned
the gentrifying elite are cosmopolitan, politically progressive, and supportive
with neighborhood rights, minority rights, improved public services (espe-
of antiracism, aboriginal rights, and social justice movements-indeed, many
cially housing and transportation), and greater attention to heritage, envi- 'lamented a growing backlash of bigotry and xenophobia perceived to arise
ronment, public open space, and cultural and leisure facilities. In one famous from a fear of global integration ... thereby distancing themselves further
gentrifying district, Kitsilano in Vancouver, '[Rjeform politics were retained
from a myopic mainstream Australian culture' (p. 2520).
through the gentrification cycle' (Ley 1996: 283); in another, Don Vale in The quotation which began this section contains a phrase commonly heard
Toronto, '[Sjupport for reform candidates ... rose steadily, with the most con-
among the gentrifiers of London (and probably elsewhere)-'people like us'.
centrated support occurring in the 1978 election and after, coincifling with
This has been the focus of work by Tim Butler, who has extensively researched
the second stage of gentrification and the emergence of professionals as the
the gentrifying middle classes in London. Butler (1997) noted how many of his
dominant group' (p. 288). In all three cities under scrutiny, there was 'no respondents wanted to live amongst 'like-minded' people, seeing themselves
Significant tendency overall for social upgrading in the city centre to be asso-
as part of a middle-class community of couples and families finding ways to
ciated with [adversarial] conservative politics' (Ley 1994: 70).
negotiate and adapt to various aspects of life in a global city. In more recent
In short, Ley argued that the values of the countercultural youth move- work, Butler with Robson (2003) looked at six different neighborhoods in
ments of the late 1960s 'diffused and evolved among receptive and much
London and found that these take on different meanings and associations that
larger segments of the professional middle class along an identifiable occu-
attract potential residents and then act on those who settled there, terming
pational continuum' (1996: 210), and these are not tlle self-interested yuppie this the formation of a 'metropolitan habitus'. They researched how gentrifiers
 98 • Gentrification Consumption Explanations • 99

'acted in different ways to ensure their hegemony over the localities in which
they have settled', and how, because of living in unstable economic times and
the early 1980s it was recognized that, through their increasing partici-
facing various structural constraints, gentrification should be seen as a mid_
>'oati(lll in the labor force, women were playing an active and important role
dle-class 'coping strategy' (p. 27). The most pressing issue to cope with was
bringing about gentrification {Markusen 1981; Holcomb and Beauregard
explained as follows:
1981)-but the reasons for this lacked adequate conceptualization. This was
Having taken the decision not to flee to the suburbs, living in the inner first noted by Damaris Rose in a pathbreaking article published in 1984. Rose
city presents the middle classes with a number of problems-particularly is a socialist-feminist urban geographer who, along with many others at the
if there are children. The main issue that needs to be confronted is edu- time, was involved in a long struggle to get 1970s Marxists (e.g., Castells 1977)
cation and the fact that London's schools perform badly-particularly t~ take the issues of social reproduction more seriously, rather than conflate
at secondary level. The necessary strategies to cope with this demand a them with issues of consumption, which had the effect of 'obscuring the active
huge investment of time, emotional energy and resources. (p. 29) work of household members in reproducing both labour power and people'
(Rose 1984: 54). Rose thus argued that it was 'crucial to explore the relation-
Butler with Robson (2003) have shown how social relations in gentrifying
ships between gentrification, social and spatial restructuring of waged labour
neighborhoods are often governed by the performance oflocal schools:
processes, and changes in the reproduction oflabour power and of people' (p.
Education markets are now riv~lling those in housing and employ- 48). Her 1984 paper was the first attempt, albeit tentative at the time (as she
ment as determinants of the nature, extent and stability of middle-class acknowledged), to explore these relationships.
gentrification of inner-city localities. The reported instability of Brix- Rose emphasized the growing importance of both single women pro-
ton is not because of its status as a centre for international hedonistic fessionals and dual-earner couples in gentrification and argued that inner
youth but because it doesn't provide the infrastructure for middle-class cities may be more propitious spaces than suburbs for working out equitable
family life. '" Although there is a high-performing primary school, it divisions of domestic labor. This followed up a claim first made by Ann
has not become the middle-class school and does not provide either the Markusen:
basis oflong-lasting social networks or the necessary route map to plan
[G]entrification is in large part a result of the breakdown of the patri-
appropriate secondary education pathways. '" [MJiddle-class incom-
archal household. Households of gay people, singles, and professional
ers have managed the classic manoeuvre of gentrification: coupling a
couples with central business district jobs increasingly find central
necessary spatial proximity to other urban groups while strategically
locations attractive . ... Gentrification ... corresponds to the two-income
maintaining and protecting their material and cultural distance from
(or more) professional household that requires both a relatively central
them. (pp. 157-158)
urban location to minimize journey-ta-work costs of several wage earn-
Education is explained as a parental strategy deployed to ensure that children ers and a location that enhances efficiency in household production
will also be middle class-will also become 'people like us'-and thus plays (stores are nearer) and in the substitution of market-produced com-
'a fundamental role in processes of cultural and social class reproduction' modities (laundries, restaurants, chUd care) for household production.
(p. 159). Butler's work helps us to understand how gentrification in London (Markusen 1981: 32)
is a response to various constraints in the form of housing. employment. Rose was heavily influenced by the notion of the 'chOmeur{euse) instruit{e)"
consumption, and especially education. Gentrifiers are usually well educated, an educated but unemployed male (female), developed by Francine Dansereau
but these authors show that it is through looking at the education of their and colleagues in work on housing tenure in Montreal (Dansereau et al. 1981).
children that we can understand the process of gentrification. In the contem- This led to Rose's coinage of the phrase 'marginal gentrifier', later bolstered
porary global city, the hOUSing market trajectories of whom Butler (2003) has by empirical research in that city (Rose and LeBourdais 1986; Rose 1989). It
most recently called 'embattled settlers' are governed by 'the imperatives of refers to the fact that marginally employed professionals, prominent among
everyday life (work and consumption) and intergenerational social reproduc- whom were women, single parents, and those receiving moderate incomes,
tion (schooling and socialisation), (p. 2484). Given the difficulties involved were attracted to central-city neighborhoods due to the range of support ser-
in coming to terms with living in London, it is hardly surprising that many vices they offered-which were unavailable in the suburbs. For example, the
gentrifiers eventually choose to leave the city for rural locations, giving rise to worry of precarious employment could be eased by networking and holding
'rural gentrification', which we discuss in Chapter 4. more than one job; and by minimizing space-time constraints, lone female
 100 • Gentrification Consumption Explanations • 101

parents could combine paid and unpaid (domestic) labor with greater ease .. either during the now-extended period of "search" before marriage or
than in suburban locations: lifetime of fluid personal relationships, encourage the identification
[It] is now becoming clear that many who become gentrifiers do so and migration to certain areas of the city. (p. 44)
substantially because of the difficulties, not only of affording hous- ;.!{" aUW 5 this twenty years later, it is by no means out of date; indeed, Beaure-
ing, but also of carrying on their particular living arrangements in could well be describing the background to the popular TV series Sex and
conventional suburbs .... [M]any existing older inner-city neighbour- City, which focuses on the life and times of four professional Manhattan-
hoods ... facilitate access to community services, enable shared use women whose conspicuous consumption, fluid personal relationships,
of facilities. provide an efficient and nonisolating environment for and congregation in clubs and singles bars made compelling viewing for many
reproductive work, and enhance opportunities for women to develop millions worldwide. Not surprisingly, numerous commentaries on Sex and
locally based friendship networks and a supportive environment. the City focus on its contribution to feminist discourse, and how its four stars
(Rose 1984: 63-64) have become feminist icons. 'The city as a site of women's education, liberation,
Rose was one of the first scholars to note that 'gentrifiers' were a differentiated and expression in the context of gentrification was noted by, inter alia, Briavel
group, and she concluded her article by calling for an approach to gentrification HoJcomb (1984) and then PeterWilliams (1986) over twenty years ago:
which explores 'the actual processes through which those groups we now sub- Many of the female (and male) gentry were beneficiaries of the boom in
sume under the category "gentrifiers" are produced and reproduced' (p. 69). tertiary education in the 1960s and 1970s. They were also in many cases
A later paper documented the importance of professional women who were the children of the middle-class suburbanites. Attending universities
Single parents in the process of gentrification, from research undertaken in and colleges not only allowed many women to exercise choice over what
Lower Outremont in Montreal (Rose and LeBourdais 1986). This was followed roles they took on subsequently (including a worldng career), but also
by an attempt to develop a theoretical framework that linked wider economic allowed many of them to experience a very different urban environment.
restructuring to labor force restructuring at the metropolitan scale (Rose 1989), Subsequently, haVing become familiar with the apparently more solid,
showing how the latter is mediated by restructuring of social and economic rela- intimate and accessible world of the inner city, many were encouraged
tions at the household and individual scale. These efforts were paralleled by those to reject suburbia physically (just as they were rejecting it mentally) and
of Robert Beauregard (1986), who, like Rose, viewed gentrification as a 'chaotic' opt for the world they now understood and preferred. For women, that
concept, with so many themes and issues vying for attention that just one or two decision gave them ready access to relatively well paid jobs, a supportive
factors could not possibly explain the process. Beauregard viewed it as essential environment and the opportunity to imprint themselves and their new-
to link the consumption practices of gentrifiers with their decisions on biological found status upon the landscape. (Williams 1986: 69)
reproduction, and it is worth quoting him at length on this important issue:
Perhaps the best example of this, among many, is the 'postmodern landscape'
The postponement of marriage facilitates this consumption, but it also of Fairview Slopes in Vancouver, where Mills (1988) found that 'beliefs and
makes it necessary if people are to meet others and develop friendships. practices centred around divided gender roles are fairly uncommon' (p. 181;
Persons without partners, outside of the milieu of college, must now join see Chapter 4).
clubs and frequent places (e.g. "singles" bars) where other Singles (both As the literature on gender and gentrification grew, it became character-
the never-married and the divorced) congregate in order to make close ized by research that looked at gender as a social reiation in the context of the
friends. Couples (married or not) need friendships beyond the work- gentrifying household. Alan Warde (1991) argued that 'to explain "who are
place and may wish to congregate at "public" places. These social oppor- the gentrifiers?" the best approach is by way of understanding gender divi-
tunities, moreover, though possibly no more numerous in cities than sions, rather than class divisions' (p. 223). For Warde, gentrification was less
in suburbs, are decidedly more spatially concentrated and, because of about class expression and landscape aesthetics, and more about household
suburban zoning, tend to be more spatially integrated with residences. composition and organization in the context of patriarchal pressures and the
Clustering occurs as these individuals move proximate to "consumption ways in which women adapt to new patterns of employment. For the two
items" and as entrepreneurs identify this fraction oflabor as comprising types of 'gentrifier' household-one single, the other dual-earner/family-
conspicuous and major consumers. Both the need to consume outside he claimed that, among the former, 'access to commercial alternatives to
of the home and the desire to make friends and meet sexual partners, services typically provided by women in family households can be readily
 Consumption Explanations • 103
102 • Gentrification

obtained [in gentrifying neighborhoods]', and the location of the latter 'is a ]. Gentrification is not just about a particular strand of the profeSSional
solution to problems of access to work and home and of combining paid and middle class. More significance needs to be accorded to financially
unpaid labour' (p. 229). In short, Warde believed that both kinds of living independent middle-class women whose occupations are not classi-
arrangement are best understood as a function of women reorienting their fied as 'professions' but whose lifestyles and outlooks are broadly the
behavior to domestic and laboT market pressures. This was also the tenor same as those of professional middle-class men.
of an important intervention by Liz Bondi (1991), who believed that further ? Local context is crucial to the relationship between gender and gen-
research on gender and gentrification needed to move beyond its treatment -' trification. It was only in one of the neighborhoods studied (higher-
of gender relations as primarily economic, and consider how 'changes in the status, inner-urban Stockbridge) that proximity to family was not of
sexual division oflabour in the workplace, the community and the home '" much importance to interviewees, so there is much differentiation
are negotiated through cultural constructions of femininity and masculin_ between middle-class professional women in that city.
ity' (p. 195), and how gender positions are expressed and forged through 3. Perceptions of future life courses were woven into gentrifiers' dis-
gentrification. cussions of their prospective hOUSing careers, and were anchored
The arguments of Warde in particular were called into question by Butler in intergenerational class mobility. In the other inner-urban neigh-
and Hamnett (1994), who were bothered by how he 'dispensed' with the key borhood, Leith, some gentrifiers had working-class backgrounds;
role of class in gentrification. The example of Hackney in east London, where upward social mobility had enabled them to return to their place of
Butler undertook research in the late 1980s, was used to challenge Warde. origin after residence elsewhere.
Heavily influenced by the work of Savage et al. (1992) on how the middle Five years earlier, in a study of a gentrifying neighborhood in west London,
classes are fragmented and differentiated according to their access to edu- Gary Bridge (1994) noted that there waS 'a general stage-in-the-lifestyle effect
cational and cultural capital, Butler and Hamnett (1994) used evidence from in that there was a reliance on social relations in the neighbourhood that might
Hackney to assert that it is the illteractioll between class (governed by both be more explicable by gender, age and family status, rather than by social or
occupation and education) and gender which is crucial to the explanation of spatial solidarity groups' (p. 46-47). Bondi's (1999b) paper takes this further
gentrification in that neighborhood. These authors conclude that gentrifica- and calls for further researcll on gender and gentrification that pays atten-
tion is 'not solely a class process, but neither is it solely a gender process. It tion to the shaping oflife courses and the specifics of place-a still somewhat
involves the consumption of inner-city housing by middle-class people who unexplored area of investigation (but see Karsten [2003] for a detailed study
have an identifiable class and cultural formation, one of whose major iden- of these issues in Amsterdam).
tifying characteristics centres around the occupational identity of its female
members' (p. 491). It was largely the daughters of middle-class families who Sexuality
benefited from the expansion of educational opportunities during the post- In this country, in America, there's plenty of pie for everybody to make
war decades, and the purchasing power of these profeSSional women (even in it. .. , The fact that we [gay people] have money, the fact that we spent
the context of continuing gender inequality within households) was crucial to it-that's an economic contribution.
the early gentrification of Hackney. The basic point being made was that social Gay speculator (quoted in Knopp 1990: 347)
class background is Vitally important in gentrification, and heavily influences
the role played by gender. A different kind of life course in specific urban places has been the focus of
In perhaps the most recent contribution of key theoretical Significance to studies which have examined the changing geographies of sexuality in the
the literature on gender and gentrification, Bondi (1999b) argues; that contra inner city, especially those studies which have explained the role of gays and
Butler and Hamnett, gender practices cannot simply be 'read-off from socio- lesbians in the gentrification process. Without question the most famous of
economic or demographic variables (p. 263), and that the London inner-urban these studies is Manuel Castells's account of the formation of the gay com-
experience is not easily transportable to other contexts. She instead focuses munity in San Francisco, a chapter in his landmark book on urban social
on the centrality of the patterning of life cOllrses in the articulation of class movements, The City and the Grassroots (1983). Castells pointed out that it
and gender practices, drawing on a mixed-methods study conducted in three was the spatial concentration of gays which made it possible for the gay libera-
neighborhoods in Edinburgh (two inner urban and one suburban). Three key tion movement in that city (and elsewhere) to gather momentum-as Harry
issues emerged from this research: Britt, the political leader of the city's gay community at the time, told Castells,
 Consumption Explanations • 105
104 • Gentrification

3. Less affluent gays formed collectives to either rent or buy inexpensive

'When gays are spatially scattered, they are not gay, because they are invis_
buildings, and fixed them up themselves (this was the most common
ible' (p. 138). This spatial concentration was instrumental to the gentrification
of certain San Francisco neighborhoods; some brief background is needed to form of gentrification).
explain sexuality and gentrification in this context. 'E:xplainirIE what constituted these 'collectives', Castells noted that 'many were
San Francisco was a major port city in World War II; homosexuality men, did not have to sustain a family, were young, and [were] connected
was illegal in the military, so many gays serving in the Pacific region were to a relatively prosperous service economy ... [which] made it easier for them
discharged and ordered to disembark into the city. As many did not return t(J find a house in a tight housing market' (p. 160). This was also noted in an
home due to the stigma of homosexuality, meeting points emerged among important article by Lauria and Knopp (1985):
those who had discovered their sexual and cultural identity, such as bars in
[B]eing a gay male in this society is economically advantageous. Males
disinvested parts of town, around which gay networks were constructed. The
make more money than their female counterparts in every sector of the
19505 and 19605 were a time of immense countercultural uprising in San
economy, and gay males tend to have fewer dependents than straight
Francisco, exemplified by the renowned Beatnik network, which emerged in
men. This means that many gay men are in an excellent position to
reaction to the heterosexual institutions of the family and, crucially, sub-
become gentrifiers. (p. 161)
urbia. The subversive literary prowess of Jack Kerouac and Ailen Ginsberg,
among others, created a climate 6f tolerance for homosexuality. and once Demographics aside, however, what is particularly striking in the Castells
the media covered this 'deviance', the attraction of alternative San Francisco study is not just how the gay community's early efforts at forging an identity
to isolated gays all over the United States became magnetic. Following the in a spatial setting in the most trying of circumstances led to rampant gen-
watershed of the Stonewall Riots of 1969, when police raided a gay bar in trification, but also how the expanding Castro is a contradictory, ambivalent
Greenwich Village in New York City and met determined resistance, newly space-it was vital to an oppressed group seeking liberation, but the gentrifi-
liberated gays continued to flock to San Francisco because of its reputation as cation that followed oppressed other groups:
a sympathetic milieu.
[T]here has been little urban improvement for the black families forced
Post 1969, Castells noted,
to move out from the Hayes Valley, or help for Latinos suffering high
The gay movement realized that between liberation and politics it first rents along the Dolores corridor because of real estate speculation from
had to establish a community in a series of spatial settings and through the increasing influx of gays. (Castells 1983, p. 167)
a network of economic, social and cultural institutions. (p. 143)
So, while gay gentrification might be explained, in Lauria and Knopp's (1985)
This community centered around the Castro neighborhood. an area char- words, by 'the need to escape to an oasis of tolerance ... an opportunity to
acterized by Victorian townhouses vacated by the Irish working class who combat oppression by creating neighbourhoods over which they [gays] have
moved to the suburbs-thus, there was much affordable housing to buy and maximum control' (p. 161), it can lead to another form of oppression-the
rent. From the mid-1970s onwards, the Castro gay 'ghetto', as Castells called it, displacement of low-income minorities and/or the worldng cl~ss. As. is u~u­
expanded in all directions, and a 'very dense gay network of bars, health clubs, ally the case with gentrification, surface appearances (beautiful Vlctonan
stores, businesses, and activities developed on the basis of a growing popula- buildings and famous gay neighborhoods, now often tounst attractions) mask
tion' (p. 156). Castells argued that gentrification 'has been largely, although underlying injustices and tensions.
not exclusively, triggered by gay people' and 'has greatly helped San Francisco Larry Knopp has been at the forefront of the analysis of gay gentrification
to preserve its historical heritage of beautiful old Victorian buildings' (p. 158). in the context of booming urban land markets (e.g., Knopp 1990, 1997), par-
He found three ways in which the gentrification process involved the gay com- ticularly emphasiZing the class interests involved in the process, somethi~g on
munity (pp. 158-159): which CasteIls was rather silent. In a discussion of 1960s and 1970s gentnfica-
tion in the Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans, Knopp (1990) explained
I. Affluent gay profeSSionals bought inexpensive properties and hired
that the earliest gentrifiers were predominantly gay middle-class profeSSion-
sIdlled renovators to improve their use and exchange value.
als, that the leaders of the historic preservation movement in Marigny during
2. Gayrealtors and interior decorators used their commercial and artis-
the 1970s were openly gay, and, crucially, that the speculators and develop-
tic skills and bought property in low-cost areas, and repaired and
ers who entered the scene in the mid-1970s, accelerating gentrification, were
renovated the buildings in order to sell them at a profit.
 106 • Gentrification Consumption Explanations • 107

mostly gay men. On this last point, Knopp identified the role of a real estate rents lead to the displacement of many lesbians to adjacent neighborhoods.
firm which became a community institution in its own right, Doe that, often Rothenberg's study thus supports Knopp's insistence that a study of sexuality
;hrough illegal means (bribing appraisers employed by financial institutions), and gentrification must pay attention to housing market dynamics as well as
helped members of the local gay community to secure financing for virtually the formation of gay identities.
the entire purchase price of homes' (p. 345). This was followed by a develop_ The presence of a gay population in economically thriving urban neigh-
ment corporation owned by a gay man with close ties to New Orleans' conser- borhoods has recently become a high-profile urban policy issue in North
vative business community; this corporation tried to develop a distinctively America, attributable to the enormous influence of Richard Florida's cre-
affluent gay community in Marigny-in the words of the owner, 'an environ- ~tive class thesis in policy circles. We introduced his thesis in the Preface to
ment of pools and jacuzzis and ... free love ... essentially a gay enclave of fairly this book, explaining its implications for gentrification-our purpose here
wealthy people' (quoted on p. 346). Contrary to what Knopp was expecting to is to zoom in on one of Florida's observations, namely. that the conspicu-
discover, rather than gentrifying as a collective response to oppression, gay ous presence of gays and lesbians is vital to urban economic development.
gentrification in New Orleans was primarily 'an alternative strategy for accu- Florida (2003) has stated that the 'engines of economic development' are
mulation', one of 'overcoming institutional obstacles to investment in certain the three 'T's': technology, talent, and tolerance. On tolerance, he says the
parts of the city' (p. 347). Knopp therefore insisted that any understanding following:
of gay gentrification must consider\questions of class interests as well as gay
identity construction. I think it's important for a place to have low entry barriers for people, that
is, to be a place where newcomers are accepted quickly into all sorts of
One of the more controversial aspects of Castells's study of San Francisco
social and economic arrangements. Such places gain a creativity advan-
was his general contention that it is only gay men who form residential COD-
tage. All else being equal, they are likely to attract greater numbers of
centrations in urban neighborhoods. However, the work of Tamar Rothenberg
talented and creative people-the sort of people who power innovation
(1995) in Park Slope, New York City (see Chapter 1), on lesbian gentrifiers
and growth. (p. 250)
illustrates that it is not just gay men who have an innate <territorial imperative',
as Castells put it. Park Slope has probably the heaviest concentration oflesbi- Later on in a book characterized by 'excruciating details ofbis own biography,
ans in the United States, and Rothenberg noted that the establishment of a lifestyle and consumption habits ... [and]less-than-analytical musings [that]
loosely defined lesbian community there was related to the timing of both descend into self-indulgent forms of amateur mkrosociology and crass cel-
the women's movement and early gentrification. where political activists were ebrations of hipster embourgeoisement' (Peck 2005: 744-745), Florida (2003)
attracted by the idea of 'sweat equity' housing. But the reasons for their con- shows just how crucial gays are to his creativity bandwagon:
tinuing concentration in Park Slope are somewhat different from those con-
cerning the gay men outlined by Castells and Knopp: In travelling to cities for my speaking engagements, I have come up with
a handy metric to distinguish those cities that are part of the Creative
Word-of-mouth, not statistical information, is what lures women to Age from those that are not. If city leaders tell me to wear whatever I
a "lesbian neighbourhood". What matters to the people who live in a want, take me to a casual contemporary cafe or restaurant for dinner.
community is their experience of the place, how they feel wallting down and most important encourage me to talk openly about the role of diver-
the street, the services available to them. (Rothenberg 1995: 169) sity and gays, I am confident their city will be able to attract the Creative
Whilst a number of Rothenberg's interviewees stopped short of describing Class and prosper in this emerging era. If on the other hand they ask me
Park Slope as a true lesbian community, all of them affirmed the spatial sig- to "please wear a business suit and a tie", take me to a private club for
nificance of a large population of lesbians in Park Slope, and how this popu- dinner, and ask me to "play down the stuff about bohemians and gays", I
lation has grown due to 'the power of lesbian social networking' (p. 177). To can be reasonably sure they will have a hard time malting it. (p. 304)
capture this networking, Rothenberg refers to a 1980s TV shampoo commer- Among a bewildering set of indices drawn up in his book to rank cities' cre-
cial which held the repetitive slogan, 'And she told two friends, and she told ativity, there is a 'Gay Index'. Developed by his colleague Gary Gates, it uses
two friends .. .' so that many more women eventually knew about the quality residential data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census to rank regions by their
of the shampoo. Rothenberg points out how this slogan captures the social concentrations of gay people. Together, Florida and Gates noted that the
networlting among the lesbian gentrifiers of Park Slope-but with the out- same places that were popular among gays were also the ones where high-
come that huge pressures are placed on the local hOUSing market, and rising tech industry located. Florida (2003) summed up as follows:
 Consumption Explanations • 109
108 • Gentrification

[A] place that welcomes the gay community welcomes allldnds of peo-
pie .... [G]ays can be said to be the "canaries of the Creative Age". For
these reasons, openness to the gay community is a good indicator of the
low entry barriers to human capital that are so important to spurring
creativity and generating high-tech growth. (p. 256)
Florida's message, backed up by suggestive statistical correlations, is simple
and attradive to urban policy makers-be tolerant of gays, and your city
will 'succeed and prosper economically'. Furthermore, if cities are not open,
inclusive, and diverse, 'they will fall further behind' (p. 266). What is never
mentioned among all this enthusiastic rhetoric about gays and economic devel'
opment is the role of gays in facilitating gentrification. On the issue of gentrifi-
cation, Florida, presumably to preempt any criticism, appears worried:
(T]he current round of urban revitalization is giving rise to serious
tensions between established nejghborhood residents and newer, more
affluent people moving in. In an 'increasing number of cities, the scales
have tipped from revitalization to rampant gentrification and displace-
ment. Some of these places have become unaffordable for any but the
most affluent. ... While the technological downturn of the last few years
relieved some of this pressure on urban housing markets, gentrification
in major urban centers continues to threaten the diversity and creativity
that have driven these cities' innovation and growth in the first place.
(pp. 289-290)
'These are astonishing words from someone who has been promoting the
attractions of gentrified/gentrifying neighborhoods in a number of American
cities for the best part of a decade. The contradictions are glaring-technology
(high-tech industry) is seen to be one of the three fundamental assets any city
should have to attract creative types, yet when there is a technological down-
turn, housing in that city becomes more affordable to them. Furthermore, the
very process in which the creative class takes part-gentrification-threatens
the longevity ofthe diverse and creative conditions which attracted them. This
points to some serious problems with Florida's thesis (Peck 2005).

Ethnicity
Without question, until recently, the most neglected area of inquiry in research
that asks, 'Who are the gentrifiers?' is the existence of gentrifiers who are non- Look at this wholesome image of the American gentrifying family. What does it say about the process
white but share all the other characteristics of the new middle class. The image of gentrification? .
Source: Stay Free! magazine, 2004. Reprinted with permission of Stay Free! magazme.
most people have of gentrifiers is of white yuppie 'pioneers' moving into low-
income neighborhoods with dense concentrations of ethnic minorities. This
image was neatly captured bya satirical magazine entitledAl1lerican Gelltrifier poor African-American neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York City, which is
(see Plate 3.2) with a picture of a white professional couple on the front, with now experiencing gentrification.) .
baby, accompanied by amusing contents listings such as 'Bed-Stuy-Still Too But what about the black middle class, many of whom possess preClSely the
Black?' (Bed-Stuy is Bedford-Stuyvesant, a onetime highly segregated and very same educational, occupational, and income characteristics as gentrifiers? In
 Consumption Explanations • 111
110 • Gentrification

the United States, the demographic expansion of the black middle class is very support that the black community might provide' (Taylor 1992: 109).
well documented, but usually in the context of their mass exodus from ghetto owners in Harlem were seen to be bridging the dual worlds of race and
neighborhoods to suburban areas, with devastating consequences for those left that they were defined by-the difference of race defined their marginal
in the workplace, but the difference of class defined their 'outsider-
behind (e.g., W. J. Wilson 1996). Until recently very few studies have looked at
the black middle class who remain in, or move into, central-cityneighborhoods .' 'in Harlem. In her book-length treatment of these issues (Taylor 2002),
ness fl' .' . h'
and contribute to the gentrification process, which has been happening in ~ne of Taylar's respondents described the class con let glvmg rlse to t 15
many cities across the country. An exception is the work by Bostic and Martin ~utsiderness:
(2003), who provided a useful (quantitative) scoring technique for identifying The other people [nongentrifiers] ... they've been lied to for so long and
gentrified neighborhoods in the United States, and found that during the here'S people lil<e myselfhave come in. We're maldng some bread. We get
1970s, black home owners were of significant gentrifying influence, but less so the best apartments that they weren't even thinldng about.... So then that
in the 1980s (due to the impact of fair-lending and antidiscrimination efforts makes them a little angry, which I can understand. You got this division,
that allowed black home owners into more affluent suburban areas, rather in a sense, in an arealilce this, behveen people who have some money and
than gentrifying areas). But whilst valuable in a broad sense, quantitative people who don't have some money.... [T]here's this friction. (p. 91)
longitudinal studies do not help us to learn about the local (neighborhood)
The arrival of the so-called Second Harlem Renaissance (gentrification) is
impacts of black gentrification, for which we have to turn to the smaller-scale
well documented by Taylor-125th Street, Harlem's symbolic commercial
work of a more qualitative nature. Furthermore, Bostic and Martin's findings
strip, has all the hallmarks of advanced gentrification, includ~ng a ~tarbucks,
sit uneasily with work that does show that black gentrification greatly affected
unthinkable in recent memory. Particularly relevant to our dlSCUSSlOll 15 how
some high-profile neighborhoods in the 1980s.
the black middle class paved the way for accelerated gentrification by the
Harlem in New York City is doubtless the most famous African-American
wealthier, white middle dass that followed, making the words of Schalfer and
neighborhood in the United States. The Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s, a
local flowering of art. literature, and music that had international influence, Smith (1986) very prescient:
was followed by decades of systematic disinvestment poetically captured by The inescapable conclusion is that unless Harlem defies all the empiri-
Kenneth Clark's Dark Ghetto (1964). So devastated was Harlem that a ripple of cal trends, the process might well begin as black gentrification, but any
astonishment was felt when Richard Schaffer and Neil Smith (1986) pointed to wholesale rehabilitation of Central Harlem would necessarily involve a
it as a candidate for gentrification, albeit with a question mark. A key finding considerable influx of middle- and upper-dass whites. (p. 359)
was as follows: Lance Freeman (2006) has also written about blackgentrification in Harlem
At present it is clear that despite prominent press reports featuring and in Clinton Hill, Brooldyn. Unlike Taylor (2002), who focused on the black
individual white gentrifiers in Harlem ... the vast majority of people gentry, Freeman aims to provide a better understanding of gentrification
involved in rehabilitation and redevelopment in Central Harlem are from the vantage point of the indigenous residents living in these neighbor-
black. (p. 358) hoods. His focus, then. is on the impacts of gentrification on nongentrifiers. a
research strategy tllat Slater, Curran, and Lees (2004) called for. However, he
Monique Taylor (1992), a graduate student when Schalfer and Smith's article
cannot escape discussing tl,e black middle class too:
was published, decided to research the black middle class in Harlem from
1987 to 1992, and found that gentrifiers were 'strongly motivated by a desire In some ways, however, the gentrification of black neighbourhoods is lib-
to participate in the rituals that define daily life in this (in)famous and his- erating in ways not imagined by Ley and others. That is, the process may
torically black community' (p. 102). Taylor found black gentrifiers' confront- be liberating for eclectic-minded segments of the black middle class as
ing what she called a 'dilemma of difference' during their transition from well who see in gentrification an opportunity to carve out their own space
outsider to insider in a place where their class position and lifestyle are so without having to conform to the precepts of white America or the con-
distinct from those of other blacks, but also when constructing a black iden- servative ethos that dominates much of black America. Gentrifying black
tity distinct from the white world of the workplace (this is also memorably neighbourhoods like the ones examined here represe~t spaces w~;re th,7
depicted in the Spike Lee film JUllgle Fever [Lee 1991]). Economic factors black identity is celebrated, the norm and not conSIdered the other.
are not ignored in this study, but for Taylor, black gentrification was also 'a Several observers have noted that for some middle dass blades, the leg-
strategy of cultural survival rooted in the search for the positive meaning acy of the civil rights era was not integrating into white neighbourhoods
112 • Gentrification Consumption Explanations • 113

but having the wherewithal to create desirable black neigbbourhoods. HoW do gentrifiers distinguish themselves from oth;r s~cia~ class gr~upsl A
(p.196) trifying or gentrifted neighborhood has a certam feel to It, a certam look,
genndscape of conspicuous consumption that maI{es th e process readil y 1'd eu-
Yet black gentrification can be something far removed from the positive force aaI
tifiable (see Plates 3.3 and 3.4). This has become known as t h e geatnifit'
ca lOa
with which it is often portrayed, as Michelle Boyd (2000, 2005) has shown in
the South Side of Chicago. An ethnographic study of the creeping black gen- aestlletic, and as jager (1986) pointed out,
trification of the Douglas/Grand Boulevard neighborhood, a place even more [TJhe aesthetics of gentrification not only illustrat~ th~ class din:ension
devastated by institutional racism and disinvestment than Harlem, revealed of the process but also express the dynamic conslltullon of socml class
that many existing residents and community organizers (and the powerful of which gentrification is a specific part. ... .
local planning commission) were receptive to the idea of attracting the blade Slums become Victoriana, and housing becomes a cultural Invest-
middle class to an economically impoverished part of the city. Indeed, it was ment with fa~adal display signifying social ascension. (pp. 78-79)
seen as a strategy for 'racial uplift', to elevate the status and self-esteem of
the black community, best exemplified by renaming the area 'Bronzeville', jager's essay was the first Widely cited a~al~sis of the ~rchitectural an.d
the name the area was given by st. Clair Drake and Horace Cayton in their internal decorative aesthetics of gentrified bUlldmgs and nelgbborhoods. HIS
monumental 1945 study, BlackMetropolis. Not only was the black middle class research on the landscapes of'Victoriana' in inner Melbourne revealed that by
expected to interact with all commu~lty members-but it was also assumed 'buying into history', the new middle class was expressing its sodal distance
that the tax base improvements brought by the black middle class would ben- from not just the working class, but also the old mIddle class. WIth respect to
efit all black people in the neighborhood. But as Boyd (2005) points out, the former, this was jager's reasoning:
By homogenizing the needs and interests of the black poor and the The effacing of an industrial past and a working-class presence, t.he
black elites, promoters of black gentrification mask the extent to which whitewashing of a former social stain. was achieved through extenSIve
their strategies differently and disproportionately threaten lower remodelling. The return to historical purity and authenticity (of the
income residents ... , [T]he race uplift framework justifies gentrifica- "high" Victorian era) is realized by stripping aw~y external additio~s,
tion but it does so using a different logic.... [It] creates the illusion by sandblasting, by internal gutting. The restoratlOn of an aateno: hIS-
that gentrification strategies are implemented both in the interests tory was virtually the only manner in which the recent stIgma of ~nner
of, and with the approval of, the poor black residents it displaces. areas could be removed or redefined. It is in the fundamental drIve to
(pp. 285-286) dislodge, and symbolically obliterate, the former working-class past
A revealing quote came from a member of the powerful local planning com- that the aestheticization of Victorian a took off. (p. 83)
mission: '[We] don't mind gentrification. But we want to minimize displace- On the latter, jagerwrites,
ment' (Boyd 2005: 116). TI,e fact that these are two sides of the same coin
What characterizes this neW consumption ... is an emphasis on aes-
was not even recognized. As Wyly and Hammel (2000) have pointed out,
thetic-cultural themes. Leisure and relative affluence create the
Chicago's historic black ghetto, once dominated by public housing but now
opportunity for artistic consumption, and art becon:es increasingly
being demolished for mixed-income settlements, is in the quite bizarre situ-
integrated into the middle-class pattern of consumptlOn as a form of
ation of being a place where generations of racial prejudice, segregation, and
investment, status symbol and means of self-expression. 'The difference
containment have led to the most attractive land in the city for development
between this consumption model and a more traditional middle-class
and middle-class colonization-resulting in low-income displacement.
one is marked. (p. 86)
Class Constitution and the Gentriftcation Aesthetic Victoriana in Melbourne was, for Jager, a process of urban conservation
Earlier in this chapter, we explained how David Ley (1996) painted out that that reused and recycled history in a deliberate process of new middle-class
consecutive waves of the new middle class in Canada viewed the central city as demarcation and distinction. But even if Melbourne's gentrifiers sought to
'a mark of distinction in the constitution of an identity separate from the con- individualize history's mass production through the consumption of time,
stellation of place and identity shaped by the suburbs' (p. 211). But how is this this aestheticization eventually led to a 'gentrification kitsch', where imitation
social distinction marked out on the streets of gentrifying neighborhoodsl took precedence over authenticity in the necessity to compensate for market
 114 • Gentrification Consumption Explanations • lIS

Plate 3.3 Elm Grove, Toronto Elm Grove, Toronto

Pregentrification. Postgentrificatio n.
Source: Photograph by Tom Slater. Source: Photograph by Tom Slater.

consumption and produce profit from a repackaged past. Cultural difference

becomes mass produced as gentrification advances, as N. Smith (1996a), draw- as well as architectural terms. This infill gentrification is accomplishing a
ing on jager's work, explains: suburbanization of the city. (p. 115)

As the choicest structures are converted and open sites become inc~easingly This can be clearly seen in Plate 3.5.
conspicuous, as well as expensive, in otherwise gentrified neighbourhoods, Mun!'s (1987) study of gentrification in Battersea paid more attention to
the infill is accomplished by new construction. Here the architectural form the illteriors of the Victorian houses in that neighborbood than jager's exterior
provides no historical meaning that can be reworked into cultural display, focus:
and the appeal to the kitsch of gentrification is therefore more extreme. [Olstentatious display and exhibitionism require a stage. The creation and
Where such modern infil! occurs in gentrifying neighbourhoods ... the alteration of space allow this .... [All! the interviewees had inherited from
impression is one of having come full circle, in geographical and cultural' previous gentrifiers or provided themselves with an extended kitchen and
 Consumption Explanations • 117
116 • Gentrification

Plate 3.5 Harbourside Development near Bristol Bridge Gary Bridge (1995, 2001a, 2001b) has explored these issues in some detail
in his ongoing investigations of class constitution and gentrifi~ati~n. Bridge's
key contribution to this debate has been to note that the maJonty of cl~ss­
constitutive effects 'occur outside of the gentrified nelghborhood (dlVlslOn
of labour and workplace relations) or before the process has taken place
(soeialization ofJifestyle and taste)" which necessitates a view of residence that
encompasses the entire metropolitan area, not just individual neighborhoods
(1995: 245). For Bridge, what scholars such as jager had ~issed am~ng t~e
imposing neighborhood Victoriana was that pnor educatiOnal expenence IS
crucial to the gentrification aesthetic:
The influence of education might help explain the existence of the gen-
trification aesthetic in terms of the acquisition of "good taste" through
middle-class background andlor a middle-class (higher) education. The
gentrification aesthetic does not arise spontaneously from reaction to a
working-class environment. (pp. 243-244)
This possession of cultural capital came up again in a later paper on gentri-
fication in Sydney, where Bridge (2001a) looked at the role of estate agents in
tbe gentrification aesthetic, and drew on the work of Pierre Bourdieu to show
how they 'negotiate the boundaries of class demarcation and distinction' in
the conversion of cultural capital (taste) into economic capital (price) (p. 89).
Typically they have to move between working-class vendors and middle-class
Nole the choicest structures on the left, and the infill on the far right, appealing to the kitsch of its
purchasers, as one estate agent based in the neighborhood of Glebe showed:
neighbors.
Source: Photograph by Tom Slater. [A] lot of our clients ... they've been to university so they have an aca-
demic, more sophisticated background, more cultural background than
open lounge. The walls are torn down and the through-lounge becomes an the average suburb has .... [They] don't have a lot of money but they
extended showcase of the gentrifiers' aesthetic and cultural consumption. have knowledge, they also have the ability to convert these old homes
This is made visible to those outside by the absence of netted curtains, thus which were, 20 years ago, turned from beautiful old Victorian homes to
allowing the gentrifiers to flaunt their wealth and to express a social status. just money earning, devoid of character, aluminium-windowed proper-
(p. 1193) ties and they convert them back into the Victorian home. It's a difference
between, it's a different social class, it's a gentrification of it. A lot of
Similar observations are made in a study of New York, London, and Paris by the people in Glebe aren't as wealthy as they'd like to be but culturally
Carpenter and Lees (1995), who note that 'it is the interiors that really mark out
they're very wealthy. (p. 90)
a gentrifier's status in all three eities' (p. 299), and proVide a detailed summary
of the aesthetic signifiers of upward social mobility and how they contribute Yet the gentrification aesthetic is not an end-stage, static phenomenon. For
to the process of gentrifiers 'reclaiming space'. Caroline Mills (1988) described Bridge, it is constantly on the move as gentrification intensifies, with its
the gentrification aesthetic in Fairview Slopes, Vancouver, as a 'postmodern boundaries being tested 'in the acquisition of modern goods on one side and
landscape' that expressed the neighborhood by a striking intermixture of past the identification of historical symbols on the other' (2001b: 214). He argues
and present architectural forms, or, in real tors' terms, 'an eclectic fusion of that this balancing act is important in understanding how gentrification con-
classical and contemporary details' (p. 176). But what is behind this particular tinues and thrives, as 'aesthetic display formed a way of coordinating rational
gentrification aesthetic, this particular set of 'tastes' among the new middle expectations such that the new set of strategies [in Sydney] were successful as
class, and how is it translated into commodity? And, what happens to the a wider class movement in as much as taste then converted into price in the
gentrification aesthetic once it is cam modified? market values of the properties' (p. 213). This conversion of cultural capital
118 • Gentrification Consumption Explanations • 119

into economic capital as gentrification proceeds has also been noted by Ley [P]erhaps there is an aesthetic component to the demand factor-a
(2003) in a Bourdieu-influenced discussion of artists and the gentrification zeitgeist that finds expression in the old factory spaces and thus iden-
aesthetic in Canada. Here the conversion is done not just by estate agents tifying in some existential way with an archaic past or an artistic style
but also by 'a cadre of cultural intermediaries in real estate, travel, cuisine. of life. If this is true, then the question of timing becomes crucial.
the arts and home decorating ... [that] disseminates knowledge about Sweatshops existed for many years, and no-one had suggested that
neighbourhood sites and the rules, resources and rituals of the gentrifier's moving into a sweatshop was chic .... So if people found lofts attrac-
lifestyle' (p. 2538). The outcome of this economic valorization of the gentri- tive in the 1970s, some changes in values must have "come together"
fication aesthetic is an increase in property prices which leads, ironically. to in the 1960s. There must have been an "aesthetic conjuncture". On the
the displacement of artists, those very people whose aesthetic dispositions one hand, artists' living habits become a cultural model for the middle
helped to initiate the influx of middle-class professionals. One of the most class. On the other hand, old factories became a means of expression
commonly noted trends in the process of gentrification is that places and for a "post-industrial" civilization. A heightened sense of art and his-
people once deemed hip, authentic, trendy, and subversive quickly become tory, space and time, was dramatized by the taste-setting mass media.
appropriated, manufactured, and mass-produced ltitsch for higher-earning (pp. 14-15)
groups. Thus, if we speak of a gentrification aesthetic, we must remember that In keeping with the restless gentrification aesthetic, once this 'dramatization'
this aesthetic is far from frozen, and leads to enormous profits as cultural occurred, loft residence quicldy moved away from its bohemian, marginal,
capital becomes economic capital. artist 'live-work' roots into a commodity, a way of life for the wealthy urban
This leads our focus onto a particular form of gentrification that has trans- professional. The undeniably strilting cast-iron fa~ades and columns lining
formed the landscapes of so many cities across the globe with declining man- Soho's cobbled streets (see Plate 3.6) are now more lilcely to house ostentatious
ufactUring bases. No discussion of the gentrification aesthetic can ignore the celebrities than bohemian artists, just as the lofts in London's Clerkenwell and
phenomenon of 'loft living' in the warehouses of former industrial districts. Shoreditch house corporate executives rather than, say. musicians. Field and
The most influential study of this phenomenon came from Sharon Zukin in Irving (1999) explain:
her classic work Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change, first pub-
lished in 1982. In the second edition, Zukin (1989) explained how derelict Plate 3.6 Greene Street, Soho, Manhattan
manufacturing spaces in the Soho (South of Houston) district of New York
City attracted artists in the 1960s and 1970s and thereafter proVided a cultural
impetus for the commercial redevelopment of Lower Manhattan. Arguably
the most important concept introduced in this book, and central to Zukin's
explanation of gentrification, is what she called the artistic mode of produc-
tion (AMP), quite simply an attempt by large-scale investors in the built envi-
ronment to ride out and to control a precarious investment climate, using the
culture industries as a tool for attracting capital (p. 176). Zukin demonstrates
that precarious economic conditions were highly conducive to 'a seemingly
modest redevelopment strategy based on the arts and on historic preservation'
(p. 176). In short, large-scale investors were forced to redirect their attentions
towards a strategy of cultural consumption if profits were to be extracted from
the built environment. In another example of the conversion of cultural capi-
tal into economic capital, Zuldn showed how capital incorporated culture to
open up devalorized industrial land markets to more market forces-what she
memorably called a 'historic compromise' between culture and capital in the
urban core.
In her discussion of consumer demand for lofts, Zukin was particularly
astute on the emergence of the gentrification aesthetic: look at the architecture and the streelscape.
Source: Photograph by Tom Slater.
 120 • Gentrification Consumption Explanations • 121

While the first loft dwellers had, in the main, been engaged in the Cre- 'potential'. But as Zukin (1989) pointed out, 'Only people who do not
ative arts, owners ofloft bUildings soon realized that they could marl t the steam and sweat of a real factory can find industrial space romantic
the image and ambience of the brilliantly expressive artist to memb::s interesting' (p. 59).
ofthe public who had little or no direct involvement in the arts world
From their original function as sites oflight-manufacturing product;~~' inc probllelTlS with Consumption Explanations
to theIr role as sites of "artistic" production, these lofts thus assumed ~ should be clear by now that a huge literature exists on the production of
further role as psychologically dynamic spaces in which the loft buyer, new middle-class gentrifiers, and the reasons for their location in central-city
so the developers' marketing brochures claimed, could express and ful- neighborhoods. In recent years, especially in the United Kingdom, this lit-
fil their personality. (p. 172) erature has simply exploded-so many articles have appeared with gentrifiers
This ,creation of a loft identity has been astonishingly successful-'NeWYork_ occupying center stage, as exemplified by the speCial issue of Urball Studies on
style lofts are now marketed in cities all over the world; the market leader gentrification, published in November 2003 with the title "TI,e Gentry and the
m London is, tellingly, the Mallhattall Loft Corporatioll, which ironic II . But as a collective, this literature must not be viewed uncritically. Aside
I . , dd h d a y from the obvious criticisms that central issues such as the production of space;
c alms to a ress t e nee s of individuals rather than "the market'" (http://
www.manhattanloft.co.uk). Julie Podmore (1998), in her study of loft I' . the role of real estate developers, mortgage financiers, and global capitalists;
'M
m . ontrea,I ·
calls this the 'SoHo syndrome', where 'loft spaces depend~ on and the propitious role of the local and national state are all sidelined by con-
t~elr resemblance to SoHo lofts for their legitimacy as "avant-garde" domes- sumption accounts, We argue here that a key problem is that the focus on the
lIc spaces and sites of identity construction' (p. 284). Unlike Zukin, she uses constitution and practices of middle-class gentrifiers-one of the belleficiary
Bourdieu's concept of habitus-the location in which class constitution is groups of gentrification-has arguably shifted attention away from the nega-
prod~ced.by linking aesthetic dispositions and social practices-to explain tive effects of the process.
the dIffUSIOn of the loft aesthetic away from Soho. Local media discourses in For example, the work explaining how gentrification is anchored around
rv.r0ntre.allinked the Soho experience to the postindustriallandscape of that the intersection of housing and education markets (e.g., Butler with Robson
CIty, bUlldmg connections between space, aesthetics, and identity. Surveying 2003; Hamnett 2003b) is devoid of any careful qualitative consideration of
media articles, Podmore found 'patterns of taste, lifestyle, location and the working-class people and how the gentrification-education connection affects
use of space which revealed the practices and judgements that constitute the them. If the working class is mentioned at all, it is usually in the form of how
loft habitus' (p. 289). She distinguishes between loft dwellers, who use lofts the middle classes feel about 'others', or neighbors not like them. These feel-
solely as domestic spaces, and loft artists, who live and work in their lofts- ings are often rather depressing, as evidenced by Tim Butler's study of gentri-
whereas the former value large loft spaces for their work, the latter give such fication in Barnsbury, London:
spaces aesthetic values, and view them as central to the 'real' (Soho-inflected) Gentrification in Barnsbury (and probably London) is therefore appar-
loft experience, seeing it as more authentic: ently playing a rather dangerous game. It values the presence of others-
that much has been Seen from the quotations from respondents-but
We were looking for something really big so size was important. Some-
chooses not to interact with them. They are, as it were, much valued as a
thlng with big windows, something with potential. Places that were
kind of social wallpaper, but no more. (Butler 2003: 2484)
a.lready fixed up were too expensive. This place actually had less poten-
lIal than others we saw but it was really cheap at the time. The fact that Yet despite the obvious intellectual rigor and major contribution to the litera-
it was an authentic loft. It's a sweatshop that we turned into ,a loft. It's ture Butler has made, might it be an equally dangerous game for him to call
not just a place where you tear down some walls and you call it a loft. gentrifiers 'embattled settlers' when the structural constraints on their own
It's an actual industrial bUilding. It has an authentic elevator that came lifestyle preferences comprise a far less worrying problem than being priced
right up into the space and that was sort of a cool feature. (Loft dweller, out of a city altogether, as has happened to so many worse-off Londoners in
quoted in Podmore 1998: 297) the last twenty years? We must also question the language Butler with Rob-
son (2003) use to describe the gentrification of a global city-'a middle class
Perhaps the power of the loft habitus, and the gentrification aesthetic, is
coping-strategy'. While there is no doubt that the middle classes have to con-
revealed in this quotation-the industrial past is romanticized (some would
front difficulties in the fields of education, housing, work, wd consumption,
say erased), the bUilding somehow authentic, and thus it has (presumably
there are many groups in London who have to cope with the consequences of
 122 • Gentrification Consumption Explanations • 123

gentrification, such as the astoundingly rapid erosion of affordable housin uses and the working-class labor that still-existing industries support. This
that city, and the possibility of eviction and displacement. g the focus of recent work by Winifred Curran (2004), who has studied the
Our purpose here is not to criticize research (or researchers) that Seeks ai~lpla<cernellto,fworl«ratl:Lerth,m residence) in theneighborhoodofWilliamsburg
to understand the urban experiences of more advantaged social groups, "',,_ •.• V,wl, City. She argues that gentrilication serves as the justification for the
certainly not to demonize gentrifiers, whose identities are multiple and who destruction of the urban landscape of industrial production:
s
ambivalent politics often contradict assumptions of a group intent on bootin e
out extant low-inco~e groups from their neighborhoods (Bridge 2003; Le; In the case of industrial uses and blue-collar workers, a narrative of
2004). We s11llply WIsh to pOInt out that next to nothing has been published • 'obsolescence has been created which makes the removal of industrial
;;"wnrk and workers politically palatable. Constructing industrial space
on the experiences of nongentrifying groups living in the neighborhoods
into which the much-researched cosmopolitan middle classes are arriving en as obsolete makes the removal of industrial factories and warehouses
~asse (se~ Free.man [2006] for a recent exc:ption). Instead, academic inquiry that remain in central cities, as well as the jobs they provide ... a prag-
mto gentnficatlOn has provIded a closer vIew of the issues that confront the matic response to global economic change . ... Those industrial uses
middle classes when choosing where to live. It is as if those middle classes are that remain are framed not only as obsolete but also as dirty barriers to
the only characters occupying the stage of gentrification, with the working_ progress and a more beautiful urban landscape .... [Glentrification '"
class backstage, both perennial understudies and perennially understudied. plays a crucial role in displacing industrial uses that do remain in areas
This is particnlarly disappointing, for middle-class gentrifiers are, of COUrse, of a city newly defined as desirable. (p. 1245)
only one part of a much larger story (Slater, Curran, and Lees 2004). One of Curran notes that New York City, commonly labeled 'postindustrial', still sup-
the more worrying aspects of some research into gentrifiers is that it ends ports 250,000 manufacturing jobs employing workers who are lesser educated
up empathizing with their plight, rather than thinking of the wider condi- than those in other sectors, and who are particularly vulnerable to gentrifica-
tions which allow them to gain privileged access to more desirable parts of tion and displacement. In Williamsburg, small businesses are being displaced
the city. and jobs lost because of the conversion of manufacturing space to other uses
Some scholars also take issue with accounts of hipsters. artisans, and bohe- (usually high-end residential loft space). Interestingly, of the owners of dis-
mian types which include uncritical acceptance of the language of 'urban placed businesses that Curran interviewed, 'all but one cited eviction by the
pioneers' and 'pioneer gentrification', which is the case in articles too numer- landlord in order to convert the space or the lack of affordable space in which
ous to list. Neil Smith (1996a) sums up the problem of seeing the gentrifying to expand as the reason for their moves' (2004: 1246). Curran's main argument
middle class as brave explorers: is that consumption explanations rooted in the postindustrial thesis advanced
The idea of "urban pioneers" is as insulting applied to contemporary by Daniel Bell and David Ley tend to conceal the industrial activity that still
cities as the original idea of "pioneers" in the US West. Now, as then, it exists in central cities (for the locational benefits of being integrated into the
implies that no one lives in the areas being pioneered-no one worthy globalized urban economy). Without understanding how gentrification dis-
of notice, at least. (p. 33) places work as well as residence, Curran argues that the understanding of the
process cannot be complete.
Smith has shown that the language of pioneering, often woven together with
the language of an advancing 'frontier' of 'revitalization', simply serves and Informing Resistm-lce
feeds real estate and policy in terests, forming an ideology justifying 'mon- Due to their focus on the practices and politics of the new middle class,
strous incivility in the heart of the city' (p. 18) in the form of gentrification, consumption explanations have not been very influential in strategies to resist
class conquest, and community upheaval. Contemporary parallels can now gentrification. This is evident in the fact that so much resistance to gentrifica-
be drawn with the boosterism surrounding urban 'regeneration' and 'renais- tion is centered on simplistic slanders of'yuppies', slanders that are seemingly
sance' in the United Kingdom, or, in the Uuited States, 'mixed-income com- oblivious of the frequent observation that gentrifiers are a hugely diverse group
munities' that obfuscate the reality of gentrification, capital reinvestment, that cannot be reduced to this label. That said, the potential for informing dis-
and the displacement of public housing tenants through HUD's HOPE VI sent and protest is not great when considering those consumption accounts that
Program (see Chapter 6). end up empathizing with gentrifiers whilst they decide where to live and where
Another problem with consumption explanations, specifically the highly to send their children to school. We therefore feel it is essential that research into
influential postindustrial thesis, is that it suggests a city is devoid of industrial gentrifiers must be critical as well as theoretically sophisticated. This should
 Consumption Explanations • 125
124 • Gentrification

not be an invitation to criticize gentrifiers and blame them for the pnJcess_c.; ;~rr,path"tic focus on gentrifiers can divert attention away from the injustices
'a misplaced charge' (Ley 2003: 2541)-but rather an invitation to and showed how consumption explanations teach uS less about
process, . '
stand the broader mechanisms that allow some people to become gelotrifiers. .;reisistan<:e to gentrification than about resIstance to suburbia.
whilst others will never stand a chance of becoming 'professionalized' and'
simply feel the negative effects of professionals moving into Iow-income ., r',;vitie' and Exercises
neighborhoods. Reread the section above, 'Class Constitution and the Gentrificati~n
Currently, the sort of resistance that consumption explanations inform is Aesthetic'. Take a walk around some central-city neighborhoods m
not really resistance to gentrification, but resistance to the blandness, con- the city where you live (or nearest to where you live), .and in a note-
formity, patriarchy, and straightness of suburbia. There is no question that book jot down some of the possible signifiers of gentnficatlOn. Have
when viewed as a collective, the work discussed in this chapter has one theme you spotted the aesthetic?
in common-the central city is the antithesis of suburbia for the new middle Watch the PBS documentary Flag Wars (2003), by document~ry fi~­
class. It is an arena for counterculture, for 'raging against the machine', for makers Linda Goode Bryant and Laura Poitras, on the gentnficatlOn
female liberation, for gay expression, for aesthetic creation, and for artistic of a deteriorating community in Columbus, Ohio, by gay men ~nd
experimentation. The strip mall is rejected in favor of the boutique and the lesbians. The 'flag wars' of the title take on more than one meamng.
delicatessen, the home as a site of female domestic labor is rejected in favor First it refers to the rainbow flags that hang outside some gay and
of the city as a place where women make inroads into a male-dominated lesbi~n homes, and the response to these by the nongay residents in
world, and the doseted space of the gated community is rejected in a pro- the neighborhood. It also refers to the burning of a rainbow flag that
cess of coming out togetller in a gay community. These are without question had been flying outside of the Ohio statehouse.
major interventions in the history of unequal capitalist urbanization, progres- Watch the KQED documentary The Castro (1997), part of KQED's
sive moments of liberation surprisingly facilitated by gentrification. Yet cru- NeighborllOods: The Hidden Cities of San Franci:co series. The
cial questions remain-who does not benefit from these interventions? What resource guide and other material to supplement tillS documentary
happens to housing markets and rents in the process? What about the many can be found at http://www.kqed.org/w/hood/castro/resourceguide/
thousands of urban dwellers who are not among Hamnett's professionalizedl index.htm!.
And the many thousands of workers who cannot, and would not, daim mem- Watch a few episodes of Sex and the City. Does it support the ~iews .of
bership ofLey's new middle dass? Holcomb, Beauregard, and Wtlliams that the gentnfied Clty 15 a 51te
of education, liberation, and expression for middle-class women?
Summary After reading Chapters 1 and 2 of Monique Taylor's book Harlem:
This chapter summarized a huge literature on the production of gentrifiers. Between Heaven and Hell (2002), watch the Spike Lee movie Jlll1gle
We began by looking at the work of David Ley and Chris Hamnett, whose Fever (Lee 1991), particularly the scenes involving Wesley Snipes,
post-industrial and professionalization theses have explained gentrification as who plays a black middle-dass gentrifier living in Harlem but work-
a consequence of major changes in the industrial and occupational structure ing as an architect in a very white corporate environment. How does
of advanced capitalist cities, resulting in the growth of middle-dass profes- he confront the dualities of race and dass in this context?
sionals. We then broke down the research on the 'new middle dass' into sev- Watch the scene in BOYz N the Hood (1991, John Singleton) in which
eral themes; countercultural identities (using the example of Canadian cities), Furious Styles (Laurence Fishburne), a self-styled street intelle.ctual,
politics and education, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. The purpose was to explains the process of gentrification and neighborhood dedme m
recognize the important research undertaken to explore and conceptualize black neighborhoods to an 'old head' and a group of youths congre-
these themes with respect to gentrification; to tie the process to important gating on a street corner. (Read also Freeman 2006: 118-119.)
changes in society, varying in different geographical contexts; and to show
how these changes cannot be divorced from the upward economic trajectory Further Reading
of urban neighborhoods. We then explored dass constitution and the gentri- Bondi, L. (1999b) 'Gender. class and gentrification: Enriching the debate', Environ-
fication aesthetic, explaining how the 'look' of gentrified neighborhoods can ment and Planning D: Society and Space 17: 261-282. ..'
tell us much about the process, and particularly gentrifiers. We conduded by Ba cl M. (2005) 'The clownside of racial uplift: The meaning of gentnficahon m an
introducing some of the problems with this literature, particularly how an Y 'African-American neighborhood', City & Society 17: 265-288.
 126 • Gentrification

Bridge. G. (2001a) 'Estate agents as interpreters of economic and cultural capital: The
gentrification premium in the Sydney housing market', Intematiollal Journal DJ
Urban and Regional Research 25: 87-101.
Butler. T., with G. Robson (2003) London Callillg: TItelvIiddle-Classes and the Remaking
ofbll1er Londol1 (London: Berg).
Castells, M. (1983) TI,e City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural TIleory of Urban
Social Movemeltts (London: Arnold). (See Chapter 14.)
Caulfield, J. (1994) City Form and Everyday Life: Torolltos Gelttrijicatioll and Critical
Social Practice (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Freeman, 1. (2006) TI,ere Goes the 'Hood: Views of Gelltrijication Jrom the Ground Up
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press).
Hamnett, C. (2000) 'Gentrification, postindustrialism, and industrial and occupa_
tional restructuring in global cities'. in G. Bridge and S. Watson (eds.) A COIn_
pallioll to the City (Oxford: Blackwell) 331-34l.
Jager, M. (1986) 'Class definition and the aesthetics of gentrification: Victoriana in
Melbourne', in N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.) Gentrijicatiol1 DJ the City (Lon_
don: Unw-in Hyman) 78-91.
Knopp,1. (1990) 'Some theoretical implications of gay involvement in an urban land
market'. Political Geography Quarterly 9: 337-352.
Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Class alld the Remakillg of the Celltral City (Oxford:
Oxford University Press).
Rothenberg. T. (1995) 'And she told two friends: Lesbians creating urban social space',
in D. Bell and G. Valentine (eds.) Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities
(London: Routledge) 165-18l.
Taylor, M. (2002) Har/em: Between Heaven and Hell (Minneapolis: University ofMin-
nesota Press).
Zukin, S. (1989) Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urba/l Change 2nd ed. (New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).
 4
The Mutation of Gentrification

Gentrification was initially understood as the rehabilitation of decaying

and low-income housing by middle-class outsiders in central cities.
In the late 1970s a broader conceptualisation of the process began to
emerge, and by the early 1980s new scholarship had developed a far
broader meaning of gentrification, linking it with processes of spatial,
economic and social restructuring. Gentrification emerged as a visible
spatial component of this transformation. It was evident in the rede-
velopment of waterfronts, the rise of hotel and convention complexes
in central cities, large-scale luxury office and residential developments,
and fashionable, high priced shopping districts.
Sassen (1991: 255)

In this chapter, we look at the mutation of gentrification, capturing the tem-

poral and spatial changes to the process. In this, we look at recent deriva-
tives of the term 'gentrification' and the expansion of the term's meaning to
encompass the middle-class (re)settlement of rural areas (questioning the
spatial determinism of inner-city gentrification), 'new-build' developments
(questioning the historic built environment of gentrification), and super-
gentrification (questioning the assumption in stage models of an endpoint to
gentrification). We cast light on contemporary concerns that commentators
~
are stretching the term 'gentrification' too far, and in so doing we examine
m
E
~
whether the political salience of'gentrification' is collapsing under the weight
=
>-
m '"
~
0
ro d
of its expanding definition.
;
~ 0
'" Q ~

." A Mutating Process

~
"0
Q
ro '"
~
u
~
As the process of gentrification has mutated over time, so have the terms used
~
~
0
""
El=!
u
~-"
1;'., i3
to explain and describe it. Most of the terms that have been coined are deriv-
""
."
'E'
~::;;; atives of the term 'gentrification'. Perhaps the first derivative was the term
= .c>-
~
m
'rural gentrification' or what has more recently been called 'greentrification'
'"
=
:s
i:
m
~
.0:
g. (Smith and Phillips 2001). The term 'rural gentrification' can be traced back to
~
<D ~

z
i:
m '" .0:""
= B0
0
~
Parsons (1980). The term refers to the gentrification of rural areas, and it stud-
ies the link between new middle-class settlement. socioeconomic and cultural
...,
...
m
1;'.,0.
~
hl
.§ ~
transformations of the rural landscape, and the subsequent displacement
10
0:: .'=>-" S and marginalization of low-income groups. Studies of rural gentrification
'" 129
128
130 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 131

note the parallels between such rural transformations and similar processes cities and towns in which popular universities are located. In many ways the
in an urban context. Given the spread of the urban (not only physically but massive expansion of higher education in Britain over the last decade has given
also socially and culturally; see Amin and Thrift 2002), rural gentrification rise to such a process. Though originating in Britain, studentification has also
shares the urban(e) characteristics of gentrification in cities. This dialectical recently been adopted in American English to refer to similar problems aris-
play between urban and rural is not new, for as we saw in Chapter 1, the term ing from the overpopulation of many U.S. 'college towns'. Studentification is
'gentrification' played ironically off the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century framed as a 'gentrification factory' in that studentifiers 'represent a potential
English rural gentry. As Ruth Glass argued, 'Urban, suburban and rural areas grouping of future gentrifiers' (D. Smith 2005: 86) or what D. Smith and Halt
have thus become encouraged to merge into one another; and they have lost (2007) term 'apprentice gentrifiers'. This work extends temporal analyses of
some of their differentiating features' (1989: 137). the life courses of gentrifiers to their formative years and looks at their cul-
The next derivative was probably new-build gentrification. As Sharon tural and residential predilections over time and space.
Zukin (1991: 193) explained, as real estate developers woke up to the Opportu- Thus far all the examples of gentrification have been residential, but gen-
nity of offering a 'product based on place', notions of gentrification expanded trification has long been commercial too. In our case studies of gentrification
to include a varied range of building forms, some of which were newly con- in Chapter 1, Upper Street in Barnsbury and Seventh Avenue in Park Slope
structed townhouses and condominiums. Such buildings are obviously at began to gentrify not long after pioneer gentrifiers moved into those neighbor-
odds with the classic gentrification hotion of a rehabilitated 'old' property. In hoods. 'Commercial gentrification' refers to the gentrification of commercial
the Netherlands, such new-build development is part of a policy of 'housing premises or commercial streets or areas; it has also been called 'boutiqueifica-
redifferentiation' that is nothing less than a policy of gentrification (see Uiter- tion' or 'retail gentrification'. In the early days of gentrification in Park Slope
mark, Duyvendak, and Kleinhans 2007; see also Chapter 6). Not all authors, (see Chapter 1), the state was heavily implicated in commercial gentrification.
however, agree that inner-city new-build developments are a form of gentrifi- Through what became known as 'shopsteading' (the residential version was
cation-some prefer to term them 'reurbanisation' (e.g., Lambert and Boddy called 'homesteading'; see Chapter 1), the City of New York sold off vacant
2002; Boddy 2007; Buzar, Hall, and Ogden 2007). commercial premises along 7th Avenue in Park Slope for a nominal sum on
A more recent derivative is super-gentrification. or financification (Lees the condition that the new owners would renovate the premises and set up
2000, 2003b; Butler and Lees 2006). Here we find a further level of gentrifica- new businesses. Zukin (1990) discusses the way that gentrification's spatial
tion which is superimposed on an already gentrified neighborhood, one that form is obvious in consumption spaces along streets that have changed to
involves a higher financial or economic investment in the neighborhood than cater to gentrifiers' tastes. Ley (1996) discusses the way that 'hippy' retailing
previous waves of gentrification and requires a qualitatively different level of was initially significant in the gentrification ofKitsilano in Vancouver, as pio-
economic resource. This gentrification is driven largely by globally connected neer gentrifiers sought craft shops that were anti-mass merchandise. Bridge
workers employed in the City of London or on Wall Street. and Dowling (2001) discuss the retail fabric of four inner Sydney neighbor-
In this chapter, we focus our lens on these three mutations of gentrifica- hoods and argue that restaurant eating and individualized rather than mass
tion because they seem at odds with the classical notion of gentrification and consumption are the main consumption practices associated with gentrifica-
as such it is important to debate them as processes. However. there are many tion in these neighborhoods. Here, consumer demands and individual prefer-
more derivatives of the term <gentrification', most of them are fairly recent, ences are the key.
and they are a product of the massive expansion and changes associated with 'Tourism gentrification' is a term used by Gotham (2005) in a case study
gentrification in its third wave (for a more detailed discussion of third-wave of the sOciospatial transformation of New Orleans' Vieux Carre (French
gentrification, see Chapter 5)-for in its third wave, gentrification has moved Quarter). He defines 'tourism gentrification' as the transformation of a
away from its classical referent, the historic built environment of the metro- neighborhood into a relatively affluent and exclusive enclave in which cor-
politan central city. porate entertainment and tourism venues have proliferated. In arguing
Before turning to rural gentrification, new-build gentrification, and super- that the growth of tourism has enhanced the significance of consumption-
gentrification, we touch on some other mutations to demonstrate the new orientated activities in residential space and as such encouraged gentrifica-
definitional fluidity of the term 'gentrification'. tion, Gotham contests explanations. such as those of David Ley, that view
'Studentification', first termed by Darren Smith (2002), is one such term. gentrification as the outcome of consumer demands (see Chapter 3). The
Studentification refers to the process of social, environmental, and economic gentrification that emerges is both commercial and residential, and, as he
change effected by large numbers of students invading particular areas of the argues. it
 132 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 133

reflects new institutional connections between the local institutions, the Plate 4.2 Gentrification in Brighton
real estate industry and the global economy. Thus, the phenomenon of
tourism gentrification presents a challenge to traditional explanations of
gentrification that assume demand-side or production-side factors drive
the process. Gentrification is not an outcome of group preferences nor
a reflection of market laws of supply and demand. One particular myth
is the claim that consumer desires are forces to which capital merely
reacts. Consumer taste for gentrified spaces is, instead, created and mar-
keted, and depends on the alternatives offered by powerful capitalists
who are primarily interested in producing the built environment from
which they can extract the highest profit. (Gotham 2005: 1114)
In many ways, Gotham is outlining the intricacies of third-wave gentrifica-
tion (see Chapter 5), a gentrification that not only is connected to processes of
globalization but also has new institutional connections. This leads Gotham
to conclude,

The pretentious and widely promulgated claim that the "creative class"
and "cultural intermediaries" drive gentrification elides the complex
and multidimensional effects of global-level socioeconomic transforma-
tions and the powerful role corporate capital plays in the organization
and development of gentrified spaces. (p. 1114) Gentrification in Brighton began as a sweat equity process in its commercial and residential center
not far from the seafront, the results of which are shown here, but the City Council is now adopting
In many ways linked to tourism gentrification, Griffith (2000) discusses a much more showy form of 'regeneration' with various projects on their books.
how culturally distinct sections of coastal cities are threatened with 'coastal Source: Photograph by Darren Smith.
gentrification'. This is because coastal cities are sources of capital investment
primarily for construction and tourism. Brighton and Hove on the south coast In contrast to the new emphasis on the global in the gentrification literature,
of Britain have been gentrified over the past decade or so (see Plate 4.2), and there have also been attempts to insist that gentrification in global cities, such
indeed their authorities have been heavily involved in making these places as London and New York. is different from gentrification in provincial cities.
where the 'urbane' middle classes would want to live. These debates about 'provincial gentrification' have been especially important
Gotham (2005) connects tourism gentrification in New Orleans to global in the United Kingdom in the context of a nation dominated by its capital
socioeconomic transformations. Indeed Neil Smith (2002: 80) argues that city-London (where until recently most of the studies of gentrification had
gentrification is a 'global urban strategy' that is 'densely connected into the cir- been located) and in the context of New Labour's urban renaissance agenda
cuits of global capital and cultural circulation'. Such 'global gentrification', or outlined in the Preface to this book. There are now a number of studies of
what Atkinson and Bridge (2005) call 'the new urban colonialism', is the leading gentrification outside of London, for example Paul Dutton (2003, 2005) on
edge of neoliberal urbanism (see Chapter 5), an urbanism that is affetting cities Leeds and Gary Bridge (2003) on Bristol. British authors argue that the pro-
worldwide. As N. Smlth (2002) argues, the process of gentrification has gone cess of gentrification in provincial cities came after gentrification emerged
global-it is no longer restricted to western cities-as can be seen in Atkinson in London, and that the process in London cascaded down to smaller cities
and Bridge's (2005) edited collection that brings together a number of essays throughout Britain. London in this sense is an incubator for gentrification.
on gentrification from around the world. Despite the recent assertion of links Such an idea of gentrification cascading down the urban hierarchy can, how-
between gentrification and globalization, the analysis of these links has actually ever, be refuted in the context of the United States. For example, in a case
been quite liroited. It is often conjectural and empirically unsubstantiated. The study of Portland, Maine, Lees (2006) shows that gentrification in this small
studies of super-gentrification outlined later in this chapter force us to think city, down the urban hierarchy, was happening pretty much at the same time
about the links between gentrification and globalization in more detail. as, if not before, gentrification in the nearby, much larger cities of Boston and
 The Mutation of Gentrification • 135
134 • Gentrification

regeneration activity in East Lancashire, see http://www.elevate-east-

New York. The problem with the work on provincial gentrification to dat
that it often confuses the notion of a global city with that of a e
A we can see, then, gentrification has mutated into a number of different
city. A small city can be metropolitan but not global, for example Bristol
s over time, and authors have played off of the term 'gentrification' to
Edinburgh in the United Kingdom.
The recent provincial gentrification in the United Kingdom is often
"~".lnand describe these different types. These different types of gentrifica-
all share something in common-a socioeconomic and indeed cultural
led gentrification' or 'municipally managed gentrification' (see Chapter 5).
transf'cJrlnation due to middle-class colonization or recolonization. We turn
state first supported gentrification in its first wave, as we saw in the case
nOW to look at three of these types in more detail, focusing .on how they differ
ies of Barnsbury and Park Slope in Chapter 1, because it was too risky at
from the classical gentrification outlined in Chapter 1 and mdeed from many
early stage for the private sector to be attracted. More recently, the state has
become involved again in the third wave, as the discussion of New Labou I
of the theories of gentrification outlined in Chapters 2 and 3.
.. f b rs
VISIOn 0 ur an renaissance for English towns and cities in the Preface reveal
At this stage, state involvement is about attracting the middle classes back t~
Rural Gentrification
Although gentrification has been the subject of Widespread attention
the central city and keeping them there. Authors like Cameron (2003) and
and heated debate, one of the most strildng features of the debate has
Slater ~2004b) hav~ sho:vn how local authorities or municipalities can be key
been its urbanity, and how this urbanity has proceeded virtually with-
actors m the gentnficatlOn process. Slater (2004b) argues that certain bylaws
introduced by the City of Toronto, for example those that prohibit rooming out comment.
Phillips (2002: 284)
house/bachelorette development or conversion, are heavily implicated in the
municipal promotion and management of gentrification in South Parkdale in For so many, the term 'gentrification' relates exclusively to cities. It was first
Toronto. observed and coined in an urban context, and has been extensively researched
State involvement in gentrification has gone one step further in Burnley, in urban neighborhoods. The influential theories which have emerged to
Blackburn/Darwen, Hyndburn, Pendle, and Rossendale, old declining mill explain it, and the major struggles over its negative effects,. are all rooted in
towns north of Manchester. It has entered the territory of celebrity make- urban settings. But this should not be taken as confirmauon that the pro-
overs! Elevate East Lancashire, a government-funded housing market renewal cess is specifically urban. As Darling (2005) has argued, '[Ujrban and rural
pathfinder charged with finding innovative solutions to the problems ofIow scholars tend largely to keep to their own epistemological pumpkin patches,
demand, negative equity, and housing market collapse, hired Anthony Wll- comfortably sequestered in the midst of their respective canons, despite the
son and his partner Yvette Livesey to imagineer the regeneration of this part myriad ontological ties which bind such landscapes together' (p.101S). A ~ro­
of northern England. Anthony Wilson set up the legendary Factory Records; cess of'rural gentrification' was first observed by Parsons (1980) 1ll the UOlted
launched the careers oOoy Division, New Order, and the Happy Mondays; and Kingdom, and other work followed in that decade to address the issue of class
opened the legendary Hacienda nightclub in Manchester immortalized in the transformation in UK rural villages (e.g., Pacione 1984; Little 1987; Thrift
film 24 HOltr Party People. Their report, 'Dreaming of Pennine Lancashire', 1987; Cloke and Thrift 1987). Darling (2005) notes that the literature on rural
proposes a 'fashion tower' (a vertical story of the industrial revolution to get gentrification is more fully developed in the United Kingdom and lists four
the chattering classes talking, incubator units for new fashion-based busi- 'shifts' which constitute its collective focus:
nesses, and a school of fashion and design), 'chic sheds' designed by Philippe
1. Shifts in the class structure of rural Britain, focusing on the coloni-
Starck (allotment sheds to make gardening fashionable to the young creatives
zation of the British countryside by an exurban or suburban middle
that they want to attract), a canal-side curry mile like the one ih Manchester,
class of home owners seeking the 'rural idyll' and the 'consumption
and a football theme park. The authors claim that Pennine Lancashire could
of nature' (Thrift 1987), and the displacement of working-class rural
use the acronym 'pr; in the same way that Los Angeles is known as 'LN. This is
residents through rising house prices
no ordinary regeneration paper; it is 'epigrammatic, self-mocking, occasion-
2. Shifts in the rural capital accumulation process, and the theorization of a
ally pretentious, arch, knowing, amusing, surprising and quite often inspira-
'postproductivist' rural landscape in which industry and agriculture give
tional' (Carter 2005). The authors have swallowed Richard Florida hook, line,
way to service-oriented development (often, real estate conversions)
and sinker, for as Wilson says, '[I]t is only with the bohemian culture you
3. Shifts in the composition of the rural British housing stock, includ-
create the living environment for the creative class-the only way forward for
ing patterns of ownership and changing housing policies
the old smoke stack towns' (Carter 2005). For more detail on this report and
136 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 137

4. Shifts in how rural gentrification can be theorized in relation to urban a magnet for those in pursuit of "difference", including "hippies" in the
gentrification. centered on, inter alia. the production-consumption past, and more recently artists. craft-workers and "new age travelers".
debates (see Chapters 2 and 3) (p.460)
Martin Phillips has worked on the last shift above, for example-he studied four So, it would seem that the 'greentrifiers' of the Pennines have a lot in common
villages in the Gower Peninsula in South Wales, situating the findings within the gentrifiers discussed by David Ley and Jon Caulfield in the context of
the major debates of the urban gentrification literature (see Phillips 1993). In urban Canada (see Chapter 3). While reasons for moving to this area included
this study, he found that 'there might be a significant difference between urban practically the entire gamut of rural life, everything from the 'authenticity'
and rural gentrificatiofl, at least in terms of the integration of class positions of working farms to the presence of sheep (p. 460), the existence of strong
within households and the influence of patriarchal gender identities' (p. 138), countercultural values among a diverse group of gentrifiers-many of them
In his study sites, he noted that contrary to the arguments of Rose (1989) and 'escaping' from large cities-suggests that rural gentrification should not be
Bondi (1991) (see Chapter 3), there was household asymmetry in terms oflabor, seen as the opposite of its urban form, but perhaps as another illustration of a
which actually contributed to the movement of middle-class families into these mutating process operating along a rural-urban continuum.
villages; women were choosing reproductive labor (the bringing up of the fam- Smith and Phillips's paper is very much geared toward a consumption-
ily) and wanted a safe, supportive, rural community in which to nurture chil- side explanation of gentrification-in fact, they disregard calls to integrate
dren, thus subsidizing male professional-managerial careers. So, contrary to consumption with production approaches by arguing that 'a consumption-
Ann Markusen's (1981) claim that gentrification is a result of'the breakdown of led focus within a gentrification framework prOVides an effective start-
the patriarchal household', Phillips argued that in this rural context gentrifica- ing point to illuminate the differences between processes of revitalization
tion is a result of the continuity of the patriarchal household. within and between rural locations' (p. 466). A sensible remedy to this one-
But rural gentrification should not necessarily be seen as something com- sided view (and also to the awkward interchanging of gentrification and
pletely different from its urban relation. In later works, Phillips (2002, 2004) 'revitalization') is provided by Eliza Darling (2005) in her study of rural
documents a crucial parallel between rural and urban gentrification-both gentrification in New York State's Adirondack State Park, a popular tourist
reflect distancing from suburban space and suburbia. In this study of two retreat. From the outset, whilst not disregarding consumption factors, she is
Berkshire villages, he noted that just like urban gentrifiers, rural gentrifiers keen to fill in the gaps left by British research by examining 'the significance
wished for social distinction in a conscious rejection of postwar mass-pro- of the material production of nature by the state management of the local
duced suburban hOUSing: landscape in creating the conditions within which investment and disin-
vestment in the rural built environment occur in the first place' (p. 1018).
I wanted something turn ofthe century or First World War at the latest.
Darling, who prefers the term 'wilderness gentrification' (to set it apart from
Because I feel that those houses have been built with a lot more char-
the 'rural gentrification' described in Britain), explains that whilst there are
acter.... Anything sort of Second World War onwards, I would find
fundamental commonalities with urban gentrification, the process in the
generally, yeah, lacking in the sort of individuality and character that
Adirondack State Park differs due to the local particularities of the rent gap
we'll have. Yeah, Second World War onwards we tend to have mass
(see Chapter 2):
housing building came on and repetition. (Respondent, quoted in Phil-
lips 2002: 301) It is a different story in the wilderness, largely because oftheldnd of rent
Another similarity between rural and urban gentrification was dis~overed by that is being capitalized. What gets produced in the process of urban
Darren Smith and Deborah Phillips (2001) in their study of the Hebden Bridge gentrification is residential space. What gets produced in the process of
district of West Yorkshire (a bastion of 'Pennine rurality'). While the key dif- wilderness gentrification is recreational nature. (p. 1022)
ference is the fact that rural gentrifiers stressed the demand for (and perception
Darling explains that much of the hOUSing in the region lies empty for the
of) 'green' residential space (Smith and Phillips term the process 'greentrifica-
majority of the year due to the absence of tourists; thus, the geographical
tion'), these gentrifiers had a lot in common with their urban counterparts:
expression of the rent gap is different: '[U]ndercapitalized land in the wilder-
The attraction of Hebden Bridge as a district has much to do with its ness might instead be defined as undeveloped shorefront property, or, alter-
historical significance as a place, renowned for its radicalism, non- natively, developed shorefront property that is rented year round to the local
conformity and tolerance of "athe mess". The location has long provided workforce for low house rents rather than seasonally to tourist consumers for
138 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 139

higher house rents' (p. 1023). It is interesting to note how the rent gap is closed draw on case studies of new-build gentrification in Vancouver, Canada, and
given the clear lack of significant local disinvestment: Newcastle and London in the United Kingdom.
Most gentrification authors would now agree that certain new-build devel-
For a developer who typically deals with high-priced real-estate trans- opments should be characterized as gentrification, but there are still a minor-
actions in places like New York City or the Hamptons, the bargain-base- ity who believe they should not. The fact that today gentrifiers' residences
ment property prices typically found across the Adirondack Park must are 'as likely to be smart new townhouses as renovated workers' cottages'
make the entire place seem disinvested and indeed, New Jersey fast-food (Shaw 2002: 42) has led authors such as Neil Smith to change their definition
tycoon Roger Jakubowski called Adirondack real estate "the last nickel of gentrification (see his earlier definition of gentrification in Chapter 1), so
bargain in America". (p. 1028) that he now argues that a distinction can no longer be made between classical
and new-build gentrification. He argues that gentrification has departed from
Yet Darling's work shows that despite some differences in the character of gen-
Glass' description and refers to a much broader phenomenon:
trification between cities and the wilderness, it is the underlying logic of the
process of capital accumulation which unites the urban and rural, and the How, in the large context of changing social geographies, are we to dis-
gentrification of both. tinguish adequately between the rehabilitation of nineteenth-century
Also in the United States, Rina Ghose (2004) has studied rural gentrifi- housing, the construction of new condominium towers, the opening
cation in the western part of the state of Montana (her Ph.D. thesis [1998] of festival markets to attract local and not so local tourists, the prolif-
was imaginatively entitled 'A Realtor Runs through It'!). She found that Real- eration of wine bars-and boutiques for everything-and the construc-
tors-key agents in the gentrification process in this context-are 'selling not tion of modern and postmodern office buildings employing thousands
just homes, but a "Montana Dream", "a log cabin getaway", "country style of professionals, all looking for a place to live? .. , Gentrification is no
comfort", and "room for horses ... rural yet minutes from the city'" (p. 537). longer about a narrow and quixotic oddity in the hOUSing market but
The new construction marketed this way in the wilderness surrounding the has become the leading residential edge of a much larger endeavour: the
town of Missoula was leading to a dramatic rise in house prices (the bottom class remake of the central urban landscape. (N. Smith 1996a: 39)
end of the market saw prices triple in the 1990s), so that the average Missou-
New-build residential developments, nevertheless, stand in stark contrast to
lan could 'scarcely afford such prices and [is] being pushed out of the hous-
the renovated Victorian and Georgian landscapes of classic gentrification
ing market' (p. 538). An interesting irony emerged from her research, in that
texts (e.g., those of Glass [1964] and N. Smith [1982]). This has led housing
the wilderness dream marketed to the gentrifiers was under threat from all
researchers such as Christine Lambert and Martin Boddy (2002: 20) to ques-
the new construction taking place to house them! Long-term residents spoke
tion whether new-build, city center residential landscapes can in fact be char-
of loss of open spaces, the emergence of uncontrolled sprawl, overcrowding,
acterized as gentrification at all:
the destruction of wildlife habitats, and so on-hardly a wilderness setting!
Furthermore, the destruction of community and local identity was occurring [W]e would question whether the sort of new housing development and
under gentrification; this was met with anger by local people unable to afford conversion described in Bristol and other second tier cities, or indeed the
the expensive consumption lifestyles led by the gentrifiers-yet another echo development of London's Docldands, can, in fact, still be characterised
of the urban form of the process. In sum, the work of Ghose and others dis- as "gentrification"-post-recession or otherwise. There are parallels: new
cussed above suggests that rural gentrification is best viewed as a close·relative geographies of neighbourhood change, new middle class fractions colo-
of urban gentrification, rather than a distant cousin. nising new areas of central urban space, and attachment to a distinctive
lifestyle and urban aesthetic. But "gentrification", as originally coined,
New-Build Gentrification referred primarily to a rather different type of "new middle class", buy-
When luxury con dos are built on reclaimed industrial land, does it count as ing up older, often "historic" individual hOUSing units and renovating
gentrification? These are not old houses, and there is no displacement of a and restoring them for their own use-and in tlle process driving up
low-income community. Gentrification authors have long been aware of such property values and driving out former, typically lower income work-
a question, but there have been few attempts to outline the competing argu- ing class residents. Discourses of gentrification and the gentrification
ments and their implications. In this chapter we analyze the relationship literature itself do represent a useful starting point for the analysis of the
between new-build developments and earlier definitions of gentrification. We sort of phenomenon discussed above. We would conclude, however, that
140 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 141

to describe these processes as gentrification is stretching the term and The case against new-build developments in central cities being char-
what it set out to describe too far. acterized as gentrification includes the argument that this is not a process
involving the loving restoration of old housing by gentrifiers rich in social
Debating these positions, Davidson and Lees (2005) drew up the cases
and cultural capital and, as with pioneer gentrifiers, poor in economic capital.
for and against new-build gentrification (see Box 4.1). They found more
Rather, the developer produces a product and lifestyle to be bought by those
evidence for 'the case for'. In 'the case for', they argue that as in traditional
with sufficient economic capital to afford these new developments. According
notio.ns of gent~ification, capital is reinvested in disinvested central-city
to Lambert and Boddy (2002: 21), the purchasers are buying into a different
10catlOns, even If the product is a new-build development. Like in claSSic
version of urban living. The crux of Lambert and Boddy's (2002: 18) argu-
gentrification, the people attracted to these developments are the urban_
ment is that because these new houses are built on brownfield land, they do
seeking middle classes. And the end result is the same, too-displacement of
not displace a preexisting residential population; as such, they argue that with
lower-income people by an incoming middle class-even if the processes of
respect to new-build developments, 'Gentrification in the sense of a process of
displace.ment are perhaps less overt. Davidson and Lees argue that although
social change based on "invasion and succession" is, therefore, a misnomer'.
dIrect dISplacement cannot occur because the site is brownfield and as such
They argue instead that such developments are better termed 'reurbanisation'.
has no resident population, indirect displacement-lower-income displace-
Nevertheless, the empirical evidence supports Davidson and Lees (2005) and
ment in adjacent residential communities-is likely to occur instead. The
Davidson (2006), who show that displacement does occur and that new-build
indirect displacement might take the form of 'exclusionary displacement'
developments act as beachheads from which the tentacles of gentrification can
or price shadowing, where lower-income groups are unable to access prop-
spread into the surrounding neighborhoods, depending on the particular his-
erty due to the gentrification of the neighborhood. It might also caUSe
tories and contexts of those neighborhoods.
sociocultu:al displacement as the incomers take control of the community
Although new-build gentrification has really taken off in the postreces-
apparatus m the area. Importantly, Davidson and Lees (2005) point out that
sion or third-wave era-as Sassen's quote at the beginning of this chapter
unlike the direct displacement tied to traditional processes of gentrifica-
and Carollne Mills's work (below) on new-build gentrification in Vancouver,
tio~, ~ndi~ect displacement can avoid legislation (planning or other, e.g.,
Canada, show-new-build gentrification first emerged in the 1980s. The
antnvmklmg laws) that seeks to protect poorer inner-city residents from
difference between these two time periods is that in the 1980s the state was
displacement.
a -background actor in new-build gentrification. whereas in contemporary.
third-wave gentrification the state is a key actor. Moreover, new-build gen-
trification is not always located on ex-industrial brownfield sitesj some new-
Box4.1 build gentrification is located on preexisting residential sites, as the cases of
The Cases for and against New-Build Gentrification Fairview Slopes in Vancouver, Canada, and Newcastle, United Kingdom,
below, demonstrate. In addition, the actors involved in new-build gentrifi-
The Case for
cation are usually more varied than those in classical gentrification, including
• It causes displacement, albeit indirect and/or sociocultural. architects and developers as well as the state.
• In-movers are the urbane new middle classes.
· ACapital
gentrified landscape/aesthetic is produced. Case Stlfdy 1: Tlte Pas/modem Lalldscape ojFairl'iewSlopes, Vallcouver, Cmwda
· sites, butisnotreinvested
always).
in disinvested urban areas (often on brownfield Caroline Mills (1988, 1989, 1993) analyzed the newly built postmodern
landscape of Fairview Slopes, a small neighborhood in inner-city Vancou-
ver. It stands on a steep hill, above False Creek South, overlooldng downtown
The Case against
Vancouver (see Plate 4.3). There, developers, architects, and marketing agents
· The
Preexisting populations are not displaced. created a new landscape of gentrification, one that demonstrated processes of
· individuals.
process does not involve the restoration of old housing by capital reinvestment, social upgrading, and middle-class colonization. In the
first decade of the twentieth century, Fairview Slopes was developed with mod-
• It is a different version of urban living. est wood frame houses housing profeSSionals, tradespeople, and workers in the
Sotlree: Davidson aod Lees (2005: 1169-1170). shipbuilding, sawmill, and steel plants along False Creek. The area became a
mix of residential and industrial use, and in the 1960s, as deindustrialization
 142 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 143

Mills used Geertz's (1973) ethnography as a method through which

.nClSC<LP·· the landscape of Fairview Slopes as a cultural form. She analyzed
textual landscape of gentrification in Fairview Slopes by analyzing (1)
"A"ertisiIlg imagery, (2) the postmodern style of the gentrified landscape, and
the practice of gentrification in terms of th~ texts of the producers an~ con~
. mers of this gentrified landscape. In so dOlng she looked at cultural texts
::ch as advertising, planning and architectural design, and details about the
everyday lives of residents drawn from interviews with them. She began her
analysis by looking at the planning of the neighborhood, and then extended
this account outwards to consider the postmodern deSlgn of the nelghbor-
hood and the stories of those individuals involved in the production and con-
sumption of the landscape.
Mills was one of the first authors to look at the marketing of a gentrifier
Jifestyle, from 'open house' displays of rooms to advertising brochures. In her
discussions of advertising imagery, Mills argued that advertising was the con-
duit along which cultural meaning flowed: 'From the culturally constit'"ted
world. meaning is transferred into consumer goods; the fashion and advertis-
ing systems are two strategies by which this is achieved. Then individuals d:aw
When Fairview Slopes first gentrified, the gentrification of downtown Vancouver and the wholesale that meaning from the goods by various rituals, including those of possesslOn,
redevelopment of the North Shore of Vancouver, which it overlooks, was only just beginning. exchange and grooming' (Mills 1988: 170). From advertising imagery, Mills
Source: Photograph by Loretta Lees. teased out the nuances of a lifestyle language and looked at how gentrification
could be understood in terms of capital accumulation and the cultural 'mean-
hit home in Vancouver, many houses were converted into rooming houses ing' ofliving in an inner-city neighborhood. .
or communal homes. Much of the housing was rental, and the area devel- Mills remains one of the few authors to investigate the architecture of gentn-
oped a reputation as countercultural or, in some accounts, as a slum. But over fication in any detail. According to Mills the developers, with encouragement
a fifteen-year period, the neighborhood was redeveloped. The instigator for from the state, were creating new Idnds of commodities with a supposedly
the redevelopment ofFairview Slopes was the City Council's redevelopment of discriminating edge to them. In analyzing the architectural style of the new-
the adjacent False Creek South from industrial to residential and amenity uses builds, Mills found differences between the first and second phases of devel-
in 1972 (see Cybriwsky, Ley, and Western 1986; Ley 1987b). Here, the newly opment in the 1970s and 1980s. For Mills, these differences represented the
elected TEAM (The Electors Action Movement), educated liberals who pro- two faces of postmodernism-the architecture of the everyday (it was sugges-
moted the idea of a 'livable city', shifted planning philosophy in City Hail so tive of history and context, at human scale, and clustered organically around
that it was politically progressive: aesthetically and sOcially inclusive. Fairview courtyards) and a pandering to the culture of consumption (local themes were
Slopes was rezoned as a medium-density residential and commercial neigh- played against themes from elsewhere; classical detail mixed with contempo-
borhaod, speculative activity increased in anticipation of redevelopment, and rary; and there were columns, arches, and Palladian windows) as developers
developers became involved, attracted by bonus densities which could be moved away from TEAM's 'livable city' agenda.
earned for good designs. Throughout her research on Fairview Slopes, Mills was interested in the
Mills' research was concerned with the specifics of cultural issues' in the lives of 'real gentrifiers'. Following Geertz, she interrogated 'the dialogue
gentrification process (see Chapter 3). For Mills (1989: 390), following Cos- of text and context, cultural practices and social life', through a method of
grove and Jackson (1987: 95), 'Culture is not a residual category, the surface 'thick description' which aimed 'to excavate the multiple layers of meaning
variation left unaccounted for by more powerful economic analyses; it is the that actions have to social actors' (Mills 1988: 171). She got the bulk of her
very medium through which social change is experienced, contested and data on the producers and consumers of this gentrified landscape through
constituted'. Mills was influenced by the emergence of a 'new cultural geog- two series ofinterviews-first with the key producers of the landscape (design-
raphy' in which the metaphor of text underscored the symbolic qualities of ers and developers, real estate agents, etc.), and then with the key consumers
144 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 145

(the residents of the new buildings in Fairview Slopes). Mills did not find _""p,W" I found in U.S. cities in the 1950s. British cities have been well behind
that developers unilaterally 'produced' the new landscape of Fairview Slopes; American cities in countering the doughnut effect-and indeed, it is only really
rather, she found it to be a process of negotiation 'to which the changing mind- in the last 5-10 years that cities like Manchester, Sheffield, and Newcastle have
sets ofits potential consumers were pivotal' (1988: 180). actively pursued policies and practices aimed to attract the middle classes to
Interestingly, Mills questioned whether the redevelopment of Fairview live and play in their central cities. Interestingly, in earlier papers on new city
Slopes was gentrification at all: 'Yet Fairview Slopes does not fit the usual center and waterfront redevelopments in Newcastle, Cameron (1992; see also
image of a gentrified neighbourhood. It is a landscape of redevelopment, and Cameron and Doling 1994) argues that these should not be viewed as gentri-
renting is probably still as common as owner occupancy'. Nevertheless, she fication because they have not involved the displacement of, or other negative
answered the question assertively by saying yes, indeed, it is gentrification_ impacts on, the existing low-income resident population. But he changes his
but it is a gentrification aesthetic that has moved on from classical gentrifica- mind; by way of contrast, Cameron (2003) argues with respect to Going for
tion, as she argued: Growth that existing low-income residents would be displaced and that this
would be especially sharp for those with histories of antisocial behavior, for
Just as blue jeans became the international uniform of the new class ... they would not be rehoused readily:
so gentrified housing became its international neighbourhood .. ,. Iron-
This perhaps suggests a particularly sharp form of displacement and
ically, as blue jeans turned into a new conformity, so does the landscape
exclusion affecting those who are seen as a threat to the attraction of a
distinctiveness of the gentrified neighbourhood. (1988: 186)
new, middle class population. It is possible to see here Smith's ... notion
of a "revanchist city" with a punitive response to the poor. On the other
Case Stlldy 2: RcgCllemtillg Newcastle
hand, some existing residents as well as incomers may welcome this
In a more recent discussion ofnew-build gentrification, Stuart Cameron (2003)
form of action against anti-social behaviour. (p. 2372)
discusses Newcastle City Council's citywide regeneration strategy named
'Going for Growth' that sought to 'remodel' low-demand housing areas in Indeed, one of the city's oldest working-class communities nO longer fig-
inner-city Newcastle. Its explicit objective was to rebalance the population of ured in the civic plans for a twenty-first-century Newcastle. Luckily, how-
disadvantaged and stigmatized communities by building housing that would ever, Going for Growth had barely gotten off the ground when the Audit
attract the middle classes into these areas. Here new-build gentrification was Commission slated it, saying it risked making the problems of abandoned
not to take place on brownfield sites; rather, like in Fairview Slopes, it was to housing in Newcastle's city center even worse, and in May 2004 the Labour-led
take place on preexisting residential land. The new-build gentrification here Newcastle City Council was ousted by the Liberal Democrats, who in January
was about social engineering-trying to attract the middle classes to parts of 2005 replaced the Going for Growth strategy with a significantly scaled-back
inner-city Newcastle to sOcially rebalance these areas. As such, it was con- version, the Benwell Scotswood Area Action Plan, that seeks to extend pros-
nected to national government urban policy prescriptions. such as the Urban perity westward in the urban core.
White Paper (DETR 2000a) discussed in the Preface, in terms of attracting the Cameron (2003) speculates whether Newcastle's Going for Growth strategy
middle classes back to the central city in the hopes that social mixing would is akin to the Dutch policy of ,housing redifferentiation' (see Chapter 6) which
mean the transference of social capital from the social capital rich to the social adds more expensive dwellings to low-income areas to create a more socially
capital poor (see Chapter 6 on 'positive gentrification'). diverse population in neighborhoods. He suggests that this term may he more
The aim of Going for Growth was to bridge the gulf between suburbanites appropriate than 'gentrification' for the Going for Growth strategy. However,
with jobs and inner-city residents without jobs, and to counter central-city he finds a key difference-the low-rent neighborhoods in the Netherlands
population loss and its impact on the local tax base and the local economy. all have some middle-class and even higher-income residents. The neighbor-
In many ways, the story of Newcastle's decline was like the American dough- hoods being targeted in Newcastle were low income only.
nut effect-the hollowing out of the urban core economically, socially, and Cameron's (2003) paper is speculative, that is, it is not based on empirical
culturally. In the United States, cities have long tried to address these issues evidence about gentrification but rather is a review of the Going for Growth
through a range ofinitiatives-from festival marketplaces to stadiums. water- strategy and a suggestion of what its impacts might be (or might have been if
front development, and more recently the gentrification of social housing (see it had continued). Cameron emphasizes policy intertextuality: how the Going
Chapter 6). Indeed, Cameron (2003: 2372) states that Going for Growth seems for Growth text either refers to or seems to draw on other policy texts, such as
to have more in common with the model of gentrification linked to the urban the Urban White Paper (DETR 2000a) and Bringing Britain Together (Social
 146 • Gentrification
The Mutation of Gentrification • 147

Exdusion Unit 1998), Although Cameron makes reference to a num]'er nf

, 1 dew-build gentrification is one of these mutations
III state- e n 'Id in'fithe
newspaper journalist interviews with the people involved in the formula'
ve 'illey discuss other authors who have found new-bul gentn ca-
tion of Going for Growth, he does not undertake any interviews himself,
w·b : tant in third-wave gentrification, Hackworth (2001, 2002:),
could have learned more about Going for Growth if Cameron had iDc:lucled : to e lelmporidentifies the presence of new-bu'ild corporat e developments. III
a discourse analysis (which is interested not just in the document but also in
eXamp
rnargln aJ loca't' B way of contrast Rose (2002) discusses the constructlOn
those who have produced it) alongside his textual analysis, This is something lOns, y , , 1 h h lready
ne,,v-tmilcu infill housing in neighborhoods in Montrea t at ave a
that Mills (1988) did, Rydin's (2005) discussion of the relevancy of discourse
analysis to policy research provides a useful account of how such methods are . gentrified, " 'd' n'mpor
'
DavIdson and Lees 's (?005)
- case study of Londons nverSl
11 e IS'fa 1 Large-
useful to our understanding of, and engagement with, public policy:
b cause London's riverside is changing out of a recogm lOn.
[AJ discourse approach to policy in a substantive area allows the analyst ~n;s o~brownfield sites stretching the full length of the Thames are being
to understand the different actors' perspectives and self-presentations nurn
d
re eve
~oped under policy initiatives deSigned by the Greater London Author-
") t t
of the policy process, It enables a fuller understanding of the engage_ ity (GLA), The GL~s London Plan (2004: Xl! wan s 0
ment of actors within the policy process, an engagement that is funda_
mentally communicative and hence 'discursive. It can link the actors' develop London as an exemplary, sustainable world city, based on three
use of discourses with societal discourses, suggesting how the discur- interwoven themes:
sive power of an actor's representations may draw on these broader strong, diverse long term economic growth . hare in
social resources. At the same time it can identify how actors actively social indusivity to give all Londoners the opportumty to s
use language to pursue their interests. A discourse approach can reveal London's future success f
features of the policymaking organisation in terms of its prevailing fundamental improvements in London's environment and use 0
norms and routines, which contribute to a mobilization of bias within resources.
the organization, Again this can help explain path dependency; it can
also suggest discursive strategies for managing communication and the Later in the document, they demonstrate an impli.cit urb~~ renaissa.nce agen~ai
r d to the British government's Social ExduslOn Umt s promotlOn,ofso~ra,
on~: 'positiv~ ge~tnficatlOn
practices of pOlicymakers in order to undermine such path dependency.
(pp, 16-17) and balanced communities (see Chapter 6 on
~ g d tail) There are some similarities between these flverslde brown-
Given the importance now of gentrification researchers looking carefully at ;~';::;-b:ild developments and those ofLondon's Docklands, but there are
the interplay between gentrification and public policy and between pUblic important differences too, As Davidson and Lees (2005: 1171) argue,
policy and gentrification (Lees 2003c), a detailed investigation of how a New
Labour-led Newcastle City Council came up with this (disturbing) strategy The Docklands redevelopment concerned a relocati~n of bu.si~ess
(and almost got away with it) would be most interesting, (th City) through (what eventually became) a pubhdy subsIdIzed
roe ramme of large-scale redevelopment and in tandem underw~nt
Case Study 3: LOlldoll's Riverside Renaissance ~ g ndous residential change in the dassic Thatcher model of eraslllg
Davidson and Lees (2005) discuss brownfield new-build gentrification along t~:m;orking_dass history and geography of the city in or~er to make
the River Thames in London, They argue that recent new-build developments eve one middle dass, ,', In contrast, contemporary new-bmld devel~p-
along the Thames are part and parcel of the maturation and mutation' of the ry Iong the Thames are not connected to the relocationd'
mentsa of theh CIty;
t
gentrification process in its third waVe (for more detail On third-wave gen- they are smaller in scale, privately funded, tend to be locate III t e ~-
trification, see Chapter 5), Following Neil Smith (2002: 390-392), they argue d'tional retail and commercial core of the city, and are fundamenta y
that studies of gentrification have to date failed to 'problematize the locations ti~d to New Labour's attempts both to attract the middle dasses back to
of gentrification adequately' and that as such We need to widen the 'spatial the central city and, in so doing, to instigate sacral mU(lng III an attempt
lens' of gentrification studies (Phillips [2004J argues similarly), The lens needs to defeat social exclusion and social malaise.
to be widened because in its third wave, gentrification has mutated into dif-
As is the case of new-build gentrification in Newcastle (above), so~ial mix-
ferent parts of the city, no longer always the central city, to rural locations,
in is hi h on the local government agenda. But whereas .C.amer~n s dlSCUS-
coastal locations, and outside of First World cities. For Davidson and Lees, an
g,IS cOllJectura,
sion g, I D aVl'd SOll an d Lees (2005) provide empmcal eVIdence that
148 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 149

indicates that the new-build developments are not conducive to social IllIX1r'a, "",,,-j,U'"'''' comparison, we compare it with the case of super-gentrification
rather, the result is gentrification, segregation, and social exclusion (for more Brook1yn Heights, New York City.
detail, see Davidson 2006), Davidson and Lees (2005) use UJ( Census, survey, ',In the term 'super-gentrification', the prefix 'super' is used to dem.0nstrate
and mtervlew data to back up their argument that these riverside new-build this is not only a higher level of gentrification, but also one supenmposed
developments are gentrification, Although the 2001 census data (National already gentrified neighborhood; one that has global connections-
U economiC, and cultural; and one that involves a higher fi nanC13 '1 or eco-
Statistics 2001) only captures the early days of this process, it is clear that Social
upgrading is occurring along the Thames. Between 1991 and 2001, in the investment in the neighhorhood than previous waves of gentrification,
Thameside boroughs investigated, the number of professionals increased by as such requires a qualitatively different level of economic resource. 'The
42.9 percent, the number of associate professional and technical residents by suffix 'gentrification' is used as a metaphor fo~ sO:ial change;. here a new, more
44.5 percent, and the number of managers and senior officials by 20.9 percent. elite, more globaJly connected gentry is movmg mto the n~lg(hbor)hOOd (But-
By way of contrast, lower-middle-income and lower-income occupational ler and Lees 2006). This argument revolves around Sassens 1991 argument
groups in the same Thameside boroughs decreased: administrative and secre- about the creation of a new class of financial engineer~ who have successfully
tarial by 1104 percent, skilled trades by 12.8 percent, personal service by 29.5 commodified the financial services industries, creatmg neW products and
percent, and process, plant, and machine workers by 6.9 percent. The Corre- reat wealth for themselves. The spread of this industry has been such that
sponding increase in elementary workers (e.g., cleaners. kitchen staff, security ft has also included those in supporting industry sectors such as marketing,
guards, and porters) is, as Davidson and Lees (2005: 1184) argue, not surpris- information technology, and, crucially, legal services.
ing given these groups are those most likely to service the incoming middle Super-gentrification is an interesting phenomenon in that it go~s against
classes. The survey and interview data reveal that long-term residents view this the grain of stage models of gentrification which assume an endpomt to th:
new gentrification as a negative thing-they see the redevelopment as being process, the endpoint being mature gentrification (see Chapter 1). As such, ~t
for younger, commuting people and little housing being built for the working poses important questions about the historical conti~uity of current mam-
class. Social mixing does not occur between the riverside new-build and adja- festations of gentrification with previous rounds of nelghborhood change. As
cent neighborhood residents; if anything, there is fear from the new-build res- Lees (2003b: 2491) argues,
idents of their riverside neighbors. As such, the new-build developments have
Like the now-discredited climax ecology models of vegetation invasion
fostered social exclusion rather than social inclusion. In conclusion, Davidson
and succession on which they were predicated ... gentrification stage
and Lees (2005: 1187) state,
models assume that the process of gentrification will eventuaJly reach
Given the increasing middle-class recolonisation of central London, a stable and self-perpetuating final climax stage of "mature gentrifica-
specifically along the River Thames, and the corresponding displace- tion". The example of super-gentrification demonstrates the foJly of this
ment of lower social classes, it would be foJly to disavow new-build assumption about the stability both of the underlying processes and of
developments of the label "gentrification". the resulting patterns of gentrificatio n ,
It also stands against neo-Marxist, rent gap-type explanations (see Chapter 2)
Su pcr-gc ntri fi ca ti 0 n which focus on the dialectic of disinvestment and reinvestment, ignoring
Butler with Robson (2003) suggested that Barnsbury in London was 'witnessing changes in neighborhoods that have already been gentrified. Where~s tradi-
second generation (re)gentrification' driven largely by finance and financial tional work on gentrification has concentrated on the turn from a dlsmvested
sector worlcers employed in the City of London. Lees (2000, 2003b), in the to a reinvested neighborhood, here an already gentrified, upper-middle-class
context of specific neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York City, termed this neighborhood is transformed again into an even more exclusive and expensive
process 'super-gentrification' or 'financification'. Super-gentrification is a fur- enclave. 'There is no exploitation of a rent gap. Gentrification continues but
ther level of intensified gentrification that is happening in a few select neigh- takes a different form, we go from a state of supposedly mature gentrification
borhoods in global cities like London and New York. More recently, Butler to a state of super-gentrification. In this, certain neighborhoods have become
and Lees (2006) have worked together to proVide detailed empirical evidence the focus of intense investment and conspicuous consumption by a new gen-
of a third wave of gentrification, super-gentrification, in Barnsbury, London. eration of super-rich 'financifiers' fed by the fortunes from the global finance
We outline that evidence in the next section, thus bringing up-ta-date our and corporate service industries. Importantly, super-gentrification is differ-
story of gentrification in Barnsbury (see Chapter 1). Then, continuing with a ent from re-gentrification, which may well happen to other neighborhoods,
150 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 151

because super-gentrification is only likely to happen in neighborhoods in London housing market in a way that differentiates it and them both from
global cities that are easily commutable to global financial headquarters such traditional professionals and from the traditional urban upper classes. This
as the City of London-the 'Golden Square Mile'-or Wall Street-or in third generation of gentrifiers has, over the last decade, begun to displace
cities such as San Franciso with very particular cirumstances, in this case the some of the original middle-class gentrifiers. Butler and Lees argue that there
impact of Silicon Valley and IT (informatiou technology) companies. Super_ is a close interaction between elite forms of education, particularly Oxbridge;
gentrification is not Dangschat's (1991) typology of 'ultra-gentrification'. work in the newly globalizing industries of the financial services economy;
'Ultra-gentrification', however, might well be the fate of a number of Success_ and residence in Barnsbury, which is very different from other areas oflargely
ful inner-city gentrified neighborhoods the world over if the embourgeoise_ gentrified inner London. As McDowell (1997a) has shown, this new service
ment of the central city continues. As Atldnson and Bridge (2005: 16) argue: class has had a major impact in shaping the inner London housing market.
This group has been recruited disproportionately from the privileged upper
As gentrification has become generalised so it has become intensified in
ranks of British society through the public schools and its favored universi-
its origtnattng neighbourhoods, many of which have now moved into
ties-Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, Durham, and some University of London
stellar price brackets and now resemble established elite enclaves rather
colleges (McDowell 1997b). As Massey (1993) argues, those social groups most
than the ascetic pioneer gentrifier spirit of the 1960s and 1970s.
empowered by globalization are often preexisting elite groups. In Butler and
And, as Chris Hamnett (1984: 314) argued some time ago now, Lees's (2006) arguments about the pivotal importance of the occupations of
super-gentrifiers, they follow on from earlier work by, for example, David Ley
It should be clear that gentrification is merely another stage in a con-
(1994, 1996) on liberal public sector workers, and Sharon Zuldn (1982) on
tinuing historically contingent sequence of residential area evolution.
artists, as pioneer gentrifiers (see Chapter 3).
There are no universally and temporally stable residential patterns.
Butler and Lees (2006) argue that super-gentrification could not have hap-
Neil Smith (2002: 441) argues that the hallmark of the latest phase of pened in Barnsbury without the stabilizing influence of the second wave of
gentrification is the 'reach of global capital down to the local neighbourhood gentrification which occurred in the 1980s. Second-wave gentrification (see
scale'. Atldnson and Bridge (2005: 7), however, argue that 'the literature on Chapter 5) saw a much more visible upgrading of Upper Street, the main com-
globalisation has not been geared towards the level of the neighbourhood' and mercial street in Barnsbury. The redevelopment of the old Agricultural Hall
that 'the neighbourhood has been under-recognised as the site of the repro- into a Business Design Centre symbolized the more corporate gentrification
duction of a wider set of power relations and contacts which operate at local. that ensued. In this phase, although many gentrifiers still worked in the public
urban, regional, and international levels'. The following case studies on super- sector, an increasing number of them worked in the private sector and par-
gentrification make concrete the rather abstract claims about the relationships ticularly the City, where jobs had expanded due to deregulation. Butler and
between global economic and urban-scale processes. Lees (2006) discuss how and why both the number of jobs and the salaries and
bonuses associated with these jobs increased significantly over this period,
Case Study 1: Barnsblll),. London (Continued) and even more so since the mid-1990s. (Ex-British Prime Minister) Tony Blair
Butler and Lees (2006) look at a global elite of gentrifiers who have chosen not and Cherie Blalr, who moved to Barnsbury towards the end of this second
to colonize, but to recolonize, an already gentrified neighborhood-Barnsbury wave of gentrification in 1993, are good examples of the influx of City workers.
(see Chapter 1). These super-gentrifiers, they argue, actively connect global Indeed, they benefited from the emerging third wave of super-gentrification in
capital flows to the neighborhood level. In contrast to Rofe's (2003) argument Barnsbury, for by the tLme they sold their Richmond Crescent home (see Plate
(with respect to gentrifying transnational elites) that in order to maintain a 4.4) tn 1997 (on moving to Downing Street), it had nearly doubled in price
distinctive identity, the gentrifying class as an emergent elite projects their (to £615,000). It was sold again in 2001 for £1.25 million! When the Blairs
identity from the scale of the local onto the global, Butler and Lees (2006) moved in, it was still possible for successful but traditional professionals to
demonstrate the opposite: elite super-gentrifiers projecting a global identity buy a family property in Barnsbury. By the time they sold, it was really only
onto the local. Rather than the erosion of space by globalization (which much those working in the top end of the legal professions and the financial services
of the globalization literature suggests), here we see the reconstitution of (elite) tndustries and the otherwise wealthy who could afford to buy such houses.
space at the neighborhood level. It is this third generation of gentrifiers that Butler and Lees term 'super-
Butler and Lees (2006) reveal that anew group ofsuper-wealthyprofessionals gentrifiers' because their ability to operate in such a rarified housing market
working in the City of London are slowly imposing their mark on this inner is almost entirely dependent on the financial revolution that took place from
152 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 153

Plate 4.4 Tony Blair's Richmond Crescent Home Barnsbury there is a large and continued expansion ofSocio Economic Group
5.l, the group which has driven inner London's gentrification particularly in
the boroughs to the north and south ofIslington. This group continues to grow
both in Barnsbury and in Islington as a whole, suggesting that the supergen-
trification thesis in Barnsbury is one of relative rather than absolute trans-
formation and that we might be witnessing a tripartite class division between
super-wealthy professionals and managers, middle-class professionals, and the
working class or economically inactive. Such divisions raise interesting ques-
tions about social mixing in the neighborhood. In an innovative turn, Butler
and Lees (2006) use data on Barnsbury from the geodemographic software
package Mosaic to underline their evidence for class change. Two thirds of
Barnsbury respondents were in Group A, Symbols of Success, and in two sub-
groups, Global Connections (51 percent) and Cultural Leadership (16 percent);
the remainder (30 percent) were almost all in Group E, Urban Intelligence-
which is normally associated with areas of inner London gentrification.

Cnse Study 2: Bmokly" Heights, Nell' York City

Unusual in the gentrification literature, Lees (2003b) begins her story of
super-gentrification in Brooldyn Heights using the biography of a brown-
stone. She elucidates the story of pioneer gentrification, as a young lawyer and
his wife buy the brownstone with sitting tenants, only to evict these tenants
over time, thus gaining control of the whole house and gradually renovating
it in their spare time. She takes up the story of super-gentrification as the
owner sells his browns tone in the mid-1990s and downsizes to a carriage
house two streets away. The buyer of his browns tone was an Englishwoman
working on Wall Street, a broker specializing in Japanese bonds and securi-
ties who wrote a personal check for the full price of the house-£595,000.
As Lees (2003b: 2489) states, previous (first- and second-wave) gentrifiers
needed mortgages:
This house is probablY worth over £2 million today despite its tiny back garden and the large pockets
By contrast in New York there is now a new generation flush with the
of social housing within a stone's throw from its front door!
Source: Photograph by Loretta Lees.
exorbitant rewards of the global finance and corporate service indus-
tries .... They are able to marshal previously unheard of sums to finance
their domestic reproduction. It is not only the volume and source of the
the mid-1990s onwards in the City of London. Few New Labour politicians assets they mobilise that mark out these "financifiers" from previous
would be able to buy in Barnsbury today without having to answer so'me very generations of gentrifiers, but also, I would suggest, their lifestyles and
searching questions about their probity! values as well.
Butler and Lees (2006) use census data to show the growth in manage- The lifestyles and values of super-gentrifiers are quite different from those of
rial and employed professionals in Barnsbury between 1991 and 2001, both of traditional gentrifiers. Rather than the piecemeal, sweat equity renovations
which cover the main top groups in the City of London. The data shows that that the previous owner had undertaken, the new owner hired contractors to
there has been growth in the top groups in Barnsbury over recent years and gut the place and redo it (while she rented a very expensive apartment nearby).
a restructuring of its gentrification. Unlike in the case of Brooklyn Heights, They completely changed the floor plan and put in a marble bathroom with a
below. where the middle-income professional groups are in decline, in Jacuzzi. They ripped out the mature urban garden at the back of the house and
154 • Gentrification 'The Mutation of Gentrification • 155

Figure 4.1 Income Change in Brooklyn Heights, 1970-2000 of knowledge is that words are not passive; indeed, they help to shape
and create our perceptions of the world around us. The terms we choose
to label or describe events, must, therefore, convey appropriate conno-
tations or images of the phenomenon under consideration in order to
avoid serious misunderstandings.
Palen and London (1984: 6)
In 1991 SaskiaSassen declared that'newscholarship had developed afar broader
meaning of gentrification, linlting it with processes of spatial, economic, and
40%
social restructuring' Cp. 255). Gentrification was a 'far broader process linked
30%
to the profound transformation in advanced capitalism' Cp. 255). However, in
20% recent years there have been calls from a number of quarters to drop the term
10% 'gentrification' altogether. Bondi (1999a: 255), for example, warned of the dan-
o%~~~~______~~~~__ -L3TICl______~~~~
1970 1980 1990 2000
gers of trying to overload the concept with reconceptualizations:

o 51-751h percentile
I would argue that creative approaches to the production of academic
o o::2fith percentile orall NYe families o 26-50lh percent!!c
Cl 76·9Oth perrentUe 1:1 91·95thpercenUle • :>96th percentile knowledge entail cyclical processes of conceptualisation and reconcep-
tualisation. In this context, Ruth Glass's (1964) coining of the term "gen-
This figure shows the distribution of families in Brooklyn Heights by annual income percentile
trification" opened up new questions about urban change. But the more
categories for all New York City families. Note how in 2000, more than half of the families in Brooklyn
Heights were among the wealthiest 10 percent of all families in the City of New York.
researchers have attempted to pin it down the more burdens the concept
Source: Lees (2003b). has had to carry. Maybe the loss of momentum around gentrification
reflects its inability to open up new insights, and maybe it is time to
allow it to disintegrate under the weight of these burdens.
turfed it all over-in true suburban style. Her commitment to the neighbor-
hood was such that after 4-5 months of moving in, she sold up and moved to We do not think that we should allow the term to disintegrate under the weight
Arizona! of these burdens. Of course, by encompassing all the mutations and derivatives
In her analysis of census data from 1970 to 2000, Lees (2003b) found that listed above under the term <gentrification', we do run the risk of undermin-
Brooklyn Heights had experienced a dramatic increase in income and the ing the 'usefuiness, and distinction, of the concept for understanding urban
progressive displacement oflawer-income families by higher-income families. change' (N.Smith 2002: 390-392). It is, however, a risk we must take.
Significantly, over the past ten years the small number oflow-income families One of the reasons why so many people have sought to keep new types of
left in the neighborhood has held steady, whilst the number of upper-middle- gentrification closely connected to the term 'gentrification' (e.g., greentrifica-
income families has fallen by 9.7 percent; at the same time, the number of tion and financification) is because of the politics of that term. Gentrification
families in the top 10 percent of all New York City families by income has is, perhaps more than any other word in urban geography or urban studies,
increased by the same amount. As such, in this super-gentrified neighborhood a political, politicized, and politically loaded word. 'The anti-gentrification
now more than half of the families are in the top decile of wealthiest families groups discussed in Chapter 7 would have little political clout without being
in New York City (see Figure 4.1). Lees's survey results show that residents see able to be against 'gentrification' and the class-based displacement and
this as a tidal wave of Wall Street money sweeping over their neighborhood. oppression that the word evokes. After all, as stated in the Preface, it is hard
to be against revitalization, regeneration, or renaissance, but much easier to
Definitional Overload and the Politics of Gcntrification be against gentrification. 'The way that governments and municipalities delib-
erately avoid using the word 'gentrification' in their policy documents that
'The existence of such a welter of terms (and they cite-urban regen-
promote revitalization, regeneration, or renaissance reveals this. As Davidson
eration, urban revitalization, gentrification. neighborhood renewal.
and Lees (2005: 1167) argue,
rehabilitation, renovation, back-to-the-city movement and urban rein-
vasion) to describe the very same phenomenon is not simply meaning- [DJefining new-build developments, such as those being constructed
less terminological entrepreneurship. One of the lessons ofthe sociology along London's riverfront, as gentrification is politically important if
156 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 157

we seek to question the increasing middle-class recolonisation of the

central city.
The Real Estate Board of New York City, who back in 1985 purchased space
in the New York Times that devoted an entire page to 'Is Gentrification a Dirty
Word?' (see Figure 4.2), were certainly clear about the political importance of
IS GENTRIFICATION
the word 'gentrification'. As Neil Smith (1996a: 30-34) explains,
On the morning of December 23, 1985, New York Times readers awoke
to find the most prestigious advertising spot in their morning paper
taken up by an editorial advert in praise of gentrification. Some years
ADIRTY WORD? "'IIQIIO __ _
There are few wurdl in a New Yorken
earlier the newspaper had begun to sell the bottom right quarter of its ~'thatare .. emotionsllyloaded88 '"",, imilf".wlkln?
"~ntrlflcitlon. ..
Opinion Page to the Mobil Corporation, which used to extol the social 'Ib one~. it means improved housing. ~.lI'!"'t.I!IIl reJ!l'~ insplred 1!Y genlrill·
1b another, iimeans unafTordilble hQualng. It cation, Otcourse;are_ that-Iow-mcome.
and cultural merits of organized global capitalism. By the mid-1980s, mean! aaieratreeta and new retail businesses residents' and low-nilirgip retailers will be
with the New York real estate market ablaze. gentrification was increas- to aome. 'Ib othera, itmeans the homoge- dispJaced by more aftIuent residents and mote
nization of nformetly diverse neighborilood. profitable titisinesses.
ingly understood as a threat to people's rents, housing and communi- It's the result otol1e famib'~ drive for home . 'llt~DepartmentorCit)( Plannin'" Bt.ud.. y 01
ownership. It's the perceiwd threati:d'higher gentrilled neighborhoods in Park STope and on
ties, and the Mobil Corporation no longer had an exclusive claim to rental costs tor another family. • the upperweBt Side concluded that BOm;.
In simple terlJl!, gentrlflcatlon III the displaCement occurs fdllowing acommunlty!!
the purchased ideological ink of the Times' Opinion Page. It was the up~lng dhoUHing and rctull businesses in decline' as weJ,l as'~r its reliabllitntlon. The
"Real Estate Board of New York, Inc." which now purchased the space n nclghburhuotl wiLIi an Inllux ofJUiml,§ study idso (ound, however, that residential
inVtllltmllnt. 'Thi:! Jlro~ and I!S conse- renh'e~ations gave apartment dwellers
to bring a defense of gentrification to the citizens of New York. "There Iluent'es, however, are rarely Simple. substantial proteeUOD Bgalnst dlspla<emenl.
In addition,.the study p4?inted out that the mix
are few words in a New Yorker's vocabulary that are as emotionally .elghborlloods ... of retail storeS and service establishments haS
remained theaamein bothareaa since 1970.
loaded as 'gentrification"', the advert began. Gentrification means dif- rlVes bIoSlOm. In this re~, Ihhould also be noted that
ferent things to different people, the Real Estate Board conceded, but EXUlTlples of gcntrification. are as varied tenants ofresidential rental bul1dings thlll are
and IIi~lillclJve at! New York l1.tielf nnd reflectconverted to cooperative Qwnership remain
"In simple terms, gentrification is the upgrading of housing and retail the city's endu.,ing vitality. That vitality is protected by non-eviction lIinns if they decide
expressed in terms ofchanb'1! ... for neiJrllboi'· they don't want to buy lhetrunllS. A survey
businesses in a neighborhood with an influx generally of private invest- hoods mld people. We see immigrants from conducted by the Real Estate Board of New
Asia U'unsforming the Flullhing community in York fOWld that BIi percent of such tenants
ment". It is a contributor to the diversity, the great mosaic of the city, thought the converaion process had been It
QUl!l!m. with thl~il' indusl1'luu~ness, while
the advert suggested; "neighborhoods and lives blossom". If a modicum I'CCl.mt urrivuls (rum RussilllU'1! bringing new rulr one.
t1llvor to theBrighton Deach ureu of Brooklyn.
of displacement inevitably results from a neighborhood's private mar- OVer u. decade ago, painters. sculptors and I role far pubB. poll",
ket "rehabilitation", suggests the Board, "We believe" that it "must be Ileugllng dlll\W compunies looking for loft
space turned SoHo, then a manllfncturing We believe that whatever displacement
dealt with with public policies that promote low- and moderate-income "ghOllt town" on Lower Manhattlln's northern gentrification causes, though, must be dealt
border. into a world-renowned artistic eenter. with with public policies that promote Jaw-
housing construction and rehabilitation. and in zoning revisions that 'lbdtly a new generation of artists is creating a . and moderate-income houainrr construction
almlfur tolany in Greenpoint, Brook]yn. Else- and rehabilitation, and in zorung revlaiDIU!
permit retail uses in less expensive, side street locations". It concludes: where. uiiddle cluaa ploneer$ hll.ve buughL that permit retail uses in leSB expensive, side
brownatones in dilapidated areas and enllv· street 100000tions.
"We also believe that New York's best hope lies with families, businesses ened their districts-such liS the portion of We aloo believe that New York'8 best. hope
and lending institutions willing to commit themselves for the long haul Columbus Avenue north oILincoln Center for lies with families, businesses and lending
the Performllli Arts-with energy and style. institutiolUl willing; to commit themselveltfor
to neighborhoods that need them. That's gentrification". Different nelgbbol'hoods throughout the the long haul to neJghborhoods that need
city have undergone similar, changes at them.
different Umes: -Park Slope, Chelsea and the That's gentrification.
Indeed, because of the now well-recognized and political nature of the word, Up~r West Side, for example. In ellch case,
'gentrification' is a term that the media now use to discuss middle-class colo- neighborhooda thBt were under.populated and
had become shabby andlor dllngerous were
nization, whether of the central city or of rural areas. lur.ned Inlo df!HirnlJle ar.ldrel>Sl!li by families
und llIt:rchllnlS willing to risk their savings The Real EstateBoard
However, if we are to retain the word (and its political purchase), as Davidson umJ futures there. of New York, Inc.
and Lees (2005: 1187) argue, '[G]entrification scholars need to allow the term
gentrification enough elasticity to "open up to new insights" and indeed to Figure 4.2 Is Gentrification a Dirty Word?
reflect the mutations in the C21st of this increaSingly active and somewhat Source: The New York Times, December 23,1985. Reprinted with pennission of Real
different process'. They argue that Glass's (1964) definition of the process is Estate Board of New York, Inc.
158 • Gentrification The Mutation of Gentrification • 159

now a relic of its time, but that it is still useful 'as a spring board from which and that critical thinldng requires us to stick to the lodestars of chaos
to open out the definition as opposed to something that restricts it' (Davidson and complexity. TIlis overriding tendency in gentrification research is
and Lees 2005: 1187). They suggest that we hold onto the core elements of not unrelated to more general trends in social science where there has
gentrification: (I) the reinvestment of capital, (2) the social upgrading oflocale been a remarkable turnaround in radical political sensibilities which
by incoming high-income groups, (3) landscape change, and (4) direct or has seen the social construction of objects of study dominate over other
indirect displacement oflow-income groups; and that we do not attach it to a discourses of understanding.
particular landscape or context. In this way, we should be able to 'keep hold of ClarI< (2005) is right to argue that Beauregard's (1986: 35-40) concern for 'the
"gentrification" as an important term and concept for analyzing urban change essence of gentrification', its 'essential meanings and underlying causes'. its
in the 21st-century city' (p. 1187). 'essential form', and the 'structural forces necessary for its general form' has
Back in the 1980s, a number of authors argued that gentrification was a been overlain by gentrification researchers focusing on the chaos and com-
chaotic concept describing the contingent and geographically specific results plexity of gentrification leading to narrow and quixotic definitions. He argues
of different processes operating in different ways in different contexts. Rose that we need a much broader definition of gentrification than is commonly
(1984), for example, argued that gentrification was a chaotic concept that found in the literature. In so doing, he also argues, like Lees (2000), for a more
needed disaggregation. She urged researchers to question existing categories inclusive perspective on the geography and history of gentrification. Clark's
and to start to explore the actual processes through which groups subsumed (200 5) definition of gentrification is indeed broad and loose; it inclndes the
under the category 'gentrifiers' were produced and reproduced: 'We ought not root causes of gentrification, which he sees to be 'comrnodification of space,
to assume in advance that all gentrifiers have the same class positions as each polarised power relations, and a dominance of vision oversight characteristic
other and that they are "structurally" polarized from the displaced' (p. 67). of "the vagrant sovereign'" (p. 261). Clark (2005) makes some good points. If
Similarly, Beauregard (1986: 40) argued, we are to retain the usefulness of the politicized term 'gentrification', then we
"[G]entrification" must be recognized as a "chaotic concept" connot- must stick with a broad, simple, but loose definition and operationalization of
ing many diverse if interrelated events and processes. '" Encompassed the term. Like Davidson and Lees (2005), he argues that the term needs to be
under the rubric of gentrification are the redevelopment of historic row elastic enough to allow neW processes of gentrification which may yet emerge
houses in Philadelphia's Society Hill initiated by an urban renewal proj- to be drawn under its umbrella, and at the same time be able to make political
ect ... the transformation of a working class neighborhood of Victorian statements. It needs to be 'an elastic yet targeted definition' (Clark 2005: 258).
houses in San Francisco by gay men ... the redevelopment of abandoned
housing in the Fells Point area of Baltimore, and the conversion of ware- Summary
houses along the Boston waterfront to housing for the affluent. Each of Gentrification has mutated over time, so that it now includes not just
these instances not only involves different types of individuals, but also traditional, classical gentrification in the vein of Ruth Glass's (1964) definition
proceeded differently and had varying consequences. The diversity of but also rural gentrification, new-build gentrification, super-gentrification, and
gentrification must be recognized, rather then conflating diverse aspects many other derivatives. As a result we seem to be moving towards a broader
into a Single phenomenon. and more open definition of'gentrification', one able to incorporate the more
recent mutations of the process into its fold. David Ley (1996: 34), for example,
He goes an to argue, argued for a broad definition of gentrification that included 'renovation and
Recognition of the complexity of processes involved furthers our sensi- redevelopment on both residential and non-residential sites'; and NeU Smith
tivity to "gentrification" as a chaotic concept. No one or even two fac- (1996a: 39) defined gentrification as an all-encompassing middle-class restruc-
tors are determinant. Conversely, the absence of anyone factor does not turing of the central city. Clark (2005: 256) too argued for a broader definition
mean that gentrification will not occur. (p. 53) of gentrification: 'Our overly narrow definitions render the concept genuinely
chaotic by conllating contingent and necessary relations. This effectively
More recently, Clark (2005: 256-257) strongly refutes focusing on the chaos interferes with probing underlying causes and slants our view towards par-
and complexity of gentrification. He argues, ticularities'. Clark (2005) came up with an 'elastic yet targeted definition' in
We wrongly assume that seeking to identify order and simplicity in which 'gentrification is a process involving a change in the population ofland-
gentrification is tantamount to reductionism and simplemindedness. users such that the new users are of a higher socio-economic status than the
160 • Gentrification The Mutation of Genlrification • 161

previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment Lees, 1. (2003b) 'Super-gentrification: The case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City',
through a reinvestment in fixed capital' (p. 258). It is this 'elastic yet targeted' Urbal1 Studies, 40, 12: 2487-2510.
definition that we would like to keep hold of. At the same time, we would like Mills, C. (1988) "'Life on the up-slope": The postmodern landscape of gentrification',
Environment and Plallning D: Society and Space, 6:169-189.
to leave this chapter calling for 'less definitional deliberation and more criti-
Mills, C. (1993) 'Myths and meanings of gentrification', in J. S. Duncan and D. Ley
cal, progressive scholarship' (Slater, Curran, and Lees 2004: 1145). (eds.) Place/Culture/Representation (London: Routledge) 149-170.
Phillips, M. (2004) 'Other geographies of gentrification', Progress in Humall Geogra-
Activities and Exercises
plly, 28:5-30.
Read Palen and London's (1984) discussion (and criticism) of the Podmore, J. (1998) 'Re-reading the "loft-living" habitus in Montreal's inner city',
word 'gentrification' on pages 7-8. IlIternatio1tal Journal ofUrbal1 alld Regiollal Research, 22:285-302.
• Find a newspaper article on gentrification. How is the term used, and Rofe, M. (2003) '''1 want to be global": Theorising the gentrifying class as an emergent
what does it convey? elite global community', Urban Studies, 40,12: 2511-2526.
Think about whether you agree with Clark (2005: 260) that 'Hauss-
mannization' is an early form of gentrification.
Try to visit an area of classical gentrification. Then, a few days later,
try to visit an area of new-build gentrification. List the differences
and similarities between the two.
Visit an area of supposedly rural or coastal gentrification. Is this
really'genlrification'?
Write down and compare different definitions of gentrification
over time.
Read Butler and Smith's (2007) special issue, 'Extending Gentri-
fication', Environment and Planning A. Are some of these authors
extending the term too far? Are others refusing to see the political
purchase of the term?

Further Reading
Atltinson, R., and G. Bridge (2005) 'Introduction', in R. Atldnson and G. Bridge
(eds.) Gel1trijicatioll in a Global Context: Tlte New Urban Colonialism (London:
Routledge) 1-17.
Beauregard, R. A. (1986) '1he chaos and complexity of gentrification', in N. Smith and
P. Williams (eds.) Gelltrijicatio" of the City (Boston: Alien and Unwin) 35-55.
Butler, T., and 1. Lees (2006) 'Super-gentrification in Barnsbury, London: Globalisa-
tion and gentrifying global elites at the neighbourhood level', Transactions afthe
Institute of British Geographers 31:467-487.
Butler, T., and D. Smith (guest eds.) (2007) 'Extending gentrification', Elll'iriml1lel1t
and Planning A 39, 1 (special issue),
Cameron, S. (2003) 'Gentrification. hOllsing redifferentiation and urban regen-
eration: "Going for Growth" in Newcastle upon Tyne', Urban Studies, 40. 12:
2367-2382.
Clark, E. (2005) 'The order and simplicity of gentrification: A political challenge" in
R. Atkinson and G. Bridge (eds.) Gwtrijicatioll in a Global Context: 77le New
Urban Colonialism (London: RDutledge) 256-264.
Davidson, M., and 1. Lees (2005) 'New-build "gentrification" and London's riverside
renaissance', Environment and Planning A, 37, 7: 1165-1190.
 5
Contemporary Gentrification

In Chapter 1 we described pioneer or classical gentrification. In Chapters 2

and 3 we discussed gentrification theory, a body of theory that for the most
part explains classical gentrification. In Chapter 4 we showed how gentrifica-
tioD has mutated over time and space. In this chapter we investigate contem-
porary gentrification in more detail. We look at the impacts of globalization,
neoliberalism, and the changing role of the state; we assess the literature on
the (re)scaling of gentrification; we draw on Hackworth and Smith's (2001)
schematic history of gentrification in New York City to develop a new stage
model or history of gentrification (for New York City, but with discussion
about its wider applicability) that includes a fourth wave of gentrification; and
we make some strong arguments about the necessity for a geography of gen-
trification. We conclude the chapter by aslting whether the theories (based for
the most part on first-wave or classical gentrification) in Chapters 2 and 3 have
any purchase for analyzing and explaining gentrification today.

Globalization, Neoliberalism, and the Changing Role of the State

Nen Smith (2002) was perhaps the first gentrification scholar to highlight
the relationship between globalization, neoliberalism, and the changing role
of the state in contemporary gentrification. He argues that gentrification is
now a 'global urban strategy' linked to a new globalism and a related new
urbanism. He makes two central arguments about the changing relationship
between neoliberal urban ism and globalization: first, the neoliberal state is
now the agent of, rather than the regulator of, the market. As such, a new
"
0
u
~
.8+.s
~
0 revanchist urbanism (see Chapter 6 on the revanchist city thesiS) has replaced
0

'"
ro-
."= .c""
u the liberal (often welfare-orientated) urban policy of First World cities, and
=
:s ~'-'
~
~
~
neoliberal urban policy now expresses the impulses of capitalist production
=N ~
rather than social reproduction. Second, he argues that gentrification has
~
B~
~OD
o~ now gone global (see Chapter 4); it is no longer restricted to North America,
CO
.s :;0>-
~
0 ." .c Europe, or Oceania, but rather is a generalized strategy that is connected into
'" -.; ""
.!!! the circuits of global capital and cultural circulation.
." Bg.
ro
u

""
:oS
~
0
~
~
OD In popular discourse, the term 'neoliberalism' entered widespread usage in
~
E 0 the 1980s to describe the harsh structural adjustment policies that First World
'"
...., ~ if institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank
= ;i
.el
ro
;;:
0
~
0
"~
0
imposed on the countries and cities of the Global South. These dictates slashed
'" '"
162 163
164 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 165

social spending and government regulations while favoring unimpeded trade and the United States who began working as early as the 1950s to establish
and the unfettered right of foreign investors to repatriate profits. But it soon a network of right-wing think tanks to promote free-market philosophies
became clear that the cities of the Global North were experiencing many of and policies. Focusing on the United States. Peck (2006: 682-683) narrates
the same political pressures. albeit in the very different industrial and spa- the triumphs of an entire right-wing urbanism-a movement that began
tial structures distinctive to First World urbanization. In the past decade or to achieve its first successes when Ronald Reagan (elected in 1980) moved
so. neoliberalism has become a widely recognized but often misunderstood quickly to dismantle major federal programs designed to help cities and the
term. Academics and policy analysts use it as a descriptive shorthand to urban poor. And now, more than a quarter century later,
summarize the prevailing trends towards deregulation, commercialization, ... it is difficult to dispute the contention that the "new urban right"
privatization. labar-market flexibility. public-private partnerships. and the has notched up some Significant victories in the war of ideas-along
downsizing of those parts of government that help the poor. racial or ethnic the way. reframing the debate around America's cities. their alleged
minorities. and other groups marginalized by market processes. But the term pathologies. and their putative salvation. Even though. a genera-
has also become a rallying cry for activists who question the priorities of tion later, conservative intellectuals continue to portray themselves as
corporate globalization and the inequalities it unleashes. And so. in much lonely voices of reason. as principled outsiders in a corrupt. distracted.
the same way that 'globalization' beca~e the keyword for the transnational and wrongheaded world. both their circumstances and their traction
flows and integrations that seemed to accelerate in the 1990s. in the 2000s have certainly changed. The ideational shift toward free-market strate-
'neoliberalism' has become the flashpoint of political struggle and theoretical gies-which. beyond simple "deregulation" or marketization. licences
debate. new forms of state interventionism-has been a seismic one ... , If cities
But this debate is not really so new. Although the word entered popular began this period as a policy category-cum-beneficiary. they ended it as
usage only twenty years ago. the philosophies it denotes go back much earlier. an often-maligned political target; if urban policy once deSignated a set
Just as 'neoclassical' economics refers to a twentieth-century incarnation of of programs for cities. conceived as centers of progressive reform and
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century classical political economy. neoliberal- policy innovation. today the dominant view is that it is cities themselves
ism represents an effort to revive the purest, most brutal streams of political that must be reformed.
philosophy. As Neil Smith (2002: 429) puts it.
All of these factars have transformed the context for gentrification. In the
By neoliberalism I mean something quite specific. Eighteenth-century 1970s and 1980s. scholars debating the causes of gentrification could explo;e
liberalism. from John Locke to Adam Smith. pivoted on two crucial the dynamicS of production and consumption with at least some comfor: In
assumptions: that the free and democratic exercise of individual self- the knowledge that there were still a few public policies in place to cu~hl~n
interest led to the optimal collective social good; and that the market the harsh injustices of rampant gentrification. More recently. public polIcy ~
knows best: that is. private property is the foundation of this self-interest. many national contexts has shifted deciSively. Gentrification is seen as a POSI-
and free market exchange is its ideal vehicle. Twentieth-century tive result of a healthy real estate market. and 'the market' is always under-
American liberalism. from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt to stood as the solution. not a problem. Thanks to intense economic competition
John F Kennedy-emphasizing social compensation far the excesses of and policy directives from state and federal governments, cities noW m~st be
the market and private property-is not so much a misnomer, there- sophisticated entrepreneurs-doing whatever it takes to lure wealthy InV~S­
fore-it by no means abrogated these axioms of liberalism-but it is tors. residents. and tourists to town (Harvey 1989b. 2000). Nearly all maJar
an Dutlier insofar as, in a co-optive response to the challenge of socia- spending initiatives by city governments in the United States are scrutinized
lism. it sought to regulate their sway. The neoliberalism that carrie; the by investors (whose purchases of municipal bonds will finance school con-
twentieth into the twenty-first century therefore represents a significant struction or other major capital expenditures) and bond-rating agencies that
return to the original axioms of liberalism. albeit one galvanized by an quite literally 'grade' city budgets and creditworthiness (Hackworth 2002b).
unprecedented mobilization not just of national state power but of state And so gentrification has become a particularly attractive policy mechamsm
power organized and exercised at different geographical scales. for more and more cities. It has been woven ever more tightly together with
This mobilization ofpower at different geographical scales involved long-range capital market processes. public sector privatization schemes. globalized city
strategic planning as well as short-run tactical sophistication. Jamie Peck competition. welfare retrenchment and workfare requirements. and many
(2006) traces the histories of powerful conservative business figures in Britain other threads of the fabric of neoliberal urbanism.
166 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 167

COlltillgellt Geographics ofCltallge A New Colonialism?

All of these general tendencies are worked out differently in particular Recognizing complexity and contingency, however, does not mean ignoring
national, regional. and urban settings. At the interurban scale, the expansion common threads and similarities. Indeed, Rowland Atkinson and Gary
of gentrification worldwide is tied to the rise of service-based economies and Bridge (200S) offer an especially provocative analysis that gives some histori-
the shifting functions of central cities, as well as the enforced diffusion of cal perspective to the way we understand today's many different expressions of
neoliberal models of urban governance and redevelopment. Smith argues that gentrification. Atkinson and Bridge argue that the triumph of neoliberalism
gentrification has evolved from a marginal urban process in a few western cit- in urban life is nothing short of a latter-day, urban version of the massive
ies during the 1960s to an increasingly popular and widespread 'global urban social changes that followed the European 'Age of Discovery' of the sixteenth
strategy' (N. Smith 2002). In the Global North, this urban strategy involves century. The subtitle to their edited collection Gelltrificatioll ill a Global
an innovative race to create attractive, novel, and interesting-but also safe GOlltext is quite explicit: The New Urball Colollialism. Atkinson and Bridge
and sanitized-playgrounds for the wealthy residents and visitors who work suggest that contemporary gentrification-based as it is on wide differences in
for (or receive interest and dividends from) the institutions of global capital wealth and power-resembles earlier waves of colonial and mercantile expan-
(Mitchell 2003). In the process, the poor and disinvested territory of the sion that exploited national and continental differences in economic develop-
as-yet ungentrified inner city becomes a battieground for a wider political ment. It has been exported from the metropoles of North America, Western
struggle over neoliberal urbanism: large blocks of publicly assisted housing, Europe, and Australasia into new territories in former colonial possessions
for example, phYSically embody neoliberalism's antithesis-Keynesian egali- throughout the world. It privileges wealth and whiteness, and reasserts the
tarian liberalism. As we shall see in Chapter 6, such public hOUSing is now the white Anglo appropriation of urban space and historical memory (W. Shaw
target of'positive gentrification policies' in a number of different countries. 2000, 2005). And it universalizes the neoliberal principles of governing cities
But in the Global South, gentrification as an urban strategy is playing that force poor and vulnerable residents to endure gentrification as a process
out in even more diverse ways. Although urban thinking in much of Europe of colonization by more privileged classes:
and North America is obsessed with the contours of postindustrial society,
urbanization in the Global South is driven by the simultaneous expansion of Those who come to occupy prestigious central city locations frequently
'old' and 'new' spatial economic shifts; cities are being reshaped by the expan- have the characteristics of a colonial elite. They often live in exclusive
sion of manufacturing and heavy industrial activities, as well as the growth residential enclaves and are supported by a domestic and local service
of high-tech offshoring and outsourcing activities and smaller pockets of class. Gentrifiers are employed in ... "new class" occupations, and are
service-sector innovation. Increasingly, though. the class transformation marked out by their cosmopolitanism. Indeed, in many locations, espe-
of urban space in cities of the Global South involves systematic, large-scale cially in ex-communist European and east Asian countries, they often
reconstruction of large chunks of the urban fabric-backed by the financial are western ex-patriots [sic] employed by transnational corporations to
support oftransnational investors and the political support of state-led efforts open up the markets of the newly emerging economies. (Atkinson and
to define indigenous populations as an undeserving poor. Bridge 2005: 3)
Taken together, all of these trends hint at a complex geographical con- Badyina and Golubchilcov (200S) demonstrate not just the global expansion of
tingency to neoliberal urban ism. Neoliberalism appeals to a fundamentally gentrification, but also the relationship between neoliberalism and gentrifica-
universal notion of the individual, of private market relations, and of the tion in a nonwestern context. They focus on the gentrification of Ostozhenka,
proper role of the state. But this political movement varies Widely in the way a residential neighborhood in central Moscow (see plate 5.1 at the begining of
these principles are implemented in law and practice, and today's neolib- this chapter). They argue that although market forces have driven the process,
eral policies are layered atop previous generations of political and economic Moscow's government has actively facilitated gentrification. They compare
rules, traditions, norms, and institutions. Contemporary geographies of gen- communist Moscow with neoliberal Moscow:
trification, therefore, vary depending on national and regional context and
the interaction of various components of neoliberal policy-aggressive urban The introduction of the market economy has unlocked the mismatch
entrepreneurialism, local government reorganization to create favorable between, on the one hand, the function and the morphology of the
business climates. public sector privatization schemes, the increasing num- socialist cities and, on the other, the logic of the market. A consequence
ber and power of professionals committed to neoliberal urban policies, and has been a flood of new urban processes, which have rapidly changed
the increasingly sophisticated policing of urban space and activism itself. the function and appearance of cities. (p. 114)
168 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 169

Moscow's city government facilitated the gentrification of Ostozhenka by The contours of the coming order are not yet clearly identifiable, and
assigning residential buildings in that neighborhood for demolition, due to whether it will offer a more emancipatory alternative remains to be
their 'state of disrepair', and thus the households in them for resettlement: seen. (p. 127)

The city has either to rehouse the tenants in non-privatized (and there- The (Re)scaling of Gentrificalion: Outwards and Downwards
fore municipal) rooms in other apartments ... or, in the case ofprivatized Gentrification is no longer confined to western metropolises, as we have seen
dwellings, to compensate the owners in kind or in cash. This resettle- in the case of Moscow; it has gone global (N. Smith 2002; Atldnson and Bridge
ment mechanism has turned out to be an "effective" tool in authorizing 200S), and more recently researchers have argued that it has descended or
an immediate displacement of a large number of residents. (p. 122) cascaded down the urban hierarchy too (Dutton 2003; Atkinson and Bridge
But as Badyina and Golubchikov go on to reveal, as soon as corporate interest 200S). What these two scales of gentrification have in common is the fact
in the neighborhood was established, developers started to contribute to this that in both cases, gentrification is searching for a 'rent gap' (see Chapter 2;
compulsory rehousing through public-private partnerships in which they see also Chapter 4 on the other mutations of contemporary gentrification) in
paid for the cost of resettlement in exchange for the sites. Most of the residents marginal locations previously untouched, or relatively untouched, by gentrifi-
cation, whether that be in Moscow, Russia, or Burnley in Lancashire. Here we
had not wanted to move.
investigate the arguments around these two scales of gentrification in more
They conclude,
detail. First, we investigate gentrification and globalization. Atkinson and
Whereas the physical improvement of the city centre signifies departing Bridge (200S: 7) argue quite rightly that 'gentrification today must be seen in
from the Soviet legacies of under-investment in the housing built envi- the context of globalisation'; however, they gloss over the causal links between
ronment, the growing socio-spatial polarization undermines the social globalization and gentrification. Like N. Smith (2002) (see above), they
achievements of the Soviet system and denotes the triumph of the neo- link globalization and gentrification by discussing neoliberal urban policy
liberal urban regime in Moscow. (Badyina and Golubchikov 200S: 113) regimes, the hypermobility of global capital and workers, the expansion and
increased wealth of the cosmopolitan class, and so on. But they provide little
Badyina and Golubchikov's study is a revealing one, for it also points to the fact that to no empirical or conceptual detail in their discussion. The challenge is made
different waves of gentrification have been active in Ostozhenka, and, like in Butler even more difficult by the fact that the globalization literature and the gentri-
and Lees (2006) on Barnsbury, they point to philosophical/ideological conflicts fication literature have, to date, paid little attention to each other (Butler and
between these different waves of gentrifiers. They also discuss neocolonialism: Lees 2006). It is evident now that this must change, and following Atldnson
The promoters of Ostozhenka lUee to speak about what they call "Euro- and Bridge (200S), we begin here to draw together these literatures. Second,
peanization" of the neighbourhood. By"Europeanization" they imagine we investigate the idea that gentrification is cascading down the urban hierar-
the ultimate manifestation of prosperity combined with a sort of dispar- chy. Such a process has happened, and indeed is still happening, in the United
agement of the rest of Russian society. (p. 124) Kingdom, but gentrification has been active in cities quite far down the urban
hierarchy in the United States since its early days. As we mentioned in Chapter
The cohort investing in, or buying and living in, these new gentrified proper- 4, in Portland, Maine, for example, gentrification began in the 1960s (Lees
ties shares its identity with the new upper classes colonizing the elite districts 2006). However, gentrification does seem to be cascading even further down
in major world cities-they are business executives, business elites, and media the urban hierarchy in the United States today, to small towns like Fort Kent
elites, along with foreign businesspeople and diplomats. The more expen- and Machias in Maine, which state and local officials hope to regenerate into
sive inner area is under the constant surveillance of closed-circuit television mini creative class-led hubs. Context, time, and space are all important con-
(CCTV), and Badyina and Golubchikov note the distinct possibility that the siderations, as our final section in this chapter, which seeks to think through
entire neighborhood will be gated and closed to general public access. How- a geography of contemporary gentrification, argues.
ever, unlike in Neil Smith's (2002) thesis in which neoliberalism seems to have
won lock, stock, and barrel, Badyina and Golubchikov conclude that Tile NllmIces ofGentrification mId Globalization
as the social and political context in the Russian state is changing, so In the literature on gentrification and globalization, gentrifiers are seen to be
the Moscow government's operational rhythm becomes increasingly the emissaries of global capital flows. For example, Rofe (2003) positions the
challenged. It is likely that the present regime will be discontinued. gentrifying class as an emergent elite global community, arguing that '[tlhe
170 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 171

spatial occurrence of the gentrifying class in a number of prominent cities Barnsbury. They work in a contact-intensive subculture where co-location
around the globe lends this group a global geography' (p. 2512). Rofe (2003) in the City and face-ta-face meetings are very important, as is the need to
argues that the duality of global-local is an artificial one, and he quotes socialize and live with their own cohort. As such, Butler and Lees (2006) draw
M. Smith (2001: 157), who argues that this duality 'rests on a false oPposi- a distinction between a genuinely transnational faction of the global elite (the
tion that equates the local with a ... space for stasis ... and the global as the super-rich), globally mobile managers, and those professionals who maintain
site of dynamic change'. Instead, Rofe argues that the global and the local the global finance machine from their fixed bases in Manhattan and the City
are mutually entwined and that the linking of distant local spaces through of London and a very restricted list of B-grade cities. Their super-gentrifiers
the auspices of globalization has enabled the 'jumping of scales' (N. Smith can be distinguished from the global managers restlessly roaming the world
2001: 5), creating transnational networks. On reading the gentrification and identified by Rofe (2003), who sees one of the major consequences of globali-
the globalization literatures, he finds a striking similarity between the trans- zation as being the erosion of space. By way of contrast, in Barnsbury space
national elite and the gentrifying class (both are highly educated, affluent pro- is not being eroded by globalization; rather, it is being (re)produced through
fessionals employed in high-status, whlte-collar professions), but divergences super-gentrification as a by-product of globalization. Butler and Lees (2006)
too (the transnational elite serves the interests of global expansion, whilst agree with Rofe (2003: 2517), who argues that recognizing the 'spatially frag-
the gentrifying class is more interested in the inner city in which they have mented and socially fragmenting nature of globalisation is vital if balanced
chosen to live; cf. Ley 1996). Rofe (2003) found that a significant number of critiques of globalisation's impacts and the emergence of global elite commu-
the gentrifiers he surveyed, in the Australian cities of Sydney and Newcastle, nities are to be achieved'.
self-identified as being global; as such, he concluded that they constituted an
emerging elite global community. Gcntrijimtioll Cascading Dowll t"e Urbal1 Hierarchy?
Atkinson and Bridge (2005: 7) argue, There has long been a bias towards research on large metropolitan cities in
the gentrification literature. As Dutton (2003: 2558) argues, '[Mluch of the
The literature on globalization has not been geared towards the level of
empirical and theoretical research in the 1980s and early 1990s, either expli-
the neighbourhood. However, in the context of neighbourhood changes
citly or implicitly, considered gentrification in the context of cities occupying
like gentrification it would seem increasingly important to acknowledge
strategic positions in the international urban hierarchy'. But this is chang-
that neighbourhood scales may be an important locus of concentrations
ing as 'a nascent body of gentrification research in provincial cities provides
of professionals and managerial groups in networks of dialogue and co-
the beginnings of a much-needed empirical mapping of the development of
ordination of state and sub-state governance structures. In short, the
gentrification beyond global cities' (Dutton 2005: 223; see also Bridge 2003).
neighbourhood has been under-recognised as the site of the reproduc-
This is leading to research and discussion, especially in the United Kingdom,
tion of a wide set of power relations and contacts which operate at local,
on the differences between gentrification in smaller, provincial cities and in
urban, regional and international levels.
larger, metropolitan cities. This research into gentrification further down the
In response to this, and in an attempt to read both the gentrification and urban hierarchy is to be welcomed. However, the suggestion in some recent
globalization literatures together, Butler and Lees (2006) studied the rela- writings (e.g., on the cascade effect, see Atkinson and Bridge 2005: 2, 11; but
tionship between {super)gentrification, globalization, and global elites at the see also Dutton 2003, 2005) that gentrification does not occur in cities further
neighborhood level in Barnsbury, London (see also Chapter 4). In contrast to down the urban hierarchy until saturation occurs in high-order cities is a false
Rofe's (2003) study of a supermobile fraction of the cosmopolitan elite who one. Indeed, Dutton (2003) contradicts himself-in alternate pages, he argues
framed their identities in a global context, Butler and Lees study a specific that 'by the early 1980s, gentrification in Britain had already been observed
fraction of the global elite (super-gentrifiers) who are relatively immobile (e.g., in a number of cities outside London' (p. 2558), and he cites Williams (1984:
do not jet around the world) and are relatively fixed in a particular residen- 221), who observes gentrification in Bristol, Oxford, Bath, and so on. He then
tial neighborhood. As such, their study takes issue with a globalization lit- states on the adjacent page, 'Although the process commenced in the dynamic
erature (and, indeed, a good deal of the recent gentrification literature) that environments of a limited number of high-order global cities, suitable condi-
emphasizes {hyper)mobility, unfixity, flow, dislocation, transnationalism, tions for gentrification can now be found in many lower-tier provincial but
and cosmopolitanism, for tl,e super-gentrifiers who they study, who are part globalising cities' (p. 2559). This suggests that disentangling the mechanisms
of the new global elite, do not share these characteristics. They have formed and the contextual and temporal dimensions that are part of the so-called
'personal micro-networks' that center on residence and leisure space in cascade effect is important.
172 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 173

Lees (2006) finds three possible mechanisms that are argued to cause the (making it more generalizable beyond New York City), and updating
so-called cascade effect. The first is economic-the idea, as stated above, that (identifying a fourth wave) Hackworth and Smith's (2001) schematic history
the rent gaps are exhausted in metropolitan cities such as New York and of gentrification in New York City. We look at the progression of gentrification
London, so capital seeks out new frontiers lower down the urban hierarchy. through four distinct waves.
The assumptlOn here is that there is a unified real estate market and easy dif_
fusion, nationally, of information about investment opportunities. Dutton Towards a New Stage Model of Gentrification
(2003, 2005), for example, demonstrates the diffusion of gentrification from The insight that the stage model gives us of gentrification's progression
London and the South East of England to Leeds. This is something that more should not be abandoned along with its evidently flawed prediction that
co~porate in~estment is likely to take advantage of, as Dutton (2003: 2559) all gentrifying areas will ultimately have reached the same end state.
pomts out wIth respect to Leeds. The risk associated with gentrification is K. Shaw (2005: 172)
probably greater in smaller cities, and this is a risk that institutional/corporate
actors who gentrify en masse are probably better able to bear than individual n,e early stage models of gentrification outlined at the end of Chapter 1
pioneer households. The second possible cascade mechanism is cultural-the were designed before researchers knew enough about the unfolding of the
diffusion of a gentrification lifestyle from center to periphery. Podmore (1998), process. These days, we know much more about the process, and contem-
for example, discusses the role of the "mass media in reproducing the values porary models are much more useful than the early stage models. One of
and meanings of gentrification from one metropolitan context to another, the the best recent attempts to model gentrification has been that of Hackworth
habitus ofloft living from New York to Montreal. Indeed, as we have argued and Smith (2001), who following Lees (2000: 16) recognize that 'gentrification
throughout this book, gentrification is now the blueprint for new urban living today is quite different to gentrification in the early 1970s, late 1980s, even
around the world; it is a 'gentrification generalised' (N. Smith 2002). Finally, the early 1990s'. Hackworth and Smith (2001) have drawn up a schematic
a third mechanism is a policy one-small cities borrow regeneration policies; history of gentrification in New York City that takes its impetus from neo-
plans, and ideas from bigger ones. Think of the way that waterfront redevelop- Marxist rent gap models (see Chapter 2). The schema or model they designed
ment, repackaged by those people who first did Faneuil Hall in Boston, then (see Figure 5.1) is divided into three distinct waves of gentrification separated
South Street in New York and the Inner Harbor Baltimore, sold the idea of by two transitional periods of recession-induced restructuring of the institu-
putting the old commercial city back in touch with its waterfront. And even tional context and mechanisms through which gentrification occurred. 'The
further down the urban hierarchy, as mentioned in Chapter 4, small towns model, however, is overreliant on neo-Marxist rent gap models, and as such it
like Burnley in Lancashire are trying to reinvent themselves by taking regen- underplays the extraordinary range of people involved in the process of gen-
eration ideas from larger cities such as Seattle and Manchester. trification, people who Rose's (1996) stage model (see the conclusion to this
Lees's (2006) case study of small-city gentrification in Portland, Maine, chapter) and indeed the earlier stage models revealed well (see also Chapter 3
however, complicates the cascade idea in at least three ways. First, historically, on agency). Furthermore, the model is now somewhat outdated, for we would
as said before, Portland does not lag behind New York and Boston in the urban argue that a fourth wave of gentrification has emerged in the United States
renaissance game butis right there with them, perhaps even ahead ofthem. Sec- since 2001.
ond, Portland, Maine, although not a high-order or first-tier city, has become Boxes 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 outline first-, second-, and third-wave gentrification,
the regeneration model for towns and cities elsewhere in New England. And providing some flesh for the bones of Figure 5.1. We suggest you read through
third, Portland's success, however, in terms ofits urban renaissance, is due to them carefully before turning to our discussion below of a possible fourth
a series of historically and geographically contingent reasons-its place in the wave of gentrification.
regionalistate city hierarchy, its strong local entrepreneurial base, its success
in the regional service economy and in attracting back office services from i\ FOllrtlt Wave ofGelltrifiCtltioll?
Boston, and its position as the State of Maine's only metropolis-that comprise It is six years now since Hackworth and Smith (2001) designed their sche-
a strong economic base on which to grow the arts. This case shows the real matic history of gentrification in New York City, and well over a decade since
importance of studying the context, temporality, and scale of gentrification- the third wave of postrecession gentrification first began. In their case studies
in other words, the geography of gentrification (see later in this chapter). of New York neighborhoods, Hackworth and Smith (2001: 475) empha-
The next section considers temporality in more detail, drawing on but also sized that the local effects of increased state intervention in gentrification
filling out (using other discussions of gentrification over time), expanding should be understood as part of a broader shift in the political economy of the
 174 • Gentrification
Contemporary Gentrification • 175

Box 5.1
1999 Gentrification returns: Prophesies of First-Wave Gentrificalion
1998 degentrification appear to have been overstated
as ~any neighborhoods continue to gentrify The first wave, beginning in the 1950s and lasting until the 1973 global
1997 whIle others, further from the city center economic recession, was 'sporadic and state-led'. Disinvested inner-city
1996 begin to experience the process for the first time. hOUSing in the United States, Western Europe, and Australia became a
Post-recession gentrification seems to be more
1995 linked to large-scale capital than ever, as large
target for reinvestment (Hackworth and Smith 2001: 466) largely as a
1994 developers rework entire neighborhoods, often result of the 'green-lining' activities of pioneer gentrifiers (see the detailed
1993 with state support. empirical case studies of first-wave gentrification in Chapter 1). These
gentrifications were often funded by the public sector because gentrifi-
1992 cation was thought to be too risky for the private sector: 'Governments
1991 were aggressive in helping gentrification because the prospect of inner-
1990 city investment (without state insurance of some form) was still very
1989 risky ... state involvement was often justified through the discourse of
1988 The anchoring of gentrification: The process
ameliorating urban decline' (Hackworth and Smith 2001: 466). Gotham
1987 becomes implanted in hitherto disinvested
(2005) argues that in the United States, the first wave wasan outgrowth
1986 central city neighborhoods. In contrast to the of the 1949 and 1954 Housing Acts that provided federal funds for the
pre-1973 experience of gentrification, the process redevelopment of blighted areas. Lees (1994b) notes the importance of
1985 becomes common in smaller, non-global cities both federal and local (e.g .. the )-51 Program) state funds in the gen-
1984 during the 1980s. In New York City, the presence
trification of Park Slope (see also Chapter 1). In the United Kingdom,
1983 of the arts community was often a key correlate of
residential gentrification, serving to smooth home improvement grants (as discussed in the case study of Barnsbury
1982 f!:':1h,~ Q~~!lf F!lPit:1'iQt£'?;'1c;~gl)borhoPAs;like",:* z pYW """:11 in Chapter 1) were the British equivalent. The economic downturn that
1981 '*~ !§gI;ioitTribecaJ;an~
$"":""'"
"isHSiUe::::
,th'p L~Q;wer:E.tm*,~"' " %triFP.~'w'
~ _*4+"*''''~~ iH4*""*tH,,,,''Ih,-
4
*f!~:::. 1 came with the global economic recession that affected various national
1980 g
'"""lntense1Jbl1tlcru 'sttugg1eS'ti*ccuidUfM this"+o* *~ !,!':1
economies between 1973 and 1977 then 'encouraged the shift of capital
period over the displacement of the poorest
1979 residents. from unproductive to productive sectors, setting the stage for a reinvest-
ment in central-city office, recreation, retail and residential activities
1978
(Harvey 1985)' (Hackworth and Smith 2001: 466).
1976 Gentrifiers buy property: In New York and
1977 other cities, developers and investors used the
downturn in values to consume large
1975
1974 Box5.2
1973 Second-Wave Gentrification
1972 The second wave in the postrecession 19705 and 1980s, described as
1971 process is mainly isolated in small expansion and resistance', anchored and stabilized the gentrification pro-
neighborhoods in the north eastern USA
1969 and Western Europe. cess and resulted in an aggressive entrepreneurial spirit. It was character-
1968 ized by the 'integration of gentrification into a wider range of economic
and cultural processes at the global and national scales' (Hackworth and
Figure 5.1 Hackworth and Smith's (2001) Stage Model of Gentrification Smith 2001: 468; also Wyly and HammeI2001).
S~~'rce: J~son Hadcworth and Neil Smith, The changing state of gentrification, In Barnsbury (see Chapter 1 and Chapter 4) during its second wave,
TIJdscllrift l'oor Ecollomise/Ie en Sociale Geografie, 22:464-477. © 2001 Blackwell the process of gentrification and the gentrifiers themselves became more
Publishing. corporate and the neighborhood more stable. The neighborhood changes
176 • Gentrification
Contemporary Gentrification • 177

occurring in Barnsbury were enframed by wider changes taking place in

professionals and managers employed in central London represents a
London as a whole. London emerged as a global city in the 1960s, slight!
significant change from a decade ago.
earlier than New York, a result ofits milder regulatory climate that 'broug~
many financial operations from New York to London in the mid-1960s Gotham (2005) argues that two features marked this second wave:
and existing facilities for international currency trading helped Londo~ first is the integration of gentrification with new cultural strategies of eco-
to become the centre of the euradollar markets in the 1970s' (Zukin 1992: nomic redevelopment, meaning new investments in museums and art gal-
196). The number of foreign banks in London increased from 163 in 1970 leries. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, following the models designed
to 521 in 1989 (King 1990). During the period 1968-1987, the number of in cities such as Pittsburgh in the United States, and Glasgow in Scotland,
staff worldng in foreign banks and securities houses increased eightfold Bilbao in Spain used flagship property-led redevelopment projects, such
from 9,000 to 72,000. London became the main center for the international as the Guggenheim Museum, as central ingredients in its urban regenera-
euro currency business. euroband transactions, foreign exchange, insur- tion. Its urban regeneration was based on six key elements: (1) a pas tin-
ance, fund management, and corporate financial advice (Pryke 1991: 205). dustrial vision for the city; (2) altering the city's image; (3) transforming its
The City of London's function as a banking and finance center became physical environment, focusing on symbols of renaissance (e.g., exhibition
more pronounced with the deregulatiol' of the London Stock Exchange in centers and concert halls); (4) an explicit focus on the downtown and its
1986 and the full internationalization of securities dealing: derelict areas; (5) the importance of urban leisure economies-the Gug-
genheim effect; and (6) a new urban governance system based on pub-
The City was to become the hub not of a culturally familiar, slow-paced,
lic-private partnerships (Vicario and Martinez Monje 2005). The case of
~m~ire-.orien~ated regime of trade finance but of a new fast-moving cap-
Bilbao is in many ways emblematic of gentrification in its second wave.
Italism m whIch the City itself was to become equally international. As
Second is the increased connection between gentrification and
capital was expanding across the globe the financial system which was
global systems of real estate and banldng finance. These changes led to
feeding that growth had to change too. (Pryke 1991: 210)
developments such as Boston's Faneuil Hall, Baltimore's Inner Harbor,
Accountancy, law, business, and the function of the general clearinghollse New York City's South Street Seaport, and the art-led gentrification of
fa: i~formation around the world were concentrated in the 'golden square the Lower East Side (see Bowler and McBurney 1991; Deutsche and Ryan
mIle around the Bank of England, but since 1984 these functions have 1984; Lees and Bondi 1995). The second wave was characterized by pub-
expanded west and east through the redevelopment of the DocIdands. The lic-private partnerships, the increasing role of developers in the process,
development of London as a global city aided those areas near to the city and laissez-faire subsidies. In this second wave, globalization was in part
such as Barnsbury by providing jobs and an excess of capital for property responSible for the ushering in of a 'new urban politics' (Cox and Mair
Investment, much afit from overseas. The second generation of gentrifiers 1988) characterized by a shift away from an emphasis on the provision
was in some respects a transitional group between the first- and third- of welfare to a more pro active commitment to local economic devel-
generation gentrifiers. They were a wealthier group of professionals than opment. The shift was characterized by Harvey (1989b) as being from
the pioneer gentrifiers and were overwhelmingly represented in Soda 'urban managerialism' to 'urban entrepreneurialism'. For example, in
Economic Group 1 (employers and managers in central and local gov- the 1980s, Thatcherite urban regeneration focused on economic growth
ernment, industry and commerce - large establishments). As we said in and used public funds to lever in largely undirected market investment,
Chapter 4, New Labour's Tony Blair was the epitome of a gentrifier who as exemplified by London's Docldands (see Brownilll990; Ogden 1992).
moved into Barnsbury in this second wave. The City types beginning to The result was a highly polarized landscape between an incoming afflu-
move m were drawn from the upper professionals that Sassen (1991:265) ent population and a disinherited working-class population. As Fyfe and
noted: Kenny (2005: 157) argue, 'The juxtaposition of rich and poor in Dock-
lands is an important reminder that the local politicS of growth cannot
The most central areas afLendoD have undergone a transformation that
be separated from the local politicS of welfare and social provision'. There
broadly parallels Manhattan's .... We see a parallel increase in the stra-
was also growing resistance to gentrification (see Chapter 7) in New York
tum of what Brint (1991) has described as upper professionals, a group
City and elsewhere at this time, as Neil Smith's (1996a) discussion of
largely employed in corporate services, including finance. The sharp
the Tompkins Square riots in the Lower East Side demonstrates (see also
growth in the concentration of the mostly young, new high-income
Abu-Lughod 1994).
 Contemporary Gentrification • 179
178 • Gentrification

Third-wave gentrification has, however, played out differently in

Box5.3
different neighborhoods. In specific neighborhoods in global cities
Third-vVave Gentrificalion like Brooklyn Heights and Barnsbury, it has taken the form of super-
gentrification (see Chapter 4), whilst in most other gentrifying or gen-
The third wave of gentrification is characterized by interventionist trified neighborhoods the process has intensified, stabilized more
governments working with the private sector to facilitate gentrification: thoroughly, and reached a state of saturation. In other marginal locations
quite a shift from the typical second-wave position of passive support. it has emerged, as we have seen with respect to the more recent new-build
K. Shaw (2005: 183) gentrification outlined in Chapter 4 and the provincial gentrification
discussed earlier in this chapter.
Third-wave or postrecession gentrification, described as 'recessional pause
and subsequent expansion', began in the mid-1990s. Following debates
over whether gentrification was in decline during the worldwide economic process-and, indeed, 'a systemic change in the way that the state relates to
recession of the early 1990s (Bourne 1993a; Badcock 1993; see Preface and capital' and urbanization itself. Several developments in the first half of this
Chapter 7), there was widespread agreement that the assumed demise of decade, however, suggest that we are seeing a new, distinctive fourth wave
gentrification was premature and that the phenomenon had entered a thlrd of gentrification in the United States (see Figure 5.2). This wave combines an
wave of postrecession gentrification. In their discussion of third-wave gen- intensified financialization of housing combined with the consolidation of
trification, HacJcworth and Smith (2001) suggest that the evolution of gen- pro-gentrification politics and polarized urban policies.
trification into a generalized strategy of capital accumulation, as seen in In the last few years, gentrification has been swept up in the general
the second wave, was extended and intensified in the third wave: financial transformation of housing. When a recession began to hit the U.S.
economy in early 2001. the standard response of the Federal Reserve System
Post-recession gentrification-the third wave of the process-is a purer
(the Fed)-a quick barrage of interest rate cuts-brought unexpected results.
expression of the economic conditions and processes that made re-
This recession waS different: it was brought on by a collapse in business expen-
investment in disinvested inner areas so alluring for investors. (Hack-
ditures, and sustained consumer borrowing and spending helped to cushion
worth and Smith 2001: 468) the slowdown. And over the previous decade, financial services competition
Gentrification became linked to large-scale capital more than ever. and public policy had altered mortgage lending practices by relaxing under-
Hackworth (2002a) argues that four changes distinguish gentrification's writing standards, reducing down payment requirements, and expanding the
third wave: (1) corporate developers became the leading initiators of secondary market, where borrowers' debt obligations are traded much like
gentrification, less so pioneer gentrifiers; (2) federal and local govern- stocks and bonds. As a result, the flows of capital in local neighborhoods
ments were more open and assertive in facilitating gentrification; (3) became much more tightly integrated with the conditions of national and
anti-gentrification movements became more marginalized; and (4) gen- global capital markets. In contrast to the housing market collapse that accom-
trification was diffusing into more remote neighborhoods. Hackworth panied the early 1990s recession with its predictions of'de-gentrlfication', the
(2002a: 839) argues that in its third wave, overall, gentrification became years after 2001 funneled enormous flows of capital into housing. Mortgage
'more corporate, more state facilitated, and less resisted than ever debt mushroomed by $850 biliion in only two years, and in a single year the
before'. In many ways the heightened role of the state in gentrification, Fed's interest rate cuts led to a doubling in the number of refinanced loans,
in terms of both public policy and investment, was the most important to more than 11 million (Deep and Domansk! 2002). Low interest rates and
of these changes. The state's affair with gentrification, however, is noth- lenient underwriting allowed home buyers to bid prices up through the reces-
ing new; it began almost as soon as the process of gentrification was sion, and tl,ere were signs that an increasing number of wealthy households
realized, as is shown in the two case studies in Chapter 1. However, after who had suffered stock market losses began to look at housing as an alterna-
subsequent years of laissez-faire gentrification, the state began assisting tive means of speculation. From the end of 1999 through the first quarter of
gentrification again in its third wave, and in a much more assertive way: 2001, total household wealth in equities and mutual funds dipped from $12.3
'The state, at various levels, is fuelling the process of gentrification more trillion to $8.7 trillion, while housing equity jumped from $5.4 trillion to $6.2
directly than in the past, largely due to increased devolution' (Powell triliion (Baker 2001). In the four years following the end of 1999, households
and Spencer 2003: 450). withdrew a net sum of $1.02 trillion from corporate equities, while their net
180 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 181

mortgage borrowing racked up an additional $3.30 trillion (see Figure 5.3).

Analysts who had warned of a stock market bubble in the late 1990s now
sounded the alarm for housing, and the growing practice of same-day house
resales was dubbed 'an early 21st-century version of day trading. Buying
stocks on margin has morphed into buying homes with no money down'
(Rich and Leonhardt 2005). The Ecollomist, not usually the place to look for
dire predictions of crisis, estimated that the total value of residential property
in all the world's developed economies shot up by more than $30 trillion over
a five-year period, an increase equivalent to 100 percent of the combined GDP
of these countries-an increase exceeding the stock market bubbles of the
1990s and the 1920s: 'In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in his-
tory' (The Ecollomist 2005). Various indicators point to a gentle cooling of the
market beginning in late 2005, but years of heavy capital flows into housing
have greatly worsened the affordability crises for low-income renters, with
particularly severe stress for those living in gentrifying neighborhoods.
These broad economic trends have driven gentrification deeper into the
heart of disinvested city neighborhoods. In contrast to earlier waves when
financial institutions were risk averse (see Chapter 1 on red-lining in Barns-
bury and Park Slope), lenders are now aggressively competing to make loans;
moreover, new underwriting technologies now allow a much more precise
separation of the risks of lending to particular borrowers in specific places.
It is now common for qualified racial and ethnic minority applicants to be
rejected for loans by mainstream banks, for wealthy gentrifiers to receive mul-
tiple competitive loan offers from big national lenders, and for low-income
home owners to be targeted by risky, high-cost predatory lenders-often all
in the same neighborhood (Howe1l2006; Squires 2003, 2004). Disinvestment,
reinvestment, and rent gap dynamicS are now playing out in more geographi-
cally complex patterns, inscribing fine-grained inequalities of class and race
in city neighborhoods. In the case of New York, total mortgage commitments
for condos and Single-family homes ballooned from $14 billion in 2000 to
$46.9 billion three years later, and home buyers were moving into some of the
last remaining concentrations of low-cost rental housing in the city's poor,
racially marginalized communities-Harlem, the South Bronx, and even
Bedford-Stuyvesant (see Figure 5.4). To be sure, the gentrification ofHarlem
is nothing new (see Freeman 2006)-more than twenty years ago, the German
magazine Del' Spiegel ran a piece on the neighborhood under the (translated)
title 'Oh, Baby. Shit. How Did That Happen?' (Kruger 1985, quoted in SmIth
1996a: 140). Even today, reinvestment is far from complete: central Harlem
has 107,000 people and 53,000 housing units, and a poverty rate four times
the national average; the darkest-shaded U.S. Census tracts in Harlem on
Figure 5.4 saw only 190 purchase or refinance mortgages in 2003, with median
loan amounts between $302,000 and $405,000 across the different tracts.
In other words, the tensions of gentrification are likely to continue in neigh-
borhoods like this for many years to come.
182 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 183

Mutt HU"cn,
SuulhDrnu

Lb SOO2
~
F==
vb \1002
Centrnl """"m_-....,

~ ~,
= Eb V002

Zb V002
D F~wer Ih~n lU !uon!
= t....... lhan \S.U
lb vOOl 15.U-2U
25,U·34.9
ttb E002
a:l5.!)"l,}.'}

Eb £002 _ 50.n ur mnre

Zb £002 Bctlfurd-

~ ~~

Ib E002
~ ~
F=
vb 2002
i='
Eb 2001:

Zb 2002

~
• = lb Z002
cr
"E
0
to vb 1002

•E = Eb LODZ
0
~ ~ ~

0;
.§ = Zb L002
~
0
0
Figure 5.4 Mortgage Capitalization Ratio for New York City Neighborhoods, 2003. This map shows
the ratio of the median mortgage loan to the median annual rent for each census tract. The ratio is
0
p Ib 1002
')'
"
0
~
, ~

!:3 \:ph 0002

=
= similar to the price-to-earnings ratios used to study stock markets. Census tracts with the highest

".i ~ ratios represent areas where low-cost rentals are surrounded by increasingly expensive home sales.
~

z•

~
lOb Dam "'
~

~
In the darkest areas on this map, median mortgage loans are more than fifty times the correspond-
ing local rent.
= £: Zb 0002
"ffi
Cl
=
2l Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002), Summary File 3, Census Tract Data. 2000
'E
Lb 0002 => Census; FFIEC (2004), 2004 HMDA Rail' Data.
c ~
~
£;
'0 vb 6661
~
,E But if the stark polarization of places like Harlem is part of the long his-
•~ Eb 6661 ~

~
,
'"
c
u::
tory of gentrification, the policy context does seem to have changed. The most
distinguishing features of a new fourth wave involve the consolidation of a
J§
= ~
a.Zb666L
'Q.
powerful national political shift favoring the interests of the wealthiest house-
z•
, ~
tb6G6l <0
I
I = holds (see Dumenil and Levy 2004; see also Chapter 6), combined with a bold
N
,,-----0
o 0
0
o
o
"
o
o
w
o
o
'"
o 0
o
'l'
Co
"
0
'f
"E
=
~
~
~
effort to dismantle the last of the social welfare programs associated with
c the 1960s. The groundwork for this new phase was laid during the Clinton
'"
M administration, when an ideology of 'reinventing government' drove the use
on
E of public-private partnerships and other market-oriented responses to urban
=
~ problems-allowing private market gentrification to flourish while the state
184 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 185

bore the costs of removing some of the remaining barriers (e.g., the poorest loans, and low-income home owners are not targeted by high-cost predatory
residents of government-owned public housing projects; Goetz 2003). 'This lenders. Also, by way of contrast, the British government has been quite inter-
movement continues in the United Kingdom under New Labour, albeit with ventionist: for example, it aims to boost hOUSing supply and curb house prices
(somewhat ironically) the input of a social justice agenda (see Imrie and Raco to stabilize an inflationary housing market. Readers interested in attaining
2003; also Chapter6), but there has been a mixture of continuity and departure more statistical information about the British housing market should look at
in the United States. George W. Bush's administration has continued many of the Council of Mortgage Lenders website, http://www.cml.org.uk.
the Clinton-era programs encouraging home ownership for low- and moder-
ate-income households; Clinton's language of 'empowerment' has morphed Katrilla alld tile FOllrth Wa"e ill the Ullited Stales
into Bush's vision for an 'ownership society' in which the state recedes and 'The outlines of this regime in the United States became clear in the after-
individuals bear all the risks and rewards for their behavior. But Bush's over- math of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, when conservative commentators
whelming emphases on tax cuts for investors and the War on Terror have and public officials moved qUicldy to redefine the problem-shifting the focus
completely sidelined domestic policy-and especially urban policy-since away from the inequalities of racism and urban poverty in order to blame
late 2001. Local governments have continued to pursue economic develop- the inherent failures of liberal, welfarist policies of assistance. 'The liberal wel-
ment and housing policies that generally favor gentrification, but these efforts fare state was blamed for creating New Orleans' underclass and its 'dangerous
are now taking place in a national climate marked by the incidental urban criminal class-yes. likely the same African Americans we see looting now'-
impacts of federal policies on taxes, privatization, social welfare cuts, and so and helpless women, children, and elderly who showed up at the Louisiana
on. Gentrification is flourishing in this environment, and its manifestation in Superdome 'expecting their government to take care of them' (Gelinas 2005:
hundreds of neighborhoods across the country seems at first glance to be the 2; see also Peck 2006). 'The conservative solution was to 'rebuild New Orleans'
same as it was in the 1990s third wave; but the political economy that justifies moral levees' (Sowell 2005) on a clean slate that would become a free-market
the process has been consolidated by years of hard work by operatives in con- city-state ruled by the principles of small government, low taxes, and a sacred
servative urban think tanks. Jamie Peck has diagnosed this as a fundamental commitment to property rights. Post-Katrina urban policies have thus pre-
shift from 'welfarist modes of urban governance' to a new dominant conserva- sented an unprecedented opportunity for a more pure, harsh fourth wave of
tive urbanism 'based on the invasive moral and penal regulation of the poor, gentrification. Its principles were proclaimed most clearly by the widely read
together with state-assisted efforts to reclaim the city for business, the middle conservative columnist for the New York Times, David Brooks (2005: A29),
classes, and the market' (Peck 2006: 681). who wrote a week after the storm about 'Katrina's Silver Lining':
'The identification of this fourth wave of gentrification in the United States
Katrina was a natural disaster that interrupted a social disaster. It sep-
reinforces the importance of considering the geography of gentrification, for
arated tens of thousands of poor people from the run-down, isolated
this fourth wave is not readily identifiable outside of the United States. In
neighborhoods in which they were trapped .... It has created as close to
the United Kingdom, for example, any suggestion of a fourth wave of gen-
a blank slate as we get in human affairs, and given us a chance to rebuild
trification is more about the extension and consolidation of national urban
a city that wasn't working.
policy, as Davidson and Lees (2005) have demonstrated in terms of the exten-
sion and reinforcement of national urban policy into the recently published Brooks argued in favor of 'cultural integration'-in order to 'integrate people
Greater London Plan. TI,ere are some similar trends in the United King- who lack middle-class skills into neighborhoods with people who possess
dom, for example, the increase in buy-ta-let (this scheme was introduced in those skills and who insist on certain standards of behavior' (see Chapter 6
1996 and has revolutionized the provision of mortgage finance to the private on gentrification as a 'positive public policy tool'; and British policy initia-
rented sector; in mid-2006, there were £84 billion buy-ta-let mortgages), the tives on transferring social capital through social mixing)-while giving the
rise of the 120 percent mortgage, and the increase in mortgage indebtedness displaced the option 'to disperse into middle-class areas nationwide'. And for
(in August 2006, gross mortgage lending reached £32.7 billion), but there is a New Orleans, 'the key will be luring middle-class families into the rebuilt city,
danger of overstating the issues. Buy-ta-let is a very small part of the market; it making it so attractive to them that they will move in, even knowing that their
is quite stable and has helped sustain demand rather than drive up the market. blocks will include a certain number of poor people' (Brooks 2005: A29).
'The 120 percent mortgage is only one of approximately 4,000 products, and 'These kinds of sentiments distorted and simplified an ongoing social
although market indebtedness has gone up, so has the value of homes. British science debate on the effects of income-mixing policies (see Chapter 6). But
banks and mortgage companies do not reject ethnic minority applicants for the conservative interpretation of the evidence represented the dominant
186 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 187

policy consensus in Washiogton, with the Bush administration able td it takes five years. The people can see the future in their own lifetime.
subvert, co-opt. and outflank its weak congressional opponents. And so, post.; (Quoted in Pogrebin 2006: B1)
Katrina New Orleans is now serving as a policy laboratory and template for
broader urban redevelopment priorities. The administration is very conscious 1U',,",,-- a Geography of Contemporary Gentrification
of precedent, and therefore refused to use an existing program, the Housing 'Ibis discussion of contemporary gentrification vis-a.-vis neoliberalism.
Choice Voucher program (see Chapter 6), to assist the hundreds of thousands globalization, rescaling, and four waves of the process has also been something
of displaced residents; the federal government chose to pay exorbitant rates of a whistle-stop tour through a number of different geographical contexts in
to hotels and to contractors selling trailers, to avoid granting legitimacy to a which gentrification has been occurring. We agree with Neil Smith (2002) that
voucher program that it would rather eliminate. Unfortunately, the harsh dis- gentrification has become 'generalised' into a global urban strategy, but just
placement and redevelopment realities of fourth-wave gentrification in New as neoliberalism and globalization unfold in different ways in dlfferent places
Orleans received considerable legitimacy when prominent sOciologist and in a pattern of uneven development (Tickell and Peck 2003; Harvey 2006b),
urban poverty expert William Julius Wilson led a petition signed by dozens so too does gentrification. Given the massive literature on gentrification, the
of researchers advocatiog 'Moving to Opportunity in the Wake of Hurricane pace at which it expanded in the 1990s, and the fact that geographers have
Katrina'. The dispersal- and mixed-income redevelopment policies supported been the most common contributors, it may seem surprising that it is only
by those who signed the petition-all' with impeccable center-left politics recently that scholars have noted that building a geography of gentrification
and research credibility-are nearly identical to the policy mix favored by is important if we are to gain a more complete understanding of the process.
Washington io the 1990s. But the entire political environment of fourth- particularly with respect to both space and time. David Ley (1996) made this
wave gentrification is different, and Reed and Steinberg (2006) point out that important observation near the start of his book on gentrification:
Wilson and his colleagues
The embourgeoisement of the inner city ... is incomplete even in those
remain strangely oblivious of their potential for playing into the hands neighbourhoods where it has been most prominent, but none the less
of the retrograde political forces that would use their call to justify it has contributed to a significant reshaping in the hOUSing market in
displacement. ... They provide liberal cover for those who have already cities with expanding downtown employment in advanced services.
put a resettlement policy into motion that is reactionary and racist at This qualifier immediately leads to the important recognition that there
its core. is a geography to gentrification, that the trends remaldng the ioner cit-
ies of Toronto, San Francisco, or London are not shared by Winnipeg.
It may be too early for us to consider any lond of definitive judgment on Detroit, or Liverpool. (p. 8)
post-Katrina New Orleans and its influence on gentrification in other cities,
or even if there is a truly distinctive fourth wave that departs from the basic Ley's major contribution towards explaining this geography was an assess-
tendencies analyzed by Hackworth and Smith (2001). But the early indications ment of inter-metropolitan and inter-neighborhood gentrification across
are not encouraging. New Orleans' displaced renters have been almost com- Canada. The caveat with which Ley concludes his book is not just pertioent
pletely ignored in the fanfare over what the chair of the Louisiana Recovery to his insistence that gentrification theory cannot ignore empirical trends in
Authority suggests 'may be the biggest redevelopment project in history' urban Canada, but also points to a new research avenue: '[T]he geographical
(Eaton 2006: AI). Nearly $10 billion of federal aid is going directly to home specificity of gentrification should caution us from makiog arguments that
owners, and subject to certain conditions, owners can decide whe,ther and are too binding from evidence that is limited to the United States' (p. 352).
where to rebuild, or to leave the state and accept reduced compensation. One Reviewing much of the 1980s and 1990s literature on gentrification, Lees
of the national figures iovited to help lead local discussions about the design (2000) worked Ley's observations into a call for 'a geography of gentrification'
future of Gulf Coast communities and New Orleans neighborhoodsis Andres which takes into account context, locality, and temporality in more detail-
Duany, who offered 'Three Cheers for Gentrification' in a right-wing thiok despite much analytical progress, theoretical tensions (which we explained
tank magazine in 2001. Five years later, Duany described his work in New in Chapters 2 and 3) were threatening explanatory closure when these ten-
Orleans to the New York Times: sions could be kept alive in new investigations focused on the geography of
the process.
For a city to become a city that's planned, it has to destroy itself; the city Lees argued that the geography of gentrification 'works on a number of
literally has to molt. ... Usually this takes 20 years, but after a hurricane, different levels-international comparison, intranational, and citywide
188 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 189

comparison' (p. 405). Leywas rather cautious with international comparisons, hardly a novel observation to claim that explanations and interpretations of
contending that 'internationally, no truly comparative data exist to permit an gentrification cannot be divorced from the contexts in which they are formed,
assessment of the variation of inner-city reinvestment by country' (p. 81). This but this has received surprisingly little attention in the literature on gentri-
might account for the fact that international comparisons are still something fication (see Slater 2002). So, if calls for 'a geography of gentrification' seem
of a rarity (for the exceptions, see Cybriwsky, Ley, and Western 1986; Lees simplistic, we argue that a purposeful simplicity is in fact necessary-only in
1994b, 1996; Carpenter and Lees 1995; N. Smith 1996a; Eade and Mele 1998; this manner can researchers illustrate what Jacobs and Fincher (1998) call 'the
Slater 2004a; Sykora 2005; Krase 2005; Petsimeris 2005). It must be noted complexity of spatial scales that flow through "place": the ways in which the
that Ley was arguing that no data exist for the purposes of rigorous statisti- local is always also a national or international space' (p. 21). Furthermore, a
cal comparison; but there is no question that other sources of data allow for heightened sensitivity to the mutually constitutive local, national, and global
comparative assessments, as evidenced by the exceptions cited above. Intrana- aspects of urban change is important not just to gentrification but also to the
tional comparisons have been more common. especially in the United States. study of all urban processes (Brenner 2001).
producing a range of conclusions depending on the methodology deployed Building 'a geography of gentrification' requires attention to the contex-
and the perspective of the researcher (Nelson 1988; Wyly and Hamme12004, tual specificities of the gentrification process, with particular sensitivity to
2005; Freeman 2005). At the citywide scale, Lees noted that within a single the ways in which the process is configured under interlocking geographical
city, gentrification of a simllar time period has a qUite different geography scales, whilst retaining a critical eye on the more general factors that constitute
depending on its site. This is particularly evident in the work of Tim Butler the engine behind the process. As Lees (2000) has noted, 'a geography of
and Garry Robson, who have attempted to tease out the subtle differences in gentrification' is something that has policy relevance too:
the ways in which the middle classes 'come to terms with London' in different
More detailed research into the geography of gentrification ... would
London neighborhoods. The impetus for their research was clearly set out:
enable us to consider the merits or dangers ofcities further down the urban
One criticism of existing approaches to gentrification is that they tend to hierarchy taking on board the gentrification practices of cities higher up
see gentrification as a more or less homogenous process .... Our hypoth- the urban hierarchy, cities with a very different geography. (p. 405)
esis is that different middle-class groups would be attracted to different
In this chapter, we have outlined the complexities and nuances of the
areas and this would be determined by a range of factors, in addition to
process in its contemporary form-the uneven outwards and downwards
what they might be able to afford in particular hOUSing markets. (Butler
rescaling of the process, the differences between a fourth wave of gentrifica-
and Robson 2001b: 2146-2148)
tion in the United States and not in the United Kingdom, and the contingent
After testing this hypothesiS by interviewing gentrifiers in Telegraph Hill, geographies of gentrification as an expression of neoliberal urbanism-all of
Battersea, and Brixton, they found that gentrification had consolidated very which demonstrate the need for 'a geography of gentrification'.
different forms of middle-class identity in each location. They concluded with In the next chapter. we examine the emancipatory and revanchist discourses
the argument that '[g]entrification ... cannot in any sense be considered to be on gentrification which have emerged from very different research contexts.
a unitary phenomenon. but needs to be examined in each case according to its As researchers have recently noted (e.g., Lees 2000; Slater 2002), perspectives
own logic and outcomes' (p. 2160). Their work illustrates that there is substan- on gentrification that are usually attributed to differences in theory, ideology,
tial differentiation in gentrification (or, more specifically, the experiences of and methodology are equally attributable to geography-the places in which
gentrifiers) between London neighborhoods which are not separated by much the process was researched. New York and the Lower East Side present a differ-
physical distance-a major finding that moves away from earlier, research ent landscape of gentrification from Vancouver and False Creek. We explore
which took a broader, quantitative view and thus tended to refer to 'London's these important geographies in more depth in Chapter 6.
gentrification' (e.g., Williams 1976; Hamnett and Randolph 1984; Munt 1987).
At first glance, calls for 'a geography of gentrification' may seem rather ProdUCing and Consuming the New Gentrification?
simple. Of course, the process is different in different places! While there Contemporary geographies of gentrification seem to have become more
may be common undercurrents of capital flows. real estate speculation. and complicated, involving intricate tensions between local and global, old versus
professionalization, of course gentrification will be very different in, say. San new, and cultural versus economic. In light of this complexity, is there any
Francisco than it is in, say, Seoul, and of course there will be neighborhoods contemporary use for the production and consumption perspectives described
in Paris that have different trajectories and experiences of gentrification! It is in Chapters 2 and 3? Or are these separate narratives entirely obsolete?
 190 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 191

Today, most observers acknowledge that both production and consumption . The explanation offered by Smith's rent gap formulation (1979, 1996)
perspectives are cruciallyimportantin explaining, understanding, and dealing now seems to underpin an expanded cognitive map of search and
with gentrification. For many analysts, the acknowledgment ends there, with relocation activities of elite social fractions, be they political, cultural or
no serious effort to address the substantive differences between the two per- economic. In a sense the decision to locate in SeattIe is no longer a world
spectives. But for many others, the production-consumption dichotomy has apart from London in its amenity or ambience, even less its distance by
been set aside for very different reasons. This duality may have contributed jet. At another level in the profeSSional and urban hierarchy this might
to the advance of urban theory in the 1970s and 1980s, but in subsequent be a choice between Athens and Auckland, Madrid and Mumbai. Inter-
years it became clear that the differences between the two camps had been national services, leT linkages, increasing urban homogeneity of ser-
exaggerated. Even so, we cannot ignore fundamental incommensurability vices and "feel", as well as rapid travel, mean that many more "new"
in the abstract concepts of the rent gap, cultural-lifestyle, and postindustrial neighbourhoods exist insulated from local poverty, wider systematic
economic base explanations (Clark 1994). The central elements of each of inequalities and public squalor. (Atkinson and Bridge 2005: 8)
these narratives remain as important and relevant today as they did a quarter
century ago. But these frameworks are no longer used in attempts to deter- Perhaps the most progressive way to deal with both production and
mine the ultimate cause of gentrification, or to illustrate the One Right Way consumption theories in the gentrification literature is to recognize the
to Do Gentrification Research. And fewer researchers feel the pressure to remarkable theoretical sophistication that has developed over three decades
'assume that we can synthesise or integrate them into a consistent unity. one of research and debate, whilst at the same time acknowledging that the finer
grand coherent picture, and that we should of course put all our efforts into details of such theories can quite easily become victims of history, and need
this noble task' (Clark 1994: 1040, emphasis in original). to be brought into contemporary geographies of gentrification. The least
But this is not simply about the postmodern recognition of indeterminacy progressive way to deal with production and consumption theories is to per-
and the inadequacy of representations of a supposedly stable, external 'real- petuate the series of hidden assumptions that crept into the gentrification lit-
ity.' In more practical terms, the questions have changed: more and more erature in the early 1990s-assumptions that had begun to undermine our
researchers have turned away from questions of causality-which lead almost ability to make sense of what was happening in gentrifying neighborhoods.
invariably to contests between competing explanations-to examine conse- Production explanations were then seen as the mirror opposite of consump-
quences. What this means is that some of the fundamental theoretical ten- tion theories. ll1anks to Hamnett's (1991) influential review of the sophisti-
sions between production and consumption explanations have never really cated work of Smith and Ley, many urbanists saw gentrification in terms of
been resolved (see Clark 1994). But after forty years of sustained gentrification a stark 'either/or' choice: supply or demand, capital or culture, structure or
in many different kinds of cities around the world, we are no longer putting agency. An entire generation of students, reading through equally compel-
all our effort into painting the 'grand coherent picture' that answers the ques- ling explanations under separate headings for 'production' and 'consumption',
tion of 'Why?' Instead, more researchers are concerned with the question of responded as best they knew how: both explanations matter, many students
'So what?' And with this shift, many researchers are less troubled by the real replied, while others embraced one side or another based on personal expe-
and apparent tensions between production and consumption narratives. Both rience or the style of writing they found most convincing. The neoclassical
provide crucially important, and quite different, ways of understanding the view of gentrification was ignored, or treated as an historical approach that
dimensions of contemporary gentrification. fell out of favor after the 1960s. Widespread discussion of the idea of a 'post-
And both require constant revision to keep up with changes in contem- gentrification' era led many urbanists to turn their attention to other topics.
porary urbanism, while recognizing the enduring continuity of certain pro- Many of those who did continue to study the topic drew inspiration from the
cesses and practices. This balance between the old and the new applies to both cultural turn then sweeping through human geography and related fields.
the cultural and economic realms: the details of what ldnds of occupations But the mid-1990s was precisely the wrong time to turn our attention away
count as 'postindustrial' have changed considerably, for instance, as have the from what was happening on city streets, in boardrooms where corporate and
particular ldnds of brands and styles favored by the new middle classes, and development decisions are made, and in corridors and think tank seminar
the innovations in financial instruments that link world financial markets to rooms where policies are conceived, negotiated, and justified. As we have
the operation of localized rent gaps. Atldnson and Bridge (2005: 8) describe seen in our discussion of third-wave gentrification, the process was about
how some of these familiar aspects of gentrification theory come together in to undergo a resurgence that would accentuate all of the inequalities and
new ways: tensions associated with tile process a generation earlier; but the economic
192 • Gentrification Contemporary Gentrification • 193

and political context of this resurgence had changed, maldng it much more Compare and contrast four or more studies of gentrification from
difficult for neighborhood advocates and low-income residents to resist or around the world using Atkinson and Bridge (2005) and recent jour-
adjust (see Chapter 7). Moreover, it became clear that the production-con- nal articles. How are they the same? How do they differ?
sumption dichotomy was fundamentally flawed and that it had obscured the Do some Internet (or documentary) research about contemporary
ongoing influence of neoclassical urban thought on public policy. Throughout urban regeneration in a small town or city near you. Can you see a
most of Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia, neoclassical prin- 'gentrification blueprint' in action?
ciples exerted a powerful influence on the way policy makers selectively used Watch and compare the following American TV shows-71Je Cosby
research on urban poverty and housing markets to justify sweeping shifts in Show and Frasier. Can you see the subtext of gentrification in the
urban policy. Important contextual differences certainly mattered in shap- lifestyles and residences of the main characters? Can you see 1980s
ing varied trajectories of policy-but the general trend was to favor market and 1990s gentrification represented?
processes and public interventions that encouraged gentrification. It is now Write down a list of neoliberal urban policies at both the state and
clearly recognized that production and consumption cannot be understood city levels in your own country and for a chosen city in your own
in terms of simplistic dichotomies. But there is also a growing recognition country. What do you think about these policies?
that the political and economic developments of the last decade have accentu- Read the OpenCity repository at http://www.opencity.org.uk.
ated many of the polarizing tendencies' at the heart of both production and
consumption theories. In response. a new generation of gentrification research Further Reading
has moved beyond these limited binaries to analyze the new patterns and pro- Atkinson, R., and G. Bridge (eds.) (2005) GeIltrificatioIJ in a Global Context: TIle New
cesses sustaining inequality in cities around the world. Urban Colol1iaIism (London: Routledge).
Brenner, N., and N. Theodore (eds.) (2003) Spaces ofNeoliberalism: Urban Restructuring
ill North America and Westem Europe (Oxford: Blackwell).
Summary Butler, T., with G. Robson (2003) London's CaIlillg: TIle Middle Classes and the Remaking
In this chapter, we looked at the main features of contemporary gentrification, a/Inner London (Berg: London).
comparing them to earlier waves of gentrification. We looked at a more recent Davis, M. (1990) City a/Quartz: R\cavating the Future in Los AllgeIes (New York: Verso).
Hamnett, C. (1996) 'Social polarization, economic restructuring and welfare state
stage model of the process and tentatively identify a fourth wave of gentrifi-
regimes'. Urbal1 Studies. 33. 8: 1407-1430.
cation to add to this model. We discussed the roles of globalization and neo- Hamnett, C. (2003a) Unequal City: LOlldoll ill the Global Arena (Routledge: London).
liberalism, and the changing role of the state in contemporary gentrification, Harvey, D. (1989b) 'Prom managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation
and argue that moving towards an understanding of the geography of gentri- in urban governance in late capitalism'. Geografiska AlIllaler. 7lB: 3-17.
fication is a timely and relevant research direction. Gentrification today is a Harvey, D. (2000) Spaces ojHope (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
global phenomenon; in this chapter, we looked not just at its spread-across the Harvey, D. (2005) A BriejHistory ojNeo-liberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
globe and down the urban hierarchy-but also at the conceptual and empiri- Imrie, R., and M. Raco (eds.) (2003) Urban Rellaissallce? New Labour, Community and
cal work on the links between gentrification and globalization. We conclude Urban Policy (Bristol: Policy Press).
Kearns, G., and C. Philo (eds.) (1993) Sellillg Places: Tile City as Cultural Capital, Past
that the production and consumption explanations of gentrification outlined
Dud Present (Oxford: Pergamon Press).
in Chapters 2 and 3 of the book, explanations based on classical or first-wave Raco, M., G. MacLeod, and K. Ward (guest eds.) (2003) 'Negotiating the contempo-
gentrification, still have resonance today, even if they need to be tweaked in rary city', Urban Studies, (special issue): 40. 8.
places, and rigorously updated in others. Sassen, S. (1991) Tile Global City: New York, LOlldoll alld Tokyo (Prince ton, NJ:
Princeton University Press).
Uitermark, J., J. Duyvendak, and R. Kleinhans (2007) 'Gentrification as a govern-
Activities
mental strategy: Social control and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam',
Design a stage model of gentrification for London, like Hackworth Elllliromnent and PImwing A 39, 1: 125-141.
and Smith (2001) did for New York City, using the case study mate- Wyly, E., and D. Hammel (2005) 'Mapping neoliberal American urbanism', in
rial throughout this book on Barnsbury and drawing also on Chris R. Atldnson and G. Bridge (eds.) Geutrijicatioll ill a Global Context: TIle New
Hamnet!'s (2003a) book Unequal City: LOlldoll ill the Global Arella. Urball Colonialism (London: Routledge), 18-38.
Compare and contrast Rofe's (2003) arguments about gentrification
and globalization with those of Butler and Lees (2006).
 6
Gentrification
Positive or Negative?

As new frontier, the gentrifying city since the 1980s has been oozing with
optimism. Hostile landscapes are regenerated. cleansed, reinfused with
middle-class sensibility; real estate values soar; yuppies consume; elite
gentility is democratized in mass-produced styles of distinction. So what's
not to like? The contradictions of the actual frontier are not entirely eradi-
cated in this imagery but they are smoothed into an acceptable groove.
N. Smith (1996a: 13)
In this chapter we compare and contrast arguments that see (and public policies
that promote) gentrification to be a positive neighborhood process with those
that see it to be a negative neighborhood process. Gentrification, of course, has
both positive and negative aspects to it; we weigh up these different aspects
(see Box 6.1). We also outline and discuss the two main discourses that domi-
nate the gentrification literature-what Lees (2000) calls the 'emancipatory
city thesis' versus the 'revanchist city thesis'-for these discourses play off of
the positive and negative aspects of gentrification respectively. There is a tem-

-=
=
~
poral dimension to all of this, for arguably pioneer gentrification ideologically
and practically has more positive aspects associated with it than later waves of
gentrification. For example. pioneer gentrifiers desired social mixing. whereas
.EO
.8 second- and especially third-wave gentrifiers are much more individualistic
.El e= (see Butler and Lees [2006], who compare first-, second-, and third-wave
e= ,e
gentrification in Barnsbury). However, arguably it is pioneer gentrifiers who
,e ~
'c
.- ~
0-
initiate processes of displacement. even if this is not a deliberate behavior.
D ~
D
-EO
=0
0 ~
~
D .lE -1l A Positive Neighborhood Process?
=
=
W

." '"
~ = In an essay titled 'Two Cheers for Gentrification', J. P. Byrne (2003: 405-406) of
'a; .b s
'"
~
,s iE E"i>. Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., gentrifier and professor oflaw at Georgetown
~ .S .n University Law Center, states,
~
0
CO ~
~
= ..d C.
.s
=
~
~

t-
~
~
"'
OD
.8
0
'illis essay takes issue with this negative judgment about gentrification.
That a number of individuals have lost affordable apartments that were
....,
=
"
11,0.;
~
..d
home to them cannot be denied. Yet increases in the number of affluent
~
-:;;
.§
~
~ and well-educated residents is plainly good for cities, on balance, by
c:: :;:
.... 5
194
'"
195
196 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 197

surveys in the 1990s of persons who had recently moved into new units and
Box 6.1
found that 5.47 percent of them could be considered as displaced. When they
The Positives and Negatives of Gentrification compared movements by low-income people from gentrifying neighbor-
Positive Negative hoods, as opposed to non-gentrifying neighborhoods, they found that poor
Displacement through rent/price households were less likely to move from gentrifying neighborhoods. More-
increases over, they found that increases in rents were associated with a lower. rather
Secondary psychological costs of than higher, likelihood of moving out. They argued,
displacement
Our research sheds new light on the gentrification process. Although it
Stabilization of declining areas Community resentment and conflict does not prove that secondary displacement [i.e., from rising rents] of the
Increased property values Loss of affordable housing poor does not occur in gentrifying areas, it suggests that demographic
Unsustainable speculative property transition is not predicated on displacement. Low-income households
price increases actually seem less likely to move from gentrifying neighbourhoods than
Reduced vacancy rates Homelessness from other communities. Improving housing and neighbourhood con-
Increased local fiscal revenues Greater take oflocal spending through ditions appear to encourage the housing stability oflow-income neigh-
lobbying/articulacy bourhoods to the degree that they more than offset any dislocation
Encouragement and increased viability Commercial/industrial displacement resulting from rising rent. (2002: 4)
of further development Byrne (2003: 419-420) also argues, rather patronizingly (as we shall see later
Increased cost and changes to local in this chapter, such a view is part of the ideology of pioneer gentrifiers and of
services policy makers' framing of'gentrification as a positive public policy tool'), that
Reduction of suburban sprawl Displacement and housing demand gentrification can improve the economic opportunities for the urban poor:
pressures on surrounding poor areas
Increased social mix: Loss of social diversity (from socially
At the simplest level, existing residents should find expanding employ-
disparate to rich ghettos) ment opportunities in providing locally the goods and services that more
affluent residents can afford. Studies suggest that poor people can find bet-
Rehabilitation of property both Under occupancy and population loss
with and without state sponsorship to gentrified areas ter employment in the suburbs than in the city. The problem has been that
inner city residents cannot reach these suburban jobs because of distance
Source: Rowland Atkinson and Gary Bridge, eds., Gentrification in a Global
Context: the New Urban Colonialism, p. 5. © 2005 Routledge.
and the lack of a necessary automobile. While one may be concerned that
local jobs generated by gentrifiers often will be low-paying, unskilled posi-
increasing the number of residents who can pay taxes, purchase local tions in restaurants and shops, existing residents may need opportunities
goods and services, and support the city in state and federal political that do not require much education .... Gentrification may also contrib-
processes. My contention here goes somewhat further: gentrification is ute to citywide enhancement of employment for low-income residents.
good on balance for the poor and ethnic minorities. The most nega- Increases in urban populations will enhance demand for municipal ser-
tive effect of gentrification, the reduction in affordable hOUSing, results vices and thus the need for municipal employment. Theywill also increase
primarily not from gentrification itself, but from the persistent failure municipal tax receipts, making possible increases in public employment.
of government to produce or secure affordable hOUSing more generally.
He goes on to argue that 'gentrification creates urban political fora in which
Moreover, cities that attract more affluent residents are more able to
affluent and poor citizens must deal with each other's priorities in a demo-
aggressively finance affordable hOUSing. Thus, gentrification is entitled
cratic process' (p. 421), and that gentrification ameliorates the social isolation
to "two cheers", if not three, given that it enhances the political and eco-
of the poor, reduces crime, and increases the educational attainments of the
nomic positions of all, but exacerbates the harms imposed on the poor
poor (pp. 422-424). As such, as a lawyer, he argues,
by the failures of national affordable housing policies.
Byrne (2003) cites a study of displacement in New York City in the 1990s My essentially rosy view of gentrification leads me to oppose most of
by researchers Freeman and Braconi (2002) as support for his idea that the limits that several legal writers have wanted to place on it. They
gentrification is a positive process. Freeman and Braconi (2002) looked at mistakenly seek to arrest a process that appears to be beneficial both
198 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 199

for the city as a whole and for its poor inhabitants. Prohibiting poor In responding to social problems we must avoid repeating the
people from being succeeded by more affluent people dooms the neigh- mistakes of the past. Developing large amounts of social housing in
borhood, and perhaps, the city to poverty.... Urban policies should sup- one location does not work. Many existing social housing estates have a
port gentrification generally, even as it addresses some of the harms to strong sense of community-often more so than wealthier neighbour-
which gentrification may contribute. (pp. 424-425) hoods-but there is not the economic capacity to make these neigh-
Such urban policies are already underway, but more often without the safe- bourhoods work over the long term. As a result, jobs and investment go
guards that Byrne mentions, such as protective policies against displacement, elsewhere, exacerbating the phYSical isolation of many of these estates.
for example rent control, caps on annual increases in real property taxes, and In future. we must develop on the basis of a mix of tenures and income
effectively addressing affordable housing for the urban poor. groups. (DETR 1999: 45)
And New Labour's Urban White Paper (the current national urban policy
Gentrificatioll as a Positive Public Policy 1001 document for England and Wales) argues,
More than ever before, gentrification is incorporated into public policy-
Our aim is to make urban living a positive experience for the many.
used either as a justification to obey market forces and private sector
not the few, to bring all areas up to the standard of the best, and to
entrepreneurialism. or as a tool to direct market processes in the hopes
deliver a lasting urban renaissance. (DETR 2000a: foreword by John
of restructuring urban landscapes in a slightly more benevolent fashion.
Prescott)
Trumpeted under the friendly banners of regeneration, renewal, or revi-
talization, many of these placebo policies fail in their boosterish goals: Moving towards more mixed and sustainable communities is important
a solid consensus among mainstream economists and policy analysts to many of our plans for improving the quality oflife. (DETR 2000a: 8)
holds that targeted revitalization strategies, ranging all the way from tax
credits to tax increment financing to enterprise zones, have only mar- The British government's stated intention to bring the middle classes back to
ginal impacts on the overall structure oflandmarkets shaped by ongoing the central city (read 'gentrification') is therefore motivated by, and indeed
metropolitan decentralisation forces. But gentrification policy can have sold to us as, an attempt to reduce sociospatial segregation and strengthen
substantial effects at the neighbourhood scale, and when it does succeed the 'social tissue' of deprived neighborhoods. Selling gentrification to us as
in leveraging private capital it worsens housing affordability in ways that something 'positive', that has a social-mixing or social inclusion agenda.
increase the demands on the remnants of the redistributive local state. is quite canny in that it neutralizes the negative image that the process of
Wyly and Hammel (2005: 35) gentrification brings with it. Social mixing and improved social balance
are viewed as key to redUcing what they term 'neighbourhood effects'-the
In recent years in the United Kingdom, there is evidence of the neoliberal spatial concentration of disadvantaged populations in local areas, creating
urban agenda outlined in Chapter 5: local urban regeneration initiatives have a social milieu that reinforces aspects of disadvantage and actively reduces
been seeking to entice more affluent, middle-class populations into low-income an individual's ability to move out of poverty or disadvantage. The British
areas using policies of what Stuart Cameron (2003: 2373) calls 'positive gentri- government's Social Exclusion Unit argues that social capital in excluded
fication' or 'gentrification as a positive public policy tool'. These locally based communities can be rebuilt if they sOcially mix. because social mixing brings
policies of 'positive gentrification' espouse the same discursive construction people into contact with those outside their normal circle, broadening hori-
of gentrification and social mixing as the Urban Task Force report (DETR zons and raising expectations. As Canadian geographer Damaris Rose (2004:
1999) and the Urban White Paper (DETR 2000a) (see the Preface). The idea is 281) states,
to diversify the social mix and dilute concentrations of poverty in the inner
city through gentrification. [Sjince the image of the "livable city" has become a key aspect of a city's
The Urban Task Force report states, ability to compete in a globalized, knowledge-based economy (Florida
2003), post-industrial cities have a growing interest in marketing
Without a commitment to social in tegration, our towns and cities will fail. themselves as being built on a foundation of "inclusive" neighbourhoods
We can, however, establish certain principles to ensure that wealth and capable of harmoniously supporting a blend of incomes, cultures, age
opportunity are spread more evenly among urban neighbourhoods. groups and lifestyles".
200 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 201

Cameron (2003) talks about Newcastle City Council's citywide regenera_ residents (provided they were not displaced in the process). (DeFilippis
tion policy, adopted in 1999, called Going for Growth (discussed in Chap_ and North 2004: 79)
ter 4). This was probably the first large-scale example in the United Kingdom
The two main estates-the Heygate (see Plate 6.2) and the Aylesbury {the
of a policy of so-called positive gentrification-its explicit objective being
largest public housing estate in Europe)-are to be demolished. TIle. center-
to rebalance the population of disadvantaged and stigmatized central-city
piece of the £1.5 billion plan is a forty-two-story reSIdential tower.with only
neighborhoods in inner-city Newcastle by the introduction of a more affluent
30 percent affordable housing; it will be a mixed-use development With a hotel,
population. As Cameron (2003: 2369) states, the strategy linked 'economic
cinema, 219 homes, restaurants, shops. and a bustling market square. Due
development, urban renaissance and the retention and growth of population
to the public participation now required by law before any regeneration plan
within the city to the future of deprived and stigmatised neighbourhoods
can go ahead, the council boasts that the regeneration plan has the support
characterised by population loss and low housing demand'. In many ways,
of 80 percent of the local community (but see DeFilippis and North [2004],
Newcastle (like other cities in the North East and the North West of England)
who discuss the complexities of public participation and anti-gentrification
is the kind of city (unlike, say, London) that the Urban White Paper (DETR
activism in this case).
2000a) and much British New Labour urban policy prescription has been
Most recently, The London Plan (Greater London Authority [GLA] 2004) has
written for-a city characterized by socioeconomic polarization, regional
gotten on board the 'positive gentrification' bandwagon. It promotes an urban
economic weakness, population out-migration, and low housing demand in
renaissance and social-mixing agenda io a similar vein to the Urban White Paper:
its inner-city areas. In Newcastle, the middle classes have sought to distance
themselves from stigmatized inner-city areas and crowded into a small num- New housing development, including additional provision arising from
ber of neighborhoods regarded as safer and higher status. In response to this, conversions, should ... help to promote mixed and balanced communi-
the (then) New Labour-run Newcastle City Council decided to bulldoze a ties. (GLA 2004: 59)
selection oflow-income neighborhoods in the inner city and build new hous-
ing on these sites, housing designed specifically to attract the middle classes. Plate 6.2 Elephant and Castle in London
Cameron (2003) argued that the Going for Growth strategy would actively
displace existing low-income residents, not all of whom would be rehoused
readily (see Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion).
A smaller-scale example of such a policy of 'positive gentrification' is
the Elephant Links regeneration program at Elephant and Castle in central
London in which residents have had to fight a hidden social-cleansing agenda.
In the 1990s the borough of Southwark was seen to be suffering from haVing
too many socially excluded people with low aspirations and low social capital.
In a now infamous remark, Southwark's then Director of Regeneration Fred
Manson said,

We need to have a wider range of people living in the borough ... social
housing generates people on low incomes coming in and that generates
poor school performances, middle class people stay away. (DeFilippis
and North 2004: 79)

The council's answer with respect to the regeneration of Elephant and

Castle was

managed but inclusive gentrification to bring in more wealthy residents

with higher levels of social capital and labour market involvement and The Heygate Estate, an enormous 1960s council estate and one of the two main estates in Elephant
and Castle, is to be demolished as part of the urban regeneration program Elephant Links.
paying higher levels of local tax, which could be used to benefit local
Source: Photograph by Loretta Lees.
202 • Gentrification Gentrificatian: Positive or Negative? • 203

London's riverside and urban waterways, labeled the 'Blue Ribbon Network' and its 'Leefbaar Rotterdam' (Livable Rotterdam). There are now strong calls in
by the GLA, have been given a spatial strategy all of their own. TI,ere are two the Netherlands for the dispersal of the poor and immigrant inhabitants and
main aims: the creation of mixed communities. In Rotterdam, Uitermark, Duyvendak,
and Kleinhans (2007:129) argue,
To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination,
policies should ensure that the Blue Ribbon Network is accessible for The city now actively markets itself as a good place for affluent residents
everyone as part of London's public realm and that its cultural and envi- and especially targets the so-called creative class (see Florida, 2005).
ronmental assets are used to stimulate appropriate development in areas The city has boosted both the construction of owner-occupied dwell-
of regeneration and need. (GLA 2004: 194) ings and the demolition of social rented housing. Each year, developers
add about 3,000 new owner-occupied dwellings to the total of 250,000
and
dwellings, while demolishers destroy about 4,000 social houses .... In
The Blue Ribbon Network should not continue to be developed as a pri- language that hardly requires textual deconstruction, the government
vate resource or backdrop, which only privileged people can afford to be of Rotterdam declares that it aims to attract "desired households" io
near or enjoy. (GLA 2004: 207) "problem areas" ... therefore reinforcing and politicizing the connec-
tion between owner-occupied housing and liveability. This discourse
One can see here the imprint of London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, for the
no longer only involves the right-wing parties that were in office since
GL~s LOlldoll Plall has a much clearer social justice agenda than the Urban
2002. The Labour Party that won the local elections of February 2006
White Paper. However, despite the rhetoric, in a detailed study of social mix-
supports similar policies. A document produced by top civil servants
ing, Mark Davidson (2006) found no social mixing between the new-build
to articulate a new vision after Labour's victory explicitly argues that
(see Chapter 4 on new-build gentrification) residents along the Thames and
gentrification needs to be "enhanced"....
those lower-income groups living in the adjacent communities. As such, there
was no transference of social capital from high- to low-income groups, or any And in the United States, HUD's Hope VI (Home Ownership and Oppor-
of the other desired outcomes from the introduction of a middle-class popula- tunity for People Everywhere) Program has been used to SOcially mix (read
tion into these central-city riverside locations. In part this was due to the tran- 'gentrify') public housing in order to break down the culture of poverty and
sitory nature of the new-build residents, and in part it was due to the spatially the social isolation of the poor:
segregated nature of the new-build developments with respect to the adjacent
While debate on these questions persists, the consensus among policy
low-income communities. The new-build developments did allow access to
makers is that poverty is fundamentally transformed by its spatial con-
the 'Thames for the adjacent low-income communities. but those communities
centration: When [sic] neighborhood poverty rates exceed some critical
rarely went there because the imposing nature of the new-builds and their
threshold, contagion effects spread behavioral pathologies through peer
security put them off. As Damaris Rose (2004: 280) states, there is an 'uneasy
groups, while collective socialization erodes because children no-longer
cohabitation' between gentrification and social mix.
see adults in positive role models as educated workers and married par-
Anditis not just the United Kingdom that is promoting a process of'positive
ents. (Wyly and Hamme11999: 740)
gentrification' in this way, for this notion of gentrification and social mixing is
atlhe leading edge of neoliberal urban policy (see Chapter 5) around the world. The current trend in U.S. hOUSing redevelopment is to replace existing high-
In the Netherlands a policy of 'housing redifferentiation' (see Hulsbergen and rise, high-density 'projects' with new lower-density mixed-income communi-
Stouten 2001; Musterd, Priemus, and van Kempen 1999; Priemus 19~5, 1998, ties, for example, Cabrini-Green in Chicago. Despite being located next to
2001; Salet 1999; Uitermark 2003; van Kempen and van Weesep 1994), as some of the most expensive real estate in Chicago, in 1994 Cabrini-Green
they call it, has been underway since 1996 (the British Urban Task Force was (see Plate 6.3) qualified as the worst case of public housing in the United
especially excited by this policy). This is a policy of adding more expensive States under HUD guidelines and received $50 million to redevelop a por-
dwellings to low-income areas by removing inexpensive dwellings through tion of the site. The reduction of densities from demolition of units and the
demolition, together with the sale and upgrading of existing dwellings-the 'vouchering out' (where residents are usually given vouchers that subsidize
idea being to create a more socially diverse population in neighborhoods via the cost of privately rented accommodation) of public housing tenants led
gentrification. The ideas about social mixing have gained new intensity since to Significant displacement of low-income tenants and gentrification (see
2002 related to the political turbulence due to the rise of the Pinl Fortuyn Party J. Smith 2001).
 204 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 205

In cities that are highly dependent on property taxes as a source of revenue,

such as those in the United States, seeking to increase your tax base by increas-
ing the percentage of middle-class home owners in the central city is seen to
be fiscal pragmatism. By 'manufacturing' a socially mixed community, it is
thought that gentrification

can ameliorate the social isolation of the poor. New more affluent resi-
dents will rub shoulders with poorer existing residents on the streets,
in shops. and within local institutions. such as public schools. Such
newcomers may exhibit possibilities of social mobility and a determina-
tion to secure adequate public services that provide existing residents
with the kind of role models and contacts the absence of which Wilson
[W .J. Wilson 1987] finds debilitating in the ghetto. (Byrne 2003: 422)
Cunningham (2001). however, has criticized the use ofHOPE VI in Washington.
D.C .• arguing that placing HOPE VI projects in gentrifying neighborhoods
does not aid the revitalization of depressed neighborhoods; rather. it reduces
affordable hOUSing in areas with spiraling rents and prices:

From the perspective of the approximately 20.000 low income house-

.,; holds on the waiting list for DCHA housing or Section 8 vouchers. it
m
0: looks like another tool in the hands of the area's gentrifiers to reduce the
:s
~
number of affordable hOUSing units. (p. 357)
m
~

~ Despite not spurring the revitalization of depressed neighborhoods, Wyly and

C.
E
0
Hammel (1999) do concede that the replacement of a traditional large public
u
housing project may permit otherwise existing market demand to prompt
.'"
0
~ investment in the area. And, as Byrne (2003: 429) asserts,
."=
~

'"
.S
The success of HOPE VI in a gentrifying neighborhood actually rep-
~ resents the first successful government program to integrate residen-
."=
~

tial neighbourhoods by income, a startling contrast to the patterns that

0
=
.:c;" have typified metropolitan development for 100 years .
=
= Gotham (2001: 437), however, disagrees; he argues,
'E
1i>
~
u -"-
>- [T]he redevelopment of public hOUSing is a form of "exclusive" develop-
0
~ :s.~
~ ~ ment that is designed to exclude the very poor from the revitalized spaces
'" :£
u
:E 0
and render them safe for resettlement by the wealthy and affluent.
'"c ~

:f '"
m
~
-.;E In fact. Wyly and Hammel (2001) note the now severe housing affordability
'"
.1.
~
'"
£
~
.<1
g.
~ problems in Capitol Hill, Washington, D.G, calling it 'one of the most intensely
OD
:§ ~
~
.E
m ~ gentrified neighbourhoods in the country' (p. 24). The Ellen Wilson Dwellings
'" = ..c public housing complex subjected to HOPE VI demolition was followed by
'" """
~
..; 0
m ~
~ gentrification in the form of 'a complete [mixed-income] redevelopment of
-;;; ~
0
5
c:: 0 the site with 153 townhouse units deSigned to resemble mews typical of the
~

'"
206 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 207

historic district of which the complex is part' (p. 240). Byrne (2003), however, conditions for renters. Interaction between owner-occupiers and renters
appears delighted at this development, rounding off his essay with this happy in "mixed" neighbourhoods seems to be limited. More importantly, it
tale of social mixing: can lead to social segregation and isolation. (p. 99)
On a recent Saturday, I attended a multi-family yard sale at the nearby Creating social mix, however. invariably involves the movement of the middle
Townhomes on Capitol Hill with my wife and teenage daughter. The class into working-class areas, not vice versa, working on the assumption that
member co-op that manages the project had organized the sale as a a SOcially mixed community will be a socially 'balanced' one, characterized by
'community day.' We strolled along the sidewalks chatting with the resi- positive interaction between the classes. Although gentrifiers are 'presumably
dents about how they enjoyed living there and examining their modest more amenable than the suburban middle class to having the poor as neigh-
wares. We bought a number of paperbacks, many of which were by black bors' (Freeman 2006: 206), there are very few examples of government support
authors. My daughter bought a remarkable pink suitcase, rather beat to allow the poor to move into affluent suburban communities: the widely-
up, which perfectly met her sense of cool. My wife, being who she is, discussed 'Moving to Opportunity' program in the United States, for example,
reorganized several residents' display of goods to show them off to bet- is not a hOUSing program but rather a tiny demonstration and research
ter effect, to the delight of the sellers. I bought and devoured a fried fish experiment involving about 5,000 families in five large metropolitan areas,
sandwich that Mrs. Jones was selling from her apartment. Such a modest each with populations of at least 1.5 million. The planning and policy opti-
event hardly makes news and certainly does not cancel the injustices of mism that surrounds social mixing, however, rarely translates into a happy
OUf metropolitan areas. No public officials attended nor made claims situation in gentrifying neighborhoods, not least in South Parkdale, Toronto,
for what it promised for the future. Yet it was a time of neighbourly where a deliberate policy of social mixing initiated in 1999 exacerbated home
intercourse, money circulation and mutual learning. If multiplied many owner NIMBYism (NIMBY stands for 'not in my backyard') and led to rent
times, it promises a better future for our communities. (p. 431) increases and tenant displacement (Slater 2004b). Uitermark, Duyvendak, and
Kleinhans (2007) argue that an influx of middle-class residents into a disad-
Lance Freeman (2006: 2) argues similarly that gentrifiers do bring benefits to
vantaged neighborhood does not increase social cohesion; rather, the contacts
indigenous residents, 'but in ways more limited than the poverty deconcen-
between low-income and higher-income households tend to be superficial at
tration thesis would suggest'. He is clear that income mixing is no guarantee
best and downright hostile at worst.
of upward mobility.
Gentrmcation disguised as 'social mix' serves as an excellent example of
In a study of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside (see also Chapter 7), Nick
how tbe rhetoric and reality of gentrification have been replaced by a different
Blomley (2004) has commented on just bow 'morally persuasive' the concept
discursive, theoretical, and policy language that consistently deflects criticism
of social mix can be in the face of addreSSing long-term disinvestment and
and resistance. In the United Kingdom, social mix (particularly tenure mix)
poverty:
has been at tbe forefront of "neighborhood renewal" and "urban regeneration"
Programs of renewal often seek to encourage home ownership, given policies for nearly a decade now. but with one or two well-known exceptions
its supposed effects on economic self-reliance, entrepreneurship. and (N. Smith 2002; Lees 2003a; Davidson and Lees 2005), there is still not much of a
community pride. Gentrmcation, on this account, is to be encour- critical literature that sniffs around for gentrification amidst the policy discourse.
aged, because it will mean the replacement of a marginal anticommu- In order to grasp the specifics of state-led gentrification, it is necessary for future
nity (nonproperty owning, transitory, and problematized) by an active, research to study the evolution and nature of the governance networks that pro-
responsible, and improving population of homeowners. (p. 89) mote urban restructuring/gentrification in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
But Blomley's work belps us to think more in terms of who has to mo~e on to Gentrificalioll as all EmalTcipatory Social Practice
make room for a social mix:
The notion of gentrification as a positive process is not, however. confined to
The problem with "social mix" bowever is that it promises equality in the policy arena. Pioneer gentrification (see Chapter 1) was associated with
the face of hierarchy. First, as often noted, it is socially one-sided. If the same appeals to diversity. difference, and social mixing found above in our
social mix is good, argue local activists, then why not make it possible discussions of gentrification as a 'pOSitive public policy tool' (see also Chapter
for the poor to live in rich neighbourhoods? ... Second, the empirical 5). Indeed, the birth of gentrification is synonymous with social mixing. In
evidence suggests that it often fails to improve the social and economic Barnsbury, Islington, London (as we saw in Chapter 1), pioneer gentrifiers were
208 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 209

part of a left-liberal new middle class who actively sought social mixing. They under the label 'emancipatory city thesis' in contrast to the 'revanchist city thesis'
were champions of the comprehensive school revolution of which Margaret which we will discuss in the next section. In many ways, the emancipatory city
Maiden's Islington Green was a prototype. As one Barnsbury gentrifier-Mary thesis and the revanchist city thesis reflect the dichotomy in the gentrification
Hall-said in a letter to the Times (Letters to the Editor' 1977), literature between demand- versus supply-side explanations (see Chapters 2
and 3), but they are not simply a mirror image of this.
Sir, the Socialists are determined that we should sit side by side to be
The emancipatory city thesis is implicit in much of the gentrification
educated and lie side by side when ill. Why on earth, then, should we
literature that focuses on the gentrifiers themselves and their forms ofagency-
not also live side by side?
for example, David Ley (1980, 1994, 1996) and Tim Butler (1997)-but it is in
And another, architect Ken Pring, said (also cited in Chapter 1), Canadian sociologist Jon Caulfield's (1989, 1994) work that the thesis is most
The present trend towards a rising proportion of the middle elasses in explicit. In his thesis, gentrification is seen to be a process which unites people
in the central city, and creates opportunities for social interaction, tolerance,
the population will continue. This will help create a better social balance
in the structure of the community, and the professional expertise of the and cultural diversity. Gentrificatian is seen to be a liberating experience for
articulate few will ultimately benefit the underprivileged population. both gentrifiers and those who come into contact with them. Caul field's (1994)
analysis of pioneer gentrification in Toronto, Canada, focuses on the inner
(Quoted in Pitt 1977: 1)
city as an emancipatory space and gentrification as a 'critical social practice',
Irving Alien (1984: 31-32) sums up and explains this desire for social and which he defines as 'efforts by human beings to resist institutionalised pat-
cultural diversity: terns of dominance and suppressed possibility' (p. xiii). For Caulfield, then,
Sociocultural diversity is a leitmotif in the new tastes for central city (pioneer) gentrification is a reaction to the repressive institutions of the sub-
housing and neighborhood. One of the great amenities of dense city urbs, and it is a process that creates tolerance (cf. the quotation by Irving Alien
living. it is said, is exposure to such social and cultural diversity as ethni- [1984: 31-32], above). By resettling old inner-city neighborhoods, Caulfield
city. A composite statement of the idea made up from many fragments argues that gentrifiers subvert the dominance of hegemonic culture and cre-
is as follows: A milieu of diversity represents a childrearing advantage ate new conditions for social activities, leading the way for the developers who
over "homogeneous suburbs", because children are exposed to social follow. For Caulfield, old city places offer 'difference' as seen in the diversity
"reality" and to the give and take of social and cultural accommodation of gentrifiers: '[G]ays may be lawyers or paperhangers, professors may live in
with those who are different. For adults the urban ambience of diversity shabby bungalows or upmarket townhomes, feminists mayor may not have
is a continual source of stimulation and renewal and a reminder of the children' (1989: 618). Lees (2000; see also Lees 2004), however, is critical of
cultural relativity of one's own style oflife. It is said to be a relief from the his thesis on the inner city as an emancipatory social space. She asks, 'What
subcultural sameness and "boredom" of many suburban communities. is it about old buildings in inner-city neighborhoods that makes people sup-
posedly tolerant?' 'Is there some kind of link between the new uses of these
Some early writers on gentrification, however, questioned whether the gentri- old inner-city buildings and social diversity?' Whereas Caulfield argues tllat
fying middle elasses and the preexisting low-income communities could live encounters between 'different' people in the city are enjoyable and inherently
side by side, and liberating, Lees finds other authors who argue differently. Young (1990), for
whether policy can promote population mixes of different socioeco- example, argues that the interaction between strangers is often disinterested,
nomic and racial groups while simultaneously enhancing the civil elass and Merry (1981) argues that far from being liberating, the anonymity of
domination of the neighbourhood. In the past new people and incum- urban life is often viewed as threatening. In fact, Zuldn (1995) has argued that
bents have often not mixed well when they were of different races or such anxieties about strangers have spurred the growth of private police forces
socioeconomic statuses. The normative integration that is a prerequisite and gated communities. In conclusion, Lees (2000: 393) argues,
for upgrading does not develop.... This probably becomes more serious The emancipatory inner city of Toronto thus appears as a rose-tinted
when racial mix is combined with socioeconomic mix. (Clay 1979: 70)
vision as much as a description of contemporary urban experience. The
In large measure a reflection of the ideologies associated with pioneer gentrifi- actual encounter with social difference and strangers, so often referred
cation, there is a significant body of writing on gentrification that frames it as to as a source of emancipation in the city by many authors. needs to be
a positive, 'emancipatory process'. Lees (2000) lumps these writings together evaluated in more depth.
210 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 211

She goes on to surmise that Caulfield's celebration of social diversity and free- In The New Middle Class al1d the Remakil1g of the Central City, Ley (1996)
dom ofpersonal expression in the inner city inadvertently privileges particular argues that Canadian pioneer gentrifiers saw inner-city neighborhoods to be
subject positions, cultural practices, and class fractions (see Pratt and Hanson sites of resistance: 'appositional spaces: SOcially diverse. welcoming difference,
[1994] on the importance of a geography of placement): tolerant, creative, valuing the old, the hand-crafted, the personalized, coun-
tering hierarchical lines of authority' (p. 210). While Ley is not unaware of
Although Caulfield is under no illusions about gentrifiers, his thesis
the realities of displacement, the Canadian inner city is represented as 'a
obscures the fact that anti-gentrification groups, often largely composed
place of sensuous encounter, to be experienced and possessed' (p. 208), where
of working class and/or ethnic minorities, do not always share the same
a 'remarkable pot-pourri of artistic, spiritual and social science fragments'
desires as gentrifiers. The dream of gentrifying tolerance and equality
(p. 182) collide in a 'feast of conviviality' which thrives on 'the sharpening of
has struggled to accommodate people who do not accept the idea that
the moment, the will-to-immediacy through sensation, tactile, visual, aural'
all values deserve equal protection. (p. 393)
(p. 338). This language does tend to have the unintended effect of embracing
This is particularly so in global cities like London and New York, where gen- gentrification, when more time could have been spent documenting how these
trifiers are rubbing shoulders with people from radically different cultural urban values and experiences are not shared by all residents.
backgrounds. As Jane Jacobs (1996) has argued with respect to the competing Tim Butler's (1997) research on gentrifiers in Haclmey, inner London, fol-
visions for the rehabilitation of SpitalfieIds in the East End of London, '[T]he lows a similar, ifless sensuous and spiritual, line of argument. He explains the
co-presence of Bengali settlers, home-making gentrifiers and megascale differences between the middle class in Haclmeyand elsewhere by their choice
developers activated an often conflictual politics of race and nation' (p. 72). of residence in a deprived inner London borough. He argues that Haclmey's
Lees (2000: 394) concludes, gentrifiers sought out people with similar cultural and political values, ones
attuned to what inner-city living had to offer, such as cultural infrastructure,
By abstractly celebrating formal equality under the law, the rhetoric of social and cultural diversity, and old, Victorian terraced houses. As his inter-
the emancipatory city tends to conceal the brutal inequalities of for- viewees said,
tune and economic circumstance that are produced through the pro-
cess of gentrification. There's a great social mix here, we've got an orthodox Jewish family
that side, an English family two doors down who have become great
In similar vein to Jon Caulfield, in their respective writings on gentrification mates. We've got a black family this side who we are very friendly with
David Ley (1996) and Tim Butler (1997) argue that one of the hallmarks of the and an Anglo-French family the other side up there, a New Zealander
'new' middle class is their ability to exploit the emancipatory potential of the over there and there's no tension at all in the street. ... I don't like to
inner city, and indeed to create a new, culturally sophisticated, urban class be set in an enclave of all middle class or all anything because I think
fraction, less conservative than the 'old' middle class (see Chapter 3). Gentri- that as soon as you get all anything the same frictions start, you get the
fication is deemed to be a spatial manifestation of these new cultural values. "one upmanships", the silly, petty "I have got to be better than the next
Ley (1980) argues that gentrification in Canadian cities was initiated by a mar- door". (p. 117)
ginal counterculture that sought inner-city spaces in an 'expressive ideology' I would hate to have a [modern] Georgian townhouse: I could never
against the dominant 1950s and 1960s 'instrumentalist ideology' (p. 242). As see myselfliving in that sort of thing because it was something that was
discussed in Chapter 3, in more recent work Ley (1994) demonstrated that the imposed upon me, there's something about [a north London terrace]
principal gentrifying districts in the three largest Canadian cities, Toronto, that was here before me. There's something about the way that it's laid
Montrea!, and Vancouver, had an electorate that predominantly siOed with out and the way it's built that I find empathetic. I don't find empathetic
more liberal, socially inclusive, reform politics. For Ley (1994: 59-60), such the imposition of a Barratt's "Georgian style" on me. Why can't they
reform politics exhibit just build something new that is deSigned, why are they harldng back?
(p. 128)
closer management of growth and development, improved public ser-
vices, notably hOUSing and transportation, more open government with But Butler (1997) points to some interesting contradictions. He argues that
various degrees of neighbourhood empowerment. and greater attention 'there appears to be an increasing tendency towards spatial segmentation
to such amenity issues as heritage, public open space, and cultural and within the middle class both occupationally and residentially' (p. 161). So
leisure facilities. despite the Hackney 'new' middle class' desire for diversity and difference,
212 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 213

they tend to self-segregate! Notions of diversity are more in the minds of women who have benefited from gentrification. In fact, the lives of worldng-
these gentrifiers than in their actions, reflecting one way in which they define class andlor ethnic minority women living in gentrifying neighborhoods
themselves as a specific class faction, and in particular as cosmopolitan is a massively underresearched area-only one study, that of Vicky Muniz
citizens (Butler and Robson 200lb). (1998) in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, on the lives ofpuerto Rican women resisting
As Lees (2000) points out, much of the literature on gender, sexuality, and gentrification and displacement, exists to address this issue. If research on gen-
gentrification can also be grouped under the emancipatory city thesis (see also der and gentrification is to advance, perhaps a key question to ask alongside
Ray and Rose 2000), for the central city is seen to be an emancipatory space for Bondi's (1999b) insistence that we research gender and the life course is 'Does
both women and gays, as Ley (1996: 208) points out: the gentrifying inner city act as an emancipatory space for all women?'
The remalting of gender and family relations has been one of the proj- Researchers have also noted the emancipatory qualities of the inner city for
ects facilitated by an inner-city location which encourages alternative the gay community. As Ley (1996: 208) argues,
and plural ways of living. The studied, often self-conscious, tolerance of these inner-city dis-
The inner city facilitates some negotiation of the model of the patriarchal tricts provides an enabling environment for the construction of
family among heterosexual households (see Chapter 3). The inner city allows homosexual identities.
more flexible family identities for middle-class women, as well as men. Ley continues by quoting a respondent in Jon Cauifield's (1994) study of Toronto:
Damaris Rose's (1984) concept of the 'marginal gentrifier' was very much
influenced by the changes in gender relations and social reproduction that Suburbs are sexually policed; that's what they're for-institutionalized
took place in the 1970s: heterosexuality.... [But in the inner city,] lesbian women can connect
up with organizations that represent their Idnd of life-style, and they
[S]ome of the changes which are usually subsumed within the concept can live as lesbians without feeling surveilled or threatened .... There's a
"gentrification" can bring into existing neighbourhoods intrusions of wider range of acceptable behaviours here. (p. 188)
alternative ways of liVing, which would never be tolerated if they were
not being introduced by "middle-class" and "professional" people in the Gay men are often seen to be pioneer gentrifiers, along with artists (see
first instance. (p. 68) Chapter 3). Gay gentrification is seen to be an emancipatory, critical social
practice, and the gay gentrified neighborhood is constructed by various
As we saw in Chapter 3, Rose (1984) argued that single professional women, authors to be an oasis of tolerance that satisfies the need for a sense of place
with or without children, and restricted by marginal positions in the labor and belonging (see Forest 1995; Knopp 1992, 1997; Lauria and Knopp 1985).
force, found the inner city to offer a range of useful support services and net- Anonymity in the city is useful, and city dwellers have come to expect a cer-
works. Also, following Ann Markusen (1981), she pointed out that women in tain amount of interaction with, and toleration of, 'alien' groups. Gay gentri-
dual-earner households may find inner-city areas more suitable for working fied neighborhoods are also seen to be spaces from which the gay community
out equitable divisions of domestic labor (Mills's 1989 research on the 'post- can combat oppression, develop economic and political clout, and gain access
patriarchal gentrifier household' found this to be true). We also looked at the to the state apparatus. This is the central theme of Manuel Castells's (1983)
work of Robert Beauregard (1986) on the consumption practices of gentrifi- work on gay gentrification in San Francisco, where the process is viewed in a
ers (often Single individual households and childless couples) being linked to positive light:
their decisions on biological reproduction, and the work of Briavel Holcomb
(1984) and Peter Williams (1986), who pointed to the inner city as a site of They have paid for their identity, and in doing so have most certainly
women's education, liberation, and expression. If we consider all this research gentrified their areas. They have also survived and learnt to live their
as a collective, there is no question that a central theme is how gentrification is real life. At the same time they have revived the colors of the painted
playing a positive, emancipatory role in the lives of middle-class women who fayades, repaired the shaken foundations of buildings, lit up the tempo
have phYSically and mentally rejected the oppressive, patriarchal conditions of the street and helped make the city beautiful and alive, all in an age
of suburbia. Yet while the brealdng down of any sexual apartheid separating that has been grim for most of urban America. (p. 161)
women from the rights and privileges enjoyed by men is encouraging, it says The fact that gays desire to live in socially and culturally diverse inner-city
a lot about the capitalist conditions under which gentrification thrives that it neighborhoods is important because, first, these are the types of neighbor-
is almost exclusively and selectively well-educated, professional, middle-class hoods that, as we saw earlier in the discussion of 'gentrification as a positive
212 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 213

they tend to self-segregatel Notions of diversity are more in the minds of women who have benefited from gentrification. In fact, the lives ofworldng-
these gentrifiers than in their actions, reflecting one way in which they define class andlor ethnic minority women living in gentrifying neighborhoods
themselves as a specific class faction, and in particular as cosmopolitan is a maSSively underresearched area-only one study, that of Vicky Muniz
citizens (Butler and Robson 200lb). (1998) in Sunset Park, Brooldyn, on the lives of Puerto Rican women resisting
As Lees (2000) points out, much of the literature on gender, sexuality, and gentrification and displacement. exists to address this issue. If research on gen-
gentrification can also be grouped under the emancipatory city thesis (see also der and gentrification is to advance, perhaps a key question to ask alongside
Ray and Rose 2000), for the central city is seen to be an emancipatory space for Bondi's (1999b) insistence that we research gender and the life course is 'Does
both women and gays, as Ley (1996: 208) points out: the gentrifying inner city act as an emancipatory space for all women?'
The remaking of gender and family relations has been one of the proj- Researchers have also noted the emancipatory qualities of the inner city for
ects facilitated by an inner-city location which encourages alternative the gay community. As Ley (1996: 208) argues,
and plural ways of living. The studied, often self-conscious, tolerance of these inner-city dis-
The inner city facilitates some negotiation of the model of the patriarchal tricts provides an enabling environment for the construction of
family among heterosexual households (see Chapter 3). The inner city allows homosexual identities.
more flexible family identities for middle-class women, as well as men. Ley continues by quoting a respondent in Jon Caulfield's (1994) study of Toronto:
Damaris Rose's (1984) concept of the 'marginal gentrifier' was very much
influenced by the changes in gender relations and social reproduction that Suburbs are sexually policed; that's what they're for-institutionalized
took place in the 1970s: heterosexuality.... [But in the inner city,llesbian women can connect
up with organizations that represent their kind of life-style, and they
[Slome of the changes which are usually subsumed within the concept can live as lesbians without feeling surveilled or threatened .... There's a
"gentrification" can bring into existing neighbourhoods intrusions of wider range of acceptable behaviours here. (p. 188)
alternative ways of living, which would never be tolerated if they were
not being introduced by "middle-class" and "profeSSional" people in the Gay men are often seen to be pioneer gentrifiers, along with artists (see
first instance. (p. 68) Chapter 3). Gay gentrification is seen to be an emancipatory, critical social
practice, and the gay gentrified neighborhood is constructed by various
As we saw in Chapter 3, Rose (1984) argued that single professional women, authors to be an oasis of tolerance that satisfies the need for a sense of place
with or without children, and restricted by marginal positions in the labor and belonging (see Forest 1995; Knopp 1992, 1997; Lauria and Knopp 1985).
force, found the inner city to offer a range of useful support services and net- Anonymity in the city is useful, and city dwellers have come to expect a cer-
works. Also, following Ann Markusen (1981), she pointed out that women in tain amount of interaction with, and toleration of, 'alien' groups. Gay gentri-
dual-earner households may find inner-city areas more suitable for worldng fied neighborhoods are also seen to be spaces from which the gay community
out equitable divisions of domestic labor (Mills's 1989 research on the 'post- can combat oppression, develop economic and political clout, and gain aCcess
patriarchal gentrifier household' found this to be true). We also looked at the to the state apparatus. This is the central theme of Manuel Castells's (1983)
work of Robert Beauregard (1986) on the consumption practices of gentrifi- work on gay gentrification in San Francisco, where the process is viewed in a
ers (often single individual households and childless couples) being linked to positive light:
their decisions on biological reproduction, and the work of Briavel Holcomb
(1984) and Peter Williams (1986), who pointed to the inner city as ~ site of They have paid for their identity, and in doing so have most certainly
women's education, liberation. and expression. If we consider all this research gentrified their areas. They have also survived and learnt to live their
as a collective, there is no question that a central theme is how gentrification is real life. At the same time they have revived the colors of the painted
playing a positive, emancipatory role in the lives of middle-class women who fa,ades, repaired the shaken foundations of buildings, lit up the tempo
have physically and mentally rejected the oppressive, patriarchal conditions of the street and helped make the city beautiful and alive, all in an age
of suburbia. Yet while the breaking down of any sexual apartheid separating that has been grim for most of urban America. (p. 161)
women from the rights and privileges enjoyed by men is encouraging, it says The fact that gays desire to live in SOcially and culturally diverse inner-city
a lot about the capitalist conditions under which gentrification thrives that it neighborhoods is important because, first, these are the types of neighbor-
is almost exclUSively and selectively well-educated, profeSSional, middle-class hoods that, as we saw earlier in the discussion of 'gentrification as a positive
214 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 215

Plate 6.4 Child on His Bike in a Gentrifying Lane in Broolllyn Heights, New York City, 2001 analyst John Betancur (2002), who, in a study of gentrification in West Town,
Chicago, argues that gentrification is really a struggle between community
and accumulation. a struggle for which we must assume responsibility:
There is an aspect of gentrification that mainstream definitions ignore.
Descriptions of gentrification as a market process allocating land to
its best and most profitable use, or a process of replacing a lower for a
higher income group, do not address the highly destructive processes of
class, race, ethnicity, and alienation involved in gentrification .... [T]he
right to community is a function of a group's economic and political
power.... [T]he hidden hand is not so hidden in the process of gentrifi-
cation and ... in fact, it has a face-a set of forces manipulating factors
such as class and race to determine a market outcome .... The most trau-
matic aspect ... is perhaps the destruction of the elaborate and com-
plex community fabric that is crucial for low-income, immigrant. and
minority communities-without any compensation. (p. 807)
Betancur's analysis of the racial injustice of gentrification is especially helpful
to Powell and Spencer (2003), who reject the claims ofByrne that the process
is good for poor and ethnic minorities, and instead argue that any definition
This child is on his bike riding past both derelict and multimillion-dollar properties in this lane of
carriage houses (called 'mews houses' in the United Kingdom) in Brooklyn Heights. He is the child
'must take whiteness and white privilege into account. ... [B]eing white con-
of a gentrifying family. What must it be like for this child to grow up in this physical and social tributes to and draws benefits from the privileges and entitlements associated
environment? with the "white face" of gentrification' (p. 439). For Betancur, gentrification
Source: Photograph by Loretta Lees. is not about social mix, emancipation, creativity, and tolerance; it is about
arson, abandonment, displacement, 'speculation and abuse', ethnic minority
public policy tool', policy makers are promoting; and, second, Richard tenant hardships, and class conflict, all of which are woven into a mournful
Florida (2003) has pointed to the gay community as an instigator of economic account of struggle, loss, and, above all, 'the bitterness of the process and
growth and a measure, through the gay index, of a city's creativity (see Chap- the open hostilityiracism of gentrifiers and their organizations toward Puerto
ters 3 and 5). Ricans' (p. 802):
Interestingly, there has been little to no work done to date on gentrification
and age (for an exception, see D. Smith and Halt 2007), and no doubt age would Much of West Town is now gentrified. Even entrenched minority, low-
affect one's ideological stance towards living in the inner city. Is the inner city income clusters have seen gentrification push through their borders.
an emancipatory space for children (see Plate 6.4) or the elderly, for example? Churches, service organizations, schools and institutions have been
Only recently have policy makers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere real- affected by it. TI,eir numbers have dwindled or their constituencies
ized that they cannot continue to just attract young, middle-class people into changed. Many small churches have closed; public school enrolment has
central cities; they also need to attract families and the elderly to create sustain- decreased in the most gentrified sections, and higher income children
able communities (see also Karsten [2003] on the Netherlands). Furthermore, are taldng over local private schools. (p. 792)
on the issue of young people, despite a rhetoric of 'diversity' that seeks a mix Betancur's assault on the process rises to a crescendo near the end of his paper,
of age groups, children and youth are often seen to be 'undesirable', as Lees's where the current situation is a depressing state of affairs:
(2003d) research into planning for diversity in Portland, Maine, reveals.
The ethnic enclaves that managed to hold on through the years are also
A Negative Neighborhood Process? falling prey to gentrification-especially as their now senior popula-
In contrast to Byrne (2003), who they see as defending the market, in their tion dies. As gentrification advances, the community continues resist-
reply to him Powell and Spencer (2003) argue that gentrification is a nega- ing the ever-stronger blows coming from the forces of gentrification.
tive neighborhood process. They begin by citing University of Chicago policy (p.805)
216 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 217

Powell and Spencer (2003) also argue that this is not a 'natural' process-the 2003) in London engaged in little social mixing with local low-income groups.
state also fuels gentrification through 'inaction' and 'court sanction'; for Social interaction by gentrifiers was greatest in areas where other groups had
example, been largely pushed aside, and where they had not, gentrification tended to
under a short lived Seattle ordinance, any landlord in the city who result in 'tectonic' juxtapositions of polarized socioeconomic groups rather
demolished low-income housing was required to replace the same flUm..; than in socially cohesive communities, With their focus on middle-class
ber or contribute to the State Housing Trust Fund; but the ordinance reproduction, Butler and Robson did not consider the experiences of non-
was struck down by the state supreme court in 1992. And most recently gentrifiers; nevertheless their findings raise important questions about the
in HUD v. Rucker [2002], the Supreme Court ruled that local housing role of gentrification in fostering an inclusive urban 'renaissance',
authorities could evict tenants of public housing when household mem- It is worth remembering that the term 'gentrification' was coined by Ruth
bers or guests were in violation of anti-drug policies, even if the tenant Glass with critical intent, intended to capture the disturbing effects of the
was unaware of drug activity. middle classes arriving in working-class neighborhoods, and was researched
Moreover, since there are fewer easily gentrified neighbourhoods left, in that critical spirit for many years. One negative effect in particular, the dis-
the state directly assists in gentrification by removing barriers to rede- placement of the worldng class andlor ethnic minorities, was (and still is) of
velopment in mixed-use land parcels, remote locations, and public hous- serious concern, as Powell and Spencer (2003) show in Chicago:
ing projects. These state-sanctioned shifts now expose "a broad swath of
[W]e note that reversals in racial compositions of gentrifying neighbor-
the inner city to gentrification pressures in new and troubling ways",
hoods in Chicago between 1980 and 1990 show white residents are gaIn-
(pp. 450-451)
ing, while black residents are losing. The Near West Side's black-white
For so many scholars, gentrification is not, as one might be encouraged to ratio, for example, fell from 6:1 to 3:1; the number of childless young
think from reading so many positive media reports and the work of Byrne, professionals increased; the proportion of residents under age twenty-
the savior of our cities. Abu-Lughod's richly detailed (1994) narrative of five declined; and the higher average levels of education increased.
the East Village in New York is a case in point. Bringing together several While crime rates have declined Significantly and the number of retail
essays on the neighborhood in an edited collection, her somber conclusions establishments grown, the residents of color are being pushed out. Who
lament the difficulty of resistance, the destruction of community, and the will be left to enjoy these opportunities as gentrifying forces proceed?
loss of place under the revengeful gentrification that occurred there in the (pp. 432-433)
1980s:
Let us take a closer look at displacement and some recent work on this major
Not every defense of a neighborhood succeeds and, we must admit, not
issue in gentrification research.
every successful defense succeeds in all ways .... [I]f the attacks against
it are too powerful, the community can eventually lose its vitality and Displacement
verve .... [I]t is also easier for government to destroy community than
to nurture this intangible element of the human spirit. To some extent, Displacement from home and neighborhood can be a shattering expe-
rience. At worst it leads to homelessness, at best it impairs a sense of
while the developers and most particularly, the long arm of the law of
the City of New York that aided and abetted them, failed to convert this community. Public policy should, by general agreement, minimize dis-
portion of an old quarter into a paradise for yuppies, they succeeded, placement. Yet a variety of public policies, particularly those concerned
at least for the time being, in killing much of the precious spirit bf the with gentrification, seem to foster it. Marcuse (1985a: 931)
neighborhood. The funeral pall that in 1991 hung over the community
is the legacy of their efforts. (Abu-Lughod 1994: 340) There are long-standing claims that gentrification leads to displacement, as
working-class and minority residents are steadily priced out of gentrified
Associated skepticism about the voyeuristic and appropriative relationship of areas (e.g., LeGates and Hartman 1986; Marcuse 1986; N. Smith 1996a; Wyly
gentrification to social difference by authors such as jon May (1996) and Andy and Hammel2004). Many of the articles in early collections on gentrification
Merrifield (2000) has been given new impetus by recent empirical research such as Laska and Spain (1980), Schill and Nathan (1983), Palen and London
into the social interactions of actual gentrifiers. The middle-class gentrifiers (1984), and N. Smith and Williams (1986) were concerned with displacement,
interviewed by Tim Butler and Garry Robson (2001a; Butler with Robson and, indeed, much greater attention was paid to the effects of gentrification
218 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 219

on the working class than to the characteristics of the new middle class who The lack of attention to displacement in the 1990s, however, has recently
were moving in. Although there was no real agreement on the severity and changed-dramatically-with the work of Lance Freeman and Frank Braconi
extent of the problem (Sumka 1979), displacement was undoubtedly a major (2002, 2004), whose work we mentioned briefly earlier in this chapter. These
theme. Even scholars associated with a less critical take on the process were scholars have been seen by the media and, worryingly, policy maleers as put-
concerned about displacement: ting forward the 'definitive verdict' on gentrification and displacement (see
Newman and Wyly 2006: 29)-the verdict being that displacement is negli-
The magnitude of dislocation is unknown ... though the scale of renova-
gible and gentrification therefore isn't so bad after all. Their work has been
tion, demolition, deconversion. and condominium conversion noted ...
summarized at length elsewhere (Newman and Wyly 2006), but briefly, Free-
implies that tens of thousands of households have been involuntarily
man and Braconi (2002) examined the triennial New York City Housing and
displaced through various forms of gentrification over the past twenty-
Vacancy Survey (which contains questions pertaining to demographic char-
five years in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa alone. (Ley
acteristics, employment, housing conditions, and mobility), and found that
1996: 70)
between 1996 and 1999, lower-income and lesser-educated households were
Displacement is, however, extremely difficult to quantify. Atltinson (2000) has 19 percent less likely to move in the seven gentrlfying neighborhoods studied
called measuring displacement 'measuring the invisible', whereas Newman than those elsewhere, and concluded that displacement was therefore limited.
and Wyly (2006) sum up the quantification problem as follows: They suggested that such households stay put because they appreciate the
public service improvements taking place in these neighborhoods and thus
In short, it is difficult to find people who have been displaced, particu-
find ways to remain in their homes even in the face of higher rent burdens.
larly if those people are poor.... By definition, displaced residents have
This was the main reason that USA Today, on April 20, 2005, decided to
disappeared from the very places where researchers and census-takers
feature their work with the headline 'Gentrification: A Boost for Everyone'
go to look for them. (p. 27)
(see Plate 6.5).
In the 1990s, especially, these significant barriers to undertaking quantita- More recently, however, Freeman has backpedaled somewhat and writ-
tive or indeed other research on displacement steered researchers away from ten this:
displacement altogether. In the neoliberal context of public policy being
The chief drawback [of gentrificationj has been the inflation of hous-
constructed on a 'reliable' (Le., quantitative) evidence base, no numbers on
ing prices on gentrifying neighbourhoods .... Households that would
displacement meant no policy to address it. It was almost as if displacement
have formerly been able to find housing in gentrifying neighbourhoods
didn't exist. This is in fact the conclusion of Chris Hamnett (2003b) in his
must now search elsewhere .... Moreover, although displacement may
paper on London's rampant gentrification from 1961 to 2001; in the absence
be relatively rare in gentrifying neighbourhoods, it is perhaps such a
of data on the displaced, he reasserts his thesis that London's labor force has
traumatic experience to nonetheless engender widespread concern.
'professionalized ':
(Freeman 2005: 488)
The transformation which has taleen place in the occupational class
On the point of shrinldng the pool of Iow-rent housing, it is important to
structure of London has been associated with the gradual replacement
return to Peter Marcuse's identification of texclusionary displacement' under
of one class by another, rather than large-scale direct displacement.
gentrification, referring to households unable to access property because it has
(p.2454)
been gentrified:
But when reading these words, we must wonder whether it is precisely a sign
When one household vacates a unit voluntarily and that unit is then
of the astonishing scale of gentrification and displacement in London that
gentrified ... so that another similar household is prevented from mov-
there isn't much of a working class left in the occupational class structure of
ing in, the number of units available to the second household in that
that inner city! Hamnett's conclusion also sits uneasily with work by Michal
housing market is reduced. The second household, therefore, is excluded
Lyons (1996) and Rowland Atkinson (2000), who both used the longitudinal
from living where it would otherwise have lived. (Marcuse 1985b: 206)
survey and found evidence suggesting gentrification-induced displacement
in London. Davidson and Lees (2005) also found evidence of gentrification- As Marcuse (2005) has recently pointed out, the Freeman and Braconi work
induced displacement in riverside wards along the Thames that had experi- only touches on this crucial question: are people not moving not because they
enced new-build gentrification (see Chapter 4). like the gentrification around them, but rather because there are no feasible
 220 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 221

, ~
~
~ :§ alternatives available to them in a tight/tightening housing market (i.e., that
0; ~

ill
u so much of the city has gentrified that people are trapped)? This is the carefully
;; E
0
""~ considered conclusion of a paper on the gentrification of Brussels by Mathieu
~
~
~
;; = ""
~
van Criekingen:
=
'i3 1i
~
[Elvidence highlighted in Brussels strongly suggests that poorly-resourced
.a .l'l
~-
~
households are less likely to move away from marginal gentrifying dis-
;;;-0

==
~
~

~
tricts because they are "trapped" in the lowest segment of the private
~
;;
~
rental housing market, with very few alternatives outside deprived
""
~

= "§
~

0
0 ~
neighbourhoods. even in those areas experiencing marginal gentrifica-
= "" c
tion. (van Criekingen 2006: 30)
=" ~

=
..,"" =
~

~ The traumatic experiences of displacement (see Chapter 1 on winkling and

~ ~

",,0
~~
Rachmanism in Barnsbury) have been documented recently in New York City
';;;;" 1ij
by Curran (2004), Slater (2004a), and particularly Newman and Wyly (2006),
:s .E
~
~
~
~ who as well as conducting interviews with displaced tenants, used the same
t:lO.:::
~
"" data set as Freeman and Braconi to demonstrate that displacement is not 'rela-
;; ~
~
.0;
~
=
~
tively rare' but occurs at a significantly higher rate than Freeman and Braconi
>
0 :§
~
imply. This points to the absolute necessity of mixing methods in the study of
E u
0"" displacement:
~~
= ~!o The difficulties of directly quantifying the amount of displacement and
'"
~
~
~
~
~
~
0

""E 'c..aE
replacement and other "noise" in the data are hard to overcome. It may
be that further research at a finer spatial scale using a more qualitative
'"
~
~ u

=" 'E~
:§
~
~ u approach could usefully supplement this work. (Atldnson 2000: 163)
u c
E =ill :g On reviewing the evidence from a survey of the gentrification literature,
~
~ 0
=
= 0 cl
.~
Atkinson (2004) found that, whether displacement is involved or not, gentrifi-
'" = '"r-~

'=="' "" .,,; 'e

ro
u
~
cation was viewed overwhelmingly as a 'negative neighbourhood process' (see
="-=].le .: '"
N
N
~
~ Box 6.1). Unfortunately, the policy makers and local governments discussed
=
=
~
~

~ :§ -5 in the previous section who are promoting gentrification as a public policy

~
~
E ~ .~
tool have not read or listened to this critical gentrification literature (cf. Lees
."
-~
0
u ""= '§= ""."§
~
ro
~
o§
ro
ro
~
2003a). Atldnson and Bridge (2005) sum this up well:
E ~
~ 'i3
~

'"
= E
~
~ E fr At the neighbourhood level itself poor and vulnerable residents often
~
~
0
u
" 1213 cri ~

"
~
~ ';I ~
experience gentrification as a process of colonisation by the more privi-
ro ~ E 0
E ro 0 leged classes. Stories of personal hOUSing dislocation and loss, distended
-ro" "'5..1:3
~

~
~

E
0 u
~ = '"ci
~
social networks, "improved" local services out of sync with local needs
13 = ~ ~ 'C'"
~

and displacement have always been the underbelly of a process, which,

~

"" == ;;~'" ~
~ ~ ro
E
.E = ~ for city boosters, has represented something of a saviour for postindus-
." === ii-
~
>
0
~
~
'-' 0
~
." trial cities. (p. 2)
~
~
u

'" " .le

E
'i3
~

'"=od =
~
ro
~
~
0
u
=
~
-<:
= 'E=> r:JM
~
ro
'" One renowned scholar has taken this further and argued that gentrification
is a process of revenge against poor populations seen to have 'stolen' urban
ro
oS E
~
Er ;; ~~ neighborhoods from the middle classes. This has proved to be a very influen-
~

.l'! = .0;
~
;;::: c tial thesis, to which we now turn.
" '"
222 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 223

V,e RevGnchist City the Franco-Prussian War, and especially the socialist uprising of the Paris
Previously accepted notions of social justice and an explicit concern Commune, where Paris' working classes took over from the defeated govern-
with injustice. so central to the progressive urban ambitions of the ment of Napoleon III and controlled the city for months. The revanchists,
1960s and 1970s, have been flushed away with the remains ofliberalism. led by poet-turned-soldier Paul Deroulede and the Ligue des Patriotes, were
In the same period, the narrowest visions derived from Marxism have determined to reinstate the bourgeois order with a strategy that 'mixed mili-
also proven bankrupt. The new urbanism results from the political and tarism and moralism with claims about public order on the streets as they
cultural rush to fill this vacuum. Neil Smith (1996c: 117) flailed around for enemies' (N. Smith 1999: 185). This was a right-wing move-
ment intent on taking revenge (revallehe) on all those who had 'stolen' their
In June 1989, Bruce Bailey, a longtime low-income tenant organizer in
vision of France from them.
Manhattan, was found murdered and dismembered in several garbage bags in Smith identified a strilong Similarity between the revanchism of late
the Bronx. Bailey was especially feared by rapacious landlords oflarge apart- nineteenth-century France and the political climate of New York City which
ment buildings in the city's poorer neighborhoods, and whilst police sus-
emerged in the early 1990s from the disintegration and vilification of liberal
pected landlords of his murder, no one was ever formally charged. In 1995, it
urban policy. Whereas the liberal era of the post-1960s period was character-
transpired that two brothers with Mafia connections, Jack and Mario Ferranti,
ized by redistributive policy, affirmative action, and antipoverty legislation,
who regularly intimidated and terrorized tenants (with the use oflarge dogs
the era of neoliberal revanchism (see Chapter 5 on neoliberalism), which
and occaSionally guns) in the numerous bulldings that they owned, and who
arrived in the early 1990s, was characterized by a public discourse of
were serving long sentences for arson and attempted murder, were implicated
in the crime. Bailey was murdered simply because he was involved in orga- [r]evenge against minorities, the worldng class, women, environmen-
nizing tenants-something he was very good at-in four of Jack Ferranti's tallegislation, gays and lesbians, immigrants ... [alttacks on affirmative
buildings. According to prosecutors, Bailey's actions contravened an alleged action and immigration policy, street violence against gays and home-
'understanding' between Jack Ferranti and Bailey-cemented by bribery- less people, feminist bashing and public campaigns against political
that Bailey would not organize Ferranti's buildings. Jack Ferranti ordered correctness and multiculturalism. (N. Smith 1996a: 44-45)
his brother to terrorize and kill Bailey, and Mario Ferranti allegedly claimed
Smith argues that this was all 'a reaction against the supposed "theft" of the
credit for mutilating the corpse.
city, a desperate defense of a challenged phalanx of privileges, cloaked in the
What does this crime have to do with the gentrification of New York City
populist language of civic morality, family values and neighbourhood secu-
in the 1990s? Everything, according to Neil Smith, who in the 1990s, clearly
rity' (1996a: 211). Just as the bourgeois order was perceived as under threat
disturbed by what he had seen on the streets of that city since the end of the
by the revanchists of 1890s France, in 1990s New York, Smith explained that
1980s, switched his attention from explaining the causes of gentrification to
'white middle-class assumptions about civil society retrench as a narrow set of
accounting for the violence of the process. Rounding off the opening chapter
social norms against which everyone else is found dangerously wanting' (p.
of TIle New Urball Frolltier, which concentrates on the battle for Tampions
230). A particular, exclusionary vision of 'civil society' was being reinstated
Square Park in the Lower East Side, Smith saw the Bailey murder as indicative
with a vengeance, and Smith introduced us to this contemporary revanchism
of what was happening to the city where he lived and worked. His argument,
and its geography of exclusion.
in short, was that right-wing middle- and ruling-class whites were seeking
Two important factors fueled the fire of revanchism; first was the rapid
revenge against people who they perceived had 'stolen' the city from them,
collapse of 1980s optimism into the bleak prospects of the early 1990s reces-
and gentrification had become an integral part of this strategy of revenge. Bai-
sion (see Chapter 5 between second- and third-wave gentrification), which
ley was organizing and advocating for low-income tenants, one of th~ groups
triggered unprecedented anger amongst the white middle classes. Smith dem-
seen to have stolen the city, and for Smith, his murder was just one of many
onstrates that such anger needed a target on which to exercise revenge, and
incidents through which we could detect the emergence of what he called 'the
the easiest target was the subordinated, marginalized populations of the inner
revanchist city'.
city. The following sentence explains,
This troublesome word has its roots in late nineteenth-century France-
revanchists (from the French word revanche, meaning revenge) were a group More than anything the revanchist city expresses a race/class/gender ter-
of bourgeois nationalist reactionaries opposed to the liberalism of the Second ror felt by middle- and ruling-class whites who are suddenly stuck in place
Republic, the decadence of the monarchy, the defeat by Otto van Bismarck in by a ravaged property market, the threat and reality of unemployment,
224 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 225

the decimation of social services, and the emergence of minority and Plate 6.6 'Class War' and 'Rich Pigs Go Away' Graffiti, lower East Side, 1988
immigrant groups, as well as women, as powerful urban actors. (p. 211)
Second, Smith states that revanchism is 'screamingly reaffirmed' by symbolic
representations of urban malaise in television and the media in 'an obses-
sive portrayal of the violence and danger of everyday life' in the city (p. 211).
Such is the influence of these anti-urban (re)productions of paranoia and fear
that they have amplified and aggravated the paranoia and fear among large
swathes of middle-class urban and suburban voters seeking scapegoats for
their unease in public spaces and city streets. It came as no surprise to many
that, in 1993, Rudolph Giuliani was elected mayor on the promise to offer a
better 'quality oflife' for 'conventional members of SOciety'. As Smith pointed
out in later works (N. Smith 1998, 1999, 2001), neoliberal revanchism in the
1990s under Mayor Giuliani waS consolidated by blaming the failures of
earlier liberal policy on the disadvantag~d populations such policy was sup-
posed to assist:
Rather than indict capitalists for capital flight, landlords for abandoned
buildings, or public leaders for a narrow retrenchment to class and race
self-interest in the assertion of budget priorities, Giuliani led the clamor
for a different kind of revenge. He identified homeless people, panhan- During the summer of 1988, such graffiti was rife in the lower East Side, especially around the
hotspots ofTompkins Square Park into Alphabet City.
dlefs, prostitutes, squeegee cleaners, squatters, graffiti artists, "reckless
Source: Photograph by Loretta Lees.
bicyclists", and unruly youth as the major enemies of "public order and
public decency", the culprits of urban decline for generating Widespread
is part of a plan by the collective owners of capital to retake the neighborhood
fear. (Smith 2001: 73)
from those they feel have stolen it:
A particularly mean-spirited and repressive attitude towards these 'culprits',
The poor and working-class are all too easily defined as "uncivil", on the
as exemplified by the well-publicized 'zero-tolerance' policies (see Fyfe 2004)
wrong side of a heroic dividing line, as savages and communists. The
of Giuliani's police force, has been playing out in particularly racist and clas-
substance and consequence of the frontier imagery is to tame the wild
sist ways in New York City. As the city's economy recovered in the 1990s, the
city, to socialize a wholly new and therefore challenging set of processes
crime rate dropped, and public spaces such as Times Square (see Reich11999)
into safe ideological focus. As such, the frontier ideology justifies mon-
and Bryant Park were privatized and commodified, New York City became
strous incivility in the heart of the city. (1996a: 17-18)
a major tourist destination, an arena for lavish middle-class consumption-
yet the people who had to be swept away andlor incarcerated to allow this to Smith's point is that the Lower East Side was sold to the white middle classes as
happen were sidelined by the fanfare of success attributed to a charismatic a place devoid of history and geography, a wild, dangerous place lost to a horde
mayor. of undesirables, and now awaiting an advancing frontier of ,brave' urban pio-
Where does all this fit in with the gentrification of New York City? In an neers to save it from 'decay' and make it 'livable' again. The gentrification of
angry and gripping analysis of the gentrification of the Lower East Side, and that neighborhood did not happen without a fight, (see Abu-Lughod 1994),
particularly the conflict over Tompkins Square Park (see Plate 6.6), Neil Smith but the political drive to turn it into a bourgeois playground is, for Smith, a
urges his readers to consider gentrification as a spatial expression of revan- consummate expression of the shift from a liberal urbanism to a revanchist
chist anti-urbanism. He peels back the rhetorical gloss of urban 'pioneering' anti-urbanism: 'The rallying cry of the revanchist city might well be: "Who
(omnipresent in media representations) and dispels the mythology of the lost the city? And on whom is revenge to be exacted?'" (N. Smith 1996a: 227).
urban 'frontier' constructed by both the real estate and the art industries to One of the more troubling aspects of revanchism for Smith is the fact
make the argument that the middle-class movement into the Lower East Side that it knows no party lines, and in fact began in New York City under the
226 • Gentrification

supposedly liberal mayoral administration of David Dinldns (the more

conservative administration of Rudy Giuliani that followed simply pushed
extant revanchism into overdrive). As Don Mitchell (2003) has pointed out,
Dinkins's particularly tough stance on homeless encampments in Tompkins
Square Park was mirrored by liberal mayors in other cities such as Paul SchelI
in Seattle and Willie Brown in San Francisco. The failure of 1960s-style liberal
urban policy led to the far-from-liberal erosion of compassion and tolerance.
MitchelI explains this as follows:

[WJhat is at work is the implementation, at the urban scale, of a regula-

tory regime-and its ideological justification-appropriate to the glo-
balizing neoliberal political economy that developed out of the global
recessions of the 1970s, the debt crisis of the early 1980s, the economic
crises of the late 1980s (and 1990s, for Asia), and the implosion of the
Soviet Union and its satellites .... \ "Revanchism" describes an urban lot >t >t >t .. >t >t >t >t

regime that cuts across mainstream party lines and has even taken on
the cast of common sense. (p. 164)

MitchelI (1997) has researched the municipal laws against begging,

panhandling, and sleeping or urinating on sidewalks and in other public
spaces, linking contemporary homelessness with the material and rhetorical
imperatives of globalization. He has argued that many of the laws and police >t .. .. >t H
practices affecting the homeless are increasingly used to cleanse the public
spaces used by tourists, the middle class, and wealthy residents and visitors.
As cities aggressively compete to make themselves attractive places to live in
and for investors, they are more willing to impose harsh penalties on those
people Seen as undesirable by wealthy visitors, tourists, shoppers. commuters,
and investors. Municipal ordinances are mobilized to criminalize behavior
that is offensive or unpleasant to the resident and visiting middle classes. Wyly
and Hammel (2005) have attempted to classify cities according to the injus-
tices imposed on the poor and the homeless, looking for connections between
the treatment of the homeless and the creation of new landscapes of wealth
and privilege in the gentrifying inner city. We have updated this 'revan-
chist urban hierarchy' and tallied it with Richard Florida's creativity index
(see Figure 6.1).
Note in particular how San Francisco and Seattle, two of the cities with the
<meanest' policies towards the homeless and marginal populations. 'come sec-
ond and third, respectively, on Richard Florida's creativity index. This raises
the crucial issue of the disturbing ordinances deployed to make way for the
influx of his 'creative class'. As Tickell and Peck (2003) have shown, when
1980s 'roll-back' neoliberalism collapsed, what came in its place in the 1990s
was not a new ideology but a new 'roll-out' stage of neoliberalism, with the
same free market imperatives but now with far greater emphasis on regulating
228 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 229

and punishing those suddenly scapegoated for earlier economic and social of the state from many tasks of social reproduction. Revanchism is in
failures: every respect the ugly cultural politics of neoliberal globalization. At
different scales it represents a response spearheaded from the stand-
The contemporary neoliberal state is a facilitative, market-manage_
point of white and middle-dass interests against those people who, they
rial presence in matters of capital regulation, but adopts an ever more
feel, stole their world (and their power) from them. (p. 10)
aggressive, invasive, and neopaternalist attitude towards the regulation
of the poor. (Tickell and Peck 2003: 178) It is worth recognizing that there is a significant literature on zero-tolerance
Mitchell's point about 'common sense' is crucial in this regard, for what We policing, 'broken windows' criminology, and the rise and fall of the crime rate
have seen in a number of cities (more especially in the United States) since in New York City (for a good overview, see Bowling 1999; see also Fyfe 2004,
the early 1990s recession is a discourse of competitive progress and rapid who explores the tensions and anxieties around the interplay of deviance, dif-
economic recovery that ostracizes people who cannot take greater 'personal ference, and crime control), but covering this literature is beyond the focus
responsibility' for their own well-being. Welfare payments are practically of this book. Our purpose here has been to explain how gentrification was
consigned to history; the unemployed have become 'job seekers' regardless of viewed by Smith as one of the ways in which Giuliani attempted to 'recapture'
skills, education, or training; poverty is often attributed to feddessness and the streets of the city from those who he saw as the enemy within (see also
deviance; and if the market cannot take care of 'troublesome' groups, then the N. Smith and DeFilippis 1999; Papayanis 2000).
penal system will:
The Geography ojRel'anchisl1l
Reduced welfare expenditures are not indicative of a shift towards Visiting Malmo, Neil Smith asked me to show him the battlefields of
reduced government intervention in social life ... but rather a shift gentrification. At the time, I was at a loss to explain that there were
toward a more exdusionary and punitive approach to the regulation of processes of gentrification in Malmo, but no battlefields. Conflicting
social marginality. (Beckett and Western 2001: 47) interests, displacement, personal tragedies, yes, but not the desperation
Many commentators have lamented the fact that the much lauded welfare behind battlefields. Clark (2005: 263)
'safety net' of the Keynesian welfare state, designed to protect vulnerable Smith's revanchist city thesis has proved to be one of the more influential and
citizens during times of economic insecurity, has been removed by a neo- powerful in urban studies in recent years. Just as he did with his rent gap the-
liberal 'postwelfare' ethos that attributes economic insecurity to those same sis in 1979, Smith introduced something completely new and exciting to the
vulnerable citizens. Furthermore, the punitive, revengeful strategies to deal gentrification debate (and debates beyond gentrification). So persuasive and
with those citizens are put forward by their architects as common sense, not a evocative were Smith's arguments that they seemed to invite other research-
matter for discussion or resistance (Keil 2002). ers to see if revanchism was empirically accountable in their cities-all the
As the Giuliani administration gathered vengeful steam in New York dur- more so when one considers that Smith stated that revanchism was not SOme-
ing the 1990s (building on the platform laid by the Dinltins administration), thing just observable in New York or American cities, but all late capitalist
Neil Smith advanced his revanchist thesis further. In one of his more scathing cities:
pieces of writing, Smith (1998) revealed that Giuliani had
[1]f the US in some ways represents the most intense experience of a
a vendetta against the most oppressed-workers and "welfare mothers",
new urban revanchism, it is a much more widespread experience ...
immigrants and gays, people of calor and homeless people, squatters,
gentrification and the revanchist city find a common conjuncture in
anyone who demonstrates in public. (p. 1)
the restructured urban geography of the late capitalist city. The details
Using the example of the famous and remarkably (many would say depress- of each conflict and of each situation may be different, but a broad
ingly) influential 'zero-tolerance' policing strategy advanced by Giuliani and commonality of contributing processes and conditions set the stage.
his onetime police commissioner William Bratton, Smith accounted for the (N. Smith 1996a: 46-47)
existence of this extreme strategy of revenge against oppressed groups:
There is some respect here for local and national differentiation, but the argu-
This visceral revanchism is no automatic response to economic ups and ment is very dearly made that revanchism is not confined to the United States.
downs but is fostered by the same economic uncertainties, shifts, and However, it is possible to detect a degree of inconsistency in The New Urban
insecurities that permitted the more structured and surgical abdication Frontier. In the introduction to the book, Smith argues,
230 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 231

While I accept the admonition that radically different experiences of routine arrest of so-called "aggressive beggars", in contrast to New
gentrification. obtain in different national, regional. urban and even York and indeed certain British cities ... the Strathclyde Police Force
neighbourhood contexts, I would also hold that among these differences has concluded that zero tolerance offers an inappropriately "short-term"
a braid of common threads ripples through most experiences of gentri- approach to crime prevention. Instead, it has introduced a Street Liaison
fication. (p. xix) Team, which, rather than immediately criminalizing street people and
prostitutes, aims to cultivate improved relations between those "on the
Later in the book. comparing gentrification in three European cities (Paris,
margins of society", the police, and the wider public. (p. 616)
Amsterdam, and Budapest), he argues that
Further to this marked contrast in policing, MacLeod argues that a range of
general differences really do not gel into a sustainable thesis that these
policy schemes designed to assist marginalized populations in Glasgow
[instances of gentrification] are radically different experiences ....
[T]he existence of difference is a different matter from the denial of appear to be at odds with the repressive moments of vengeance inscribed
plausible generalization. I do not think that it makes sense to dissolve into New York's local state strategy. Stretching this a little further, can
all these experiences into radically different empirical phenomena. we point to Glasgow's gentrification wars (police militia, sweeping heli-
(pp. 185-186) copters), or its military-style sweeps on quality-of-life offenders and its
So, puzzlingly, he accepts 'radical diierences' in the introduction, but then vengeful political attacks on the city's universities? As yet, the answer to
rejects their existence later on, saying that it is nonsensical to draw out such these questions remains a tentative "no". (p. 616)
differences. He also rejects Lees's (1994b) empirically substantiated concept of Above all, MacLeod urges us to acknowledge that 'revanchist political
an 'Atlantic Gap' in the process of gentrification (between London and New economies will assume different forms in different contexts' (p. 617). The
York, in case studies of Barnsbury and Park Slope; cf. Chapter I), dismissing case of Glasgow demonstrates what MacLeod calls 'a selective appropriation
it as 'a false dichotomy' (N. Smith 1996a: 185). While there may indeed be, as of the revanchist political repertoire ... minor-league in comparison to the
Smith says, 'as much differentiation of the gentrification experience within perspective's "home-base" of New York' (p. 603). He does not therefore reject
Europe or North America as between them' (p. 185), he is most definitely of the revanchist city thesis-in fact, he views it as 'a deeply suggestive heuristic
the view that there is no significant differentiation between them at all. Wbile with which to reassess the changing geographical contours of a city's restless
prioritizing what is general about gentrification reminds us that gentrification urban landscape' (p. 616). But in contrast to Smith, MacLeod is cautious when
is both a theoretically coherent category and a widespread urban phenom- commenting on the broader applicability of revanchism.
enon, and is politically important if we are to contest the process, Smith is less A much broader geographical lens was adopted by Rowland Atkinson
willing to pay attention to the particularities of gentrifying neighborhoods in (2003b) in a paper attempting to reveal whether a vengeful public policy is
their geographical contexts, which, as a number of scholars have argued, can emerging in Britain's public spaces. Atldnson is from the outset very suspi-
help us to understand the implications of the process. Indeed, it might be a cious of the broader applicability of revanchism:
more important geographical project to reveal the context and contingency of
gentrification by looking for what might be 'plausibly general' and 'radically [Clan we really talk of the emergence of vengeful or revanchist pro-
different' between two or more cases of gentrification. grammes emerging in the British context? It is lllcely that part of the
The issue of the applicability of revanchism to other urban contexts has reality behind these programmes is mundane; organisations and people
been taken up empirically in a paper by Gordon MacLeod (2002), who traced simply doing their job and trying to make places safer for their users, even
the extent to which revanchism has permeated the place marketing and entre- if this means the exclusion of certain groups on the utilitarian grounds
preneurialism behind the recent 'renaissance' of central Glasgow in Scotland. that doing so enables the majority to use those spaces. (p. 1830)
MacLeod argues that the dismissive treatment of Glasgow's homeless during
In thinking about the revanchist city, Atkinson discerned four competing
its 1990s economic recovery suggests that the city 'bears the imprints of an
strands of revanchism which, when separated, might help us analyze the
emerging politics of revanchism' (p. 615), but stops short of saying that fully
control and management of public spaces in different national contexts (see
fledged New York-style revanchism is present there:
Box 6.2). Atkinson takes two extreme cases of public policy with a specific
I fully acknowledge the need for caution when comparing Glasgow emphasis on controlling public spaces, the Hamilton (Scotland) Child Safety
with a city like New York. For while Glasgow may be witnessing the Initiative (effectively a curfew aimed at youth living in deprived housing
232 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 233

cities free of homeless people begging, sleeping, urinating, defecating

Box6.2 in public-living in public-and in today's political climate, wealthy
Four Competing Strands of Revan chi srn urbanites are increasingly willing to support policies that criminalize
the activities that homeless people must do in order to live. (p. 36)
1. A mode of governance expressing connections between a number
However, it is not just from American research that gentrification is por-
of different agencies at different levels that seek to control the public trayed as revengeful. While researchers in the United States present the
realm and to dictate recognized or approved uses for such space
most disturbing accounts of exclusionary inner-city reinvestment, academic
2. A set of programs deSigned to secure public space or the behavior of accounts of gentrification from cities in other countries, including Canada,
users of space, such as zero-tolerance policing or anti-begging drives exhibit much in the way of revanchism. For example, few, if any, scholars
by government researching gentrification in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside have ever spo-
3. A prophetic and dystopian image of a downward spiral of social rela- ken of gentrification as anything other than a serious problem created by
tions in which public spaces and the city are seen, in themselves, to revengeful urban policy (e.g., Sommers 1998; H. Smith 2003; N. Smith and
represent a form of urban malaise and distress from which vengeful Derksen 2003; Blomley 2004), and more recently, displacement in London has
policies may act as an ameliorative been blamed partly on tenant harassment of 'undesirables' that goes unre-
4. A reference to economic objectiv~s seen in the connection between ported (Atltinson 2000). The literature is too vast to summarize here, but
economic development and the need to secure capital investment, when considered as a collective, Atkinson (2002) elaborates,
increasingly seen as being footloose, by beautifying and securing city
spaces in order to market the quality of living in such locations On the issue of neighbourhood impacts it can be seen that the majority
of research evidence on gentrification points to its detrimental effects ... ,
SOllree: Atltinson (2003b: 1833).
[R]esearch which has sought to understand its impacts has predomi-
nantly found problems and social costs. This suggests a displacement
estates) and 'zero-tolerance' policing in Scotland, both of which have been and moving around of social problems rather than a net gain either
influential across British cities, and looks for strands of revanchism in both through local taxes, improved phYSical environment or a reduction
cases. His conclusion is as follows: in the demand for sprawling urban development. Even where positive
effects have been identified, these are Widely considered to be relatively
Is a revanchist strand observable in policies directed at British urban small compared to the downside. (pp. 20-21)
spaces? An unequivocal response to this question is hard to produce . ... It
may be possible to assert that revanchist threads are shared in responses Finally, in a recent account of gentrification that explicitly seeks to weigh up
to social disorder in British cities. This view must be tempered by the the positive and negative impacts of the process, Freeman (2006) reaches simi-
fact that this is only an exploratory and extreme case analysis. (p. 1840) lar conclusions to Atltinson's (2002) and our own. Focusing on the indigenous
residents in two gentrifying neighborhoods, Clinton Hill and Harlem in New
Atltinson argues that far more research is needed to reveal the extent to which York City, Freeman argues,
revanchism has influenced public policy, so the real contribution of the paper
lies not in its geographical focus but in the way the author carves a path for Gentrification can bring benefits that the indigenous residents of
future projects assessing the existence or extent of revanchism beyond New York these neighbourhoods are appreciative of. There are, however, signifi-
City. Nevertheless, throughout his paper, Atltinson is clearly concerned that cant potential downsides to this revitalization, including the loss of
vengeance is increasingly perceived in Britain as a way to capture public spaces affordable hOUSing, conflict between newcomers and more established
for consumers. On this spreading geography of revanchism, Wyly and Hamme! residents, and resentment stemming from feelings of irrelevance; the
(2005) sum up the worrying implications, particularly for the homeless: neighbourhood improvements are for "them". (p. 207)

In short, the triumph of neoliberalism has altered the context and He finds ample reason to be wary of the negative impacts of gentrification
consequences of gentrification, creating new inequalities and locally- beyond displacement and is skeptical of poverty deconcentration/social-mixing
distinctive strands of revanchism. But if local variations do matter, the policies as the cure-all for urban ills. For Freeman, the pertinent debate seems to
underlying dilemma remains the same. The gentry want nice, attractive be how to dampen gentrification's harms and identify its benefits. As he says,
234 • Gentrification Gentrification: Positive or Negative? • 235

It might seem paradoxical to affirm both the emancipatory and revanchist gentrification: one frames it pOSitively, whereas the other frames it
view of gentrification. But ... gentrification is a complex process that can negatively.
mean different things depending on one's vantage point. (p. 201) What might the point of view of a pioneer gentrifier be in regard to
gentrification, as opposed to that of a non-gentrifier?
Summary Read the first half of The Fortress of Solitude, a novel by Jonathan
In trus chapter, we have outlined those arguments that view gentrification to be Lethem (2003) set in the predominantly Puerto Rican but gentrify-
a positive process and those that view it to be a negative process. Gentrifica- ing neighborhood ofBoerum Hill in Brooklyn in tl1e 1970s. The novel
tion is promoted positively by policy makers who ignore the less desirable tells the story of two boys who are friends, one black and one white.
effects of the process. Their promotion of gentrification as a way to socially Focus on the scene of abandoned buildings, racial interactions, and
mix, balance, and stabilize neighborhoods has connections with the ideolo- the white gentrifier boy Dylan Ebdus's feelings of difference. Ask
gies of pioneer gentrifiers who seek/sought both residence in the inner city yourself, 'Was the gentrifying Boerum Hill emancipatory for Dylan
and sociocultural diversity. Many of these pioneer gentrifiers were women Ebdus at that time?'
(including lesbians) and gay men. These 'marginal' groups chose to live iu Read Lance Freeman's (2006) TIlere Goes the 'Hood: Views of Ge/ltri-
the inner city to avoid the institutionalized heterosexuality and nuclear fam- fication from the Ground Up. This is a book that explicitly sets out to
ily units of the suburbs. The inner city'for them was an emancipatory space. weigh up the differential impact of gentrification on indigenous resi-
By way of contrast, many more authors view gentrification to be a negative dents. Do you think <he sits on the fence' in terms of his conclusions?
process, one that causes direct or indirect displacement, and that purifies and
sanitizes the central city. Some see it to be a visceral and revanchist process Further Reading
of capitalist appropriation. Of course, both tl,e positive and negative takes Atkinson, R. (2003a) 'Introduction: Misunderstood saviour or vengeful wrecker?
on gentrification have validity, but the review here suggests that the negative The many meanings and problems of gentrification', Urban Studies, 40, 12:
2343-2350.
impacts have not been considered seriously, or indeed have been ignored, by
Atkinson, R. (2004) 'The evidence on the impact of gentrification: New lessons for the
policy makers. As Atkinson and Bridge (2005: 16-17) argue, urban renaissance?' European Jaumal of Housing Policy, 4. 1: 107-131.
It remains important for policy-makers and academics to try and under- Caulfield, J. (1994) City Porm and Everyday Life: Toronto's Gentrification and Critical
Social Practice (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
stand how equitable development can be achieved without the stark
Freeman, 1., and F. Braconi (2002) 'Gentrification and displacement', TIle Urban
problems associated with unchecked gentrification, itself symptomatic
Prospect: Housing, PIa/wing and Econol11ic Development ill New York 8. 1
of a middle-class and self-serving process of investment. In short, gen- (fanuary/February): 1-4.
trification as a process ofinvestment and movement by tl1e wealthy may Gotham. K. (2001) 'Redevelopment for whom and for what purpose', in K. Fox Gotham
have modified or positive effects in cities characterised by strong welfare (ed.) Critical Perspectives on Urball Redevelopment, vol. 6 of Research ill Urban
regimes, enhanced property rights and mediation, and low competition Sociology (Oxford: Elsevier) 429-452.
for housing resources. Howard Law Iou mal (2003) 46, 3 (http://wvvw.1aw.howard.edu/dictator/media/229/
huljvoI46_3.pdf).
Johnstone, c., and M. Whitehead (eds.) (2004) New HorizOIIS in Urban Policy: Perspec-
Activities
tives 011 New Labour's Urban Renaissance (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate).
Read the exchange between Byrne (2003) and Powell and Spencer Lees,1. (2000) 'A reappraisal of gentrification: Towards a "geography of gentrification"',
(2003) in the Howard Law Journal (http:"www.law.howar~.edu/ Progress ill Human Geography, 24, 3: 389-408.
dictator/mediaI229/huljvoI46_3.pdf). Byrne sees gentrification to Ray, B., and D. Rose (2000) 'Cities ofthe everyday: Soda-spatial perspectives on gender,
be predominantly a positive process, whereas Powell and Spencer difference and diversity', in T. Bunting and P. Filion (eds.) Canadiall Cities ill
rebuke his analysis as a 'defense of the market' and see gentrification Transition: TIle Twenty-Pirst Celltury 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
507-512.
to be a predominantly negative process. Which set of arguments do
Rose, D. (2004) 'Discourses and experiences of social mix in gentrifying neighbour-
you find most persuasive? hoods: A Montreal case study', Canadian Joumal of Urban Research 13, 2:
Read Neil Smith's (1996a) book The New Urban Frontier and com- 278-316.
pare it to David Ley's (1996) book The New Middle Class and the Slater, T. (2004a) 'North American gentrification? Revanchist and emancipatory per-
Remaking of the Central City. Consider how both authors write about spectives explored', El1vironment and PIa/wing A 36: 1191-1213.
236 • Gentrification

Smith. N. (l996a) 71le New Urban Frontier: GelltrijicatiDlt al1d the Revallc1tist City
(London: RoutIedge).
Uitermark, J. (2003) "'Social mixing" and the management of disadvantaged neigh-
bourhoods: The Dutch policy of urban restructuring revisited', Urban Studies
40,3: 531-549.
Wyly, E., and D. Hammel (1999) 'Islands of decay in seas of renewal: Housing policy
and the resurgence of gentrification', Housing PDlicy Debate, 10,4: 711-771.
 ~

~
u
G=
:s
m

~
7
n:""
ru
The Future of Gentrification?
= E
0
u
.s
""
~
.= ru
:5
u Gentrifying the Future
m
If present trends accelerate, the social geography of the nineteenth cen-
'"
~

E
ru
ru

tury industrial city may appear to urban scholars as a temporary inter-

;: lude to a more historically persistent pattern of higher status segregation
~
~
ru
E adjacent to the downtown core. Ley (1981: 145)
ru
u
ro
C. In some corners of the city, the experts say, gentrification may be
~
'i5 remembered, along with junk bonds, stretch limousines. and television
'E
n:E evangelism, as just another grand excess of the 1980s.... As the dust
,s settles. we can see that the areas that underwent dramatic turnarounds
~
ru had severe limitations. Rich people are simply not going to live next to
=
= =~
~
public housing. Lueck (1991: 1)
~ ~

ru- m
= =~

·s [T]he extent and impacts of gentrification have been exaggerated in the

'"
1;;
ro
'i5
.= urban literature of the 1970s and 1980s, and ... the process itself will be
~

:u =~
ro
of decreasing importance as we move beyond the recession of the early
~'"
0

-,.:;
ru
C.
1990s. Bourne (1993b: 183)

-
0
ru
ro ~
[NJeither the memory nor the profits of gentrification are likely to be
.!E
~
0
~ erased so quicldy. Indeed, it may not be too much of an exaggeration to
ru ~
ru ~

""E e surmise that proclaiming the end of gentrification today may be akin to
.sro =""
~
ro
anticipating the end of suburbanization in 1933. N. Smith (1996a: 230)
S
u
~
ru ri
~
Futurism is notoriously hazardous, particularly in the humanities and social
~ ·s
:a sciences. Yet it has been at the heart of academic and popular interest in gen-
1..
.s
ro
trification since the 1960s. The very existence of gentrification contradicted
.....'"""
~ ~.g
~
.s the implicit future projections of then dominant urban models-neighbor-
E
ru
or
~
E
E '" f!
~
ro
~
hood life-cycle theories that were given material expression when accepted
-'"
u
0
~
ru "~

and implemented by public institutions (Metzger 2000), and the Alonso-Muth

ri .....0
E
ro
~
~

]
0
~'" -">-
ru
transportation-land price trade-off model now described as 'the masterpiece
= ,s
.- ""g.
u
~
ro of urban theory' (Glaeser, Kahn, and Rappaport 2000: 7) predicting inexo-
:u ~
~
~
~
0 :§ ~

= BOD rable upper-income suburbanization. We should not be surprised, then, that

0
!-'
ro
u =0
~ the future of gentrification is as hotly contested as are its causes, dimensions.
.-: '" ,sru
E
~ """"M and consequences.
ru
.El
ro "", .""" =
~~

c:: ~ 0~
<C
= '"
238 239
240 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 241

Will gentrification continue? Will it grow more important or fade from the way that provides comparable measures over time is even more challenging
scene as an obsolete concern of a previous era? These questions have persisted (Bourne 1993a, 1993b; Hammel and Wyly 1996; Wyly and Hammel 1998).
for two generations, and they are unlikely to be settled now with darity or Recently, however, Meligrana and Skaburslds (2005) combined an analysis of
consensus. Peering ahead in the future of gentrification offers a compelling census population and hOUSing variables for ten Canadian metropolitan areas
case for the notion that the questions we ask are just as important as any between 1971 and 2001 with key informant interviews for each city; they were
answers we might offer: it should be dear from our tour of the intellectual and thus able not only to develop estimates of the total population and housing
policy landscapes of gentrification in this book, and it is obvious in the streets units encompassed by gentrified neighborhoods, but also to match their find-
of protest and everyday life, that to even utter the word is to raise questions of ings with earlier pioneering work by Ley (1988, 1992). They estimate that 11.9
dass, culture, inequality, and social justice. The fact that so many people Use percent of the occupied housing units in Montreal's inner city were gentrified
the word 'gentrification' in debates and struggles over neighborhood life is thus between 1971 and 2001, 21.1 percent of those in Toronto, and 19.9 percent in
quite remarkable. Indeed, it may not be too much of an exaggeration to suggest Vancouver. If the definition was broadened to consider neighborhoods iden-
that forty years of debate over the causes and consequences of gentrification tified by statistical thresholds but not cited by key informants, these figures
have made the word a signature call to arms in urban discourse-a term that rise to 23.4 percent, 40.5 percent, and 34.5 percent respectively. These figures
is almost as familiar as politically charged words like 'globalization', 'neolib- confirm that gentrification 'has made major changes to these inner cities'
eralism', '(neo)colonialism', and 'imperialism' (see Chapter 4 on the politics of (p. 1581) and suggest a future expansion as demographic trends (rising
definition). For anyone concerned with the future of poor and worldng-dass hOUSing consumption even with falling household sizes) and land-market
lives and communities. 'gentrification' mobilizes, organizes, and catalyzes processes push inner-city boundaries farther outwards; and yet the process
social movements that can sometimes succeed in creating small-scale uto- remains very limited when viewed in the context of continued metropolitan
pian spaces of hope (Harvey 2000). In this sense, we may be able to find unex- decentralization and suburbanization (Kasarda 1999; Berry 1999). The most
pected possibilities amidst the slippery conceptual definitions and empirical generous estimates suggest that 6.4 percent of the population of metropolitan
measurements that (quite understandably) frustrate Larry Bourne and many Montreal lives in gentrified or potentially gentrifying neighborhoods, 7.1 per-
others. Perhaps gentrification, like space, may qualify as a new keyword: cent in greater Toronto, and 7.3 percent in metropolitan Vancouver. Sohmer
[I]t turns out to be an extraordinarily complicated keyword. It functions and Lang (2001) use a different set of methods to measure population changes
as a compound word and has multiple determinations such that no one in the downtown cores of two dozen U.S. cities in the 1990s. They find espe-
of its particular meanings can properly be understood in isolation from cially rapid increases in downtown residential densities (increases of more
all the others. But that is precisely what makes the term, particularly than 1,000 people per square mile) in Sealtle, Chicago, Houston, Portland,
when combined with time, so rich in possibilities. (Harvey 2006a: 293) Denver, and Atlanta. Moreover, just over half of all cities in their study posted
increases in the downtown's share of total metropolitan populatiolli but nearly
Despite this complexity, there are several ways to answer the simple ques- all central cities decreased their share of metropolitan population, casting
tions regarding its future magnitude and relevance. First, we can follow the doubt on the prospects for downtown growth to drive any dramatic expansion
empirical path of researchers who develop baseline measures and pursue sub- in the scale of gentrification. Still, Soh mer and Lang (2001: 9) believe, 'The
sequent follow-up analysis. In one of the earliest examples of this 'empirical- unique history of downtown areas in combination with their central location
extrapolation approach', in 1975 the Urban Land Institute (ULl) surveyed and proximity to mass transit, work, and amenities offers potential for the
officials in all central cities in the United States with populations over 50,000, growth of the 1990s to continue into the next decade'.
and found that nearly half saw evidence of'private-market housing renovation A second approach involves a much more explicit theoretical consideration
in older, deteriorated areas'; a follow-up four years later documented a pro- of future trends associated with gentrification. Not surprisingly, this 'theoreti-
nounced expansion in the number of city officials reporting activity-from cal projection approach' is intertwined with differences between production
65 percent to 86 percent for cities with more than 150,000 residents-but the and consumption explanations. Larry Bourne's (I993a) prediction of a 'post-
total number of homes affected in each city remained infinitesimal (Black gentrification' era, for example, relied on a primarily demand-side, consump-
1980). The ULl survey was widely interpreted as describing a future of dra- tion view of the process: Bourne foresaw weakening demand in tandem with
matic growth rates based on very small numbers, but there have been very shifts in demography, economic growth, educational levels, living arrangement
few subsequent efforts to devise systematic projections. Developing baseline preferences, and public sector spending priorities. Of course, Bourne did con-
measures of the magnitude of gentrification is difficult as it is; doing so in a sider some supply-side processes-projecting that a 'shift of capital into urban
242 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 243

real estate' in the gentrification era would give way to a post-gentrification metropolitan areas; but for larger metropolitan areas, if present housing-age
era in which the 'balloon has shrunk' and a 'switch of capital out of property' preferences remain the same,
would bring a period of stable Or declining prices, high vacancies, and rising
foreclosures (1993a: 104). But production explanations have shown how local central-city economic status is expected to rise relative to that of
and regional capital flows into real estate have been interwoven with increas- the suburbs by up to 20 percent of MSA mean income, a large effect.
ingly transnational flows and secondary market institutions-while ongoing Nevertheless, while this shift implies ongoing gentrification in the
devalorization and rent gap processes create ever stronger incentives (although central cities of larger metropolitan areas, those neighborhoods are
not the absolute certainty) for profitable gentrification in an ever-expanding expected to remain poor, on average, relative to the suburbs. (Brueckner
disinvested urban fabric. Jason Hackworth's (2002a) theoretical and empirical and Rosenthal2005: 29)
analysis of third-wave reinvestment points to continued strength in the pro- Gentrification will continue. in other words. along with uneven development.
cesses driving gentrification, and our consideration of a possible fourth wave disinvestment, and persistent central-city poverty.
extends this logic (see Chapter 6).
Yet some of the most intriguing theoretical projection evidence comes from
'It Was Right before My Eyes'
housing demographers and urban economists attempting to rework the clas-
sicallocational choice and bid-rent models. Dowell Myers and his colleagues Neither empirical extrapolations nor theoretical projections capture the full
(2001) combine survey results with demographic projections to chart the significance of a gentrified future. however. Discourse also matters. The mate-
future demand for dense, walkable living environments in the United States- rial realities of gentrification will continue to shape the lives of new generations
environments which include not only gentrified inner-city neighborhoods but of urban residents-rich, poor. and middle class-in cities and urban regions
also suburban areas built on 'smart growth' or 'new urbanist principles'. They throughout the world. New cities and new neighborhoods are confronting the
find an increasing preference for density among older households, with the tensions of gentrification, while other neighborhoods that first experienced
effect magnified by the size of the aging baby boom cohort: in the United the process a quarter century ago are still being transformed today. And so
States, total households are expected to grow by 1.11 percent per year in the a new generation enters the conversation over its causes and consequences.
2000-2010 period, but Not long ago, Higher Achievement, a private after-school program that oper-
ates in many of the schools of Washington, D.e., sponsored a citywide essay
the number of owners age 45 and older likely to change residence and contest about gentrification. One of the winners was twelve-year-old Monique
who prefer denser neighborhoods will increase by 2.46% per year. This Brevard, who said, 'Gentrification is really happening in my neighborhood ....
market segment will account for 31.0% of all the growth in owners likely It was right before my eyes; I just didn't know what it's called' (quoted in
to change residence during the 2000-10 period. The same segment drew Lay ton 2006: B1). Monique recalled classmates who had to move away because
only 15.4% of growth in the 1990s. (Myers et a!. 2001: 1) their families could not afford the escalating rents of Columbia Heights, but
A more direct assessment of gentrification comes from Jan Brueckner and on the other hand, she liked the renovations in the neighborhood, and wrote,
Stuart Rosenthal, urban economists worldng to refashion bid-rent models 'Now there are Asians, Hispanics. and a few Caucasians on my block, whereas
in ways that offer a neoclassical route to the political-economy conclu- before it was predominantly African American .... So it's brought more diver-
sions ofNeil Smith's devalorization cycle. Brueckner and Rosenthal (2005) sity into the neighborhood' (quoted in Layton 2006: B1).
are mistaken in their belief that they've found something conceptually Monique's voice is one among many in an enormous societal conversation
new-'This paper identifies a new factor, the age of the housing stock, that on the meaning of home and community, and there is every indication that the
affects where high and low-income neighborhoods are located' (p. i)-but discursive facets of gentrification are growing quite steadily-in part because
their model and empirical results do offer certain new insights, evaluating ofthe struggles over definition we explored in earlier chapters. As of September
changes in average income for all neighborhoods (measured by U.S. Census 2006, the Google Scholar search engine turned up only 793 academic books
tracts) as a function of the predominant preference for new housing for and articles with 'gentrification' in the title. But an open search of Google fer-
all U.S. metropolitan areas between 1980 and 1990. Their projections to rets out about 3,090,000 web pages. And a more systematic search documents
2020 suggest that the continued aging of the housing stock (which produc- substantial growth in major press coverage (see Figure 7.1). In 1985-1986,
tion theorists would set in the context of devalorization and disinvestment 'gentrification' appeared in the headline, lead paragraph, or subject terms for
processes) will lead to a modest relative decline of central cities in small only 37 articles in the general news category for major newspapers; another 10
244 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrificationl • 245

=
'"
~
articles in the world news category carried the term as reported in European
~
~
~ news sources, and 2 in Asia-Pacific news sources. Between July 2005 and July
.E 2006, the corresponding figures were 204, 82, and 24 respectively. In 2005-
~

-"" 2006. the number of general news articles focused on gentrification exceeded
-'<
'"00 E those devoted to another term of theory with its own theoretical and politi-
N ~ cal heritage: 'underdass'. It's worth recalling the very real policy shifts that
'"00 =~
~
~
~ came with sustained press attention to the 'underclass problem' as framed
.,.0
N ~
~
~ by neoliberal and conservative attacks on welfare-state dependency, mythical
~
0 E
N
~ welfare mothers driving Cadillacs, and draconian workfare schemes premised
m ~
0
0 <!!
~
on the supposed need to encourage 'personal responsibility' (see Peck 2006).
N
N ~ 'Gentrification' is still understood as a term of dass conflict that raises ques-
0
0
N
§ tions of equity and fairness; and so it is crucial that we challenge the political
.El
:; U campaigns of those who are trying to displace the term in favor of soft euphe-
0 ~

. N
o
:c-
~ misms (regeneration, revitalization, renaissance, reurbanization, residential-
~
0
0
N
~
0 ization, etc.) and those such as Andres Duany trying to redefine the term as a
.£
'"'" ~ badge of ha nor for gentrifiers.
~
'" '"
113 I "'"
'" =
~
~
~
'Ric" People 1'dove Ill, Poor Move Ollt, Rellts Go Up'
0
>- ~
But even this cartography of journalism and popular discourse underestimates
'"• -"'
•
w
Z
'"'" or
.='0 the future of gentrification, because in so many cases the term is absent from
u '"'" ~ discussion of the more interesting landscapes of reinvestment, redevelopment,
~
U '" =~

andsocio-cultural change. One examplernight include New York's Co-Op City,

,•
~
'"'" ~
:;
i'i
".- .
'"
'"'"
.=
-~
the huge middle-income development built in the northern Bronx in 1966
that even today 'is the largest cooperative housing complex in America, possi-
z•
0

~ •w V~
m
'"'"
"' =
~ <:>
u
<;= N
:s 0
~
'" bly the world' (Frazier 2006: 54). Conceived initially as a way to keep middle-
class city residents (mostly whites) from moving further out to the suburbs,
>= ~
0
•~
N
-'" '"c
~
~ Co-Op City has subsequently become three quarters black and Latino, has
0
~ '"
:;! = -'< aged into what the board president calls 'the largest naturally occurring retire-
'"~ w
Z
a; ~ =
w
z ~ ~
~
~ '"
e
~ ment community in the world' (p. 64), and, with the expiration of restrictions
0
'"::;:.,; '"0 ."
t :; tied to city government affordable-housing subsidies, is now free to consider
•w
~
e0 • '"'" ~ ~
<:>
privatization. In 2005, the co-op residents voted 55 percent to 45 percent in
w
.,;
Z
w

1!!w ." "

:u
"'"'" E -""
~
<:>
N
~ favor of investigating the issue, with a final decision to come in several years.
•
w 0
w
~
z -'< One retired resident lamented, 'We would lose the senior-citizen benefits,
""'" .,; .E<!! \C
Z
~
'" then rich people move in, poor move out, rents go up. I get eighty-six dollars a
15
>= >- .='0 .s
~
0
0
month in pension!' (quoted in Frazier 2006: 65). But a former board president
"'" !::!.

[
-
, "'" :; '"
~
~

~
uo U
~

<:> .s
<:>
N
offered a more ambivalent view:

o o
'" '"c.E .s:"w It's interesting, though, that if privatization went through, you're talk-
o ~~
o ing about seventy-two thousand rooms at an estimated fifty thousand
01"
o o
m '"
N
Ec ~
0
u
~

dollars a room. With the people who are living here now that would be
~

,s """
~

'"
,-: Pl
~
the largest transfer of real-estate wealth to people of calor in US history.
:; (Frazier 2006: 65)
E
~ ==
u
~
~ -"' 0
Co-Op City looks nothing like the classical gentrified environments of the
'" Village, Chelsea, Williamsburg, or newer frontiers of gentrification in Harlem
246 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 247

and elsewhere. But no one concerned with gentrification can ignore the The two quotations above capture just how far the debate over the effects of
growing number of urban, suburban. and rural areas where 'rich people move gentrification has shifted since the early 1980s, particularly in the United
in, poor move out. rents go up'. States. Back then, the tone was more often than not one of outrage, of urgency,
Or consider another example where 'gentrification' never appears any- and of struggle-indeed, the publication from where the first quotation is
where in the article. In mid-2006, the New Yark Times carried a front-page taken is entitled Displacement: How to Fight It. But now, we have Lance Free-
article on the real estate boom transforming Mitchell's Plain and other South man, a high-profile researcher (due to media coverage of his earlier work with
African townships, where FNB Bank of South Africa undertook a survey and Braconi), saying that gentrification is likely to be the future, and instead of
found that each township home offered for sale attracted seven potential buy- fighting it, we need to manage it (and through the policy of social mixing, which
ers in Johannesburg, eight in Cape Town, and twice that many in Durban. as we have seen in Chapter 6, is hardly something leading us on a smooth path
Two of the country's largest real estate firms have moved aggressively into to a more equitable and just society). Despite Freeman's major mixed-methods
the township market, in part because of a sustained run of price escalation contribution to the literature and his empirically informed arguments that gen-
in existing elite areas: 'Now that those prices are reaching their potential, trification has some positive benefits, we see his words as somewhat troubling.
investors are seeldng the next bargain. Some find it at the other end of the This is, after all, a process which has caused major upheaval and loss, as many
income spectrum' (Wines 2006: A14), All the elements of production and con- of the quotations in his book (and so many elsewhere) illustrate, and indeed
sumption narratives of gentrification "seem to be in place: an agent for a finn as we have argued in several chapters in this book. How can such a polarizing
that built its reputation with luxury-home transactions proclaims, 'It's a gold process be managed? By way of corollary, one could argue that apartheid in
mine, Mitchell's Plain, a gold mine. You've got more buyers than stock', and South Africa had 'positive benefits' in terms of economic growth-but did the
the Times correspondent concludes, 'Urban townships have something else in African National Congress wish to manage that process? This is not to draw
their favor: among the nation's rising black middle class, they are becoming an inappropriate equivalence with gentrification and apartheid, but merely to
preferred places to live, especially as shopping and other services take root. In state that something so often portrayed as unjust is not really something that
short, they are becoming hip' (Wines 2006: AI4). we should consider <managing', but rather resisting.
Is this gentrification? Is the possible future privatization of Co-Op City In the Preface to this book, we argued for a critical geography of gentrifi-
equivalent to gentrification? The questions matter more than the answers. And cation, one that follows a social justice agenda and one that is focused on
these questions are being asked in more places. by more people concerned resisting gentrification where necessary. We supported the arguments of
about the ways that culture and capital interact to remake home and com- HoJcomb and Beauregard (1981), who argued that research into gentrifica-
munity in once neglected neighborhoods. Gentrification will continue, and so tion must be motivated by concerns to address its unjust and unequal out-
will the scholarly analyses, policy symposia, organizing campaigns, and street comes; indeed, this is why all three of us began researching gentrification. We
protests. Contra Bourne (1993a), the 'gentrification era' has just begun. also noted in the Preface that we have all been involved in anti-gentrification
activities, mainly in North America; as such, we have had firsthand experi-
Social Justice and Resistance ence of the complexities of resisting something so often viewed as the natu-
Moving people involuntarily from their homes or neighbourhoods is ral outcome for urban neighborhoods, and increasingly viewed as the way
wrong. Regardless of whether it results from government or private things 'should' be. Neil Smith (1996a) has written in detail about the battle
market action, forced displacement is characteristically a case of people for Tompkins Square Park in the Lower East Side, a battle that was symbolic
without the economic and political power to resist being pushed out by both of his notion of a revanchist city and of class war. But the latter, despite
people with greater resources and power, people who think they have a its renown, is just one in a number of stories of resistance to gentrification.
"better" use for a certain building, piece ofland, or neighbourhood. The This chapter focuses on some different efforts that have been made by peo-
pushers benefit. The pushees do not. Hartman, Keating, and LeGates ple and community organizations to resist gentrification, to protect against
(1982: 4) displacement, and to encourage a more SOcially just form of neighborhood
change not geared to the interests of those who benefit financially from such
If ... gentrification is becoming a widespread trend that represents changes.
the future of many cities, we should be thinldng about how to manage Before we summarize some examples of resistance to gentrification, we
the process to help us achieve a more equitable and just society. Freeman must be aware that resistance continues to change over time in both tactics and
(2006: 186) intensity. In recent years, academics at the forefront of gentrification debates
248 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 249

have been reflecting on why the widespread resistance to gentrification's city politicians and police forces. Apart from anything else, the height-
second wave has diminished with its third wave. In a fairly recent commen- ened levels of repression aimed at anti-gentrification movements in the
tary lamenting the absence of effective <urban redevelopment movements' 1980s and 1990s testified to the increasing centrality of real estate devel-
(which we can read as a pseudonym for community organizing) in the United opment in the new urban economy.... The emergence of the revanchist
States, Wilson and Grammenos (2000) offer an explanation why the activism city was not just a New York phenomenon: it can be seen in the anti-
and 'group consciousness' of the 1960s have been eroded: squatter campaigns in Amsterdam in the 1980s, attacks by Parisian
[Tloday the mix of postindustrialism and globalization has devastated police on homeless (largely Immigrant) encampments, and the impor-
urban redevelopment movements. Organising people has reached a new tation of New York's zero tolerance techniques by police forces around
low, real estate capital has shown itself resistant to grassroots social the world .... The new authoritarianism both quashes opposition and
makes the streets safe for gentrification. (2002: 442)
pressures, investors flaunt their mobility and leverage vast amounts of
municipal resources, the motors that propel accumulation now operate Writing together, Hackworth and Smith (2001) noted that'a palpable decline
at an international scale, and people struggle to understand a hyper-fast of community opposition' (p. 475) characterized the 1990s resurgence of
and complexly signified and ascripted world. (p. 361) gentrification, in marked contrast to the 'intense political struggles' (p. 467)
There can be little doubt that the dominance of neoliberal urbanism has made over displacement that characterized the 1970s and 1980s. In sum, Important
statements about the recent and current nature of gentrification have claimed
for frustrating times among community activists, anchored around their abil-
ity to remain in the gentrifying city. Over fifteen years ago, two well-known that resistance has diminished due to the twin factors of (1) continued work-
voices in urban studies explained that
ing-class displacement robbing a city of activists, and (2) the authoritarian
(neoliberal) governance of urban places making challenges to gentrification
[tlhe effectiveness of neighborhood organizations depends on the entre- extremely difficult to launch.
preneurial abilities and political connections of their leaders. It depends We do not doubt the difficulties of progressive and effective community
also on general community characteristics to the extent that a particular organization in the neoliberal age. 'The devolution of social welfare functions
district has a population containing activists. (Fainstein and Fainstein from the federal to the city level, and the growing tendency of city govern-
1991: 321) ments to contract with nonprofits. charities, and community development
It is worth putting these words in the context of third-wave gentrification in corporations, means that more and more community activists are doing the
New York City, where Hackworth (2002a) pointed out the following: work of the local state, and cannot therefore risk protesting as much as in
previous decades (DeFilippis 2004; Newman and Lake 2006). We also do not
Compounding the tricky political position of community-based oppo- doubt that the struggles that took place over gentrification all over the world
sition are the aggregate spatial effects of continued reinvestment in the in the 1980s are less prevalent today. We do feel, however, that caution must
inner city. As gentrification continues and the worldng class is less able, be taken when commenting on the decline of resistance, as this is only a short
as a whole, to afford rents in neighborhoods close to the central business step away from saying that gentrification is not resisted at all, and thus by
district (CBD), prospects of an oppositional collective consciousness are implication not a problem. This is not to argue that Hackworth and Smith are
reduced. (p. 824) sending us down that path, but simply to point out that observations of the
So, if Hackworth is correct, the outlook for effective resistance to gentrifica- decline of resistance can so easily be appropriated by agents of gentrification
tion in New York does not look promising. Furthermore, if we look at the and used to justify the process with rhetoric such as 'Nobody is objecting to
words ofNeil Smith, this is a problem not just confined to New York: what is going on here!' The lack of overt conflict over space in a number of
cases does not mean that gentrification is somehow 'softer' or less feared by
From Amsterdam to Sydney, Berlin to Vancouver, San Francisco to low-income and working-class people-as we shall see shortly, it still proVides
Paris. gentrification's second wave was matched by the rise of myriad a strong focus for politicization.
homeless, squatting, housing, and other anti-gentrification movements Today the struggles remain on the creative/destructive edge of gentrifica-
and organizations that were loosely linked around overlapping issues. tion, however muted they might be in some places and however different in
These rarely came together as citywide movements, but they did chal- form from one place to the next. We must also question whose interests it
lenge gentrification sufficiently that, in each case, they were targeted by serves if we forget or refuse to recognize these class struggles that are part of
250 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 251

the definition of gentrification. It is precisely a sign of the success of gentri-

fication (and now-historical struggles over urban space) that there is hardly
a working class left in many neighborhoods. But the struggles themselves
transform with the process. Today, the sharpest social contests can be seen
in places like London's East End, which is currently the subject of a compre-
hensive redevelopment plan for the 2012 Olympics, or indeed in downtown
Los Angeles, where gentrification is pressing on the homeless encampments
of 'Skid Row' from all sides, with revanchist Police Chief William Bratton
(of 'zero-tolerance' fame) and local property owners wanting to 'clean up' the
encampments, to the delight of waiting-in-the-wings developers and loft con-
verters. These struggles are still occurring and await the attention of future
analystsi in what follows, we summarize some other recent struggles over the
process and see what strategies and tactics were adopted, what was achieved,
and what lessons have been learned.

Case 1: Lower Park Slope, Brookl)'n, New York City: 711e Fifth
AvellHe Committee cmd the 'Displacemenl Free ZOlle' Map 7.1 Lower Park Slope, Broolllyn, New York City
Recently, I was talldng with one of the doormen on my block .... I asked
him where he lived. prices have become so prohibitively high in gentrified Park Slope that the
"Brooldyn", he said. "Park Slope". middle classes are now finding that the only affordable accommodation is
"Where in Park Slope?" in Lower Park Slope. The term 'overspill gentrification' has been noted else-
"Fourth Avenue and 23rd Street", he said. where (Dantas 1988), and it is a useful image to apply to Lower Park Slope
"That's not Park Slope. That's Sunset Park". and also to many other preViously non-gentrified New York City neighbor-
''No'', he said. "They call it Park Slope now". hoods-they have become 'reservoirs of gentrification overflow' (New York
Fark Slope has now come to extend from Prospect Park, as a friend of Magazine, March 12, 2001: 51). Overspill in Brooldyn has been intensified
mine says, "all the way to Egypt". by the 1997 New York State Rent Regulation Reform Act, which introduced
Vince Passaro, New York Times Magazine, November 11, 2001 'high-rent vacancy decontrol', meaning that any rent-stabilized apartment
The issue for community groups is not simply coming out for or renting above $2,000 per month leaves the rent regulation system completely,
against growth but getting the right kind of growth. Fainstein and enabling landlords to charge whatever they like to new tenants once these
Fainstein (1991: 317) apartments become vacant. This has 'whittled away the stock of rent regulated
apartments' (Hevesi 2002) in Manhattan, where the majority of these expen-
In Chapter 1 we summarized the gentrification of Park Slope in Brooldyn, sive apartments are located, and pushed young stockbrokers, publishers, and
New York City, closing with the observation that the section of the neighbor- dot-corn and new media entrepreneurs from Manhattan's 'Silicon Alley',
hood earliest to gentrify has recently been experiencing super-gentrification, and even young lawyers and doctors, out into more affordable, gentrifying
leading to rampant gentrification of the lower section of the neighborhood neighborhoods in the outer boroughs of Brooldyn, Queens, and the Bronx
too. As we shall see in this first case study, gentrification in the latter has not (Phillips-Fein 2000: 29).
happened without a fight-a fight that has become one of the most high-profile Lower Park Slope's current gentrification is quite a turnaround from its
and influential anti-gentrification campaigns anywhere. Before discussing condition in the 1970s and 1980s, when three decades of disinvestment had
this, however, a little more contextual background is needed. culminated in serious dilapidation and abandonment of some of its hOUSing
Lower Park Slope (see Map 7.1) experienced only sporadic gentrification stock, and the erosion of its economic and tax base-a neighborhood 'ravaged
when Upper Park Slope was gentrifying intensely in the 1960s, 1970s, and by decay', as one assessment put it (Lawson 1984: 248), with little political bar-
1980s (Gelb and Lyons 1993; Lees 1994b; Carpenter and Lees 1995; Lees gaining power to attract the kind of reinvestment it needed for its residents.
and Bondi 1995). However, from the mid-1990s onwards, sales and rental Its housing stock, whilst attractive, was and remains not as magnificent as that
252 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 253

further up the Slope, and thus none ofit gained Landmark Preservation status, Funded since its inception by a mix of public and private sources, the initial
one of the catalysts of gentrification nearer to Prospect Park (see Chapter 1). activities of the FAC were somewhat pedestrian, involving the establishment
Lower Park Slope was in every sense left behind by the 'success' of Upper Park of community gardens, sporadic renovations of neighborhood buildings
Slope, and perhaps this is best expressed by the fact that 7th Avenue became and fa<;ade improvements to local businesses, lobbying for better sanitation
a bustling commercial strip during this time, whilst 5th Avenue 'witnessed services, and creating a neighborhood family center. These development
a proliferation of crime during the 1970s as a result of narcotic trafficking', processes gathered steam in the 1980s, particularly in the form of a 'sweat
where '[t]he dangers associated with this problem nearly vacated the retail equity program' aimed at renovating the dilapidated housing stock, and the
stores and residents' (Merlis and Rosenzweig 1999: 13). 'Park Slope Village' plan, which saw the construction of forty-four affordable
During New York's serious fiscal crisis of the 1970s, hOUSing became a three-family homes on a massive vacant block. Organization took the form of
key issue, as abandonment and arson in many neighborhoods on an unprec- marches against harassment practices by landlords and against unscrupulous
edented level had caused the municipal government to take up ownership of real estate tactics which led to tenant evictions, and employment programs
block after block of buildings whose landlords could not meet the mainte- were initiated to get youth off the streets and into work.
nance andlor tax payments. By the end of the decade, the municipal govern- The most significant development advances since 1977 have been in housing
ment had become the largest single landlord in New York, with over 40,000 provision. For more than two decades, the FAC has raised millions of dollars
apartments in receivership (Plunz 1990: 325). The response to the lack of city to build or rehabilitate over 600 hOUSing units in over 100 buildings in the
policy or even will to do anything about these crumbling neighborhoods aside neighborhood and its environs, making it the largest provider of affordable
from owning property in them has been documented as follows: housing in South Brooldyn. When considering the substantial impact of the
FAG's development initiatives on the phYSical (and, to a lesser extent, social)
As landlords abandoned their buildings, the City took ownership but improvements in the neighborhood since the 1970s, there arises a fairly obvi-
failed miserably to keep the buildings up. Many were condemned, while ous contradiction with their current organizing initiatives. As the neighbor-
others were effectively abandoned. All over the city, community orga- hood improved, it made gentrification a more likely scenario, because Lower
nizations organized rent strikes, squatting and building takeovers, pro-
Park Slope was no longer lying in such stark contrast to Upper Park Slope.
tests and sit-ins at city agencies, demanding that the City resolve the While the conditions which led to overspill gentrification described earlier are
disastrous conditions in the enormously expanding stock aflow-income
the principal reasons behind the current gentrification of Lower Park Slope,
housing coming into City ownership. The City responded by turning they are not entirely sufficient for it to proceed. In an unfortunate yet not
much of that housing over to community based organizations. (Lander unrecognized irony, the FAC were, unwittingly, a major institutional force in
1997: 8) establishing the preconditions for the gentrification of Lower Park Slope-
It was in 1977, during this era of crisis, disinvestment, and neglect, that a yet today they are a major institution attempting to resist gentrification! As
nonprofit community group called the Fifth Avenue Committee (FAC) was the FAC's former director of organizing wrote, '[A] disinvestment problem
founded in Lower Park Slope by local residents. 1977 perhaps represents the became an overinvestment and gentrification problem' (Dulchin 2003: 29).
deepest trough of disinvestment in Lower Park Slope, a time when sustained The more they improved the neighborhood for current residents, the more
red-lining and abandonment had resulted in over 200 vacant buildings and 159 attractive it became to new residents frozen out of higher-end, gentrified
vacant lots in the neighborhood, many city-owned (Slater 2004a), and a time neighborhoods by impossible sale and rental prices. With their arrival, the
when something had to be done to improve both the physical and social con- previously low rents in Lower Park Slope escalated, and existing residents who
ditions of a place that was baSically left to its own devices by a city,administra- were supposed to be benefiting from the improvements undertaken by the
tion with neither the money nor the will to take steps towards positive change. FAC ended up being indirectly threatened by these improvements as land-
Unlike the community development corporations that were concerned almost lords realized that after a barren spell of profitability, they could now cash in
exclusively with grassroots (re)development, the FAC was formed to act as on the neighborhood.
convenors and advocates, organizers and sources of technical assistance, and 'The current mission of the Fifth Avenue Committee is
packagers and developers-certainly ambitious considering the long-stand-
to advance social and economic justice principally by developing and
ing conflict of interests between organizing and development in community
politicS (Katznelson 1981), but such ambition was perhaps needed in the after- managing affordable housing, creating employment opportunities,
organizing residents and workers, providing adult-centered education
math of New York's devastating 1970s fiscal retrenchment.
 254 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 255

opportunities, and combating displacement caused by gentrification.

(Fifth Avenue Committee, 2007) The tenant lives within the DFZ area
The tenant lives in a smllll building that is not protected by rent stllbilization
The tenant is low-income
The threat of displacement in Lower Park Slope is compounded by the fact The tenant is being evicted because the landlord wants to increase the rent
that the neighborhood contains many apartment buildings built before 1947 drumatically

with fewer than six units, which are thus exempt from New York State's rent Priority is given to tenants in the following situations:
stabilization laws. In 1999, the FAC undertook a survey of how many small
The landlord has other housing and financial options, and is raising tile rent
buildings had changed hands in the neighborhood between 1996 and 1999. simply 10 increase profits
They were concerned about the fact that a change in ownership in unregulated The landlord is an absentee owner
TIle tenant is a long-time resident of the neighbourhood and/or senior
small buildings leads to significant increases in rents as new landlords seek to citizen
claim back on their mortgage and maintenance payments, and seek to profit The tenant is facing a housing emergency and has no other housing options

from overspill gentrification by attracting wealthier tenants. They found that

21 percent of buildings had changed hands-a remarkable pace of turnover Figure 7.2 Criteria for Eligibility to Receive Assistance from Fifth Avenue Committee's
indicating booming real estate activity. Displacement Free Zone Campaign
To combat the change from a triclde of tenant evictions into a flood, they
devised a strategy in 1999 called a Displacement Free Zone (DFZ), where a ter- landlords from buying houses in the neighborhood solely for investment
ritory was marked out in which the FAC claimed there would be 'no evictions' purposes. On the other hand, the strategy could be accused of alienating
of low- and moderate-income tenants. Initially a thirty-six-block area, the owner-occupiers or incoming higher-income tenants who may be 'commu-
zone was extended in 2002 north and south to cover the entire neighborhood, nity minded', and also the FAC may be targeting the wrong people, when it is
108 square blocks, crossing the southern border of the neighborhood and into the statewide lack of rent stabilization permitting landlords to behave in the
Sunset Park. The purpose of the DFZ is to preserve the ethnic and class diver- ways that they do which seems to be the most pressing problem. It is encour-
sity of the neighborhood, to keep its hOUSing stock affordable and residents aging, however, to see the reduction in evictions achieved by this campaign:
stable in their homes, and to respect the needs of its long-term (particularly We looked at court-supplied eviction records from the year before the
ethnic minority) residents and senior citizens. It actively aims to discourage campaign hegan and the year after the campaign began and compared
anyone from what they call 'profiteering at the expense of our community'-a the area of the DFZ to a demographically similar area next to the DFZ.
reference to people buying a bUilding and then evicting the long-term, low- We found that while both areas experienced a decline in evictions, the
rent-paying tenants either to attract new tenants who can afford much higher DFZ area experienced a decline in evictions more than double that of
rents, or to claim the building back for themselves. The FAC considers the the non-DFZ area. (Dulchin 2003: 31)
case of any tenant who meets the criteria set out in Figure 7.2, and relies on
Difficulties in measuring displacement make it unclear precisely how much of
tenants to come forward. as they have no way of tracking large rent increases
this decline is due to activism, but as Dulchin says, '[S]ome part of the decrease
or incidents of tenants being served eviction notices. If they hear about a rent
had to do with the work of the DFZ' (p. 31).
increase which threatens displacement, they will work with religious leaders
The Fifth Avenue Committee learned a lot from this high-profile campaign,
to appeal to the landlord's 'conscience'. If this fails, and the case goes to court, and offers advice for neighborhood organizers resisting gentrification (see
they have the support of the local Legal Services to defend the tenant,who will Box 7.1). Perhaps the most important lesson of the FAC and its DFZ is that it
prolong the case, making it more expensive for the landlord to proceed. If this is possible to fight the free market by insisting on the moral right to adequate
fails, the FAC attempts to hold the landlord publicly accountable for his or her and affordable housing, and that a community can defend against gentrifica-
actions. This could take the form of demonstrating in front of the landlord's tion if it can get the message across that landlords will be met with a deter-
home or business, or generating media attention about the unfairness of the
mined campaign of protest if they seek unreasonable profits at the expense of
eviction-all intended to bring the landlord to a negotiating table and reach a some community members.
compromise that allows the tenant to stay.
The great strength of the strategy is that it increases the visibility of Case 2: GClItrijicalioll Dot-ColIl: Bool1l mId BI/st ill Sail Fn11lcisco's iHissiol1 District
displacement and draws marginalized community members into organizing, (Note to readers: an excellent online discussion of gentrification in the Mis-
and extremely vocal and public resistance to displacement may discourage sion District [see Map 7.2], with a timeline, an analysiS, and photography, has
256 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 257

INNER MISSION DISTRICT

Box7.l San Francisco, California
The Fifth Avenue Committee's Advice On Resisting
Gentrification (Adapted from Dulchin 2003: 31-3)

1) Have fUll with a purpose, alld build commwlity. Demonstrations

should not be angry, but rather carnival-themed, inviting onlookers
to join in on the 'party with a purpose.'
2) Yell stories. Build a campaign around the individual cases of tenants
whose stories personify the injustice of gentrification. This human-
ises the problem more than any real estate data ever could.
3) Celebrate the cammullity, talce the moral high graulld. Do not use
anti-landlord rhetoric, but rather pro-community rhetoric. A sense
of community pride is less likely to alienate anyone who is vital to the
struggle. .
4) Let the local leadership lead. An organizing campaign cannot work
unless it is in sync with the culture and values of the community.
5) Recruit wholesale, llat retail. The best way to achieve widespread sup-
port is to tap into informal social networks of people who already
know each other (through, for example, churches, schools, senior
citizens organisations).

been put together by local resident Tom Wetzel and can be found at http://
www.uncanny.netl-wetzellmacchron.htm.)
For decades San Francisco was considered a hotbed of political activism,
artistic expression, and diversity. As rents and salaries have skyrock-
eted, many political activists, artists and people of color have been
forced to leave the city. Similarly, as the cost of retail space continues
to escalate local business people have been priced out of business and Map 7.2 The Mission District, San Francisco
cannibalised by chain stores. Previously interesting neighbourhoods
like Haight Ashbury, the Inner Sunset, and the Mission District are Adams Wood's stunning documentary Boom! The SOUl1d of Eviction, a film
becoming bland reflections of corporatist culture. Sadly, the increased about that fight, occurs when a local artist, Gordon Winiemko, frustrated at
cost of living in San Francisco has meant the inability to support the the displacement of artists from that neighborhood by incoming beneficiaries
rich diversity of protest activity, artistic development. and immigrant of the late 1990s dot-corn boom, decides to reinvent himself as 'E. Victor'.
culture that once made the city famous. (Roschelle and Wright 2003: Wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase, he issues eviction papers to startled
164-165) gentrifiers at restaurants and bars in the Mission, to make the point that the
Reading this mournful commentary, one could be forgiven for assuming that consumption practices they are enjoying have come at too high a price for
many of the people living in the neighborhood before their arrival. Here is
gentrification has not been resisted in San Francisco in recent years. But as
Roschelle and Wright note, there have been contestations, perhaps the best- how Winiemko described the local changes that led to the birth ofE. Victor:
known of which is the fight against gentrification in the Mission District. One It's hard not to notice ... when a new restaurant opens up seemingly
of the more memorable moments of Francine Cavanaugh, A. Mark Liiv, and every day, replacing a small grocery store or auto body shop ... when
258 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 259

snow white, picture-perfect Buffy and Ken come out to play at night, systematic disinvestment and discrimination accelerated. By the late 1960s,
their shiny new luxury tarues lining the middle of the street ... when the Mission District experienced poverty, crime, and a deteriorating housing
you can't walk ten feet without tripping over yet another "artist loft" stock, making the threat of 'urban renewal' the central political issue of the
development without any artists in it ... or when all your friends and time. Renewal was successfully resisted, however, by the Mission Coalition
the community organizations that support you are being evicted or Organization, a coalition of community groups which 'established a legacy
can't afford to stay here anymore. In San Francisco these days, it seems of grassroots organizing and community action' (Alejandrino 2000: 17) in
like every third person has an eviction story. And it's particularly bad the Mission (see also Castells 1983: 106-137). Today, the Mission remains the
in the Mission district, for decades home to small, funky businesses of symbolic core of San Francisco's working-class Latino community (home to
every stripe, non profits, Latino families, and artists. One day you wake around one third of all Latinos in the city), and it is also a focal point of urban
up and realize that the city is being white-washed, its polyglot bohemia artistic expression; during the 1970s, a community of artists also began to
surgically replaced by a corporate, consumption-loving monoculture. develop there, attracted by cheap studio and warehouse space in the neigh-
One day you decide to do something about it. (http://cometmagazine. borhood's northeast section.
com/cometsite4/cometsite3/comet2/artstrilces.html) The 1990s saw another group of settlers-gentrifiers-arriving in the
Mission, leading to huge local conflicts and tensions. A booming regional
This wonderfully vivid description of gentrification, however, needs an expla-
economy anchored around the high-tech industries in Silicon Valley to the
nation. What happened in the Mission, how was gentrification contested, and
south of the city began to affect San Francisco's housing market dramatically.
with what results?
Rebecca Solnit (2000) captures these changes as follows:
The Mission is named after Mission Dolores, a makeshift chapel and the
first building in San Francisco, founded in 1776 by Father Palou, a Spanish [G]entrification is just the fin above the water. Below is the rest of the
priest (the building moved to its current location on 16th and Dolores Streets shark: a new American economy in which most of us will be poorer, a
in 1783). It is interesting to note that displacement has a long history in this few will be far richer, and everything will be faster, more homogenous
part of the world-the founding of Mission Dolores marked the first tiroe a and more controlled or controllable. The technology boom and the
population was displaced from the Mission, for Costanoan Indians inhabited accompanying hOUSing crisis have fast-forwarded San Francisco into
the area before being uprooted by Spanish colonialists (Alejandrino 2000: 16). the newest version of the American future. (p. 14)
With the Gold Rush and transportation advances, such as the horse-drawn
For Solnit and many low- to moderate-income tenants in the city-particu-
streetcar and San Francisco's Municipal Railway (otherwise known as MUNI,
larly in the Mission-this future is not a pretty sight. Employment growth
which began carrying passengers in 1851), more residents and businesses came
(half a million jobs were created in San Francisco's Bay Area from 1995 to
to the neighborhood, so that by 1890,
2000) maSSively outstripped hOUSing production in the city-only one housing
most of the Inner Mission was built up, and the basic land-use pattern, unit was created for every 3.14 jobs from 1990 to 2000 (Alejandrino 2000: 14).
still existing today, was established. Mixed-use buildings lined Mission, Aa informative report by the city's Urban Habitat Program (2000) explained
16th, and Valencia Streets, and single- and multi-family residences for the consequences:
middle-class San Franciscans developed throughout the neighbour- The growing gap between low wage and high wage workers and the
hood, except in the district's northeast industrial corner. (Alejandrino scarcity of housing, especially affordable housing for low income house-
2000: 16) holds, is resulting in the displacement of low income people by middle
and high income households in historically urban communities of calor.
Following the devastating 1906 earthquake and fire in San Francisco, the
(p. iii)
Mission received large numbers of suddenly homeless citizens from damaged
parts of the city, and soon became home to many working-class Irish and One of these communities was the Mission. Its relatively affordable housing
Italian families. The 1950s and 1960s federal housing subsidies saw many of became irresistible to young middle-class professionals (many of whom were
these families leave the Mission for the suburbs, to be replaced by an influx profiting from the 'dot-corn' explosion of the late 1990s) attracted by the area's
of immigrants from Central and South America. The Latino community unique cultural identity, transit access, proximity to downtown, and increas-
grew very quickly, served by a fledgling network of immigrant services, com- ingly hip nightlife scene. Trendy restaurants, bars, and clubs began to price
munity organizations. and local businesses-at precisely the same time as out local serving businesses and the nonprofit organizations supporting the
260 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 261

neighborhood's immigrant population. On Valencia Street, a major artery of small businesses .... Several hundred jobs already lost can be traced
the Mission, over 50 percent of the businesses there in 1990 had vanished by directly to the replacement of work-places by live/work condos; many
1998, and neighborhood commercial rents jumped by 42 percent in just two other small businesses have been forced to relocate or close because the
years (1997-1999; Solnit 2000: 62). Many longtime Latino tenants were evicted new neighbors just wanted their neighbourhood to look industrial, not
as new housing developments raised property values, and as landlords looked be industrial. (Solnit 2000: 103)
to capitalize on the growing popularity of the Mission by raising rents. Particularly upsetting for many Mission residents was the fact that live-work
Between 1997 and 1999, the average rent of a two-bed unit in the Mis- developments were increasingly and illegally inhabited by dot-corn businesses
sion increased by 26 percent, 10 percent more than across the city as a whole looking for affordable commercial space, at the expense ofvital local businesses
(Alejandrino 2000: 21). Furthermore, a large number of recent immigrants serving a well-established community. In sum, the Mission in the 1990s was
were renters, and less familiar with tenant rights due to language or other characterized by frighteningly rapid commercial and resideniial gentrification,
cultural barriers, making qUick evictions easier to accomplish. Also in this with a flood of evictions and displacement of small businesses, artists, and pre-
short time period, the Mission experienced oyer 16 percent of San Francisco's dominantly Latino low-income tenants. In the latter part of that decade, local
'owner move-in evictions', which, until 1998, allowed building owners to evict people against these changes decided to get together and fight both the devel-
tenants so long as they resided in the. building for twelve months after the opers and the legislation that was proving propitious for gentrification.
eviction, after which they could return it to the market and escape rent control Initial efforts by a newly formed Coalition for Jobs, Arts and Hous-
(after 1998, that time period waS extended to thirty-six months). Together with ing (CJAH) were focused on getting the city's Board of Supervisors to close
a massive increase in Ellis Act evictions, a California state law which allows loopholes in the live-work ordinance, thus preventing further development.
property owners to remove their property from the rental market and evict all In August 1999, CJAH held a No More Lofts! rally at city hall to back these
the tenants (so long as paltry sums of money are given to each evictee-$4,500 efforts, but they were eventually thwarted by the prodeveloper bias of the
for low-income persons, and $3,000 to elderly or disabled persons), the Mis- majority of supervisors and the intimidation tactics of the Residential Build-
sion experienced an epidemic of evictions in the late 19905. ers Association (Wetzel200l). A more direct and angry form of protest came
Another major contributor to 1990s gentrification in the Mission was the in the form of the Mission Yuppie Eradication Project (MYEP) founded and
mushrooming of 'live-work' loft developments in the more industrial north- led by local activist Kevin Keating. MYEP put up a series of six posters in the
east corner of the neighborhood. Back in 1988, city artists lobbied successfully Mission (which can be viewed at http://www.infoshop.org/myep/cw_posters.
for a municipal <live-work' ordinance to legalize the conversion of industrial html) advocating, among other things, the vandalism of 'yuppie cars', squat-
space into live-in studios. Two key features of this ordinance were exemption ting in newly built loft units, and 'attaclting and destroying' various 'yuppie
from affordable housing quotas (as live-work developments are not technically bars and restaurants in the Mission'. When Keating was arrested for 'late night
'housing', they are released from the citywide requirement that 10 percent of postering', a number oflocal people turned out in support of him and the anti-
the units within housing developments must be affordable), and a lower rate gentrification message he was trumpeting, even if many disagreed with the
of contribution to school taxes. At the time, artists did not know how this threatening tactics. While Keating himself maintained that it was all a public-
ordinance was creating a bonanza for developers, led by the Residential Build- ity stunt intended to raise awareness of gentrification, the influence of MYEP
ers Association, that would eventually lead to their eviction from their live- may have led to the 1999 torching of two live-work buildings under construc-
work studios. not to mention the eviction of their neighbors in the Mission. tion (WetzeI200l), and more broadly to the aggressive 'dot-commie' rhetoric
Developers marketed the live-work lifestyle to young urban home buyers, and pervading the neighborhood at that time. But as Wetzel argued, this tag, and
the 1990s saw construction oflive-work developments in vacant lots, but par- that of 'yuppie', 'obscures distinctions of income and power. The people who
ticularly prolific conversion of existing buildings-housing small businesses, simply work in the industry weren't calling the shots. The venture capitalists,
low-income tenants, and/or artists-into a high-end form oflive-work: dot-corn CEOs, office developers, landlords of commercial buildings and top
Live/work spaces have become infamous as cheaply built condominiums city leaders were making the relevant decisions' (2001: 52).
at sky-high prices almost no artist can afford. From near downtown to It was those decision makers who became subject to a sustained challenge
the city's poorest southern reaches, these angular modernist struc- by anti-gentrification activists in 2000, following the emergence of two large
tures with glaring walls of glass pop up between industrial buildings, development projects in the Mission. The first was the Bryant Square project-
old Victorians and other older buildings, directly displacing numerous 160,000 square feet of multimedia and high-tech office space in a retrofitted
262 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 263

factory building (evicting a sweater factory that employed thirty people, mostly reforming a prodevelopment planning department and implementing Some
Mission residents), and the demolition of an artist loft structure for a five-story Prop. L measures on a temporary basis. The intense activism that sprouted
office monolith. Nearly fifty artists (animators, filmmakers, and photogra- from the context of endemic evictions in the Mission led to a change in poli-
phers) were evicted to make way for this project. The second was the transfor- tics at a citywide level-an extraordinary achievement. Voters realized that
mation of an empty former National Guard Armory into 300,000 square feet prodevelopment and proeconomic growth interests were a threat to the cul-
of dot-corn office space. Both these projects provoked a stern reaction from all tural diversity. the progreSSive countercultural activism, and the character of
sections of the Mission community. Staff from local Mission nonprofits, small historic inner-urban neighborhoods which have for generations been a hal1-
business owners, artists, and other activists came together to form the Mission mark of San Francisco's identity.
Anti-Displacement Coalition (MAC) to fight these two projects. Interestingly, In 2001 the dot-corn industry went bust as quickly as it had boomed, and
this is a rare cas. of artists in a gentrifying neighborhood uniting with work- the gentrification pressures in the Mission began to diSSipate as commer-
ing-dass families and tenants to protest against gentrification. cial rents and hOUSing prices began to stabilize (see Graham and Guy 2002).
The largest community meeting in two decades, organized by the MAC, Vacant storefronts now dot some of the Mission's main retail corridors, and
took place in June 2000, where the head of San Francisco's planning depart- vacancy rates are rising-yet it would be unwise to claim that San Francisco's
ment and three of the planning commissioners faced an angry crowd of over housing market has crashed. It is stilI too early to assess the long-term effects
500 people chanting 'moratorium' in response to the MAC demand for an ofthe dot-corn boom, but if anything, activists in San Francisco and elsewhere
immediate ban on live-work and office development in the Mission. This have learned that gentrification and displacement can be chal1enged, which is
was followed a few weeks later by a caminata (street protest) of over 1,000 perhaps the most important long-term effect of all.
people walking 'to defend the right to live in the Mission', and then by roughly
Case 3: 'Raising Shit: TIle DOlVlltOlVlI Eastsine, \!a/'lCOllVel~ Canada
2,000 people attending an 'eviction party' for a dance group unable to afford
their rehearsal space (Wetzel 2001: 53-54). These anti-displacement protests But in whose image is space created?
resulted in a victory when the developer proposing the Armory office space David Harvey (1973)
pulled out, citing community pressure and conflict as the key reasons. Yet raise shit
in the face of the resilience of prodevelopment Mayor Willie Brown, activists against the kind of "urban cleansing"
realized that more work had to be done and that they had to adopt legislative gentrification unleashes ...
as much as direct, vocal tactics. The qAH in particular, led by Debra Walker,
to raise shit is to actively resist
a local artist, was instrumental in the writing of a citizens' initiative, Proposi-
and we resist with our presence ...
tion L, which would
we resist
1. end the live-work loophole by making lofts subject to the same rules person by person
as other housing construction, square foot by square foot
2. ban office projects larger than 6,000 square feet in the Mission, and room by room
3. ensure all office developers prOVide some below-market-rate space building by building
for nonprofits. block by block
Bud Osborn (1998: 287-288)
Prop. L was effectively the culmination of all the anti-displacement efforts
in the Mission that had taken place in the previous two years. ThirtY thou- Vancouver has a reputation for liveability, beauty, and tranquility-areputation
sand signatures were gathered in two weeks to ensure that Prop. L hada place that is occaSionally warranted (depending on one's ability to consume it), but
on the local elections ballot. Not surprisingly, developers and their political mostly one constructed by 'residents, the media, real estate developers, and
allies poured millions of dollars into campaigns against Prop. L, distribut- government officials' (Lees and Demeritt 1998: 339). In tandem with tour-
ing propaganda daiming that it Was harmful to 'economic development'. The ist board employees, these groups spend much of their time selling Vancou-
proposition was narrowly defeated in November 2000, but a partial victory ver as some sort of paradise on the Pacific-the very essence of multicultural
was gained the following month in the election to powerful Board of Supervi- harmony in a veritable smorgasbord of mountains, towering fir trees, and
sors positions of seven out of eight pro-Prop. L candidates in the running-a orca-fil1ed oceans and inlets, where fresh salmon cooks on sidewalk grills in
major shift to the left in city politics, which immediately had the effect of front oflatte-fueled outdoor-types wearing wraparound shades, sitting atop
264 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 265

gleaming new mountain bikes, all speaking passionately about environmental

issues whilst eagerly anticipating the 2010 Winter Olympics (and the regular
rainfall in the city is all part of the fun). Just to the east of downtown, how-
ever, and just south of the ultra-touristy Gastown district, where Cowichan
sweaters, moose antlers, and maple syrup are sold in shops below swanky loft
apartments, is a neighborhood which few city boosters would like visitors to
experience-the Downtown Eastside (see Map 7.3). Vancouver as a bastion
of liberal tolerance and cycle-path hedonism is suddenly disrupted in a place
where 'one hundred years of struggle' (Hasson and Ley 1994) have left a land-
scape of agony and addiction, for which the frequent remedial prescription
is gentrification in the guise of 'revitalization'. As we write, the fight over the
Downtown Eastside's future is far from over, but what has happened so far,
and especially in recent years, serves as an excellent example of what DeFilip-
pis (2004) and Slater (2006) have called the 'false choice' facing low-income
communities of either long-term disinvestment and neglect or gentrification
and displacement. Realizing that this choice is a false one is absolutely crucial
if a more progressive and socially just form of urban development is to be
pursued in a place which has been under severe gentrification pressures for
over hvo decades.
As the Downtown Eastside is one of the poorest neighborhoods in Canada,
and certain sections of it are such a sudden jolt to the senses and so glaringly
at odds with much of the rest of Vancouver, it is easy to treat it as a place inde-
pendent from its wider urban context or, worse, as a place that has developed
separately because of the 'self-destructive' behavior of the people living there.
But as numerous scholars have noted (Sommers 1998; Shier 2003; Sommers
and Blomley 2003; Blomley 2004), this division is artificial, and the struggles
over the Downtown Eastside are a direct consequence of generations of pow-
erful material and representational practices that have constructed this part
of Vancouver as a 'foreign land', when in fact it is a local expression of the
uneven geographical development that results from the commodification of
housing under capitalism (Harvey 2006b). This is a place with a complex his-
Map 7.3 The Downtown Eastside, Vancouver
tory of settlement and dispossession, of ruin and renovation, where conflict-
ing claims to the ownership of land and property jostle with shifting public
policy priorities. Such complexity cannot be unveiled in this book, but a very complicated shadows over contemporary contests over property and land'
condensed history is important if we are to understand the struggle taldng (Blomley 2004: 34). In the early years of the twentieth century, the area became
place there today. Imown as the East Side, and was promptly vacated by the middle class and
Just as the early years of San Francisco's Mission District were characterized property-owningworldng class moving outwards in search of more space, leav-
by displacement and upheaval, so indeed were the early years of an urbanizing ing it to immigrants, the unemployed poor, and seasonal workers (such as log-
Downtown Eastside. The large fishing, hunting, and gathering First Nations gers, miners, and railroad and construction laborers) who found cheap lodging
population which originally settled this part of Canada were from the 1870s housing in the area. Sommers (1998) describes the landscape in detail:
onwards displaced by waves of European and East Asian (especially Chinese
and Japanese) migration in an episode of colonial dispossession beyond the The condition of the housing that they occupied, some of the earli-
scope of this book-here, it is important to realize that 'such struggles cast est built in the city, and its cheek-by-jowl proximity to the complex of
266 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 267

lumber mills, freight and fish docks and canneries, rail yards, grain 2003: 32-33). Sommers (1998) has shown to whom blame was attributed for
elevators, clothing sweatshops, and warehouses extending east along the deteriorating condition of the area:
the waterfront from downtown helped constitute the place as part of Since the early 1950s, when Vancouver's sldd road was "discovered" and
Vancouver's first so-calied slum district. (p. 292) labelled a "scar" on the city's landscape, the presence oflarge numbers
of single men and their problematic conduct had been treated as pri-
Sommers also discusses at length how this was a place dominated by single
mary causal factors in the deterioration of the built environment ....
men, not just demographically but also culturally-pre-World War n down-
[T]he skid road's inhabitants were considered to be the callse of urban
town Vancouver became a 'masculine space' where red-light districts, bootleg-
blight and decay. The skid road was distinguished precisely by its lack of
ging joints, brothels, and gambling establishments served a transient, mobile
both families and the respectability that somehow accompanied them.
male population perceived by the authorities as a threat to the social order
(p.296)
of the city, partaking in a less 'proper' form of manhood than the family-
oriented, stable, and self-supporting form common to bourgeois (suburban) These pathological constructions added fuel to the fire of urban renewal plans
circles. in the 1960s. which were gathering serious momentum until it was pointed out
Following World War n, this part of Vancouver and the male seasonal by academics and activists that urban renewal and displacement via freeway
workers living in it were hit hard by wiqer economic changes: construction would simply recreate another Sldd Road elsewhere, and until
the countercultural uprising in Canada in the late 1960s (which we described
[A] slow decline began in the neighbourhood as its central role in in detail in Chapters 3 and 6), where modernist urban planning came under
warehousing. transportation, and a host of manufacturing operations sustained and ultimately successful opposition (even today, there are no free-
that relied on or supported hinterland resource extraction began to ways in Vancouver).
dim. Over the same period, there was also a shift in the structure of An outcome of the reform-era social movement in Canada. and particularly
the labour market. Consolidation in the ownership of resource indus- of its broader background of an expanding welfare state, was the outcropping
tries, on one hand, and increasing unionization of the workforce, on of neighborhood organizations representing community demands for ser-
the other, reduced the demand for the migrant workers who lived in the vices and political representation (Hasson and Ley 1994). One such organiza-
neighbourhoods around the downtown waterfront. At the same time, tion, the Downtown Eastside Residents Association (DERA), formed in 1973
waterfront industries began to relocate to cheaper land far from the to insist that this area be recognized as a community. and one that was not
downtown core. (Sommers and Blomley 2003: 31) isolated from but tied together with the history of the Vancouver waterfront.
The numerous single-room occupancy hotels (SROs) in the neighborhood DERA fought hard to challenge the lack oflocal services, the inadequate hous-
became the permanent homes to many unemployed, older single men, as well ing provision, and particularly the negligent and dismissive attitude of plan-
as the discharged psychiatric patients of the deinstitutionalization movement, ners, politicians, businesses, and the media towards local residents. Skid Road
who had few alternative housing options. It was at this time that middle-class became the 'Downtown Eastside'. and people 'who were once seen as derelicts
observers began referring to the area negatively as 'Skid Road'. This term and deviants were now being recognized as former loggers. miners, seamen.
emerged from late nineteenth-century Seattle (Morgan 1981; Alien 1993) to railroad workers, waitresses. cooks. longshoremen, mill workers. and others
describe the greased corduroy tracks of saplings over which logs were skidded associated with the economic expansion of the west' (Sommers and Blomley
towards the water to be floated to sawmills. 'Skid Road' later came to refer to 2003: 39). Yet this major progress for the Downtown Eastside was at the same
the area of a town where out-of-work loggers congregated in bars, hotels, and time challenged by the 'historic preservation' of the Old Granville Townsite,
bordelios; arrival there signified that one was sliding downwards in society, or which was renamed 'Gas town' in a property development strategy masked as
'going on the skids.' During the Depression, the phrase expanded to denote a model vision of democratic public space, setting off the first set of gentrifica-
the rundown section of any city in North America where homeless and unem- tion pressures in the area. Four hundred SRO rooms were lost between 1968
ployed people clustered (in many cities, this has changed to a generic 'skid and 1975, displacing large numbers oflow-income residents (p. 41).
row'). Journalists in the early 1950s described the East Side of Vancouver as A drive east along Hastings Street from downtown Vancouver will qUicldy
'Skid Road' in order to feed the wider perception that this was a neighborhood reveal a very wide rent gap (see Chapter 2), where decades of disinvestment
'no longer identified through work, but rather in terms of the morally dubious have depressed land values in the area. The fact that this rent gap has not yet
nature of other activities that took place in the area' (Sommers and Blomley been comprehenSively closed would seem to be a major empirical challenge to
268 • Gentrification TI,e Future of Gentrification? • 269

Neil Smith's theorizations-but because of sustained resistance, gentrification Plate 7.2 Woodward's Department Store, Vancouver
there remains a major threat, rather than something that is actually marching
along this important thoroughfare. The first attempt to exploit this rent gap was
in the early 1980s, when Vancouver got ready for the 1986 World's Fair (EXPO
'86). The anticipated demand for hotel rooms encouraged a number of SRO
hotel owners to upgrade their properties and convert them from residential to
tourist use. Several hundred long-term residents were evicted and displaced,
many of whom were elderly, mentally ill, and in poor health-approximately
2,000 low-income hOUSing units were lost in the process (Olds 1989). Blomley
(2004) has pointed out that this horrendous episode is now seen as a 'political
touchstone' in the Downtown Eastside, forming a convincing moral critique
both of capitalist property relations and of Vancouver's integration into global
capitalist networks (p. 51). When development pressures intensify,local activ-
ists draw on this event to highlight the importance of retaining affordable
hOUSing, and also the community's 'moral right not only to continue as an
entity, but to remain i/1 situ' (p. 52). From the 1990s onwards, there has been
strong activism along these lines as gentrification and displacement loom ever
larger:

In the past few years, a number of megaprojects on the periphery of the The boarded-up Woodward's, awaiting redevelopment or, more correctly, gentrification. Most of this
area ... combined with more recent incursions by loft developers into structure has been demolished to make way for the construction of new condo towers, but a small
the neighbourhood have occurred. Social polarization has increased. corner of the facade of the old building in the far right will be integrated into the new design.
Combined with residential gentrification in Strathcona, in the east, the The pre-sale marketing campaign launched in early 2006 seemed to be written as the latest text-
effect is to create a property frontier that encircles the area. Real estate book illustration of Neil Smith's rent gap and new urban frontier. A lavish two-page color spread
in the most depressed areas of the neighbourhood is cheap. (p. 35) in the local Georgia Straight newspaper emphasized investment: 'The smart money gets in early.
Vancouver can only grow in one direction - East. Invest in Woodward's District, downtown's most
Lying in one of these most depressed areas is a building which N. Smith and extraordinary new address. In the tradition of fine universities like NYU, Woodward's offers a col-
Derksen (2003) believe could be, symbolically and materially, the 'TampIons lection of modern living environments, connected to the city and Simon Fraser University. This is
Square Park of Vancouver' (p. 87); although Lees (1999) prefers to think ofit as true urban living at the centre of a cutting edge, creative community'. The development's Web site
(http://www.woodwardsdistrict.com)isevenmorerevealing.asit reassures local residents that
the 'Christodora House' of Vancouver (the Christodora House, converted into
rent gaps are closing fast as global-city gentrification intensifies: 'If you've lived in Vancouver all
condominiums, in the Lower East Side, was targeted by anti-gentrification your life you may think of Woodward's as edgy. But if you moved to Vancouver in the last 10 to 15
activists as a symbol of gentrification in that neighborhood). This is the years, or have resided in any other major city in the world like New York or London, you will recognize
Woodward's building on the north side of Hastings Street-the former home the incredible potential. This is an emerging area, not a sanitized environment. Neighbourhoods like
of the Woodward's department store, which closed in 1993 after serving the this are rare and offer an authentic mix of cutting-edge culture, heritage and character. That's why
community for almost a century (see Plate 7.2). Nobody did much about it for the intelligent buyer will get in early. This is the future. This is your neighbourhood. BE BOLD OR
two years until local activists decided to counter claims that the presence of MOVE TO SUBURBIA.'
poor people was responsible for its abandonment by cleaning the sidewalks Source: Photograph by Elvin Wyly.
and painting community ownership slogans on the vacant storefront. These
actions intensified after it was revealed that a local developer, Kassam Agh-
tai, had submitted an application that same year (1995) to turn Woodward's distribution (see Lees [1999] on how critical geographers became involved).
into 350 condominium units. These proposals were met with support from So great was the pressure on Aghtai that he was forced to rework his proposal
local speculators, merchants, and loft dwellers, and with anger and horror into a mixed-income development in tandem with both provincial and city
from activists representing the neighborhood's low-income population, who administrations. But in April 1997, he pulled out altogether, saying that every-
qUickly mobilized into an organized campaign of anti-gentrification flier thing had become 'too bureaucratic' (cited in Blomley 2004: 41), and went
270 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 271

back to his original condominium plan, which, astonishingly, was approved less vitality on previous land uses and users' (pp. 33-34). These are worrying
by the City of Vancouver. The inevitable protests that did follow were intense words when considering that one of the guiding principles of Woodward's is
and were organized around the theme of community ownership-actiVists that it will be 'an urban revitalization catalyst'. It comes as no surprise to learn
painted boarded-up windows with stencilled graffiti saying 'give it back', that on April 22, 2006, when the residential market units in the Woodward's
'100% ours', 'community property' and 'our community, our building'. In development went on sale, all 536 units were sold by April 23, representing
addition, protestors attempted to encircle the building with a human chain over $200 million in sales.
and surveyor's tape. This sustained opposition to gentrification was Success- 'The Downtown Eastside is a complex place confronting a complex situ-
ful, as the building was taken from the hands of the developer by the outgoing ation, where in the words of Heather Smith (2003), '[I]ntra-neighbourhood
provincial government. polarisation is identified by the simultaneous occurrence of upgrading and
In 200!, the newly elected (neoliberal) provincial government was less downgrading' (p. 506). Some further explanation explains the consequences:
sympathetic to community activists' concerns, again shoWing interest in pri-
vate bids for the building. The anti-gentrification response the follOwing year The designation of certain portions of the Downtown Eastside as official
heritage or revitalization areas promotes gentrification in precisely the
(September 2002) came in the form of a squat of the building, until squatters
same neighbourhood spaces where the demand for assisted housing and
were evicted by the police yet permitted to camp outside the building. This
services is most intense. and in some cases where drug and associated
encampment became a high-profile embarrassment to the city (at the time of
criminal activity continue to entrench. 'The government's oversight
its 2010 Winter Olympics bid), and was only disbanded when protestors (all of
them homeless, having been evicted from SRO hotels) were offered alternative of other neighbourhood spaces facilitates deepening commercial
accommodation (in December 2002) by the city government. In March 2003, and residential decline immediately adjacent to or enmeshed with
the right-wing provincial government sold the building to the left-of-center gentrification. Further compounding polarisation in the neighbour-
city government-a huge victory for the protestors. The city immediately ini- hood has been the delay in protecting, both from deterioration and
revitalisation, the area's SRO stock-one of the most important sources
tiated a 'public consultation process' over the future of the building, and a
summary of the responses can be viewed at http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ of truly affordable housing left in the city. (p. 506)
corpsvcs/realestate/woodwards/ideas.htm. These responses are organized With these words, we can conclude that it would be naive to assume that
into several themes-residential, health, recreation, cultural, commercial and 'social mixing' wili actually talce place in a tortured neighborhood with such
retail, employment, social, institutional, and general design-reflecting the strong local polarization. Life courses, life chances, and lifestyles within this
policy wish to create a mixed-use development. The city invited proposals neighborhood, and especially within the new Woodward's, could not be more
for a development along such lines, and in September 2004 chose Westbank different; is it sensible even to suggest that the occupiers of the 536 market
Projects/Peterson Investment Group as the developer. The project is a mix of units will 'socially mix' with the occupiers of the 200 nonmarket units? The
up to 536 market and 200 nonmarket hOUSing units (a combination of both project is, of course, undoubtedly a better scenario than entirely exclusive
family and Singles units). Also included are shops and services, community market units, but if we consider things in terms of strength in numbers, over
nonprofit space, public green space, a day care, and a postsecondary educa- two times as many market units than nonmarket units does not bode well for
tion facility. those who have for years battled for a more equitable form of development
Situating this winning proposal in the context of recent research into than gentrification.
gentrification and social mixing. we can see that the resistance to exclusive
development, however impressive the achievement. is something of a partial
What Property Ought to Be
victory. It is partial because Woodward's is now a socially mixed develop-
Commenting on the conflict over the Woodward's building, Nick Blomley
ment-and we have seen how such social mixing can amount to gentrification
(2004) wrote these powerful words:
in the previous chapter. Furthermore, there are considerably more market
than nonmarket units in the development. in a neighborhood which continues [W]hen activists encircle the Woodward's building and say "it's ours"
to lose SRO hOUSing to gentrification (N. Smith and Derksen 2003), and the they do more than complicate the question of what property is. ... [T]hey
language of the entire project pivots around 'revitalization', which, as David raise moral questions of what property otlght to be. By saying "it's ours",
Ley (1996) has pointed out, is 'objectionable, implying a sense of moral supe- activists challenge the legitimacy of other claimants, worry about the
riority in the process of residential succession. and imparting a mantle of ethical consequences of those private claims, and imply that a collective
272 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 273

claim has an inherent value. TIle redevelopment of the inner city, here more control over, and ownership of, housing. These issues have recently been
and elsewhere, concerns contending moral visions. (p. 74) explored by James DeFilippis (2004) in his work on limited equity hOUSing
The three case studies described above all raise these moral questions of what cooperatives (LEHCs), community land trusts (CLTs), and mutual housing
property ought to be, and demonstrate that private development geared to the associations (MHAs) in the United States. This passage explains what led to
interests of certain privileged groups can be challenged, with varying degrees these forms of collective hOUSing ownership:
of success. They also demonstrate that property is much more than a finan-
[R]einvestment needs to be understood through the lens of questions
cial asset-it is a home, the place we belong to and the place which belongs to
such as: What land of investment? For whom? Controlled by whom?
us, and therefore has a critically important use value which far outweighs its
These processes have left residents of low-income neighborhoods in a
exchange (market) value. As Squires (1992) has pointed out, anti-gentrification
situation where, since they exert little control over either investment
activists wish for housing to be 'treated as a public need and entitlement rather
capital or their homes, they are facing the "choices" of either contin-
than as a private good to be obtained by the market' (p. 30). They put under a
ued disinvestment and decline in the quality of the homes they live in,
moral spotlight those for whom a building's exchange value is irrelevant and
or reinvestment that results in their displacement. 'The importance of
its commoclification harmful, thus increasing awareness that there is more to
gentrification, therefore, is that it clearly demonstrates that low-income
housing than its sale price, and that low-income people have what Hartman
people, and the neighborhoods they live in, suffer not from a lack of capi-
(1984) famously called 'the right to stay put'.
tal but from a lack of power and control over even the most basic compo-
Twenty years ago, in an essay entitled 'Towards the Decommodification of
nents oflife-that is, the places called home. (DeFilippis 2004: 89)
Housing', Achtenberg and Mareuse (1986) pointed out the need for
Briefly condensed from DeFilippis's (2004) work (see pp. 89-111), LEHCs are
a program that can alter the terms of existing public debate on housing,
similar to other hOUSing co-ops in North America in that the corporation
that challenges the commodity nature of housing and its role in our
owns and controls the housing development and residents are shareholders
economic and social system, and demonstrates how people's legitimate
of that corporation, but different in that the price of the owners' shares is not
housing needs can be met through an alternative approach. (p. 475)
determined by the wider real estate market, but by a set formula determined
That same year, N. Smith and Williams (1986) concluded their seminal edited by the particular co-op's bylaws. This means that the resale price of the shares
collection on gentrification with these words: is restricted and the household's equity thus limited, ensuring that the co-
op's housing units remain permanently affordable. Examples of this can be
In the long run, the only defence against gentrification is the "decom-
found in the Lower East Side of New York City, where long-term squatters
modification" of housing.... Decent housing and decent neighbour-
eventually gained control of their squats and turned them into viable afford-
hoods ought to be a right, not a privilege. That of course is unlikely to
able housing through the LEHC route. CLTs are another form of preserving
be achieved through a series of reforms; rather, it will take a political
affordable housing-a community organization owns and manages the land,
restructuring even more dramatic than the social and geographical
while the residents own only the housing units located on the land. There are
restructuring we now see. (p. 222)
strict limitations on housing costs and the resale price, and people can only
The obstacles to the Marxist-inspired decommodification of hOUSing are collect on investments they make in the units-any rise in housing value is
enormous, for such an approach 'clearly contradicts the strong ideological SOcially created and not something that belongs to any individual. Examples
beliefs that have shaped public policy generally and housing policy in par- are the CLT described by DeFilippis in Burlington, Vermont, and famously
ticular' (Squires 1992: 30) throughout the history of capitalist urbanization. in the context of resisting real estate speculation and gentrification, the Dudley
Furthermore, the deepening neoliberalization that underpins the policy Street Neighborhood Initiative in Roxbury, Boston (http://www.dsnLorg).
approach to urban neighborhoods across the entire planet (Brenner and Theo- MHAs are somewhat similar to LEHCs, but residents do not own shares in
dore 2002) hardly represents an about-turn in the attitude towards the rights of their cooperative-the housing is entirely free from the market, and a mix-
low-income and worlang-class people to remain in the places they call home. ture of collective and individual ownership is within the hands of the MHA.
In response to the march of global capital, and as people discover that com- Residents both rent their units from and constitute the MHA, and commu-
modified property markets are exclusive and displacing, and rent controls far nity and resident participation is written into the governance of each asso-
from permanent, low-income communities have recently attempted to gain ciation. Residents undertake mandatory maintenance work and pay monthly
274 • Gentrification The Future of Gentrification? • 275

housing charges to the MHA, either fixed with periodic adjustments to keep gentrification. Cities are at their least healthy, least diverse, and least inter-
pace with inflation, or paid as a percentage of the residents' income (less than esting when they become bourgeois playgrounds, as lain Borden (2003) has
30 percent, which is substantially lower than in many gentrifying neighbor- shown in a scathing critique of the gentrification agenda of Lord Richard
hoods!). The example provided by DeFilippis is from Stamford, Connecticut, Rogers, whose influence on the 'renaiSsance' ofUK cities we discussed in the
but there are at least thirty MHAs in the United States, and furthermore these Preface:
are expansionist organizations, seeking to take more and more housing out of
the private market. [Rogers's city] is the city of mocha, big Sunday papers, designer lamps,
What can we make of these collective ownership forms in the context fresh pasta, and tactile fabrics. It is not, however, the city of all the
of resistance to gentrification? This is obviously not militant resistance, but disparate activities that people do in cities. It is not the city of sex,
rather a 'soft' form of organizing in concert with Haclcworth and Smith's shouting, loud music, running. pure contemplation. demonstrations,
(2001) claims that the most angry and disruptive forms of protest against gen- subterranean subterfuges. It is not the city of intensity, of bloody-
trification and displacement have all but disappeared. DeFilippis's verdict is minded determination, of getting out-of-hand; nor is it the city of
mixed-they have unquestionably improved the lives of people living within cab ranks, boot sales, railway clubs or tatty markets; nor is it the city
them and given them a degree of control over their housing that otherwise of monkish seclusion. crystal-clear intellectualism or lonely artistic
would not be possible, but at the same time this control is perhaps more lim- endeavour. (p. 114)
ited than each MHA and CLT would imply; increasing property costs beyond As Borden points out, what may be Rogers's vision of the city is not one shared
the portfolio of each collective makes it harder to acquire more property; by everyone, and as we have asked in this book, at what price does Rogers's city
and the meanings of housing, property, and ownership in each collective are appear? The creation of 'cities for the few' results in loss of place for the many
still the dominant, hegemonic, capitalist ones (p. 110), hardly disrupting the (Amin, Massey, and Thrift 2000). We leave the last words to a tireless social
prevailing orthodoxy on profiting from property. But we include discussion justice advocate to sum up the spirit in which we have written this book:
of them here because currently these collective forms of ownership, given the
[T]o deprive people of their territory, their community or their home,
decline of militant opposition to gentrification, are perhaps the best possi-
would seem at first sight to be a heinous act of injustice. It would be
bilities we have for something other then gentrification-something other
like taking away any other source of basic need-satisfaction. on which
than the false choice of disinvestment or displacement There is also much
people depend absolutely.... But this experience is not simply depriva-
to learn from the efforts of community organizations such as, inter alia, the
tion: there is a literal necessity to be re-placed. People who have lost
Logan Square Neighborhood Association in Chicago, who have spent much of
their place, for one reason and another, must be provided with or find
the last decade fighting for affordable housing quotas during a tidal wave of
another. There is no question about it. People need it. They just do.
gentrification and luxury condo development in Uptown Chicago (Aardema
(D. M. Smith 1994: 152)
and Knoy 2004), and also the Pilsen Alliance in the lower West Side of the
same city, which has achieved some success in protecting the neighborhood's Summary
low-income Mexican American population from both residential and indus-
In this chapter we have peered toward the future of gentrification, looking
trial displacement brought about by gentrification (Wilson, Wouters, and
at its future magnitude and relevance. The chapter describes the empirical-
Grammenos 2004; Curran 2006).
extrapolation and theoretical projection that researchers have used to inform
Perhaps the most important lesson of all coming from numerous attempts
questions about the future of cities. We reviewed the discursive nature of gen-
to resist gentrification is that if you can't decommodify housing, then at the
trification and the societal conversations and confrontations that continue to
very least, you can defend it in many ways. Despite the many protestations
swirl around the meaning of the term, particularly in media accounts. But
to the contrary that we have discussed in this book, we feel that gentrifica-
the main focus of the chapter illustrated the difficulties and the possibili-
tion cannot be considered a process that is to be managed. harnessed, or
ties that face contemporary movements in resisting gentrification, protecting
twisted into a positive form of urban development. The difficulty in measur-
against displacement, and encouraging a more socially just form of neigh-
ing displacement and finding conclusive evidence that it has been widespread
borhood change not geared to the interests of those who benefit financially
does not mean we should deny its existence; and furthermore, displacement
from such changes. The chapter presented a series of case studies of recent
doesn't have to occur for affordable housing to be permanently removed by
struggles over gentrification, examining the variety of strategies and tactics
276 • Gentrification 'The Future of Gentrification? • 277

adopted, including what was achieved and what lessons have been learned. Amin, A., D. Massey, and N. Thrift (2000) Cities for the Many Not the Few (Bristol:
'The case studies highlighted the ways in which the history of different places Policy Press).
affects current rounds of gentrificatian. and some of the commonalities Blomley, N. (2004) Unsettling the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property
between legal strategies, shaming tactics, popular protest, and their real, (New York: Routledge).
though partial, victories in resisting gentrification. Finally, the chapter turned Brownill, 5., and J. Darke (1998) Rich Mix: Inclusive Strategiesfor RegenemtiOlI (Bristol:
Policy Press).
to other strategies that low-income communities have developed to gain more
Butler, T.. C. Hamnett, and M. Ramsden (forthcoming) 'Inward and upward: Marking
control over, and ownership of, housing through limited equity housing coop- out social class change in London', Urban Studies.
eratives (LEHCs), community land trusts (CLTs), and mutual hOUSing asso- DeFilippis, J..(2004) UI1111aking Goliath: Community Control ht tlte Face of Global
ciations (MHAs). We conclude the chapter by reiterating a critical geography Capital (New York: Routledge).
of gentrification that has a social justice agenda. Harvey, D. (2000) Spaces of Hope (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Lees, 1. (1999) 'Critical geography and the opening up of the academy: Lessons from
Activities and Exercises "real life" attempts', Area, 31, 4: 377-383.
Read Neil Smith's {l996a) discussion of the battle for Tompkins Lees, 1. (ed.) (2004) 11le Emancipatory City: Paradoxes and Possibilities? (London:
Sage).
Square Park in the Lower East Side. Read also Krzystzof Wodic-
Meligrana, J., and A. Skaburskis (2005) 'Extent, location and profiles of con-
zko and Rudolph Luria, ''The HOrheless Vehicle Project', Journal of tinuing gentrification in Canadian metropolitan areas', Urban Studies
Architectural Educatioll (1990) 43, 4: 37-42; and Neil Smith {l992b) 42: 1569-1592.
'Contours of a Spatialized Politics of Homeless Vehicles and the Mitchell, D. (2003) TIle Right to the City: Social Justice alld the Fight for Public Space
Production of Geographical Scale', Social Text, 33:54-81. What do (New York: Guilford).
you think about the different forms of resistance discussed? Myers, D., E. Gearin, T. Banerjee, and A. Garde (2001) Current Preferences and Future
Find and examine newspaper articles on a celebrated 'reinvestment' Demand for Denser Residential EnviroltlHellts (Coral Gables, FL: Funders'
Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities).
or 'revitalization' project in a low-income neighborhood near you.
Newman, K. (2004) 'Newark, decline and avoidance, renaissance and desire: From
Ask, 'Is this gentrification?'
disinvestment to reinvestment', Annals of the American Academy of Political
Read Hari Kunzru, ''The Battle for Tony's Cafe: An Everyday Tale of and Social Research 594: 34-48.
Gentrification' (an article about the battle over the commercial gen- New-man, I<., and E. K. Wyly (2006) ''The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrification and
trification of Broadway Market just north of Hoxton in London), The resistance to displacement in New York City', Urban Studies 43: 23-57.
Guardian g2, December 7, 2005, 8-11. Is resistance to commercial Slater, T. (2004b) 'Municipally managed gentrification in South Parkdale, Toronto',
gentrification different from resistance to residential gentrification? The Cmwdian Geographer 48: 303-325.
Watch Where Call I Live, directed by Erik Lewis (1984). 'This program Sohmer, R. R., and R. E. Lang (200!) Downtown Rebound, Census Notes Series
(Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation, Brookings Institution).
examines gentrlfication, focusing on three tenant groups in Brooklyn,
Squires. D. (ed.) (1992) From Redlining to Reinvestment: Community Responses to
New York City. It demonstrates how the tllleat of displacement led com- Urban Disinvestment (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).
munity residents to organize in defense of their homes and community. Wilson, D., J. Wouters, and D. Grammenos (2004) 'Successful project-community dis-
Review the case studies presented in this chapter. Make a list of course: Spatiality and politics in Chicago's Pilsen neighbourhood', Envirollnteltt
the various tactics-from legal to artistic-that communities have alld Plallllillg A 36, 7: 1!73-U90.
engaged in to challenge prodevelopment forces and gentrification.
In your OWn words, prepare a short definition and provide an exam-
ple of what DeFilippis (2004) and Slater (2006) call the 'false choice'
that low-income residents face in gentrifying communities.

Further Reading
Achtenberg, E. P., and P. Marcuse (1986) 'Toward the decommodification of housing',
in R. Bratt, C. Hartman, and A. Meyerson (eds.) Critical Perspectives OH Housillg
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press), 474-483.
 Bibliography

Aardema. N., and S. J. Knoy (2004) 'Fighting gentrification Chicago style', Social
Policy 34, 4: 1-6.
Abercrombie, P. (1944) Greater LOlldoll Plall 1944 (London: H.M.S.O.).
Abu-Lughod, J. (ed.) (1994) From Urball Village to East Village: Tile Battle for New
York's Lower East Side (Oxford: Blackwell),
Achtenberg. E. P., and P. Marcuse (1986) 'Toward the decommodification of housing',
in R. Bratt. C. Hartrnan. and A. Meyerson (eds.) Critical Perspectives all HOllsil1g
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press) 474-483.
Alejandrino, S. V. (2000) Gentrijication itl San Francisco's Mission District: Indicators
and Policy Recol1l111endations (San Francisco; Mission Economic Development
Association).
Allen,1. (1984) 'The ideology of dense neighbourhood redevelopment: Cultural diver-
sity and transcendant community experience', Urban Affairs Quarterly 15:
409-428.
Alien, J. 1. (1993) Ti,e City in Slallg: New York Life alld Popular Speech (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Alonso, W. (1964) Location and La11d Use (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Amin, A., D. Massey, and N. Thrift (2000) Cities for the lvIany Not the Few (Bristol:
Policy Press).
Amin, A., and N. Thrift (2002) Cities: Reimagillil1g the Urban (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Andersson, R., and A. Samartin (1985) 'An extension of Moh ring's model for land rent
distribution', Journal ofUrbon Economics 18: 143-160.
Ash, M. (1972) 'Social London', in P. Murray (ed.) 'Invisible London', Time Out, issue
116, May 5-11.
Ashton, P. S. (2005) Adval1tage or Disadvantage? Tile Changil1g Institutional Landscape
of Central City _Mortgage Markets, Ph.D. thesis (New Brunswick, NJ: Urban
Planning and Policy Development, Rutgers University).
Atkinson. R. (2000) 'Measuring gentrification and displacement in Greater London',
Urban Studies 37: 149-166.
Atldnson, R. (2002) 'Does gentrification help or harm urban neighbourhoods! An
assessment of the evidence-base in the context of the new urban agenda', ESRC
Centre for Neighbourhood Research paper 5 (http://www.neighbourhoodcen-
tre.org.uk/research/cnrpaperspdf/cnr5paper.pdf).
Atkinson, R. (2003a) 'Introduction: Misunderstood saviour or vengeful wrecker?
'The many meanings and problems of gentrification', Urban Studies 40, 12:
2343-2350.
Atkinson, R. (2003b) 'Domestication by cappuccino or a revenge on urban space?
Control and empowerment in the management of public spaces', Urban Studies
40,9: 1829-1843.
Atltinson, R. (2004) 'The evidence on the impact of gentrification: New lessons for the
urban renaissance?' European Jounwl of Housing Policy 4, 1: 107-131.

279
280 • Bibliography Bibliography • 281

Atkinson, R., and G. Bridge (eds.) (2005) GelltrijicatiolJ ill a Global Context: The New Black, J. T. (1980) 'Private-market housing renovation in central cities: An urban land
Urban Colonialism (London: Routledge). institute survey', in S. B. Laska and D. Spain (eds.) Back to the City: Issues in
EadeDck, B. (1989) 'An Australian view of the rent gap hypothesis', Annals of the Neighborhood Renovation (New York: Pergamon) 3-12.
Association of American Geographers 79.1: 125-145. Blackburn, R. (2006) 'Finance and the fourth dimension', New Left Review 39, May!
Badcock, B. (1993) 'Notwithstanding the exaggerated claims. residential revitalization June: 39-70.
really is changing the form of some western cities: A response to Bourne', Urban Blanton, re. (2006) 'Properly-values website lets everyone compare', Boston Globe:
Studies 30,1: 191-195. March 17.
Badcodc, B. (2001) 'Thirty years on: Gentrification and class changeover in Adelaide's Blomley, N. (2004) Unsettlillg the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property (New
inner suburbs. 1966-96', Urban Studies 38: 1559-1572. York: Routledge).
Badyina, A., and 0. Golubchikov (2005) 'Gentrification in central Moscow: A market Boddy, M. (2007) 'Designer neighbourhoods: New-build residential development in
process or a deliberate policy? Money, power and people in housing regenera..: non-metropolitan UK cities-the case of Bristol', Environment and Planning A
tion in Ostozhenka', Geografiska Annaler B 87: 113-129. 39, I: 86-105.
Baker, G. (2001) 'The American economy, remortgaged', Financial Times, August 17: 11. Bondi, 1. (1991) 'Gender divisions and gentrification: A critique', Tral1sacti01JS of the
Ball, M. (1985) 'The urban rent question', Environment and Plnlming A 17: 503-525. Imtitute of British Geographers 16: 290-298.
Barnes, T. J. (2000) 'Political economy', in R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt, andM. Bondi, 1. (1999a) 'Between the woof and the weft: A response to Loretta Lees', Envi-
Watts (eds.) The Dictionary of H"ma~ Geography 4th ed. (Oxford: BlackweU) rOl1l11ellt and Planning D: Society and Space 17, 3: 253-255.
593-594. . Bondi, 1. (1999b) 'Gender, class and gentrification: Enriching the debate', El1virOll-
Barry, J., and J. Derevlany (eds.) (1987) Yuppies Invade My House at Dillnertil1le: ment and Plnl1I1il1g D: SOciety and Space 17, 3: 261-282.
A Tale ofBnmcll. Bombs. and Gentrificatiol1 in alt American City (Hoboken, NJ: Borden, I. (2003) 'What is radical architecture?' in M. Miles and T. Hall (eds.) Urban
Big River Publishing). Futures: Critical Commentaries on Shaping the City (London: Routledge)
Beauregard, R. A. (1986) ''The chaos and complexity of gentrification', in N. Smith and 111-121.
P. Williams (eds.) Getltrijicatiol1 of tile City (London: Allen and Unwin) 35-55. Bostic, R., and R. Martin (2003) 'Black homeowners as a gentrifying force? Neighbor-
Beauregard, R. A. (1990) 'Trajectories of neighbourhood change: The case of gentrifi- hood dynamics in the context of minority home-ownership', Urban Studies 40,
cation', Environment nlld Plmming A 22: 855-874. 12: 2427-2449.
Beauregard, R. A. (1993) Voices of Declille: The Postwar Fate of U.S. Cities (Oxford: Bourassa, S. C. (1990) 'Another Australian view of the rent gap hypothesis', AI111als of
Blackwell). the Association ofAmerican Geographers, 80: 458-459.
Beauregard, R. A. (1994) 'Capital switching and the built environment: the United Boura"a, S. C. (1993) 'The rent gap debunked', Urban Stlldies 30,10: 1731-1744.
States, 1970-89', Environment and Pla/ming A 25, 5: 715-732. Bourne, 1. S. (1993a) 'The demise of gentrificaqon? A commentary and prospective
Beauregard, R. A. (2003a) 'Positioning urban theory', Antipode 35,5: 999-1007. view', Urban Geography 14, 1: 95-107.
Beauregard, R. A. (2003b) Voices of Decline: The Postwar Fate of U.S. Cities 2nd ed. Bourne, 1. S. (1993b) 'The myth and reality of gentrification: A commentary on
(Oxford: BlackweU). emerging urban forms', Urban Studies 30,1: 183-189.
Beckett, K., and B. Western (2001) 'Governing social marginality: Welfare, incarcera- Bowler, A., and B. McBurney (1991) 'Gentrification and the avant-garde in New
tion, and the transformation of state policy', Punishment and Society 3, 1: 43-59. York's East Village: The good, the bad and the ugly', TIleary. Culture and SOciety
Bell, D. (1973) TIle Coming of Postilldustrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting 8: 49-77.
(New York: Basic Books). Bowling, B. (1999) 'The rise and fall of New York murder: Zero tolerance or crack's
Berger, J. (2005a) 'Goodbye South Bronx blight, heUo trendy SoBro', New York Times, decline?' British Journal afCriminology 39,4: 531-554.
June 24: AI. Boyd, M. (2000) 'Reconstructing Bronzeville: Racial nostalgia and neighbourhood
Berger, J. (2005b) 'Gentrification moves in on Gowanus', New York Times, November redevelopment', Journal of Urban Affairs 22, 2: 107-122.
28: A19. Boyd, M. (2005) 'The downside of racial uplift: 'The meaning of gentrification in an
Berry, B. (1980) 'Inner city futures: An American dilemma revisited', Transactions of African-American neighborhood', City & Society 17: 265-288.
tile Institute of British Geographers 5, 1: 1-28. Brenner, N. (2001) 'World city theory, globalization and the comparative-historical
Berry, B. (1999) 'Comments on Elvin K. Wyly and Daniel J. Hammel's "'Islands of method: Reflections on Janet Abu-Lughod's interpretation of contemporary
Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrifica- urban restructuring', Urban Affairs Review 37,1: 124-147.
tion"-gentrification resurgent?' HOllsing Policy Debate 10,4: 783-788. Brenner, N., and N. Theodore (eds.) (2002) Spaces ofNeoliberalism: Urban Restructuring
Betancur, J. (2002) 'The politics of gentrification: The case of West Town in Chicago'. in North America and Westem Europe (Oxford: Blackwell).
Urban Affairs Review 37: 780-814. Brethour, P. (2006) 'All aboard Alberta's real estate express: Where to go after Calgary
Bhalla, C. K., I. Voicu, R. Meltzer, I. G. Ellen, and V. Been (2004) State of New York and Edmonton?' Globe and Mail, June 28: B1, B9.
City's Housing and Neighborhoods (New York: Furman Center for Real Estate Bridge, G. (1994) 'Gentrification, class and residence: A reappraisal', Environment and
and Urban Policy, New York University School of Law). Planning D: Society and Space 12: 31-51.
282 • Bibliograpby Bibliography • 283

Bridge. G. (1995) 'The space for class? On class analysis in the study of gentrification\ Cameron, S. (1992) 'Housing, gentrification and urban regeneration', Urban Studies
TrallsactiOllS of the Institute of British GeograplJers 20. 2: 236-247. 29, I: 3-14.
Bridge, G. (200la) 'Estate agents as interpreters of economic and cultural capital: The Cameron, S. (2003) 'Gentrification, housing redifferentiation and urban regen-
gentrification premium in the Sydney housing market', International Journal of eration: "Going for Growth" in Newcastle upon Tyne', Urban Studies 40, 12:
Urban and RegiOlwl Research 25: 87-1Ol. 2367-2382.
Bridge. G. (20mb) 'Bourdieu, rational action and the time-space strategy of gentrifi- Cameron, S., and J. Doling (1994) 'Housing, neighbourhoods and urban regeneration',
cation', Transactiolls DJ tlte IllStitute of British Geographers 26: 205-216. Urban Studies 31, 7: 1211-1223.
Bridge, G. (2003) 'Time-space trajectories in provincial gentrification', Urban Studies Carpenter, J., and 1. Lees (1995) 'Gentrification in New York, London and Paris: An
40, 12: 2545-2556. international comparison', International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
Bridge, G., and R. Dowling (2001) 'Microgeographies of retailing and gentrification', 19,2: 286-303.
Australiall Geographer 32,1: 93-107. Carson, A. (1965) 'Islington Village', New Statesman, September 17: 395-396.
Brint, S. (1991) 'Upper professionals: A high command of commerce, culture, Carter, H. (2005) 'Stacks of potential', The Guardian, June 15.
and civic regulation', in J. Mollenkopf and M. Castells (eds.) Dual City: Caruso, D. B. (2006) 'Officials envision gentrified jail for resurgent Brooklyn',
Restructuring New York (New York: Russell Sage Foundation) 155-176. Associated Press, March 25.
Brooks, D. (2005) 'The bursting point', New York Times, September 4, A29. Castells, M. (1977) TIle Urban Question: A lvlarxist Approach (Cambridge, MA:
Brownill, S. (1990) Developing London's Doc~lands (London: Paul Chapman). MIT Press).
Brownill, S., and J. Darke (1998) Rich Mix: Inclusive Strategies for Regeneration Castells, M. (1983) TIle City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Tlleory of Urban
(Bristol: Policy Press). Social Movements (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Brueckner, J. K., and S. S. Rosenthal (2005) 'Gentrification and neighborhood housing Caulfield, J. (1989) 'Gentrification and desire', Canadian Review of Sociology and
cycles: Will America's future downtowns be rich?' Working paper (Irvine: A1lthropology 26:617-632.
University of California, Irvine, Department of Economics). Caulfield, J. (1994) City Form OIId Everyday Life: Toronto's Gelltrijication and Critical
Brueckner, J. K., J. F. Thisse, and Y. Zenou (1999) 'Why is central Paris rich and down- Social Practice (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
town Detroit poor? An amenity-based theory', European Economic Review Charney,l. (2001) 'Three dimensions of capital switching within the real estate sector:
43: 91-107. A Canadian case study', International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
Bugler, J. (1968) 'The invaders ofIslington', New Society, August 15: 226-228. 25,4: 740-758.
Butler, T. (1997) Gentrification and the Middle Classes (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate). Charney, I. (2003) 'Spatial fix and spatial substitutability practices among Canada's
Butler. T. (2003) 'Living in the bubble: Gentrification and its "others" in London', largest office development firms', Urban Geography 24, 5: 386-409.
Urban Studies 40, 12: 2469-2486. City of Vancouver (n.d.) Woodward's: A new beginning (http:lh'fww.city.vancouver.
Butler, T., and C. Hamnett (1994) 'Gentrification, class and gender: Some comments bc.ca/corpsvcs/realestate/woodwardslideas.htm).
on Warde's gentrification as consumption', Environl11ellt and Planning D: Society Civic News (1969) issue 32: 9.
and Space 12: 477-493. Civic News (1972) 'Cinderella of Prospect Place' March 5: 3, 10-13.
Butler, T., C. Hamnett, and M. Ramsden (2008, forthcoming) 'Inward and upward: Civic News (1973) 'Browns tone films' June 6: 4.
Marking out social class change in London', 1981-2001, Urban Studies. Clark, E. (1987) TIle Rent Gap and Urban Change: Case Studies illlvlalmo, 1860-1985
Butler, T., and 1. Lees (2006) 'Super-gentrification in Barnsbury, London: Globalisa- (Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press).
tion and gentrifying global elites at the neighbourhood level', Transactions of tire Clark, E. (1988) 'The rent gap and transformation of the built environment: Case
Institute o/British Geographers, 31: 467-487. studies in Malmo, 1860-1985', Geografiska Annaler B 70, 2: 241-254.
Butler, T., and G. Robson (200la) 'Negotiating the new urban economy-work, Clark, E. (1991) 'Rent gaps and value gaps: Complementary or contradictory?' in J. van
home and school: Middle class life in London', paper presented at the Royal Weesep and S. Musterd (eds.) Urban Housing/or the Better Off: Gentrijicatioll in
Geographical Society-Institute of British Geographers Conference, Plymouth, Europe (Utrecht, the Netherlands: Stedelijke Neh'ferken) 17-29.
UK, January 2-5. Clark, E. (1992) 'On blindness, centrepieces, and complementarity in gentrification
Butler, T.• and G. Robson (2001b) 'Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood theory', Trallsactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17: 358-362.
change in London: A comparison of three south London neighbourhoods', Clark, E. (1994) 'Toward a Copenhagen interpretation of gentrification', Urban Studies
Urban Studies 38: 2145-2162. 31,7: 1033-1042.
Butler, T., with G. Robson (2003) London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Remak- Clark, E. (1995) 'The rent gap re-examined', Urban Studies 32, 9: 1489-1503.
ing 0/ Inner London (London: Berg). Clark, E. (2005) 'The order and simplicity of gentrification: A political challenge', in
Buzar, S., R. Hall, and P. Ogden (2007) 'Beyond gentrification: The demographic R. Atltinson and G. Bridge (eds.) Gentrijication ill a Global Context: TIle New
reurbanisation of Bologna', Environment and Planning A 39,1: 64-85. Urban Colonialism (London: Routledge) 256-264.
Byrne. J. P. (2003) 'Two cheers for gentrification', Ha ward Law JOllrnal46, 3: 405-432. Clark, K. (1964) Dark Ghetto: Dilemmas o/Social Power (New York: Harper & Row).
284 • Bibliography Bibliography • 285

Clay, P. (l979) Neigllbor/100d Renewal: Middle-Class Resettlement and 1I1cumbellt Deep, A., and D. Domanski (2002) 'Housing markets and economic growth: Lessons
Upgrading ill American Neighborhoods (Lexington, MA: D.e. Heath), from the U.S. refinancing boom', Bank for International Settlemellts Quarterly
Cloke. P.• and N. Thrift (1987) 'Intra-class conflict in rural areas', Jot/mal of Rural Review, September: 37-45.
Studies 3: 321-333. DeFilippis, J. (2004) Ull1llakil1g Goliath: COl1lfmmity Control ill the Face of Global
Cosgrove, D.• and P. Jackson (1987) 'New directions in cultural geography', Area Capital (New York: Routledge).
19: 95-101. DeFilippis, J., and P. North (2004) 'The emancipatory community? Place, politics and
Counter Information Services (1973) TIle Recurrent Crisis of London (London: CIS collective action in cities', in L. Lees (ed.) TIle Emancipatory City? Paradoxes mld
Anti-Report on the Property Developers). Possibilities (London: Sage) 72-88.
Cowley, J" A. Kay, M. Mayo. and M. Thompson (1977) C011l11lLlI1ity or Class Struggle? Dench, G., N. Gavron, and M. Young (2006) TIle New East End: Kinship, Race and
(London: Stage 1 Books). COllflict (London: Profile Books).
Cox, K., and A. Mair (1988) 'Locality and community in the politics of local Department of Environment (1977) Policy for the Inner Cities (London: H.M.S.O.).
economic development', A/mals of tile Association of American Geographers Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1999) Towards
78: 307-325. an Urban Renaissance (London: DETR).
Cunningham, L. E. (2001) 'Islands of affordability in a sea of gentrification: Lessons Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2000a) Our
learned from the DC Housing Authority's HOPE VI projects', Journal ofAfford- Towns and Cities-the Future: Delivering an Urban Renaissallce (London:
able Housing and Community Deveiopl1,lent Law 10,4: 353-371. DETR).
Curran, W. (2004) 'Gentrification and the nature of work: Exploring the links in Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2000b) State of
Williamsburg, Brooklyn', Environment and Planning A 36, 7: 1243-1258. the Ellglish Cities (London: H.M.S.O.).
Curran, W. (2006) 'Gentrification: A case study', in R. Greene, M. Bouman, and DeRocker, R. (1981) 'Thousands of jobs lost in 70s: New figures add hope', TIle Phoenix,
D. Grammenos (eds.) Cliicago's Geographies: Metropolis for the 21st Century April 16: 3.
(Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers) 259-263. DeSalvo, J. S., and M. Huq (1996) 'Income, residential location, and mode choice',
Cybriwsky, R., D. Ley, and J. Western (1986) 'The political and social construction Journal of Urban Economics 40: 84-99.
of revitalized neighbourhoods: Society Hill, Philadelphia, and False Creek, Deutsche, R., and C. Ryan (1984) 'The fine art of gentrification', October 31: 91-111.
Vancouver', in N. Smith andP. Williams (eds.) Gelltrijicatiol1 of the City (Boston: Drake,S., and H. Cayton (1945) Black Metropolis: A Study of Negro Life ill a Northern
AlIen and Unwin) 92-120. City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Dangschat, J. (1991) 'Gentrification in Hamburg', in J. van Weesep and S. Musterd Draper, S. (1991) A House Is on the Outside: A Home Is 011 the Inside: Gentrijicatioll
(eds.) Urball Housing for the Better-off: Gel1trijicatiol1 in Europe (Utrecht, the as a Social Movement, Ph.D. thesis (New York: Department of Anthropology,
Netherlands: Stedelijke Netwerken) 63-88. New York University).
Dansereau, F., J. Godbout, J-P. Collin, D. L'Ecuyer, M-J. Lessard, G. Larouche, and Duany, A. (2001) 'Three cheers for gentrification', TIle American Enterprise, April/
L. Chabot (1981) 'La transformation d'immeubles locatifs en copropriete May: 36-39.
d'occupation', Rapport presente au Gouvernment du Quebec, May (Montreal: Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (2007) DSNI (http://www.dsni.org).
INRS-Urbanisation, Universite du Quebec). Dulchin, B. (2003) 'Organizing against gentrification, fighting the free market: The
Dantas, A. (1988) 'Overspill as an alternative style of gentrification: The case of River- displacement-free zone campaign', Social Policy 34, 2: 29-34.
dale, Toronto', in T. Bunting and P. Filion (eds.) TIle Changing Canadian Inner Dumenil, G., and D. Levy (2004) 'Neoliberal income trends: Wealth, class, and owner-
City, Publication Series 31 (Waterloo, Ontario: Department of Geography, ship in the USA', New Left Review 30: 105-133.
University of Waterloo) 73-86. Duncan, J., and D. Ley (1982) 'Structural Marxism and human geography: A critical
Darling, E. (2005) 'The city in the country: Wilderness gentrification and the rent- assessment', Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 72, 1: 30-59.
gap', EuvirOlll11e1lt and Plm1llillg A 37, 6: 1015-1032. , .. . Dutton, P. (2003) 'Leeds calling: The influence of London on the gentrification of
Davidson, M. (2006) New-Build Gelltrijication and Londolls Rlverslde Renatssance, regional cities', Urba/l Studies 40, 12: 2557-2572.
Ph.D. thesis (London: Department of Geography, King's College London). Dutton, P. (2005) 'Outside the metropole: Gentrification in provincial cities or
Davidson, M., and L. Lees (2005) 'New-build "gentrification" and London's riverside prOVincial gentrification?' in R. Atldnson and G. Bridge (eds.) Gelltrijication in
renaissance', Euviron1Jlent aud Planning A 37, 7: 1165-1190. a Global COl1text: The New Urban Colonialism (London: Routledge) 209-224.
Davis, M. (1990) City of Quartz: Excavatillg tlte Future in Los Angeles (New York: Eade, J., and C. Mele (1998) 'The Eastern promise of New York and London', Rising
Verso). East I, 3: 52-73.
De Bartolome, C. A. M., and S. L. Ross (2002) 'The location of the poor in a metro- Eaton, L. (2006) 'Hurricane aid finally flowing to homeowners', New York Times, July
politan area: Positive and normative aspects', Department of ~co~omics 17: AI, A14.
Working Paper Series, working paper 2002-02 (Storrs: Umverslty of Elevate East Lancashire (2007) Building a better quality of life in Lancashire (http://
Connecticut). -ww-w.elevate-eastlancs.co.uk).
286 • Bibliography Bibliography • 287

Enge1s. B. (1994) 'Capital flows, redlining and gentrification: The pattern of mortgage Gibson-Graham, J. K. (1993) 'Waiting for the revolution, or how to smash capitalism
lending and social change in Glebe, Sydney. 1960-1984', internationaIJournal of while working at home in your spare time', Rethillkillg lvIarxisl11 6, 2: 10-24.
Urban and Regional Research 18.4: 628-657. Glaeser, E. 1., M. E. Kahn, and I. Rappaport (2000) 'Why do the poor live in cities?'
Engels, F. (1872/1975) The HOllsing Question (Moscow: Progress Publishers), Worldng Paper 7636 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research).
enRoute (2002) 'Canada's top ten coolest neighbourhoods', April: 37. Glass, R. (1964) 'Introduction: Aspects of change', in Centre for Urban Studies (ed.)
Fabozzi, F. (2001) 111e Halldbook of lvlortgage-Backed Securities (New York: LOlldon: Aspects of Ch a Ilge (London: MacKibbon and Kee).
McGraw-Hill). Glass, R. (1989) CUciles oJUrbml Doom (Oxford: Blackwell).
Fainstein, S.• and N. Fainstein (1991) 'The changing character of community politics Goetz, E. G. (2003) Clearing the Way: DeCOIlcentratillg the Poor in Urban America
in New York City: 1968-1988', in I. Mollenkopf and M. Castells (eds.) Dual City: (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press).
Restrllcturillg New York (New York: Russell Sage Foundation) 315-332. Goodno, J. (1982) 'Owners forbidden to coop', Tile PllOellix, May 27: 1.
Ferris, J. (1972) Participation in Urban Planning: TIle Barnsbury Case (London: Bell Gotham, K. F. (2001) 'Redevelopment for whom and for what purpose?' in K. Fox
and Hyman). Gotham (ed.) Critical Perspectives Oil Urban Redevelopmellt, vol. 6 of Research
Field, M .. and M. Irving (1999) Lofts (London: Laurence King). in Urban Sociology (Oxford: Elsevier) 429-452.
Fifth Avenue Committee (2007) Our community: Our future (http://wwwjj.fthave,org). Gotham, K. F. (2005) 'Tourism gentrification: The case of New Orleans' Vieux Carre
Firey, W. (1947) Land Use in Central Boston (Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press). (French Quarter)" Urban Studies 42, 7: 1099-1121.
Florida, R. (2003) The Rise of the Creative Clas~ (New York: Basic Books). Graham, J. (1990) 'Theory and essentialism in Marxist geography', Antipode
Florida. R. (2005) Cities and the Creative Class '(New York: Routledge). 22: 53-66.
Forest, B. (1995) 'West Hollywood as symbol: The significance of place in the Graham, S., and S. Guy (2002) 'Digital space meets urban place: Sociotechnologies of
constrllction of a gay identity', Environment and PlalIning D: Society and Space urban restructuring in downtown San Francisco', City 6, 3: 369-382.
13: 133-157. Greater London Authority (GLA) (2004) TIle LOlldon Plall: Spatial Development
Frazier,1. (2006) ·Utopia. the Bronx'. The New Yorker, June 26: 54-65. Strategy for Greater LOIldol1 (http://www.london.gov.uk).
Freeman, 1. (2005) 'Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying Green, S. (1979) Racimmll (London: Michael loseph).
neigbborhoods', Urbal1 Affairs Rellielv 40: 463-491. Griffin, G. (1982) 'Park Slope: Designs for Hving', New Brooklyn 4, 2: 22-27.
Freeman. L. (2006) There Goes The 'Hood: Views ofGentrificatiolI from the Ground Up Griffith. D. (2000) 'Social capital and economic apartheid along the coasts of the
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press). Americas', Urban Anthropology 29, 3: 255-284.
Freeman, 1., and F. Braconi (2002) 'Gentrification and displacement', The Urban Pros- Hackworth, J. (2000) 'State devolution, urban regimes, and the production of geo-
pect: HOllsing, Planning and Economic Development in New York 8, 1: 1-4. graphic scale: The case of New Brunswick, NI', Urban Geography 21: 450-458.
Freeman, 1., and F. Braconi (2004) 'Gentrification and displacement: New York City Hackwnrth, J. (2001) 'Inner-city real estate investment, gentrification, and economic
in the 1990s', Journal of the American Planning Association 70, 1: 39-52. recession in New York City', EnvirOIJ11Wllt al1d Planning A 33: 863-880.
Fried, J. P. (1978) 'Demands for strong measures to combat redlining are growing', Hackworth. J. (2002a) 'Post recession gentrification in New York City', Urball Affairs
New York Times, January 1: 23. Review 37: 815-843.
Fyfe, N. (2004) 'Zero tolerance, maximum surveillance? Deviance, difference and Hackworth, J. (2002b) 'Local autonomy, bond-rating agencies. and neoliberal urban-
crime control in the late modern city', in 1. Lees (ed.) TIle Emancipatory City? ism in the United States', 1I1tematiollal Journal of Urban and Regional Research
Paradoxes and Possibilities (London: Sage) 40-56. 26,4: 707-725.
Fyfe, N .. and I. Kenny (eds.) (2005) Tile Urban Geography Reader (London: Routledge). Hackworth, J., and N. Smith (2001) 'The changing state of gentrification', Tijdscllrijt
Gale, D. E. (1979) 'Middle class resettlement in older urban neighborhoods: The voor ECOIto11lische en Sociale Geografie 22: 464-477.
evidence and the implications', Journal of the American Planning Association Hammel, D. J. (1999a) 'Re-establishing the rent gap: An alternative view of capitalized
45: 293-204. land rent', Urban Studies 36, 8: 1283-1293.
Gale, D. E. (1984) Neigltborhood Revitalization alld the Postindustrial City: A Multi- Hammel, D. J. (1999b) 'Gentrification and land rent: A historical view of the rent gap
national Perspective (Lexington, MA: D.e. Heath). ' in Minneapolis', Urban Geography 20, 2: 116-145.
Geertz, C. (1973) The InterpretatiolJ of Cultures (New York: Basic Books). Hammel, D. I., and E. K. Wyly (1996) 'A model for identifying gentrified areas with
Gelb, T., and M. Lyons (1993) 'A tale of two cities: Housing policy and gentrification in census data', Urban Geography 17, 3: 248-268.
London and New York', Journal of Urban Affairs IS, 4: 345-366. Hamnett, e. (1973) 'Improvement grants as an indicator of gentrification in Inner
Gelinas, N. (2005) 'A perfect storm oflawlessness', City Journal, September 1. London', Area 5, 4: 252-261.
Gershun, M. (1975) 'Financing a brownstone: With luck you can come out ahead of the Hamnett, C. (1984) 'Gentrification and residential location theory: A review and
game', The Phoenix, October 2: 28. assessment', in D. T. Herbert and R. J. Johnston (eds.) Geography and tlte Urban
Ghose, R. (2004) 'Big sky or big sprawl? Rural gentrification and the changing cultural Environment: Progress in Research and Applications (London: WHey & Sons)
landscape ofMissoula, Montana', Urban Geography 25,6: 528-549. 283-319.
288 • Bibliography Bibliography • 289

Hamnett. C. (1991) 'The blind men and the elephant: The explanation of gentrifica- Harvey, D. (2006b) Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a TIlcory of Uneven
tion', Transactiolls of the Institute of British Geographers 16.2: 173-189. Geographical Development (London: Verso).
Hamnett, C. (1992) 'Gentrifiers or lemmings? A response to Neil Smith', Transactions Hassan, S., and D. Ley (1994) Neighbourhood Orgauizatiolls and the Welfare State
of the Institute of British Geographers 17. 1: 116-119. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Hamnett, C. (1994a) 'Soda-economic change in London: Professionalisation not Helms, A. C. (2003) 'Understanding gentrification: An empirical analysis of the
polarization', Built Environment 20,3: 192-203. determinants of urban housing renovation', Journal of Urban Economics
Hamnett, C. (1994b) 'Social polarisation in global cities: TIleory and evidence', Urbmz 54: 474-498.
Studies 31, 3: 401-424. Hevesi, D. (2002) 'Skirmishes Signal rent law countdown', New Yorlc Times, July 7.
Hamnett. C. (1996) 'Social polarisation, economic restructuring and welfare state Hiebert, D. (2000) 'The social geography of immigration and urbanization in Canada:
regimes', Urban Studies 33,8: 1407-1430. A review and interpretation', Research on Immigration and Integration in
Hamnett, C. (2000) 'Gentrification. postindustrialism. and industrial and occu- the Metropolis, Worldng Paper Series no. 00-12, September (Vancouver, BC:
pational restructuring in global cities', in G. Bridge and S. Watson (eds.) Vancouver Centre).
A Companion to the City (Oxford: Blackwell) 331-341. Hodenfield, J. (1986) 'The sunny side of the street'. Daily News Magazine, May 25: 6-9.
Hamnett, C. (2003a) Unequal City: London in the Global Arena (London: Routledge). HoJcomb. H. B. (1984) 'Women in the city', UrbO/l Geograplty 5, 3: 247-254.
Hamnett, C. (2003b) 'Gentrification and the middleMclass remaking of inner London, Holcomb, H. B., and R. A. Beauregard (1981) Revitalizing Cities (Washington, DC:
1961-2001', Urball Studies 40,12: 2401-2426. Association of American Geographers).
Hamnett, c., and B. Randolph (1984) 'The role of landlord disinvestment in hous- Holton, P. (1968) 'New browns tone breed enlivens urban life', TIle BraWl/stoner 1, 1
ing market transformation: An analysis of the flat break-up market in Central (1st ed.).
London', TransactiollS of the Institute of British Geographers 9: 259-279. HOlVard Law Journal (2003) 46, 3 (http://www.law.howard.edu/dictator/media/229/
Hamnett, C., and B. Randolph (1986) 'Tenurial transformation and the flat breakMup huljvoI46_3.pdf).
market in London: The British condo experience', in N. Smith and P. Williams Howell, B. (2006) 'Exploiting race and space: Concentrated subprime lending as hous-
(eds.) Gelltrijicatioll oftlte City (London: Alien and Unwin) 121-152. ing discrimination', Calijomia Law Review 94: 101-147.
Harris, R. (1987) 'A social movement in urban politics? A reinterpretation of urban Hoyt, H. (1933) One Hundred Years of Land Values ju Chicago (Chicago: University of
reform in Canada', Intemational Journal of Urban and Regional Research Chicago Press).
11: 363-38J. Hayt, H. (1939) TIre Structure alld Growth of Residential Neighbourhoods in American
Hartman, C. (1984) 'The right to stay put', in C. Geisler and F. Popper (eds.) Lalld Cities (Washington, DC: Federal Housing Administration).
Reform, American Style (Totowa, NI: Rowman and Allanheld) 302-318. HUD v. Rucker, 545 U.S. 125, 122 S.Ct. 1230 (2002).
Hartman, c., D. Keating, and R. LeGates (1982) Displacement: How to Fight It Hulsbergen, E.• and P. Stouten (2001) 'Urban renewal and regeneration in the
(Washington, DC: National Housing Law Project). Netherlands: Integration lost or subordinate?' City 5, 3: 325-337.
Hartshorn, T. (1992) Interpreting the City: An Urban Geography 2 nd ed. (New York: 1mbroscio, D. 1. (2004) 'Can we grant a right to place?' Politics & Society 32: 575-609.
John WHey & Sons). Imrie, R. (2004) 'Urban geography, relevance, and resistance to the "policy turn"',
Harvey, D. (1973) Social Justice alld tlte City (London: Edward Arnold). Urban Geography 25, 8: 697-708.
Harvey, D. (1974) 'Class monopoly rent, finance capital, and the urban revolution', Imrie, R .• and M. Raco (eds.) (2003) Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and
Regional Studies 8: 239-255. Urban Policy (Bristol: Policy Press).
Harvey, D. (1978) 'The urban process under capitalism: A framework for analysis', Jackson, K. T. (1985) Crabgrass Frontier: TIle Suburballizatioll of the United States
International Jormwl of Urban and Regional Research 2: 101-131. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Harvey, D. (1982) The Limits to Capital (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Jackson, K., and J. Manbeck (eds.) (1998) The Neighborhoods ofBrooklyn (New Haven,
Harvey, D. (1985) TIle Urbanization o/Capital (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University CT: Yale University Press).
Press). Jacobs, J. (1996) Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the City (London: Routledge).
Harvey, D. (1989a) TIle Condition of Post modernity (Oxford: Blackwell). Jacobs, J. M .. and R. Fincher (1998) 'Introduction', in R. Fincherand J. M. Jacobs (eds.)
Harvey, D. (1989b) 'From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation Cities of Difference (New York: Guilford) 1-25.
in urban governance in late capitalism', Geografiska Anl/aler B 71: 3-17. lager, M. (1986) 'Class definition and the aesthetics of gentrification: Victoriana
Harvey, D. (2000) Spaces of Hope (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). in Melbourne', in N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.) Gentrijication of the City
Harvey, D. (2003) TIle New Imperialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press). (London: Unwin Hyman), 78-9J.
Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neo-liberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Jessop, B. (2002) 'Liberalism, neoliberalism. and urban governance: A state~theoretical
Press). perspective', Antipode 34, 3: 452-472.
Harvey, D. (2006a) 'Space as a keyword', in N. Castree and D. Gregory (eds.) Dal/id Johnstone, c., and M. Whitehead (eds.) (2004) New Horizons in Urban Policy:
Harl'ey: A Critical Reader (Oxford: Blackwell) 270-293. Perspectives 011 New Labour's Urban Renaissance (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate).
290 • Bibliography Bibliography • 291

Julian, K. (2006) 'Big houses', TIle New Yorlcer. May 29: 27. Kwon, Y. (2005) 'Urban comparative statistics when commuting cost depends on
Justa, F. (1984) Effects OjHOllSillg Aballdollmel,t. Resettlement Processes and Displace- income', Journal oJHousing Ecollo11lics 14: 48-56.
ment 011 the Evolution of Voluntary Community Orgmlizations ill Park Slope, Lake, R. W. (1983) Readings in Urban Analysis: Perspectives Oil Urban Form and
Brooklyn, New York. Ph.D. thesis (New York: City University of New York), Structure (New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers
Karsten, 1. (2003) 'Family gentrifiers: Challenging the city as a place simultaneously University).
to build a career and to raise children', UrbmJ Studies 40, 12: 2573-2584. Lake, R. W. (1995) 'Spatial fix 2: The sequel', Urban Geography 16, 3: 189-191.
Kasarda, J. D. (1999) 'Comments on Elvin K. Wylyand Daniel J. Hammel's "Islands Lake, R. W. (2002) 'Bring back big government', International Journal of Urban alld
of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrifica- Regional Research 26, 4: 815-822.
tion"', Housing Policy Debate 10,4: 773-781. Lambert, c., and M. Boddy (2002) 'Transforming the city: Post-recession gentrifica-
Kasinitz. P. (1988) 'The gentrification of "Boerum Hill": Neigbborhood change and tion and re-urbanisation', paper presented at 'Upward Neighbourhood Trajec-
conflicts over definitions', Qualitative Sociology 11, 3: 163-182. tories: Gentrification in the New Century', UniverSity of Glasgow, Scotland,
Katzneison, 1. (1981) City Trenches: Urban Politics mid the Pattemillg of Class ill the September 26-27.
United States (New York: Pantheon Books). Lander, B. (1997) 'Communities creating change? Development, organizing and
Keams, G., and C. Philo (eds.) (1993) Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past social change', A/lOther Side: The journal of the Mic/wel Harrington Center 5,
and Present (Oxford: Pergamon Press). I: 5-16.
Keating, K. (2007) Class war poster campaigns in San Francisco 1993-2001 (http:// Laska, S. B., and D. Spain (eds.) (1980) Back to the City: Issues ill Neighborhood Re/w-
www.infoshop.org/myep/cw_posters.html). vation (New York: Pergamon Press).
Keil, R. (2002) "'Common-sense" neoliberalism: Progressive conservative urban ism Lauria, M., and 1. Knopp (1985) 'Towards an analysis of the role of gay communities
in Toronto, Canada', Antipode 34, 3: 578-601. in the urban renaissance', Urban Geography 6: 387-410.
Kern, C. R. (1981) 'Upper-income renaissance in the city: Its sources and implications Lawson, R. (1984) 'Tenant responses to the urban housing crisis, 1970-1984', in
for the city's future',joumal Df Urban Economics 9: 106-124. R. Lawson (ed.) The Te/w/lt Movement ill New York City, 1904-1984 (New
King, A. (1990) Global Cities (London: Routledge). Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press) 209-276.
Knopp. 1. (1990) 'Some theoretical implications of gay involvement in an urban land Lay ton, 1. (2006) 'Contest winners bear witness to a shifting Washington', Washington
market', Political Geography Quarterly 9: 337-352. Post, May 8: BI.
Knopp, L. (1992) 'Sexuality and the spatial dynamics of capitalism', Environment and Lee, S. (dir.) (1991) Jungle Fever (film).
Planning D: Society and Space 10:651-669. Lees, 1. (1994a) A Pluralistic and Comparative Analysis ofGentrijication in London and
Knopp, 1. (1997) 'Gentrification and gay neighborhood formation in New Orleans: A New York, Ph.D. thesis (Department of Geography, University of Edinburgh,
case study', in A. Gluckman and B. Reed (eds.) HDmo Economics: Capitalism, Scotland).
Community, Lesbian and Gay Life (London: Routledge) 45-63. Lees, 1. (1994b) 'Gentrification in London and New York: An Atlantic gap?' Housing
Knox, P., and 1. McCarthy (2005) Urbanization 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Studies 9, 2: 199-217.
Prentice Hall). Lees, 1. (1994c) 'Rethinldng gentrification: Beyond the positions of economics and
Kodras, J. E. (2002) 'With liberty and justice for all: Negotiating freedom and fairness culture', Progress in Human Geography, 18,2: 137-150.
in the American income distribution', in J. A. Agnew and J. M. Smith (eds.) Lees, 1. (1996) 'In the pursuit of difference: Representations of gentrification',
American Space/American Place: Geographies Dfthe Contemporary United States E/lvirolllllent and Planning A 2B: 453-470.
(New York: Routledge) 187-230. Lees, 1. (1998) 'Book review: "The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revan-
KQED (2007) Castro resource guide (http://www.kqed.org/w/hood/castro/resource- chist city" by N. Smith and "Gentrification and the middle classes" by T. Butler',
gUide/index.html). EnvirDmnent and Planlling A 3D, 12: 2257-2260.
Krase, J. (2005) 'Poland and Polonia: Migration, and the re-incorporation of ethnic Lees, 1. (1999) 'Critical geography and the opening up of the academy: Lessons from
aesthetic practice in the taste of luxury', in R. Atldnson and G. Bridge (eds.) "real life" attempts', Area 31, 4: 377-383.
Ge/ltrijication in a Global COil text: 71Je New Urban Colonialism (London: Lees, 1. (2000) 'A reappraisal of gentrification: Towards a "geography of gentrifica-
Routledge) 185-208. tion"', Progress in Human Geography 24, 3: 389-40B.
Krueckeberg, D. A. (1995) 'The difficult character of property: To whom do things Lees,1. (2003a) 'Visions of "urban renaissance": The Urban Task Force report and the
belong?' journal of the American Planning Associatioll 61, 3: 301-309. Urban White Paper', in R. Imrie and M. Raco (eds.) Urban Renaissance? New
Kruger, K. H. (1985) 'Oh, baby. Schiesse. Wie ist das gekommen?' Der Spiegel, March Labour, C011l111111lity and Urban PDlicy (Bristol: Policy Press) 61-82.
11 (quoted in Smith 1996a: 140). Lees, L. (2003b) 'Super-gentrification: The case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City',
Krugman, P. (2006) 'Coming down to Earth', New York Times, May 19: A23. Urban Studies 40, 12: 2487-2509.
Kunzru, H. (2005) 'The battle for Tony's Cafe: An everyday tale of gentrification', The Lees, 1. (2003c) 'Policy (re)turns: Urban policy and gentrification, gentrification and
Guardian g2, December 7: 8-11. urban policy', Environment and Planning A 35, 4: 571-574.
292 • Bibliography Bibliography • 293

Lees, 1. (2003d) 'The ambivalence of diversity and the politics of urban renaissance: Little, J. (1987) 'Gentrification and the influence aflacal-Ievel planning', in P. Cloke
The case of youth in downtown Portland. Maine, USA', International Journal of (ed.) Rural Planning: Policy illto ACtio/l? (London: Harper & Row) 185-199.
Urban and Regional Research 27. 3: 613-634. Logan, W. (1985) TI,e Gentrijication ofInller Melbourne (St. Lucia, Australia: University
Lees, L. (2006) 'Gentrifying down the urban hierarchy; "The cascade effect" in Port- of Queensland Press).
land, Maine, USA'. in D. Bell and M. Jayne (eds.) Small Cities: Urban Experience London Borough ofIslington (1966) Barnsbury Environmental Study: Interim Report,
beyolld the Metropolis (London: Routledge) 91-104. August (London: London Borough ofIslington).
Lees, 1. (ed.) (2004) The Emancipatory City? Paradoxes Ql1d Possibilities (London: Sage). London Borough of Islington (1969) 'Planning and the public: A novel approach',
Lees, 1.. and 1. Bondi (1995) 'De-gentrification and economic recession: The case of press release, February 4 (London: London Borough of Islington).
New York City', Urball Geagraphy 16, 3: 234-253. Lueck, T. J. (1991) 'Prices decline as gentrification ebbs: The future is uncertain
Lees. 1.. and D. Demeritt (1998) 'Envisioning the livable city: The interplay of "Sin in areas that bloomed too late in the 1980s', New York Times, September 29,
City" and "Sim City" in Vancouver's planning discourse', Urban Geography sec. 10: 1.
19: 332-359. :(..yons, M. (1996) 'Gentrification, socio~economic change and the geography of dis-
Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production oJ Space, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith placement', JOllmal oJ Urban AjJairs18: 39-62.
(Oxford: Blackwell). Lyons, M., and J. Gelb (1993) 'A tale of two cities: Housing policy and gentrification in
LeGates, R., and C. Hartman (1986) 'The anatomy of displacement in the US', in London and New York', Joumal DJ Urban AjJairs 15, 4: 345-366.
N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.) Ge~trificatioll of tlte City (London: Unwin MacLeod, G. (2002) 'From urban entrepreneurialism to a "revanchist city"? On the
Hyman) 178-200. spatial injustices of Glasgow's renaissance', Antipode 34, 3: 602-624.
LeRoy, S. F., and J. Sonstelie (1983) 'Paradise lost and regained: Transportation MacLeod, G., M. Raco, and K. Ward (guest eds.) (2003) 'Negotiating the contempo-
innovation, income, and residential location', Journal oJ Urban Economics 13: rary city', Urba/l Studies 40, 8 (special issue).
67-89. Maine Arts Commission (2004) Proceedings from the BIaine HOllse Conference
011 lvIaine's Creative Ecol1omy, August (http://\vww.mainearts.maine.gov/
Lethem, I. (2003) Tile Fortress ofSolitude (New York: Doubleday).
Ley, D. (1980) 'Liberal ideology and the postindustrial city', Annals oJ the Association mainescreativeeconomy/conference/Proceedings).
oJ American Geographers 70: 238-258. Marcuse, P. (1985a) 'To control gentrification: Anti-displacement zoning and
Ley, D. (1981) 'Inner-city revitalization in Canada: A Vancouver case study', The planning for stable residential districts', Review of Law and Social Change 13:
Calladian Geographer25: 124-148. 931-945.
Ley, D. (1986) 'Alternative explanations for inner-city gentrification: A Canadian Marcuse, P. (1985b) 'Gentrification, abandonment and displacement: Connections,
assessment', Annals oJ the Association oJ American Geographers 76, 4: 521-535. causes and policy responses in New York City', Jot/mal of Urban and Contem-
Ley, D. (1987a) 'The rent gap revisited', Anl1als oJ the Associatio1l oJAmerican Geogra- porary Law 28: 195-240.
phers 77, 3: 465-468. Marcuse, P. (1986) 'Abandonment, gentrification and displacement: The linkages in
Ley, D. (1987b) 'Styles of the times: Liberal and neo-conservative landscapes in inner New York City', in N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.) Gentrijicatioll of the City
Vancouver, 1968-1986', Journal oJHistorical Geography 13,1: 40-56. (London: Unwin Hyman) 153-177.
Ley, D. (1988) 'Social upgrading in six Canadian inner cities', The Cmladiall Geogra- Marcuse, P. (2005) 'On the presentation of research about gentrification', unpublished
pher 32,1: 31-45. manuscript. Department of Urban Planning, Columbia University, New York
Ley, D. (1992) 'Gentrification in recession: social change in six Canadian inner cities, (available from author).
1981-1986', The Canadiml Geographer 13, 3: 230-256. Markusen, A. (1981) 'City spatial structure, women's household work, and national
Ley, D. (1994) 'Gentrification and the politics of the new middle class', Environment urban policy', in C. Stimpson, E. Dixler, M. J. Nelson, and K. B. Yatrakis
and Planning D: Society al1d Space 12:53-74. (eds.) Women and the American City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press)
Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Class a/ld the Remakillg of the Celltral City (Oxford: 20-41.
Oxford University Press). Maruca, J. (1978) 'Stalking the elusive city home mortgage', The Browllstoner 9
Ley, D. (2003) 'Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification', Urban Studies (February): 3.
40, 12: 2527-2544. Massey, D. (1993) 'Power~geometry and a progressive sense of place', in J. Bird,
Ley, D. (2004) 'Transnational spaces and everyday lives', Trallsactions oJ the Institute B. Curtis, T. Putnam, and G. Robertson (eds.) Mapping the Futures: Local Cul-
oJBritish Geographers 29, 2: 151-164. tures, Global Change (London: Routledge) 59-69.
Ley, D., and C. Mills (1993) 'Can there be a postmodernism of resistance in the urban Massey, D. S. (2002) 'Comments on Jacob Vigdor's "Does Gentrification Harm the
landscape?' in P. Knox (ed.) TI,e Restless Urban Landscape (Englewood Cliffs, Poor?'" Brookillgs-Wlwrton Papers 011 Urbal1 Affairs: 174-176.
NI: Prentice Hall) 255-278. May, J. (1996) 'Globalization and the politics of place: Place and identity in an inner
Lipton, S. G. (1977) 'Evidence of central city revival', Journal DJ the American Institute London neighbourhood', Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
afFIll/mw, 43: 136-147. 21: 194-215.
294 • Bibliography Bibliography • 295

McCall, B. (2004) 'Top brokers spot the hot new neighborhoods', The New Yorlcer, Musterd, S., H. Priemus, and R. van Kempen (1999) 'Towards undivided cities: The
December 6: 128. potential of economic revitalization and housing redifferentiation', Housing
McDowell, 1. (1997a) Capital Culture: Gender at Work in tile City (Oxford: Blackwell). Studies 14, 5: 573-584.
McDowell, L. (1997b) 'The new service dass: Housing consumption and lifestyle among Muth, R. (1969) Cities and Housi,lg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
London bankers in the 19905', Environment and Planlling A 29: 2061-2078. Myers, D., E. Gearin, T. Banerjee, and A. Garde (2001) Current Preferellces and Puture
Meligrana, J.• and A. 51mburskis (2005) 'Extent, location and profiles of continuing Demand for Denser Residential Environmellts (Coral Gables, FL: Funders'
gentrification in Canadian metropolitan areas', Urba1l Studies 42: 1569-1592. Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities).
MerHs. B.• and 1. A. Rosenzweig (1999) Brookly/l's Park Slope: A Photographic National Statistics (2001) Census 2001: The most comprehensive survey of the UK
Retrospective (New York: Sheepshead Bay Historical Society), population (http://www-.statistics.gov.uk/census2001lcensus2001.asp).
Merrifield, A. (2000) 'The dialectics of dystopia: Disorder and zero tolerance in the Nelson, K. (1988) Gentrijicatiol1 and Distressed Cities: An Assessment of Trwds ill
city', Intematiol1al /oumal of Urban and Regional Research 24: 473-489. [ntrametropolitanlvIigratioll (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press).
Merrifield, A. (2002a) Dialectical Urbal1isl11 (New York: Monthly Review Press). New-man, K (2004) 'Newark, decline and avoidance, renaissance and desire: From
Merrifield, A. (2002b) Metromarxism: A lvlarxist Tale of the City (New York: disinvestment to reinvestment', Annals of the American Academy of Social and
Routledge). Political Sciences 594: 34-48.
Merry, S. (1981) Urban Danger: Life in a Neighborhood of Strangers (Philadelphia: Newman. K, and R. Lake (2006) 'Democracy, bureaucracy and difference in US com-
Temple University Press). munity deVelopment politics since 1968', Progress in Human Geography 30, 1:
Metzger, J. (2000) 'Planned abandonment: The neighborhood life-cycle theory and 44-61.
national urban policy', Housing Policy Debate 11, 1: 7-40. Newrnan, K, and E. Wyly (2006) 'The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrification and
Milkowski, B. (1981) 'Land of the brownstones', Antiques and Collectibles November: resistance to displacement in New York City', Urban Studies 43,1: 23-57.
8-9,11-12. New York City Department of City Planning (l985) Private Reiuvestrnwt and Neigh-
Millard-Ball, A. (2000) 'Moving beyond the gentrification gaps: Sodal change, tenure borhood Change. NYCDCP 85-25 (New- York: New York City Department of
change and gap theories in Stockholm', Urban Studies 37, 9: 1673-1693. City Planning).
Mills. C. (1988) 'Life on the upslope: The postmodern landscape of gentrification', New York lVIagazine (2001) Real estate 2001: Is there life beyond the boom? Volume 34,
Enviro11l1lel1t and Planning D: Society and Space 6: 169-189. Issue 10, March 12.
Mills, C. (1989) Interpreting Gentrijication: Postindustrial, Postpatriarc/wl, Post- Niedt, C. (2006) 'Gentrification and the grassroots: Popular support in the revanchist
modem? Ph.D. thesis (Vancouver: Department of Geography, University of suburb', Journal of Urban Affairs 28, 2: 99-120.
British Columbia). Ogden, P. (ed) (1992) London Docklands: 'Dw Challenge of Development (Cambridge:
Mills, C. (1993) 'Myths and meanings of gentrification', in J. Duncan and D. Ley (eds.) Cambridge University Press).
PlacelCulturelRepresentatioll (London: Routledge) 149-170. O'Hanlon, T. (1982) Neighborhood Change in New York City: A Case Study of Park
Milner Holland, Sir (1965) Report of the Committee 011 HOllsing in Greater London, Slope 1850 through 1980, Ph.D. thesis (New York: Department of Environmental
Government White Paper, Cmnd. 2605 (London: H.M.S.D.). Psychology, City University of New York).
Mitchell, D. (1997) 'The annihilation of space by law: The roots and implications of OIds, K. (1989) 'Mass evictions in Vancouver: The human toll of Expo '86', Canadian
anti-homeless laws in the United States', Antipode 29: 303-335. Hortsil1g 6: 49-52.
Mitchell, D. (2003) l1te Right to the City: Social Justice and the Pight for Public Space Osborn, B. (1998) "'raise shit": Downtown eastside poem of resistance', E'lvironl1lellt
(New York: Guilford Press). and Planning D: Society and Space 16: 280-288.
Monaghan, C. (1966) 'Park Slope group presses renewal', New York Times, July ID, O'Sullivan, D. (2002) 'Toward micro-scale spatial modeling of gentrification', Journal
sec. 8: 1, 9. ofGeograp!Jical Systems, 4, 3: 251-274.
Morgan, M. (1981) Skid Road: An I1lformal Portrait of Seattle (Seattle: University of Pacione, M. (1984) Rural Geography (London: Harper & Row).
Washington Press). Palen, J., and B. London (eds.) (1984) Gentrijication, Dispiacemwt and Neighborhood
Muir, J. (ed.) (1977) Walk Park Slope: A Guide Book, for the May 8, 1977, Walk Park Revitalization (Albany: State University afNew York Press).
Slope Day. New York: Park Slope Civic Council. Papayanis, M. (2000) 'Sex and the revanchist city: Zoning out pornography in New
Mullins, P. (1982) 'The "middle-class" and the inner city',Joumal ofAustralialt Political York', Ellvironment and Planning D: Society and Space 18: 341-353.
Economy 11: 44-58. Park, R., E. Burgess, and R. McKenzie (1925) 'DIe City (Chicago: University of Chicago
Muniz, V. (1998) Resisting GelltrijicatiOlI and Displacel1lellt: Voices of the Puerto Rican Press).
Woman of the Barrio (New York: Garland). Parsons, D. (1980) 'Rural gentrificatian: The influence of rural settlement planning
Munt, 1. (1987) 'Economic restructuring, culture, and gentrification: A case study in policies', Department of Geography Research Paper 3 (Brighton, UK: University
Battersea, London', Environment alId Plmming A 19: 1175-1197. of Sussex).
296 • Bibliography Bibliography • 297

Passaro, V. (2001) 'The view from out here', New York Times klagazil1e, November 11. Transition: tile Twenty-First Century 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford UniverSity Press)
Peck. J. (2005) 'Struggling with the creative class', Intemntional Jormwl a/Urban and 507-512.
Regiollal Research 29, 4: 740-770. Redfern, P. (1997) 'A new look at gentrification: 1. Gentrification and domestic tech-
Pede. J. (2006) 'Liberating the city: From New York to New Orleans', Urban Geography nologies', Environment and PICIIllling A 29: 1275-1296.
27,8: 681-713. Reed, A., and S. Steinberg (2006) 'Liberal bad faith in the wake of New Orleans', Black
Petsirneris. P. (2005) 'Out of squalor and towards another urban renaissance? Commentator 182, May 5.
Gentrification and neighbourhood transformations in Southern Europe', in Reed Elsevier, Inc. (2006) LexisNexis Academic (http://\'f\'f\v.le.xisnexis.com).
R. Atkinson and G. Bridge (eds.) Gentrijicatioll ill a Global Context: TIle New Reichl, A. (1999) RecDllstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Develop-
Urban Colonialism (London: Routledge) 240-255. meltt (Lawrence: Kansas University Press).
Phillips, M. (1993) 'Rural gentrificatioo and the processes of class colonization', Rich, M., and D. Leonhardt (2005) 'Trading places: Real estate instead of dot-corns',
Journal DJ Rural Studies 9: 123-140. New York Times, March 25: AI, C2.
Phillips, M. (2002) 'The production, symbolisation and socialisation of gentrifica- Rivlin, A. M. (2002) 'Comments on Jacob Vigdor's "Does Gentrification Harm the
tion: A case study of a Berkshire village', Transactions of the Il1stitute of British Poor?'" Brookings-Whartoll Papers 011 Urban Affairs: 176-179.
Geographers 27, 3: 282-308. Rofe, M. (2003) "'I want to be global": Theorising the gentrifying class as an emergent
Phillips, M. (2004) 'Other geographies of gentrification', Progress in Human Geography elite global community', Urban Studies 40,12: 2511-2526.
28, I: 5-30. Roschelle, A., and T. Wright (2003) 'Gentrification and sodal exclusion: Spatial
Phillips-Fein, K. (2000) 'The richer they get in Manhattan, the more poor people are policing and homeless activist responses in the San Francisco Bay Area', in
evicted in Brooklyn', The American Prospect, December 4. M. Miles and T. Hall (eds.) Urban Futures: Critical Commentaries on Shaping
Pitt, J. (1977) Gentrijication in Islington (London: Barnsbury People's Forum) the City (London: Routledge) 149-166.
Plunz, R. (1990) A History of Housil1g in New York City: Dwellillg Type and Structural Rose, D. (1984) 'Rethinking gentrification: Beyond the uneven development of
Change in the American Metropolis (New York: Columbia University Press). Marxist urban theory', Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1:
Podmore, J. (1998) '(Re)reading the "loft living" habitus in Montreal's inner city', 47-74.
International Jot/mal of Urban and Regional Research 22: 283-302. Rose, D. (1989) 'A feminist perspective of employment restructuring and gentrification:
Pogrebin, R. (2006) 'An architect with plans for a new Gulf Coast', New York Times, The case of Montreal', in J. Wolch and M. Dear (eds.) Tile Power of Geography:
May 24: BI, B8. How Territory Shapes Social Life (Boston: Unwin Hyman) 118-138.
Powell, J., and M. Spencer (2003) 'Giving them the old "one-hvo": Gentrification and Rose, D. (1996) 'Economic restructuring and the diversification of gentrification in the
the K 0 of impoverished urban dwellers of calor', Howard Law Journal 46, 3: 1980s: A view from a marginal metropolis', in J. Caulfield and 1. Peake (eds.)
433-490. City Lives and City Forms: Critical Research and Canadian Urban ism (Toronto:
Power, A. (1972) A Battle Lost: Bamsbury 1972 (London: Friends House). University of Toronto Press) 131-172.
Power, A. (1973) David and Goliath: Bamsbury 1973 (London: Holloway Neighbour- Rose, D. (2002) 'Gentrification through "infill-tration"? New condo owners' rela-
hood Law Centre). tionships to neighbourhood in a gentrifying economy', paper presented to the
Pratt, G., and S. Hanson (1994) 'Geography and the construction of difference', Gender, Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Los Angeles.
Place and Culture 1: 5-29. March 19-23.
Priemus, H. (1995) 'How to abolish social housing: The Dutch case', International Rose, D. (2004) 'Discourses and experiences of social mix in gentrifying neighbour-
Journal of Urban and Regional Researc11 19: 145-155. hoods: A Montreal case study', Canadiall Journal of Urban Research 13, 2:
Priemus, H. (1998) 'Redifferentiation of the urban housing stock in the Netherlands: 278-316.
A strategy to prevent spatial segregation', Housing Studies 13, 3: 301-310. Rose, D., and C. LeBourdais (1986) 'The changing conditions of female single parent-
Priemus, H. (2001) 'Social housing as a transitional tenure? Reflections on the hood in Montreal's inner city and suburban neighbourhoods', Urban Resources
Netherlands' new Housing Memorandum 2000-2010', HOllsing Stll~ies 16, 2: 3,2: 45-52.
243-256. Rothenberg, T. (1995) "'And she told two friends": Lesbians creating urban social space',
Pring, K. (1968/1969) Barnsbury Explored: Some Exercises in Exploitillg tlte Towllscape in D. Bell and G. Valentine (eds.) lvlapping Desire: Geograpllies of Sexualities
Potelltial of an Inller Urban Twilight Area in London (London: Department of (London: Routledge) 165-18l.
Architecture and Town Planning, The Polytechnic, Regent Street). Rutheiser, C. (1996) Imagineeriltg Atlanta: Tile Politics of Place in the City of Dreams
Pryke, M. (1991) 'An international city going "global": Spatial change in the City of (New York: Verso).
London', Environment and Plall/ting D: Society and Space 9: 197-222. Rydin, Y. (2005) 'Geographical knowledge and policy: The positive contribution of
Raban, J. (1974) Soft City (London: Fontana). discourse studies', Area 37, 1: 73-78.
Ray, B., and D. Rose (2000) 'Cities of the everyday: So do-spatial perspectives on gender, Salet, W. (1999) 'Regime shifts in Dutch housing policy', Housillg Studies 14, 4:
difference and diversity', in T. Bunting and P. Filion (eds.) CCllwdian Cities in 547-558.
298 • Bibliography Bibliography • 299

Sassen. S. (1991) Tlte Global City: New York, Londoll and Tokyo (Princeton, NI: Smith, D. (2005) '''Studentification'': The gentrification factory', in R. Atkinson and
Princeton University Press), G. Bridge (eds.) Gentrijication in a Global Context: TIle New Urball Colonialism
Saulhy, S. (2006) 'Investors lead home sale boom in New Orleans', New York Times, (London: RoutIedge) 72-89.
July 9. Smith, D., and T. Butler (guest eds.) (2007) 'Extending gentrification', Environment
Savage, M. (1991) 'Making sense of middle-class politics: A secondary analysis of the and PIflIming A 39, 1 (special issue).
1987 general election survey', Sociological Review 39: 26-54. Smith, D., and 1. Holt (2007) 'Studentification and "apprentice" gentrifiers within
Savage. M" G. Bagnall, and B. Longhurst (2005) Globalization and Belonging (London: Britain's provincial urban locations: Extending the meaning of gentrification?'
Sage). Environment and PIflIwing A 39, 1: 142-161.
Savage, M .• J. Barlow, P. Dickens, and A. Fielding (1992) Property, Bureaucracy and Smith, DOl and D. Phillips (2001) 'Socio-cultural representations of greentrified
Culture: Middle Class Formation in Contemporary Britain (Anrlover, MA! Pennine rurality', 101lrllal oJRural Studies 17: 457-469.
Routledge, Chapman and Hall). Smith, D. M. (1994) Geography and Social Justice (Oxford: Blackwell).
Schaffer, R., and N. Smith (1986) 'The gentrification ofHarlem?' Annals a/tile Associa- Smith, H. (2003) 'Planning, policy and polarisation in Vancouver's Downtown East-
tion of Americal1 Geographers 76: 347-365. side', Tijdschrift 1I00r Ecollomische ell Sociale Geografie 94, 4: 496-509.
Schill, M., and R. Nathan (1983) Revitalizing America's Cities: Neighborhood Reinvest- Smith, J. (2000) 'The space of local control in the devolution of US public housing
ment and Displacement (Albany: State University of New York Press). policy', Geografiska Alll1aler B 82, 4: 221-234.
Schumpeter, J. (1934) The Theory ofEconomic pevelopment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Smith, J. (2001) 'Mixing it up: Public housing redevelopment in Chicago', paper pre-
University Press). ' sented at 'Area-Based Initiatives in Contemporary Urban Policy' conference,
Seiden Miller, R. (ed.) (1979) BrDoklyn USA: TIle Fourth Largest City ill America (New Danish BUilding and Urban Research/European Urban Research Association,
York: Brooklyn College Press). Copenhagen, 17-19 May.
Shaw, K. (2002) 'Culture, economics and evolution in gentrification', lust Policy Smith, M. P. (2001) Transllational Urbanism: Locating Globalization (Oxford:
December 28: 42-50. Blackwell).
Shaw, K. (2005) 'Local limits to gentrification: Implications for a new urban policy', Smith, N. (I979) 'Toward a theory of gentrification: A back to the city movement by
in R. Atltinson and G. Bridge (eds.) Gentrijication in a Global Context: TIle New capital, not people', 10urllaI of the American Planning Association 45, 4: 538-548.
Urban Colonialism (London: Routledge) 168-184. Smith, N. (1982) 'Gentrification and uneven development', Economic Geography 58,
Shaw, W. (2000) 'Ways of whiteness: Harlemising Sydney's aboriginal Redfem', Aus- 2: 139-155.
tralian Geographical Studies 38, 3: 291-305. Smith, N. (1984) Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Productioll of Space
Shaw, W. (2005) 'Heritage and gentrification: Remembering "the good olde days" in (Oxford: Bladcwell).
colonial Sydney', in R. Atkinson and G. Bridge (eds.) Gelltrijication in a Global Smith, N. (1986) 'Gentrification, the frontier, and the restructuring of urban space',
Context: TIle New Urban Colonialism (London: Routledge) 57-71. in N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.) Gel1trijicatioll of the City (London: Allen and
Shier, R. (2003) 'Introduction', in R. Shier (ed.) Stan Douglas: Every Building on 100 Unwin) 15-34.
West Hastings (Vancouver: Contemporary Art Gallery) 10-17. Smith, N. (I987) 'Gentrification and the rentgap',Alllwls ofthe Association ofAmericfll1
Short, J. R. (1989) 'Yuppies, yuffies and the new urban order', Transactions of the Insti- Geographers 77, 3: 462-478.
tute of British Geographers 14, 2: 173-188. Smith, N. (1992a) 'Blind man's bluff, or Hamnett's philosophical individualism in
Showley, R. M. (2006) 'Click and miss? Not everyone is thrilled with "zestimating" search of gentrification?' Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17,
property values', San Diego (CA) Union-Tribune, March 19: 1-1. 1: 110-115.
Slater, T. (2002) 'Looking at the "North American city" through the lens of gentrifica- Smith, N. (1992b) 'Contours of a spatialized politics of homeless vehicles and the pro-
tion discourse', Urban GeographY 23,2: 131-153. duction of geographical scale', Social Text, 33: 54-81.
Slater, T. (2004a) 'North American gentrification? Revanchist and emancipatory Smith, N. (1996a) TIle New Urban Frontier: Gentrijicatiol1 and the Reval1chist City
perspectives explored', Environment and PlmmingA 36, 7: 1191-1213. (London: Routledge).
Slater, T. (2004b) 'Municipally-managed gentrification in South Parkdale, Toronto', Smith, N. (1996b) 'Of rent gaps and radical idealism: A reply to Steven Bourassa',
TIle Canadiall Geographer 48, 3: 303-325. Urban Studies 33, 7: 1199-1203.
Slater, T. (2006) 'The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research', Smith, N. (1996c) 'Social justice and the new American urbanism: The revanchist
IIlternational lournal of Urban alld Regional Research, 3D, 4: 737-757. city', in A. Merrifie1d and E. Swyngedouw (eds.) TIle Urbal1izatiol1 of Injustice
Slater, T., W. Curran, and 1. Lees (2004) 'Guest editorial. Gentrification research: (New York: New York University Press).
New directions and critical scholarship', Enviro1l111ellt and Plannillg A 36, 7: Smith, N. (1998) 'Giuliani time', Social Text 57: 1-20.
1141-1150. Smith, N. (I999) 'Which new urbanism? New York City and the revanchist 1990s', in
Smith, D. (2002) 'Patterns and processes of "studentification" in Leeds', Regional R. Beauregard and S. Body-Gendrot (eds.) TIle Urban Moment: Cosmopolitan
Review 11: 17-19. Essays on the Late 20th Century City (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage) 185-208.
300 • Bibliography Bibliography • 301

Smith, N. (2000) 'Gentrification', in R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt, and Sumka, H. (1979) 'Neighborhood revitalization and displacement: A review of the
M. Watts (eds.) The Dictionary of Human Geograp/ty 4th ed. (Oxford: Blackwell) evidence', Joumal of the American Plmwing Associntioll 45: 480-487.
294-296. SYlmra,1. (1993) 'City in transition: The role of the rent gap in Prague's revitalization',
Smith, N. (2001) 'Giuliani space: Revanchist city', in 1. Miyares. M. Pavlovskaya, TijdscltriJt voor Economisce ell Sociale Geografie 84, 4: 281-293.
and G. Pope (eds.) From Hudson to the Hamptolls: Snapshots of the New York Sykora, 1. (2005) 'Gentrification in post-communist cities', in R. Atkinson and
Metropolitan Area (Washington. DC: Association of American Geographers) G. Bridge (eds.) Gentrijicatioll ilt a Global Context: TIle New Urban Colonialism
70-78. (London: Routledge) 90-105.
Smith, N. (2002) 'New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban Taylor, M. (1992) 'Can you go home again? Black gentrification and the dilemma of
strategy', Antipode 34. 3: 427-450. difference', Berkeley JOIITIIClI of Sociology 37: 121-138.
Smith, N., P. Caris, and E. Wyly (2001) 'The Camden syndrome: The menace ofsubur- Taylor, M. (2002) Harlem: Between Heaven and Hell (Minneapolis: University of
ban decline. Residential disinvestment and its discontents in Camden County, Minnesota Press).
New Jersey', Urban Affairs Review 36, 4: 497-53L TIle Brownstoner (1981) 'Renaissance breaks more ground' September 12: 4.
Smith, N., and J. DeFilippis (1999) 'The reassertion of economics: 19905 gentrification TIte Brownstoller (1984) 'Gentrification: Genesis not genocide' July 15: 2.
in the Lower East Side', Intemational Joumal of Urball and Regional Research TIle Browllstoller (1991) 'How to love a brownstone (eyes open but half closed too)' Fall, 6
23: 638-653. [reprint from April 1969 edition of the Browltstolter}.
Smith, N., and J. Derksen (2003) 'Urban regeneration: Gentrification as global urban 71Je Economist (2005) 'The global housing boom', June 16.
strategy', in R. Shier (ed.) Stan Douglas: Every Building 011 100 West Hastings TIle Eco1tomist (2006) 'Goldman Sachs and the culture of risk', April 29.
(Vancouver: Contemporary Art Gallery) 62-95. The Times (1977) 'Letters to the editor: Gentrification in Islington', August 22: 13.
Smith, N., B. Duncan, and 1. Reid (1989) 'From disinvestment to reinvestment: Tax TIuift, N. (1987) 'The geography oflate twentieth-century class formation', in N. Thrift
arrears and turning points in the East Village', Housing Studies 4, 4: 238-252. and P. Williams (eds.) Class and Space: Tlte Making of Urban Society (London:
Smith, N., and P. Williams (1986) 'Alternatives to orthodoxy: Invitation to a debate', Routledge and Kegan Paul) 207-253.
in N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.) Gentrijication of tlte City (London: Allen and Tickell, A., and J. Peck (2003) 'Making global rules: Globalisation or neoliberalisa-
Unwin) 1-10. tion?' in J. Peck and H. Yeung (eds.) Remaking the Global Economy (London:
Smith, N., and P. Williams (eds.) (1986) Gentrijication of the City (London: Allen and Sage) 163-181.
Unwin). Uitermark, J. (2003) "'Social mixing" and the management of disadvantaged neigh-
Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Briltgil1g Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neigh- bourhoods: The Dutch policy of urban restructuring revisited', Urban Studies
bour/lOod Renewal (London: H.M.S.D.). 40,3: 531-549.
Sohmer, R. R., and R. E. Lang (2001) Downtowll Rebound, Brooldngs Institution Uitermark, J.• J. Duyvendak, and R. Kleinhans (2007) 'Gentrification as a governmen-
Census Notes Series (Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation). tal strategy: Social control and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam', ElIl1i-
Solnit, R. (2000) Hollow City: The Siege of San Francisco and the Crisis of Al1Ierican r01Jl1tent alld PlmJllillg A 39,1: 125-141.
Urbal1ism (London: Verso). Urban Habitat Program (2000) TIlere Goes the Neighborhood: A Regional Analysis of
Sommers, J. (1998) 'Men atthe margin: Masculinityandspace in downtown Vancouver, Gentrijicatioll and COII/IIlUllity Stability ill the San Francisco Bay Area (San
1950-1986', Urban Geography 19: 287-310. Francisco: Urban Habitat Program; available from Urban Habitat Program, p.a.
Sommers, J., and N. Blomley (2003) "'The worst block in Vancouver"', in R. Shier (ed.) Box 29908, Presidio Station, San Francisco, CA 94129).
Stan Douglas: Every Buildil1g on 100 West Hastil1gs (Vancouver: Contemporary U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002) New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (Wash-
Art Gallery) 18-61. ington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce).
Sorkin, M. (ed.) (1992) Variations 011 a Theme Park: TIle New American City and the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2006). U.S. Census Bureau's guide to census tract
End of Public Space (New York: Hill and Wang). resources (http://www.census.gov/geo/wwwltractez.html).
Sowell, T. (2005) 'Who will rebuild New Orleans' moral levees?' Investors Business U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1999) State of tile Cities
Daily, September 7: A14. Report, June (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Squires, G. (ed.) (1992) From Redlining to Reinvestmel1t: Community RespolJses to Development).
Urban Disinvestment (Philadelphia: Temple University Press) 1-37. van Criekingen, M. (2006) 'Migration and the effects of gentrification: A Brussels
Squires, G. (ed.) (2003) Organizing Access to Capital (Philadelphia: Temple Univer- perspective', Working paper (Brussels: Department of Human Geography,
sity Press). Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium). '
Squires. G. (ed.) (2004) Why the Poor Pay More: How to Stop Predatory Lending van Kempen, R., and H. Priemus (1999) 'Undivided cities in the Netherlands: Present
(London: Praeger). situation and political rhetoric', Housing Studies 14, 5: 641-658.
Sugrue, T. J. (2005) TIle Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar van Kempen, R., and J. van Weesep' (1994) 'Gentrification and the urban poor: Urban
Detroit 2nd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). restructuring and housing policy in Utrecht', Urban Studies 31, 7: 1043-1056.
302 • Bibliography Bibliography • 303

van Weesep, J. (1994) 'Gentrification as a research frontier', Progress in Human Wilson, W. J. (1996) Wllel1 Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor
Geography 18: 74-83. (New York: Random House).
van Weesep, J., and S. Musterd (eds.) (1991) Urban Housingfor the Better-Off: Gentrifi- Wines, M. (2006) 'A shack, be it ever so humble, gets a fancy South Africa price',
cation in Europe (Utrecht, the Netherlands: Stedelijke Netwerken), New York Times, June 7: AI, A14.
Vicario, 1., and P. Martinez Monje (2005) 'Another "Guggenheim effect"? Central Wodiczko. K., and R. Luria (1990) 'The homeless vehicle project', Journal of Architec M

city projects and gentrification in Bilbao', in R. Atldnson and G. Bridge (eds.) tt/ral Education 43, 4: 37-42.
Gentrijicatiol1 in a Global COl1text: Tlte New Urban Colonialism (London: Wyly, E., and D. Hammel (1998) 'Modeling the context and contingency of gentrifica-
Routledge) 151-167. tion', Journal of Urban Affairs 20, 3: 303-326.
Vigdor, J. (2002) 'Does gentrification harm the poor?' Brookings-Whartol1 Papers on Wyly, E., and D. Hammel (1999) 'Islands of decay in seas of renewal: HOUSing policy
Urban Affairs: 133-173. and the resurgence of gentrification', Housing Policy Debate 10,4: 711-771.
von Thiinen, J. (1966) TIle Isolated State and Its Relatioll to Agriculture alld National Wyly, E., and D. Hammel (2000) 'Capital's metropolis: Chicago and the transforma-
Economy. ed. P. Hall (Oxford: Pergamon Press). tion of American housing policy', Geografiska Anl1aler B 82, 4: 181-206.
Walker, R. (1981) 'A theory of suburbanization: Capitalism and the construction of Wyly, E., and D. Hammel (2001) 'Gentrification, housing policy, the new context of
urban space in the United States', in M. Dear and A. J. Scott (eds.) Urbanization urban redevelopment', in K. Fox Gotham (ed.) Critical Perspectives 011 Urban
al1d Urbal1 Planning ill Capitalist Society (New York: Methuen), 383-429. Redevelopment, vol. 6 of Research in Urban Sociology (London: Elsevier)
Walker, R., and D. Greenberg (1982) 'Post-industrialism and political reform in the 211-276.
city: A critique', Antipode 14, 1: 17-32. Wyly, E., and D. Hammel (2004) 'Gentrification, segregation, and discrimination in
Warde, A. (1991) 'Gentrification as consumption: Issues of class and gender', El1virol1- the American urban system', Environment and Planning A 36, 7: 1215-1241.
ment and Planning D: Society and Space 9: 223-232. Wyly, E., and D. Hammel (2005) 'Mapping neoliberal American urbanism', in
Watkins, R. (1984) '''Quality of life" crimes have been a fact of life here for over 2 R. Atkinson and G. Bridge (eds.) Gentrijication in a Global Context: TIle New
decades', TIle Phoellix, January 12: 7-9. Urban Colonialism (London: Routledge) 18-38.
Watts, M. (2001) '1968 and all that... .' Progress in Human Geography 25, 2: 157-188. Young, L M. (1990) Justice and tile Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Webber, M. J., and D. L. Rigby (1996) The Golden Age of Illusion: Rethinking Postwar University Press).
Capitalism (New York: Guilford Press). Zillow (2006) CityHeatMaps (http://www.zillow.com/heatmaps/CityHeatMaps.htm).
Wetzel, T. (2000). A year in the life of the anti-displacement movement (http://w-ww. Zukin, S. (1982) Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change (Baltimore: Johns
uncanny.net/-wetzellmacchron.htm). Hopklns University Press).
Wetzei, T. (2001) 'San Francisco's space wars', Processed World 2, 1: 49-57. Zukin, S. (1989) Loft LiviTlg: Culture and Capital in Urban Change 2nd ed. (New
Wheaton, W. (1977) 'Income and urban residence: An analysis of consumer demand Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press).
for location', American Economic Review 67: 620-631. Zukin, S. (1990) 'Socio-spatial prototypes of a new organization of consumption: 'The
White, G. (1972) 'Geography and public policy', The Professional Geographer 24, 2: role of real cultural capital', Sociology 24: 37-56.
101-104. Zuldn, S. (1991) Landscapes of Fower: From Detroit to Disney World (Berkeley:
Williams, P. (1976) 'The role of institutions in the inner London housing market: The University of California Press).
case ofIslington', Transactio1lS of the Institute of British Geographers 1: 72-82. Zukln, S. (1992) 'The city as a landscape of power: London and New York as global
Williams, P. (1978) 'Building societies and the inner city', Transactions of the Institute financial capitals', in 1. Budd and S. Whimster (eds.) Global Fil1allce and Urban
of British Geographers 3: 23-34. Living: A Study ofMetropolitnll Change (London: Routledge) 195-223.
Williams, P. (1984) 'Gentrification in Britain and Europe', in J. Palen and B. London Zukin, S. (1995) Tile Cultures of Cities (Oxford: Blac!cwell).
(eds.) Gentrijicatiol1, Displacement and Neighbourhood Revitalization (Albany: Zukin, S. (2006) 'David Harvey on cities', in N. Castree and D. Gregory (eds.) David
State University of New York Press) 205-234. Harvey: A Critical Reader (Oxford: Blackwell) 102-120.
Williams, P. (1986) 'Class constitution through spatial reconstruction? A re-evaluation
of gentrification in Australia, Britain and the United States', in N. Smith and
P. Williams (eds.) Gentrijication of the City (London: Unwin Hyman) 56-77.
Wilson, D., and D. Grammenos (2000) 'Spatiality and urban redevelopment move-
ments', Urban Geography 21,4: 361-370.
Wilson,D.,J. Wouters, and D. Grammenos (2004) 'Successful protect communitydis-
course: Spatialityand politics in Chicago's Pilsen neighbourhood', Environment
and Planning A 36, 7: 1173-1190.
Wilson, W. J. (1987) TIle Truly Disadvantaged: Tile Inner City, the Underclass, and
Public Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
 Index

Abandonment, 23, 41. 70, 215, Butler, Tim, 94, 97-98, 102, 121, 126,
251-252,268 130, 148-153, 160, 168-171, 188,
Actors, 10, 34, 74,134,141-144,146, 192-193,195,209-212,216-217,277
172,224
Advertising, 24, 143, 156 Cabrini-Green. Chicago, 204
Aesthetics, 101, 113, 120 Cameron, Stuart, 134, 144-147, 160,
Alonso, William, 45-46, 48, 54, 239 198,200
Anti-gentrification movements, 81. Capital,9, 13,29-31. 43-84, 132-135,
123-124,246-271 141-144, 169-193, 198-200, 224-229,
Architecture, 6, 27, 59.119,143 245-246, 271-275
Artists, 31, 39, ll8-120, 256-262 Capitalism, 51, 72, 74-75,155-156,
Atkinson. Rowland, 132, 150, 160, 176,264
167,169-171,190-191,193,218,221, Capitalized land rent, 56, 58, 65, 67
231-235 Cascade effect, 133, 171-172
Castells, Manuel, 99,103-106,126,
Back to city movement, 43-44 213,259
Badcock, Blair, 36, 63, 85, 178 Castro, 104-105
Baltimore, 6, 44, 72, 83, 158, 172, 177 Caulfield, Jon, 36, 95, 97, 126, 137,
Barnsbury, 10-17, 150-153,175-179, 209-210,213, 235
207-208,230 Charney, Jgal, 73
Beauregard, Robert. 36, 43, 46, 73-74, Chicago, 45, 49, 58-60, ll2, 203-204,
90,97,99-101,125,158-160,212,247 214-215,217,241,274
Bell, Daniel, 3, 91-92, 123, 126 Chicago School, 45
Berry, Brian 1.1., 23, 74, 241 Circuits of capital, 72. 80
Bid rent. 47 Clark, Eric, 3. 5. 35, 56-57, 59. 64. 67,
Blomley, Nicholas, 51, 75, 206, 233, 69,74,85,93,110,158-160,190,229
264-269,271,277 Class, 3-4, 9-10, 74-76, 88-90, 92-126,
Boddy, Martin, 130, 139, 141 132-159,167-169,198-234,245-250
Bondi, Liz, 9, 35, 102-103,125,136,155, Class constitution, 90, 112, 117. 120, 124
177, 213, 250 Classical gentrification. 10-30
Bourassa. Steven, 56-57 Clay, Philip, 30-31, 33-35, 208
Bourne, Larry, 178,239-241,246 Commercial gentrification. 118, 131, 133
Boutiqueification, 73, 131, 139 Community Land Trusts, 273. 276
Boyd, Michelle, ll2, 125 Community organizers, 42, 112,222
Braconi. Frank, 80, 196.219-221, Community organizing, 17,248
235,247 Conservation movements. 17-18,70,113
Bridge, Gary. 19,21-22,39.41,97, 103. Consumer preference, 41, 45, 50. 55, 74
116-11~ 122, 126, 131-133, 136,144, Consumer sovereignty. 45-47, 50, 76
150,160,167,169-171. 190-191, 193, Consumption, 44-50, 74-77, 80-126.
221.234 135-138,189-192,257
Brownstoning movement. 6-8, Creative class, 33.107-108,132.169.
20-29 203,226

305
306 • Index Index. 307

Creativity index. 227 Fifth Avenue Committee, 255-256 Harvey, David, 46, 48-49, SI, 54, 72-73, Lifestyle, 34, 43-44, 94-108,117-121,
Cultural turn, 76, 78, 191 Financial institutions, 7. 21, 23, 27, 77,85,92,165,175,177, 187, 193,240, 141-144,172,260
Culture,S, 94-98, 269 29-32 263-264,277 Limited Equity Housing Co-operatives,
First-wave gentrification. 173, 175 Haussmann, Baron Georges, 5 273-276
DeFilippis, lames, 59, 74, 79, 81, Florida, Richard, 33,107-108,134,199, Highest and best use. 51-53 Livable city, 142-143, 199
200-201,229,249,264.273-274, 203,214.226-227 Holcomb, Braivel. 36, 99, 101. 125, Loft living, 40,120,123,172,250,
276-277 Fordism,97 212,247 258-264
Degentrification, 174 Fourth-wave gentrification, 173-187 Home ownership, 14.23,184,203,206 London,3-5,10-19,68-70,92-94,
Deindustrialization, 9, 43,141 Fox-Gotham. ICevin, 235 Homesteading, 6-7, 23, 131 102-103,119-121,146-153,170-172,
Demand, 11, 89-126, 195-214,266, Freeman. Lance, 74, 80.111, 122, Homo economicus, 76 176-177,187-188,200-202,207-211,
268,271 125-126,181,188,196,206-207, Hoyt. Homer, 45. 82 217-218,230,233
Deregulation, 151, 164-165, 176 219-221,233,235,246-247 London Plan, 10, 147, 184,20\-202
Detroit, 187 Frontier, 39. 41-42. 55, 81. 122, 195, Imbroscio, David, 75 Lower East Side. 9, 38, 88,174.177,189,
DevalorizatioTI, 11.23,39, 55, 58, 67, 222-229.268-269 Inner city, 11,43-44, SO-SI, 71-84, 93, 222-229,238
70-84,242 Functional gap. 59, 70 98, 101, 103, 166, 170, 18~ 197-198,
Developers, 9, 13, 39-42, 49-54, 80-84, 200,209-214,272 Marginal gentrifiers, 99
141-144,177-178,209-210,260-263 G'ale. Dennis. 5, 33-34 Insurance, 29, 175-176 Market justice. 76. 83
Discourse, 77, BD, 175, 198-207, Gay gentrification, 24, 99,103-108,124, Investment, 13-14,23-24,31-32, Markusen, Anne, 99, 136, 212
243-245 212-214,223 34,50-73,77, 81, 98, 106, 113, 118, Marx, Karl, 48, SI, 56
Discrimination, 29, 43, 49, 83, 202, 259 Gender, 74, 99-103, 212-213, 223 129_135,172,175-178,199,205,255, Marxism, 56-59, 69, 74. 85, 91-92,149,
Disinvestment, 23, 28. 50-73, 81-86, Gentrification 269-270,273 173,222,272
251-253,273-274 defined, 4, 9-10 Measurement
Displacement. 5, 9, 25. 30-34,107-112, the term, 3-10, 30 lager, Michael, 113-115, 117, 126 of displacement, 255, 274
121-124, 135-148, 154-156, 195-198, Ghetto, 48, 104, 110, 112,205 of gentrification, 240-244
217-221,246-271 Glasgow, 177. 230-231 Katrina, 185-187 of rent gap, 61
Displacement free zone, 255 Glass, Ruth, 3-5, 9-10, 30, 36, 39, 130, Keynesianism. 166,228 Merrifield, Andy, 216. xxiv, xxv. xxvii
Division aflabour, 92,102,117 139, 155-156, 159,21~260 ICitsilano, 96, 131 Methodology, 188-189
Downtown Eastside, 206, 233. Global city, 97-98,121,134,176 Knopp, Larry, 74,103,105-107, Methods, 45, 69, 77, 79, 146, 221. 241
263-268,271 Global elite, 81, ISO, 170-171 126,213 Mills, Caroline, 96, iD1, 116, 141-144,
Duany, Andres, 42, 83, 186,245 Globalism, 163 146, 161,212,266
DUMBO (Down under the Manhattan Globalization, 132, 163-171, 240, 248 Land value, 56, 81-82 Mission District, 255-259. 264
Bridge Overpass), 39, 41 Greenlining. 27 Landlords, 9, 13-16,21-22,38, SI-53, Mortgage lending, mortgages, 7, 21. 23,
Ground rent, 56-60, 68, 72, 79, 81 222,224,251-255,260-261 2~29-32,54, 70,73,7~80. 179-185

Economic competition, 45, 165 Lees, Loretta, 3, 6, 9-10.12. 14-16, 19. Moscow, 162, 167-169
Emancipatory city thesis, 195.209,212 Habitus. 97, 120, 172 21_23,29_30,35_36,38,56,70,75,79, Municipally-managed
Employment, 19,45,53, 60, 89-93, Hackworth, rason, 59, 77. 81-82,147, 88,111,116,122,130,133,140-142, gentrification, 134
98-101,253,259,270 163,165,173-175,178,186,192,242, 146-156,158-161,168-173,175,177, Mutual Housing Associations, 273, 276
Engels 248-249,274 184,187-189,192,195,201,207-210,
Benno,59 Hammel, Daniel, 57-58, 60, 65, 67, 86, 212,214,218,221,225,230,235.238, Neidt, Christopher, xii
Friedrich,57 90,112,175,188,193,198,203,205, 250,263,268-269,277 Neoclassical economics, 43, 45-46.
Equilibrium, 45, 47, 74 217,226,232.236,241 Lesbian gentrification, 24,103,106-107, 59,164
Ethnicity. 74,108-112,124,208,215 Hamnett, Christ 4, 13, 15-16,48,56,69, 213,223 Neoliberal policies, 76, 166
Eviction, 73, 122-123,239-246. 74-75, 85-86, 90, 92-93, 102, 121, 124, Ley. David, 35. 42, 44. 59, 74, 79, 85, Neoliberalism, 49, 76, 163-169,
255-262 126, ISO, 188, 191-193,218,277 90-93,95-97,111-112,118,122-124, 223-229,248-249,272
Harlem, 39, 41, 58-59,110-112,181, 126,131,137,142,151,159,161,170, Netherlands, 130, 145,202-203,214
Federal Housing Administration 183,233,245 187-188,191,209-213,218,234,239, New-build gentrification, 128, 140
(FHA) , 27 Hartman, Chester, 75, 77, 217. 246. 241,264,267,270 New Labour, 133-134,146-147,152,
Feminism. 75, 99.101-102 272,276 Liberalism, 164, 166-167,222 176,184,199-200
308 • Index Index. 309

New middle class, 94-112 Public policy, 146, 165, 178-179, San Francisco, 6, 31, 33,103-108, Suburbanization.l0, 21, 23, 43. 45. 55,
New Orleans,S, 44, 57,105-106, 198-20~217-221.231-232. 187-188,213,226,255-263 60,73.82.92.115,239,241
131-132,185-187 264,272 Sassen,Saskia, 92-93, 129, 141, 149, 155, Supply, 11,77, 132, 185, 191
New urban colonialism, 132, 167 176,193 Sweat equity, 23, 31. 34, 106.253
New urban frontier, 39-42, 222, 229. 269 Race, 10, 74, 108-112, 166, 181,210,215, Scale, 54, 68, 72, 74, 80-84 Sydney, 97, 117, 131, 170,248
NewUrbanism, 163.222 223-224 Second-wave gentrification, 175-177 Sykora, Ludek, 59, 70-71, 85-86, 188
New York, 3, 5-7,19-30,38-39,58-59, Rachmanism, 14,221 Segregation, 43, 112, 148, 199,207,239
88,109-110,131-134, 137-138, Real estate market, 27. 156, 165. Sexuality, 103-108, 124,212 Tax arrears. 28
153-157,172-177, 183, 185-186, 172-273 Shaw, Wendy, 167 Taylor, Monique, 110-111, 125-126
214-233,238,245-255,268-269, Recession, 39, 43, 73, 82, 173-179,239 Shaw Kate, 139, 173, 178 Tenurial transformation, 5, 13
273,276 Redlining, 7, 23, 29 Shop steading, 131 Third-wave gentrification. 178-179
Newmau. Kathe, 75. 218-219, 221, Regeneration, 6-8, 20-29, 122. Single Room Occupancy hotels (SROs), Tompkin Square riots, 177,247,268,276
249,277 133-135,144-146, 154-155, 198-214, 266,268-270 Toronto. 6, 95-96, 114-115, 194,
245,275 Slater, Tom, Ill, 114-116, 119, 122, 134, 207-210,213,218,241
Osborn. Bud, 263 Reinvestment, 9. 23, 28-30, 79-85, 160, 188-189, 194,207,221,235,252, Transnational elites, 150
173-18~243-248,251,273,276 264,276-277
Park Slope, 6-7, 19-30,43, 106, 131, Renaissance, 29. 42, 44, 49.110-111, Slum, 15-16,21,142,266 Uitermark, Justus, 130, 193,202-203,
134,175,181,230,250-25,250-255 146-148, 172, 17~199-201,245 Smith 207,236
Patriarchy, 124 Renovation, 16,27,31,44. 154, 159,218, Darren, 129-131, 133, 136-137, Uneven development, 50, 71-72, 80, 84,
Peck, Jamie, 49, 76, 107-108, 164-165, 240,264 160,214 187,243
184-185,187,226,228,245 Rent, 13-14, 28, 33, 38, 41-43, 47, 50-74, Neil, 5, 7, 9, 28, 35, 39, 42, 44-45, Urban decline, 175,224
Philadelphia, 33, 44, 158,276 79-81,84-85,104-105,137-138, 49-52,54-57,59,69,71-77, 79, Urban frontier. 42, 222-229, 269
Phillips, Martin, 129, 135-137, 146, 161 169-173,190-191,197-198,245-246, 81,83-86,90,92,97,110-111, Urban hierarchy, 81, 133, 169-173,
Podmore, Tulie, 120. 161, 172 250-255,260,267-269,272-273 114, 122, 126, 139, 145-146, 150, 189-192,226
Polarization, 49, 54, 80, 90-93, 168, 183, Rent control, 13-14,69, 198, 260, 272 155-156,159,163, 166, 168-170, Urban pioneers, 44, 122,225
200,268,271 Rent gap theory, 28, 38, 42-43, 50-73, 172-175,177-178,180-181, Urban planning, 267
Political activism, 256 78-81,84-85,137-138,190-191,242, 186-188,191-192,195,203,207, Urban policy, 48, 76,107-108,144,
Post-communist cities, 167 267-269 217,222-225,228-231.233-234. 163-169,184,198-207,223,226,233
Post-Forrlism, 97 Renters, 13, 33, 41, 44. 52, 68, 73, 75. 236.239,242,247-249,268-270, Urban regeneration, 6-8, 20-29,
Post-industrial, 90-93, 119, 124, 199 80-84,260 272, 274-276 144-146,154-155,198-214
Post-patriarchy, 75. 99-102 Resistance, 81, 123-124. 246-271 SoBro (South Bronx), 40 Urban restructuring, 207
Postindustrial.91 Retail gentrification. 9, 32, 41. 51, 54, Social housing, 11, 144, 152, 199-200 Urban Task Force Report. 198
Potential land rent, 56, 58, 65, 67 13l. 147 Social justice. 48. 97, 184,202,222,240, Urban White Paper, 144-145, 198-202
Power. Anne, 14 Revalorization. 23 246-247,275-277 Urban wilderness. 39
Prague, 59, 70-71 Revnnchist city thesis. 163, 195. 209, Social mixing. 19, 25, 33, 144-148,
Preservation movements. 7, 27, 29, 222-234 195-214,21~270-271 Value gap, 13, 15, 56-71
105,119 Revitalization, 6, 27, 43-44, 71, 73, SoHo (South of Houston), 39-41, Van Weesep. Jan. 35-36, 85, 202
Privatization, 70-71,164-166.184, 154-155,264,270-271,276 118-120,174 Vancouver, 90-91, 95-96, 101, 116, 131,
245-246 Right to place, 75 South Parkdale, 114-115, 134, 207, 277 139,141-144,189,206,210,218,233,
Production, 13,43-84,90-93,99, Right to stay put, 75, 272 Spain, Daphne, 44, 77, 177,217 241, 248, 263-270
121-124,163-169,189-192,245-246, Rofe, Matthew, 80-81, 97, 150, 161, Speculators, 225 Victorian architecture, 4, 18,30
271-275 169-171,192 Stage models of gentrification, 31, 174 Vigdor, Jacob, 49, 74, 80
Professionalisation thesis, 91-93 Rogers, Richard, 275 State-led gentrificntion. 220
Property rights, 51, 81, 185,271-275 Rooming houses, 21, 142 Studentification,131-132 Welfare state, 185,228,267
Property values, 9, 39-86, 139, 174,260 Rose, Damaris, 34-35, 74-75, 86, 89-90, Subsidies, 23, 29, 59, 69, 81, 83, 177, Whiteness, 108-113, 167, 215-217,
Provincial gentrificatioD, 133-134 96,99-100,136,147,158,199,202, 245,258 222-225
Public housing, 60. 112, 122, 166, 184. 212,235 Suburban gentrification, 10,21.23, Williams, Peter, 6, 12-13, 16, 86, 97, 101,
201,203-205,216,239 Rothenberg. Tamar, 24. 106-107, 126 43-4~92,96,100-l02,115 125-126, 171, 188,212,21~272
310 • Index

Wilson. David. 134. 164. 186.205.248. 217-219.221.226.232.236.241.

274.277 269.277
Women, 75, 89, 99-103,106,124.
212-213.223-224 Yuppies. 83. 88-90. 96. 123. 195.216
Working class, 4, 9-10, 89-126, 248.
250.265 Zoning. 46. 70. 100. 156
Wyly. Elvin, 60, 75, 86, 90. 112, Zukin. Sharon. 36, 48,118,120-121,
175.188.193.198.203-205. 126.130-131.151.176.209