Brown-Saracino, Japonica - The Gentrification Debates

The Gentrification Debates
Uniquely well suited for teaching, this innovative text-reader strengthens students’ criti
cal thinking skills, sparks classroom discussion, and also provides a comprehensive and
accessible understanding of gentrification.
Japónica Brown-Saracino is assistant professor of sociology at Loyola University Chicago

where she specializes in urban and community sociology, cultural sociology, and the study
of race, ethnicity, and sexuality. Her work on gentrification, which draws on her ethno
graphic data, has appeared in City and Community and Theory and Society, as well as in
a book, A Neighborhood That Never Changes: Gentrification, Social Preservation, and the
Search for Authenticity.
METROPOLIS AND MODERN LIFE
A Routledge Series
Edited by Anthony Orum and Zachary Neal, University of Illinois, Chicago
This Series brings original perspectives on key topics in urban research to today’s students
in a series of short accessible texts, guided readers, and practical handbooks. Each volume
examines how long-standing urban phenomena continue to be relevant in an increasingly
urban and global world, and in doing so, connects the best new scholarship with the wider
concerns of students seeking to understand life in the twenty-first century metropolis.
Books in the Series:

Common Ground: Readings, Reflections, and New Frontiers edited by Anthony Orum and
Zachary Neal
Forthcoming
The Urban Instinctby Nan Ellin
Also o f Interestfrom Routledge

Gentrification by Loretta Lees, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly
The Gentrification Reader edited by Loretta Lees, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly
City Lifefrom Jakarta to Dakar: Movements at the Crossroads by AbdouMaliq Simone
Foodies: Democracy and Distinction in the Gourmet Foodscape by Josée Johnston and
Shyon Baumann
Branding New York: How a City in Crisis Was Sold to the World by Miriam Greenberg
The GlobalArchitectby Donald McNeill
Housing Policy in the UnitedStates, Second Edition by Alex F. Schwartz
The Gentrification Debates
Edited by Japónica Brown-Saracino

Loyola University Chicago
Ö Routledge
Taylor &Francis Group
NEW YORK AND LONDON
First published 2010
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, NewYork, NY 10016
Simultaneously published in the UK
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2010 Taylor & Francis
Typeset in Utopia by Swales &Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon
Printed and bound in the United States of America on acid-free paper by
Sheridan Books, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library o f Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
The gentrification debates / [edited by] Japónica Brown-Saracino.
p. cm. —(Metropolis and modern life)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13:978-0-415-80164-5 (hardback: alk. paper)
ISBN-10:0-415-80164-8 (hbk)
ISBN-13:978-0-415-80165-2 (pbk.: alk. paper)
ISBN-10:0-415-80165-6 (pbk)
1. Gentrification. I. Brown-Saracino, Japónica.
HT170.G454 2010
307.3*416—dc22
2009044477
ISBN10:0-415-80164-8 (hbk)
ISBN10:0-415-80165-6 (pbk)
ISBN13:978-0-415-80164-5 (hbk)
ISBN13:978-0-415-80165-2 (pbk)
BRIEF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ix
Series Foreword xvii
Acknowledgements xviii
Overview: The Gentrification Debates 1

Japonica B row n -S aracino
PART I: WHAT IS GENTRIFICATION? DEFINITIONS AND KEY CONCEPTS

1. Aspects of Change 19
R u th G lass
2. A Short History of Gentrification 31

N eil S mith
3. Gentrification as Market and Place 37

SlIARON ZlJKIN
4. Super-gentrification: The Case of BrooklynHeights, New York City 45

L oretta L ees
5. Globalisation and the New Urban Colonialism 51

R owland Atkinson and Gary B ridge
PART II: HOW, WHERE AND WHEN DOES GENTRIFICATION OCCUR?

6. Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement by Capital,
not People 71
N eil S mith
vi I C O N TE N TS
7. The City as a Growth Machine 87

Jo h n R. L o g a n a n d H arvey L. M o l o t c h
8. Introduction: Restructuring and Dislocations 103

D avid L ey
9. Building the Frontier Myth 113

N eil S mith
10. From Arts Production to Housing Market 119

S haron Z ukin
11. Forging the Link between Culture and Real Estate: Urban Policy and Real
Estate Development 127
C hristo ph er M ele
12. Estate Agents as Interpreters of Economic and Cultural Capital: The

Gentrification Premium in the Sydney Housing Market 133
Gary B ridge
13. Tourism Gentrification: The Case of New Orleans’ Vieux Carre

(French Quarter) 145
Kevin Fox G o th am
PART III: WHO ARE GENTRIFIERS AND WHY DO THEY ENGAGE

IN GENTRIFICATION?
14. The Creation of a "Loft Lifestyle” 175
S haron Z ukin
15. Living Like an Artist 185

Richard L loyd
16. Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development of Marxist

Urban Theory 195
D. R ose
17. The Dilemma of Racial Difference 211

M o n iq u e T aylor
18. Urban Space and Homosexuality: The Example of the Marais, Paris’
Gay Ghetto 221
M ichael S ibalis
CO N TEN TS |
19. Consumption and Culture 235

T im B utler
20. Social Preservationists and the Quest for Authentic Community 261
Japónica B rown -S aracino
PART IV: WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES AND CONSEQUENCES

OF GENTRIFICATION?
21. The Hidden Dimensions of Culture and Class: Philadelphia 285
P aul R. L evy and Roman A. Cybriwsky
22. Social Displacement in a Renovating Neighborhood’s Commercial District:

Atlanta 295
M ichael C hernoff
23. The New Urban Renewal, Part 2: Public Housing Reforms 305
D erek S. H yra
24. Gentrification, Intrametropolitan Migration, and the Politics of Place 319

Gina M. P érez
25. Avenging Violence with Violence 331

M ary P attillo
26. Neighborhood Effects in a Changing Hood 337

Lance F reeman
27. Building the Creative Community 345

R ichard F lorida
Conclusion: Why We Debate 355

Japónica B rovvn-S aracino
Copyright Acknowledgements 363

Bibliography 365
Index 371
T h is page in ten tio n ally left blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Series Foreword xvii
Acknowledgements xviii
Overview: The Gentrification Debates 1

Japonica B rown -S aracino
PART I: WHAT IS GENTRIFICATION? DEFINITIONS AND KEY

CONCEPTS
1. “Introduction: Aspects of Change," London, Aspects o f Change. London:

Centre for Urban Studies: xiii-xxiii; xxiv-xxvi; xxx-xxxi. 19
G lass , R. 1964.
This 1964 essay by Ruth Glass first introduced the term "gentrification’’a n d in so doing
inagurated the inquiries an d traditions that this book documents. Glass’essay describes
h er impression o f London’s gentrification a n d explores som e o f its origins, while also
offering predictions about gentrification’s futu re in London a n d other cities.
2. “A Short History of Gentrification” from The New Urban Frontier. New York:
Routledge: 34-40. 31
Sm ith, N. 1998.
This selection from the second chapter o f geographer Neil Smith’s book, The New
Urban Frontier, provides a short overview o f a nu m b er o f historical urban changes and
processes that the author suggests are closely related to what m any o f us would term
“gentrification”today. In so doing, the selection reveals Smith’s perspective on
gentrification’s central characteristics.
3. “Gentrification as Market and Place,” from “Gentrification and Cuisine” in

Landscapes o f Power. Berkeley: University of California Press: 187-195. 37
Zukin, S. 1991.
Draw ing from the sociologist Sharon Zukin’s chapter, "Gentrification an d Cuisine,"
x I TABLE OF CONTENTS
published in her book Landscapes of Power, this selection outlines Zukin’s definition
ofgentrification and maps the relationships shefinds between gentrification and
broader social change processes. Drawing on vivid examples from places such as
Manhattan and Philadelphia, she outlines the roles o f social policies and several
economic and cultural processes in spurring and shaping gentrification.
4. “Super-gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City,” Urban

Studies, 40 (12): 2487-2492. 45
Lees, L. 2003.
This selection from an article by Loretta Lees, originally published in the journal Urban
Studies, relies on data from New York City's Brooklyn Heights to pose questions about
the parameters o f our concept o f gentrification. Specifically, documenting the
in-movement o f increasingly wealthy newcomers to Brooklyn Heights and tracing the
repeated upscaling o f a single Brooklyn Heights property, Lees proposes that the
neighbourhood is undergoing “super-gentrification.”Lees encourages the
reader to consider the implications o f the advanced gentrification o f places like
Brooklyn Heightsfor our definition and understanding o f gentrification.
5. “Globalisation and the New Urban Colonialism,” in Gentrification in a Global

Context: The New Urban Colonialism, Atkinson, R. & Bridge, G., eds.
London & New York: Routledge: 1-12. 51
At k in so n , R. &B r id g e , G. 2004.
In this selection from the introduction to their book, Gentrification in a Global Context,
Roland Atkinson and Gary Bridge take issue with the notion—first established by Ruth
Glass—that gentrification onlyflourishes in global cities in the United States and
Europe, such as New York and London. Drawing on examples from scholarship by a
number o f researchers, Atkinson and Bridge sketch an image o f a pervasive
gentrification that touches nearly every corner o f the globe, from worldfinancial
centers to rural villages and post-communist cities. To what extent, their essay asks,
is the gen trification process Ruth Glass identified in London the same one that shapes
post-colonial cities and rural areas today and what is the relationship between
contemporary gentrification and globalization?
PART II: HOW, W H E R E AND W HEN D OES GENTRIFICATION O C C U R ?

J aponica B row n -S aracino
6. “Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement by Capital,

not People,” Journal o f the American Planning Association, 45 (4): 538-547. 71
Smith, N. 1979.
This article, published by Neil Smith in 1979 in the Journal of the American Planning
Association, argues that it is not consumer preferences, such as gentrifiers’appreciation
for urban life, that drive gentrification, but, instead, property markets. Specifically, using
Philadelphia as a case, Smith suggests that gentrification occurs in previously disinvested
areas in which a substantial gap exists between current property values and potential
ground-rent values, making the space ripefor reinvestment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
7. “The City as a Growth Machine,” Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of

Place. Berkeley: University of California Press: 50-52 and 62-74. 87
L o ga n , J. & M o lo tch , H. 1987.
“The Cityas Growth Machine "a selection from the book Urban Fortunes byJohn Logan
and Harvey Molotch, proposes that coalitions o f actors, including, but not limited to,
politicians, developers, university officials, and newspaper editors, work together to ensure
the redevelopment o f some urban areas. Their scholarship suggests that gentrification
is not happenstance but that, instead, elites work together to ensure its progress and success.
8. “Introduction: Restructuring and Dislocations,” The New Middle Class and the
Remaking o f the Central City. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1-11. 103
L ey , D avid . 1996.
In this selection from the introduction to his book, The New Middle Class and the
Remaking of the Central City, David Ley argues that the middle class'changing cultural
and political orientation plays a central role in gentrification and therefore in the
displacement o f longtimeVancouver residents. Ley suggests that the “new middle class,”
values diversity and other attributes o f urban life and that these values inform their
participation in the transformation o f many central city neighborhoods.
9. “Building the Frontier Myth,” from “Introduction” in The New Urban Frontier.
NewYork: Routledge: 12-18. 113
S m it h , N. 1998.
Neil Smith's "Building the Frontier Myth,"from the introduction to hisbookThe New
Urban Frontier, underlines the import o f what he identifies as pervasive ideologies
about the virtues o f gentrification. Gentrification, Smith suggests, is part and parcel of
a broad movement to reclaim the central cityfrom poor and working class residents to
serve the interests of the middle class and economic and political elites.
10. “From Arts Production to Housing Market," in Loft Living: Culture and Capital
in Urban Change. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 112-121. 119
Z u k in , S. 1982.
This selection from Sharon Zukin’s pioneering book on the gentrification o f New York
City, Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change, documents how coalitions of
artists, preservation groups and city politicians ensured the conversion o f Manhattan
loftsfrom industrial to residential and studio spaces. Specifically, the essay reveals how
a set o f actors with seemingly divergent needs and orientations to the city—from artists’
need for studio space and aesthetic appreciation for loft buildings to politicians’efforts
to spur economic development by providing arts subsidies—coincided to create a
marketfor the gentrification o f Manhattan lofts.
11. “Forging the Link between Culture and Real Estate: Urban Policy and Real
Estate Development,” in "Developing the East Village,” Selling the Lower
East Side: Real Estate, Culture and Resistance in New York City. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press: 236-242. 127
M e l e , C. 2 0 0 0 .
| TABLE OF CONTENTS
Expanding on a tradition apparent in Sharon Zukin’s Loft Living, sociologist Christopher

Mele's essay details how a variety o f factors, including, but not limited to, gentrifers’
appreciation for urban "grit,”developers’ marketing efforts, housing preservation policies
and politicians’crime reduction strategies, conspired to ensure the gentrification of
New York’s East Village. Presenting many vivid examples o f life in the gentrifying Lower
East Side, Mele offers a compelling account o f the diversefactors that inform the
contours o f local gentrification.
12.“Estate Agents as Interpreters of Economic and Cultural Capital: The

Gentrification Premium in the Sydney Housing Market,” International
Journal o f Urban and Regional Research 25:87-96. 133
B r id g e , G. 2 0 0 1 .
In this selection from an article published in the International Journal of Urban and
Rural Research Gary Bridge demonstrates how Australian real estate agentsfamiliarize
themselves with gentrifiers’tastes to ensure that specific places and properties appeal
to them and, as a result, contribute to the gentrification o f certain neighborhoods.
Bridge argues for the importance o f cultural tastes in determining which properties and
places appeal to gentrifiers. His essay also demonstrates the power of a set ofactors—real
estate agents—who consciously seek to ensure redevelopment.
13. “Tourism Gentrification: The Case of New Orleans’Vieux Carre (French Quarter),”
Urban Studies, 42 (7): 1099-1111; 1114-1115. 145
G oth a m , K. F. 2 0 0 5 .
Drawing on fieldwork in New Orleans’ Vieux Carre or French Quarter, sociologist Kevin
Fox Gotham argues that individual, middle class in-movers do not always characterize
gentrification. Instead, at least in the case o f the French Quarter, Gotham argues that
businesses, specifically large corporations, drive gentrification.
PART III: WHO ARE G EN T R IFIER S AND W H Y DO T H E Y ENGAGE IN

GEN TRIFICA TIO N ?
J aponica B row n -S aracino
14. “The Creation of a ‘Loft Lifestyle’,” Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban
Change. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 58-70. 175
Z u k in , S. 1982.
This selection from Sharon Zukin’s book L o ft Living draws the reader’s atten tion to the
beliefs and attitudes o f the middle class artists who purchased and transformed New
York lofts and, in so doing, helped tofuel Manhattan's gentrification. Zukin demonstrates
the appeal o f certain aestheticfeaturesfor artists, such as open space, light, and a sense
o f history. In so doing, she reveals some o f theforces that encourage individuals’
participation in gentrification and that, in turn, help to inform which places gentrify.
15. “Living Like an Artist,” Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Post-Industrial
City. New York: Routledge: 99-106; 115-122. 185
L loyd , R.2005.
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Drawing on fieldwork in Chicago’s Wicker Park, this excerpt from Richard Lloyd’s
Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Post-Industrial City examines the appeal of
urban grit and the presence ofother artistsfor young Chicago artists in search of
affordable housing. He also demonstrates how, in turn, these artists and the spaces that
they created, from coffee shops to art galleries, encouraged the in-movement o f later
waves of more affluent gentrifiers, as well as commercial investment in the neighborhood.
16. "Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development of Marxist

Urban Theory,” Environment and PlanningD: Society and Space, 1 : 5 7 - 6 9 . 195
R o se .D . 1984.
This selection from Damaris Rose’s article, “Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven
Development o f Marxist Urban Theory," argues that gentrifiers are demographically
diverse. Specifically, Rose argues that our concept of the gentrifier should be expanded to
include those such as single mothers who may themselves beat risk o f displacement as
gentrification advances.
17. “The Dilemma of Racial Difference,” Harlem: Between Heaven and Hell.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 57-61; 68-75. 211
T aylor , M. 2 0 0 2 .
Monique Taylor’s “The Dilemma o f Racial Difference”from her book Harlem: Between
Heaven and Hell, challenges the prevailing view o f the gentrifier as white, highly
educated, and relatively affluent. Taylor supports her argument with vivid depictions
o f the explanations that middle class African-Americans providefor their decision to
move to New York’s gentrifying Harlem neighborhood.
18. “Urban Space and Homosexuality: The Example of the Marais, Paris’ Gay
Ghetto,” Urban Studies4\ (9): 1739-1750. 221
SlBALIS, M. 2 0 0 4 .
While Monique Taylor’s essay demonstrates how gentrifiers’ racial identities can inform
their participation in gentrification, this selection from Michael Sibalis’“Urban Space
and Homosexuality: The Example of the Marais, Paris’ Gay Ghetto,” reveals how sexual
identities helped inform the establishment o f a gay, male enclave in a Paris neighborhood.
In so doing, like Taylor and Rose, Sibalis demonstrates the close relationship between
gentrifiers’demographic characteristics and residential and financial choices. In turn,
he provides evidence o f how such characteristics inform the gentrification process.
19. “Consumption and Culture,” Gentrification and the Middle Classes. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishing: 106-136. 235
B u t l e r , T. 1997.
In this selection from his book, Gentrification and the Middle Classes, Tim Butler
demonstrates the diversity o f explanations gentrifiers providefor their engagement in
gentrification, rangingfrom a desire to live in a particular type o f home, to minimize
their commute, earn profit by purchasing in a gentrifying neighborhood, or, finally, to
reside in a cosmopolitan neighborhood. As a result, he presents an argument about the
central role o f gentrifiers’characteristics, needs, and tastes in gentrification.
| TABLE OF CONTENTS
20. “Social Preservationists and the Quest for Authentic Community,” City and
Community3(2): 135-147.
B row n -S aracino , J apó nica . 2 0 0 4 .
This selection from my essay, "Social Preservationists and the Questfor Authentic
Community,”drawsfrom myfieldwork in two gentrifying Chicago neighborhoods and
two gentrifying New England towns to argue that gentrifiers vary greatly in their attitudes
toward gentrification and longtime residents, as well as in their practices. Among the
orientations to gentrification and longtime residents that myfieldwork uncovered is
what I term “social preservation": the desire o f some gentrifiers, who tend to be highly
educated and residentially mobile, to preserve the distinction of their place o f residence
by working to prevent the displacement of longtime residents with whom they associate
"authentic”community.
PART IV: WHAT ARE TH E OUTCOM ES AND CO N SEQ U EN C ES OF

GEN TRIFICA TIO N ?
J a p ó n ic a B r o w n - S a r a c in o
21. “The Hidden Dimensions of Culture and Class: Philadelphia,” Back to the
City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation, Laska, S.B., & Spain, D., eds. New
York: Pergamon Press: 138-139; 143-153.
L evy , P.R. & C ybr iw k sy , R.A. 1980.
This selection from an essay by Paul Levy and Roman Cybriwsky, originally published in
a 1980 anthology on gentrification, draws on data from a gentrifying Philadelphia
neighborhood to explore gentrification’s implications for longtime residents. They
suggest that, on the one hand, gentrification has the potential to reduce longtime
residents’social isolation from the city o f which they area part. However, on the other hand,
they caution that many longtime residents, for whom displacement is inevitable, will
benefitfrom this reduced isolation for only a short time. Furthermore, they suggest that
cultural conflicts between longtime and new residents characterize early and mid stage
gentrification.
22. “Social Displacement in a Renovating Neighborhood’s Commercial District:

Atlanta,” Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation, Laska, S.B., &
Spain, D., eds. NewYork: Pergamon Press: 204-206; 208-218.
C h e r n o ff , M . 1980.
/Is in the selection by Levy and Cybriwsky, this excerptfrom Michael Chernoff's essay on
an Atlanta neighborhood’s gentrification suggests that gentrification’s consequences are
not limited to physical displacement. He points to the practical and psychological
consequences o f a loss o f local power and influencefor longtime residents as gentrifiers
come to dominate neighborhood institutions and politics.
23. “The New Urban Renewal, Part 2: Public Housing Reforms,” The New Urban
Renewal: The Economic Transformation o f Harlem and Bronzeville. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press: 83-96; 100-105.
TABLE OF CONTENTS | xv
In this selection from Derek Hyra’s The New Urban Renewal: The Economic
Transformation of Harlem and Bronzeville, the author draws on data collected in New
York’s Harlem and Chicago's Bronzeville—two predominately African-American
neighborhoods experiencing gentrification—to present an argument about thefactors
that influence gentrification’s outcomes. Hyra suggests that municipal levelfactors, such
as the structure and tenor o f city government, shape gentrification and help to determine
place-specific consequences for longtime residents.
24. “Gentrification, Intrametropolitan Migration, and the Politics of Place," The

Near Northwest Side Story: Migration, Displacement, and Puerto Rican Families.
Berkeley: The University of California Press: 127-130; 142-152. 319
P e r ez , G .M . 2 0 0 4 .
Drawingon data collected through fieldwork in a gentrifying Chicago neighborhood,
Gina Perez demonstrates gentrification’s costsfor poor and working class Latino residents.
She demonstrates how neighborhood youth and community organizations negotiate
gentrification’s daily challenges, from harassment by store clerks and police officers to
the loss of housing.
25. “Avenging Violence with Violence.” Black on the Block. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press: 286-294. 331
P attillo , M . 2 0 0 8 .
Mary Pattillo’s “Avenging Violence with Violence, "from her book, Black on the Block,
reveals intra- racial class conflict that characterizes daily life in a predominately
African-American neighborhood experiencing an influx o f affluent, African-American
newcomers. Pattillo’s rich data demonstrate the daily tensions and conflicts that
characterize the neighborhood, as well as the work that local institutions perform to
ensure that the neighborhood meets gentrifiers’needs and tastes.
26. "Neighborhood Effects in a Changing Hood,” There Goes the ‘Hood: Views of
Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press:
144-154. 337
F r e e m a n , L. 2 0 0 6 .
Relyingon data gathered inNewYork City, this selectionfrom Lance Freeman’s Theie
Goes the ‘Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up, examines gentriflcation's
costs and benefitsfor longtime residents. Freeman argues that gentrification may
benefit some longtime residents, primarily as a result o f middle class gentrifiers’social
networks and successful advocacyfor the improvement o f local institutions and
services.
27. “Building the Creative Community,” The Rise o f the Creative Class.
New York: Basic Books: 283-291; 293-297. 345
F l o r id a , R. 2 0 0 2 .
This selection from Richard Florida’s influential book, The Rise of the Creative Class,
suggests that cities and towns can take steps to encourage the in-movement o f creative
professionals who value, among other place attributes, diversity, cultural attractions,
| TABLE OF CO N TEN TS
a n d outdoor recreational amenities. The presence o f this class, Florida suggests, can, in
turn, help to ensure a m unicipality’s econom ic revitalization, benefiting the local tax
base a n d strengthening local institutions.
28. Conclusion: Why We Debate

Copyright Acknowledgements
Bibliography
Index
SERIES FOREWORD
The Gentrification Debates, edited by Japonica Brown-Saracino

This series brings original perspectives on key topics in urban research to today’s students
in a series of short accessible texts, guided readers, and practical handbooks. Each volume
examines how long-standing urban phenomena continue to be relevant in an increasingly
urban and global world, and in doing so, connects the best new scholarship with the wader
concerns of students to understand life in the twenty-first century metropolis.
In this addition to the series, Japonica Brown-Saracino addresses one of the most
fundamental changes modern cities have experienced: Gentrification. Gentrification
typically refers to the influx of economic capital into previously poor or working class
neighborhoods that is driven by commercial investors and new, affluent residents. The
influx of capital, new residents and businesses drives and reflects a broader series of
changes in the physical, political, social and cultural terrain of the neighborhood, resulting
in longtime residents’ displacement. But do the new residents actually help to improve
the overall life of a place, by bringing in more wealth, or do they simply undermine it,
by driving out the older, poorer residents? This is one of several important debates that
motivate the new scholarship on the changing character of cities and towns today. In this
timely and singular book, Japonica Brown-Saracino introduces readers to the key debates
about gentrification and does so in a way that illuminates different points of view while
also prompting new questions for both students and scholars. Though much of the work
on gentrification has been filtered through the lens of political economy, this book attends
to this perspective while also introducing a new and powerful voice to the literature that
reveals the consequences of the meanings people assign to themselves and to the places
in which they live.
Anthony Orurn
Zachary Neal
Series Editors
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I extend sincere thanks to my series editors, Anthony Orum and Zachary Neal, as well as to
my Routledge editor, Steve Rutter. I thankTony and Zak first and foremost for encouraging
me to write this book, which, as they predicted, proved to be a challenging and rewarding
endeavor. I also thank my editors for their practical and intellectual support throughout
the writing and editing process. Thanks are also due to Leah Babb-Rosenfeld for her edito
rial assistance.
This book has benefited from feedback from a variety of sources, including from my
series editors, several reviewers, Brooke Brown-Saracino, Lida Maxwell, and Jon Norman.
I thank my editors for securing helpful reviews, and the reviewers for their time and
thoughtful suggestions. Special appreciation is reserved for Jon Norman who offered tre
mendously productive and insightful suggestions during the revision process.
I owe a debt of gratitude to Corey Fields for suggesting that I form a gentrification read
ing group while I was writing section introductions. I offer many thanks to the graduate
students from Loyola University Chicago and Northwestern University who composed
the group. Together we read many of the selections included in this book, and the group’s
insights about the gentrification literature and anecdotes from their own field sites helped
shape not only this book’s content, but my thinking about gentrification.
Of course, this book would not have been feasible without the intellectual support and
encouragement I received from my teachers and mentors when I first learned about and
studied gentrification. There are too many individuals to thank here, but I owe special
appreciation to those who have guided my study of gentrification, including, but not lim
ited to, Mary Pattillo, Albert Hunter, Henry Binford, Wendy Griswold, and Rick Fantasia.
During the course of writing and research, I benefited from the support of Loyola
University Chicago’s Department of Sociology, as well as from the assistance of several
graduate students: David Orta, Cesraea Rumpf, Dara Lewis, and Todd Fuist. Todd deserves
special thanks for his tireless effort to track down the rights holders for the excerpts
included in the book.
Last but far from least, I reserve special thanks and appreciation for my partner, Lida
Maxwell, who patiently endured my alternating bouts of writer’s block and furious work,
and, as always, readily offered her suggestions and insights.
Overview: The Gentrification Debates
Japónica Brown-Saracino
I cannot recall the first time that I heard the term “gentrification.” However, I do remember
when someone first defined the concept for me. I was a college sophomore, enrolled in an
urban sociology course. Many of the ideas, processes, and histories we studied fascinated
me, but the professor’s description of gentrification particularly intrigued me.
As he explained it—or, more accurately, as I recall him explaining it a dozen or so years
ago—gentrification is characterized by the movement of creative professionals, such as
artists and writers, and, later, of other members of the middle class, such as educators and
bankers, to central city neighborhoods in search of affordable housing in close proximity
to museums, music venues, and other cultural attractions that they value. They move into
low-rent areas populated by working class individuals who are often members of white
ethnic or racial minority groups. Sometimes these in-movers purchase homes that they
renovate or restore to satisfy their needs and tastes. In other instances they rent.
Whether they buy or rent, a variety of factors draw them to certain central city neigh
borhoods. In some instances, my professor suggested, individual or corporate real estate
investors encourage the in-movement of the gentry by refurbishing buildings and mar
keting them to the middle class (Hackworth 2002). In other instances local government
encourages the gentrification of economically depressed neighborhoods through a variety
of methods including, but not limited to, tax incentives, policing strategies aimed at creat
ing a hospitable environment for newcomers, and the sale of city-owned property (Mele
2000, Badyina & Golubchikov 2005, Hyra 2008). In addition, in some periods, the federal
government provided tax breaks for the restoration of historic homes in certain designated
areas (e.g., Gale 1980). In still other cases, it is newspaper articles (Brown-Saracino & Rumpf
2008), word of mouth, or the establishment of businesses catering to the gentry that attract
the middle class to an area (Zukin 1990, Ley 1996, Deener 2007, Zukin et al. 2009). As an illus
tration of the latter influence, in the Munjoy Hill neighborhood of Portland, Maine where
I am currently conducting fieldwork, many lesbian and bisexual women report that the
presence of a queer-friendly coffee shop encouraged their relocation to the neighborhood,
which had previously been home to white working class individuals, as well as Sudanese
and Somali immigrants (on Portland’s gentrification see Lees 2003,2006).
Regardless of whether they purchase or rent, the gentry’s in-movement, combined with
the boosterism of city officials and private investors, is of tremendous consequence. Local
businesses increasingly cater to the gentry’s tastes (Deener 2007, Zukin et al. 2009). For
| JA P O N IC A B R O W N -SA R ACIN O
instance, a bar begins selling Belgian beer and the corner grocer)' adds organic milk to
its inventory. Chains, such as Starbucks or the Gap, may also move to the neighborhood
and, in turn, serve as a symbol of neighborhood change that encourages the further in
movement of the gentry. Property owners recognize that gentrifiers are able to pay higher
rents and home prices than most of the neighborhood’s longtime residents can afford, and
as a result rent and property values increase. Local property taxes rise concomitantly. As a
result of mounting housing costs, many longtime residents must leave in search of afford
able housing—thus disrupting social and familial traditions and networks. Displacement
is a particular threat for members of social groups that, in the aggregate, tend to have
fewer economic resources, such as African-Americans and Latinos, single parents, and
the elderly (Henig 1984, Bondi 1991, Perez 2006).
However, physical displacement is not the only challenge that longtime residents face.
Cultural, social and political changes surface in gentrification’s early stages (see Clay 1979,
Kerstein 1990). For instance, in an effort to stay in business the corner store must either
cater to newcomers’ tastes (hence the organic milk) or lose its lease. In the event that it
closes, another business—perhaps a yoga studio or an upscale bistro—will take its place.
Such changes may alienate or out-price longtime patrons, and, even more pressingly,
longtime residents who worked in the corner store lose their jobs and part of their social
support network when it closes. Local politicians, observing such economic and demo
graphic changes, often cater to the needs and interests of new affluent residents who have
financial resources to support their campaigns and who will, should gentrification con
tinue, compose their constituency (Shaw 2005, Wyly & Hammel 2005). As a result, many
long-timers feel that their needs are ignored or even subverted and local political forums
and some street interactions become acrimonious (Zukin 1987).
As longtime residents leave the neighborhood in search of affordable housing and
work opportunities, new, more affluent residents—lawyers, doctors, investment bank
ers, etc.—take their place. Eventually, some of the artists and writers who often compose
gentrification’s first wave face their own displacement (Clay 1979, Kerstein 1990) and as
gentrification advances neighborhood institutions, including schools, churches, and
libraries, adjust to accommodate new, more affluent residents. These institutions also
receive an influx of resources that newcomers provide or demand. In many cases, in a
decade or less, the neighborhood will appear to be completely transformed. Not only do
new people populate it, but a combination of infrastructural improvements, new busi
nesses and refurbished homes transform its appearance. High-end cars take the place of
older models on neighborhood streets, new store awnings appear in the commercial dis
trict, and homes receive updated porches, windows, and coats of paint. The local library
branch may expand its selection and the city may clear streets of snow more frequently
than they did in the past. Newcomers and city officials frequently report that the neighbor
hood is safer and cleaner than it has been in decades.
When my professor offered the above description, he was likely thinking of the gentrify
ing places that many scholars and journalists write about, such as New York's Greenwich
Village or Paris’ Marais. However, I found myself thinking of the small town in western
Massachusetts where I spent much of my childhood. At the time, most scholars regarded
gentrification as an urban process and did not think of rural areas as being susceptible to
the economic, demographic, and aesthetic transformations that characterize gentrifica
tion.1Yet, to me, the change process that I had witnessed in my rural hometown seemed to
parallel that of the central city neighborhoods my professor described.
OVERVIEW : T H E G EN TR IFICA TIO N D EBATES |
As I have written elsewhere (Brown-Saracino 2009), in the early 1980s my parents were
among a wave of young professionals who, attracted by inexpensive housing costs, a rural
landscape, and burgeoning professional and economic opportunities in regional popula
tion centers, relocated to hill towns in western Massachusetts. As a child, my neighbors
included dairy and cattle farmers, factory workers, truck drivers, and mechanics born
and raised in town. However, other neighbors were more like my parents. These included
newcomers who commuted south to professional posts in Northampton or, to the north,
in Brattleboro, Vermont, and college educated back-to-the-landers who relied on their
acreage or creative skills to support themselves through ventures such as organic farming,
weaving, storytelling, writing, or woodworking. My parents often returned from the annual
Town Meeting, held in the small town hall on the Town Common, with tales of conflict
between new and longtime residents that paralleled the acrimony my professor described
between urban gentrifiers and long-timers. In my hometown, conflict frequently centered
on newcomers’ interest in land conservation, for they worried that without conservation
developers would replace dairy farms with high-end condominium units, destroying nat
ural landscapes and the town’s rural character. For their part, many longtime residents
resented newcomers’ increasing political power and feared that they would lose control
of their land through zoning restrictions and other policy changes for which newcomers
advocated. Over time, property values and taxes rose, and some longtime residents were
displaced. Others sold acreage to pay their mortgage or taxes, thus losing land on which
they depended for their livelihood, and new, expensive homes appeared in what had once
been pasture or woodlot, transforming the landscape.
As a college student, in my mind the transformation of my rural hometown seemed
parallel to my professor’s description of urban gentrification. Was it possible, I wondered,
for gentrification to occur in a rural area? Was it appropriate to use the term “gentrifica
tion” to describe the economic upscaling and displacement that I had witnessed in my
small hometown? Might changes in a small Massachusetts town parallel the transforma
tion of rural Illinois (Salamon 2005), Wisconsin (Macgregor2005), or West Yorkshire (Smith
& Phillips 2002)? Do some small town political officials encourage gentrification, as many
argue to be the case in urban neighborhoods (Shaw 2005, Wyly & Hammel 2005)? Does
gentrification transform village commercial centers in the same manner as those in the
central city (Zukin et al. 2009)?
After some thought, I worked up the courage to pose these questions to my professor.
Was gentrification a purely urban process, I asked? My professor said that most define gen
trification as an urban process. However, he also said that he supposed that it could occur
outside of the central city. To his knowledge, few had written about this and he encouraged
me to pursue the question of whether gentrification occurs in rural areas by studying my
hometown.
The question that first emerged in my undergraduate class informed a broader set of
questions about gentrification that I continue to pursue. After writing a senior thesis based
on a study of my hometown, I conducted a comparative ethnography of four communi
ties experiencing an influx of highly educated, residentially mobile, and relatively afflu
ent newcomers: two central city Chicago neighborhoods, a small, coastal tourist town in
Massachusetts, and a rural farming community in Maine (Brown-Saracino 1999, 2004,
2006, 2007, 2009). In the end, I regard gentrification as a community change process that
occurs most frequently in the central city, but that is not specific to that context. Many
scholars agree (see Parsons 1980, Phillips 2004, Smith & Holt 2005, Smith & Phillips 2001),
| JAP O N ICA BROW N-SARACINO
but others call for a narrower definition. In short, without meaning to, my inaugural socio
logical research forced me to directly consider one of the debates that color the gentrifica
tion literature: namely, how to define gentrification and specify its geographic parameters.
In other words, it pushed me to consider the question of w'hether gentrification is a strictly
urban process.
This book is not about the differences between urban and small town gentrification,
but it is about the sort of disagreement I outline above: exactly how broad should our defi
nition of gentrification be? What are gentrification’s basic characteristics? What are the
stakes of broadening our image of gentrification to include the transformation of non-
urban areas, or of including additional cases that depart in other ways from the descrip
tion my professor offered? For instance, what are the implications for our understanding
of the “gentrifier” of acknowledging that some neighborhoods are not first gentrified by
the w'hite artists and writers central to many images of gentrification (Taylor 2002, Pattillo
2007, Hyra 2008)?
Another student in my undergraduate urban sociology class may have been less
intrigued by the question of w'hether gentrification is a strictly urban process, and more
interested in documenting the frequency with which it occurs in African-American or
Latino working class neighborhoods. Some might have visited the professor’s office to ask
if the displacement of longtime residents is inevitable. Still others might have wanted to
know' if the gentrifiers w'ho engage in gentrification are responsible for the process, or if it
is supported by city or national policies (e.g., Hackworth2002, Hyra2008). In short, cumu
latively my fellow' students might have interrogated and debated many of the facets of the
description our professor offered.
Students are not the only individuals to pose such questions. Since Ruth Glass first
coined the term “gentrification” in 1964, scholars in a variety of disciplines have studied
and written about the process. For instance, they have debated w'hether a return of people
or of capital to the central city drives gentrification, the sincerity of some gentrifiers’ taste
for “diversity,” and whether the economic revitalization that gentrification typically pro
duces outweighs the human cost of longtime residents’ displacement.
Indeed, scholarship on gentrification is expansive and much of it is defined by debate
and deliberation about its many facets. However, perhaps as a reaction to the breadth and
diversity of gentrification scholarship, too often a single book or article proffers a narrow
perspective on the process, generally by taking one side or another in the gentrification
debates. Specifically, w'hen authors devote attention to debate over gentrification, they
typically attend to a single area of disagreement: the question of w'hether gentrification’s
benefits for the middle class and for urban economies outweigh its costs for longtime resi
dents (e.g., see Smith &Williams 1986, Lees et al. 2008). In Roland Atkinson’s terms, a vari
ety of individuals and groups have “sparred” over whether gentrification is a "savior” or
"destroyer of central city vitality” (2003:2343).
For instance, in their 1986 gentrification anthology, Neil Smith and Peter Williams draw
the reader’s attention to the debate between those w'ho regard gentrification as a har
binger of a desirable urban renaissance and those who view it as an instrument of urban
restructuring that has negative consequences for poor and w'orking class residents (1986:
12). This is an enormously important debate, but at this date it is an oversimplification to
suggest that it is the only issue worthy of attention, for, as this book argues, scholars’ per
spectives on this debate are informed by a broader set of conversations and disagreements
about several facets of gentrification.2
OVERVIEW : T H E G EN TR IFICA TIO N D EBATES |
In this sense, this book is different than those that have come before. Most centrally,
it encourages us to consider a number of debates about gentrification and in so doing
draws our attention to a variety of ways of thinking about the process and of approach
ing the study of gentrifying places. Furthermore, it challenges the dominant inclination
among gentrification scholars to attend narrowly to debates surrounding the relationship
between political-economy and gentrification, specifically to how elites’ interests are pri
oritized over and above those with less economic or political capital and how this inequality,
in turn, is reproduced in and marks urban lives and landscapes.3 While the political-
economic approach raises a set of undeniably pertinent questions to which this book
devotes a great deal of attention, particularly about gentrification’s relation to broader
conflict between those who possess economic resources and those who do not, singular
devotion to this approach runs the risk of focusing our attention on a limited number
of gentrification’s facets. Specifically, it attends to the role of coalitions of elites (Logan &
Molotch 1987) and the broad economic and political shifts that help enable gentrification
at the cost of attention to numerous other facets of gentrification that are central to the lives
of social actors involved in the process and to the idiosyncratic ways in which gentrifica
tion unfolds in distinct places. For instance, singular attention to how gentrification repro
duces and extends economic inequalities distracts us from a series of debates about how
longtime residents respond to gentrification (Martin 2007, Pattillo 2007, Brown-Saracino
2009), gentrifiers’ understanding of their role in the process (Caulfield 1998, Taylor 2002,
Pattillo 2007, Brown-Saracino 2009), and the everyday, local decision-making processes
that contribute to the economic, political, social, and cultural characteristics of gentrify
ing places (e.g., Betancur2002, Martin 2007).
Furthermore, to suggest that there is a single gentrification debate—that the only ques
tion or debate worthy of attention is between those who regard the process as a harbinger
of renaissance and those who view it as a destructive extension of broader economic and
political shifts (Smith 1986, Slater 2006, Lees et al. 2008)—is to deny many gray areas within
the literature and the overlap between these two dominant positions. Most pressingly, it
runs the risk of positioning arguments that do not neatly adhere to a political-economy
perspective as straw men, typically by presenting them as falling in the gentrification-as-
renaissance camp. The Gentrification D ebates explores a broad variety of perspectives on
gentrification and documents how a plethora of perspectives—from the political-econ-
omy framework to an emphasis on the import of the cultural tastes of the “new middle
class” (Caulfield 1994, Ley 1996, 2003, Butler 1997)—emerged from a series of conversa
tions between scholars with opposing viewpoints.
Why attend to multiple debates about gentrification rather than the single and unde
niably important question of gentrification’s costs and benefits that others attend to?
First, more than one area of disagreement characterizes the literature and, for this reason,
attending to the full range of gentrification debates provides a more comprehensive over
view of how the process and scholarship on it have developed over four and a half decades.
In this sense, this book provides a more complete overview of the genealogy of the gentri
fication literature and encourages the reader to develop an understanding of how several
areas of debate inform one another, as well as the broad aforementioned debate about
gentrification’s costs and benefits. Second, scholars do not just debate gentrification when
they challenge one another about how to define the process, explain gentrification’s ori
gins and limits, or explicate its outcomes. They also invoke and debate a series of terms
and concepts that scholars in a variety of disciplines rely on. For instance, when we discuss
how we should define the “gentrifier” we are not just debating the role and characteris
tics of a set of actors involved in gentrification, but also what we mean when we refer to
someone as “middle class” and how to understand the relationship between traits such as
race, income, and gender, and ideology and behavior. In short, debates about gentrifica
tion evoke a plethora of broad questions that are worthy of our attention and that, in turn,
inform the way we think about gentrification, as well as about a number of other dimen
sions of our social world. Thus, by introducing readers to a number of intellectual tradi
tions to which the gentrification debates relate, this book provides tools of inquiry that
can be applied not only to gentrification but to a host of other social phenomena as well.
Finally, by outlining a variety of perspectives on gentrification and mapping their relation
ships to one another I anticipate that this book will encourage further inquiries into the
process: that it will answer questions about gentrification while also inviting debate and
new lines of study. In short, following a long tradition in the social sciences, this book traces
how scholars have questioned dominant gentrification research paradigms in hopes of
opening up new lines of debate and inquiry. It is my goal that, as a result, it will encourage
readers to add their own voices to the conversations that inform our understanding of
gentrification and a number of related concepts and processes.
As this book’s title, which borrows from a phrase that the geographer Neil Smith used
in a 1986 essay, suggests, The Gentrification Debates is centered on four key areas of dis
agreement in the gentrification literature.' These include debates about 1) how to define
and recognize gentrification, 2) how, where, and when gentrification occurs, 3) gentrifiers’
characteristics and motivations for engaging in the process, and 4) gentrification’s out
comes and consequences.
Each of the book’s four sections includes excerpts from articles and book chapters that
provide varying perspectives on these debates. Cumulatively, they provide a comprehen
sive—if not exhaustive—overview of more than four decades of gentrification scholar
ship and orient us toward ongoing debates.5 On the one hand, in keeping with the political
economy perspective, the book’s selections document the influence of the market and state
and of the gentry’s economic interests in gentrification. However, on the other hand, it also
attends to the meanings residents assign to gentrilying places and interactional dynamics
of a variety of actors engaged in the process. It is my hope that the book will spark further
debate and discussion, both in the classroom and beyond. Such debate is productive in the
sense that it strengthens scholarship on gentrification, as well as our reading of the literature
by challenging assumptions and continually renewing our view of the process and related
concepts. More generally, debate is valuable because it calls for us to engage with a set of key
questions about a process that has become fundamental to many cities across the globe.
Whether gentrification displaced you from your childhood home, or, conversely, ensured
that your family profited from rising home values, or whether coverage of the process simply
fills the pages of your local paper, it is likely that gentrification has influenced either your
life or the lives of many around you. Thus, comprehensive knowledge of gentrification is
paramount not only for an understanding of contemporary cities, but also if we wish to be
informed and engaged members of a world in which gentrification is increasingly perva
sive—at least, as the second section of this book considers, in certain contexts (Smith 2002,
Atkinson & Bridge 2005). The next paragraphs provide a brief overview of the concepts and
questions central to the book’s readings, as well as to the debates of which they are a part.
What is Gentrification?The first section of the book presents several influential essays
on how gentrification should be defined and how we can recognize it when we see it. It
OVERVIEW: THE GENTRIFICATION DEBATES |
includes seminal readings, such as Ruth Glass’ 1964 essay introducing the term and identi
fying the process. It also includes readings that pose questions such as whether gentrifica
tion can occur outside of urban areas, whether it should be identified by the characteristics
of in-movers or of longtime residents, and whether we should categorize it by a set of out
comes, such as rising property values or displacement, or by a set of causes, such as some
gentrifiers’ appreciation for social diversity or desire to live near their place of work, or
government policies designed to encourage developers’ investment in gentrifying neigh
borhoods. The introduction to the first section poses a set of questions about gentrifica
tion’s central defining characteristics, as well as about how gentrification is different than
other forms of redevelopment. The readings also provide guideposts for recognizing
gentrification by outlining the changes one can expect to observe in a place undergoing
gentrification.
How, Where and When Does Gentrification Occur? The book’s second section
presents readings offering contrasting perspectives on the factors that produce gen
trification. Readings include those that argue that gentrification is a product of market
conditions, that suggest that national, state, and local government policies facilitate gen
trification, and, finally, arguments about how gentrifiers’ tastes and needs help to produce
gentrification.
Together the readings represent two sides of a central debate in the gentrification litera
ture about the relative import of production and consumption factors for producing gen
trification (see Smith & Williams 1986, Zukin 1987). In so doing, it reviews an underlying
debate about culture’s role in gentrification, namely about whether gentrifiers’ tastes and
beliefs drive gentrification or whether, once gentrification is underway, cultural objects are
manipulated to appeal to gentrifiers (Griswold 1986). It also presents diverse responses to
questions about why some places gentrify while others do not, as well as about why some
gentrify before others.
This section therefore pushes the reader to consider arguments about the economic and
political factors that facilitate gentrification, such as housing markets and city policies, as
well as arguments about the cultural tastes and meanings that encourage the gentry’s par
ticipation in the process and that help to determine where they move. For instance, the
essays provide at least two explanations— either competing or complimentary, depending
on your perspective—for why people like my parents moved back-to- the-land in the 1970s
and 1980s. Production explanations suggest that the decline of industry and the rise of the
professional-managerial class enabled college educated individuals to move away from
cities that once were manufacturing and employment centers (Ehrenreich & Ehrenreich
1979). In addition, they might contend that rising housing costs in Northeastern metrop
olises and the concomitant failure of the New England family farm encouraged young
couples’ movement to the country, where land and homes were relatively inexpensive.
In contrast, supply side explanations suggest that the above shifts cannot alone account
for why some young professionals moved to rural hill towns, while many others preferred
central city neighborhoods. They would urge us to take my parents’ leftist politics, particu
larly their environmentalism and appreciation for rural landscape, into account.
WhoAreGentrifiersandWhyDoTheyEngageinGentrification?The\hirdsectionmdudes
seminal readings that portray gentrifiers as white, middle class “pioneers” who take plea
sure in taming the urban frontier (Spain 1993, Smith 1996). However, it departs from
most summaries of the gentrification literature by presenting readings that complicate
our dominant image of gentrifiers. Specifically, it highlights gentrifiers’ demographic
diversity, as well as the variety of attitudes toward gentrification that they articulate.
Readings also present diverse explanations for gentrifiers' motivations for participating in
the process, from a desire for economic gain and to “save” the central city from blight, to
appreciation for diversity and a distaste for suburbia. In sum, this section provides read
ers with an understanding of gentrifiers’ demographic and ideological diversity, as well as
with a set of guiding questions with which to consider the relationship between gentri
fiers’ personal traits and their approaches to gentrification.
In short, the third section asks the reader to consider how he or she would respond to
a central set of questions about how to define and identify the gentrifier. Specifically, it
asks: are gentrifiers marked by a set of shared demographic traits, a common ideological
orientation to place and gentrification, or by the intentions behind their participation in
gentrification?
What are the Outcomes an d Consequences o f Gentrification? T he final section provides
an overview of the outcomes and consequences of gentrification, from readings that
document the physical displacement of poor and working class longtime residents and
first-wave gentrifiers, to those that point to their “social displacement” (Chernoff 1984). It
includes recent scholarship that argues that gentrification is less detrimental to longtime
residents than previous work suggested (e.g., Freeman & Braconi 2002, 2004), as well as
criticisms of such scholarship (e.g., Newman &Wyly 2006, Slater 2006).
The diversity of topics, perspectives, and cases included in this book are one indication
of the sheer volume of gentrification scholarship. Academics in a variety of fields—includ
ing, but not limited to, sociology, anthropology, political science, planning, urban stud
ies, geography, performance studies, and African-American studies—have written on
the topic, as have many journalists (see Brown-Saracino & Rumpf 2008). The breadth and
diversity of the literature presented a challenge when it came to selecting voices and per
spectives for inclusion in the book, for no single reader can include all exemplar}' scholar
ship, nor represent ever}' facet of gentrification research.
In the end, I chose to include excerpts from articles and chapters that marked key
turning points in gentrification scholarship, stimulated debate, or spurred new lines of
inquiry and disagreement. The work of a few key thinkers, specifically Sharon Zukin and
Neil Smith, whose scholarship has had disproportionate influence on key lines of debate,
appear more than once in the reader. However, while the book contains essays by lead
ing gentrification scholars, it also includes excerpts from publications that emerged from
doctoral dissertations and master’s theses. In short, excerpts were selected because they
influenced debate and/or represent key perspectives on a variety of issues of import for
gentrification scholars. References to additional micro-debates and resources appear
throughout the book, in my introductions to the sections, as well as in the selections that
compose each section, and I encourage readers to continue their reading and discussion,
as well as to undertake their own studies of gentrification.
It is my hope that The Gentrification Debates will provide readers with the combina
tion of resources that spurred my initial interest in gentrification. Specifically, the book is
designed to partner a clear set of terms and concepts central to gentrification with expo
sure to the debates that helped form them. I expect that together these two elements will
encourage the reader to trace the development of the gentrification literature, as well as
to interrogate and even challenge central terms and concepts. After all, the book reminds
us that gentrification scholarship, like any other line of inquiry, has room for new voices,
perspectives, and lines of debate.
O V E R V IE W : T H E G E N T R IF IC A T IO N D E B A T E S |
NOTES
1. On rural gentrification see, among others, Parsons 1980, Phillips 2004, Smith & Holt 2005, Smith & Phillips
2001, Macgregor2005.
2. Smith and Williams attend to several facets of this debate, such as questions about whether production
or consumption factors produce gentrification, but they frame such questions as subsets of the broader,
single debate outlined above. In contrast, this book suggests that numerous debates color and structure the
literature, four of which this text highlights.
3. As this book documents, while the political economy perspective is of great value and is indisputably the
prevailing framework for thinking about gentrification, it is not the only available framework.
4. To be specific, Smith refers to " the gentrification debate" (1986: 3, emphasis added) as does Atkinson in a
2003 essay. See discussion above on the limits of attending to a single debate about genlrification.
5. For a comprehensive overview of the gentrification literature sec Lees et al. (2008 & forthcoming).
PART I
is Gentrification?
Definitions and Key Concepts
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS GENTRIFICATION?

DEFINITIONS AND KEY CONCEPTS
A few years ago an undergraduate in my Race and Place seminar raised his hand after
our first classroom discussion of gentrification. “I think that my hometown is gentrifying,”
he said, providing a brief description of the small Midwestern city in which he grew up.
"Before today I didn’t know what to call it, but I’m pretty sure that it is gentrifying.” A few
months later he wrote a paper documenting how the in-movement of affluent newcom
ers, encouraged by the gentrification of neighboring cities, local land use policies, and
readily available mortgages, contributed to the transformation of the social, economic,
and physical characteristics of his city.
As this anecdote suggests, many have an image, however vague, of gentrification. One
may not know the word for gentrification or have devoted thought to its definition, but
many nonetheless possess an intuitive sense of what gentrification is (Becker 1998) .Why is
this the case? It may be the result of the ubiquity of media coverage on gentrification, or the
sheer number of those who, like my student, have firsthand experience with the process
(see Lees et al. 2008).
Indeed, you and your classmates may already have different understandings of gentrifi
cation. As a result, when you stop to think about how you would define gentrification and
discuss this with others, you may find that your classmates’ definitions are quite distinct from
your own. For instance, in a class you may have viewed the documentary Flag Wars, which
profiles the movement, buoyed by realtors, of white, middle class gay men into a predomi
nately working class, African-American neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio. As a result, at the
center of your image of gentrification are dilapidated Victorian houses restored to opulence
by gentrifiers armed with financial capital, their own labor, and taste for historical authen
ticity. You might “unpack” this image to realize that, in your mind, gentrification entails the
displacement of lifelong residents by gentrifiers who do not share long-timers’ racial or class
identity. You might also recognize that you regard the restoration of older homes as a defining
characteristic of gentrification and that you believe that gentrification is fueled not only by
individual renovators, but also by government officials, such as those who pass and enforce
ordinances that require homeowners to meet the costly standards of official historic districts
and who threaten to close long-timers' institutions for failing to meet new zoning standards.
However, if you were to ask another what her image of gentrification is she might men
tion Sharon Zukin’s pioneering book on the process, Loft Living, which centers on middle
class artists and professionals who purchased space in New York industrial buildings in
the 1970s and transformed them into studios and homes, and, as a result, helped spur
local economic, social, and cultural transformation. Comparing your images, you realize
that Zukin’s case does not include the Victorians or immediate displacement of longtime
residents so central to your notion of gentrification. Instead, it emphasizes the displace
ment, facilitated in part by changes that city officials made to zoning laws, of light industry,
neighborhood shops, and squatters.
Someone else might volunteer that the term “gentrification” makes him think of the
small New England fishing village where his grandparents live. You find yourself arguing
about whether the restoration of nineteenth-century village homes by middle class new
comers and the displacement of fishermen and their families constitutes gentrification.
Soon your questions expand: Can gentrification occur outside of the city? Must it include
the displacement of longtime residents? If displacement is a defining characteristic of
gentrification, should we term a revitalization process “gentrification” if the displaced
are light manufacturing concerns, store owners, and squatters, rather than renters or
homeowners?
In short, despite the fact that, upon reflection, you may realize that you have been
exposed to gentrification through firsthand experience, the media, or in school, you may
be uncertain about how to define the process, as well as about how to reconcile the con
cepts central to your image of gentrification with those of your classmates.
It may either calm or concern you to know that despite their general agreement about
gentrification’s defining traits, experts engage in similar debates about how to define the
process. In one period debate about howto define gentrification was so heightened that
Damaris Rose called for scholars to embrace “definitional chaos” (1984; see also Atkinson
2003, Criekengen & Doly 2003), arguing that this “chaos” most accurately captures the
complexities of an evolving and somewhat idiosyncratic process. In response, others lob
bied for retreat from this “chaos”—calling for agreement about gentrification’s central
traits (Zukin 1987, Smith 1996).
Perhaps as a result of such calls, after decades of scholarship researchers have come to
some agreement about gentrification’s central characteristics. As the readings in this sec
tion demonstrate, while scholars acknowledge that gentrification varies by time, place, and
stage of gentrification (Clay 1979, Kerstein 1990), for the most part they concur that among
gentrification’s defining traits are an influx of capital and resultant displacement, and the
transformation of local “social character” (Glass 1964: xx), culture, amenities, and physical
infrastructure (Warde 1991, Atkinson 2003). Most also agree that government policies and
broad economic and demographic shifts—such as banks’ liberal lending practices in the
late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the transformation of many North American
and western European industrial cities into service-economy hubs, and the maturation of
the baby-boom generation in the 1970s and 1980s—facilitate gentrification.
Like many other scholars, the anthropologist Gina Perez offers a straightforward defini
tion of gentrification, describing it as:
an econom ic and social process whereby private capital (real estate firms, developers) and indi
vidual homeowners and renters reinvest in fiscally neglected neighborhoods through housing
rehabilitation, loft conversions, and the construction of new housing stock. Unlike urban renewal,
WHAT IS GENTRIFICATION? |
gentrification is a gradual process, occurring one building or block at a time, slowly reconfiguring
the neighborhood landscape of consumption and residence by displacing poor and working-
class residents unable to afford to live in ‘revitalized’ neighborhoods with rising rents, property
taxes, and new businesses catering to an upscale clientele.
( 2 0 0 4 :1 3 9 )
This definition captures many of the characteristics that scholars agree define gentrifica
tion: an influx of capital and resultant social, economic, cultural, and physical transforma
tion and displacement (see Atkinson 2003).
If there is general agreement among scholars about these defining traits, what is there
left to debate about? To varying degrees the authors in this section provide definitions and
descriptions of gentrification that overlap with Perez’s. However, each author emphasizes
distinct elements of Perez’s definition. For instance, some stress the displacement of poor
and working-class residents, while others devote greater attention to the transformation
of housing stock. Underlying debate about how to define gentrification are a few pressing
questions. As this section details, first and foremost is the question of whether to define
gentrification by its causes, outcomes, or everyday character. A second related question is
about wh ich of gentrification’s causes, outcomes, or dimensions typify the process. A third
question involves where gentrification takes place. In the process of posing and answer
ing these questions scholars argue about which cases of revitalization should be deemed
‘'gentrification,” while simultaneously pushing each other to construct definitions that
acknowledge gentrification’s variability—i.e. the fact that its precise characteristics and
dynamics vary, to an extent, by time, place, and stage of gentrification (Clay 1979, Kerstein
1990).
In the following pages, I first outline a key disagreement related to gentrification’s defi
nition and parameters: the question discussed above of whether we should define gen
trification by its causes, outcomes, or the character of the process. Second, I outline how
debates about when gentrification began, where it occurs, and what its outer limits are
reveal underlying disagreement about this same definitional problem, specifically about
whether to define gentrification by its causes, outcomes, or the daily interactions and
choices that characterize the process.
Generally speaking, most scholars’ definitions of gentrification center on gentrifi
cation’s outcomes or consequences, rather than on its causes or on the character of the
process—its everyday manifestations and progress (see Brown-Saracino 2009). Specifically,
as an essay in this section by Neil Smith suggests, scholars and others emphasize eco
nomic revitalization, transformation of the built environment, and displacement as key
signifiers of the process. Why do many definitions hinge on gentrification’s outcomes? As
this book’s fourth section reveals, scholars debate facets of gentrification’s outcomes and
consequences, such as displacement rates. However, there is greater collective agreement
about gentrification’s outcomes than about its causes and I believe that this is why many
definitions emphasize economic revitalization, aesthetic change, and displacement.
Most of the readings in this section question this general consensus on the centrality of
outcomes to our definition of gentrification by focusing instead on gentrification’s causes.
Specifically, in the readings that follow you will find that every author either implicitly or
explicitly attends to gentrification’s causes and many regard these as central to the defi
nition of gentrification that they propose. The authors’ attention to causation is neither
representative of the broader literature nor happenstance. Rather, it is a product of the fact
that within the literature there is much dehate about gentrification’s sources, and because
this book is organized around areas of contention, essays debating gentrification’s causes
are thus disproportionately central to The Gentrification Debates.
That said, while many of the authors of the essays in this section emphasize causal fac
tors in their definitions, they disagree about which causal factors are foundational to gen
trification. For instance, in the essay in which she coined the term ‘'gentrification” Ruth
Glass explicitly links gentrification to the restoration of historic homes. Like Sharon Zukin,
whose essay, “Gentrification as Market and Place” offers its own definition of gentrifica
tion, Glass suggests that shifting ideological orientations to the city encouraged middle
class individuals to invest in central city properties that a previous generation had deval
ued. According to this argument, if the city had remained undesirable in the eyes of the
middle class, homeowners would not have taken advantage of political and economic
shifts that opened the central city to them. Thus, scholars like Zukin and Glass hold gentri
fiers’ cultural valuation of the central city as an important component of our concept of
gentrification.
In contrast, others cite demographic trends, such as the rising number of married
women in the workforce in the second half of the twentieth century as contributing fac
tors (see Marukusen 1981, Bondi 1991,Warde 1991). Three of this section’s authors, Neil
Smith, Sharon Zukin and Ruth Glass, turn to deindustrialization as well as social policies
that stripped cities of economic and infrastructural resources in the middle of the twen
tieth century as enabling conditions for gentrification. In their view, such change and
policies reduced central city property values and, in turn, invited the speculation and
investment that characterizes gentrification. In turn, Neil Smith regards what he terms
a “revanchist” approach to urban policy, which punishes or seeks to take revenge on the
city’s poor residents (1996: 43-44), as a key contributing factor, and conceives of this
revanchism as part of an effort to restructure the city to benefit the elite. Likewise, Sharon
Zukin writes that “gentrification persists as a collective effort to appropriate the center for
elements of a new urban middle class” (1991:187).
The next section of the book will attend more closely to such causal arguments. For
now, suffice it to say that many scholars include causal factors, of one kind or another, in
their descriptions and analyses of gentrification. However, because there is significant dis
agreement about gentrification’s causes, as well as a dearth of attention to the processes or
everyday characteristics of gentrification (Brown-Saracino 2009), when it comes to defin
ing gentrification many scholars emphasize the outcomes of the process. That is, many
more scholars agree about gentrification’s outcomes than about its causes, and, for this
reason, common definitions tend to hinge on that which gentrification produces, such as
displacement and the related transformation of a place’s economic, social, and physical
character.
As a side note, as you read this section you may realize that with few exceptions the
authors do not explicitly attend to the everyday process of gentrification. For the most
part, their conceptualizations do not hinge on daily evidence of gentrification’s progress:
the sound of hammers and saws as workmen refurbish houses, the individuals seated
at a new coffee shop or bistro, campaign posters for a pro-gentrification mayoral candi
date that color shop windows, or terse words between neighbors who come from distinct
economic backgrounds. Which of these elements, you might ask yourself, might one rea
sonably expect to find in most gentrifying places and how central should they be to our
conceptualization of the process?
W HAT IS GENTRIFICATION? |
The disagreement I have outlined thus far—about whether gentrification is character

ized by its outcomes, causes, or the character of the process—directly addresses the ques
tion of how to define the process. However, many other scholars approach this question
less directly. For instance, tension about howto define gentrification is apparent in essays
in this section that consider when gentrification began, where it occurs, and howto recog
nize its outer limits.
Nearly all of the essays in this section consider the question of when gentrification
began. What does the question of when gentrification began have to do with defining the
term? In short, scholars tell origin stories about gentrification as a way of arguing that cer
tain characteristics of the process—those present in its earliest history—should be con
sidered its defining characteristics. In addition, they reveal varying opinions about the
centrality of gentrification’s causes and outcomes to the definition.
Many trace gentrification to the period just before 1964 when Ruth Glass coined the
term in the introduction to a book on London. However, others, like geographer Neil
Smith, in an essay in this section, suggest that we can trace its roots to the century before
Glass first wrote of gentrification (see also Clark 2005). Specifically, in his “Short History of
Gentrification,” Smith suggests that “something more akin to contemporary gentrifica
tion made an appearance in the middle of the nineteenth century” (1996: 35-36), then
known as “embourgeoisement” (Smith 1996; see also Gaillard 1977, Harvey 1985, Engels
1975:71).
In her essay describing London’s gentrification Ruth Glass identifies an ideology that
embraced urban living for the middle class—in her terms, “a switch from suburban to
urban aspirations” (1964: xxxi)—as a defining characteristic. As a result, she argues that
urban renewal projects—government funded slum clearance and infrastructural transfor
mations such as the construction of interstate highways through working class neighbor
hoods—enabled gentrification (1964: xvii), but, like Gina Perez (2004), she regards urban
renewal as a precursor to gentrification, not as gentrification itself. Thus, authors such as
Glass and Perez disagree with Smith. They do not believe that “gentrification” is respon
sible for the transformation of a ll of the neighborhoods from which poor and working
class residents have been displaced to suit the needs and tastes of the middle class. Why
do they disagree? On my reading, Glass worried that if we collapsed all such transforma
tions under the umbrella of gentrification, this would negate how gentrifiers’ ideological
appreciation for city life enabled gentrification. In other words, she regards changes in the
middle class’ view of the city as an essential precursor to gentrification, and therefore as
fundamental to a definition of the process.
In contrast, others offer descriptions of gentrification’s history that imply that we can
identify the process by its outcomes, rather than its causes. As Neil Smith notes (1996:36),
Friedrich Engels, writing of the mid-nineteenth century appropriation of poor and work
ing class quarters for the middle class wrote, “No matter how different the reasons may be,
the result is everywhere the same” (1975: 71). In other words, if mid-nineteenth century
planning movements (ibid.) or mid-twentieth century urban renewal projects destroyed
poor and working class enclaves for the benefit of the middle class, as well as the economic
and political elites, why exclude them from our conceptualization of “gentrification”?
This powerfully suggests that a view of gentrification as a historically enduring process
closely relates to presumptions about how we should definite it—about what gentrifica
tion is. Some suggest that we should identify gentrification by its consequences, such as
economic upscaling and longtime residents’ displacement, rather than by its causes, such
as the rise of a neoliheral state (Harvey 1989, Smith 1996, Peck 2006, Lees et al. 2008), the
middle class’ increasing appreciation for features ofurhanlife (Glass 1964, Caulfield 1994,
Ley 1996), the decline of rent control, or a free market approach to urban planning (Glass
1964: xx).
Questions about when a process began are often paired with questions about its outer
(temporal and spatial) limits. Three of the selections in this section, most centrally Loretta
Lees’ article on the super-gentrification of a Brooklyn neighborhood, encourage specula
tion about how much gentrification can evolve and still be “gentrification” (see also Bondi
1991). In short, they invite the question: w hat are gentrification’s limits?
When Ruth Glass coined the term she did not anticipate that we would use it today, nor
did she predict that we would apply it to places like New York and Chicago, let alone the
many global cities that Rowland Atkinson and Gary Bridge argue are gentrifying (2004). In
fact, Glass thought that gentrification was specific to London and to the period in which
she was writing. She speculated that, “London, always a ‘unique city’, may acquire a rare
complaint. While the cores of other large cities in the world, especially of those in the
United States, are decaying .. . London may soon be faced with an em harras de richesse
in her central area” (xx). This notion seems almost quaint after more than forty years of
gentrification scholarship and in a context in which scholars suggest that gentrification
is endemic to many of the world’s financial capitals and when it also occurs in less afflu
ent cities (Atkinson and Bridge 2004), as well as in some suburban and rural areas (Smith
& Defillipis 1999, Hackworth & Smith 2001, Smith 2002:442). On one thing scholars are in
uniform agreement: gentrification did not stop in London, nor was it limited to the last
third of the twentieth century.
Yet recognition of gentrification as an expanding process raises pertinent questions
about the malleability of our definition. To what extent is the gentrification that Loretta
Lees highlights in her essay, “Super-Gentrification,” which displaces property-rich, high
earning Brooklyn professionals, the same process that displaced working class small busi
ness owners in Glass’ London? After all, most definitions of gentrification presume that the
process takes root in places that are “disinvested and devalued” (Lees 2003:2487), and the
Brooklyn neighborhood Lees describes is anything but disinvested. Likewise, do the same
defining traits characterize the gentrification of Mumbai and Los Angeles, as Atkinson and
Bridge might argue (2004)?
Most would probably agree that it is safe to assume that the gentrification process is
not identical across time and space. Indeed, many refer to stages of gentrification, noting
how the process changes and evolves over time in a single neighborhood or town, typically
as the place becomes increasingly upscale (e.g., Clay 1979, Pattison 1983, Kerstein 1990).
This, in turn, raises a question about the stakes of applying an older term to a continually
evolving process. As Lees asks of her own argument that “super-gentrification” occurs in
some high-end neighborhoods, by broadening our conception of gentrification to include
such cases do we risk “making the meaning of the term so expansive as to lose any con
ceptual sharpness and specificity” (2003: 2491)? Likewise, Roland Atkinson asks, “is the
term gentrification really up to the job after 40 years or is it to be more subtly defined and
discerned in different contexts?” (2003:2443).
This is not cause for despair, for even those who challenge us to recognize gentrification
in unexpected places and forms identify the process by the set of traits introduced earlier
in this essay: an influx of capital, social, economic, cultural, and physical transformation,
and displacement (see Warde 1991). They sometimes disagree about who is displaced or
W HAT IS GENTRIFICATION? |
how much capital was present before a new influx, but they nonetheless concur on the
import of these traits.
Why is there disagreement about how to define gentrification? Primarily, it results
from a combination of the breadth of gentrification and of our attention to it. Scholars in
a variety of fields have studied a diversity of cases of gentrification that vary across both
time and space, and this invites awareness of departures from any neat, single definition.
Furthermore, many definitions come with attendant intellectual stakes. For instance,
those who study political economy are likely to emphasize the role of government policies
and the market in their definitions, while those who are especially attentive to culture may
proffer definitions that place greater emphasis on gentrifiers’ ideology and cultural tastes
(e.g., Ley 1986, Caulfield 1994).
Having called our attention to a few defining traits of gentrification about which there
is fairly widespread agreement, I invite readers to use the readings to come to their own
conclusions about how to define the process. In so doing, I encourage the reader to con
sider what gentrification is and what it is not. What are the stakes of developing a defini
tion broad enough to encompass the full range—or something close to it—of cases that
scholars, journalists, and others label “gentrification”? On the other hand, what are the
consequences of adopting a narrower definition and suggesting that some such cases are
not, in fact, “gentrification”?
I believe that such questions are worthy of our attention, for how we define gentrifica
tion is ofpractical and intellectual import. For instance, definitions may influence the areas
of a city in which a nonprofit organization builds affordable housing, the places scholars
study and that journalists document, as well as what we measure when we study “gentri
fication” (see Ley 1986). Finally, as the opening vignette suggests, it may also, to a degree,
influence how we think about the places where we live as well as about our relationship to
the people with whom we share a changing neighborhood or town.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Is gentrification a strictly urban process? What are the consequences of broadening our
definition of gentrification to include revitalization processes in nonurban locales?
2. Should we define gentrification by a common set of outcomes, causes, or dimensions of
daily life?
3. Based on the arguments presented in the readings, when do you think gentrification
began? What are the stakes of your answer to the question?
4. Which revitalization processes do you regard as distinct from gentrification?
5. How central are gentrifiers and longtime residents’ demographic characteristics,
such as their racial, ethnic, class, gender, or sexual identity, to your definition of
gentrification?
ACTIVITIES
1. View the documentary FlagWars. If your knowledge of gentrification were limited to the
film, what definition of the process would you generate?
2. View the documentary 7th Street about the gentrification of New York’s Alphabet City. If
your knowledge of gentrification were limited to the film, what definition of the process
would you generate?
a. If you’ve viewed both of the above documentaries, consider how each influences
your definition of gentrification. Can the same definition be applied to each case?
Why or why not?
b. If you could film your own documentary about gentrification based on your personal
definition of the process, which people, places, policies, and interactions would it
document?
3. Read a novel set in a gentrifying neighborhood, such as Denis Lehane’s Mystic River
(2001) or Jonathan Lethem’s Fortress o f Solitude (2003). What language and imagery
does the author use to describe gentrification? How do you think the author would
define gentrification?
4. How do you define gentrification? Draft a definition and compare it to your classmates’
definitions, as well as to the definitions presented in the readings. Why are your defini
tions different?
RESOURCES
Atkinson, R. 2003. “Introduction: Misunderstood Saviour or Vengeful Wrecker? The Many Meanings and Prob
lems of Gentrification’' Urban Studies 40 2343-2350.
Lees, L. 2007. "Progress in Gentrification Research?'” Environment and PlanningA39 228-234.
Slater, T., Curran, W., & Lees, L. 2004. “Gentrification Research: New Directions and Critical Scholarship"
Environment and Planning A 36 1141-1150.
CHAPTER 1
Aspects of Change
Ruth Glass
interrupted by a once-Italian café or a more

recent Indian restaurant; and then again
London can never he taken for granted. The by glimpses of a remarkable ‘vertical fea
city is too vast, too complex, too contrary ture’—the Post Office tower off Tottenham
and too moody to become entirely familiar. Court Road. Nor has King’s Cross acquired
And there are moments when well-known a look very different from that it had twenty
features of her townscape stand out surpris or thirty years ago. And yet it works differ
ingly, as they might to a foreign tourist or to ently. The armies of commuters who arrive
the expatriate who at last comes home. every morning to work in Central London
From Kensington to King’s Cross early have grown steadily. And nowadays most
on a June morning the sights and sounds of of the porters are black or brown men from
London just awakening have a novel clar the West Indies.
ity. The roads of Georgian and Victorian At any hour, London in 1963 shows the
houses converted into flats are still packed juxtaposition of new and old, both in the
with parked cars; the Espresso bars are fabric and in the structure of society. The
still locked up; the new under-pass (or innovations, justbecausetheyareunequally
rather bottleneck) at Hyde Park Corner distributed and often apparently incongru
is still empty; the tall Hilton Hotel at Park ous, are more visible than the old patches.
Lane, recently finished, stands out clum Even so, they might well be deceptive. And
sily; Marble Arch and Grosvenor Square, for those of us whose own personal history
now deserted, where the American eagle is entangled with London’s post-war his
is so conspicuous, are a reminder of days tory, it may be rather difficult to recognize
of international crisis, of protest demon all the signs of ageing, as well as of rejuvena
strations, of bewilderment and fear. In this tion, in the face of the city. But some of these
region of ‘high rise’ office blocks, apart changes are unmistakable.
ment houses, genteel shop windows and There is a gleam of affluence in most of
an occasional supermarket, prosperity is Central London and in many of the sub
freshly painted on: there is an air of expec urbs—of a much more widespread afflu
tancy. But all that is left far behind already ence than has ever been there before. At
ten minutes later in the peeling plaster zone least so it seems at first sight. It shows itself
of Euston, where the monotony of narrow in an abundance of goods and gadgets, of
back streets, grimy and dreary, is only rarely cars and new buildings—in an apparently
I RUTH GLASS
mounting flow of consumption. There are This is largely the result of a long history
far more soft and hard drinking and eat of trial and error in urban development.
ing places than there used to be (and they The various notions or measures which
are open for longer hours). The shops are have been adopted at different stages to
crammed with personal and household make London smaller, and which in some
paraphernalia which had previously been respects have succeeded in doing so, have
neither in mass production nor for mass also made London larger. Just because the
use. The wrapping and labelling of com population size of the County has steadily
modities—small or large, practical or declined—both through a voluntary and a
ornamental, frozen or fresh, dehydrated or planned dispersal—the size of the metro
puffed up—have a new gloss. The luxuries politan area has been steadily expanded.
of yesterday, or the imitations of yesterday’s People have been sent, or have wanted to
luxuries, have become the necessities of go, farther and farther outwards, though
today for large sections of the population. many of them are still dependent, directly
Together with—or rather because or indirectly, upon the employment and
of—this new diversity of consumption, services located in Central London. All sorts
there is also, apparently, a new unifor of factors have contributed to this process
mity. Superficially, class distinctions in of suburbanization—the increasing mobil
looks, clothes and in domestic equipment ity of labour resulting from improvements
have narrowed considerably: differences in employment conditions and in trans
in many of these respects are now more port: the general rise in standards of liv
noticeably determined by age than by social ing; social aspirations (in particular, the
status. Conventional terms of social cat frequent association of the idea of subur
egorization, such as ‘black-coated worker’ bia with that o f ‘respectability’); as well as
or ‘white-collar worker’, no longer have a general policies and schemes. But the total
straightforward descriptive value. effect upon London has hardly been a satis
It is often said—by anyone who sees factory one. The problems o f‘bigness' have
contemporary London after a considerable not been solved; they have been shifted and
absence—that the city is in the process of changed.
being ‘Americanized’. Indeed, judging from Even now, the County is still losing popu
general impressions of the city’s looks and lation, while the number of jobs in Central
standards of living, the contrast between London is still growing; and thus also the
Central London and mid-town Manhattan, number of commuters who work in the
for example, is no longer as striking as it centre. Their daily journeys are still becom
used to be before, and immediately after, ing longer, more awkward, and more expen
World War II. London is now decidedly sive in terms of individual and social costs.
a representative of the affluent Western And these long journeys every morning and
world, with fewer individual characteristics evening—whether of people or goods, by
than she had in a previous period. But in rail or road—impede short-distance traf
being just that, London is also experienc fic in the central area. In fact, though com
ing, increasingly, the hardships inherent in munications have become faster, more
that affluent world. And—typical again—it convenient and more varied, they have also
seems that she is not making a good job of become slower and more cumbersome.
coping with them. All day long, Central London is a zone of
As a place in which to settle, to work, bottlenecks, of stand-stills, of almost fro
to move about in, London has become zen traffic. Any of the special occasions,
acutely harassing and highly inefficient. special and yet part of the metropolitan
A SPECTS OF CH ANG E |
routine—a Buckingham Palace garden mainly again among the middle classes.
party, a fall of snow, a State visit, the Chelsea New minority groups have appeared. But
flower show—can produce utter chaos. none of this movement is matched by an
There is no room for manoeuvre. increase in genuine social mobility. The old
But the traffic problem—the Number class alignments are being maintained—or
One problem at first sight—is only the most copied. And they may even at times be more
overt symptom of new incongruities in the noticeable, and be less taken for granted,
habitat and society of London. Socially and than before, just because some of the con
ideologically, too, communications are ventional status distinctions have become
strained: they have been both speeded up blurred. Altogether, is there more or less
and obstructed. People travel about more; social claustrophobia than there was in a
they see and hear more of events at home previous period?
and abroad. And yet, driving in their cars,
sitting in front of their television screens,
II
they are more on their own than they used
to be. While knowledge of science and tech Although such questions have become
nology is expanding rapidly, though at an commonplace, they cannot be avoided.
unequal rate in different fields, it does so We meet them wherever we go, certainly
within the framework of a society which is in London. All around us, we see so many
remarkably slow in developing its capaci contradictory tendencies; and the same
ties for self-recognition and rational orga phenomena are subject to contradictory
nization. The acquisition of knowledge, interpretations. Perhaps this was always
moreover, in advancing as in stationary dis so, and it is the sharpened awareness of
ciplines, is arranged so as to put a premium history in the making—on a scale, with a
on departmentalization. Already, before his speed and complexity visibly greater than
career has started, the sixth-form school ever before—which directs the attention of
boy or the student finds it difficult to leave some contemporary ‘participant-observ-
his cell. On balance, have our horizons been ers’ so strongly to the equivocal aspects of
widened or narrowed? the current situation. But, be that as it may,
Social distances have become simul if one does look at society as one finds it,
taneously both shorter and longer. There here and now, as closely and widely as pos
is a good deal of movement—pedestrian, sible, one cannot help being preoccupied
vehicular, occupational. With the advance with the ambiguities in its conditions and
of technology', with the increase in the divi prospects.
sion of labour and of consumer expendi It could be said, for example, that Britain,
ture, new occupations have developed, in general—or London, in particular—has
especially middle-class occupations. (Look more social homogeneity than in the inter
at the advertisements in the ‘quality’ news war and immediate post-war periods.
papers. Wanted: project engineer, produc Millions of people from different social
tion executive, system analyst, computer classes and localities consume the same
shift leader, sales promotion specialist, diet of radio and television programmes,
attitude tester, beauty operator, public rela advertisements and films; they are sub
tions manager, window-dresser, and many ject to a national network of retail outlets,
more of many different kinds.) Some of newspapers, public services, institutions
the old menial occupations are becoming and organizations; they uphold the same
extinct, or are likely to disappear. There has national symbols. Differences between
been some re-shuffling of social groups, modes of life in city, suburb and village have
I RUTH GLASS
become fainter. There are not only daily, bitterly resented, and when such an estate
but also weekly and seasonal journeys to was ostracized by its better-off neighbours,
and fro—as a result of the increasing use of are now past—at least in and around Central
private transport and of holidays with pay. London.
There is also more sameness in the physi When the New Survey o f London Life an d
cal environment both between and within L abourw as carried out in the late twenties,
areas of the country than there used to be. it was found in its review of 'forty years of
Urban diffusion—in ecnomic and cultural change’— the forty years which had gone
terms—was preceded, and is still accompa by since Charles Booth’s voluminous first
nied, by the vast spread of suburbia, some survey was begun—that the reduction of
of whose characteristics have been intro poverty had been greater in the western
duced in or near urban centers, as well as than in the eastern area.1 In general, the
in the countryside. It had been the dream distinction between east and west had been
of nineteenth century British reformers—a accentuated. But since then, this process
dream revived and translated into concrete has, apparently, not continued. Large areas
plans during the inter-war and immediate of the East End have been transformed—in
post-war years—to re-make cities in the a manner which contributes a good deal
image of idealized rustic settlements, and to to the prestige of municipal architecture,
introduce urban amenities into rural areas. even if it is not invariably of a high standard.
This dream has not been an idle one. Urban, And while planning and public enterprise
suburban and rural areas have thus been have played a positive part in diminishing
encouraged to merge into one another; and the outward differences between London’s
they have lost some of their differentiating residential districts, laissezfairehas played
features. a part also, though in the long run a nega
Similar effects have, moreover, been tive one.
brought about by a combination of deliber One by one, many of the working class
ate and incidental developments. The large quarters of London have been invaded
programme of urban reconstruction and by the middle classes—upper and lower.
re-building since World War II has had the Shabby, modest mews and cottages—two
result of reducing the contrasts between rooms up and two down—have been taken
rich and poor districts within the bound over, when their leases have expired, and
ary of the present County. Indeed, some of have become elegant, expensive residences.
the conventional distinctions have been Larger Victorian houses, downgraded in an
reversed; the new homes of working class earlier orrecent period—which were used as
and lower middle class people, who are lodging houses or were otherwise in multi
municipal tenants, are frequently supe ple occupation—have been upgraded once
rior in design and appearance to the older again. Nowadays, many of these houses
‘luxury flats’ and expensive houses of pri are being sub-divided into costly flats or
vate tenants or owner-occupiers. Local ‘houselets’ (in terms of the new real estate
authority housing and ancillary schemes snob jargon). The current social status and
have so much improved the looks and value of such dwellings are frequently in
amenities of several districts—in sections inverse relation to their size, and in any case
of Paddington, Kensington, Westminster enormously inflated by comparison with
and elsewhere—that private developers previous levels in their neighbourhoods.
have been prompted to renovate adjacent Once this process of‘gentrification' starts in
streets. The days when the building of a a district, it goes on rapidly until all or most
municipal estate in a ‘respectable’ area was of the original working class occupiers are
displaced, and the whole social character thought that the metropolitan area could
of the district is changed. There is very little be rigidly contained. The plan did not take
left of the poorer enclaves of Hampstead either the demographic or economic facts
and Chelsea: in those boroughs, the upper- of life into account: it was based on the
middle class take-over was consolidated assumption that there would be a station
some time ago. The invasion has since ary population, economy and culture. It
spread to Islington, Paddington, North has hardly been a suitable framework for
Kensington—even to the ‘shady’ parts of the guidance of development in a period
Notting Hill—to Battersea, and to several of expansion. And while it has been (and is
other districts, north and south of the river. still) used as such, with various qualifica
(The East End has so far been exempt.) And tions, its cardinal positive concept—that of
this is an inevitable development, in view of genuine ‘planning’ in the public interest—
the demographic, economic and political has been increasingly abandoned. Since
pressures to which London, and especially the fifties, town and country planning leg
Central London, has been subjected. islation has, in essence, been anti-planning
Competition for space has become more legislation: the 1947 Act has been drasti
andmore intense in London. Various factors cally amended; development rights have
combine to sharpen this competition—the been de-nationalized; development values
‘natural increase’ of commerce and related have been unfrozen; real estate speculation
economic activities: the emergence of new has thus been ‘liberated’. These measures,
occupations and pursuits; the demands together with the relaxation of rent control,
for travelling and parking space made by have given the green light to the continu
the rapidly growing motorcar population;- ing inflation of property prices with which
the improvements and consequent spatial London, even more than other large cities,
expansion of social, educational and ancil is afflicted.5In such circumstances, any dis
lary services. The upward swing in standards trict in or near London, however dingy or
of living, moreover, not only contributes to unfashionable before, is likely to become
all the other space requirements, but also expensive; and London may quite soon be
increases those of individual households, a city which illustrates the principle of the
and helps to create more households. As survival ofthe fittest—the financially fittest,
real incomes and aspirations rise, as people who can still afford to work and live there.6
get married earlier and live longer, existing (Not long ago, the then Housing Minister
households split up, and there is a higher advised those who cannot pay the price to
ratio of households to population, with a move out.) Thus London, always a ‘unique
consequent increased demand for sepa city’, may acquire a rare complaint. While
rate dwellings.' Last but not least, the com the cores of other large cities in the world,
petition for space thus produced is bound especially of those in the United States, are
to get out of hand, and lead to a spiral of decaying, and are becoming ghettoes of
land values, if it is neither anticipated nor the ‘underprivileged’, London may soon be
controlled. And this is precisely what has faced with an em barras d e richesse in her
happened. central area—and this will prove to be a
The Greater London Plan of 19441 was problem, too.
prepared in a restrictionist mood—on But whatever the consequences of such
premises inherited from a period of eco a surfeit of honey, the fact remains that the
nomic depression, when there were fears social geography of London shows some
of, and also neo-malthusian hopes for, signs of a drawing together—the broad divi
a population decline; and when it was sions are less striking than they were twenty
I RUTH GLASS
or even ten years ago. And yet there are also Londoners and newcomers; Europeans
contrary signs of a moving apart—of a new and Asians; the Irish, the West Indians, the
kind of diversification, which may well be Poles; families of ‘respectable’ manual and
equally, if not more, significant. clerical workers; students; delinquents and
As standards of living rise and land values prostitutes. All of them have one thing in
even more so, as old working class districts common: their housing needs are being
are reconstructed, and others are increas exploited; and the very frictions which their
ingly hemmed in, the remaining pockets crowded, insecure situation creates tend to
of blight become denser. Some of these be exploited, too. It is in such districts that
quarters, off the beaten track—which are the many sub-cultures of London come
low on the list of municipal development together and yet remain estranged.
and not ‘ripe’ for private investment—are But the anachronistic slums and the
left to decay. They have been neglected tense zones of transition are not the only
for so long that they are taken for granted. places in which the pluralism of London
Others, nearer the main routes, adjacent society is visible. Wherever we go, we can
to expanding middle class areas, become get glimpses of the many unfamiliar worlds
lodging-house districts, where all sorts of in this one metropolitan constellation. We
people who have to keep, or who want to can see them in the mean streets, in luxury
obtain, a foothold in Central London are flats, along the roads of suburban ribbon
crammed together—and frequently have to development; in places like Eel Pie Island,
pay exorbitant rents for the privilege. Such where various cliques of teenagers congre
districts cannot be so easily by-passed: they gate; in jazz clubs, coffee bars, Soho joints,
are quite often in the news; they figure in and expense account restaurants; in the
crime statistics; they are the places where withdrawing rooms of earnest religious or
the most notorious shark landlords oper political sects; at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde
ate; their mobile population, and especially Park or the Earls Court Road; at meetings in
the owners of their ‘widowers’ houses’, have Trafalgar Square; in public libraries, senior
connexions with social groups at all levels, common rooms, and at soirées of the Royal
from the top to the bottom of the social Society. We get an inkling of the existence of
scale. Not all the inhabitants of these ‘zones other remote and yet nearby worlds through
of transition’ are in fact poor. Here are peo migration statistics; through fascist news-
ple who must stay near their work in the sheets and ‘nigger-baiting’ scrawls on the
centre, or who cannot afford to move to the walls of back alleys; through unsavoury
suburbs. Here are families who are at the court cases or complaints before rent tri
tail end of the municipal housing queue; bunals; in reading Press items about witch
and also those who are not eligible for such rites, ghost hunts, visits from Martians, and
housing, or who cannot pay local author take-over bids. And then again, we may hear
ity rents. Here are immigrants from other of the ‘hidden’ societies through reports of
parts of Britain or overseas who nowadays hospital almoners, N.S.PC.C. inspectors, or
can find hardly any open doors—especially social workers who bring ‘meals on wheels’
if their skin is coloured—and who have to to lonely old people. It is an amazing, still
take the left-overs of accommodation, how largely obscured, panorama that thus
ever dingy, however expensive. They go to begins to be visible—a conglomeration of
houses which are already crowded; several groups who move, so to speak, on separate
of them share a room to meet the cost. It is a tracks, even if they do meet occasionally
motley collection of people who are pushed at a station. And in this assembly, it is not
into these ‘twilight ’zones—long established only the marginal men who appear to be
segregated—the atavistic, the cranky, the pathology. Such are the comforts of soci
lunatic fringes, the various ‘security risks’, ety in an ‘advanced’ industrial economy,
the backroom boys of business tycoons— as seen nowadays in the largest city of the
but also the many inbred intellectual and Commonwealth.
artistic circles; the fraternities of the young; This society has been characterized
and large sections of the population whose by various adjectives—affluent, open,
mode of life is unknown because they live, irresponsible. There is inertia and com
anonymously, in secluded domesticity. placency; there is also a good deal of talk
They are not represented in the popular or about social malaise, decline of morals,
highbrow serials. lack of purpose, disintegration o f‘commu
nity’. Dichotomous terms are fashionable
‘ There are those who are in darkness once again—the ‘two nations’ (used nowa
And there are others in the light days in referring to the South and North of
And sure one sees those in brightness Britain); the ‘two cultures’. Even the alien
Those in darkness are out o f sight.’7 word Angst has been introduced into the
vocabulary of editorials. No doubt, it is a
What is this new pattern, and is it in fact confused society, or rather a series of soci
new? There is some interlocking of social eties—both anxious and self-satisfied; and
groups. Even so, the impression remains— the various epithets applied to it do not
and often it is the dominant one—that there make confusion less confounded. They
is increasing segmentation. It seems that have quickly gained currency as clichés
what is happening is neither an obliteration and even as idées fixes, which can be dis
nor an accentuation of long established missed, or which can be accepted as sub
class cleavages, but the superimposition of stitutes for more thorough, perhaps more
a criss-cross web of social divisions, which unpalatable, analyses. Anyhow, the need
has as yet been hardly recognized. for such analyses is only intermittently
Indeed, it is difficult to trace this pattern evident: in general, confusion is more real
just because it is so ambiguous and inco than is apparent. It tends to be concealed
herent, neither tied together nor sharply by the whole apparatus of communica
divided. It is the pattern of a society which tions that gives the impression of clar
lacks both deliberate concord and straight ity, candour and close-ups. The apparent
forward conflict: it seems to consist of a tan mobility of passengers, goods and news;
gle of sub-groups and sub-cultures which, the weighty comments and tactful gossip
however dissimilar, manage to co-exist, in some sections of the Press; the intimate
without much mutual awareness, in fairly ‘revelations’ in others; the presence of
self-contained compartments. Apparently, faces and places from near and far at the
they can do so, at least at present, because domestic fireside—all this has promoted
they are lodged in a setting which is by and illusions of ‘togetherness’; of ‘mingling
large sufficiently spacious to accommo with the mighty' (without having to go to
date disparate elements, with partitions Madame Tussaud’s); of watching a full dis
solid enough to muffle dissonant noises; play of the social scene." And as the image
which is sufficiently well provided with of the frank and free society is so assidu
standardized supplies—of commodities, ously promoted, there is bound to be severe
newsprint and verbiage—to camouflage disappointment whenever it is manifestly
differences among the consumers; and fictitious. But it is only on rare critical
which is believed to be sufficiently hygienic occasions that more than a few even begin
to prevent epidemics of physical or social to know what they do not know.
I RUTH GLASS
The major influences to which we are ‘land-use classes’, as well as changes in the
nowadays subjected can have, and do have, occupancy and appearance of the build
both integrating and divisive effects. And ings which represent the various catego
it seems that it is the latter, however dis ries of land use. Independent retailers have
guised, which are predominant. [...] given way to chain stores; the sites of small
All these tendencies, and their manifold food shops have been taken by supermar
ramifications, are reflected in London— kets, and those of shabby Italian restau
more plainly and thus also more con rants by Espresso bars. The social status
fusingly here than elsewhere in Britain. of many residential areas is being uplifted.
London’s physical structure has been influ Offices are increasingly housed in ‘pres
enced by the ups and downs of post-war tige’ buildings; and there is a tendency to
history—by the earlier spurts of planning in reserve the scarce costly space available for
the public interest, and by the later phases people in ‘prestige’ occupations, while the
of laissez-faire, profitable for particular more menial clerical workers are replaced
private interests. Large-scale municipal by machines, or are ‘decentralized’. (This
development remains as the testimony of tendency, characteristic of central areas
the late forties and early fifties, and is here of high land values, is already far more
and there still being rounded off. The grow advanced in American cities, especially
ing array of commercial and residential in Manhattan.) In general, moreover, the
showpieces—of imitation ‘towers’ which process of differentiation in land use has
are generally more imposing in price than continued. The districts of Harley Street,
in height or design—represents the latter Fleet Street and Bloomsbury, for example,
period. And so do the forgotten slums, the have become even more specialized: they
‘half-way houses’ for homeless people, and are now definite enclaves of the particu
the sordid ‘zones of transition’ which are lar functions with which their names have
wedged in between the expanding well-to- long been synonymous. (Similarly, antique
do districts. dealers have taken over most of the shops in
Change and stagnation exist side by streets, as in parts of Kensington, in which
side. Despite war-time destruction and the there were a few well known antique shops
shifts in post-war direction, the general before.) Altogether there has thus been a
land-use map of the County and its fringes great deal of displacement. All those who
has been a remarkably persistent one. cannot hold their own in the sharp compe
The residential quarters and open spaces, tition for space—the small enterprises, the
the various kinds of offices, retail trade, lower ranks of people, the odd men out—
entertainment, of professional and social are being pushed away. And although the
services—all these have largely remained, squeeze is becoming tighter still, only spo
or have been re-established, in the same radic efforts have been made so far to coun
locations in which they were long ago. It is teract it. Not much has been done to utilize
the manufacturing industries which have the existing space more economically, and
moved; their expansion has taken place in to provide more space—to dig down (for
the outer areas; the small workshops have car parks and tunnels); to build upwards; to
tended to disappear. There has thus been reconstruct whole districts and roads, like
some sorting-out of land use in areas where layer cakes, on several levels. [...]
homes, commercial and industrial estab Despite the considerable shifts of popu
lishments were crowded together. And the lation, of fortunes and policies, the socio-
more detailed maps show other revisions geographical pattern of Greater London
as well—changes within each of the broad has, therefore, been a rather stubborn one.
A SP ECTS OF CH ANG E |
It still presents the divisions inherent in a middle classes themselves: their anti-
society with an acknowledged class struc urban bias, in particular, has been sub
ture—and in a society, moreover, whose stantially modified. Similarly, the higher
inherent conflicts have been averted or ranks of the working class, whose ambi
softened because upper class modes of tions were previously focused upon sub
living were regarded less with enmity than urbia, have begun to change their minds.
with curiosity; they were taken as models The alterations in the domestic economy
to be imitated, and handed down from the of all these groups; the earlier establish
middle to the lower groups of the social hier ment of households as a result of younger
archy. London’s suburban sprawl is indica marriages; the growing proportion of mar
tive of such imitations. Already, during the ried women in employment; the difficul
nineteenth century, the main status sym ties and rising cost of journeys to work—all
bol of the aspiring middle classes was some these factors contribute to a switch from
version of the aristocratic country house suburban to urban aspirations.9Especially
(or better still the acquisition of the genuine among the vast contingent of commut
article); later on, white-collar and manual ers who arrive every morning in Central
workers in steady employment asserted London, there are many who would now
their position in a suburban villa—or, like much prefer to live nearer to the core of
Mr Pooter, in a substitute for a suburban the London labour market. Thus although
villa. It was mainly the poorer sections of the drift to the suburbs is continuing, it
the metropolitan working class—especially has become to a considerable extent an
the people of the East End and of the south involuntary one—dictated by the increas
ern riverside boroughs—who wanted to ingly acute shortage of reasonably priced
stay behind in 'good old London’, and who accommodation in or around the County
have throughout retained their loyalties to of London.1” In current circumstances this
their own districts. But even they have had new demand for homes near the metro
to participate increasingly in the suburban politan centre is bound to remain largely
exodus. unsatisfied. For it has arisen, and it is
So London has grown in a conservative growing, at a time when the de-control of
fashion, by a process of aggregation, pro property values and rents has made private
ducing more of the same. In the course of enterprise predominant in urban develop
expansion, the old social boundaries have m ent;" and when the resulting new spurt
been perpetuated and extended. Indeed— in real estate speculation has greatly inten
as described by W. Ashworth in the case of sified the competition for, and the pressure
suburban development in Essex—in gen on, space. [...]
eral, both the scale and nature of London’s
expansion have had the effect of inhibiting, NOTES
rather than of encouraging, radical changes 1. Hubert Llewellyn Smith, ed., The New Survey of
in socio-geographical alignments. London Life and Labour, 9 vols., 1930-35. See Vol.
Recently, however, there have been VI, Survey o f Social Conditions, the Western area,
signs of new tendencies, and thus of new pp. 1-28.
2. During the past twelve years, the number of motor
combinations and of new splits in the
car licences issued by the London County Council
established pattern. Upper class stan has more than trebled: from 128,575 licences (one
dards are seen to be more ambiguous, and per 8.7 households) in 1950 to 408,830 (one per
are no longer so widely accepted as models 2.7 households in the L.C.C. area) in 1962.
as they were before. There are, moreover, 3. From 1931 to 1961, average household size
declined from 3.69 to 2.89 persons per household
shifts in the orientation of the upper and
28 I RUTH GLASS
in the County of London, and similarly in Greater 1959, completed the process. While previously
London (the Conurbation). Thus while there was the principle of stabilizing land values at the
a decrease of 27 per cent in the total population 1947 level was still maintained—though with
of the County during that period, there was significant modifications—the 1959 Act abolished
only a decrease of 7 per cent in the number of the principle. In essence, the Act stipulated
actual separate households—quite apart from that land bought by public authorities through
that of ‘concealed’ households who could not compulsory acquisition—or by agreement
establish themselves as separate units because instead of compulsory acquisition—should be
they could not find separate dwellings of their paid for on the basis of the full current market
own. (If most of the latter had in fact split off, value of the land, including its full development
the total number of households in the County value at the time of acquisition. This was not (as
would have remained stable, or would even have it seemed to many people at the time) a highly
slightly increased.) During that period of thirty technical, rather innocuous measure. It has had,
years, the population of the London Conurbation predictably, far-reaching consequences. Since
has remained almost stationary (there was a drop then, the free market in land has been generally
of one per cent only); but the number of actual restored. Similarly, a free market in rents has
separate households (excluding ‘concealed' been largely restored, mainly through the Rent
households) has increased by 25 per cent. Act, 1957. The weakening of public control in all
4. Patrick Abercrombie, Greater London Plan, 1944. matters of urban development (in the broadest
5. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, sense) brought about by this legislation has
nationalized both development rights and been accelerated, moreover, by a variety of other
post-1947 development values; through various statutory and administrative measures—such
devices, it stabilized land values at the 1947 as reductions in the real value of Exchequer
level; it stipulated that a ‘development charge’ contributions to housing subsidies (for municipal
had to be paid into the public purse for the housing); by the increasing stringency in local
‘betterment’ of land values accruing from post- authority finance; and by the growing tendency
1947 ‘development’ in the statutory sense. These to delegate various functions, including planning
measures helped to create a coherent planning fuctions, to the smaller local authorities. (The
system: they were essential counterparts of Town and Country Planning Acts here mentioned,
the provisions for development control laid together with other relevent statutes or sections
down in the Act. Without them, such control is of statutes, have been consolidated in the Town
bound to defeat its purpose: in particular, the and Country Planning Act, 1962. The provisions
permissions for ‘development’ (given by local concerning compulsory acquisition are also
planning authorities) would be bound to lead to consolidated in the Land Compensation Act,
land speculation; to a rise in the value of any land 1961.)
whose development has been sanctioned, and 6. This kind of trend has cumulative effects. As
can be profitably carried out; and thus also, of land values rise, the scarce expensive commer
course, to the build-up of considerable pressures cial space has to be allocated increasingly to the
to modify the operations of development control higher levels of managerial and executive staffs.
so that they yield, generally, the maximum private Thus already in 1951, Central London had a dis
profits in the use of land. Subsequent legislation proportionate share of jobs for men in occupa
amending the 1947 Act has had the very effect, tions classified in the Census as belonging to
first, of inviting such pressures; and then of giving social classes I and II. These were the people
way to them. Following a White Paper issued by who at that time still lived predominantly in the
the first post-war Conservative Government (in suburbs, and had to travel daily to their places of
November 1952), the Town and Country Planning work in the centre. Consequently, the proportion
Act of 1953 abolished the development charge of these ‘upper’ social classes was then consider
(and also certain compensation provisions of the ably higher among the daytime male occupied
1947 Act). The amending Act of 1954 provided population of the central, East End and South
(with a number of exceptions) that compensation Bank employment zones than among the night
would be payable for the prevention or severe time resident male population of these areas.
restriction of development imposed through But as journeys to work become more harassing,
planning control. This legislation was the first step it is such upper and middle class people, espe
in the de-nationalization of development rights cially, who think of acquiring—and who indeed
and values; and in the restoration of a free market need and can afford to acquire—some sort of
in land. The Town and Country Planning Act, a home, if only a pied à terre, near their places
A S P E C T S OF CH A N G E | 29
of work. Hence there is a mounting spiral: the pro-urban orientations among groups of poten
competition for both commercial and residen tial ‘clients’.
tial space is bound to grow; and land values and 10. Thesteady decline in thepopulation of theCounty
rents are bound to rise still further—so long as of London has continued in the decade 1951 to
they remain decontrolled. 1961; and it is apparently still continuing. During
7. Bertold Brecht's Threepenny Opera, the final verse this last decade, the out-county rings of the
of the Moritat. Conurbation (and the Conurbation as a whole)
8. In some circles—well beyond Fleet Street, Soho, have also begun to show a population decline—
Bloomsbury and Hampstead—the revival of for the first time in this century. The Conurbation
political satire, a by-product of the current period itself has become an ‘inner’ area. The frontiers of
of transition as it has been of similar periods else the still-expanding ‘Greater London’ are being
where, also contributes to such illusions. Satire, pushed even further outwards.
though by no means the same as political critique, 11. Private enterprise is certainly predominant in
can so easily be regarded as evidence of uninhib non-residential development, and increasingly
ited critique—by and for‘insiders’. also, once again, in the provision of housing. In
9. This change from suburban to urban aspirations 1951,12 per cent of all new permanent dwellings
is, moreover, both reflected and accentuated by built during that year were provided by private
a corresponding (though not unanimous) trend enterprise; in 1961, the comparable figure had
in the attitudes of architects and town planners. risen to 64 per cent. (Thus conversely, the share
(This latter trend gained strength mainly through of public authorities in the provision of new
the Festival of Britain in 1951—through its exhi housing had dropped from 88 per cent to 36 per
bitions at the South Bank and in Lansbury,. . .) cent.) So far, the increase in the share of private
And the varied examples of genuinely ‘urban enterprise housing has not been quite so steep
design’, which have accordingly been provided in the London Conurbation as in the country
by architects—especially by those working for as a whole; nor has it been equally distributed
public authorities—have in turn encouraged throughout the Conurbation.
CHAPTER 2
A Short History of Gentrification

Neil Smith
[. . .] Although the emergence of gentrifi little ashamed of our glasses and decanters,
cation proper can be traced to the post too big for our thirst,” and for a moment
war cities of the advanced capitalist world, connects in empathy with "the eyes of the
there are significant precursors. In his poor.”Then he turns back to his lover’s eyes,
well-known poem, “The Eyes of the Poor,” "dear love, to read m y thoughts there.” But
Charles Baudelaire wraps a proto-gentri- instead he sees only disgust in her eyes. She
fication narrative into a poem of love and bursts out: “Those people with their great
estrangement. Set in the late 1850s and saucer eyes are unbearable! Can’t you go tell
early 1860s, amid Baron Haussmann’s the manager to get them away from here?”
destruction of working-class Paris and (Baudelaire 1947 edn. no. 26).
its monumental rebuilding (see Pinkney Marshall Berman (1982: 148-150) uses
1972), the poem’s narrator tries to explain this poem to introduce his discussion of
to his lover why he feels so estranged from "modernism in the streets,” equating this
her. He recalls a recent incident when they early em bourgeoisem ent of Paris (Gaillard
sat outside a “dazzling” cafe, brightly lit 1977; see also Harvey 1985a) with the rise
outside by gaslight, making its debut. The of bourgeois modernity. Much the same
interior was less alluring, decorated with connection was made at the time, albeit
the ostentatious kitsch of the day; hounds across the English Channel. Eighty years
and falcons, “nymphs and goddesses bear before Robert Park and E. Burgess (Park et
ing piles of fruits, pâtés and game on their al. 1925) developed their influential “con
heads,” an extravagance of “all history and centric ring” model for the urban structure
all mythology pandering to gluttony.” The of Chicago, Friedrich Engels made a similar
cafe stood at the corner of a new boulevard generalization concerning Manchester:
which was still strewn with rubble, and
as the lovers swoon in each other’s eyes, a M anchester contains, at its heart, a rather
extended com m ercial district, perhaps half a
bedraggled poor family—father, son and
mile long and about as broad, and consisting
baby—stops in front of them and stares
alm ost com pletely of offices and warehouses.
large-eyed at the spectacle of consump Nearly the whole district is abandoned by
tion. “How beautiful it is!” the son seems to dwellers. . . . This district is cut through by
be saying, although no words were uttered: certain main thoroughfares upon which
"But it is a house where only people who the vast traffic concentrates, and in which
are not like us can go.” The narrator feels "a the ground level is lined with brilliant shops.
I NEIL SMITH
. . . With the exception of this comm ercial ing a family’s displacement from a tene
district, all M anchester proper [comprises] ment in Nantes in 1685. He reports that the
unmixed working-people’s quarters, stretch Edict of Nantes, signed by Henry IV in 1598,
ing like a girdle, averaging a mile and a half guaranteed poor Huguenots certain rights
in breadth, around the comm ercial district.
including access to housing, but when the
Outside, beyond this girdle, lives the upper
edict was revoked nearly a century later by
and middle bourgeoisie.
(Engels 1975 edn.: 84-85) Louis XTV, wholesale displacement took
place at the hands of landlords, merchants
Engels had a keen sense of the social effects and wealthier citizens (Cybriwsky 1980).
of this urban geography, especially the Be that as it may, something more akin
efficient concealment of “grime and mis to contemporary gentrification made an
ery” from "the eyes of the wealthy men and appearance in the middle of the nineteenth
women”residingintheouterring.Buthealso century, whether known by the name
witnessed the so-called “Improvements” of “em bourgeoisem ent,” “Haussmann” or the
mid-nineteenth-century Britain, a process “Improvements.” It was hardly "general,” to
for which he chose the term “Haussmann.” use Engels’ word, but sporadic, and it was
“By the term ‘Haussmann,’” he explained, surely restricted to Europe since few cities
“I do not mean merely the specifically in North America, Australia or elsewhere
Bonapartist manner of the Parisian had the extent of urban history to pro
Haussmann”—the Prefect of Paris, who was vide whole neighborhoods of disinvested
building boulevards through the “closely stock. Chicago was barely ten years old
built workers’ quarters and lining them on when Engels made his first observations
both sides with big luxurious buildings,” for of Manchester; and as late as 1870, there
the strategic purpose of “making barricade was little urban development in Australia.
fighting more difficult,” and for turning The closest parallel in North America might
“the city into a luxury city pure and simple” be the process whereby one generation of
(Engels 1975 edn.: 71). Rather, he suggested, wooden buildings was quickly torn down
this was a more general process: to be replaced by brick structures and these
in turn—at least in the older east-coast
By “Haussmann” I m ean the practice, which cities—were demolished to make room for
has now becom e general, of making breaches larger tenements or single-family houses.
in the working-class quarters of our big cit It would be misleading to consider this
ies, particularly in those which are centrally gentrification, however, insofar as such
situated, irrespective of whether this practice redevelopment was an integral part of the
is occasioned by considerations of public outward geographical expansion of the city
health and beautification or by demand for and not, as with gentrification, a spatial
big, centrally located business premises or by
reconcentration.
traffic requirements. . . . No m atter how dif
Even as late as the 1930s and 1940s, gen
ferent the reasons m ay be, the result is every
where the same: the most scandalous alleys trification remained a sporadic occurrence,
and lanes disappear to the accom panim ent but by this time precursor experiences of
of lavish self-glorification by the bourgeoisie gentrification were also turning up in the
on account of this tremendous success. United States. The flavor remained reso
(Engels 1975 edn.: 71) lutely European and aristocratic, however,
laced through with liberal guilt. The spirit of
Earlier examples of gentrification have the enterprise is well captured in a recent
been cited. Roman Cybriwsky, for example, retrospective by Maureen Dowd, recalling
provides a nineteenth-century print depict the Georgetown scene in Washington, DC’s
A SHORT HISTORY OF GENTRIFICATION |
most gentrified neighborhood through the majority of large cities. It was very much
eyes of patrician hostess turned historian an exception to larger urban geographic
Susan MaryAlsop: processes. Its agents, as in the case of
Georgetown or Beacon Hill, were gener
They gentrified Georgetown, an unfashion ally from such a limited social stratum and
able working-class neighborhood with a in many cases so wealthy that they could
large black contingent. As Mrs. Alsop told
afford to thumb their patrician noses at the
Town an d Country magazine: “The blacks
mere dictates of the urban land market—
kept their houses so well. All of us had terrible
guilt in the 3 0 ’s and 4 0 ’s for buying places so
or at least mold the local market to their
cheaply and moving them out. wonts.
The gentry and the hostesses faded This all begins to change in the postwar
through the 1970s. period, and it is no accident that the word
(Dowd 1993:46) “gentrification” is coined in the early 1960s.
In Greenwich Village in New York, where
Similar scenes were being lived out in gentrification was associated with a nascent
Boston’s Beacon Hill (Firey 1945), albeit counterculture; in Glebe in Sydney, where
with a different local flavor, or for that mat sustained disinvestment, rental deregula
ter in London, although of course genteel tion, an influx of southern European immi
society had in no way relinquished its claim grants, and the emergence of a middle-class
to many London neighborhoods in quite resident action group all conspired toward
the same fashion. gentrification (B. Engels 1989); in Islington
So what makes all of these experiences in London where the process was rela
“precursors” to a gentrification process tively decentralized; and in dozens of other
that began in earnest in the postwar period? large cities in North America, Europe and
The answer lies in both the extent and the Australia, gentrification began to occur. And
systemic nature of central and inner-city nor was this process long confined simply
rebuilding and rehabilitation beginning in to the largest cities. By 1976, one study con
the 1950s. The nineteenth-century expe cluded that nearly half of the 260 US cities
riences in London and Paris were unique, with a population of more than 50,000 were
resulting from the confluence of a class experiencing gentrification (Urban Land
politics aimed at the threatening working Institute 1976). Barely twelve years after
classes and designed to consolidate bour Ruth Glass had coined the term, it was no
geois control of the city, and a cyclical eco- longer just New York, London and Paris that
nomicopportunitytoprofitfromrebuilding. were being gentrified, but Brisbane and
The “Improvements” were certainly repli Dundee, Bremen and Lancaster, PA.
cated in different ways and at a lesser scale Gentrification today is ubiquitous in the
in some other cities—Edinburgh, Berlin, central and inner cities ofthe advanced cap
Madrid, forexample—but, as in London and italist world. As unlikely a city as Glasgow,
Paris, they were historically discrete events. simultaneously a symbol and stronghold
There are no systematic “improvements” in of working-class grit and politics, was suf
London in the first decades of the twentieth ficiently gentrified by 1990, in a process
century, or a continued em bourgeoisem ent fueled by an aggressive local state, to be
of Paris in the same period systematically adopted as “European City of Culture” (Jack
altering the urban landscape. As regards 1984; Boyle 1992). Pittsburgh and Hoboken
the incidences of gentrification in the are perhaps US equivalents. In Tokyo, the
mid-twentieth century, these were so spo central ward of Shinjuku, once a meet
radic that the process was unknown in the ing place for artists and intellectuals, has
I NEIL SMITH
become a “classic battleground” of gentri discrete experiences of “spot rehabilita

fication amid a rampaging real estate mar tion.”Iftheprocess that Ruth Glass observed
ket (Ranard 1991). Likewise Montparnasse in London at the beginning of the 1960s, or
in Paris, Prague’s response to an unleashed even the planned remake of Philadelphia’s
real estate market since 1989 has been tor Society Hill during the same period, repre
rid gentrification, almost on the scale of sented somewhat isolated developments
Budapest’s (Sykora 1993), while in Madrid it in the land and housing markets, they did
was the end of Franco’s fascism and a com not remain so. By the 1970s gentrification
parative democratization of urban govern was clearly becoming an integral residen
ment that cleared the way for reinvestment tial thread in a much larger urban restruc
(Vázquez 1992). In the Christianhavn area turing. As many urban economies in the
around the experimental “free city” of advanced capitalist w'orld experienced the
Christiania on Copenhagen’s waterfront dramatic loss of manufacturing jobs and a
(Nitten 1992), and in the back streets of parallel increase in producer services, pro
Granada adjacent to the Alhambra, gen fessional employment and the expansion
trification proceeds in tense affinity with of so-called “FIRE” employment (Finance,
tourism. Even outside the most developed Insurance, Real Estate), their whole urban
continents—North America, Europe and geography underwent a concomitant
Australasia—the process has begun to take restructuring. Condominium and coopera
place. In Johannesburg, the gentrification tive conversions in the US, tenure conver
of the 1980s (Steinberg etal. 1992) has been sions in London and international capital
significantly attenuated by a new kind of investments in central-city luxury accom
“white flight” since the election of the ANC modations were increasingly the residen
in April 1994 (Murray 1994: 44-48), but the tial component of a larger set of shifts that
process has also affected smaller cities such brought an office boom to London’s Canary
as Stellenbosch (Swart 1987). In Sao Paulo Wharf (A. Smith 1989) and New' York’s
a very different pattern of disinvestment in Battery Park City (Fainstein 1994) and the
land has taken place (Castillo 1993), but a construction of new recreational and retail
modest renovation and reinvestment in the landscapes from Sydney’s Darling Harbour
Tatuapé district accommodates small busi to Oslo’s AckerBrygge. These economic
ness owners and professionals who work shifts w'ere often accompanied by political
in the central business district but who can shifts as cities found themselves compet
no longer afford the rapidly inflating prices ing in the global market, shorn of much of
of the most prestigious central enclaves the traditional protection of national state
such as Jardin. Much of this redevelopment institutions and regulations: deregulation,
involves “verticalization” (Aparecida 1994) privatization of housing and urban services,
as land served by basic services is scarce. the dismantling of w'elfare services—in
More generally, the “middle zones” around short, the remarketization of public func
Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are experienc tions—quickly followed, even in bastions
ing development and redevelopment for of social democracy such as Sw'eden. In this
the middle class (Queiroz and Correa 1995: context, gentrification became a hallmark
377-379). of the emerging “global city” (Sassen 1991),
Not only has gentrification become a but was equally a presence in national and
widespread experience since the 1960s, regional centers that were themselves expe
then, but it is also systematically integrated riencing an economic, political and geo
into wader urban and global processes, and graphical restructuring (M. P Smith 1984;
this too differentiates it from earlier, more Castells 1985; Beauregard 1989).
A SHORT HISTORY OF GENTRIFICATION |
In this regard, whatwethinkofas gentrifi processes of urban economic, political

cation has itselfundergonea vital transition. and geographical restructuring, I think it is
If in the early 1960s it made sense to think of important to temper this vista with a sense
gentrification very much in the quaint and of context. It would be foolish to think that
specialized language of residential rehabil the partial geographical reversal in the focus
itation that Ruth Glass employed, this is no of urban reinvestment implies the converse,
longer so today. In my own research I began the end of the suburbs. Suburbanization
by making a strict distinction between and gentrification are certainly intercon
gentrification (which involved rehabilita nected. The dramatic suburbanization of
tion of existing stock) and redevelopment the urban landscape in the last century or
that involved wholly new construction (N. more provided an alternative geographical
Smith 1979a), and at a time when gentrifi locus for capital accumulation and thereby
cation was distinguishing itself from large- encouraged a comparative disinvestment
scale urban renewal this made some sense. at the center—most intensely so in the US.
But I no longer feel that it is such a useful But there is really no sign that the rise of
distinction. Indeed 1979 was already a bit gentrification has diminished contempo
late for this distinction. How, in the larger rary suburbanization. Quite the opposite.
context of changing social geographies, are The same forces of urban restructuring that
we to distinguish adequately between the have ushered new landscapes of gentrifi
rehabilitation of nineteenth-century hous cation to the central city have also trans
ing, the construction of new condominium formed the suburbs. The recentralization of
towers, the opening of festival markets to office, retail, recreation and hotel functions
attract local and not so local tourists, the has been accompanied by a parallel decen
proliferation of wine bars—and boutiques tralization which has led to much more
for everything—and the construction of functionally integrated suburbs with their
modern and postmodern office buildings own more or less urban centres—edge cit
employing thousands of professionals, all ies as they have been called (Garreau 1991).
looking for a place to live (see, for example, If suburban development has in most
A. Smith, 1989)? This after all describes the places been more volatile since the 1970s in
new landscapes of downtown Baltimore or response to the cycles of economic expan
central Edinburgh, waterfront Sydney or sion and contraction, suburbanization still
riverside Minneapolis. Gentrification is no represents a more powerful force than gen
longer about a narrow and quixotic oddity trification in the geographical fashioning
in the housing market but has become the of the metropolis.
leading residential edge of a much larger From the 1960s to the 1990s, however, as
endeavor: the class remake of the central academic and political critiques of subur
urban landscape. It would be anachronis banization were mounting, gentrification
tic now to exclude redevelopment from for many came to express an extraordinary
the rubric of gentrification, to assume that optimism, warranted or otherwise, con
the gentrification of the city was restricted cerning the future of the city. The urban
to the recover}' of an elegant history in the uprisings and social movements of the
quaint mews and alleys of old cities, rather 1960s notwithstanding, gentrification rep
than bound up with a larger restructuring resented a wholly unpredicted novelty in
(Smith and Williams 1986). the urban landscape, a new set of urban
Having stressed the ubiquity of gentrifi processes that took on immediate symbolic
cation at the end of the twentieth century, importance. The contest over gentrification
and its direct connection to fundamental represented a struggle not just for new and
I N E IL S M IT H
old urban spaces but for the sym bolic p olit 140-148.
ical power to d eterm ine the urban future. Gaillard, J. (1977) Paris: La Ville, Paris: H. Champion.
Garreau, J. (1991) Edge City: Life on the Frontier, New
T he co n test w as as in ten se in the new spa
York: Doubleday.
pers as it w as in the streets, and for every Harvey, D. (1985) Consciousness an d the Urban
d efense o f g entrification su ch as that by the Experience: Studies in the History a n d Theory o f
Real Estate Board o f New York there was an Capitalist Urbanization, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
assault against gentrification -ind u ced dis Jack, I. (1984) “The repackaging of Glasgow,” Sunday
Times Magazine, Decem ber 2.
p lacem ent, rent in creases and n eigh bor
Murray, M. J. (1994) The Revolution Deferred: The
hood chang e (see, for exam ple, Barry and Painful Birth o f Post-apartheid South Africa,
D erevlany 1987). But the co n test over g en London: Verso.
trification was also played out in the usually Nitten. (1992) Christiania Tourist Guide, Nitten:
m ore brom idic pages o f acad em ic jou rn als Copenhagen.
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W. and McKenzie, R. (1925) The
and books. [...]
City, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pinkney, D. H. (1972) Napoleon III a nd the Rebuilding o f
REFER EN CES Paris. Princeton, N.I.: Princeton University Press.
Queiroz Ribeiro, L. C. and Correa do Lago, L. (1995)
Aparccida de Souza, M. A. (1994) A Identidade da “Restructuring in large Brazilian cities: the center/
Metropole, Sao Paulo: Editora da Universidade de periphery model,” International Journal o f Urban
Sao Paulo. and Regional Research 1 9:369-382.
Barry, ). and Derevlany, J. (1987) Yuppies Invade My Ranard, A. (1991) “An artists' oasis in Tokyo gives way
House at Dinnertim e, Hoboken: River Publishing. to gentrification,” International Herald Tribune
Baudelaire, C. (1947) Paris Spleen, New York: New )anuary4.
Directions. Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City, Princeton, N.J.:
Beauregard, R. (1989) Econom ic Restructuring a nd Princeton University Press.
Political Response, Urban Affairs Annual Reviews Smith, A. (1989) “Gentriflcation and the spatial
34, Newbury' Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. contribution of the state: the restructuring of
Berman, M. (1982) All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The London's Docklands," A n tip o d e2\ ,3:232-260.
Experience o f Modernity, New York: Simon and Smith, M. P. (ed.) (1984) Citiesin Transformation:Class,
Schuster. Capital a nd the State, Urban Affairs Annual Reviews
Boyle, M. (1992) “The cultural politics of Glasgow, 26. Newbury' Park. Calif.: Sage Publication.
European City of Culture: making sense of the role Smith, N. (1979) “Toward a theory of genlrification: a
of the local state in urban regeneration,” unpub back to the city movem ent by capital not people,”
lished Ph.D. dissertation, Edinburgh University. Journal o f the Am erican Planning Association 45:
Castillo, R. (1993) "A fragmentato da terra. Propriedade 538-548.
fundisria absoluta e espaco mercadoria no muni- Steinberg, J., van Zyl, P and Bond, P (1992)
cipio de Sao Paulo,” unpublished Ph.D. disserta “Contradictions in the transition from urban apart
tion, Universidade de Sao Paulo. heid: barriers to gentrification in Johannesberg,” in
Cybriwsky, R. (1980) “Historical evidence of gentrifica D. M. Smith (ed.) The Apartheid City a n d Beyond:
tion,” unpublished MS, Department Geography, Urbanization a n d Social Change in South Africa,
Temple University. Ixindon: Routledge.
Dowd, M. (1993) “The WASP descendancy,” New York Swart. P. (1987) “Gentrification as an urban phenom
Times Magazine October 3 1 :4 6 -4 8 . enon in Stellenbosch, South Africa,” Geo-Stell 11:
Engels, B. (1989) “The gentrification of Glebe: the resi 13-18.
dential restructuring of an inner Sydney suburb. Sykora, L. (1993) “City in transition: the role of rent
1960 to 1986,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, gaps in Prague’s revitalization,” Tijdschrift voor
University of Sydney. F.conomische en Sociale Geografía M : 281-293.
Engels, F. (1975 edn.) The Housing Question, Moscow: Urban Land Institute. (1976) New Opportunities f o r
Progress Publishers. Residential Developm ent in Central Cities, Report
Fainstein, S. (1994) The City Builders: Property, Politics No. 25, Washington, D.C.:The Institute.
a nd Planning in Ijm don a n d New York, Oxford: Vazquez, C. (1992) "Urban policies and gentrification
Basil Blackwell. trends in Madrid’s inner city,” N etherlands Journal
Firey.W. (1945) “Sentiment and symbolism as ecologi o f Housing a n d Environm ental Research 7, 4:
cal variables,” American Sociological Review 10: 357-376.
CHAPTER 3
Gentrification as Market and Place

Sharon Zukin
[...] Gentrification refers to a profound spa justification of middle-class appropriation,

tial restructuring in several senses. It refers, lust as white settlers in the nineteenth cen
first, to an expansion of the downtown’s tury forced Native Americans from their
physical area, often at the expense of the traditional grounds, so gentrifiers, develop
inner city. More subtly, it suggests a diffu ers, and new commercial uses have cleared
sion outward from the geographical center the downtown “frontier” of existing popu
of downtown’s cultural power. Ultimately, lations.1This appropriation is coordinated,
gentrification—a process that seems to logically enough, with a local expansion
reassert a purely local identity—represents of jobs and facilities in business services.
downtown’s social transformation in terms While some of these jobs have decentral
of an in ternational market culture. ized to the suburbs, the city’s economy as a
Gentrification is commonly understood wholehasshiftedtowardfinance, entertain
in a much narrower sense. Not only does ment, tourism, communications, and their
it generally refer to housing, especially the business suppliers. Yet neither corporate
housing choice of some members of a pro expansion nor gentrification has altered a
fessional and managerial middle class, it general trend of urban economic decline,
usually describes this choice in individu decreasing median household income, and
alistic terms. Yet the small events and indi income inequality. Instead, gentrification
vidual decisions that make up a specific makes inequality more visible by fostering
spatial process of gentrification feed upon a new juxtaposition of landscape and ver
a larger social transformation. Each neigh nacular, creating “islands of renewal in seas
borhood’s experience of gentrification has of decay.”2
its own story—yet every downtown has its Reinvestment in housing in the center
“revitalized” South End (in Boston), Quality relies on capital disinvestment since 1945
Hill (in Kansas City), or Goose Island (in (or, more accurately, since 1929) that made
Chicago). Regardless of topography, build a supply of “gentrifiable” building stock
ing stock, and even existing populations, available. But it also reflects a demand
gentrification persists as a collective effort for such building stock that was shaped
to appropriate the center for elements of a by a cultural shift. This in turn represents
new urban middle class.* a “reflexive” consumption that is based
The notion of gentrifiers as “urban pio on higher education and a related expan
neers” is properly viewed as an ideological sion of consumers of both high culture
| SHARON ZUKIN
and trendy style: these are potential working-class areas where low-wage, often
gentrifiers.3 immigrant and minority workers lived.
The private-market investments of gen Despite their economic viability and
trification effectively took over the role historic association with downtown areas,
of clearing out the center just at the point these manufacturers lived under the gun.
when public programs of urban renewal They were perceived as interlopers by the
ran out of federal funding and alienated growth machine of landed elites, elected
supporters from every racial group and officials, and real estate developers. Their
social class. Gentrifiers, moreover, often socially obsolete vernacular posed a barrier
used noninstitutional sources of capital, to expanding the downtown landscape of
including inheritance, family loans, per economic power. During the 1960s, simul
sonal savings, and the sweat equity of their taneously with urban renewal programs
own renovation work. Gentrification thus on the one hand and new office construc
constituted a transition in both the mode of tion in the suburbs on the other, many city
downtown development—from the public administrations turned to reforming may
to the private sector, from large to small- ors who formed a new coalition with corpo
scale projects, from new construction to rate business and banking interests. Mayor
rehabilitation—and the source of invest John Lindsay in NewYork, for example, shed
ment capital. City Hall’s New Deal alliances with small
At the same time, the entire political business and labor unions for a more favor
economy of the center city was changing, able orientation toward the financial sec
the result of a long structural process of tor, including real estate developers. From
deindustrialization and cyclical decline in Lindsay on, New York’s mayors backed a
property values. Large manufacturers had growth machine that explicitly focused
moved out of the center since the 1880s, on service-sector expansion throughout
arguing that the multistory arrangement downtown Manhattan.'
of the buildings and congested streets was Provided businesses had a need or desire
functionally obsolete. Dependent on hori to be located downtown, the price of prop
zontal layout of production processes, truck erty there was by this point relatively low.
deliveries, and automobile commuting, While a "rent gap” reflected the cyclical
manufacturers preferred new green-field loss of economic value at the center, some
plants in suburban locations. Suburban private-sector institutions—mainly banks
land prices, taxes, and wages also exerted and insurance companies, the offices of
anappeal. But the small manufacturers who foreign-owned corporations, and financial
remained in the center, often concentrated services—remained committed to a down
in late-nineteenth-century loft buildings town location for its symbolic value.5 Yet
downtown, paid rents so low they seemed downtown had never completely excluded
anachronistic. Although they had been hit “upscale” use. A small number of patri
severely during the 1960s by competition cian households had always remained in
from overseas production and import pen Boston’s Back Bay and Beacon Hill, and
etration, such centrally located activities as Philadelphia’s Society Hill and Rittenhouse
apparel manufacturing and printing con Square.0 Small areas such as these, which
tinued to thrive in low-rent clusters near never lost economic and cultural value,
customers, competitors, and suppliers. In served as springboards of "revitalization” in
New York, they also benefited from mass the center.
transit lines that connected downtown With one eye on redevelopment con
and midtown Manhattan to more distant tracts and the other on property values, the
GENTRIFICATION AS MARKET AND PLACE |
patricians who owned downtown land were demolition of these areas by the growth
in an ideal position to direct a new mode coalition. They also claimed the legal
of development that increased economic right to live and work in buildings zoned
value. They also controlled the sources of for manufacturing use alone, on the basis
investment capital, city government autho of their contribution to New York City’s
rizations, and cultural legitimacy that economy. Since the 1960s, nontraditional
are needed for a massive shift in land use, forms of art and performance had indeed
because they shaped the policies of banks, attracted a larger, paying public. Their
city planning commissions, and local his gradual concentration in downtown lofts
torical societies. New York may have been connected these spaces with a downtown
an exception, for the patricians with prop arts economy.
erty in downtown Manhattan—who now In a competition over downtown space
lived uptown or in the suburbs—pressed between the arts producers, manufactur
only for new building and highway con ers, and real estate developers, which lasted
struction until 1973. until 1973, the artists emerged as victors.
In Philadelphia, however, the upper- Yet they could not have won the right to live
class residents of Society Hill and their in their lofts without powerful allies. Their
associates in banking and city government political strategy relied not only on the
started a fairly concerted effort at pres growing visibility of artists’ clusters, but also
ervation-based revitalization in the late on the patronage of some landed and politi
1950s. From house tours of Elfreth’s Alley, cal elite members who otherwise would
they proceeded to government subsidies have supported the growth coalition. Saved
for slum clearance of nearby neighbor by the cultural values of historic preserva
hoods and new commercial construction. tion and the rising market values of an arts
Twenty years later, just in time for the economy, the lofts of downtown Manhattan
bicentennial celebration of the Declaration were transformed from a light manufactur
of Independence, their residential enclave ing into a cultural zone. This process ran
downtown near the Delaware waterfront parallel, we see with hindsight, to gentrifi
was surrounded by a large area devoted to cation.8 The legitimation of “loft living” in
historic preservation, tourism, new offices downtown Manhattan marked a symbolic
for insurance and financial corporations, as well as a material change in the land
and not coincidentally, gentrification in scape. Cleared of “obsolete” uses like manu
nearby Queen Village. The displaced were facturing by an investment flow apparently
small businesses, including manufactur unleashed “from below,” downtown space
ers, and working-class, especially Italian demanded a visual, sensual, and even con
and Puerto Rican, residents.7 ceptual reorientation. Just as the new mode
In downtown Manhattan, by contrast, of development downtown reflected a new
the displacement of low-rent and “socially organization of production, so many of the
obsolete” uses from around 1970 was part gentrifiers’ cultural practices related to a
of the politics of culture. Specifically, the new organization of consumption.
landscape of downtown Manhattan was At the outset, gentrifiers’ fondness for
shaped by an unexpected triumph on the restoring and preserving a historical style
part of an artists’ and historic preservation reflected real dismay at more than a decade
ists’ coalition. Formed to defend living and of publicly sponsored urban renewal and
working quarters that cultural producers private commercial redevelopment, which
had established in low-rent manufacturing together had destroyed a large part of
lofts, artists' organizations protested the many cities’ architectural heritage. The
| SHARON ZUKIN
photographic exhibit (1963) and book on caught dead on the Upper East Side, highly
Lost New York (1967), for example, docu educated upper-middle-class residents
mented the handsome stone, masonry, and viewed the center in light of its social and
cast-iron structures that had dominated aesthetic qualities. Equally well educated
downtown Manhattan from the Gilded Age lower-income residents—notably, those
to World War II. Most of these buildings who had chosen cultural careers and those
were torn down in successive periods who lived alone, including significant
of redevelopment as downtown com numbers of women and gays—viewed the
merce moved farther north. For a long center in terms of its clustering qualities.
time, demolition signified improvement. Relatively inexpensive building stock in
But the destruction in the early 1960s of “obsolete” areas downtown provided both
Pennsylvania Station, a railroad terminal groups of men and women with opportuni
of the grand era whose soaring glass dome ties for new cultural consumption.11
was replaced by a mundane office building, New middle-class residents tended to
dramatized the loss of a collective sense of buy houses downtown that were built in
time that many people felt.3 the nineteenth century. They painstakingly
The photographic exhibitions that were restored architectural detail covered over
mounted for Lost Boston, Lost Chicago, and by layers of paint, obscured by repeated
Lost London showed a nearly universal dis repairs and re-partitions, and generally lost
satisfaction with slash-and-burn strategies in the course of countless renovations. The
of urban redevelopment. Criticism ranged British sociologist Ruth Glass first noted
from aesthetics to sociology. The journalist their presence in the early 1960s as an influx
Jane Jacobs, whose family had moved into a of "gentry” into inner-city London neigh
mixed residential and industrial area in the borhoods. While the new residents did not
oldest part of Greenwich Village, argued for have upper-class incomes, they were clearly
the preservation of old buildings because more affluent and more educated than their
they fostered social diversity. She connected working-class neighbors. The neighbors
small, old buildings and cheap rents with rarely understood what drew them to old
neighborhood street life, specialized, low- houses in run-down areas near the center
price shops, and new, interesting economic of town. Since that time, however, gentri
activities: in other words, downtown's social fiers have become so pervasive in all older
values. Studies by the sociologists Herbert cities of the highly industrialized world that
Gans and Marc Fried suggested, moreover, their cultural preferences have been incor
that for its residents, even a physically run porated into official norms of neighbor
down inner-city community had redeem hood renewal and city planning.12
ing social value.10 With its respect for historic structures
The rising expense and decreasing and the integrity of smaller scale, gen
availability of new housing in the center trification appeared as a rediscovery, an
worked in tandem with these develop attempt to recapture the value of place.
ing sensitivities. Meanwhile, new patterns Appreciating the aesthetics and social his
of gender equality and household inde tory of old buildings in the center showed
pendence diminished the old demand for a cultural sensibility and refinement that
housing near good schools, supermarkets, transcended the postwar suburban ethos
and neighborhood stores, at least for those of conformity and kitsch. Moreover, mov
families without children or with ade ing downtown in search of social diversity
quate funds for private schools. While they made a statement about liberal tolerance
couldn't afford Park Avenue, or wouldn’t be that seemed to contradict “white flight”
GENTRIFICATION AS MARKET AND PLACE |
and disinvestment from the inner city. By artists directly invested living lofts with an
constructing a social space or habitus on aura of authentic cultural consumption. If
the basis of cultural rather than economic the artist was “a full-time leisure special
capital, gentrification apparently recon ist, an aesthetic technician picturing and
ciled two sets of contradictions: between prodding the sensual expectations of other,
landscape and vernacular, and market and part-time consumers,” then the artist’s loft
place. On the one hand, gentrifiers viewed and the surrounding quarter were a perfect
the dilapidated built environment of the site for a new, reflexive consumption.15
urban vernacular from the same perspec Markets are not the only arbiters of a
tive of aesthetics and history that was tradi contest for downtown space between land
tionally used for viewing landscape. On the scape and vernacular.16The key element is
other hand, their demand to preserve old that the social values of existing users—for
buildings—with regard to cultural rather example, working-class residents and small
than economic value—helped constitute manufacturers—exert a weaker claim to the
a market for the special characteristics of center than the cultural values of potential
place.13 gentrifiers. Gentrification joins the eco
Yet as the nature of downtown changed, nomic claim to space with a cultural claim
so did gentrification. The concern for old that gives priority to the demands of his
buildings that was its hallmark has been toric preservationists and arts producers.
joined, since the early 1980s, by a great deal In this view, “historic” buildings can only
of new construction. Combined commer be appreciated to their maximum value if
cial and residential projects near the finan they are explained, analyzed, and under
cial district—like Docklands in London or stood as part of an aesthetic discourse, such
Battery Park City in New York—exploit the as the history of architecture and art. Such
taste for old buildings and downtown diver buildings rightfully “belong” to people who
sity that gentrifiers “pioneered.” By virtue have the resources to search for the origi
of its success, however, we no longer know nal building plans and study their house in
whether gentrification is primarily a social, the context of the architect’s career. They
an aesthetic, or a spatial phenomenon. belong to residents who restore mahogany
Small-scale real estate developers slowly paneling and buy copies of nineteenth-
awakened to the opportunity of offering a century faucets instead of those who prefer
product based on place. "You find a pres aluminum siding.
tigious structure that is highly visible and Gentrifiers’ capacity for attaching them
built well, preferably something prewar,” selves to history gives them license to
says a housing developer who converted a “reclaim” the downtown for their own uses.
neo-Gothic Catholic seminary in a racially Most of them anyway tend not to mourn
mixed neighborhood near downtown the transformation of local working-class
Brooklyn to luxurious apartments. “You taprooms into “ye olde” bars and "French”
find it in a neighborhood that still has prob bistros. By means of the building stock,
lems but is close to a park, a college, good they identify with an earlier group of build
transportation—something that will bring ers rather than with the existing lower-
in the middle class. And almost by the time class population, with the “Ladies’ Mile” of
you are through, other buildings around it early-twentieth-century department stores
will have started to be fixed up.”H instead of the discount stores that have
Downtown loft areas formed a more spe replaced them.
cialized real estate market because they Mainly by virtue of their hard work at
had a special quality. Their association with restoration and education, the urban
| SHARON ZUKIN
vernacular of ethnic ghettos and work- This recognition marked cultural produc
ing-class neighborhoods that were due to ers as a symbol of urban growth. While
be demolished is re-viewed as Georgian, storefront art galleries and "French” res
Victorian, or early industrial landscape— taurants became outposts and mediators
and judged worthy of preservation. “In of gentrification in specific neighborhoods,
this new perspective [a gentrified neigh cities with the highest percentage of artists
borhood] is not so much a literal place as in the labor force also had the highest rates
a cultural oscillation between the prosaic of downtown gentrification and condo
reality of the contemporary inner city and minium conversion.19
an imaginative reconstruction of the area’s Yet the aesthetic appeal of gentrifica
past.”'7 tion is both selective and pliable. It can
The cultural claim to urban space poses be abstracted into objects of cultural con
a new standard of legitimacy against the sumption that bear only a distant relation
claim to affordability put forward by a low- to the downtown areas where they were
status population. Significantly, cultural once produced. "Before Fior di Latte,” reads
value is now related to economic value. an advertisement for a new brand of “fresh”
From demand for living lofts and gentri cheese mass marketed by Pollio Dairy
fication, large property-owners, devel Products Corporation, “you had to go to lat-
opers, and elected local officials realized ticini [dairy] stores in Italian neighborhoods
that they could enhance the economic to buy fresh mozzarella. Store owners made
value of the center by supplying cultural the delicious white cheese daily and kept
consumption.** it fresh in barrels of lightly salted water.”
In numerous cases, state intervention The point is that it is no longer necessary
has reinforced the cultural claims behind to go the ethnic neighborhoods downtown
gentrification’s "market forces.” New zoning to consume their heritage; international
laws banish manufacturers, who are forced trade and mass distribution can reproduce
to relocate outside the center. Since 1981, a historically “authentic” product. “To cap
moreover, the U.S. tax code has offered ture this fragile, handmade essence of fresh
tax credits for the rehabilitation of historic mozzarella,” the ad continues, “Polly-0
structures. Although the maximum credit uses methods and equipment imported
was lowered, and eligibility rules tightened, from Italy. We even pack each individual
in 1986, the Tax Reform Act retained ben serving of Fior di Latte in water to keep it
efits for historic preservation. Every city moist and fresh up to 25 days.” No need for
now has procedures for certifying “land latticini when fresh mozzarella is sold in
mark” structures and districts, which tend supermarkets.
to restrict their use to those who can afford The organization of consumption thus
to maintain them in a historic style. But has a paradoxical effect on downtown
when landmarking outlives its usefulness space. Initially treated as unique, the cul
as a strategy of restoring economic value at tural value of place is finally abstracted into
the center—as it apparently did in NewYork market culture. [...]
City by the mid 1980s—local government is
capable of shifting gears and attacking the NOTES
very notion of historic preservation.18
* Race poses the most serious barrier to all new
Gentrification received its greatest boost
private-sector capital investment, including gen
not from a specific subsidy, but from the trification. During the 1970s, as housing prices
state’s substantive and symbolic legitima continued to climb and the housing supply failed
tion of the cultural claim to urban space. to keep pace with demand, white gentrifiers
GENTRIFICATION AS MARKET AND PLACE | 43
became "bolder” about moving into nonwhite Political Crisis/Fiscal Crisis (New York: Basic
neighborhoods, or more tolerant of the costs in Books, 1987).
security and services such residence imposed. 5. On the rent gap, see Neil Smith, "Toward a Theory
Only when gentrification risks displacing people of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement
of color—notably, in Harlem—is there even a by Capital Not People” Journal o f the American
chance of mobilizing against it. Even then, as in Planners Association 45 (1979): 538-48; for criti
industrial displacement, the victims are either cism of the concept, noting that redevelopment
bought out or permitted to buy into the new by gentrification is only one possible option, see
structure—in this case, the improved housing Robert A. Beauregard, "TheChaosandComplexity
stock. of Gentrification,” in Gentrification o f the City, ed.
However, when investment in new projects is Smith and Williams, pp. 35-55; and for defense of
viable, economic claims to the center take prece the rent gap explanation in terms of opportunity,
dence over cultural claims. The absolute failure of see Smith, “Of Yuppies and Housing.”
a historic preservation movement in Hong Kong 6. For an early acknowledgment of these “excep
is the exception that proves the rule. “‘In New tions” to the ecological model, see Walter Firey,
York, London, Paris or Rome, none of this (demo “Sentiment and Symbolism as Ecological
lition! would ever have been allowed to happen/ Variables,” American Sociological Review 10, no.
said David Russell, an architect and the founder 2 (1945): 140-48.
of the colony’s Heritage Society, which disbanded 7. See Neil Smith, “Gentrification and Capital:
five years ago after losing three major preserva Theory, Practice and Ideology in Society Hill,”
tion fights in a row” [New York Times, March 31, Antipode 11, no. 3 (1979): 24-35; Paul R. Levy and
1988). Roman A. Cybriwsky, "The Hidden Dimensions
1. Neil Smith, "Gentrification, the Frontier, and the of Culture and Class: Philadelphia,” in Back to the
Restructuring of Urban Space,” in Gentrification City; ed. Shirley Bradway Laska and Daphne Spain
o f the City, ed. Neil Smith and Peter Williams (New York: Pergamon, 1980), pp. 138-55; Roman
(Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1986), pp. 15-20. While A. Cybriwsky, David Ley, and John Western, "The
it may fool the middle class, this ideological Political and Social Construction of Revitalized
smokescreen is transparent to the "indigenous.” Neighborhoods: Society Hill, Philadelphia, and
As a Hispanic attorney for a municipal agency False Creek, Vancouver,” in Gentrification o f the
in New York City describes the co-op conver City ed. Smith and Williams, pp. 92-120; and
sion of the apartment house where she is living, Conrad Weiler, “The Neighborhood’s Role in
“Gentrification is contemporary manifest des Optimizing Reinvestment: Philadelphia,” in Back
tiny used to move out minorities, and that’s why to the City, ed. Laska and Spain, pp. 220-38.
I’m staying. They’re so used to Puerto Ricans who 8. See Sharon Zukin, Loft Living: Culture and Capital
can't afford to buy that I’m going to buy” (New in Urban Change, 2d ed. (New Brunswick, N.J.:
York Times, March 27,1988). Rutgers University Press, 1989).
2. See Peter D. Sahlins, "The Limits of Gentrification,” 9. Nathan Silver, LostNewYorki NewYork: Schocken,
New York Affairs 5, no. 4 (1979): 3-12; Brian J. L. 1967).
Berry, "Islands of Renewal in Seas of Decay,” in 10. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life o f Great American
The New Urban Reality, ed. Peter E. Peterson Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1961); Herbert
(Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, Gans, The Urban Villagers (New York: Free Press,
1985), pp. 35-55; J. I. Nelson and J. Lorence, 1962); Marc Fried and Peggy Gleicher, "Some
“Employment in Service Activities and Inequality Sources of Satisfaction in the Residential Slum,”
in Metropolitan Areas,” Urban Affairs Quarterly21, Journal o f the American institute o f Planners 72,
no. 1 (1985): 106-25; Smith, Uneven Development no. 4 (1961): 305-15. Also see Special Committee
and "Of Yuppies and Housing: Gentrification, on Historic Preservation, U.S. Conference
Social Restructuring, and the Urban Dream,” of Mayors, With Heritage So Rich (New York:
Society and Space 5 (1987): 151-72. Random House, 1966; repr. 1983).
3. For a detailed review of economic and cultural 11. On the low cost of living downtown for sin
approaches to gentrification, see Sharon Zukin, gle women, see Damaris Rose, “Rethinking
"Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development
Urban Core,” Annual Review o f Sociology 13 of Marxist Theory,” Society and Space 1 (1984): 47—
(1987): 129-47. 74, and on the spatial formation of the gay com
4. For general political background, see Jack munity in San Francisco, see Manuel Castells, The
Newfield and Paul DuBrul, The Abuses o f Power City and the Grassroots (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
(New York: Viking, 1977), and Martin Shefter, University of California Press, 1983), ch. 14.
| SH ARO N ZUKIN
12. For the initial description, see Ruth Glass’s gentrification process by incorporating the
introduction to London: Aspects o f Change, ed. Marxist conflict between use values and exchange
Centre for Urban Studies (London: MacGibbon values: “Whether among rich or poor neighbor
& Kee, 1964), pp. xiii-xlii. For glowing support of hoods, in the central city or urban fringe, neigh
the widespread diffusion of the mode of devel borhood futures are determined by the ways in
opment that combines gentrification, historic which entrepreneurial pressures from outside
preservation, and downtown reinvestment in intersect with internal material stakes and senti
the United States, see “Spiffing Up the Urban mental attachments” (Urban Fortunes, p. 123).
Heritage” (cover story), Time, November 13, 17. Quotation from Patrick Wright, “The Ghosting of
1987, pp. 72ff. the Inner City,” in On Living in an Old Country:
13. The work of Pierre Bourdieu seems basic to this The National Past in Contemporary Britain
analysis, especially his emphasis on the tastes of (London: Verso, 1985), pp. 228-29. On the
people with more cultural than economic capi contested claims for space around Union
tal. See Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique Square in downtown Manhattan between dis
o f the Judgement o f Taste, trans. Richard Nice count stores that cater to an immigrant, work
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ing-class, and outer-borough clientele, and the
1984). My argument nonetheless suggests a more cultural values of the early-twentieth-century
complex and historically contingent account loft buildings that make up the Ladies’ Mile, see
of, first, the rising social acceptance of cultural Martin Kroneuer, “Urban ‘Revitalization and
capital, and, second, its association with the cur Community Participation” (Ph.D. diss., Free
rent transformation of the urban center, which University of Berlin, 1987); cf. Rosalyn Deutsche,
is as observable in the IVieme, Vieme, or XVieme “Krzysztof Wodiszko’s Homeless Projection and
arrondissements of Paris as in NewYork. the Site of Urban ‘Revitalization,’” October 38
14. Andree Brooks, “About Real Estate: Brooklyn (Fall 1986): 63-98.
School Converted to Housing,” New York Times, 18. Other cities, however, may have stronger pro
March 25,1988. Of course, the developer exagger neighborhood, antidevelopment orientations.
ates both the rapidity and feasibility of gentrifica In Chicago, for example, the administration of
tion in this area. Mayor Harold Washington countered develop
15. Quotation on the artist from Meyer Schapiro, ers’ plans to convert the manufacturing zone of
quoted in Diana Crane, The Transformation o f the Goose Island while gentrification and new con
Avant- Garde: The New York Art World, 1940-1985 struction expanded the downtown elsewhere.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 19. National Endowment for the Arts study of
83. For the rise of the real estate market in living artists and gentrification cited in Dennis E.
lofts, and their transformation from artists’ to Gale, Neighborhood Revitalization and the
luxury housing, see Zukin, Loft Living. Postindustrial City: A Multinational Perspective
16. John Logan and Harvey Molotch make a start (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Boooks, 1984),
toward recognizing the complexity of the p. 155.
CHAPTER 4
Super-gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn

Heights, New York City
Loretta Lees
Summary. This paper is an empirical a few select areas of global cities like London
examination of the process of ‘super-gen- and New York that have become the focus of
trificalion’ in the Brooklyn Heights neigh intense investment and conspicuous con
bourhood of New York City. This intensified sumption by a new generation of super-rich
regentrification is happening in a few select ‘financifiers’ fed by fortunes from the global
areas of global cities like London and New finance and corporate sendee industries.
York that have become the focus of intense We can begin to understand some of what
investment and conspicuous consumption super-gentrification involves by consider
by a new generation of super-rich ‘financifi- ing the story of a fairly ordinary four-storey
ers’ fed by fortunes from the global finance brownstone house in Brooklyn Heights,
and corporate service industries. This latest New York City, which I will tell by drawing
resurgence of gentrification can be distin on interviews with the householder (D) who
guished from previous rounds of revitalisa first gentrified the house and his next-door-
tion and poses important questions about neighbour (S). I want to use the biography
the historical continuity of current mani of this building to reflect critically on some
festations of gentrification with previous familiar ways of explaining gentrification
generations of neighbourhood change. and the challenges posed to them by what I
am calling super-gentrification. After a brief
discussion of my data and methods, I then
1. INTRODUCTION
document the history and gentrification of
Gentrification research has tradition Brooklyn Heights, and the extent and impact
ally focused on the economic and cultural of super-gentrification on the pre-existing
appreciation of formerly disinvested and community. Finally, the paper concludes
devalued inner-city areas by an affluent with a discussion of what is new and what
middle class. In this paper, I want to exam is historically and geographically specific
ine a somewhat different phenomenon: about this latest form of gentrification.
‘super-gentrification’. By super-gentrifica-
tion, I mean the transformation of already
2. THE BIOGRAPHY OF A
gentrified, prosperous and solidly upper-
BROWNSTONE
middle-class neighbourhoods into much
more exclusive and expensive enclaves. This In 1962, as gentrification began to take
intensified regentrification is happening in off in Brooklyn Heights, a young lawyer
I LORETTA LEES
working in Lower Manhattan paid $28 000 control law) which if a landlord had an imm e
for a small four-storey Brownstone.. . . He diate and compelling need for the space for
and his wife had rented an apartment in his own use he can evict the tenant. I inves
Brooklyn Heights for the previous four tigated the law. We already had one child and
were about to have a second child and needed
years and liked the neighbourhood. As D
the space
explained to me:
(interview with D, August 2002).
At the time we had very limited resources so

we had to find something that was reasonably D invested sweat equity in his brownstone.
inexpensive and at the time we felt we had He estimates that he spent approximately
to buy something north of Joralemon Street $40 000 on improvements, mostly in the
because of the nature of below Joralemon early years:
Street which was very heavily rental units
to Hispanics, mostly Puerto Rican rooming It was electrical, heating, painting, e t c . .. rela
houses. But because price was a big factor for tively minor. A lot of it was cosm etic. The goal
us we ended up buying south of Joralemon was to retain period features. I even bought,
Street anyway, and the property was quite for a nominal sum, two fireplaces that had
small been ripped out of other houses and put them
(interview with D, August 2002). in my children’s bedrooms
At the time, the property was divided into
three apartments: the basement level and Thus far, the story is a fairly familiar one of
parlour floor were the owners’ apartment, middle-class upgrading and working-class
while the second and top floors contained displacement. Indeed, it is almost a text
small, rent-controlled apartments occu book case of gentrification as first described
pied by working-class Irish families. by Ruth Glass (1964). What has happened
to the house since 1995, however, illus
We owned the whole building subject to two trates in microcosm a new process I am
rent control leases. It was a rather big specu
calling super-gentrification (compare with
lation on our behalf. We didn’t know how, or
Dangschat’s (1991) typology of the ultra -
whether, we’d get rid of them at all
gentrifier).
When his family circumstances changed
The family living on the top floor left volun in the mid 1990s, D put the house in which
tarily after eight months when the husband he had raised his family on the market. His
of the family had a heart attack and was broker valued the house at $640 000—or
advised by his doctor that he should no lon nearly 23 times more than what he had paid
ger climb the stairs to his top-floor, walk-up for it some 30 years before. Within a week,
apartment. D took over their apartment. D an English woman employed on Wall Street
and his wife now lived in a house in which as a broker specialising in Japanese bonds
they had use of the top and bottom floors and securities, had agreed a purchase price
but not the middle floor that still contained of $595 000 and written a personal cheque
a rent-controlled apartment. Seven years for the full amount! Previous generations of
after he moved in, D finally evicted this gentrifiers needed mortgages and so were
tenant: subject to banking loan officers’ ideas about
who, what and where in the city was suitable
The other tenant left because we evicted for gentrification. By contrast, in New York,
them. We filed a petition to have them evicted there is now a new generation flush with
on the grounds (permissible under the rent the exorbitant rewards of the global finance
SUPER-G ENTRIFICATION: THE CASE OF BROOKLYN HEIGHTS, NEW YORK CITY |
and corporate service industries (see Warf, say something but the historic preservation
2000). They are able to marshal previously people got there first. . .
unheard of sums to finance their domes She got pregnant 4 -5 months after mov
tic reproduction. It is not only the volume ing in and had twins. They had only lived
there a year when they upped and moved
and source of the assets they mobilise
to Scottsdale, Arizona. Then a couple from
that mark out these ‘financifiers’ from pre
Cobble Hill bought it for over $1.75 million!!—
vious generations of gentrifiers, but also, I com puter folk with two kids who loved the
would suggest, their lifestyles and values as state of the art wiring
well. (interview with S, August 2002).
The story of our house after its sale is
taken up by the next door neighbour, S:
3. THIRD-WAVE GENTRIFICATION
She didn’t move in straight away because it The emergence of super-gentrification
took her nine months to renovate the house. is just one example of how gentrifica
Meanwhile she rented an apartm ent for an
tion shifted into top gear during the long
astronomical fee elsewhere in the H eights. . .
economic boom of the 1990s. This latest
She was English, he was Australian— he used
resurgence of gentrification, which Jason
to wear orange shell suits and gold chains
Hackworth and Neil Smith (2001) have
The renovations cost her way more than dubbed ‘third-wave’ gentrification to dis
the house: a minimum of three-quarters of tinguish it from previous rounds of revitali
a million. She gutted the place . . . took out sation, poses important questions about
weight-bearing walls, knocked out ceilings the historical continuity of current mani
and floors, everything. They completely festations of gentrification with previous
changed the floor plan. My house was cov generations of neighbourhood change.1
ered in dust from the demolition for months One important issue is about the loca
. . . They installed central air conditioning,
tion and scale—or the ‘distanciation’ (see
walk in closets, and wall to wall cables. In
Giddens, 1981, 1984)—of gentrification:
lone of D’s children] old room on the top floor
the ways in which both the underlying
they even put in a marblized bathroom with a
Jacuzzi. Then they didn’t like it, so they pulled processes of gentrification and the material
it all out and redid it again! changes they produce are stretched and
sustained over time and space. According
S. goes on to refer rather scathingly to the to Neil Smith (2002, p. 427) gentrification
quite different lifestyles and values of the is now a global urban strategy that has dis
incomers: placed the liberal urban policy of old with
a new revanchist urbanism, "densely con
The garden said it all. When D lived there, nected into the circuits of global capital
there was a mature urban garden, with grape and cultural circulation” and concerned
vine, ivy, clematis, crab apple tree, etc. They with capitalist production rather than
were control freaks . . . they couldn’t deal social reproduction. As Smith notes (p. 439)
with stuff growing! They pulled it all up and gentrification is now evident well beyond
turfed over the whole garden . . . They subur the familiar core of Anglo-American cities
banised it— green lawn and BBQ and noth
commonly studied by urban geographers.
ing else! They brought Scottsdale, Arizona, to
It is being documented across the globe
Brooklyn H eights. . .
One day on my way hom e from work I
from Mexico (Jones and Varley, 1999) to
noticed what looked like an outhouse in their Israel (Gonen, 2002). Moreover, academ
front area . . . It was so big. It was a shed they ics no longer restrict the term ‘gentrifica
got built for their garbage cans. I was going to tion’ to processes located in the city centre.
I LORETTA LEES
Increasingly, they also use it to describe we should consider the case of super-
similar changes in the suburbs (see N. gentrification in more detail.
Smith, 2002, p. 442; Hackworth and Smith, First, it provides a concrete manifestation
2001; Smith and Defilippis, 1999) and even of sometimes rather abstract claims made
rural areas (see Smith and Philips, 2001, on about the relationships between global
‘greentrified rurality’ and D. Smith, 2002). economic and urban-scale processes. For
Not only does ‘third-wave’ gentrifica instance, Neil Smith (2002, p. 441) argues
tion now occur in a variety of sites, but it that the “hallmark of [this] latest phase of
also takes a myriad of forms. It can be of gentrification” is the “reach of global capi
the traditional or classic form—that is, by tal down to the local neighbourhood scale”.
individual gentrifiers renovating old hous The relationships among global economic
ing through sweat equity or by hiring build processes, local places and communi
ers and interior designers and so leading ties are nowhere more obvious than in the
to the embourgeoisement of a neighbour super-gentrification of Brooklyn Heights.
hood and the displacement of less wealthy Closely tied, through the labour market, to
residents. It is now also increasingly state- global financial markets, super-gentrifying
led with national and local governmental neighbourhoods like Brooklyn Heights are
policy tied up in supporting gentrification peculiarly positioned global spaces/places.
initiatives (see Lees, 2003; Atkinson, 2002; While it is important to recognise the speci
N. Smith, 2002; Hackworth and Smith, ficity of its location within the global space
2001; Wyly and Hammel, 1999). In a depar economy, there is no reason to assume that
ture from the traditional concern with ren the processes of super-gentrification at
ovating old housing stock, some now argue play in Brooklyn Heights are totally unique
that gentrification can also be new build to it. Indeed, Butler and Robson (2001a,
(see Morrison and McMurray, 1999). Nor pp. 5 and 10-12) have suggested that
is it always residential—it can also be Barnsbury in London is also “witness
com m ercial (see Kloosterman and van der ing second generation (re)gentrification”,
Leun, 1999). This proliferation of gentrifica driven largely by finance and financial-
tion at different scales, at different sites and sector workers employed in the City of
in different forms suggests that gentrifica London. And there is anecdotal evidence
tion has truly become the ‘plague of locusts’ that Park Slope, located in Brooklyn not
that N. Smith (1984, p. 152) once described far from Brooklyn Heights, is experiencing
it as. super-gentrification too (see Lees, 2000;
Adding‘super-gentrification’ to this long Slater, 2003).
list of gentrification forms, I realise that I Secondly, by highlighting new processes
am running the considerable risk of making intensifying the econom ic valorisation
the meaning of the term so expansive as to of— and consequent social and cultural
lose any conceptual sharpness and speci changes in—already gentrified neighbour
ficity. A number of scholars have argued hoods, the concept of super-gentrification
that gentrification is a ‘chaotic’ concept presents something of a challenge to tra
describing the contingent and geographi ditional explanatory models of gentrifica
cally specific results of different processes tion, which presume an end-point to the
operating in different ways in different con process. Stage models of gentrification
texts (see Rose, 1984; Beauregard, 1986). were developed in the 1970s and 1980s both
This is nowhere more true than with the to explain the process and to predict the
process of super-gentrification. Indeed, I future course of gentrification (see Kerstein,
maintain that there are several reasons why 1990, for a review). For example, Clay
SUPER-GENTRIFICATION: TH E CASE OF BROOKLYN HEIGHTS, NEW YORK C ITY |
(1979, pp. 57-60) outlined a schema from 469) to discount the possibility of intensi
stage one (pioneer gentrification) through fied investment in first wave neighbour
to stage four (maturing gentrification). hoods, like Brooklyn Heights, that “have
Similarly Dangschat’s (1991) gentrification already been fully invested”. That oversight
typology presumed that pioneer gentrifiers seems somewhat surprising, given their
would be succeeded in a final phase of gen emphasis on the dynamism of restless capi
trification by ‘ultragentrifiers’, who were tal as a driving-force behind the new mani
distinguished from pioneers on the basis festations of the process they so helpfully
of age and aggregate income. Like the now- document. [...]
discredited climax ecology models of veg
etation invasion and succession on which
they were predicated (see Hagen, 1992), NOTES
such gentrification stage models assume 1. Hackworth and Smith (2001, p. 467) date the
that the process of gentrification will even onset of post-recession or third-wave gentrifica
tion to approximately 1993-94.
tually reach a stable and self-perpetuating
2. 1 do not want to discredit stage models of gentri
final climax stage of'mature gentrification’. fication per se, for they are very useful explana
The example of super-gentrification dem tory tools, rather I want to discredit the specific
onstrates the folly of this assumption about assumption of an end-stage in these models.
the stability both of the underlying pro
cesses and of the resulting patterns of gen
trification.2As Chris Hamnett argued some REFERENCES
time ago now: Atkinson, R. (2002) Does gentrification help or harm
urban neighbourhoods? An assessmen t o f the evi
It should be clear that gentrification is merely dence-base in the context o f the New Urban Agenda.
another stage in a continuing historically CNR Paper 5 (www.neighbourhoodcentre.org.uk).
contingent sequence of residential-area evo Beauregard, R. (1986) The chaos and complexity of
lution. There are no universally and tem po gentrification, in: N. Smith and P. Williams (Kds)
Centrification o f the City, pp. 35-55. Boston, MA:
rally stable residential patterns
Allen and Unwin.
(Hamnett, 1984, p. 314). Butler, T. and Robson, G. (2001) Negotiating the new
urban economy: work, home and school: negotiat
Drawing on neo-Marxist rent-gap mod ing middle class life in London. Paper presented at
els, Hackworth and Smith (2001) have the Annual RGS-1BG Conference, Plymouth.
recently produced a schematic history of Clay, P. (1979) Neighborhood Renewal: Middleclass
gentrification in New York City, which they Resettlement and Incumbent Upgrading in
American Neighborhoods. Massachusetts and
divide into three distinct waves separated
Toronto: Lexington Books.
by two transitional periods of recession- Dangschat, I. (1991) Gentrification in Hamburg, in: J.
induced restructuring of the institutional van Weesep and S. Musterd (Kds) Urban Housing
context and mechanisms through which fo r the Better-Off: Gentrification in Europe, pp. 63-
gentrification occurred. Their very useful 88. Utrecht: Stedelijke Netwerken.
Giddens, A. (1981) A Contemporary Critique o f
heuristic model of gentrification was not
Historical Materialism: Volume I: Power, Property
designed with the predictive intention of and the State. London: Macmillan.
early stage models and so does not commit Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution o f Society.
the fallacy of constant conjunction (Sayer, Cambridge: Polity Press.
1992). But its emphasis on the dialectic of Glass, R. (1964) Aspects of change, in: Centre for Urban
Studies (Ed.) London: Aspects o f Change, pp. xiii-
disinvestment and reinvestment and the
xlii. London: McGibbon and Kee.
attractions of ‘‘reinvesting in disinvested Gonen, A. (2002) Widespread and diverse neigh
inner-urban areas so alluring for investors” borhood gentrification in Jerusalem, Political
leads Hackworth and Smith (2001, p. 468, Geography, 21, pp. 727-737.
I LORETTA LEES
Hackworth, J. and Smith, N. (2001) The changing state sub-markets in a New Zealand city, Urban Studies,
of gentrification, Tijdschrift voor Economische en 35, pp. 377-397.
Sociale Geografie, 92, pp. 464-477. Rose, D. (1984) Rethinking gentrification: beyond the
Hagen, J. (1992) An Entangled Bank: The Origins uneven development of Marxist urban theory,
o f Ecosystem Ecology. New Brunswick: Rutgers Environment and Planning D, 1, pp. 47-74.
University Press. Sayer, A. (1992) Method in Social Science: A Realist
Hamnett, C. (1984) Gentrification and residential Approach, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
location theory: a review and assessment, in: Slater,T. (2003) The geography o f the gentrifying 'North
D. T. Herbert and R. J. Johnston (Eds) Geography American’ neighbourhood: a comparison o f South
and the Urban Environment: Progress in Research Parkdale, Toronto, Canada, and Lower Park Slope,
and Application, Vol. 6', pp. 283-319. London: John NewYork City, USA. Unpublished PhD thesis, King's
Wiley. College London.
Jones, G. and Varley, A. (1999) The reconquest of the Smith, D. (2002) Extending the temporal and spa
historic centre: urban conservation and gentrifica tial limits of gentrification: a research agenda for
tion in Puebla, Mexico, Environment and Planning population geographers, International Journal o f
A, 31, pp. 1547-1566. Population Geography, 8, pp. 385-394.
Kerstein, R. (1990) Stage models for gentrification: Smith, D. and Philips, D. (2001) Socio cultural repre
an examination, Urban Affairs Quarterly, 25, sentations of greentrified Pennine rurality, Journal
pp. 620-639. o f Rural Studies, 17, pp. 457-469.
Kloosterman, R. and Leun, J. van der (1999) Just Smith, N. (1984) Uneven Development: Nature, Capital
for starters: commercial gentrification by and the Production o f Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
immigrant entrepreneurs in Amsterdam and Smith, N. (2002) New globalism, new urbanism: gen
Rotterdam neighborhoods, Housing Studies, 14, trification as global urban strategy, Antipode, 34,
pp. 659-677. pp. 427-450.
Lees, L. (2000) Are-appraisal of gentrification: towards Smith, N. and Defilippis, J. (1999) The reassertion of
a ‘geography of gentrification’, Progress in Human economics: 1990s gentrification in the Lower East
Geography, 24, pp. 389-408. Side, International Journal o f Urban and Regional
Lees, L. (2003) Visions of ’Urban Renaissance’: the Research, 23, pp. 638-653.
Urban Task Force Report and the Urban White Warf, B. (2000) NewYork: the Big Apple in the 1990s,
Paper, in: R. Imrie and M. Raco (Eds) Urban Geoforum, 31, pp. 487-499.
Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Wyly, E. and Hammel, D. (1999) Islands of decay
Policy, pp. 61-82. Bristol: The Policy Press. in seas of renewal: housing policy and the resur
Morrison, P. and McMurray, S. (1999) The inner gence of gentrification, Housing Policy Debate, 10,
city apartment versus the suburb: housing pp. 711-798.
CHAPTER 5
Globalisation and the New Urban Colonialism

Rowland Atkinson and Gary Bridge
Gentrification is now global. It is no lon strategies involving commercial or presti

ger confined to western cities. Processes of gious flagship arts of sporting facilities—
neighbourhood change and colonisation what Monje and Vicario in this book call ‘the
represented by an increasing concentration Guggenheim effect’ in the wake of Frank
of the new middle classes can be found in Gehry’s museum in Bilbao? Alternatively
Shanghai as well as Sydney or Seattle. Nor how does the fact that gentrification has
is it now limited to the ‘global’ cities, the moved into very different urban con
focus of much of the gentrification debate texts—rapidly urbanising, post-colonial,
to date. It can now be found in new regional post communist, or communo/capitalist all
centres such as Leeds (United Kingdom) and overlaid by a diversity of cultural and reli
Barcelona (Spain) as well as capital cities pre gious forms—inflect, or indeed generate, a
viously not associated with the process such very different process? Is global gentrifica
as Moscow, Brussels and Berlin. All of this is to tion hallmarked by its cultural, national or
say nothing of the now rampant and almost regional specificities?
exhaustive process of gentrification in cities A further set of questions is raised by
like San Francisco, London, NewYork, and these contextual details when pitched at the
Melbourne. For some gentrification is now global scale. To what extent is gentrification a
no longer even confined to cities, with exam global phenomenon, with diverse causes and
ples of growing rural gentrification in the characteristics, or a phenomenon of glo
UK (Philips 1993; D. Smith 2003), or upstate balisation, conceived as a process of capital
NewYork. expansion, uneven urban development and
The geographical spread of gentrifica neighbourhood changes in ‘newf’ cities? At
tion or ‘gentrification generalised’ as Neil the very least these questions raise a much
Smith has recently called it (Smith 2002) wider research agenda than has often been
raises questions about how much gentrifi presupposed by numerous local case stud
cation is a part of globalisation, involving, ies at the neighbourhood and city scales in
in this case, the growth of an international past years.
professional managerial class and the new The current nature and extent of gentri
or rehabilitated residential enclaves which fication raises questions not just about its
they choose to colonise. To what extent is interrelations with globalisation but also
gentrification an important component for its manifestation as a form of new urban
city governments of wader ‘regeneration’ colonialism. The geographical spread of
| ROWLAND ATKINSON AND GARY BRIDGE
gentrification over the last twenty years has around the world, of whatever particular
been reminiscent of earlier waves of colo political complexion, adopting gentrifica
nial and mercantile expansion, itself predi tion as a form of urban regeneration policy
cated on gaps in economic development at broadly connected with an entrepreneurial
the national scale. It has moved into new style of urban governance (Harvey 1989)
countries and cities of the global ‘south’ but and a focus on the middle classes as the new
has also now cascaded down the urban hier saviour of the city. As Neil Smith has argued,
archies of regions within the urban north gentrification as urban policy has been
where it has been established for much lon tied to a whole range o f‘revanchist’ public
ger. In short, gentrification appears to have policy measures (such as zero tolerance for
migrated centrifugally from the metropo- the homeless in NewYork) that represents
les of North America, Western Europe and the elite re-taking the urban core (Smith
Australasia. This has happened at the same 1996).
time as market reform, greater market per At the neighbourhood level itself poor
meability and population migration have and vulnerable residents often experience
promoted internal changes in the econo gentrification as a process of colonisation
mies of countries not previously associated by the more privileged classes. Stories of
with gentrification. personal housing dislocation and loss, dis
Contemporary gentrification has ele tended social networks, ‘improved’ local
ments of colonialism as a cultural force in services out of sync with local needs and
its privileging of whiteness, as well as the displacement have always been the darker
more class-based identities and prefer underbelly of a process which, for city
ences in urban living. In fact not only are boosters, has represented something of a
the new middle-class gentrifiers predomi saviour for post-industrial cities (Atkinson
nantly white but the aesthetic and cultural 2003b). Again Neil Smith (1996) has long
aspects of the process assert a white Anglo argued that the symbolic and practical
appropriation of urban space and urban implications of the movement of the gen
history. trification ‘frontier’ are profound and have
The colonial aspects of gentrification had enormous implications for the fate and
are also evident through the universal- status of the colonised.
ising of certain forms of (de) regulation. Those who come to occupy prestigious
There is the obvious spread of market dis central city locations frequently have the
cipline, such as the privatisation of housing characteristics of a colonial elite. They often
markets in ex-communist countries for live in exclusive residential enclaves and
example. The neighbourhood transitions are supported by a domestic and local ser
that result are accompanied, or indeed vice class. Gentrifiers are employed in what
sometimes led by, an expansionist neo Gouldner (1979) called ‘new class’ occu
liberalism in public policy that often accen pations, and are marked out by their cos
tuates the social divisions between gentri mopolitanism. Indeed in many locations,
fiers and the displaced. As Hammel and especially in ex-communist European and
Wyly argue in this book, these policies have east Asian countries, they often are west
resulted in a kind of neo-colonialism in the ern ex-patriots employed by transnational
US context. corporations to open up the markets of the
Gentrification in a global context also newly emerging economies.
has the aspect of colonialism as the univer- We suggest that debates emerging
salisationofformsofpublicadministration. in gentrification research also capture
There is a trend towards urban governments the degree to which the ‘colonial rule’ of
GLOBALISATION AND THE NEW URBAN COLONIALISM |
gentrification can be sustained in some into costly flats or ‘houselets’ (in terms of
of its outposts and at its margins. Twenty the new real estate snob jargon). The current
years ago Damaris Rose coined the term social status and value of such dwellings are
‘marginal gentrifier’ to capture some of the frequently in inverse relation to their size, and
in any case enormously inflated by com pari
variability of profiles and motives of those
son with previous levels in their neighbour
in the gentrification process (in her case
hoods. Once this process of ‘gentrification’
poorer female lone parents) (Rose 1984). starts in a district, it goes on rapidly until all or
Now the sheer extent of gentrification most of the original working class occupiers
raises questions about the gentrifier and are displaced, and the whole social character
neighbourhood types involved, especially of the district is changed.
away from the core cities and locations, (Glass 1964: xviii-xix)
calling for an expanded imagination and
nuanced reading of the profile and con Since the time of Glass’s article more than
textual unravelling of the process. This has a thousand research papers, monographs,
led to discussions about the emerging dif book chapters, government evaluations
ferences of provincial forms of gentrifica and reports have been written on the sub
tion and instances where the gentrification ject. Early developments were concerned
aesthetic has a weaker link to class identity essentially with an empirical mapping of
(Dutton in this volume and Bridge 2003). the extent of the process in the larger west
In other words, the wider social, economic, ern cities. Early definitions, like that of Glass,
political and cultural benchmarks within tended to focus on the residential hous
which gentrification has been interpreted ing market and the rehabilitation of exist
have themselves shifted dramatically in a ing properties. In the introduction to their
quarter of a century. [...] landmark collection Smith and Williams
defined gentrification as 'the rehabilitation
of working-class and derelict housing and
FORTY YEARS OF GENTRIFICATION
the consequent transformation of an area
RESEARCH
into a middle-class neighbourhood’ (Smith
It is exactly forty years since the term and Williams 1986:1). Since then the defini
‘gentrification’ was coined by Ruth Glass in tion has been widened by some to include
1964. It is worth returning to Glass’s origi vacant land (usually in prior industrial use)
nal definition as a way of judging just what and newly built designer neighbourhoods,
has happened to gentrification and gen as well as neighbourhoods of working-class
trification research in the subsequent four housing suggesting a portability to the con
decades: cept which has grown over time.
Where Glass’s definition focused on
One by one, many of the working class quar ‘sweat equity’ gentrification, with the mid
ters of London have been invaded by the mid dle-class householder rehabilitating, or
dle classes, upper and lower. Shabby, modest hiring a small builder to gentrify their dwell
mews and cottages— two rooms up and two
ing, more recent discussions have included
down— have been taken over, when their
off-the-peg new-build developments, often
leases have expired, and have becom e ele
gant, expensive residences. Large Victorian
beside water or in other landmark locations
houses, downgraded in an earlier or recent in the city. And most recently Smith has
period—which were used as lodging houses argued that gentrification has widened yet
or were otherwise in multiple occupation— again to become a new form of neo-liberal
have been upgraded once again. Nowadays, urban policy (Smith 2002). Certainly the
many of these houses are being subdivided impacts of gentrification have been hotly
I ROWLAND ATKINSON AND GARY BRIDGE
disputed politically, with certain municipal proximity to jobs and the kind of cultural
governments, hungry for tax dollars, in the and recreational infrastructure that were
US and elsewhere, welcoming middle-class hard to find on city peripheries (Laska and
resettlement of the inner city. Alternatively Spain 1980). From a Marxist perspective
a diversity of grassroots neighbourhood Smith countered this with the assertion
groupshaveopposedgentrificationbecause that gentrification was a ‘movement of cap
of its effects in displacing the poor and the ital, not people’. For Smith gentrification
vulnerable (Marcuse 1989; Atkinson 2001a, was explained by the 'rent gap’ which was
2001b; Slater 2002). Table 5.1 summarises the difference between the potential value
some of the main neighbourhood impacts of inner urban land (low—because of aban
of gentrification. donment due to de-industrialisation and
As the significance of this social/physi suburbanisation) and its potential value (if
cal neighbourhood change was noted, the put to a higher and ‘better’ use). When the
conceptual meaning of gentrification, its gap between actual and potential values
origins and characteristics became the was wide enough investors would discount
subject of dispute. Early interpretations the riskiness of inner urban land because
saw it as a ‘back to the city’ movement of of the greater opportunity for profit by re
middle-class suburbanites wanting better investing on devalorised land and closing
the rent gap. Gentrification was one way of
Table 5.1 Sum m ary of neighbourhood Impacts of
closing the rent gap.
gentrification While the rent gap theory was set in
a Marxist critique of global capitalism it
Positive Negative
focused on the relativities of land values
Displacem ent through rent/ between a city and its suburbs. At its wid
price increases est, the explanation looks to an urban sys
S econdary psychological
costs of displacem ent
tem within the nation-state. Equally, it is
Stabilisation of declining Com m unity resentment hard to imagine Ley’s ‘following the hippies’
areas and conflict explanation of the urban liberal neighbour
Increased property values L o ss of affordable housing hood movements in waterside Vancouver
Unsustainable speculative accounting for the massive expansion of
property
R educed vacancy rates Price increases
gentrification in 1980s London, which
hom elessness although involving an enlargement of the
Increased local fiscal Greater take of local professional managerial class, was associ
revenues spending through ated strongly with financial deregulation
lobbying/articulacy of the City of London (Big Bang). In earlier
Encouragem ent and Commercial/industrial
increased viability of displacem ent
explanations of gentrification both ‘capital’
further developm ent and ‘culture’ were very firmly located in a
Reduction of suburban Increased cost and national context.
sprawl changes to local services The early distinction between a back-to-
Displacem ent and housing the-city movement of capital or a back-to-
demand pressures on
surrounding poor areas
the-city movement of people has persisted
Increased social mix L o ss of social diversity in the literature on gentrification in various
(from socially disparate to guises (production/consumption, capi
rich ghettos) tal/culture, supply/demand, production of
Rehabilitation of property U n d e r-o c c u p a n cy and gentrifiable housing/production of gentri
both with and without population loss to
state sponsorship gentrified areas
fiers, Marxist or liberal explanations). David
Ley (1986,1996) in his work on Canada has
suggested how the bohemianism of a stu the whole there has been more theory and
dent generation following the hippy era fed less observation in recent times with per
the pro-urbanism of this generation as they haps not enough work to connect the two
entered new middle-class occupations. andengagewith pragmatic policy responses
This lifestyle aesthetic informed their activ to gentrification. This is highlighted by the
ism in neighbourhood preservation and the use of urban pioneer terminology in the UK
politics of a liveable city (Ley 1996). At the urban renaissance documentation which
same time in the USA Neil Smith has argued sought to promote a new life for Britain’s cit
that middle-class pro-urbanism has now ies (Lees 2003c). Economic and local state
been replaced by a desire for revenge on institutions often seem strongly motivated
the poor and the socially marginal. This by re-capturing the middle class in the
‘revanchism’ has taken the form of middle central city as both a symbol of, and mech
classes re-occupying, forcibly in some cases, anism for, success. All of this only serves
and re-appropriating the central core of the to maintain and sustain moves towards a
city through the operation of the property gentrifying imperative in many cities.
market, gentrification, and by other means,
for example the use of the police and legal
THE GENTRIFIED
agencies.
NEIGHBOURHOOD IN A GLOBAL
Some authors have sought to encompass
CONTEXT
the insights of both capital and cultural
explanations for gentrification. Sharon Whatever the emphasis given to capital or
Zukin’s (1982,1995) work suggests how cul culture we argue that gentrification today
tural innovation, particularly around the must be seen in the context of globalisa
activities of artists, can at first attract and tion. Globalisation has become a complex
then in fact be displaced by commercial term expressing conflicting conceptualisa
forms of gentrification—capital captures tions of growing economic, political and
culture. Chris Hamnett (1994b) has argued cultural interchanges at the ultimate geo
that neither culture nor capital arguments graphical scale. For Cable (1999) ‘globaliza
are particularly germane and points to the tion has become a portmanteau term—of
expansion of professional occupational description, approval or abuse’ (p. 2) while,
sectors in key cities, of which gentrification for theorists like Giddens, globalisation
is a residential manifestation. Loretta Lees represented a decoupling of space and
(2000) suggests that the complex geogra time with knowledge and culture being
phy of gentrification means that both cul shared around the globe in very short times-
ture and capital explanations have a part to pans (1990). For other writers globalisation
play. More recently there have been some has been expressed as a kind of re
attempts to reconcile culture and capi articulation of state power (Brenner 1998)
tal arguments by using the work of Pierre at supra and sub-state levels which have
Bourdieu to look at gentrification as a man become increasingly significant.
ifestation of cultural capital (Butler 2003; The literature on globalisation has
Butler and Robson 2001; Bridge 2001a, not been geared towards the level of the
2001b). neighbourhood. However, in the context
At the same time as we might chart this of neighbourhood changes like gentrifica
move from description to explanation there tion it would seem increasingly important
have been numerous case studies which to acknowledge that neighbourhood scales
have looked at particular neighbourhood maybeanimportantlocusofconcentrations
or city examples of the process. However, on of professionals and managerial groups in
networks of dialogue and co-ordination of to progressively ghettoised poverty isolated

state and sub-state governance structures. from work opportunities (Cross and Moore
In short, the neighbourhood has been under 2002; Friedrichs 2002).
recognised as the site of the reproduction of At the crest of this wave of urban rede
a wider set of power relations and contacts velopment and colonisation ride the gen
which operate at local, urban, regional, and trifiers who appear as both the emissaries
international levels. of global capital flows as well as new-found
On the political left globalisation has victims of employment restructuring
been seen as an ideology of and for that of instigated some years back (Sennett 1998;
the political right, a justification for unilat Butler 2003). For Butler a key message is
eral trading partnerships, persistent and that gentrification itself may be understood
widening inequalities and a pro-growth as a response to the insecurities of rapid
movement that has extended largely west flows of global finance and identity. Sense
ern economic hegemony at the expense of of place has become a basis for the onto
the global ‘south’. The contested nature of logical security of professionals seeking the
the debate on globalisation should not be habitus of neighbourhood living with like-
understated. Key questions remain over the minded people.
role of the state, global economic actors and The explanation offered by Smith’s rent
corporations and the relative impact on and gap formulation (1979, 1996) now seems
involvement of the world’s poor. However, to underpin an expanded cognitive map
our focus in this book here is less on the of search and re-location activities of elite
globalisation debate itself, but, rather, on social fractions, be they political, cultural or
the connections between processes of economic. In a sense the decision to locate
global social and economic change and in Seattle is no longer a world apart from
upward changes at the neighbourhood London in its amenity or ambience, even
scale. less its distance by jet. At another level in
Literature on the effects of globalisation the professional and urban hierarchy
has often focused on its impacts on poorer this might be a choice between Athens
social groups generally and burgeoning and Auckland, Madrid and Mumbai.
international trade specifically. Processes International services, ICT linkages,
of global migration by social elites and increasing urban homogeneity of services
population displacement of the poor have and ‘feel’, as well as rapid travel, mean that
largely operated in separate social spheres many more ‘new’ neighbourhoods exist
with the former generally being unregu insulated from local poverty, wider systemic
lated and embraced while the latter has inequalities and public squalor (Graham
been seen as a distinctive and unwelcome and Marvin 2001).
fallout of regional conflicts. Even in the Gentrification appears as a facet of
‘advanced’ industrial west competition for the global forces acting on rapidly urba
foreign investment, financial services and nising cities in the south and on post
the groups servicing these developments, communist cities where the impacts
have led away from welfare and social jus are particularly complex. In cities of the
tice agendas in an attempt to remain com south massive in-migration from the
petitive. The market has been portrayed as a countryside in search of work and strong
natural reality. The effect in many cities has in situ fertility combines with restrictions
become increasingly apparent with labour in the supply of land, because of private
market deregulation, neighbourhood revi ownership, which has resulted in unprece-
talisation and welfare retrenchment leading dentedlevels ofunemployment, inadequate
sh elter an d h o m elessn ess. At th e sam e tim e explored by Jerry K rase in his ch a p te r in this
the co m m u n ica tio n s and financial sen dees volum e.
se cto rs h ave exp an d ed in m an y o f th ese N evertheless w e should be b oth re c e p
cities, resulting in a larger professional tive and critical to the idea th at g en tri
m an ag erial class. In residential term s fiers float so m eh o w w eightlessly in their
this has resulted in a rein fo rcem en t and residential ch o ices. The e co n o m ic forces
exp an sio n o f colon ial p attern s o f n eigh th at drive residential m obility are often
b ou rh o o d segregation with m an y elites tem p ered by th e gravitational forces of
retreating into gated co m m u n ities, or social netw orks, kin an d friendship ties, as
leaving the city for luxury residential well as n ational b ackgrou nd an d heritage.
d evelo p m en ts in e x -u rb an locations. However, netw orks o f elites and c o s m o
Foreign D irect In vestm en t has b een m o v p olitan p rofession al m an ag erial classes
ing aw ay from th e w est for the last d ecad e. p resen t ch allenges in term s o f u n d er
This m easu re o f relative exp an sio n o f tra n s stan d in g th eir cu lture, lifestyle and social
national co rp o ra tio n s and globalisation co h esio n . This co sm o p o litan class has
has been grow ing particu larly quickly in skills th at now tran sfer anyw here an d can
E astern E u rope and developing co u n tries be argu ed to p ossess ‘d eco n textu alised cu l
sin ce 1992, though the asset b ase o f th ese tural c a p ita l’ (H an nerz 1 9 9 6 :1 0 8 ) th at allow
co m p a n ie s often rem ain s largely in the p ortab le social reso u rces to be deployed in
W est an d o th e r developed eco n o m ies. In new co n texts. This ability to tran sfer p ro fes
E astern E u rope an d p o st-co m m u n ist cities sional skills has created a su p er-m o b ile fra c
social divisions h ave in creased in a h ou sing tion th at co n sid er th eir identities in a global
m arket th at is at o n c e com m o d ify in g p ro p co n te x t (Rofe 2003) w hile professional and
erty relations and su bject to the rep atria m an ag erial groups m o re em b ed d ed in
tion o f p ro p erty to p re -co m m u n ist ow ners. national an d n eigh b ou rh ood co n texts p er
T h e p articu lar con figu ration o f th ese forces h aps aspire to th ese kinds o f netw orked and
led to city by city an d n eig h b o u rh o o d dif b ou nd less identities.
feren ces in the e x ten t and im p act o f g en tri C o sm op o litan elites in exclusive resi
fication, as Ludk Sÿkora p oin ts out in this dential en clav es m ay h ave stro n ger ties to
volum e. sim ilar n eigh b ou rh ood s in o th er global
A fu rth er elem en t o f gentrification , as cities th an to th e city th at su rrou n ds them
an a sp e ct o f globalising ten d en cies, has (Sassen 2 0 0 0 a , 2000b , 1998; Rofe 2 003).
b een n eig h b o u rh o o d -to -n eig h b o u rh o o d They live in the n eigh b ou rh ood eq uiva
co n n e ctio n s b etw een geograph ically d is lent o f a city -state. In creasin g rapidity of
p ersed locatio n s. This has already been inform ation flows, financial tran sactio n s,
su ggested in the co n n e ctio n s betw een p op ulation m igration an d travel h ave all
the residential d estin atio n s o f the c o s m o helped to co n n e ct p eople, institu tions and
p olitan professional m an ag erial class but states in w ays th at h ave had profou nd c o n
th ere is the o th e r side o f the global city seq u en ces n ot just for so cieties b ut also
rep resen ted by social netw orks o f recru it the cities an d n eig h b o u rh o o d s o f cities.
m en t an d m igration o f low -paid p erson al In sh ort, th ere is an increasing sen se th at
service w orkers w ho, for in stan ce, clean w h at is h ap p en in g at a global scale is being
the offices an d a p a rtm e n ts o f the p ro articu lated in sm all u rb an areas, tran sm it
fessional elite (Sassen 200 0 b ). The ted by key social groups w ho h ave se le c
tran sn ation al m igration an d su stain ed tively grow n as a result o f a shift tow ards
identities o f unskilled service w orkers tie p erson al, financial and in form ation se r
d isp arate n eig h b o u rh o o d s to g eth er in w ays vices and b oo sted by b oth free an d selective
trading at the global scale. In this sense, it These processes may be conceived as driv
is no coincidence that cities like NewYork, ers of local neighbourhood change with
Tokyo and London were at the vanguard of diverse outcomes as well as intrinsic pro
gentrification activity linked to a space of cesses of globalisation.
flows of information and finance (Graham The global forces consist of communi
and Marvin 2001; Hamnett 2003; Castells cations technology that creates a ‘space of
1996). Like Merton’s foot-loose ‘cosmo flows’ (Castells 1996) between certain key
politans’ (1957) gentrifiers form a residen locations in a global context. It consists of
tial class who share an identity shaped by a transnational set of elite gentrifiers both
locational preferences, stage in the lifecy following and being created by the expan
cle, occupation and a social network that sion of financial services in certain key
crosses national boundaries. cities and the real estate investment that
As well as the gap in land values between exploits these changes in the labour mar
city and suburb there are now relativi ket. These changes have been particularly
ties that inform investment decisions on concentrated in the major global cities
specific neighbourhoods at a global scale. (such as London, New York, San Francisco
Whether it be Battery Park City, New York, and Tokyo) and the newly emerging global
or Chelsea Harbour and Islington, London, cities, such as Shanghai, but they also
or Darling Harbour, Sydney or the smaller impact on many large cities in regional
scale versions in numerous other cities, settings. The effects of these changes are
investment opportunities are now driven also felt lower down the urban hierarchy as
by super-profits on highly valued loca suitable neighbourhoods have been ‘filled
tions, rather than by comparisons with up’ in leading cities so that gentrification
devalorised land: a kind of global ‘rent gap’. has been pushed to other areas hitherto
These investments in luxury residential not considered. In addition to this cascade
developments are made by transnational effect (Hamnett 2003) a much wider range
corporations and involve architects with of city types and locations are feeling the
international reputations. Neil Smith’s impact of international trade.
point is that this model of urban reinvest As we pass to the national level interest
ment is driving much more modest proj rate levels impact on the amount of activity
ects sponsored by national urban policy in in the residential market but also the degree
the form of versions o f‘urban renaissance’. of overseas investment in that market. The
Figure 5.1 considers the critical processes degree to which nations are placing them
underpinning the transformations we have selves (or are able to place themselves) as
been discussing at significant spatial scales. tertiary or quarternary specialis ts in a global
Figure 5.1 Spatial scales of global transformation and forces shaping neighbourhood change
Global National City Neighbourhood
• Migration of the • Policies on • C ity administration:

rich and educated inward - Receptiveness/
• Global ■=> investment ■=> subsidy of investment ■=> • Gentrification
governance and trade • Migration of the poor - Labour regulations • Ghettoized
policy rules • Welfare infrastructure - Fiscal autonom y poverty
• Financial markets • Property rights • Local infrastructure-
• Com m unications and legislation amenity environment
and travel (IC T and • Relative scale of quality of life
transport infrastructure) middle class
m ark etp lace im p acts on the size an d p ro m different cities. A ccess to o p en sp ace, to lei
in en ce o f the p rofession al m an ag erial class sure an d cultural facilities and th e general
vis-a-vis the w orking class an d o th er e c o liveability an d m an ageability o f the p a rticu
n o m ic groups. N ational legal fram ew orks lar u rb an en viro n m en t h as b een significant
for p ro p erty ow nership are also im p ortan t. in a ttractin g gentrifiers, as Ley (1996) and
This has taken a p articu lar p ro m in en ce in o th ers n oted so m e y ears ago. T he quality of
p o st-co m m u n ist cities w here ow nership life in the city is n ow seen by m an y city gov
is being tran sferred o r is su b ject to dispute. e rn m en ts as a key elem en t to sell the city to
It is also significant in m an y cites o f the p ro sp ectiv e m id d le-class residents, to lure
global so u th w here the high levels o f p ri th em back from the suburbs. This last point
v ate land ow nership severely restrict the is related to the idea o f u rb an go vern m en t
ability o f m u n icipal g o vern m en ts to obtain as en trepreneu r, rath er th an m an ager, a
land for social o r affordable h ou sing ch an g e n oted by David H arvey fifteen years
d evelopm ent. ago (H arvey 1989).
At the city level the overall lab ou r m a r T he p lace m arketing o f cities (Kearns and
ket m ix will d ete rm in e the d egree to w hich Philo 1993) an d o th er form s o f civic b oo st-
gentrification is m an ifest in the urban erism an d grow th co alitio n s (Logan and
form . Even w ith co n tin u ed su b u rb an isa M olotch 1987) has b e co m e m o re evident
tion p ock ets o f gentrification are visible as cities increasingly co m p e te w ith each
even w here the total n u m b er o f p ro fes o th er for in w ard -in vestm en t. W ith Florida’s
sional m an ag erial w orkers is quite m od est. (2003) p op u lar arg u m en t th at city co m p e ti
T he reason s for this m ay v ary widely, from tiveness is essentially linked to w here b o h e
utilitarian co n sid eration o f accessib ility to m ian, gay and p rofession als w ish to locate,
city ce n tre job s to aesth etic an d lifestyle gentrification has b een recon firm ed to city
ch o ices. In cities w here th ere has b een a sig fathers as the ro u te to e co n o m ic su ccess.
nificant historical shift from m an u factu rin g T he p articu lar p arts o f the city th at inves
to service se cto r em p loy m en t (of b oth high tors o r gentrifiers h ead for are d eterm in ed
and low skills) the im p acts o f gentrification by their arch itectu ral desirability o r sy m
in term s o f d isp lacem en t o f w orkin g-class bolic value as a land m ark locatio n . Clearly
and p o o re r resid ents are likely to be g reat n eigh b ou rh ood d istinction s in ten u re m ix
est. In so m e rapidly grow ing cities o f the are vital as well as the d egree o f d isinvest
sou th , su ch as Sao Paulo o r Beijing, both m en ts in the local h ou sing stock, although
service se cto r and m an u factu rin g em p loy the latter tend to be m o re im p o rtan t in the
m en t are grow ing a p ace w ith the b ifurcated early stages o f gentrification . [ ...]
effects in te rm s o f social residential divides
o f w ealth an d poverty. T he existing tenu re
REFERENCES
stru ctu re o f a co u n try also has an im p act.
In co u n tries w here renting has b een the Atkinson, R. (ed.) (2003) 'Gentrification in a new century:
misunderstood saviour or vengeful wrecker? What
n o rm (such as the N eth erland s o r E astern
really is the problem with gentrification?’, Urban
E u ro p ean c o u n trie s), the im p acts o f g en tri Studies, (special issue), 40(12): 2343-50.
fication h ave h ith erto b een m o re restricted Brenner, N. (1998) ‘Global cities, global states: global
b ut now provide a w eaker set o f p ro p erty city formation and state territorial restructuring
relations through w hich gentrification has in contemporary Europe', Review o f International
Political Economy, 5(1): 1-37.
easily cu t a sw athe.
Bridge, G. (2001a) 'Bourdieu, rational action and the
Related to levels o f de-ind ustrialisation time-space strategy of gentrification’, Transactions
(or a b se n ce o f industrialisation) and the of the Institute of British Geographers, 26(2):
size o f th e city is the overall quality o f life in 205-16.
| ROWLAND ATKINSON AND GARY BRIDGE
Bridge, G. (2001b) 'Estate agents as intermediar Kearns, G. and Philo, C. (eds) (1993) Selling Places: The
ies between economic and cultural capital: the City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present, Oxford:
'‘gentrification premium" in the Sydney hous Pergamon Press.
ing market’, International Journal o f Urban Laska, S. and Spain, D. (eds) (1980) Back to the City:
and Regional Research, 25(1) March: 87-101. Issues in Neighbourhood Renovation, Oxford:
Bridge, G. (2003) ‘Time-Space trajectories in Pergamon Press.
provincial gentrification’, Urban Studies, 40: Lees, L. (2000) ‘A reappraisal of gentrification: towards
2545-56. a “geography of gentrification’”, Progress in Human
Butler, T. and Robson, G. (2001a) ‘Social capital, gen Geography, 24(3): 389-408.
trification and neighbourhood change in London: Lees, L. (2003) ‘Visions of “urban renaissance”: the
a comparison of three South London neighbour urban task force report and the urban white paper',
hoods', Urban Studies, 38:2145-62. in R. Imrie and M. Raco (eds) Urban Renaissance?
Butler, T. and Robson, T. (2001b) ‘Coming to terms with New Labour, Community and Urban Policy, Bristol:
London: middle-class communities in a global Policy Press, pp. 66-82.
city', International Journal o f Urban and Regional Ley, D. (1986) ‘Alternative explanations for inner-
Research, 25:70-86. city gentrification', Annals o f the Association o f
Cable, V. (1999) Globalization and Global Governance, American Geographers, 76:521-35.
London: Royal Institute of International Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Class and the Remaking
Affairs. o f the Central City, London: Oxford University
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise o f the Network Society, Press.
Oxford: Blackwell. Logan, J. and Molotch, H. (1987) Urban Fortunes:
Cross, M. and Moore, R. (2002) Globalization and The Political Economy o f Place, Berkeley and Los
the New City: Migrants, Minorities and Urban Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Transformations in Comparative Perspective, Marcuse, P. (1989) ‘Gentrification, homelessness and
London: Palgrave. the work process: housing market and labour mar
Florida, R. (2003) The Rise o f the Creative Class: and kets in the quartered city', Housing Studies, 4(3):
How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community 211 - 2 0 .
and Everyday Life, NewYork: Basic Books. Merton, R. K. (1957) SocialTheoryandSocialStructure,
Friedrichs, J. (2002) 'Globalization, urban restructur Glencoe: Free Press.
ing and employment prospects’, in M. Cross and Phillips, M. (1993) ‘Rural gentrification and the proc
R. Moore (eds) Globalization and the New City: esses of class colonisation’, Journal o f Rural Studies,
Migrants, Minorities and Urban Transformations 9(2): 123-40.
in Comparative Perspective, London: Palgrave, Rofc, M. (2003) "1 want to be global”: theorising the
pp. 119-32. gentrifying class as an emerges elite global com
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences o f Modernity, munity’, Urban Studies, 40(12): 2511-27.
Cambridge: Polity Press. Rose, D. (1984) ‘Rethinking gentrification: beyond the
Glass, R. (1964) 'Introduction: aspects of change’, in uneven development of Marxist urban theory’,
Centre for Urban Studies (ed.) London: Aspects o f Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,
Change, London: MacGibbon and Kee. 1:47-74.
Gouldner, A. (1979) The Future o f Intellectuals and the Sassen, S. (1998) Globalisation and its Discontents,
Rise o f the New Class, London: Macmillan. NewYork: New Press.
Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Sassen, S. (2000a) The Global City: New York, Ixmdon,
Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities Tokyo, 2nd edn, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
and the Urban Condition, London: Routledge. Press.
Hamnett, C. (1994) 'Socio-economic change in Sassen, S. (2000b) Cities in a World Economy, 2nd cdn,
London: professionalisation or polarisation', Built Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Environment, 20:192-204. Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion o f Character:
Hamnett, C. (2003) 'Gentrification and the middle- The Personal Consequences o f Work in the New
class remaking oflnner London, 1961-2001’, Urban Capitalism, London: W.W. Norton.
Studies, 40(12): 2401-26. Slater, T. (2002) 'Looking at the “North American City"
Hannerz, U. (1996) Transnational Connections: through the lens of gentrification discourse’, Urban
Culture, People, Places, London: Comedia. Geography, 23(1): 131-53.
Harvey, D. (1989) ‘From managerialism to entrepre- Smith, D. (2003) ‘Extending the temporal and spa
neurialism: the transformation of urban govern tial limits of gentrification: a research agenda for
ance in late capitalism’, Geografiska Annaler, population geographers,’ International Journal o f
71B(1): 3—17. Population Geography, 8(6): 385-394.
Smith, N. (1979) Toward a theory of gentrification: Smith, N. (2002) ‘New globalism, new urbanism: gen
a back to the city movement capital, not people’, trification as global urban strategy, Antipode, 34(3):
Journal o f the American Planning Association, 428-50.
45(4): 583-48. Zukin, S. (1982) Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban
Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Change, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York: Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures o f Cities, Cambridge, MA:
Routledge. Blackwell.
PA R T II
H o w , Where and When Does

Gentrification Occur?
INTRODUCTION
The readings in this section of the book address two related areas of debate within the
gentrification literature. The first is about the centrality of several general conditions to
the rise of gentrification in many cities across the globe. As the first section of the book
began to reveal, students of gentrification debate about the relative import for gentrifica
tion of political, economic, physical (e.g., characteristics of local housing stock and of the
landscape), demographic, and cultural conditions. In short, scholars offer multiple and
sometimes competing explanations for why gentrification occurs and, more specifically,
for its endemic quality over the last forty years. The second debate is, in simplest terms,
about explanations for why some places gentrify, while others do not. Relatedly, they also
deliberate over why some cities and neighborhoods experience gentrification years or
even decades before other cities and neighborhoods. For instance, they might offer com
peting explanations for why artists gentrified Chicago’s Wicker Park, a historically Polish
neighborhood with a large working class Latino population (Lloyd 2005), before profes
sionals began refurbishing homes in Chicago’s predominately African-American North
Kenwood-Oakland neighborhood (Pattillo 2008).
While at first glance these areas of debate may seem trivial, the questions that inspire
them are of consequence. Imagine that you are interning for a city planning office that
has funds to construct affordable housing units. Data demonstrate that in recent decades
gentrification has displaced many low income and working class residents of central
city neighborhoods, many of whom are Latino or African-American. For this reason, you
believe that the city should, at the very least, offset displacement by building affordable
units in a neighborhood that is likely to experience gentrification in the coming decade.
You review the literature to identify indicators that suggest that a place is ripe for gentrifi
cation and develop a report for your employers. This section’s readings will outline many
of the indicators that you might look for.
Those involved with planning are not the only individuals who undertake such calcu
lations. Imagine the developer who wishes to determine which city or neighborhood to
invest in or the city councilwoman who seeks to predict who her constituency will be when
she runs for re-election. Many individual gentrifiers and business owners make similar
calculations. For instance, when conducting research for my book, A N eighborhood That
Never Changes, a gentrifier explained how he decided to purchase a home in Chicago’s

Argyle neighborhood:
“It was incredibly bad on the street where I bought. [But] the deal I got on a condo was
unbelievable. I just couldn’t pass it u p . . . It was a renovated building. It was really spa
cious. I got a five-bedroom place. My mortgage right now, I couldn’t even rent a studio
apartment for what I pay for the mortgage... an d I h ad known that progress kept com ing
north up the lake" (Brown-Saracino 2009:72, my emphasis).
By visiting neighborhoods and talking with friends this homebuyer believed that he could
trace gentrification’s trajectory through Chicago—“progress kept coming north up the
lake”—and, indeed, Argyle has experienced substantial gentrification in the decade since
he purchased. As he was searching for a soon-to-gentrify-neighborhood, social service
agencies a few blocks from the condominium he purchased also suspected that gentrifica
tion was coming to Argyle and for this reason they began preparing to meet the needs of
longtime residents whom they predicted would soon face displacement and the disrup
tion of longstanding social support networks.
How did the homeowner and social workers accurately predict that Argyle would gen
trify? What is the precise calculus that such individuals rely on? While this section’s read
ings do not offer straightforward predictions of which places will gentrify next, they do
offer a review of competing explanations for how gentrification occurs and why certain
places experience gentrification while others do not. For instance, sociologist Christopher
Mele outlines how city policy makers, developers, small business owners, and even artists
and punks contributed to the gentrification of New York’s East Village.
Cumulatively, the readings offer a long list of the actors and processes central to explain
ing the where, when, how, and why of gentrification. These range from developers to indi
vidual gentrifiers and from cycles of property devaluation to neoliberal economic policy.
While this section will familiarize you with the actors and processes that the literature
attends to, it wall also introduce you to a set of debates about those actors and processes,
specifically about the relative weight of individual actors and trends, as well as about the
influence of classes of people and processes that create and shape gentrification.
Gentrification scholars often break such actors and processes into two classes or cat
egories of factors. Production or supply side factors include cycles of disinvestment and
reinvestment in central city neighborhoods, neoliberal state policies that help facilitate
and sustain free market capitalism (Harvey 1989, Peck 2006), deindustrialization and the
rise of a global service economy, and liberal mortgage lending policies. As an example,
in the literature’s first decades scholars debated the hypothesis that gentrification occurs
when there is a shortage of middle class housing outside of the central city, thus push
ing members of the middle class into inner-city neighborhoods (Gale 1979, Berry 1980),
and many continue to advocate for Neil Smith’s rent-gap hypothesis, which suggests that
gentrifiers and investors take advantage of a gap between current and potential ground
rent values. In short, supply side explanations suggest that economic and political condi
tions enable gentrification and that in some places and times conditions align to produce
the buildings, funding, and state policies required for the gentrification of a particular
neighborhood.
In contrast, consumption or dem and side explanations, proposed by scholars like David
Ley (1986, 1996; see also Caulfield 1994), counter that a market cannot exist without
HOW, WHERE AND WHEN DOES GENTRIFICATION O C C U R ? |
complimentary consumer demand and preferences. That is, they suggest that housing
stock, economics, and state policies influence gentrification, hut that gentrification would
not occur without gentrifiers who wish to participate in the process (e.g., Gale 1979, Ley
1986). Indeed, some who advocate for demand side explanations suggest that markets
and states respond to consumer demand for gentrification, rather than vice versa. Behind
this class of explanations is belief in the central role of the gentrifier in driving gentrifica
tion, as well as the belief that culture—typically in the form of gentrifiers’ tastes—helps
fuel gentrification. Scholars who advocate for this position suggest that an ideological
shift—what Ruth Glass refers to as “a switch from suburban to urban aspirations” (1964:
xxxi)—enabled gentrification. They propose that without a set of cultural changes, such as
increasing interest in diversity (Ley 1996, Butler & Robson 2001, Rose 2004, Berrey 2005,
Lloyd 2005) and taste for historic properties (Zukin 1987, Beauregard 1990, Smith 2002),
gentrifiers would not participate in the process.
According to David Ley’s influential argument, which is at the center of many consump
tion explanations, gentrification is closely related to the tastes of the expanding “new
middle class.” In an article published in 1986 he rejects Neil Smith’s rent-gap hypothesis,
arguing that evidence for it is “entirely lacking” in Canada (531). He also suggests that for
many gentrifiers residence in the central city is not a matter of economic necessity, for they
could afford to live in more expensive locales, such as certain suburbs (ibid.: 524). Thus,
as his essay in this section suggests, he concludes that a cultural and political sensibil
ity closely attached to the new middle class—the white collar workers associated with a
post-industrial, service-oriented economy (Bell 1973, Caulfield 1994, Ley 1996)—drives
gentrification. Ley argues that members of the new middle class relocate in search of cer
tain place attributes, such as diversity, a sense of history, and landscape amenities (1986,
1996).
For many years the divide between production and consumption camps was fairly
rigid, but not all gentrification scholars fell neatly on either side of the debate and the line
between the two camps is increasingly blurry. In fact, many argue that production and
consumption factors play mutually supportive roles in gentrification (e.g., Beauregard
1986, Hamnett 1991, Ley 2003). However, there is less agreement about which set of fac
tors drives or spurs gentrification. Indeed, scholars provide competing answers to a central
question in the literature: What creates a m arketfor gentrification, production or consum p
tion factors!
Some of the essays in this section answer this question in absolute terms. For instance in
the 1979 article described above, geographer Neil Smith overtly rejects individual prefer
ence or consumption explanations for gentrification. This rejection is abundantly clear in
the subtitle to his article, “A Back to the City Movement by Capital, not People.” The argu
ment Smith puts forth in the article—that disinvestment in properties in certain central
city neighborhoods produced a gap between current and potential land rents and there
fore enabled investors, from individual gentrifiers to investment firms, to profit by invest
ing in or speculating on such properties—is arguably among the most influential pieces of
gentrification scholarship to date.
Others demonstrate how supply and demand factors conspire to create markets. For
instance, in a selection from his book on the gentrification of New York’s East Village
Christopher Mele suggests that city government and investors built on first-wave
gentrifiers’ art scene to increase demand for residence in the gentrifying neighbor
hood. He writes, “Municipal agencies sought to promote their own interests and those of
developers through manipulation of certain symbols representative of the East Village art
scene and not others” (2000:239).
The question of whether supply or demand factors drive gentrification is not the only
issue that researchers debate. Even among production-side theorists there is disagree
ment about the relative weight of specific supply side factors. For instance, scholars ask:
What is the relative influence o f m arket conditions versus government policies an d practices!
Neil Smith argues that gentrification is “an expected product of the relatively unhampered
operation of the land and housing markets” (1979:538). This acknowledges government’s
import, but nonetheless emphasizes the role of economic processes. In the section’s final
reading, Kevin Fox Gotham builds on this by suggesting that in some instances, such as in
the gentrification of New Orleans’ French Quarter that he details, large corporations play a
central role in gentrification (2005). In contrast, several of the readings in this section sug
gest that coalitions of politicians, policy makers, media, developers, and financial institu
tions work together to ensure the gentrification of certain neighborhoods. In a selection
from their highly acclaimed book, Urban Fortunes, John Logan and Harvey Molotch refer
to these as “growth machine coalitions” (1986).
Cumulatively, the readings in this section of the book encourage us to ask: What role
does culture play in gentrification? Scholars answer this question in a number of different
ways. For instance, Gar}' Bridge suggests that Sydney estate agents interpret and market
to the tastes of longtime residents and potential gentrifiers (2001), and Sharon Zukin
demonstrates how cities use an “arts infrastructure” (1982: 131) to lure capital to the cen
tral city. Christopher Mele, on the other hand, suggests that gentrifiers and investors are
drawn to the East Village, in part, by appreciation for the “glamour of poverty” (2000: 236)
and that local amenities, such as galleries and restaurants, reflect and market to this set of
tastes.
As the above examples demonstrate, while such authors believe that culture plays a role
in gentrification they do not all concur about what that role is. For instance, they debate
about whether markets respond to or produce cultural motivations for participation in
gentrification (Brown-Saracino 2009; see also Borer 2006). Put in different terms, some
also ask whether culture encourages gentrification or is used to justify it after the fact. For
instance, Neil Smith writes of a frontier myth that glamorizes the role of gentrifiers who
imagine that they are helping to “settle” the “dangerous” central city. He suggests that this
myth helps “to socialize a wholly new and therefore challenging set of processes into safe
ideological focus. As such, the frontier ideology justifies monstrous incivility in the heart
of the city” (1996:18).
The central debate from which these questions about culture arise—about the relative
primacy of production and consumption explanations for gentrification—is apparent in
efforts to answer two additional questions about gentrification: first, in work that seeks to
explain why gentrification occurs in some places, and second, in related work on the rela
tionship between globalization and gentrification. The following paragraphs explore each
of these micro-debates and their relationship to broader conversations about consump
tion and production.
Where does gentrification occur? Some research, such as Neil Smith’s rent-gap hypoth
esis, turns to production-side explanations to answer this question. Smith suggests
that gentrification occurs where the gap between existing and potential ground rents
is greatest (1979). Also borrowing from production-side arguments, many suggest that
gentrification occurs in neighborhoods or cities that are in close proximity to other
HOW, WHERE AND WHEN DOES GENTRIFICATION O C C U R ? |
affluent areas (e.g., Ley 1986). This contagion-explanation is apparent in my aforemen

tioned informant’s explanation for his decision to purchase in Argyle: “gentrification
kept coming north up the lake.” Furthermore, a host of scholars suggest that gentrifica
tion flourishes where politicians and planners promote revitalization, such as by creating
employment opportunities for“high-wagewhite-collarworkers” (Wylyetal. 1998; see also
Berry 1985), using the police to enforce middle class norms of social behavior (Mele 2000,
Taylor 2002, Pattillo 2007), or by donating or selling land or buildings for redevelopment
on the private market (Logan & Molotch 1987).
In contrast, consumption-side explanations suggest that places gentrifylargely because
they possess amenities that appeal to the gentrifying class. These amenities include, but
are not limited to, social diversity (Ley 1986, Berrey 2005), landscape amenities, such
as water views, close proximity to downtown jobs, bike trails (Ley 1986, Florida 2002),
or historic properties (Ley 1986). Research on the gentrification of suburban and rural
areas suggests that technological changes, such as those that permit telecommuting,
allow individuals to relocate from employment centers in search of place amenities, such
as historical “authenticity” or proximity to outdoor leisure activities (Macgregor 2005,
Brown-Saracino 2009).
Indeed, many scholars agree that gentrification is expanding—not only within the urban
centers in which it first emerged and into rural areas, but also across the globe. Roland
Atkinson writes that, “The map of gentrification appears to be extending steadily. It would
certainly appear that public policy designs as well as the systemic facilitation of gentrifica
tion are taking place at a much wider scale than was the case even a few years ago” (2003:
2343). However, there is debate about why gentrification is expanding. As Atkinson alludes
to, some regard this as primarily a result of “public policy designs” (2003: 2343; see also
Smith 1989, Bailey and Robertson 1997), while others point to the expansion of the “new
middle class” (Ley 1996), or, more generally, to globalization.
Explanations for this expansion—particularly for its global quality—mirror the divide
between production and consumption explanations. For instance, Neil Smith’s alle
giance to production-side explanations is apparent in his argument that gentrifica
tion “is densely connected into the circuits of global capital and cultural circulation”
(2002: 427). Smith regards gentrification as a method or strategy of global expansion of
capital (ibid.: 446-447) that neoliberal state policies largely drive. For Smith, neoliberalism
rests on the belief “that the free and democratic exercise of individual self-interest led to
the optimal collective social good; and that the market knows best” (ibid.: 429). Thus, in
his view, states, both individually and in cooperation with one another, give the market the
freedom to accumulate capital as it sees fit, with relatively little concern for the welfare of
those harmed by accumulation strategies, such as gentrification.
Others suggest that the relationship between globalization and gentrification rests on an
increasingly global competition for resources between cities (Lees et al. 2008:167, Harvey
1989, Mitchell 2003). They suggest that gentrification is one strategy that cities use to accu
mulate capital and to mark themselves as distinct, attractive, or cutting edge. For instance,
in early 2009 when the International Olympic Committee toured Chicago to evaluate its
bid to host the 2016 Olympics, their guides ushered them not only to athletic fields and
tennis facilities, but also through the city’s most upscale sections. Likewise, cities worry
about their global city rankings (Hersch 2009). Such rankings matter not only because they
might help secure the Olympics or encourage companies to relocate to a given city, but
also because they attract tourists and gentrifiers who are members of a global elite (Rofe
2003). Many cities are convinced of the import of such rankings. For instance, in March
of 2009 Forbes M agazine named Portland, Maine ‘‘America’s Most Livable City.” When I
arrived two months later to conduct fieldwork the city had placed a banner listing the
honor across a central avenue.
For the most part, scholars have suggested that gentrification flourishes in cities at the
top of the global economy (Sassen 1998). However, the essay by Atkinson and Bridge in the
book’s first section suggests that gentrification is not limited to such cities (see also Smith
2002). Indeed, as they note, gentrification has been observed in cities across the globe,
including in post-communist nations and industrialized places. Why has this expansion
occurred? Borrowing from consumption-side explanations, Atkinson and Bridge allude to
the increasing concentration of the new middle class or “international professional mana
gerial class” as a key contributing factor (2005; see also Ley 1996). However, this is not the
only explanation they provide for the gentrification of a range of cities within and beyond
North America, Europe, and Australia. Specifically, they suggest that market reforms of
the kind that Smith (2002) details also play a role, but they place greater emphasis than
Smith on the choices and movement of those who compose the gentrifying class, arguing
that in the context of gentrification this new middle class mirrors their colonial predeces
sors (Atkinson & Bridge 2005: 3). How does this class decide where to live? According to
Atkinson and Bridge the location of the transnational corporations at which many work
are of significant influence.
Thus, Atkinson and Bridge speak to the debate between consumption and produc
tion explanations for gentrification—adopting a hybrid approach—while also proposing
answers to questions about why gentrification is expanding and where it takes place. On
the one hand they borrow from consumption-side explanations to suggest that the tastes
of the global new middle class who seek, among other amenities, “access to open space, to
leisure and cultural facilities” (2005:11; see also Ley 1996, Florida 2002) guides gentrifica
tion. On the other hand, relying on production-side logic, they suggest that the choices of
the global companies for which some members of the new middle class work—choices
influenced by many of the conditions that Neil Smith specifies (2002)—also determine
which locales gentrify.
Thus, when scholars seek to answer questions about how, where, why, and when
gentrification occurs they repeatedly consider the relationship between production
and consumption explanations. As you read the selections in this portion of the book,
I encourage you to think about how you would answer the questions that color the
literature. Given the evidence that the authors present, do you believe that supply or
demand factors drive gentrification? Depending on how you answer that question,
which supply and which demand factors do you think are paramount? Finally what
role do the readings, individually and cumulatively, suggest that culture plays in
gentrification?
You might also think about how you would tackle the planning intern’s task of pre
dicting which neighborhoods wall gentrify next. Assuming that the task w'ere your own,
would you look for evidence of a rent gap, or seek to identify the neighborhoods in w'hich
the city has recently funded beautification efforts or improved streets and sidewalks?
Alternately, would you tour neighborhoods to determine where young artists rent stu
dio space or ask realtors about the neighborhoods in which they are listing new prop
erties? In turn, you might consider what your answers suggest about your response
to the broader questions that underline them about how', why when, and w'here
HOW, WHERE AND WHEN DOES GENTRIFICATION OCCUR? |
gentrification occurs and where you fall in the dehate between consumption and produc
tion explanations.
As you consider these questions I encourage you to return to the line of inquiry that
frames the book’s first section, for the way that we define gentrification influences how we
answer questions about where, when, how, and why gentrification occurs. For instance, if
the movement of the middle class into previously disinvested areas is central to your defi
nition of gentrification, you may be more likely than those who emphasize the import of
the new middle class’ appreciation for urbanity to identify gentrification in suburban and
rural areas (Atkinson 2003: 2344). Likewise, if the displacement of longstanding residents
and related demographic shifts are central to your definition, then perhaps you do not
consider the development of previously uninhabited lots to be part and parcel of gentrifi
cation’s expansion (for criticisms of this view see Bourne 1993; see also Wyly etal. 1998). In
other words, I encourage you to return to the definition of gentrification that you settled
on when reading the previous section and to consider the production and consumption
debates when you think anew about the stakes of the qualities of person, place, and pro
cess your definition emphasizes.
D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S
1) Which are of greater influence for gentrification, production or consumption factors?
a. What evidence do you believe is required to support either argument?
2) Which production or consum ption factors do you believe are of greatest import for gen-
Irification?
a. How or why might this vary by context, such as by city, nation, or decade?
3) What role do you believe culture plays in gentrification?
a. If you believe that culture plays a central role, is it because it is consciously manipu
lated to spur gentrification or because it unconsciously draws gentrifiers to specific
locales?
4) What are gentrification’s consequences for longtime residents’ cultures?

5) In recent years several scholars have published books on the gentrification of predomi
nately African-American neighborhoods by African-American gentrifiers (e.g., Taylor
2002, Pattillo 2007, Boyd 2008, Hyra 2008). Do you believe that this reflects changes in
gentrification or changes in gentrification scholarship? Be sure to support your argu
ment with evidence from the readings.
A C T IV IT IE S
1. Interview several residents of a gentrifying neighborhood who vary in terms of their

length of residence, econom ic position, and other demographic characteristics, such
as race, ethnicity, age, gender, or sexual identity. What explanations do they provide
for their neighborhood’s gentrification? How do their explanations vary based on their
econom ic traits, demographic characteristics, or length of residence?
| JA P O N IC A B R O W N -SA R ACIN O
2. Interview several city officials or planners in a city experiencing gentrification. What

explanations do they provide for why certain neighborhoods have gentrified?
a. If you conducted the first and second activities consider the similarities and differ
ences between the answers that residents, officials, and planners provided. If you
conducted only one activity, speak with a classmate who conducted the alternate
activity about the differences between your findings.
3. Review the two documentaries and two novels referenced in the previous section— Flag
Wars, 7thStreet, Mystic River (2001) and Forfresso/So/mic/e (2003). What does each imply
about gentrification’s origins?
4. Select and read five journalistic accounts of gentrification. What explanation, if any, do
they provide for when, why, how, and where gentrification occurs?
RESOURCES
Heidkamp, C.P., & Lucas, S., 2006. "Finding the Gentrification Frontier Using Census Data: The Case of Portland,
Maine,” Urban Geography, Vol. 27,1 0 1 -1 2 5 .
Iêes L., 2000. “A Reappraisal of Gentrification Towards a ‘Geography of Gentrification’,” Progress in Human
Geography2 4 ,389-408.
Ley, D., 1986. "Alternative Explanations of Inner-city Gentrification: A Canadian Assessment,” Annals o f the
Association o f American Geographers, Vol. 76,5 2 1 -5 3 5 .
Ley, D., 1993. "Gentrification in Recession: Social Change in Six Canadian Inner Cities, 1981-1986,” Urban
Geography, Vol. 13,230-256.
Wyly, E.K., & Hammel, D.J., 2000. “Capital’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Transformation of American Housing
Policy,” Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Hum an Geography, 82,181-206.
CH APTER 6
Toward a Theory of Gentrification:

A Back to the City Movement by Capital, not People
Neil Smith
C o n su m er sovereignty h yp oth eses d o m i are exp erien cin g reh abilitation in the inner
n a te exp lan atio n s o f gentrification b u t d ata city areas. Although nationally, g en trifica
on th e n u m b e r o f su b u rb an ites retu rn in g to tion a cco u n ts for only a sm all fraction of
the city ca sts d ou b t on this h yp oth esis. In new' h ou sing starts co m p ared with new
fact, gentrification is an exp ected p ro d u ct of co n stru ctio n , the p ro cess is v ery im p o rtan t
the relatively u n h am p ered o p eratio n o f the in (but n ot restricted to) old er n o rth eastern
land and h ou sing m arkets. T he e co n o m ic cities.
d ep reciation o f cap ital invested in n in e As the p ro cess o f gentrification b u r
teen th ce n tu ry in n er-city n eigh b orh ood s g eo n ed so did the literature ab ou t it. M ost of
and th e sim u ltan eou s rise in poten tial this literature co n ce rn s the co n te m p o ra ry
grou nd ren t levels p ro d u ces th e possibility p ro cesses o r its effects: the so cio -e co n o m ic
o f p rofitable red ev elo p m en t. Although the and cultural ch aracteristics o f im m igran ts,
v ery ap p a re n t social ch aracteristics o f d e te d isp lacem en t, the federal role in red evelop
rio rated n eig h b o rh o o d s w ould d iscou rage m en t, benefits to the city, and creatio n and
red ev elo p m en t, th e hidden e co n o m ic c h a r d estru ctio n o f com m un ity. Little a ttem p t
acteristics m ay well be favorable. W h eth er has been m ad e to co n stru ct h istorical
gentrification is a fu n d am en tal re stru ctu r exp lan atio n s o f th e p ro cess, to stud y cau ses
ing o f u rb an sp a ce d ep en d s n ot on w here rath er th an effects. Instead, exp lan ation s
n ew inh ab itan ts co m e from b ut on how are v ery m u ch taken for gran ted an d fall into
m u ch p ro d u ctiv e cap ital retu rn s to the area tw o categ o ries: cultural and eco n o m ic.
from th e suburbs. Cultural. Pop ular am o n g revitalization
Follow ing a p eriod o f su stain ed d e te th eo rists is the n otion th at young, usually
rioration, m a n y A m erican cities are e x p e p rofessional, m id d le-class p eople have
rien cin g th e gentrification o f select cen tral ch an g ed th eirlifesty le.A cco rd in g to G reg o ry
city n eighb orh oods. Initial signs o f revival Lipton, th ese ch an g es h ave been significant
during the 1950s intensified in th e 1960s, en ou g h to “d ecrease the relative desirability
and by th e 1970s th ese had grown into o f single-fam ily, su b u rb an h o m e s” (1977, p.
a w id espread gentrification m o v em en t 146). Thus, with a trend tow ard few er ch il
affecting the m ajo rity o f th e co u n try ’s older dren, p ostp o n ed m arriages, and a fast ris
cities.1 A re ce n t su rvey by the U rban Land ing d ivorce rate, y o u n g er h om eb u y ers and
Institute (1976) suggests th at clo se to half ren ters are trad in g in the tarn ish ed d ream
th e 2 6 0 cities with over 5 0 ,0 0 0 pop ulation o f th eir p aren ts for a n ew d ream defined in
I NEIL SMITH
urban rather than suburban terms. Other in the constraints determining which
researchers emphasize the search for preferences will or can be implemented.
socially distinctive communities as sym Thus in the media and the research litera
pathetic environments for individual self- ture alike, the process is viewed as a "back
expression (Winters 1978), while still others to the city movement.”This applies as much
extend this into a more general argument. to the earlier gentrification projects, such as
In contemporary “post-industrial cities,” Philadelphia’s Society Hill (accomplished
according to D. Ley, white-collar service with substantial state assistance under
occupations supersede blue-collar produc urban renewal legislation), as it does to the
tive occupations, and this brings with it an later schemes, such as Baltimore’s Federal
emphasis on consumption and amenity not Hill or Washington’s Capitol Hill (mainly
work. Patterns of consumption come to dic private market phenomena of the 1970s).
tate patterns of production; “the values of All have become symbolic of a supposed
consumption rather than production guide middle- and upper-class pilgrimage back
central city land use decisions” (Ley 1978, p. from the suburbs.- But as yet it remains an
11). Inner-city resurgence is an example of untested if pervasive assumption that the
this new emphasis on consumption. gentrifiers are disillusioned suburbanites.
Economic. As the cost of newly con As early as 1966, Herbert Gans declared: “I
structed housing continues to rise and its have seen no study of how many suburban
distance from the city center to increase, ites were actually brought back by urban-
the rehabilitation of inner- and central- renewal projects” (1968, p. 287). Though
city structures is seen to be more viable this statement was made in evidence before
ecnomically. Old but structurally sound the Ribicoff Committee on the Crisis of the
properties can be purchased and rehabili Cities, Gans’s challenge seems to have fallen
tated for less than the cost of a comparable on deaf ears. Only in the late 1970s have such
new house. In addition, many researchers studies begun to be carried out. This paper
stress the high economic cost of commut presents data from Society Hill and other
ing—the higher cost of gasoline for private revitalized neighborhoods, examines the
cars and rising fares on public transporta significance of these results in terms of the
tion—and the economic benefits of prox consumer sovereignty theory, and attempts
imity to work. to deepen our theoretical understanding of
These conventional hypotheses are by the causes of gentrification.
no means mutually exclusive. They are
often invoked jointly and share in one
A RETURN FROM THE SUBURBS?
vital respect a common perspective—an
emphasis on consumer preference and the Once the location of William Penn’s
constraints within which these preferences “holy experiment,” Society Hill housed
are implemented. This they share with the Philadelphia’s gentry well into the nineteeth
broader body of neoclassical residential century. With industrialization and urban
land use theory (Alonso 1964; Muth 1969; growth, however, its popularity declined,
Mills 1972). According to the neoclassical and the gentry together with the rising
theory, suburbanization reflects the prefer middle class, moved west to Rittenhouse
ence for space and the increased ability to Square and to the new suburbs in the north
pay for it due to the reduction of transporta- west and across the Schuylkill River. Society
tional and other constraints. Similarly, gen Hill deteriorated rapidly, remaining in slum
trification is explained as the result of an condition until 1959. In that year, an urban
alteration of preferences and/or a change renewal plan was implemented.
TOWARD A THEO R Y OF GENTRIFICATION |
Within ten years Society Hill was trans was generally expected that the proportion
formed and—“the most historic square mile of suburbanites would rise sharply as the
in the nation” according to Bicentennial area became better publicized and a Society
advertising—it again housed the city’s Hill address became a coveted possession.
middle and upper classes. Few authenti After 1962, however, no data were officially
cally restored houses now change hands collected. The following table presents
for less than $125,000. Noting the enthu data sampled from case files held by The
siasm with which rehabilitation was done, Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia;
the novelist Nathanial Burt observed that the data is for the period up to 1975 (by
“Remodeling old houses is, after all, one of which time the project was essentially com
Old Philadelphia’s favorite indoor sports, plete) and represents a 17 percent sample of
and to be able to remodel and consciously all rehabilitated residences. (Table 6.1.)
serve the cause of civic revival all at once It would appear from these results that
has gone to the heads of the upper classes only a small proportion of gentrifiers did in
like champagne” (1963, pp. 556-57). As fact return from the suburbs; 14 percent in
this indoor sport caught on, therefore, it the case of Society Hill, compared with 72
became Philadelphia folklore that “there percent who moved from elsewhere within
was an upper class return to center city in the city boundaries. A statistical breakdown
Society Hill” (Wolf 1975, p. 325). As Burt elo of this latter group suggests that of previous
quently explains: city dwellers, 37 percent came from Society
Hill itself, and 19 percent came from the
The renaissance of Society H ill. . . is just one Rittenhouse Square district. The remainder
piece in a gigantic jigsaw puzzle which has
came from several middle- and upper-class
stirred Philadelphia from its hundred-year
suburbs annexed by the city in the last cen
sleep, and promises to transform the city co m
pletely. This movement, of which the return
tury—Chestnut Hill, Mt. Airy, Spruce Hill.
to Society Hill is a significant part, is gener This suggests a consolidation of upper-
ally known as the Philadelphia Renaissance and middle-class white residences in the
(1963, p. 539). city, not a return from the present day
suburbs.4 Additional data from Baltimore
By June 1962 less than a third of the fami and Washington D.C. on the percentage of
lies purchasing property for rehabilitation returning suburbanites support the Society
were from the suburbs3 (Greenfield & Co. Hill data (Table 6.2).
1964, p. 192). But since the first people to In Philadelphia and elsewhere an urban
rehabilitate houses began work in 1960, it renaissance may well be taking place but it
Table 6.1 Th e origin of rehabilitators in Society Hill, 1964-1975
Same Elsewhere Outside

Year address in the city Suburbs SMSA Unidentified Total
1964 5 9 0 0 0 14
1965 3 17 7 0 0 27
1966 1 25 4 0 2 32
1969 1 9 2 0 0 12
1972 1 12 1 2 0 16
1975 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 11 73 14 2 2 102
Percentage by origin 11 72 14 2 2 100
I NEIL SMITH
is not a significant return from the suburbs gentrification according to the gentrifier’s
as such. This does not disprove the con actions alone, while ignoring the role of
sumer sovereignty hypothesis but suggests builders, developers, landlords, mortgage
some limitations and refinements. Clearly, lenders, government agencies, real estate
it is possible—even likely—that younger agents, and tenants, is excessively narrow. A
people who moved to the city for an educa broader theory of gentrification must take
tion and professional training have decided the role of producers as well as consum
against moving back to the suburbs. There ers into account, and when this is done, it
is a problem, however, if this is to be taken as appears that the needs of production—in
a definitive explanation, for gentrification particular the need to earn profit—are a
is not simply a North American phenom more decisive initiative behind gentrifica
enon but is also happening in numerous tion than consumer preference. This is not
cities throughout Europe (see, for example, to say in some naive way that consump
Pitt 1977) where the extent of prior middle- tion is the automatic consequence of pro
class suburbanization is much less and the duction, or that consumer preference is a
relation between suburb and inner city is totally passive effect caused by production.
substantially different.5 Only Ley’s (1978) Such would be a producer’s sovereignty
more general societal hypothesis about theory, almost as one-sided as its neoclas
post-industrial cities is broad enough to sical counterpart. Rather, the relationship
account for the process internationally, but between production and consumption is
the implications of accepting this view are symbiotic, but it is a symbiosis in which
somewhat drastic. If cultural choice and production dominates. Consumer prefer
consumer preference really explain gentri ence and demand for gentrified housing
fication, this amounts either to the hypoth can be created after all, and this is precisely
esis that individual preferences change in what happened in Society Hill.6Although it
unison not only nationally but internation is of secondary importance in initiating the
ally—a bleak view of human nature and actual process, and therefore in explain
cultural individuality—or that the overrid ing why gentrification occurred in the first
ing constraints are strong enough to oblit place, consumer preference and demand
erate the individuality implied in consumer are of primary importance in determining
preference. If the latter is the case, the the final form and character of revitalized
concept of consumer preference is at best areas—the difference between Society Hill,
contradictory: a process first conceived in say, and New York’s SoHo.
terms of individual consumption prefer
ence has now to be explained as result
Table 6.2 Th e origin of rehabllitators In three cities
ing from cultural uni-dimensionality. The
concept can be rescued as theoretically C ity Percent Percent
viable only if it is used to refer to collective city suburbanites
dwellers
social preference, not individual prefer
ence. Philadelphia
This refutation of the neoclassical S ociety Hill 72 14
Baltimore
approach to gentrification is only a sum
Hom estead Properties 65.2 27
mary critique and far from exhaustive. W ashington D .C .
What it suggests, however, is a broader con M ount Pleasant 67 18
ceptualization of the process, for the gentri Capitol Hill 72 15
fier as consumer is only one of many actors Source: Baltimore City Department of Housing and Community
participating in the process. To explain Development (1977), Gale (1976,1977).
The so-called urban renaissance has land, influences the ground rent that land
been stimulated more by economic than lords can demand; on the other hand, since
cultural forces. In the decision to rehabili land and buildings on it are inseparable,
tate an inner city structure, one consumer the price at which buildings change hands
preference tends to stand out above the reflects the ground rent level. Meanwhile
others—the preference for profit, or, more land, unlike the improvements built on it,
accurately, a sound financial investment. “does not require upkeep in order to con
Whether or not gentrifiers articulate this tinue its potential for use” (Harvey 1973,
preference, it is fundamental, for few would pp. 158-59) and thereby retains its poten
even consider rehabilitation if a financial tial value. Third, while land is permanent,
loss were to be expected. A theory of gentri the improvements built on it are not, but
fication must therefore explain why some generally have a very long turnover period
neighborhoods are profitable to redevelop in physical as well as value terms. Physical
while others are not. What are the condi decay is unlikely to claim the life of a build
tions of profitability? Consumer sovereignty ing for at least twenty-five years, usually a
explanations took for granted the availabil lot longer, and it may take as long in eco
ity of areas ripe for gentrification when this nomic (as opposed to accounting) terms
was precisely what had to be explained. for it to pay back its value. From this we can
Before proceeding to a more detailed derive several things: in a well-developed
explanation of the process, it will be use capitalist economy, large initial outlays will
ful to step back and examine gentrifica be necessary for built environment invest
tion in the broader historical and structural ments; financial institutions will therefore
context of capital investment and urban play an important role in the urban land
development. In particular, the general market (Harvey 1973, p. 159); and patterns
characteristics of investment in the built of capital depreciation will be an important
environment must be examined. variable in determining whether and to
what extent a building’s sale price reflects
the ground rent level. These points will be
INVESTMENT IN THE BUILT
of central importance in the next section.
ENVIRONMENT
In a capitalist economy, profit is the
In a capitalist economy, land and the gauge of success, and competition is the
improvements built onto it become com mechanism by which success or failure is
modities. As such they boast certain idio- translated into growth or collapse. All indi
syncracies of which three are particularly vidual enterprises must strive for higher and
important for this discussion. First, private higher profits to facilitate the accumulation
property rights confer on the owner near of greater and greater quantities of capital
monopoly control over land and improve in profitable pursuits. Otherwise they find
ments, monopoly control over the uses to themselves unable to afford more advanced
which a certain space is put.7From this con production methods and therefore fall
dition we can derive the function of ground behind their competitors. Ultimately, this
rent. Second, land and improvements are leads either to bankruptcy or a merger
fixed in space but their value is anything into a larger enterprise. This search for
but fixed. Improvements on the land are increased profits translates, at the scale of
subject to all the normal influences on their the whole economy, into the long-run eco
value but with one vital difference. On the nomic growth; general economic stability
one hand, the value of built improvements is therefore synonymous with overall eco
on a piece of land, as well as on surrounding nomic growth. Particularly when economic
I NEIL SMITH
growth is hindered elsewhere in the indus relied on considerable capital investments

trial sector, the built environment becomes in land, construction, transportation, etc.,
a target for much profitable investment, as it too tended to follow this cyclical trend.
is particularly apparent with this century’s Faced with the need to expand the scale of
suburbanization experience. In this case, their productive activities, and unable or
spatial expansion rather than expansion in unwilling for a variety of reasons to expand
situ was the response to the continual need any further where they were, industries
for capital accumulation. But suburbaniza jumped out beyond the city to the base of
tion illustrates well the two-sided nature of the land value cone where extensive spa
investment in the built environment, for tial expansion was both possible and rela
as well as being a vehicle for capital accu tively cheap. The alternative—substantial
mulation, it can also become a barrier to renewal and redevelopment of the already
further accumulation. It becomes so by built up area—would have been too costly
dint of the characteristics noted above: for private capital to undertake, and so
near-monopoly control of space, the fixity industrial capital was increasingly sent
of investments, the long turnover period. to the suburbs. This movement of indus
Near-monopoly control of space by land trial capital began in force after the severe
owners may prevent the sale of land for depression of 1893-97, and was followed
development; the fixity of investments by a substantial migration of capital for
forces new development to take place at residential construction. In the already
other, often less advantageous, locations, well-established cities, the only significant
and prevents redevelopment from occur exception to this migration of construction
ring until invested capital has lived out its capital was in the central business district
economic life; the long turnover period of (CBD) where substantial skyscraper office
capital invested in the built environment development occurred in the 1920s. As
can discourage investment as long as other will be shown, the inner city was adversely
sectors of the economy with shorter turn affected by this movement of capital to the
over periods remain profitable. The early suburbs where higher returns were avail
industrial city presented just such a barrier able. A combination of neglect and con
by the later part of the nineteenth century, certed disinvestment by investors, due to
eventually prompting suburban develop high risk and low rates of return, initiated
ment rather than development in situ. a long period of deterioration and a lack of
During the nineteenth century in most new capital investment in the inner city.
eastern cities, land values displayed the Land values in the inner city fell rela
classical conical form—a peak at the urban tive to the CBD and the suburbs, and by the
center, with a declining gradient on all sides late 1920s Hoyt could identify for Chicago
toward the periphery. This was the pattern a newly formed ‘‘valley in the land-value
Hoyt (1933) found in Chicago. With con curve between the Loop and outer residen
tinued urban development the land value tial areas”. This valley "indicates the loca
gradient is displaced outward and upward; tion of these sections where the buildings
land at the center grows in value while the are mostly over forty years old and where
base of the cone broadens. Land values the residents rank lowest in rent-paying
tend to change in unison with long cycles ability” (Hoyt 1933, pp. 356-8).Throughout
in the economy; they increase most rapidly the decades of most sustained suburban
during periods of particularly rapid capi ization, from the 1940s to the 1960s, this
tal accumulation and decline temporarily valley in the land value curve deepened
during slumps. Since suburbanization and broadened due to a continued lack of
productive capital investment. By the late be central in the determination of prices. In

1960s the valley may have been as much as opposition to neoclassical theory, therefore,
six miles wide in Chicago (McDonald and it will be necessary to separate the value of
Bowman 1979). Evidence from other cities a house from its price. Following the clas
suggests that this capital depreciation and sical political economists (Smith, Ricardo),
consequent broadening of the land value and after them Marx, this paper takes as
valley occurred throughout the country’s axiomatic a labor theory of value: the value
older cities (Davis 1965; Edel and Sclar of a commodity is measured by the quantity
1975), producing the slums and ghettos of socially necessary labor power required
that were suddenly discovered as "prob to produce it. Only in the market place is
lems” in the 1960s by the long gone subur value translated into price. And although
ban middle class. the price of a house reflects its value, the
A theory of gentrification will need to two cannot mechanically be equated since
explain the detailed historical mechanisms price is also affected by supply and demand
of capital depreciation in the inner city and conditions. Thus, value considerations (the
the precise way in which this depreciation amount of socially necessary labor power)
produces the possibility of profitable rein set the level about which the price fluctu
vestment. The crucial nexus here is the rela ates. With housing, the situation is more
tionship between land value and property complex because individual houses return
value. As they stand, however, these con periodically to the market for resale. The
cepts are insufficiently refined. Land value house’s value will also depend, therefore,
for Hoyt, was a composite category refer on its rate of depreciation through use,
ring to the price of undeveloped plots and versus its rate of appreciation through the
the expected future income from their use; addition of more value. The latter occurs
the type of future use was simply assumed. when further labor is performed for main
Property value, on the other hand, is gen tenance, replacement, extensions, etc.
erally taken to mean the price at which a Sale price. A further complication with
building is sold, including the value of the housing is that the sale price represents not
land. To elaborate the relationship between only the value of the house, but an addi
land value and the value of buildings in tional component for rent since the land is
fuller detail, then, it will be necessary to dis generally sold along with the structures it
aggregate these two measures of value into accommodates. Here it is preferable to talk
four separate but related categories. These of ground rent rather than land value, since
four categories (house value, sale price, the price of land does not reflect a quan
capitalized ground rent, potential ground tity of labor power applied to it, as with the
rent) remain fully or partially obscure and value of commodities proper.
indistinguishable under the umbrella con Ground rent and capitalized ground
cepts land value and property value. rent. Ground rent is a claim made by land
House value. Consistent with its empha owners on users of their land; it represents
sis on consumer preference, neoclassical a reduction from the surplus value cre
economic theory explains prices as the ated over and above cost-price by produc
result of supply and demand conditions. But ers on the site. Capitalized ground rent is
if, as suggested above, the search for a high the actual quantity of ground rent that is
return on productive investments is the pri appropriated by the landowner, given the
mary initiative behind gentrification, then present land use. In the case of rental hous
the specific costs of production (not just ing where the landlord produces a service
the quantity of end-product—supply) will on land he or she owns, the production
I NEIL SMITH
and ownership functions are combined institutions, actors, and economic forces
and ground rent becomes even more of involved. It requires the identification of
an intangible category though neverthe a few salient processes that characterize
less a real presence; the landlord's capi the different stages of decline, but is not
talized ground rent returns mainly in the meant as a definitive description of what
form of house rent paid by the tenants. In every neighborhood experiences. The day-
the case of owner occupancy, ground rent to-day dynamics of decline are complex
is capitalized when the building is sold and and, as regards the relationship between
therefore appears as part of the sale price. landlords and tenants in particular, have
Thus, sale price = house value + capitalized been examined in considerable detail
ground rent. elsewhere (Stegman 1972). This schema
Potential ground rent. Under its present is, however, meant to provide a general
land use, a site or neighborhood is able to explanatory framework within which each
capitalize a certain quantity of ground rent. neighborhood’s concrete experience can
For reasons of location, usually, such an area be understood. It is assumed from the start
may be able to capitalize higher quantities that the neighborhoods concerned are rela
of ground rent under a different land use. tively homogeneous as regards the age and
Potential ground rent is the amount that quality of housing, and, indeed, this tends
could be capitalized under the land’s “high to be the case with areas experiencing
est and best use.”This concept is particularly redevelopment.
important in explaining gentrification.
Using these concepts, the historical pro 1. New construction and the first cycle of
cess that has made certain neighborhoods use. When a neighborhood is newly built
ripe for gentrification can be outlined. the price of housing reflects the value of the
Capital depreciation in the inner city. structure and improvements put in place
The physical deterioration and economic plus the enhanced ground rent captured
depreciation of inner-city neighborhoods by the previous landowner. During the
is a strictly logical, "rational” outcome of the first cycle of use, the ground rent is likely to
operation of the land and housing market. increase as urban development continues
This is not to suggest it is at all natural, how outward, and the house value will only very
ever, for the market itself is a social product. slowly begin to decline if at all. The sale price
Far from being inevitable, neighborhood therefore rises. But eventually sustained
decline is depreciation of the house value occurs and
this has three sources: advances in the pro
the result of identifiable private and pub ductiveness of labor, style obsolescence,
lic investment decisions. . . . While there is and physical wear and tear. Advances in the
no Napoleon who sits in a position of con
productiveness of labor are chiefly due to
trol over the fate of a neighborhood, there
technological innovation and changes in
is enough control by, and integration of, the
investment and development actors of the
the organization of the work process. These
real estate industry that their decisions go advances allow a similar structure to be pro
beyond a response and actually shape the duced at alower value than would otherwise
market have been possible. Truss frame construc
(Bradford and Rubinowitz 1975, p. 79). tion and the factory fabrication of parts in
general, rather than on-site construction,
What follows is a rather schematic are only the most recent examples of such
attempt to explain the historical decline of advances. Style obsolescence is secondary
inner-city neighborhoods in terms of the as a stimulus for sustained depreciation in
the housing market and may occasionally hand, receives his return mainly in the form
induce an appreciation of value, many old of house rent, and under certain conditions
styles being more sought after than the new. may have a lesser incentive for carrying
Physical wear and tear also affects the value out repairs so long as he can still command
of housing, but it is necessary here to distin rent. This is not to say that landlords typi
guish between minor repairs which must be cally undermaintain properties they pos
performed regularly if a house is to retain sess; newer apartment complexes and even
its value (e.g., painting doors and window older accomodations for which demand
frames, interior decorating), major repairs is high may be very well maintained. But
which are performed less regularly but as Ira Lowry has indicated, ‘‘undermainte
require greater outlays (e.g., replacing the nance is an eminently reasonable response
plumbing or electrical systems), and struc of a landlord to a declining market” (1960,
tural repairs without which the structure p. 367), and since the transition from owner
becomes unsound (e.g., replacing a roof, occupancy to tenancy is generally associ
replacing floor boards that have dry rot). ated with a declining market, some degree
Depreciation of a property’s value after one of undermaintenance can be expected.
cycle of use reflects the imminent need not Undermaintenance will yield surplus
only for regular, minor repairs but also for capital to be invested elsewhere. It may be
a succession of more major repairs involv invested in other city properties, it may fol
ing a substantial investment. Depreciation low developers’ capital out to the suburbs,
will induce a price decrease relative to new or it may be invested in some other sector
housing but the extent of this decrease will of the economy. With sustained under
depend on how much the ground rent has maintenance in a neighborhood, however,
also changed in the meantime. it may become difficult for landlords to
sell their properties, particularly since the
2. Landlordism and homeownership. larger financial institutions will now be less
Clearly the inhabitants in many neighbor forthcoming with mortgage funds; sales
hoods succeed in making major repairs and become fewer and more expensive to the
maintaining or even enhancing the value landlord. Thus, there is even less incentive
of the area’s housing. These areas remain to invest in the area beyond what is neces
stable. Equally clearly, there are areas of sary to retain the present revenue flow. This
owner-occupied housing which experience pattern of decline is likely to be reversed
initial depreciation. Homeowners, aware of only if a shortage of higher quality accom
imminent decline unless repairs are made, modations occurs, allowing rents to be
are likely to sell out and seek newer homes raised and making improved maintenance
where their investment will be safer. At this worthwhile. Otherwise, the area is likely to
point, after a first or subsequent cycle of use, experience a net outflow of capital, which
there is a tendency for the neighborhood to will be small at first since landlords still
convert to rental tenancy unless repairs are have substantial investments to protect.
made. And since landlords use buildings for Under these conditions it becomes very dif
different purposes than owner occupiers, a ficult for the individual landlord or owner
different pattern of maintenance will ensue. to struggle against this decline. House val
Owner occupiers in the housing market ues are falling and the levels of capitalized
are simultaneously both consumers and ground rent for the area are dropping below
investors; as investors, their primary return the potential ground rent. The individual
comes as the increment of sale price over who did not undermaintain his property
purchase price. The landlord, on the other would be forced to charge higher than
I NEIL SMITH
average rent for the area with little hope of 3. Redlining. Undermaintenance gives
attracting tenants earning higher than aver way to more active disinvestment as capital
age income which would capitalize the full depreciates further and the landlord’s stake
ground rent. This is the celebrated “neigh diminishes; house value and capitalized
borhood effect” and operates through the ground rentfall, producingfurther decreases
rent structure. in sale price. Disinvestment by landlords is
accompanied by an equally "rational” dis
3. Blockbusting and blow out. Some investment by financial institutions which
neighborhoods may not transfer to rental cease supplying mortgage money to the
tenancy and they will experience rela area. Larger institutions offering low down
tive stability or a gentler continuation of payment, low interest rate loans find they
decline. If the latter occurs, it is the owner can make higher returns in the suburbs with
occupants who undermaintain, though a lower chance of foreclosure and less risk of
usually out of financial constraints rather declining property values. Their role in the
than market strategy. With blockbusting, inner city is taken over initially by smaller,
this decline is intensified. Real estate agents often local organizations specializing in
exploit racist sentiments in white neigh higher risk financing. Redlined by larger
borhoods that are experiencing declin institutions, the area may also receive loans
ing sale prices; they buy houses relatively insuredbytheFIIA.Thoughmeanttoprevent
cheaply, and then resell at a considerable decline, FI IA loans have often been ineffec
markup to black families, many of whom tual and have even contributed to decline in
are desperate to own their first home. As places (Bradford and Rubinowitz 1975, p. 82).
Laurenti’s research suggests, property val The loans allow properties to change hands
ues are usually declining before blockbust but do little to encourage reinvestment in
ing takes place and do not begin declining maintenance so the process of decline is
simply as a result of racial changes in own simply lubricated. Ultimately, medium and
ership (Laurenti 1960). Once blockbusting small-scale investors also refuse to work the
has taken place, however, further decline area, as do mortgage insurers.
in house values is likely due to the inflated Vandalism further accelerates depre
prices at which houses were sold and the ciation and becomes a problem especially
consequent lack of resources for mainte when properties are temporarily vacant
nance and mortgage payments suffered by between tenants (Stegman 1972, p. 60). Even
incoming families. Blow out, a similar pro when occupied, however, it may be a prob
cess, operates without the helping hand lem, especially if a building is being under
of real estate agents. Describing the pro maintained or systematically “milked.”
cess as it operated in the Baltimore hous Subdivision of structures to yield more
ing market during the 1960s, Harvey et al. rental units is common at this stage. By sub
(1972; see also Harvey 1973, p. 173) point dividing, the landlord hopes to intensify the
to the outward spread of slums from the building’s use (and profitability) in its last
inner city (the broadening of the land value few years. But eventually landlords will dis-
valley) and the consequent squeezing of invest totally, refusing to make repairs and
still healthy outer neighborhoods against paying only the necessary costs—and then
secure upper middle-class residential often only sporadically—for the building to
enclaves lying further out. Thus squeezed, yield rent.
owner occupants in an entire neighbor
hood are likely to sell out, often to land 5. Abandonment. When landlords can no
lords, and flee to the suburbs. longer collect enough house rent to cover
the necessary costs (utilities and taxes), ground rent capitalized under the present
buildings are abandoned. This is a neigh land use. In the case of filtering, the rent gap
borhood phenomenon, not something is produced primarily by capital deprecia
that strikes isolated properties in otherwise tion (which diminishes the proportion of
stable areas. Much abandoned housing is the ground rent able to be capitalized) and
structurally sound and this seems paradox also by continued urban development and
ical. But then buildings are abandoned not expansion (which has historically raised
because they are unuseable, but because the potential ground rent level in the inner
they cannot be used profitably. The final city). The valley which Hoyt detected in his
act of abandonment may be triggered (but 1928 observation of land values can now
not caused) by a variety of events, including be understood in large part as the rent gap.
the strict enforcement of the building code Only when this gap emerges can redevelop
by the city housing department. Also at this ment be expected since if the present use
stage of decline, there is a certain incentive succeeded in capitalizing all or most of the
for landlords to destroy their own property ground rent, little economic benefit could
through arson and collect the substantial be derived from redevelopment. As filter
insurance payment. ing and neighborhood decline proceed,
the rent gap widens. Gentrification occurs
when the gap is wide enough that devel
GENTRIFICATION—THE RENT GAP
opers can purchase shells cheaply, can pay
The previous section presented a summary the builders’ costs and profit for rehabili
explanation of the process commonly but tation, can pay interest on mortgage and
misleadingly referred to as filtering. It is a construction loans, and can then sell the
common process in the housing market and end product for sale price that leaves a
affects many neighborhoods but is by no satisfactory return to the developer. The
means universal. It is included here precisely entire ground rent, or a large portion of it,
because gentrification is almost always pre is now capitalized; the neighborhood has
ceded by filtering, although the process been “recycled” and begins a new cycle of
need not occur fully for gentrification to use.
ensue. Nor should this decline be thought Once the rent gap is wide enough, gen
of as inevitable. As Lowry quite correctly trification may be initiated in a given neigh
insists, filtering is not due simply “to the borhood by several different actors in the
relentless passage of time” but to “human land and housing market. And here we
agency” (1960, p. 370). The previous section come back to the relationship between pro
has suggested who some of these agents are, duction and consumption, for the empirical
and the market forces they both react to and evidence suggests strongly that the pro
help create. That section also suggests that cess is initiated not by the exercise of those
the objective mechanism underlying filter individual consumer preferences much
ing is the depreciation and devaluation of beloved of neoclassical economists, but by
capital invested in residential inner-city some form of collective social action" at the
neighborhoods. This depreciation produces neighborhood level. The state, for example,
the objective economic conditions that initiated most if not all of the early schemes,
make capital revaluation (gentrification) a and though it plays a lesser role today, is
rational market response. Of fundamental still important. More commonly today,
importance here is what I call the rent gap. with private market gentrification, one or
The rent gap is the disparity between the more financial institutions will reverse a
potential ground rent level and the actual long standing redlining policy and actively
| NEIL SMITH
target a neighborhood as a potential mar Society Hill—but occupier developers are

ket for construction loans and mortgages. more active in rehabilitation than they are
All the consumer preference in the world in any other sector of housing construc
will amount to nought unless this long tion. Perhaps the main reason for this can
absent source of funding reappears; mort be traced to the very nature of gentrifica
gage capital is a prerequisite. Of course, tion and the characteristics of investment
this mortgage capital must be borrowed by in the built environment discussed above.
willing consumers exercising some prefer Urban renewal, like rehabilitation, occurs
ence or another. But these preferences are where a rent gap has been opened up, but
not prerequisites since they can be socially in the case of renewal either the dilapi
created, as was seen above. Along with dated stock is unsound structurally, or the
financial institutions, professional devel remaining structures are unsuitable for
opers have acted as the collective initia new uses. While the technical and spatial
tive behind gentrification. A developer will requirements for industrial and commer
purchase a substantial proportion of the cial buildings have altered substantially in
properties in a neighborhood, rehabilitate the last hundred years, those for residences
them, then sell them for profit. The only sig have not, and structurally sound town
nificant exception to this predominance of houses are quite useable given the right
collective action occurs in neighborhoods economic conditions. But since the land
adjacent to already gentrified areas. There has already been developed and an intri
indeed, individual gentrifiers may be very cate pattern of property rights laid down,
important in initiating rehabilitation. Their it is difficult for the professional developer
decision to rehabilitate followed the results to assemble sufficient land and properties
from the previous neighborhood, how to make involvement worthwhile. Even
ever, which implies that a sound financial landlord developers tended to be rehabili
investment was uppermost in their minds. tating several properties simultaneously or
And they still require mortgage capital from in sequence. The fragmented structure of
willing institutions. property ownership has made the occupier
Three kinds of developers typically oper developer, who is generally an inefficient
ate in recycling neighborhoods: (a) profes operator in the construction industry, into
sional developers who purchase property, an appropriate vehicle for recycling deval
redevelop it, and resell for profit; (b) occu ued neighborhoods.
pier developers who buy and redevelop Viewed in this way, gentrification is not
property and inhabit it after completion; (c) a chance occurrence or an inexplicable
landlord developers who rent it to tenants reversalofsomeinevitablefilteringprocess.
after rehabilitation.'1The developer’s return On the contrary, it is to be expected. The
on investment comes as part of the com depreciation of capital in nineteenth cen
pleted property’s sale price; for the land tury inner-city neighborhoods, together
lord developer it also comes in the form of with continued urban growth during the
house rent. Two separate gains comprise first half of the twentieth century, have
the return achieved through sale: capital combined to produce conditions in which
ization of enhanced ground rent, and profit profitable reinvestment is possible. If this
(quite distinct from builder’s profit) on the rent gap theory of gentrification is correct,
investment of productive capital (see Smith it would be expected that rehabilitation
1979). Professional and landlord develop began where the gap was greatest and the
ers are important—contrary to the pub highest returns available, i.e., in neighbor
lic image, they were by far the majority in hoods particularly close to the city center
and in neighborhoods where the sequence CONCLUSION

of declining values had pretty much run
its course. Empirically, this seems to have Gentrification has demonstrated that con
been the case. The theory also suggests trary to the conventional wisdom, mid
that as these first areas are recycled, other dle- and upper-class housing is capable of
areas offering lower but still substantial intensive land use. Just how intensive is not
returns would be sought out by develop clear, however. There is significant evidence
ers. This would involve areas further from that the once steep rent gradient is flatten
the city center and areas where decline ing out (Yeates 1965, Edel and Sclar 1975);
was less advanced. Thus in Philadelphia, and if this is the case, potential ground rent
Fairmount and Queen Village are the new in inner-city neighborhoods may actually
“hot spots” (Cybriwsky 1978; Levy 1978), have decreased, presumably due to effi
and the city’s triage policy for allocating cient transportation links to the suburbs
block grant funds makes part of North and excessive crowding downtown. What
Philadelphia a likely candidate for future this might mean for gentrification or for
redevelopment. the commercial and recreational redevel
The state's role in earlier rehabilita opment that is also happening in some cit
tion schemes is worthy of note. By assem ies ought to be a topic for further research.
bling properties at fair market value and Another topic for empirical investigation
returning them to developers at the lower is the extent to which capital depreciation
assessed price the state accomplished and must occur in an area before gentrifica
bore the costs of the last stages of capital tion can occur. This all assumes the filter
devaluation, thereby ensuring that devel ing process to be the fundamental source of
opers could reap the high returns without the rent gap, and while this is certainly so in
which redevelopment would not occur. the U.S. it may not be elsewhere. Although
Today, with the state less involved in this capital depreciation and filtering prepared
process, developers are clearly able to the way for gentrification in Islington (Pitt
absorb the costs of devaluing capital that 1977), in general, one would not expect it to
has not yet fully depreciated. That is, they be so prevalent in the U.K. housing market
can pay a relatively high price for proper where much working class housing is pro
ties to be rehabilitated, and still make a rea duced by local government action, not the
sonable return. It seems then, that the state private market. In this case, rising ground
has been successful in providing the condi rent levels due to urban expansion and
tions that would stimulate private market development may be more important in
revitalization. accounting for the rent gap.
To summarise the theory, gentrifica Gentrification is a back to the city move
tion is a structural product of the land and ment all right, but of capital rather than
housing markets. Capital flows where the people. The people taking advantage of this
rate of return is highest, and the move returning capital are still, as yet, from the
ment of capital to the suburbs along with city. If the city continues to attract produc
the continual depreciation of inner-city tive capital (whether for residential or other
capital, eventually produces the rent gap. construction) we may witness a fundamen
When this gap grows sufficiently large, tal restructuring of urban space compara
rehabilitation (or for that matter, renewal) ble with suburbanization. Then, indeed, it
can begin to challenge the rates of return would become a back to the city movement
available elsewhere, and capital flows by people too—middle- and upper-class
back. people, that is—while the working class
I NEIL SMITH
an d th e p o o r w ould in h e rit th e old d e c lin according to whether it is a rehabilitation process

ing su b u rb s in a cru elly iro n ic c o n tin u a tio n or purely new construction. As should become
clear from the main argument of the paper, the
o f th e filterin g p ro cess. T h ey w ould th e n be
distinction between public and private funding
trap p ed in th e su bu rbs, n o t th e in n e r city. simply represents (in this context) two different
As w as em p h asized in th e d iscu ssio n o f mechanisms for carrying out the one essential
su b u rb an izatio n , in v e stm e n t in th e built process.
en v iro n m en t is a m a jo r veh icle for cap ita l 3. By suburbs I mean here the area outside the pres
ent city boundary but inside the SMSA. The older
a ccu m u la tio n . T h is p ro cess is cy clical and,
suburbs that now appear inside the city due to
b e c a u se o f th e lo n g life an d fixity o f su ch consequent annexations are therefore counted
in v estm en ts, n ew cy cles o f in v e stm e n t are as sections of the city. This definition is justified
o fte n a sso cia te d w ith crise s an d sw itch es o f here since one of the main selling points of gen
th e lo c a tio n o f a cc u m u la tio n (H arvey 1978). trification is that it will bring additional tax reve
nues to the city. Clearly, annexed suburbs already
S e en in this co n tex t, g en trifica tio n an d
pay their taxes to the city.
o th e r kind s o f u rb an re n a issa n c e co u ld be 4. This kind of consolidation may be experienced
th e le ad in g ed ge (but in n o way th e cau se) by other cities. Several of the cities examined by
o f a larger restru ctu rin g o f sp ace. A ccord ing Lipton (1977) display a similar consolidation.
to o n e sce n a rio this restru ctu rin g w ould 5. For further discussion of the cross-Atlantic com
parison, see Smith (1979).
b e a cco m p lish ed acco rd in g to th e n eed s o f
6. Advertising is a primary means of creating
cap ital; a restru ctu rin g o f m id d le-class cu l demand. In Society Hill, the Old Philadelphia
ture m ay well a cc o m p a n y and in flu e n c e it, Development Corporation employed a Madison
b u t w ould b e second ary. A ccord ing to a s e c Avenue professional to sell the project (Old
o n d scen ario , th e n eed s o f cap ital w ould be Philadelphia Development Corporation 1970).
7. Certainly zoning, eminent domain, and other
sy stem atically d ism an tled , to b e d isp laced
state regulations put significant limits on the
by th e so cial, e c o n o m ic, and cu ltu ral n eed s landowner’s control of land, but in North America
o f p eo p le as th e p rin cip le acco rd in g to and Western Europe, these limitations are little
w h ich th e restru ctu rin g o f sp a ce o ccu rs. more than cosmetic. Within these limitations,
the property market continues to operate quite
freely.
NOTES 8. By “collective social action” I mean simply activ
ity that is carried on jointly and simultaneously
1. Gentrification is the process of converting by people, not by individuals acting alone.
working-class areas into middle-class neighbor 9. I omit speculators here forthe obvious reason that
hoods through the rehabilitation of the neigh they invest no productive capital. They simply
borhood’s housing stock. buy property in the hope of selling it at a higher
2. That the earlier projects required substantial price to developers. Speculators do not produce
state initiative and subsidy did not exclude them any transformation in the urban structure.
from being explained in terms of consumer pref
erence. In Philadelphia, for example, the Greater
Philadelphia Movement (GPM) was responsible REFERENCES
for getting the state to implement Society Hill's
renewal plan, and it consistently claimed that Adde, L. (1969) Nine Cities: Anatomy o f Downtown
the demand to revitalize was ever-present but Renewal, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
the cost constraints and risk were too great for Alonso, W. (1964) Location and Land Use, Cambridge
private capital and individuals. It was the respon Mass.: Harvard University Press.
sibility of the state, they argued, to use the avail Baltimore City Department of Housing and
able federal legislation to subsidize the project, Community Development. (1977) Homesteading—
thereby removing the constraints and serving a The Third Year, 1976, Baltimore: the Department.
broader civic cause. On GPM’s role in Society Hill, Bradford, C. and Rubinowitz, L. (1975) " The urban-
see Adde (1969, pp. 33-6). For the purposes of this suburban investment-disinvestment process:
paper, I am distinguishing between gentrifica consequences for older neighborhoods,” Annals
tion and urban renewal not according to whether o f the American Academy o f Political and Social
the process is privately or publicly funded, but Science 422:77-86.
TOWARD A THEORY OF GENTRIFICATION |
Burt, N. (1963) The Perennial Philadelphians, London: Levy, P. (1978) QueenVillage.The Eclipse o f Community.
Dent and Son. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Civic Values.
Cybriwsky, H. (1978) "Social aspects of neighbor Ley, D. (1978) “Inner city resurgence and its societal
hood change,” Annals o f Association o f American context,” paper presented to the Association of
Geographers 68:17-33. American Geographers Annual Conference, New
Davis, J. T. (1965) “Middle class housing in the central Orleans.
city,” Economic Geography41:238-251. Lipton, S. G. (1977) “Evidence of central city revival,"
Edel, M. and Sclar, E. (1975) “The distribution of Journal o f the American Institute o f Planners 43,
real estate value changes: metropolitan Bostan, April: 136-147.
1870-1970,” Journal o f Urban Economics 2: Lowry, I. S. (1960) "Filtering and housing costs: a con
366-387. ceptual analysis.” Land Economics 36:362-370.
Gale, D.E. (1976) “The back-to-the-city movement McDonald. I. E and Bowman, H. W. (1979) “Land
... or is it?”Occasional Paper, Department of Urban value functions: a réévaluation,” Journal o f Urban
and Regional Planning, The George Washington Economics 6:25-41.
University. Mills, E. (1972) Studies in the Structure o f the
Gale, D.E. (1977) “The back-to-the-city movement Urban Economy, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
revisited,”Occasional Paper, Department of Urban University Press.
and Regional Planning, The George Washington Muth, R. ( 1969) Cities and Housing, Chicago: University
University. of Chicago Press.
Gans, H. (1968) People and Plans, NewYork: Basic Pitt, J. (1977) Gentrification in Islington, London:
Books. Barnsbury Peoples Forum.
Greenfield, A. M. and Co. Inc. (1964) “Newtown houses Smith, N. (1979) (forthcoming) Gentrification and
for Washington Square East: a technical report on capital: theory, practice and ideology in Society
neighborhood conservation,” prepared for the Hill, Antipode 11.
Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia. Stegman, M. A. (1972) Housing Investment in the Inner
Harvey, D. (1973) Social Justice and the City, Baltimore: City: The Dynamics o f Decline, Cambridge, Mass.:
Johns Hopkins University Press. MIT Press.
----- (1978) “The urban process under capitalism: a Urban Land Institute. (1976) New Opportunities for
framework for analysis," International Journal o f Residential Development in Central Cities, Report
Urban and Regional ResearchZ, 1:100-131. No. 25, Washington D.C.: The Institute.
Harvey, D., Chaterjee, L., Wolman, M. and Newman, I. Winters, C. (1978) "Rejuvenation with character,"
(1972) The Housing Market and Code Enforcement paper presented to the Association of American
in Baltimore, Baltimore: City Planning Geographers Annual Conference, New Orleans.
Department. Wolf, E. (1975) Philadelphia: Portrait o f an American
Hoyt, H. (1933) One Hundred Years o f Land Values in City, Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books.
Chicago, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Yeates, M. H. (1965) “Some factors affecting the spatial
Laurenti, L. (1960) Property Values and Race, Berkeley: distribution of Chicago land values, 1910-1960,"
University of California Press. Economic Geograpliy4l, 1:57-70.
CHAPTER 7
The City as a Growth Machine

John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch
Traditional urban research has had little work: the issue of growth. For those who
relevance to the day-to-day activities of the count, the city is a growth machine, one
place-based elites whose priorities affect that can increase aggregate rents and trap
patterns of land use, public budgets, and related wealth for those in the right posi
urban social life. It has not even been appar tion to benefit. The desire for growth cre
ent from much of the scholarship of urban ates consensus among a wide range of elite
social science that place is a market com groups, no matter how split they might be
modity that can produce wealth and power on other issues. Thus the disagreement on
for its owners, and that this might explain some or even most public issues does not
why certain people take a keen interest in necessarily indicate any fundamental dis
the ordering of urban life. unity, nor do changes in the number or vari
Research on local elites has been preoc ety of actors on the scene (what Clark [1968]
cupied with the question "Who governs?” calls “decentralization”) affect the basic
(or “Who rules?”). Are the politically active matter. It does not even matter that elites
citizens of a city split into diverse and com often fail to achieve their growth goal; with
peting interest groups, or are they members virtually all places in the same game, some
of a coordinated oligarchy? Empirical evi elites will inevitably lose no matter how
dence of visible cleavage, such as disputes great their effort (Lyon et al., 1981; Krannich
on a public issue, has been accepted as evi and Humphrey, 1983).
dence of pluralistic competition (Banfield, Although they may differ on which par
1961; Dahl, 1961). Signs of cohesion, such ticular strategy will best succeed, elites use
as common membership in voluntary and their growth consensus to eliminate any
policy groups, have been used to support alternative vision of the purpose of local
the alternative view (see Domhoff, 1970). government or the meaning of commu
We believe that the question of who gov nity. The issues that reach public agendas
erns or rules has to be asked in conjunc (and are therefore available for pluralists’
tion with the equally central question "For investigations) do so precisely because they
what?”With rare exceptions (see Smith and are matters on which elites have, in effect,
Keller, 1983), one issue consistently gener agreed to disagree (Molotch and Lester,
ates consensus among local elite groups 1974,1975; see Schattschneider, 1960).Only
and separates them from people who use under rather extraordinary circumstances
the city principally as a place to live and is this consensus endangered.
| JOH N R. LOGAN AND HARVEY L. M OLOTCH
For all the pluralism Banfield (1961) 429) briefly departs from his tight ecologi
uncovered in Chicago, he found no dis cal schema to remark that “competition is
agreement with the idea that growth was observable . . . in the struggle for transpor
good. Indeed, much of the dissension he tation and communication advantages and
did find, for example, on where to put the superior services of all kinds; it also appears
new convention center, was part of a dis in efforts to accelerate rates of population
pute over how growth should be internally growth.”
distributed. In his studies of cities on both All of this competition, in addition to its
sides of the southern U.S. border, D’Antonio critical influence on what goes on within
found that when community “knowledge- cities, also influences the distribution of
ables” were “asked to name the most press populations throughout cities and regions,
ing problems facing their respective cities,” determining which ones grow and which
they cited finding sufficient water for both do not. The incessant lobbying, manipu
farming and urban growth (Form and lating, and cajoling can deliver the critical
D’Antonio, 1970: 439). Whitt (1982) found resources from which great cities are made.
that in formulating positions on California Although virtually all places are subject to
transportation policies, elites carefully the pervasive rule of growth boosters, places
coordinated not only the positions they with more active and creative elites may
would take but also the amount of money have an edge over other areas. In a com
each would give toward winning relevant parative study of forty-eight communities,
initiative campaigns. Thus on growth infra Lyon et al. (1981) indeed found that cities
structure, the elites were united. with reputedly more powerful elites tended
Similarly, it was on the primacy of such to have stronger growth rates. This may
growth and development issues that Hunter mean that active elites stimulate growth, or
found Atlanta’s elites to be most unified, it may mean that strong growth emboldens
both at the time of his first classic study elites to actively maintain their advantage.
and during its replication twenty years later Although we suspect that both perspec
(Hunter, 1953, 1980). Hunter (1953: 214) tives are valid, we stress that the activism
reports, "They could speak of nothing else” of entrepreneurs is, and always has been, a
(cited in Domhoff, 1983:169). In his histori critical force in shaping the urban system,
cal profiles of Dallas and Fort Worth, Melosi including the rise and fall of given places.
(1983: 175) concludes that "political power
in Dallas and Fort Worth has typically been
concentrated in the hands of those people
THE MODERN-DAY GOOD
most willing and able to sustain growth and
BUSINESS CLIMATE
expansion.” Finally, even the ecologically
oriented scholars with a different perspec The jockeyingfor canals, railroads, and arse
tive, Berry and Kasarda (1977: 371), have nals of the previous century has given way in
remarked, “If in the past urbanization has this one to more complex and subtle efforts
been governed by any conscious public to manipulate space and redistribute rents.
objectives at all, these have been, on the The fusing of public duty and private gain
one hand, to encourage growth, apparently has become much less acceptable (both in
for its own sake, and on the other hand, to public opinion and in the criminal courts);
provide public works and public welfare the replacing of frontiers by complex cities
programs to support piecemeal, sponta has given important roles to mass media,
neous development impelled primarily by urban professionals, and skilled political
private initiative.” And even Hawley (1950: entrepreneurs. The growth machine is less
TH E CITY AS A GROW TH MACHINE |
personalized, with fewer local heroes, and responsible for the "excess” demand they
has become instead a multifaceted matrix generate. Federally financed programs can
of important social institutions pressing be harnessed to provide cheap water sup
along complementary lines. plies; state agencies can be manipulated
With a transportation and communica to subsidize insurance rates; local political
tion grid already in place, modern cities units can forgive business property taxes.
typically seek growth in basic economic Government installations of various sorts
functions, particularly job intensive ones. (universities, military bases) can be used
Economic growth sets in motion the migra to leverage additional development by
tion of labor and a demand for ancillary guaranteeing the presence of skilled labor,
production services, housing, retailing, retailing customers, or proximate markets
and wholesaling (‘‘multiplier effects”). for subcontractors. For some analytical pur
Contemporary places differ in the type poses, it doesn’t even matter that a number
of economic base they strive to build (for of these factors have little bearing on cor
example, manufacturing, research and porate locational decisions (some certainly
development, information processing, or do; others are debated); just the possibility
tourism). But any one of the rainbows leads that they might matter invigorates local
to the same pot of gold: more intense land growth activism (Swanstrom, 1985) and
use and thus higher rent collections, with dominates policy agendas.
associated professional fees and locally Following the lead of St. Petersburg,
based profits. Florida, the first city to hire a press agent
Cities are in a position to affect the “fac (in 1918) to boost growth (Mormino, 1983:
tors of production” that are widely believed 150), virtually all major urban areas now
to channel the capital investments that use experts to attract outside investment.
drive local growt h (Hawley, 1950; Summers One city, Dixon, Illinois, has gone so far
et al., 1976). They can, for example, lower as to systematically contact former resi
access costs of raw materials and markets dents who might be in a position to help (as
through the creation of shipping ports many as twenty thousand people) and offer
and airfields (either by using local sub them a finder’s fee up to $10,000 for direct
sidies or by facilitating state and federal ing corporate investment toward their old
support). Localities can decrease corpo home town (San Francisco Chronicle, May
rate overhead costs through sympathetic 10, 1984). More pervasively, each city tries
policies on pollution abatement, employee to create a “good business climate.” The
health standards, and taxes. Labor costs ingredients are well known in city-build
can be indirectly lowered by pushing wel ing circles and have even been codified and
fare recipients into low-paying jobs and turned into “official” lists for each regional
through the use of police to constrain union area. The much-used Fantus rankings of
organizing. Moral laws can be changed; for business climates are based on factors like
example, drinking alcohol can be legalized taxation, labor legislation, unemployment
(as in Ann Arbor, Mich., and Evanston, 111.) compensation, scale of government, and
or gambling can be promoted (as in Atlantic public indebtedness (Fantus ranks Texas as
City, N.J.) to build tourism and convention number one and NewYork as number forty-
business. Increased utility costs caused by eight). In 1975, the Industrial Development
new development can be borne, as they Research Council, made up of corporate
usually are (see, for an example, Ann Arbor, executives responsible for site selection
Michigan, Planning Department, 1972), decisions, conducted a survey of its mem
by the public at large rather than by those bers. In that survey, states were rated more
I JOH N R. LOGAN AND HARVEY L. M OLOTCH
simply as “cooperative,” “indifferent,” or busing was sometimes seen as a threat to

"antigrowth”; the results closely paral urban economic development. Racial vio
leled the Fantus rankings of the same year lence in South Africa is finally leading to
(Weinstein and Firestine, 1978:134-44). the disinvestment that reformers could
Any issue of a major business magazine not bring about through moral suasion. In
is replete with advertisements from locali the good business climate, the work force
ties of all types (including whole countries) should be sufficiently quiescent and healthy
striving to portray themselves in a man to be productive; this was the rationale orig
ner attractive to business. Consider these inally behind many programs in work place
claims culled from one issue of Business relations and public health. Labor must,
W eek(February 12,1979): in other words, be "reproduced,” but only
under conditions that least interfere with
NewYork City is open for business. No other local growth trajectories.
city in America offers more financial incen Perhaps most important of all, local pub
tives to expand or relocate___ lics should favor growth and support the
ideology of value-free development. This
The state of Louisiana advertises public attitude reassures investors that
the concrete enticements of a locality will
Nature made it perfect. We made it profitable. be upheld by future politicians. The chal
lenge is to connect civic pride to the growth
On another page we find the claim that goal, tying the presumed economic and
“Northern Ireland works” and has a work social benefits of growth in general (Wolfe,
force with “positive attitudes toward com 1981) to growth in the local area. Probably
pany loyalty, productivity and labor rela only partly aware of this, elites generate
tions.” Georgia asserts, “Government and sustain the place patriotism of the
should strive to improve business condi masses. According to Boorstin, the com
tions, not hinder them.” Atlanta headlines petition among cities “helped create the
that as "A City Without Limits” it “has ways booster spirit” as much as the booster spirit
of getting people like you out of town” and helped create the cities (1965: 123). In the
then details its transportation advantages nineteenth-century cities, the great rival
to business. Some places describe attri ries over canal and railway installations
butes that would enhance the life style of were the political spectacles of the day, with
executives and professional employees attention devoted to their public, not pri
(not a dimension of Fantus rankings); thus vate, benefits. With the drama of the new
a number of cities push an image of artis railway technology, ordinary people were
tic refinement. No advertisements in this swept into the competition among places,
issue (or in any other, we suspect) show city rooting for their own town to become the
workers living in nice homes or influencing new “crossroads” or at least a way station.
their working conditions. "The debates over transportation,” writes
While a good opera or ballet company Scheiber (1962: 143), “heightened urban
may subtly enhance the growth potential of community consciousness and sharpened
some cities, other cultural ingredients are local pride in many western towns.”
crucial for a good business climate. There The celebration of local growth contin
should be no violent class or ethnic conflict ues to be a theme in the culture of locali
(Agger, Goldrich, and Swanson, 1964: 649; ties. Schoolchildren are taught to view local
Johnson, 1983: 250-51). Rubin (1972: 123) history as a series of breakthroughs in the
reports that racial confrontation over school expansion of the economic base of their city
and region, celebrating its numerical lead to reinforce the link between growth goals
ership in one sort of production or another; and better lives for the majority. We do not
more generally, increases in population mean to suggest that the only source of civic
tend to be equated with local progress. Civic pride is the desire to collect rents; certainly
organizations sponsor essay contests on the cultural pride of tribal groups predates
the topic of local greatness. They encourage growth machines. Nevertheless, the growth
public celebrations and spectacles in which machine coalition mobilizes these cultural
the locality name can be proudly advanced motivations, legitimizes them, and chan
for the benefit of both locals and outsiders. nels them into activités that are consistent
They subsidize soapbox derbies, parade with growth goals.
floats, and beauty contests to "spread
around” the locality’s name in the media
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE
and at distant competitive sites.
GROWTH COALITION
One case can illustrate the link between
growth goals and cultural institutions. [. . .) The people who use their time and
In the Los Angeles area, St. Patrick’s Day money to participate in local affairs are the
parades are held at four different locales, ones who—in vast disproportion to their
because the city’s Irish leaders can’t agree representation in the population—have the
on the venue for a joint celebration. The most to gain or lose in land-use decisions.
source of the difficulty (and much acri Local business people are the major par
mony) is that these parades march down ticipants in urban politics (Walton, 1970),
the main business streets in each locale, particularly business people in property
thereby making them a symbol of the life investing, development, and real estate
of the city. Business groups associated with financing (Spaulding, 1951; Mumford,
each of the strips want to claim the parade 1961). Peterson (1981: 132), who applauds
as exclusively their own, leading to charges growth boosterism, acknowledges that
by still a fifth parade organization that the "such policies are often promulgated
other groups are only out to “make money” through a highly centralized decision-mak
(McGarry, 1985: II: 1). The countercharge, ing process involving prestigious business
vehemently denied, was that the leader men and professionals. Conflict within the
of the challenging business street was not city tends to be minimal, decision-making
even Irish. Thus even an ethnic celebration processes tend to be closed.” Elected offi
can receive its special form from the machi cials, says Stone ( 1984:292), find themselves
nations of growth interests and the compe confronted by “a business community that
titions among them. is well-organized, amply supplied with
The growth machine avidly supports a number of deployable resources, and
whatever culturalinstitutions can play a role inclined to act on behalf of tangible and
in building locality. Always ready to oppose ambitious plans that are mutually benefi
cultural and political developments con cial to its own members.”
trary to their interests (for example, black Businesspeople’scontinuousinteraction
nationalism and communal cults), rentiers with public officials (including support
and their associates encourage activities ing them through substantial campaign
that will connect feelings of community contributions) gives them systemic power
(“we feelings” [McKenzie, 1922]) to the (Alford and Friedland, 1975; Stone, 1981,
goal of local growth. The overall ideologi 1982). Once organized, they stay organized.
cal thrust is to deemphasize the connection They are “mobilized interests” (Fainstein,
between growth and exchange values and Fainstein, and Armistead, 1983: 214).
Rentiers need local government in their is consistently undervalued. The clue can
daily money-making routines, especially be found in Edelman’s (1964) distinction
when structural speculations are involved. between two kinds of politics.
They are assisted by lawyers, syndicators, The first is the “symbolic” politics of
and property brokers (Bouma, 1962), who public morality and most of the other “big
prosper as long as they can win decisions issues” featured in the headlines and edito
favoring their clients. Finally, there are rials of the daily press: school prayer, wars
monopolistic business enterprises (such as on crime, standing up to communism,
the local newspaper) whose futures are tied and child pornography, for example. News
to the growth of the metropolis as a whole, coverage of these issues may have little to
although they are not directly involved in do with any underlying reality, much less
land use. When the local market is satu a reality in which significant local actors
rated with their product, they have few have major stakes. Fishman (1978) shows,
ways to increase profits, beyond expansion for example, that reports of a major crime
of their surrounding area. As in the prover wave against the elderly in New York City
bial Springdale, site of the classic Vidich appeared just at a time when most crimes
and Bensman (1960: 216) ethnography of a against the elderly were actually on the
generation ago, there is a strong tendency decline. The public “crime wave” was cre
in most cities for ‘‘the professionals (doc ated by police officials who, in responding
tors, teachers, dentists, etc.), the industrial to reporters’ interest in the topic, provided
workers, the shack people and the lower “juicy” instances that would make good
middle-class groups [to be] for all intents copy. The “crime wave” was sustained by
and purposes disenfranchised except in politicians eager to denounce the perpe
terms of temporary issues." trators, and these politicians’ pronounce
Because so much of the growth mobi ments became the basis for still more
lization effort involves government, local coverage and expressions of authorita
growth elites play a major role in elect tive police concern. Once this symbiotic
ing local politicians, “watchdogging” their “dance” (Molotch, 1980) is in motion, the
activities, and scrutinizing administrative story takes on a life of its own, and fills the
detail. Whether in generating infrastruc pages and airwaves of news media. Such
tural resources, keeping peace on the home symbolic crusades provide the “easy news”
front, or using the city mayor as an “ambas (Gordon, Heath, andleBailly, 1979) needed
sador to industry” (Wyner, 1967), local by reporters pressed for time, just as these
government is primarily concerned with crusades satisfy the “news needs” (Molotch
increasing growth. Again, it is not the only and Lester, 1974) of politicians happy to stay
function of local government, but it is the away from issues that might offend growth
key one. machine interests. The resulting hubbubs
In contrast to our position, urban social often mislead the general public as well as
scientists have often ignored the politics of the academic investigator about what the
growth in their work, even when debates real stuff of community cleavage and politi
over growth infrastructures were the topic cal process might be. To the degree that
of their analyses (see Banfield, 1961; Dahl, rentier elites keep growth issues on a sym
1961). Williams and Adrian (1963) at least bolic level (for example, urban “greatness"),
treat growth as an important part of the they prevail as the “second face of power”
local political process, but give it no prior (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962), the face that
ity over other government issues. There are determines the public agenda (McCombs
a number of reasons why growth politics and Shaw, 1972).
Edelman’s second kind of politics, which efforts to lure industry through a low tax
does not provide easy news, involves the rate. As a result, taxes, and therefore tax
government actions that affect the distri money for schools, declined. Eventually,
bution of important goods and services. the growth coalition saw the educational
Much less visible to publics, often relegated decline, not the tax rate, as the greatest
to back rooms or negotiations within insu danger to the "economic vitality of the com
lated authorities and agencies (Caro, 1974; munity.” But ironically, elites are not able to
Friedland, Piven, and Alford, 1978), this is change overnight the ideologies they have
the politics that determines who, in mate put in place over decades, even when it is in
rial terms, gets what, where, and how (cf. their best interests to do so.1Unfortunately,
Lasswell, 1936). The media tend to cover neither can the potential opponents of
it as the dull round of meetings of water growth. As the example of Rockford shows,
and sewer districts, bridge authorities, and even such issues as public school spending
industrial development bonding agencies. can become subject to the growth maximi
The media attitude serves to keep interest zation needs of locality. The appropriate
ing issues away from the public and blunt level of a social service often depends, not
widespread interest in local politics gen on an abstract model of efficiency or on
erally. As Vidich and Bensman (1960: 217) "public demand” (cf.Tiebout, 1956), but on
remark about Springdale, ‘‘business control whether the cost of that service fits the local
rests upon a dull but unanimous political growth strategy (past and present).
facade,” at least on certain key issues. By now it should be clear how political
Although there are certainly elite orga structures are mobilized to intensify land
nizational mechanisms to inhibit them uses for private gain of many sorts. Let us
(Domhoff, 1971; 1983; Whitt, 1982), cleav look more closely, therefore, at the various
ages within the growth machine can local actors, besides those directly involved
nevertheless develop, and internal dis in generating rents, who participate in the
agreements sometimes break into the growth machine.
open. But even then, because of the hege
mony of the growth machine, its disagree
POLITICIANS
ments are allowable and do not challenge
the belief in growth itself. Unacceptable are The growth machine will sustain only cer
public attacks on the pursuit of exchange tain persons as politicians. The campaign
values over citizens’ search for use value. An contributions and public celebrations that
internal quarrel over where a convention build political careers do not ordinarily
center is to be built, Banfield (1961) shows come about because of a person’s desire to
us, becomes the public issue for Chicago; save or destroy the environment, to repress
but Banfield didn’t notice that there was no or liberate the blacks or other disadvan
question about whether there should be a taged groups, to eliminate civil liberties or
convention center at all. enhance them. Given their legislative power,
When elites come to see, for example, politicians may end up doing any of these
that inadequate public services are repel things. But the underlying politics that gives
ling capital investment, they can put the rise to such opportunities is a person’s par
issue of raising taxes on the public agenda. ticipation in the growth consensus. That
Trillin (1976: 154) reports on Rockford, is why we so often see politicians spring
Illinois, a city whose school system was ing into action to attract new capital and to
bankrupted by an antitax ideology. Initially, sustain old investments. Even the pluralist
local elites opposed taxes as part of their scholar Robert Dahl observed in his New
Haven study that if an employer seriously "dishonest graft” (quoted in Swanstrom,

threatened to leave the community, ‘‘politi 1985:25).2
cal leaders are likely to make frantic attempts Although a little grease always helps a
to make the local situation more attractive” wheel to turn, a system can run well with no
(quoted in Swanstrom, 1981:50). graft at all—unless using campaign contri
Certainly, politicians differ in a number butions to influence elections is considered
of ways. Like Mayor Ogden of Chicago, graft. Virtually all politicians are dependent
some are trying to create vast fortunes for on private campaign financing (Alexander,
themselves as they go about their civic 1972, 1980, 1983; Boyarsky and Gillam,
duties on behalf of the growth machine. 1982; Smith, 1984), and it is the real estate
Robert Folson, the mayor of Dallas, has entrepreneurs—particularly the large-scale
direct interests in over fifty local busi structural speculators—who are particu
nesses, many of which have stakes in local larly active in supporting candidates (see
growth outcomes. When the annexation chapter 6 for additional documentation).
of an adjacent town came up for a vote, The result is that candidates of both parties,
he had to abstain because he owned 20 of whatever ideological stripe, have to gar
percent of it (Fullinwider, 1980). Another ner the favor of such persons, and this puts
Texan, former governor John Connally, has them squarely into the hands of growth
among his holdings more than $50 million machine coalitions. Thus many office
in Austin-area real estate, property slated to holders use their authority, not to enrich
become its county’s largest residential and themselves, but to benefit the “whole com
commercial development (“Austin Boom,” munity”—that is, to increase aggregate
Santa B arbara News Press, June 24, 1984, rents. Again, this does not preclude politi
p. B-8). According to Robert Caro (1974), cians’ direct participation in property deal
Commissioner Robert Moses was able to ing on occasion and it certainly does not
overcome opposition to his vast highway preclude giving a special hand to particular
and bridge building in the New York City place entrepreneurs with whom a politician
area in part because the region’s politicians has a special relationship.
were themselves buying up land adjacent Elected officials also vary in their percep
to parkway exits, setting themselves up for tion of how their authority can best be used
huge rent gains. Most of Hawaii’s major to maximize growth. After his thorough
Democrat politicians, after winning elec study of the Cleveland growth machine,
tion on a reform platform in 1954, directly Swanstrom (1985) concluded that there are
profited as developers, lawyers, contrac two types of growth strategists: the “con
tors, and investors through the zoning and servative” and the “liberal.” The former,
related land-use decisions they and their paramount during the city’s age of steel,
colleagues were to make over the next favor unbridled exploitation of the city
thirty years of intensive growth and specu and its labor force, generally following the
lation (Daws and Cooper, 1984). Machine “free economy” political model. Programs
politics never insulated candidates from of overt government intervention, for pur
the development process; builders, rail poses of planning, public education, or
roaders, and other growth activists have employee welfare, are all highly suspect.
long played crucial roles in boss politics, The liberal growth machine strategy, in
both in immigrant wards (Bell, 1961) and contrast, acknowledges that longer-term
in WASP suburbs (Fogelson, 1967: 207). growth can be facilitated by overt govern
All this is, as George Washington Plunkitt ment planning and by programs that pac
said in 1905, “honest graft” as opposed to ify, co-opt, and placate oppositions. This
is a more modern form of growth ideology. ticularly crucial when unforeseen circum
Some politicians, depending on place and stances create use value crises, which can
time, tend to favor the hard-line "unfettered potentially stymie a locality’s basic growth
capitalism” (Wolfe, 1981); others prefer the strategy. The 1978 Love Canal toxic waste
liberal version, analogous to what is called, emergency at Niagara Falls, New York,
in a broader context, “pragmatic state capi reveals how local officials use their posi
talism” (Wolfe, 1981; see also Weinstein, tions to reassure the citizens and mold
1968). These positions became more obvi local agendas to handle disruptive "emo
ous in many regions when urban renewal tional” issues. In her detailed ethnographic
and other federal programs began penetrat account, Levine (1982:59) reports that “the
ing cities in the postwar period. Especially city’s chief executives, led by the mayor,
in conservative areas such as Texas (Melosi, minimized the Love Canal problem in all
1983; 185), elites long debated among public statements for two years no mat
themselves whether or not the newfangled ter how much personal sympathy they felt
growth schemes would do more harm than for the affected people whose health was
good. threatened by the poisons leaking into their
On the symbolic issues, politicians may homes” (see also Fowlkes and Miller, 1985).
also differ, on both the content of their posi Lester (1971) reports a similar stance taken
tions and the degree to which they actually by the Utah civic leadership in response to
care about the issues. Some are no doubt the escape of nerve gas from the U.S. mili
sincere in pushing their “causes”; others tary’s Dugway Proving Grounds in 1969 (see
may cynically manipulate them to obscure also Hirsch, 1969). The conduct of politi
the distributional consequences of their cians in the face of accidents like the leak
own actions in other matters. Sometimes age of poison into schoolyards and homes
the results are positive, for example, when in Niagara Falls or the sheep deaths in Utah
Oklahoma City and Dallas leaders made reveal this “backup” function of local lead
deliberate efforts to prevent racist elements ers (Molotch and Lester, 1974,1975).
from scaring off development with “another Still another critical use of local politi
Little Rock.” Liberal growth machine goals cians is their ability to influence higher-level
may thus help reform reactionary social political actors in their growth distribution
patterns (Bernard, 1983: 225; Melosi, 1983: decisions. Although capital has direct links
188). But despite these variations, there to national politicians (particularly in the
appears to be a "tilt” to the whole system, executive office and Senate, see Domhoff
regardless of time and place. Growth coali [1967, 1970, 1983]), rentier groups are
tion activists and campaign contributors more parochial in their ties, although they
are not a culturally, racially, or economically may have contact with congressional rep
diverse cross section of the urban popula resentatives. Hence, rentiers need local
tion. They tend to give a reactionary texture politicians to lobby national officials. The
to local government, in which the cultural national politicians, in turn, are respon
crusades, like the material ones, are chosen sive because they depend on local political
for their acceptability to the rentier groups. operators (including party figures) for their
Politicians adept in both spheres (mate own power base. The local politicians sym-
rial and symbolic) are the most valued, and biotically need their national counterparts
most likely to have successful careers. A to generate the goods that keep them viable
skilled politician delivers growth while giv at home.
ing a good circus. The goods that benefit the local lead
The symbolic political skills are par ers and growth interests are not trivial. The
development of the Midwest was, as the ers” (Coxand Morgan, 1973:136),4and only
historical anecdotes make clear, depen “sparingly use their issue-raising capaci
dent on national decisions affecting canal ties” (Peterson, 1981:124).
and railroad lines. The Southwest and most American cities tend to be one-newspa-
of California could be developed only with per (or one-newspaper company) towns.
federal subsidies and capital investments in The newspaper’s assets in physical plant, in
water projects. The profound significance “good will,”and in advertising clients are, for
of government capital spending can be the most part, immobile. The local newspa
grasped by considering one statistic: Direct per thus tends to occupy a unique position:
government outlays (at all levels) in 1983 like many other local businesses, it has an
accounted for nearly 27 percent of all con interest in growth, but unlike most others,
struction in the United States (Mollenkopf, its critical interest is not in the specific spa
1983: 43). The figure was even higher, of tial pattern of that growth. The paper may
course, during World War II, when federal occasionally help forge a specific strategy of
construction expenditures laid the basis growth, but ordinarily it makes little differ
for much of the infrastructural and defense ence to a newspaper whether the additional
spending that was to follow. population comes to reside on the north
side or the south side, or whether the new
business comes through a new convention
LOCAL MEDIA
center or a new olive factory. The newspaper
One local business takes a broad respon has no ax to grind except the one that holds
sibility for general growth machine the community elite together: growth.
goals—the metropolitan newspaper. Most This disinterest in the specific form of
newspapers (small, suburban papers are growth, but avid commitment to develop
occasionally an exception) profit primar ment generally, enables the newspaper
ily from increasing their circulation and to achieve a statesmanlike position in the
therefore have a direct interest in growth.' community. It is often deferred to as a neu
As the metropolis expands, the newspa tral party by the special interests. In his pio
per can sell a larger number of ad lines (at neering study of the creation of zoning laws
higher per line cost), on the basis of a rising in New York City in the 1920s, Makielski
circulation base: TV and radio stations are (1966:149) remarks, “While the newspapers
in a similar situation. In explaining why his in the city are large landholders, the role of
newspaper had supported the urbanization the press was not quite like that of any of the
of orchards that used to cover what is now other nongovernmental actors. The press
the city of San Jose, the publisher of the San was in part one of the referees of the rules
Jose Mercury News said, “Trees do not read of the game, especially the informal rules,
newspapers” (Downie, 1974: 112, as cited calling attention to what it considered vio
in Domhoff, 1983: 168). Just as newspaper lations.”The publisher or editor is often the
boosterism was important in building the arbiter of internal growth machine bicker
frontier towns (Dagenais, 1967), so today ing, restraining the short-term profiteers in
“the hallmark of media content has been the interest of more stable, long-term, and
peerless boosterism: congratulate growth properly planned growth.
rather than calculate consequences; com The publishing families are often
pliment development rather than criti ensconced as the most important city
cize its impact” (Burd, 1977: 129; see also builders within the town or city; this is
Devereux, 1976; Freidel, 1963). The media the appropriate designation for such
“must present a favorable image to outsid prominent families as Otis and Chandler
TH E C IT Y AS A GROW TH M ACHINE |
of the Los Angeles Times (see Clark, 1983: growth, media executives are sympathetic to
271; Halberstam, 1979); Pulliam of the business leaders’ complaints that a particu
Arizona R epublic and Phoenix Sun (see lar journalistic investigation or angle may
Luckingham, 1983:318); and Gaylord of the be bad for the local business climate, and
Daily O klahom an (see Bernard, 1983: 216). should it nevertheless become necessary,
Sometimes these publishers are directly direct threats of advertising cancellation
active in politics, “kingmaking” behind the can modify journalistic coverage (Bernard,
scenes by screening candidates for politi 1983: 220). This does not mean that news
cal office, lobbying for federal contracts papers (or advertisers) control the politics
and grants, and striving to build growth of a city or region, but that the media have
infrastructure in their region (Fainstein, a special influence simply because they are
Fainstein, and Armistead, 1983: 217; Judd, committed to growth per se, and can play
1983: 178). In the booming Contra Costa an invaluable role in coordinating strategy
County suburbs of the San Francisco Bay and selling growth to the public.
Area, the president of the countywide orga This institutional legitimacy is especially
nization of builders, real estate investors, useful in crises. In the controversy sur
and property financiers was the owner of rounding the army’s accidental release of
the regional paper. In his home county, nerve gas at the Dugway Proving Grounds,
as well as in the jurisdictions of his eleven Lester found that the Utah media were far
other suburban papers, owner Dean Lesher more sympathetic to the military’s explana
(“Citizen Lesher”) acts as “a cheerleader tions than were media outside Utah (Lester,
for development" who simply kills stories 1971). The economic utility of the Dugway
damaging to growth interests and reas Proving Grounds (and related government
signs unsympathetic reporters to less con facilities) was valued by the local establish
troversial beats (Steidtmann, 1985). The ment. Similarly, insiders report that publi
local newspaper editor was one of the three cizing toxic waste problems at Love Canal
“bosses” in Springdale’s “invisible govern was hindered by an “unwritten law” in the
ment” (Vidich and Bensman, 1960: 217). newsroom that “a reporter did not attack
Sometimes, the publisher is among the or otherwise fluster the Hooker [Chemical
largest urban landholders and openly fights Company] executives” (Brown, 1979, cited
for benefits tied to growth in land: The own in Levine, 1982:190).
ers of the Los Angeles Times fought for the As these examples indicate, a newspa
water that developed their vast proper per’s essential role is not to protect a given
ties for both urban and agricultural uses. firm or industry (an issue more likely to
The editorial stance is usually reformist, arise in a small city than a large one) but
invoking the common good (and technical to bolster and maintain the predisposition
planning expertise) as the rationale for the for general growth. Although newspaper
land-use decisions the owners favor. This editorialists may express concern for “the
sustains the legitimacy of the paper itself ecology,” this does not prevent them from
among all literate sectors of society and supporting growth-inducing investments
helps mask the distributive effects of many for their regions. The New York Times likes
growth developments. office towers and additional industrial
The media attempt to attain their goals installations in the city even more than it
not only through news articles and editori loves“theenvironment.”Evenwhenhistori-
als but also through informal talks between cally significant districts are threatened, the
owners and editors and the local leaders. Times editorializes in favor of intensifica
Because newspaper interests are tied to tion. Thus the Times recently admonished
opponents to “get out of the way” of the terlands, inefficiently extending lines to
Times Square renewal, which would replace areas that are extremely costly to service
landmark structures (including its own for (Gaffney, 1961; Walker and Williams, 1982).
mer headquarters at 1 Times Square) with The same growth goals exist within central
huge office structures (New York Times, May cities. Brooklyn Gas was an avid supporter
24, 1984, p. 18). Similarly, the Los Angeles of the movement of young professionals
Times editorializes against narrow-minded into abandoned areas of Brooklyn, New
profiteering that increases pollution or aes York, in the 1970s, and even went so far as
thetic blight—in other cities. The newspa to help finance housing rehabilitation and
per featured criticism, for example, of the sponsor a traveling slide show and open
Times Square renewal plan (Kaplan, 1984: houses displaying the pleasant lifestyles in
1), but had enthusiastically supported the area. All utilities seem bent on acquir
development of the environmentally dev ing more customers to pay off past invest
astating supersonic transport (SST) for the ments, and on proving they have the good
jobs it would presumably lure to Southern growth prospects that lenders use as a crite
California. In an unexpected regional par rion, for financing additional investments.
allel, the Los Angeles Times fired celebrated Overall efficiencies are often sacrificed as a
architectural critic John Pastier for his inces result.
sant criticisms of Los Angeles’s downtown Transportation officials, whether of pub
renewal projects (Clark, 1983: 298), and the lic or private organizations, have a special
New York Times dismissed Pulitzer Prize interest in growth: they tend to favor growth
winner Sydney Schanberg as a columnist along their specific transit routes. But
apparently because he "opposed civic proj transportation doesn’t just serve growth, it
ects supported by some of New York’s most creates it. From the beginning, the laying-
powerful interests, particularly those in the out of mass transit lines was a method of
real estate industry” (Rosenstiel, 1985:21). stimulating development; indeed, the land
Although newspapers may openly sup speculators and the executives of the trans
port “good planning principles” of a certain portation firms were often the same peo
sort, the acceptable form of “good planning” ple. In part because of the salience of land
does not often extend to limiting growth or development, “public service was largely
authentic conservation in a newspaper’s incidental to the operation of the street rail
home ground. “Good planning principles” ways” (Wilcox, quoted in Yago, 1983: 44).
can easily represent the opposite goals. Henry Huntington’s Pacific Electric, the
primary commuting system of Los Angeles,
“was built not to provide transportation but
UTILITIES
to sell real estate” (Clark, 1983:272; see also
Leaders of “independent” public or quasi Binford, 1985; Fogelson, 1967; Yago, 1983).
public agencies, such as utilities, may play And because the goal of profitable transpor
a role similar to that of the newspaper pub tation did not guide the design and routing
lisher: tied to a single locale, they become of the system, it was destined to lose money,
growth “statesmen” rather than advocates leaving Los Angeles without a viable transit
for a certain type of growth or intralocal dis system in the end (Fogelson, 1967).
tribution of growth. Transit bureaucrats today, although
For example, a water-supplying agency not typically in the land business, func
(whether public or private) can expand tion as active development boosters; only
only by acquiring more users. This causes in that way can more riders be found to
utilities to penetrate deep into the hin support their systems and help pay off
THE CITY A S A GROW TH MACHINE |
the sometimes enormous debts incurred Impotence in American Communities. New York:
to construct or expand the systems. On Wiley.
Alexander, Herbert E. 1972. Money in Politics.
the national level, major airlines develop
Washington D.C.: Public Affairs Press.
a strong growth interest in the develop Alexander, Herbert. 1980. Financing Politics: Money,
ment of their “hub” city and the network it Elections and Political Reform. 2d ed. Washington,
serves. Eastern Airlines must have growth D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
in Miami, Northwest Airlines needs devel Alexander, Herbert. 1983. Financing the 1980 Election.
Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.
opment in Minneapolis, and American
Alford, Robert, and Roger Friedland. 1975. “Political
Airlines rises or falls with the fortunes of Participation and Public Policy.” Annual Review o f
Dallas-Fort Worth. [...] Sociology 1:429-479.
Ann Arbor, Michigan, Planning Department, 1972. The
NOTES Ann Arbor Growth Study. Ann Arbor, Mich.: City
Planning Department.
1. Trillin remarks that rejection of high taxes by the Bachrach, Peter, and Morton Baratz. 1962. “The Two
citizens of Rockford is “consistent with what the Faces of Power." American Political Science Review
business and industrial leadership of Rockford 56:947-952.
has traditionally preached. For years, the indus Banfield, Edward C. 1961. Political Influence. New
trialists were considered to be in complete con York: Macmillan.
trol of the sort of local government industrialists Bell, Daniel. 1961. “Crime as an American Way of Life.”
traditionally favor—a conservative, relatively Pp. 127-150 in Daniel Bell, The End o f Ideology: On
clean administration committed to the proposi the Exhaustion o f Political Ideas in the Fifties. New
tion that the highest principle of government is York: Collier Books.
the lowest property tax rate” (Trillin, 1976:150). Bernard, Richard M. 1983. “Oklahoma City: Booming
2. Local planning officials also sometimes get in on Schooner.” Pp. 213-234 in Richard M. Bernard and
some of the corruption; they may make real estate Bradley R. Rice (eds.), Sunbelt Cities: Politics and
investments of their own. Los Angeles Planning Growth since World War II. Austin: University of
Director Calvin Hamilton was pressured to resign Texas Press.
after twenty years on the job in part because of Berry, Brian J. L., and John Kasarda. 1977. Contemporary
revelations that he accepted free rent from devel Urban Ecology. NewYork: Macmillan.
opers for a side business and had other conflicts Binford, Henry C. 1985. The First Suburbs: Residential
of interest (Clifford, 1985d). Communities on the Boston Peripheryt 1815-1860.
3. Although many suburban newspapers encour Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
age growth, especially of tax-generating busi Boorstin, Daniel, 1965. The Americans: The National
nesses, the papers of exclusive suburban towns Experience. NewYork: Random House.
may instead tty to guard the existing land-use Bouma, Donald. 1962. “Analysis of the Social Power
patterns and social base of their circulation Position of a Real Estate Board.” Social Problems
area. Rudel (1983: 104) describes just this sort of 10 (Fall): 121-132.
situation in Westport, Connecticut. There are a Boyarsky, Bill, and Jerry Gillam. 1982. “Hard Times
number of reasons for this occasional deviation Don’t Stem Flow of Campaign Gifts.” Los Angeles
from the rule we are proposing. When trying to Times, April 4, sec. I, pp. 1,3,22,23.
attract advertising dollars, newspapers prefer Brown, Mike. 1979. Laying Waste: The Poisoning o f
a small, rich readership to a larger but poorer America by Toxic Chemicals. NewYork: Pantheon.
one. Maintaining exclusivity is itself occasion Burd, Gene. 1977. “The Selling of the Sunbelt: Civic
ally a growth strategy for smaller communities. Boosterism in the Media.” Pp. 129-150 in David
Opposition to growth in these cases is consistent Perry and Alfred Watkins (eds.), The Rise o f the
with the desires of local elites. Sunbelt Cities. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
4. Cox and Morgan’s study of British local newspa Caro, Robert A. 1974. The Power Broker: Robert Moses
pers indicates that the booster role of the press is and the Fall o f NewYork. NewYork: Knopf.
not unique to the United States. Clark, David L. 1983. “Improbable Los Angeles.” Pp.
268-308 in Richard M. Bernard and Bradley R. Rice
R EFEREN CES (eds.), Sunbelt Cities: Politics and Growth since
World War II. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Agger, Robert, Daniel Goldrich, and Bert E. Swanson, Clark, Terry. 1968. “Community Structure, Decision-
1964. The Rulers an d the Ruled: Political Power and Making, Budget Expenditures, and Urban
100 I JO H N R. LOGAN AND HARVEY L. M OLOTCH
Renewal in Fifty-one American Cities/' American 1978. “Political Conflict, Urban Structure, and the
Sociological Review 33 (August): 576-593. Fiscal Crisis.” Pp. 175-225 in Douglas Ashford (ed.),
Clifford, Frank. 1985. “Ouster of City Planner Sought.” Comparing Urban Policies. Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Los Angeles Times, July 15, sec. I, pp. 1,13. Sage.
Cox, Harvey, and David Morgan. 1973. City Politics Fullinwider, John. 1980. "Dallas: The City with No
and the Press: Journalists and the Governing o f Limits?” In These Times5(6): 12-13.
Merseyside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Gaffney, M. Mason. 1961. "Land and Rent in Welfare
Press. Economics.” Pp. 141-167 in Land Economics
Dagenais, Julie. 1967. “Newspaper Language as an Research (papers presented at a symposium on
Active Agent in the Building of a Frontier Town.” land economics research, Lincoln, Nebraska, June
American Speech 42(2): 114-121. 16-23). Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Dahl, Robert Alan. 1961. Who Governs? New Haven: Distributed by Johns Hopkins University Press,
Yale University Press. Baltimore.
Daws, Gavan, and George Cooper. 1984. Land and Gordon, Margaret T., Linda Heath, and Robert leBailly.
Power in Hawaii: The Democratic Years. Honolulu: 1979. “Some Costs of Easy News: Crime Reports and
Benchmark Press. Fear.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Devereux, Sean. 1976. “Boosters in the Newsroom: T he American Psychological Association, NewYork.
Jacksonville Case.” Columbia Journalism Review Ilalberstam, David. 1979. The Powers That Be. New
14:38-47. York: Knopf.
Domhoff, G. William. 1967. Who Rules America? Hawley, Amos. 1950. Human Ecology: A Theory o f
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Community'Structure. NewYork: Ronald Press.
Domhoff, G. William. 1970. The Higher Circles: The Hirsch, Seymour. 1969. “On Uncovering the Great
Governing Class in America. New York: Random Nerve Gas Coverup.” Ramparts3(July): 12-18.
House. Hunter, Floyd. 1953. Community Power Structure: A
Domhoff, G. William. 1983. Who Rules America Now? Study o f Decision Makers. Chapel Hill: University of
A View fo r the 80’s. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- North Carolina Press.
Hall. Hunter, Floyd. 1980. Community Power Succession.
Downie, Leonard, Jr. 1974. Mortgage on America. New Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
York: Praeger. Johnson, David R. 1983. “San Antonio: The Vicissitudes
Edelman, Murray. 1964. The Symbolic Uses o f Politics. of Boosterism.” Pp. 235-254 in Richard M. Bernard
Urbana: University of Illinois Press. and Bradley R. Rice (eds.), Sunbelt Cities: Politics
Fainstein, Susan, Norman Fainstein, and P. Jefferson an d Growth since World War II. Austin: University
Armistead. 1983. “San Francisco: Urban of Texas Press.
Transformation and the Local State.” Pp. 202-244 Judd, Dennis. 1983. “From Cowtown to Sunbelt City.”
in Susan Fainstein (ed.), Restructuring the City. Pp. 167-201 in Susan Fainstein (ed.), Restructuring
NewYork: Longman. the City. NewYork: Longman.
Fishman, Mark. 1978. “Crime Waves as Ideology.” Kaplan, Sam Hall, 1984." WillTimes Square Plan Destroy
Social Problems 25(5): 532-543. It?” Los Angeles Times, October 3, sec. I, p. 1.
Fogelson, Robert M. 1967. The Fragmented Metropolis: Krannich, Richard S., and Craig R. Humphrey. 1983.
Los Angeles, 1850-1930. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard “Local Mobilization and Community Growth:
University Press. Toward an Assessment of the ‘Growth Machine’
Form, William H., and William V. D’Antonio. 1970. Hypothesis.” Rural Sociology48(1): 60-81.
"Integration and Cleavage among Community Lasswell, Harold. 1936. Politics: Who Gets What, When,
Influentials in T\vo Border Cities.” Pp. 431-442 in How. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Michael Aiken and Paul E. Mott (eds.), The Structure Lester, Marilyn. 1971. “Toward a Sociology of Public
o f Comm unit}'Power. NewYork: Random House. Events.” Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology',
Fowlkes, Martha R., and Patricia Miller. 1985. “Toward University of California, Santa Barbara.
a Sociology of Unnatural Disaster.” Paper pre Levine, Adeline Gordon. 1982. Love Canal: Science,
sented at the 80th annual meeting of the American Politics and People. Lexington, Mass: D. C. Heath.
Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., August Luckingham, Bradford. 1983. “Phoenix: The Desert
31. Metropolis.” Pp. 309-327 in Richard M. Bernard
Freidel, Frank. 1963. “Boosters, Intellectuals and the and Bradley R. Rice (eds.), Sunbelt Cities: Politics
American City.” Pp. 115-120 in Oscar Handlin and an d Growth since World War II. Austin: University
John Burchard (eds.), The Historian and the City. of Texas Press.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lyon, Larry, Lawrence G. Felice, M. Ray Perryman,
Fricdland, Roger, Frances Piven, and Robert Alford. and E. Stephen Parker. 1981. “Community Power
THE CITY A S A GROW TH MACHINE |
and Population Increase: An Empirical Test of the Offers Bounty to Lure More Business to the Area.”
Growth Machine Model.” American Journal o f San Francisco Chronicle, May 10, p. 4.
Sociology 86(6): 1387-1400. Schattschneider, Elmer Eric. 1960. The Semisovereign
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald Shaw 1972. “The People. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Smith, Michael Peter, and Marlene Keller. 1983.
Opinion Quarterly36:176-187. "Managed Growth and the Politics of Uneven
McGarry, T. W. 1985. “Irish Will March to Four Different Development in New Orleans.” Pp. 126-166 in
Drummers.” Los Angeles Times, March 14, sec. II, Susan Fainstein (ed.), Restructuring the City. New
pp. 1,3. York: Longman.
McKenzie, R. D. 1922. “The Neighborhood: A Study Smith, Reginald. 1984. “Willie Brown’s Big Income
of Local Life in the City of Columbus Ohio— Revealed in State Report.” San Francisco Chronicle,
Conclusion.” American Journal o f Sociology 27: March 7, p. 12.
780-799. Spaulding, Charles. 1951. “Occupational Affiliations of
Makielski, Stanislaw J. 1966. The Politics o f Zoning: Councilmen in Small Cities.” Sociology' and Social
The New York Experience. New York: Columbia Research 35(3): 194-200.
University Press. Steidtmann, Nancy. 1985. “Citizen Lesher: Newspaper
Melosi, Martin. 1983. “Dallas-Fort Worth: Marketing Publisher.” Bay Area Business MagazineW (October
the Metroplex.” Pp. 162-195 in Richard M. Bernard 3): 14-18.
and Bradley R. Rice (eds.), Sunbelt Cities: Politics Stone, Clarence N. 1981. “Community Power
an d Growth since World War II. Austin: University Structure—A Further Look.” Urban Affairs
of Texas Press. Quarterly 16(4): 505-515.
Mollenkopf, John. 1983. The Contested City. Princeton, Stone, Clarence N. 1982. “Social Stratification,
N.J.: Princeton University Press. Non-Decision-Making and the Study of
Molotch, Harvey. 1980. “Media and Movements.” Community Power.” American Politics Quarterly
Pp. 71-93 in Mayer Zald and John McCarthy (eds.), 10(3): 275-302.
The Dynamics o f Social Movements. Cambridge, Stone, Clarence N. 1984. “City Politics and Economic
Mass.:Winthrop. Development: Political Economy Perspectives.”
Molotch, Harvey, and Marilyn Lester. 1974. “News as Journal o f Politics 46(1): 286-299.
Purposive Behavior: On the Strategic Use of Routine Summers, Gene F. et al. 1976. Industrial Invasion o f
Events, Accidents, and Scandals.” American Nonmetropolitan America: A Quarter Century' o f
Sociological Review39(I): 101-113. Experience. NewYork: Praeger.
Molotch, Harvey, and Marilyn Lester. 1975. “Accidental Swanstrom, Todd. 1981. “The Crisis of Growth
News: The Great Oil Spill as Local Occurrence and Politics: Cleveland, Kucinich, and the Challenge
National Event.” American Journal o f Sociology' of Urban Populism.” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton
81 (2): 235-260. University.
Mormino, Gary R. 1983. “Tampa: From Hell Hole to Swanstrom, Todd. 1985. The Crisis o f Growth Politics:
the Good life.” Pp. 138-161 in Richard M. Bernard Cleveland, Kucinich, and the Challenge o f Urban
and Bradley R. Rice (eds.), Sunbelt Cities: Politics Populism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
and Growth since World War II. Austin: University Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local
ofTexas Press. Expenditures.” Journal o f Political Economy
Mumford, Lewis. 1961. The City in History'. NewYork: 64 (October): 416-424.
Ilarcourt. Trillin, Calvin. 1976. "U.S. Journal: Rockford, Illinois—
Peterson, PaulE. 1981. City Limits. Chicago: University Schools without Money.” New Yorker 52(38): 146-
of Chicago Press. 154.
Rosentiel, Thomas B. 1985. “‘Killing Fields’ Writer Vidich, Arthur J., and Joseph Bensman. 1960. Small
Loses N.Y. Times Column, to Be Reassigned.” Los Town in Mass Society: Class, Power and Religion
Angeles Times, August 21, sec. I, p. 21. in a Rural Community. Garden City, N.Y.:
Rubin, Lillian B. 1972. Busing and Backlash: White Doubleday.
against Write in an Urban School District. Walker, Richard A., and Matthew J. Williams. 1982.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California "Water from Power: Water Supply and Regional
Press. Growth in the Santa Clara Valley.” Economic
Rudel, Thomas K. 1983. “Managing Growth: Local Geography 58(2): 95-119.
Governments and the Social Control of Land Use.” Walton, John. 1970. “ASystematicSurveyofCommunity
Unpublished ms., Department of Human Ecology, Power Research.” Pp. 443-464 in Michael Aiken
Rutgers University. and Paul Mott (eds.), The Structure o f Community
San Francisco Chronicle, 1984. “Reagan’s Hometown Power. NewYork: Random House.
102 | JO H N R. LOGAN AND HARVEY L. M OLOTCH
Weinstein, Bernard L., and Robert E. Firestine, 1978. Study o f Comparative Policy Making. Philadelphia:
Regional Growth and Decline in the United States. Temple University Press.
NewYork: Praeger. Wolfe, Alan. 1981. America's Impasse: The Rise and
Weinstein, James. 1968. The Corporate Ideal in the Fall o f the Politics o f Growth. New York:
Liberal State, 1900-1918. Boston: Beacon Press. Pantheon.
Whitt, J. Allen. 1982. Urban Elites and Mass Wyner, Allen. 1967. “Governor-Salesman.” National
Transportation: The Dialectics o f Power. Princeton, Civic Review61 (February): 81-86.
N.J.: Princeton University Press. Yago, Glenn. 1983. “Urban Transportation in the
Williams, Oliver, and C. R. Adrian. 1963. Four Cities: A Eighties.” Democracy3(1): 43-55.
CHAPTER 8
Introduction: Restructuring and Dislocations

David Ley
Late in November 1972, Mrs Edna Shakel vacancy rate for desirable inner-city neigh
received an eviction notice. Mrs Shakel, bourhoods like Fairview was zero.2Builders
a widow in her seventies, had lived in a were developing a new housing form, the
three-room apartment in a converted condominium, and recently completed
house in the Fairview district ofVancouver projects formed an advancing wave along
for three years, a house she shared mainly Mrs Shakel’s street. An agent was attempt
with other elderly women like herself. She ing to assemble several houses including
suspected that the tenants had not been her own as a site for a 30-40 suite building,
given adequate notice, but she had no but was facing a holdout from at least one
plans to protest, nor indeed did she know property owner. In a hot market, with the
the channels for protest: ‘At our age, you prospect of significant profits, the tempta
know, we’re not exactly fighters.’ None the tion to accelerate the transaction was con
less, with Christmas and winter at hand, the siderable. A house adjacent to Mrs Shakel’s,
prospect of a move for an elderly woman already purchased, was rented to the Hare
in a very tight rental market was extremely Krishna cult on a short lease. The presence
unwelcome, particularly as Mrs Shakel of cult members, chanting into the early
wished to remain within easy walking dis hours of the morning, brought a discordant
tance of her friends, familiar services, and presence to a quiet residential street in a
her church. conservative district. A neighbouring prop
In Mrs Shakel’s eviction notice we may erty owner, unwilling to sell his own house,
observe not only a private trouble, but charged that developers were engaged in
also a public issue, the intersection of blockbusting. Certainly, the transition pro
a personal biography with a wader his cess was greased, for several houses on the
torical geography.' What are some of the block were speedily emptied of their ten
dimensions of that history and geography, ants, including the Hare Krishna group
the broader contexts which will appear who, after only a few' months’ residence,
throughout the pages of this study? First, relocated four blocks away, again on a short
and most visible, was immense pressure on term lease, as, it was alleged, the blockbust
the housing-market in Fairview, Kitsilano, ing process was attempted once more. By
and other neighbourhoods in Vancouver's the summer of 1973, condominiums lined
inner city, where vacancies in private rental almost the whole block, and w'ere springing
units scarcely existed; by 1974 the official up throughout the neighbourhood. By 1976
104 | DAVID LEY
there were some forty strata-title projects working downtown in business or in the
containing 880 self-owned apartments in public sector in teaching, health care, or
Fairview, almost all of them built in the pre government service. Household heads were
vious five years.5 either under 35 years of age, at an early stage
An unanticipated inversion was taking in their professional and family careers,
place in parts of the inner-city housing- or else empty-nesters, purchasing with a
market. Spatial models of the city’s social retirement home in mind.5The condomin
areas showed the innermost districts near ium units that replaced Mrs Shake’s house
the downtown core had for decades been and its neighbours included two company
reserved primarily for poorer residents. presidents, two business managers, two
From the inter-war research of Homer Hoyt real-estate agents, an engineer, an accoun
in the United States, the conventional wis tant, and several technicians. Their desire
dom had it that as property aged it filtered to live in the inner city and the decision by
down from wealthier to successively poorer developers to build for them created a ‘value
households in theseold, innermost districts. gap’ that threatened the existing rental mar
This wisdom matched the reality marked ket.6 Quite simply, land owners received a
on land-use maps of Canadian cities into higher, faster, and more secure economic
the 1960s. In Toronto, for example, the 1941 return from selling apartments than from
map of housing and land use described a renting them.
zone bluntly labelled as 'fourth-class hous This transition was not of course unique
ing' virtually encircling the downtown area; to Vancouver, but began to occur in large
beyond it was an ageing, hand-me-down cities of other advanced industrial nations
ring of affordable rooming houses. So it was at around the same time. In each city, and
that a widow on a fixed pension like Mrs each nation, there were certain local inflec
Shakel could afford to live in what had once tions. In Toronto, Montreal, and the larger
been a substantial middle-class home. cities of central Canada, there was more
Adjacent to the upper-class Shaughnessy emphasis on renovation of the existing
neighbourhood, Fairview had enjoyed a housingstock, thanondemolitionandrede-
certain reflected glory as a residential area, velopment, the standard transition process
but by 1970 its middle-class gentility was in cities built of wood like Vancouver or
frayed at the edges; indeed its northern sec Edmonton. Indeed the term ‘gentrification’
tion, the Fairview Slopes, rising above the was initially employed in London by Ruth
decaying industrial basin of False Creek, Glass to describe precisely this process,
had deteriorated to the extent that it had the movement of the 'gentry’ into existing
been red-lined by banks and trust compa lower-income housing which they subse
nies, precluding the prospect of commer quently rehabilitated and upgraded.7 Over
cial loans being secured for home purchase the past decade, however, many authors,
or repair. Nothing seemed likely to dis more attentive to changes in housing class
perse the industrial— and chemical—haze than to those in the housing stock in the
around its hippy communes.4 inner city, have broadened gentrification to
But now things were changing. While include both sides of the middle-class mar
the transition of the Fairview Slopes was ket, the renovation of old properties and
still a decade away, elsewhere in Fairview the redevelopment of new units, with both
condominium redevelopment was bring conceived as part of a broader restructur
ing higher-status groups into the inner city. ing of the city. This book too is concerned
Mostly they were small households with with gentrification writ large, the wider
professional or managerial occupations, processes of economic, social, and political
INTROD UCTION: RESTRUCTURING AND D ISLOCATIONS | 105
transformation in the downtown and inner in the wake of some major land-use contro
city that have both triggered and followed versies in the city concerning urban renewal
upgrading and reinvestment. and freeway development. Dissatisfaction
In major cities the consequences of with the one-dimensional thinking of the
upgrading have been substantial; in central NPA’s pro-growth, pro-development policy
London, the breakup of the private rental mobilized other interest groups. A coalition
market in favour of condominium tenure of liberal middle-class professionals in their
is estimated to have removed 45 per cent mid-twenties to mid-forties formed The
of the purpose-built rental stock between Electors’ Action Movement (TEAM), while
1966 and 1981." Less firm figures for New union, tenant, and anti-poverty groups
YorkCitysuggest between 10,000 and40,000 established the left-wing Committee of
rental households were being displaced by Progressive Electors (COPE). TEAM offered
gentrification annually at the end of the a complex urban vision of the liveable city,
1970s.1' There are good grounds, then, for a vision which incorporated growth man
seeing gentrification as a major cause of the agement, urban aesthetics, and social
problems of housing affordability in large justice in an uneasy amalgam." If, as Jane
Canadian cities since 1970."’ Simply put, the Jacobs charged,'- the modernization of the
inner city is losing its historic role as a major Canadian city then underway showed no
reservoir of private, low-cost housing. advance upon the modernist visionaries
In the end, Mrs Shakel was more fortu of the 1920s and their dream of the free
nate than many other displaced house way, high-rise city, the urban reformers
holds. She was able to find alternative of the 1970s had a more humanistic view
accommodation near her former dwelling, with a complex approach to the quality of
although for it to remain affordable she urban experience. Theirs would be ‘a city
gave up a self-contained three-room apart people can live in and enjoy’,13 a city of
ment in exchange for a single room with a human scale, where the population would
shared bathroom. This was her home until find urban government more accessible
her death several years later, and soon after through participatory programmes, where
it, too, was demolished and replaced by the ideology of the public household would
condominiums. The room was close to the guide transportation and housing policy,
church she attended and it was there that I favouring public solutions (transit, social
met Edna Shakel and learned of her story, a housing) over private ones (the private car,
story that stimulated the lengthy research slum housing), and where design guide
project which has given rise to this book. lines and generous park and landscaping
The events that led to the loss of Mrs policy would enhance the quality of the
Shakel’s apartment implicated not only res built environment. The extent to which all,
idential changes, but also a larger rework or even much, of this seemingly progres
ing of the m entalité of living in a large sive agenda was achieved will be a subject
urban area. A municipal election was held for later discussion.14
in the City of Vancouver the same month The ideology of the liveable city was
as Edna Shakel was evicted from her apart supported by a broad public, as a range of
ment. The party in power, the NPA or Non- participatory planning programmes in the
Partisan Association (a euphemism of the 1970s confirmed.'5 But this is not to state
first degree), had ruled City Hall without that it was much further removed from a dis
interruption since its formation as a free- tinctive class interest than the pro-growth
enterprise coalition in 1937. But now it was coalition which it replaced. The bearers of
opposed by two newparties founded in 1968 the liberal ideology were precisely those
106 | DAVID LEY
citizens who saw the benefits of an expanded Movement was not elected until 1986.
welfare state. They were educated, middle- Fainter reverberations were felt in smaller
class professionals, primarily under 40years cities. Edmonton, Ottawa, and Halifax also
of age, and disproportionately employed in saw middle-class activists elected to city
the public or non-profit sectors as teach council, pursuing such goals as the defence
ers, professors, social workers, architects, of neighbourhoods and resistance to exten
or lawyers. Such professionals in social and sive redevelopment and freeway construc
cultural fields have played a distinctive and tion. In each instance the objective was
important part in the reshaping of the inner the turning back of massive urban change,
city. They were not quite the same grouping resistance to the wholesale moderniza
as had moved into the condominiums on tion of the city. And in each case the pro
Mrs Shakel’s block, underscoring the fact tagonists typically included the same cast
that the professional-managerial category of middle-class professionals, frequently
is not a unitary class. While the condomin employed within the general rubric of the
ium dwellers were also by and large well- welfare state. A new agenda for urbane,
educated, white-collar workers, they were central-city living was being articulated by
more likely to be private-sector managers, a newly mobilized cohort of young profes
professionals, or sales people, with interests sional and managerial workers, not only in
closer to the private market. The liberals, the housing-market but also in the corri
in contrast, tended to be public- or quasi- dors of power.
public-sector workers who often favoured The social, spatial, and political reshap
older properties and saw a broader set of ing of Canada’s major cities was part of a
objectives as the responsibility of urban larger national, indeed international, set
governance. But what both groups shared of events and changing values. The first
in common was an orientation to an urbane Liberal administration of Pierre Trudeau
lifestyle, the cosmopolitan opportunities of was elected in the midst of escalating
central-city living. social movements in advanced societ
TEAM’S ideology was the ideology of ies, including the student uprising of May
the day and the party won the 1972 elec 1968 in Paris to which Trudeau as a franco
tion in a landslide. It was a local manifes phone intellectual was particularly atten
tation of a national sentiment. In Toronto tive. Environmentalism, civil rights, the
and Montreal reform groups sprang up at Vietnam War, the student movement, and
the same time, with the same opposition to the counter-culture all offered a sharp cri
unqualified urban boosterism pursued by a tique of post-war society in the Western
centralized and inaccessible growth coali nations, societies which had shown an
tion at City Hall. A few weeks after TEAM’S unprecedented level of sustained economic
electoral success, the reformers in Toronto, growth. But it was this very success story
2,000 miles away, were also returned to that received such vehement criticism. If,
office in a shaky coalition of liberals, social in the United States, the military-industrial
democrats, and ‘red’ tories who pressed the complex was the object of particular exco
conservative vote to the centre or even the riation by critics, the broader target was a
centre-left. In Montreal a new civic party corporate society whose one-dimensional
made significant gains in the 1974 munici ideology was alleged to produce a one
pal election, providing the first opposition dimensional personality."’ For some think
to Mayor Jean Drapeau’s growth machine, ers it was eros that would liberate an uptight
but beset by internal rifts between lib society, and whatever one makes of the
erals and leftists, the Montreal Citizens sexual revolution that coincided with this
period, one emphasis that is noteworthy is Third, the opening up of urban society
the reference to experience, more particu was inevitably inscribed upon the urban
larly to the sensual, as in some way marking landscape. Concomitantwiththeexpansion
the forward march of freedom. The pursuit of the public sphere has been the enlarge
o f ‘joyous festival’ by the student rioters in ment of public space. While the construc
Paris was rapidly domesticated by inno tion of enclosed shopping malls has tended
vative urban practitioners.17 So it was that to restrict certain traditional collective
Vancouver residents were offered in 1972 rights (such as picketing, or securing sig
neither lower taxes nor economic growth natures for a petition-'0), the action of local
by aspiring reform politicians, but instead government has usually led in the opposite
‘a city people can live in and enjoy’. direction. The extension of urban parks, the
This was not for a moment intended as development of public plazas, and not least
an elitist agenda. Trudeau’s espousal of an the opening up of the waterfront to pub
open society, the sense of new beginnings, lic use—such as Vancouver’s seawall, now
encouraged social and cultural experimen accessible to pedestrians and cyclists for
tation in public policy as well as in private more than 12 kilometres around the cen
life. The politics of inclusion, participatory tral city—are all indicative of government
initiatives offering unprecedented degrees action promoting a more accessible and
of empowerment to service recipients, convivial public realm. So too the state has
represented a real, not a cynical, attempt contributed toward the preservation of val
to expand the public sphere.18 This expan ued heritage sites, including Montreal’s Old
sion (if far from complete) was visible in Town, the Historic Properties in Halifax,
three areas of the municipal reform move and Vancouver’s Gastown. The mainte
ment and its policies. First, a greater range nance of view corridors, causes célèbres in
of issues was brought into the public sphere. Vancouver and Halifax, and downtown
The unexamined tenets of growth boost height restrictions in Ottawa to secure the
erism were interrogated and exposed to skyline of Parliament Hill, are other exam
scrutiny from such competing objectives as ples of the state’s intervention to maintain a
environmental quality, social justice, local visual resource for public enjoyment.
empowerment, or'neighbourliness’, afavou- A ten-minute walk from Mrs Shakel’s
rite criterion of Ray Spaxman, Vancouver’s former apartment is the popular Granville
Director of Planning from 1973 to 1989. Island, a public space carefully reshaped by
The public sphere was occupied no longer the federal government through the Canada
by a single, but now by multiple objectives. Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the
Second, more voices were admitted to the 1970s. A mixed-use development, it incor
decision-making process. This was, after porates a public food-market, theatres, an
all, the period when Canada discovered its art college and hotel, and shops and offices
multiculturalism and enunciated a formal cheek by jowl with new and long-estab
multicultural policy, a policy which has lished industry, including a cement plant.
since evolved in ever more political direc Formerly the whole island was occupied by
tions.111In the urban arena the terms laid out manufacturing firms, some of them dating
by federal policy were followed by attempts back eighty years to the original creation of
at local democracy in various participatory this artifical island in the industrial basin
programmes, the most sustained being the of False Creek, on the edge of downtown
development of neighbourhood plans with Vancouver.
mandated community consultation by On Granville Island an adventure
municipal planning departments. playground was created in the shell of the
108 | DAVID LEY
former Spear & Jackson sawmill, like most Its retail outlets contain no chain stores,
of the manufacturing plant an unprepos its produce is advertised as direct from
sessing corrugated iron structure, in places regional farms, its goods are personalized
rusting, dented, and torn. The playground by resident artists and craftspeople. The
(as a microcosm of the Island) contained public market in particular is a sensual swirl
some of the inversions of a contemporary of colours, sounds, tastes, and fragrances,
urban aesthetic, an orientation to experi an aesthetic triumph, joyous festival. Here,
ence and the sensuous which is so central amidst the trays of baguettes and oysters,
to the state’s intervention in the built envi is the epitome of niche marketing for an
ronment of the post-industrial city. First, urbane middle-class population jaded by
a private space where trespassers would mass marketing, who seek in shopping and
be prosecuted was transformed to a pub gazing the pleasures of symbolic exchange,
lic space where loiterers were welcome. the confidence of savoir-faire, the delights
Second, an adult male space was opened of consumer distinction.2- Are such acts of
up as a space for children, and, predomi consumer solidarity by the educated mid-
nantly, mothers. Third, through skilful dle-class the true harvest of 1968? And are
spatial engineering, a site of depreciating such convivial public spaces the newest
value has been revalued, though not yet incarnation of the welfare state?
as a working site for capital accumulation.
Fourth, a place of industry became a place
THE EMBOURGEOISEMENT
of play, a setting for production was turned
OF THE INNER CITY
into a setting for consumption. And yet
with postmodern irony, the visual environ In the questions raised by such vignettes,
ment was carefully (indeed so carefully, one with their separate but related places and
might think carelessly) retained. The recy events, we may discern a number of the
cling of the whole Island is predicated upon themes that will be pursued in this book.
just such an industrial vernacular style, In a number of districts in a number of
traditional to the site; the new art college large cities, the steady down-filtering of the
looks like an industrial warehouse, the up inner-city housing stock has been abruptly
market hotel like a factory. What meets the reversed: The em bourgeoisem ent of the
eye is akin to what Sharon Zukin described inner city, accomplished through the twin
in New York’s SoHo as a ‘poetic apprecia transition processes of renovation and
tion of industrial design’.-1 The Island is redevelopment (often to condominiums), is
carefully themed to convey the message incomplete even in those neighbourhoods
of historic continuity. But it is the stability where it has been most prominent, but
of still life that is on display, for what has none the less it has contributed to a signifi
occurred is an aestheticization, a taming of cant reshaping of the housing-market in cit
a once wild and vigorous industrial land ies with expanding downtown employment
scape. The visual environment now reveals in advanced services. This qualifier imme
contradiction, complexity, and not a little diately leads to the important recognition
parody, for beneath rough industrial shells that there is a geography to gentrification,
are cultured post-industrial interiors. The that the trends remaking the inner cities of
only major problem of the Island is its own Toronto, San Francisco, or London are not
success, the crowds and congestion drawn shared by Winnipeg, Detroit, or Liverpool.
to share this experience. Granville Island is Noriseveryneighbourhoodequallysuscep-
a quintessential public space in the post tible to middle-class settlement. Why did
modern city. the condominiums arrive in Mrs Shakel’s
Fairview in the early 1970s, while avoiding a more expensive commuting, as the 1973 oil
string of inner-city districts in Vancouver’s shock added a substantial economic pre
eastside with permissive zoning, cheaper mium to the social cost of an ever-lengthen
land prices, and equally close to down ing journey to work? Or was it a redefinition
town? And why the 1970s? What combina of the nuclear family itself, as more women
tion of enabling and constraining contexts sought paid work and professional careers,
converged on this particular period? the birth-rate tumbled, and the single fam
Some provisional answers are suggested ily home in the suburbs became a dwelling
by the vignettes. The property industry had form no longer functional to a youthful seg
detected a new submarket in the central ment of the middle-class market?
city which it was enthusiastically exploit And then there is the historical coin
ing. The condominium was a product that cidence with the counter-culture and
solved the developer’s problem of decreas concomitant urban social movements.
ing profitability in the rental sector; for The youth ghettos of the 1960s were con
contractors the surge in home renovations centrated in the largest cities, including
for the middle class also opened a second Toronto’sYorkvilleandVancouver’sKitsilano,
profitable niche market. But such develop both districts which gentrified rapidly in the
ment initiatives presupposed the existence 1970s. What is the relationship between the
of a market worth exploiting, for no entre counter-culture and gentrification? Was the
preneur supplies a product for which he counter-culture simply an unwitting tool
or she has not already detected potential of the development industry, like the Hare
demand. The existence of that market leads Krishna cult in Fairview, the urban storm-
to other contexts, notably to the labour- troopers who established a beach-head for
force of the burgeoning central-city service profitable reinvestment? Or should we see
economy that was replacing the industrial a more complex set of interactions, where
workers of declining manufacturing zones gentrification is an expression of a critical
like False Creek and Granville Island. The cultural politics, a rejection of the suburbs
convergence of rapid economic expan and their perceived cultural conformity in
sion, the specific growth of white-collar favour of the more cosmopolitan and per
professional jobs, and the maturation of missive opportunities of the central city? If
the demographic bulge of the baby boom, so, then an inner-city home is much more
all conspired to create a demand surge for than a functional convenience; for a par
housing among the middle class. ticular fragment of the middle class it is an
But still we have not accounted for the integral part of their identity formation.
geographic specificity of the inner city Certainly this thesis would fit with the
as a destination for that population. The striking historical coincidence between
suburbs had become the postwar solu the onset of gentrification in Canadian cit
tion to the middle-class housing problem, ies around 1970 and the mobilization of
as developers had perfected the suburban political reform movements, critical of a
subdivision as the natural nesting area of pre-existing pro-growth regime. Typically,
the young nuclear family. As we will see, the these movements contained at least two,
suburbs continued to be the major desti often divisive, elements, a liberal grouping,
nation of the middle class in the 1970s and like TEAM in Vancouver or the supporters
1980s, but a growing minority bucked the of Mayor David Crombie in Toronto, that
trend. What directed this cohort to the less was primarily contained within the mid
familiar terrain of the inner city? Was it, as dle class, and a social democratic group
some authors have suggested, the impact of ing, like the New Democrats in Toronto, or
110 I DAVID LEY
fur ther to the left, COPE inVanco uver, which meetings which have been such an abiding
comprised an alliance of certain public - feature of Canadian cities since Expo 67 in
sector professionals with union members, Montreal.
some neighbourhood groups, and critical For municipal councils, hallmark events
social movements promoting issues such and urban spectacles provided a third
as tenants’ rights, feminism, and environ opportunity. Fast-track redevelopment and
mentalism. Both groupings represented infrastructure upgrading, often difficult
a discontinuity with the growth regimes to achieve under normal circumstances,
that had monopolized urban politics in could be more readily rationalized to a local
the post-war period. Reformers were much electorate if the outcome was a celebration,
more likely to be younger, to be profession for what might be regarded as a land-use
als, and to be women, than the old guard at transgression in normal times invariably
City Hall, a profile which immediately sug became tolerable. Moreover, the spec
gests a shared identity with the new middle tacle also provided local government with
class in the inner city. The gender complex leverage to apply against higher levels of
ion of the reformers is of particular inter the state. Funds not forthcoming for rapid
est. In Ottawa, where following the lead of transit, or a convention centre, or a new
Mayor Marion Dewar there was a continu stock of social housing might be (and were)
ing representation of professional women prised loose in the name of a celebration
on Council, it has been suggested that the from a senior government which was seem
gender profile of councillors contributed to ingly more willing to be the donor of party
policy oriented toward the politics of con favours. Governments in Canada have been
sumption.-' remarkably unwilling to be presented to the
In terms of land use, and the urban tax electorate as party poopers.
base, a consumption strategy neatly offset The questions raised above define the
some of the damage exacted by deindustri subject matter of this book. Of course there
alization. Most crudely, it served the func are rarely neat solutions where simple lines
tional end of political legitimation, in the of cause and effect may be traced. A syn
1990s as often a strategy of croissants and thetic interpretation of the changing inner
opera as of bread and circuses. The expan city is a synthesis where the chains of cau
sion of a park, the saving of a heritage site, sality are invariably diverted by intervening
subsidies for the symphony orchestra, the variables and interaction effects, where the
promotion of environmentally friendly consequences of actions are as often, per
policies such as public transportation, were haps more often, unintended as they are
all political winners for citizens endorsing intended. Consider, for example, the his
the liveable city. A consumption strategy torical coincidence of gentrification with
also laid the base for a new round of eco the maturation of the baby boom, a chang
nomic development predicated upon lei ing family structure, the counter-culture,
sure and tourism, an amenity ethic which urban reform, and the rapid economic
might attract (or keep) footloose capital. In growth of the downtown labour-market,
this leisure economy, it was the resources of disrupted but not ended by the 1973 oil
senior levels of government which were able shock. The efficient positivist solution of
to prime the pump, through investment holding certain variables constant to con
in such hoped-for multipliers as heritage trol for their effects is never available in the
districts, convention centres, or hallmark complexity of a regional geography. One
events, the round of world’s fairs, sport may demonstrate interdependencies, but
ing festivals, and latterly political summit rarely causality.
IN TR O D UCTIO N : R ES TR U C TU R IN G AND D IS LO CA TIO N S |
Nor is this account of inner-city trans Angeles, the informal economy is preva
formation a complete one. While the study lent, and crime may become the effective
will range widely in its engagement with face of community economic develop
economic, political, social and cultural ment.26 Unlike the achievements of Davis,
trends— gentrification writ large— there or Tom Wolfe,27 who move between the
is no claim here to a total history or total social worlds of high opportunity and deep
geography. The view of the inner city which impoverishment, this book is less ambi
emerges is a partial one with significant tious in its scope. Nevertheless, while never
absences. The new middle class is in many losing sight of the place of the new middle
respects a group in ascendancy in the inner class in a broader system of social stratifi
city, implicating labour-markets, hous- cation, a detailed examination of advan
ing-markets, urban politics, and the built taged groups in their own right also adds an
environment in the ways I have already important dimension to our understand
outlined. But there are other inner cities ing of the remaking of the contemporary
I have not mentioned that are also being central city. [...]
reshaped, and which will not be prominent
in the arguments which follow. The new NOTES
middle class is the privileged cohort in the
1. C. Wright Mills (1959), The Sociological Imagination
post-industrial city, but it does not exist
(NewYork: Oxford University Press).
in isolation. In the dual labour-market of 2. Real Estate Board of Vancouver (1977), Real Estate
a service economy, gentrifiers fall princi Trends in Greater Vancouver.
pally in the upper tier. The lower tier of less 3. D. Ley (1981). ‘Inner City Revitalization in Canada:
skilled service workers comprises a work A Vancouver Case-Study’, Canadian Geographer, 25:
124-8. A strata-title project involves common owner
force with far fewer opportunities, includ
ship of a multiple-unit structure.
ing shop assistants, waitresses, taxi drivers, 4. So pervasive was its counter-cultural ambience that
and bellboys, many of them working near Seventh Avenue, one of the principal residential streets
the level of the minimum wage. In New on the Slopes, was known locally as ‘Chemical Avenue’ :
York, Sassen in particular has argued for C. Mills (1988), ‘Life on the Upslope: The Postmodern
Landscape of Gentrification', Society and Space, 6:
the interdependence of the two tiers, with
169-90.
the lower circuit serving the middle class in 5. For a profile of inner city vis-à-vis suburban condo
such areas as restaurants and leisure, secu minium residents in Canadian cities, see A. Skaburskis
rity, and various forms of personal service.-'4 (1988), ‘A Comparison of Suburban and Inner-City
Working in this sector are large numbers Condominium Markets’, Canadian Journal o f Regional
Science, 11:259-85.
of recent immigrants with limited facility
6. For further discussion on the value gap and the rent
in English or French, for, later than some gap, see Chapter 2. While the value gap describes a
other Western nations, many Canadian form of housing transition where a tenant is replaced
metropolitan areas have undergone signifi by an owner in the same (but upgraded) apartment
cant ethnic and racial transformation over unit, it is a similar logic that demolishes the apartment
building and develops condominium units on the site.
the past twenty-five years.
Indeed both forms of transition often occur in the same
The dual labour-market provides one district. Certainly to an evicted tenant like Mrs Shakel
face of growing social polarization.25 But the nicety that distinguishes the two forms of transition
even poorly paid, but full-time, service is an academic one. On the supply side, the economic
workers are privileged relative to large logic of the landlord’s decision that leads to a tenancy
change in an existing building, described by Hamnett
numbers of part-time and temporarily
and Randolph (1984), is the same as the rationale for
or permanently unemployed citizens. In moving from rental apartments to condominium rede
extreme cases, as Mike Davis has shown for velopment included in the 1975 annual report of a lead
the asset-stripped inner-city districts of Los ing Vancouver apartment owner, citcd in Ley ( 1981 ). In
112 | DAVID LEY
both cases what is involved is ‘the existence of a value streets in the 1970s, sec J. DcLaccy (1983), ‘Cultivating
gap between rented and owner-occupied property and Culture in Paris’, New York Times Magazine, 22 May.
very low rental returns on current capital values com 18. In urban policy, a significant development was the termi
pared with those to be obtained by sale and reinvestment nation of the insensitive and centralized urban renewal
elsewhere’: C. Hamnett and W. Randolph (1984), ‘The programme, and its replacement by a strategy of preserva
Role of Landlord Disinvestment in Housing Market tion and enrichment involving substantial public involve
Transformation: An Analysis of the Flat Breakup ment. A parallel development was the winding down of
Market in Central London’, Transactions, Institute o f the bureaucratic public housing programme in favour of
British Geographers, ns 9: 259-79. third-sector partnership schemes, notably community-
7. R. Glass (1964), ‘Introduction’, in Centre for Urban based co-operatives and non-profit housing societies.
Studies (cd.), London: Aspects o f Change (London: 19. A. Kobayashi (1993), ‘Multiculturalism: Representing
McGibbon and Kcc) xiii-xliii. a Canadian Institution’, in J. Duncan and D. Ley (eds.).
8. C. Ilamnett and B. Randolph (1986), “Tenurial Place/Culture/Representation (London: Routledge),
Transformation and the Flat Breakup Market in London: 205-31.
The British Condo Experience’, in N. Smith and P. 20. In the case of the vast West Edmonton Mall, even pic
Williams (eds.), Gentrification o f the City (Boston: ture-taking or moving around in large groups is dis
Allen and Unwin), 121-52. couraged: J. Hopkins (1991), ‘West Edmonton Mall as
9. P. Marcuse (1986), ‘Abandonment, Gcntrification, and a Centre for Social Interaction’, Canadian Geographer,
Displacement: The Linkages in New York City’, in 35:268-79.
Smith and Williams (eds.) 153-77. 21. S. Zukin (1989), Loft Living (New Brunswick, NJ:
10. The issue of residential displacement in Canadian cities Rutgers University Press), 174.
is discussed in Chapter 2. 22. For the symbolic construction of identity through
11. The contradictions between these elements is con the selective appropriation of cultural traits, sec P.
sidered further in Chapter 8. Sec also D. Ley (1980), Bourdicu (1984), Distinction (Cambridge, Mass.;
‘Liberal Ideology and the Post-Industrial City\Annals, Harvard University Press). The place of food and other
Association of American Geographers, 70: 238-58. products in the construction of new class identity will be
12. J. Jacobs (1971), City Limits (Ottawa: National Film discussed in Chapter 8.
Board). In this film Ms Jacobs extended her theses on 23. C. Andrew (1983), ‘Ottawa’, in W. Magnusson and
urban planning to Toronto, following her family’s move A. Sancton (cds.), City Politics in Canada (Toronto:
to the city in 1968. University of Toronto Press), 140-65.
13. A slogan in TEAM campaign literature for the 1974 24. S. Sassen (1984), ‘The New Labour Demand in Global
civic election. Cities’, in M. P. Smith (ed.), Cities in Transformation
14. Compare the optimistic scenario of James Lemon’s (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage), 139-71; S. Sassen (1991),
assessment of the political culture of Toronto in 1978 The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (Princeton:
with the more measured tone of 1991: J. Lemon (1978), Princeton University Press).
‘The Urban Community Movement: Moving Toward 25. Amongst others, sec Sassen (1991); J. Mollenkopf and
Public Households’, in D. Ley and M. Samuels (eds.), M. Castells (1991) (eds.), Dual City: Restructuring New
Humanistic Geography (Chicago: Maaroufa), 319-37; York (New York: Russell Sage Foundation); S. Fainstein,
J. Lemon (1991), ‘Toronto’, Cities, 8: 258-66. I.Gordon, and M. Harloe (1992), Divided Cities (Oxford:
15. Consider for example the outcome of two major partici Blackwell). But consider also the cautions of P. Marcuse
patory planning programs of the 1970s, one in Greater (1989), ‘Dual City: A Muddy Metaphor for a Quartered
Vancouver, the other in the City, which both ended up City’, International Journal o f Urban and Regional
by rediscovering the liveable city ideology: Greater Research, 13: 697-708 and C. Ilamnett (1994), ‘Social
Vancouver Regional District (1975), The Liveable Polarisation in Global Cities: Theory and Evidence’,
Region 1976-1986 (Vancouver); City of Vancouver Urban Studies, 31: 401-24. For the Canadian situation,
(1980), Goalsfo r Vancouver (Vancouver: City Planning see: L. Bourne (1993), ‘Close Together andWorlds Apart:
Commission). An Analysis of the Changes of the Ecology of Income in
16. H. Marcuse (1964), One-Dimensional Man (Boston: Canadian Cities’, Urban Studies, 30: 1293-317.
Beacon Press). 26. M. Davis (1990), City o f Quartz: Excavating the Future
17. M. Poster (1975), Existential Marxism in Postwar in Los Angeles (London: Verso).
France (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 373. 27. T. Wolfe (1988), The Bonfire o f the Vanities (London:
For the subsequent managed animation of the Paris Picador).
CH A P T E R 9
Building the Frontier Myth

Neil Smith
Roland Barthes once proposed that “myth heard of Ludlow Street. Maybe someday this
is constituted by the loss of the histori neighborhood will be the way the Village was
cal quality of things” (Barthes 1972:129). before we knew anything about New York.
Richard Slotkin elaborates that in addition . . . We explain that moving down here is a
to wrenching meaning from its historical kind of urban pioneering, and tell [Mother]
she should be proud. We liken our cross
context, myth has a reciprocal effect on his
ing Houston Street to pioneers crossing the
tory: “history becomes a cliché” (Slotkin Rockies.
1985: 16, 21-32), We should add the corol (“Ludlow Street” 1988)
lary that myth is constituted by the loss of
the geographical quality of things as well. In its real estate section, the NewYork Times
Deterritorialization is equally central to (March 27, 1983) announces “The Taming
mythmaking, and the more events are of the Wild Wild West,” pursuant to the con
wrenched from their constitutive geogra struction of the “Armory Condominium”
phies, the more powerful the mythology. two blocks west of Times Square:
Geography too becomes a cliché.
The social meaning of gentrification is The trailblazers have done their work: West
increasingly constructed through the vocab 42nd Street has been tamed, domesticated
ulary of the frontier myth, and at first glance and polished into the most exciting, fresh
est, most energetic new neighborhood in all
this appropriation of language and land
of NewYork... for really savvy buyers, there’s
scape might seem simply playful, innocent. the rapid escalation of land prices along the
Newspapers habitually extol the courage western corridor of 42nd Street. (After all,
of urban “homesteaders,” the adventurous if the real estate people don’t know when a
spirit and rugged individualism of the new neighborhood is about to bust loose, who
settlers, brave “urban pioneers," presumably does?)
going where, in the words of Star Trek, no
(white) man has ever gone before. “We find a As new frontier, the gentrifying city since
place on the lower [s/c] East Side,” confesses the 1980s has been oozing with opti
one suburban couple in the genteel pages of mism. Hostile landscapes are regenerated,
the New Yorker. cleansed, reinfused with middle-class
sensibility; real estate values soar; yuppies
Ludlow Street. No one we know would think consume; elite gentility is democratized
of living here. No one we know has ever in mass-produced styles of distinction. So
114 I NEIL SMITH
what’s not to like? The contradictions of the By contrast, in the condomania that has
actual frontier are not entirely eradicated engulfed Manhattan a century later—an
in this imagery but they are smoothed into environment in which any social, physical
an acceptable groove. As with the Old West, or geographical connection with the ear
the frontier is idyllic yet also dangerous, lier frontier is obliterated—the “Montana,"
romantic but also ruthless. From Crocodile “Colorado,” “Savannah” and “New West”
D undee to Bright Lights, BigCity, there is an have been shoehorned into already over
entire cinematic genre that makes of urban built sites with ne’er a comment about
life a cowboy fable replete with danger any iconographic inconsistency. As his
ous environment, hostile natives and self- tory and geography went west, the myth
discovery at the margins of civilization. In settled east, but it took time for the myth
taming the urban wilderness, the cowboy itself to be domesticated into the urban
gets the girl but also finds and tames his environment.
inner self for the first time. In the final scene The new urban frontier motif encodes
of Crocodile Dundee, Paul Hogan accepts not only the physical transformation of the
NewYork—and NewYork him—as he clam built environment and the reinscription of
bers like an Aussie sheepdog over the heads urban space in terms of class and race, but
and shoulders of a subway crowd. Michael also a larger semiotics. Frontier is a style as
J. Fox can hardly end his fable by riding much as a place, and the 1980s saw the fad
off into a reassuring western sunset since dishness of Tex-Mex restaurants, the ubiq
in the big city the bright lights are every uity of desert decor, and a rage for cowboy
where, but he does see a bright new chic, all woven into the same urban land
day rise over the Hudson River and scapes of consumption. A New York Times
Manhattan’s reconstructed financial dis Sunday Magazine clothing advertisement
trict. The manifest destiny of the earlier (August 6,1989) gives the full effect:
frontier rains a reciprocal Valhalla on the
big city. For urban cowboys a little frontier goes a long
The frontier myth of the new city is here way. From bandannas to boots, flourishes
so cliched, the geographical and histori are what counts.. . . The Western imprint on
cal quality of things so lost, that we may fashion is now much like a cattle brand—not
too striking, but obvious enough to catch the
not even see the blend of myth in the land
eye. For city dudes, that means accents: a
scape. This merely testifies to the power fringed jacket with black leggings; a shearling
of the myth, but it was not always so. The coat with a pin-stripe suit; a pair of lizard
analogy between the 1874 Tompkins boots with almost anything. When in doubt
Square marchers and the Sioux Nation was about the mix stride up to the mirror. If you’re
at best tentative and oblique, the mythol inclined to say “Yup,” you’ve gone too far.
ogy too young to bear the full ideological
weight of uniting such obviously disparate New York’s upmarket boutiques dispens
worlds. But the real and conceptual dis ing fashionable frontier kitsch are con
tance between NewYork and the Wild Wild centrated in SoHo, an area of artists’ lofts
West has been continually eroded; perhaps and effete galleries, gentrified in the late
the most iconoclastic evocation of a fron 1960s and 1970s, and enjoying an unprec
tier in the early city came only a few years edented boom in the 1980s. SoHo borders
after Custer’s Black Hills campaign when a the Lower East Side to the west and south
stark, elegant but isolated residential build west. Here, “frontier” aspires on occasion
ing rose in the boonies of Central Park West to philosophy. Zona, on Greene Street, sells
and was named "The Dakota Apartments.” Navajo rugs, “Otomi Indian natural bark
BUILDING THE FRONTIER MYTH | 115
notepaper,” Santa Fe jewelry, terra-cotta hangers toward the cash registers. Fashion
pottery, “Lombak baskets in rich harvest accessories dangle like lianas from the
colors,” bola ties. Zona oozes authentic jungle canopy. A stuffed gorilla and several
ity. All the "pieces” are numbered and a live parrots round out the ambience. La
catalogue of the "collection” has been Rue des Rêves may have been "too, too”—it
produced. On a small, plain, deliberately was a casualty of the late 1980s stock mar
understated sign, with writing embossed ket crash—but the theme has survived in
on gold paper, the store offers its “personal” clothing chains as well as boutiques. At
philosophy of craft-friendliness suffused the Banana Republic customers have their
with more than a whiff of New Age spiritu safari purchases packed in brown paper
alism: bags sporting a rhinoceros. On the silver
screen, meanwhile, movies such as Out o f
At a time when the ever expanding pres Africa and Gorillas in the Mist reinforce the
ence of electronic tools and high technol
vision of pioneering whites in darkestAfrica,
ogy is so pervasive the need to balance our
but with heroines for heroes. As middle-
lives with products that celebrate the textual
and sensorial become essential. We think
class w'hite women come to play a signifi
of our custom ers as resources and not cant role in gentrification their prominence
simply as consumers. We are guided by the on earlier frontiers is rediscovered and rein
belief that information is energy and change vented. Thus designer Ralph Lauren began
is the constant. Thank you for visiting our the 1990s with a collection centered on
space. "the Safari woman.” He explains thus the
romantic and nostalgic ur-environmen-
Americana West, on Wooster Street, strives talism that drove him to it: "I believe that
for a purer desert look. On the sidewalk a lot of wonderful things are disappearing
outside the front door, a patrician Indian from the present, and we have to take care
chief complete with tomahawic and feath of them.” A mahogany four-poster draped
ered headgear stands guard. The window in embroidered mosquito netting, jodh
display features a bleached buffalo skull purs, faux ivory, and a “Zanzibar” bedroom
for $500 while inside the store are sofas set patterned with Zebra stripes surround
and chairs made from longhorns and cattle Lauren’s “Safari Woman,” herself presum
skin. A gallery as much as a store, Americana ably an endangered species. Originally
West purveys diverse images of noble sav Ralph Lifschitz born in the Bronx, but
ages, desert scenes à la Georgia O’Keeffe, now ensconced on a Colorado ranch half
petroglyphs and pictographs, whips and the size of that borough, “Lauren” has never
spurs. Cacti and coyotes are everywhere been to Africa—“sometimes it’s better if
(none real): a neon prickly pear is available you haven’t been there”—but feels well
for $350. In lettering on the front window, able to represent it in and for our urban
Americana West announces its o w t i theme, fantasies. "I’m trying to evoke a world
a crossover cultural geography between in which there was this graciousness we
city and desert: “The Evolving Look of the could touch. Don’t look at yesterday.
Southwest. Designers Welcome . . . Not for We can have it. Do you want to make the
City Slickers Only.” movie you saw a reality? Here it is” (Brown
The frontier is not always American nor 1990).
indeed male. At La Rue des Rêves the theme Even as Africa is underdeveloped by
is jungle eclectic. Leopard coats (faux of international capital, engulfed by fam
course), antelope leather skirts, and cham ine and wars, it is remarketed in Western
ois blouses seem still alive, slinking off their consumer fantasies—but as the preserve
116 | NEIL SMITH
of privileged and endangered whites. As valve for the urban class warfare brewing
one reviewer put it, the safari collection in such events as the 1863 NewYork draft
“smacks of bwana style, of Rhodesia rather riot, the 1877 railway strike, and indeed the
than Zimbabwe" (Brown 1990). Lauren’s Tompkins Square riot of 1874. “Spectacular
Africa is a country retreat for and from the violence” on the frontier, Slotkin concludes,
gentrified city. It provides the decorative had a redemptive effect on the city; it was
utensils by which the city is reclaimed from “the alternative to some form of civil class
wilderness and remapped for white upper- war which, if allowed to break out within
class settlers with global fantasies of again the metropolis, would bring about a secu
owning the world—recolonizing it from the lar Götterdämmerung” {Slotkin 1985: 375).
neighborhood out. Projected in press accounts as extreme but
Nature too is rescripted on the urban comparable versions of events in the city,
frontier. The frontier myth—originally a magnifying mirror to the most ungodly
engendered as an historicization of depravity of the urban masses, reportage
nature—is now reapplied as a naturaliza of the frontier posited eastern cities as a
tion of urban history. Even as rapacious eco paradigm of social unity and harmony in
nomic expansion destroys deserts and rain the face of external threat. Urban social
forests, the new urban frontier is nature- conflict was not so much denied as external
friendly: “All woods used in [Lauren’s Safari] ized, and whosoever disrupted this reign
collection are grown in the Philippines ing urban harmony committed unnatural
and are not endangered” (Brown 1990). acts inviting comparison with the external
The Nature Company, a chain store with a enemy.
branch in South Street Seaport at the south Today the frontier ideology continues
end of the Lower East Side, is the apotheo to displace social conflict into the realm
sis of this naturalized urban history, selling of myth, and at the same time to reaffirm a
maps and globes, whaling anthologies and set of class-specific and race-specific social
telescopes, books on dangerous reptiles, norms. As one respected academic has
and stories of exploration and conquest. proposed, unwittingly replicating Turner’s
The store’s unabashed nature idolatry and vision (to not a murmur of dissent), gen
studied avoidance of anything urban are trifying neighborhoods should be seen as
the perfect disappearing mirror in which combining a “civil class”who recognize that
contested urban histories are refracted (N. “the neighborhood good is enhanced by
Smith 1996b). In affirming the connection submitting to social norms,”and an "uncivil
with nature, the new urban frontier erases class” whose behavior and attitudes reflect
the social histories, struggles and geogra “no acceptance of norms beyond those
phies that made it. imperfectly specified by civil and crimi
The nineteenth century and its associ nal law.” Neighborhoods might then be
ated ideology were “generated by the social classified “by the extent to which civil or
conflicts that attended the 'moderniza uncivil behavior dominates” (Clay 1979a:
tion’ of the Western nations,” according to 37-38).
Slotkin. They are “founded on the desire to The frontier imagery is neither merely
avoid recognition of the perilous conse decorative nor innocent, therefore, but
quences of capitalist development in the carries considerable ideological weight.
New World, and they represent a displace Insofar as gentrification infects work
ment or deflection of social conflict into the ing-class communities, displaces poor
world of myth” (Slotkin 1985: 33, 47). The households, and converts whole neighbor
frontier was conveyed in the city as a safety hoods into bourgeois enclaves, the frontier
BUILDING THE FRONTIER MYTH | 117
ideology rationalizes social differentiation REFERENCES

and exclusion as natural, inevitable. The
poor and working class are all too easily Barthes, R. (1972) Mythologies, New York: Hill and
Wang.
defined as "uncivil;” on the wrong side of
Brown, P. L. ( 1990) “Lauren’s wink at the wild side," New
a heroic dividing line, as savages and com York Times February 8.
munists. The substance and consequence Clay, P. (1979) Neighborhood Renewal, Lexington,
of the frontier imagery is to tame the wild Mass.: D. C. Heath.
city, to socialize a wholly new and therefore Slotkin, R. (1985) Fatal Environment: The Myth o f the
Frontier in the Age o f Industrialization 1800-1890,
challenging set of processes into safe ideo
NewYork: Atheneum.
logical focus. As such, the frontier ideology Smith, N. (1996) “The production of nature,” in
justifies monstrous incivility in the heart of G. Robertson and M. Mash (eds.) Future Natural.
the city. [...] London: Routledge.
C H A P T E R 10
From Arts Production to Housing Market

Sharon Zukin
A HOUSING SUBSIDY FOR ARTISTS Housing Administration (FHA) allocated

funds to subsidize artists’ rent payments
Until the late 1960s there was no history of wherever they happened to be living.
funding housing for artists. Just as artists no However, this subsidy turned out to be
longer worked exclusively for a particular impractical, or impracticable, for several
patron but sold their work on the art market, reasons. On the one hand, artists did not
so they were also expected to buy or rent the race to apply for funding. They were prob
housing and studio that they could afford. ably unwilling to submit to the rigid admin
Although successful artists like Rodin and istrative regulations that the FHA imposed,
Picasso, or de Kooning and Calder, could for example, on room sizes and room divi
afford to set up comfortable establishments, sions. On the other hand, the local govern
most artists suffered from a perennial search ments that administered FHA funds were
for cheap but well-lighted space. In NewYork, probably reluctant, in the face of greater
the last philanthropist who set up living and complaints from ghetto communities, to
work space for artists was nineteenth-cen use the money for a small, unproven arts
tury real estate developer James J. Johnson. constituency. Otherwise, the artists who
The Tenth Street Studio, which Johnson most needed rent subsidies may have had
built in 1857, had large, loftlike spaces that incomes that actually fell below the “mod
accommodated studios for portrait sittings erate” minimum income levels mandated
(as well as prop rooms for the costumes and by FHA guidelines for aid recipients. So
accessories that portrait sitters of the day until the middle of the 1960s, neither indi
required) and adjacent living areas. After vidual philanthropy nor national state sup
serving as headquarters for the most famous port had made a significant advance toward
Greenwich Village artists of the 1860s to the subsidized housing for artists.
1880s, the Tenth Street Studio was eventu The breakthrough came in the form of
ally sold on a co-op basis to its artist-tenants. local initiative and institutionalized phi
Significantly, the period when it became a lanthropy. Again New York was the incuba
co-op—the 1920s—was when gentrification tor. Around 1967, George Maciunas had the
priced most working-class and artist resi notion of getting a rich patron of the arts to
dents out of this part of the Village.1 subsidize his dream of Fluxhouse Number
Years later, in the wake of August 2. He approached the J. M. Kaplan Fund,
Heckscher’s report on the arts, the Federal a private foundation established and run
120 | SHARON ZUKIN
by members of the Kaplan family, wealthy of support from the city, state, and federal
collectors and amateurs of the arts, and governments. Not only were the Kaplans
was granted a $20,000 loan to buy three personally well connected in all three capi
loft buildings in SoHo. Although Maciunas tals, but this was also the period when the
succeeded in setting up only one of three NewYork arts establishment was ably rep
projected co-ops, the Fund eventually "for resented by Javits in Washington, D.C.,
gave” the loan. But around the same time Rockefeller in Albany, and Lindsay at City
that they encountered the visionary Fluxist, Hall. Finally, the Kaplans may have been
the Kaplans had also begun to wrestle with well placed to realize this sort of patronage
the practical problems of artists’ housing. because they held extensive properties in
An Argentine artist with whom the family Manhattan, and the strategic placement of
had a longstanding patronage relationship artists’ housing could not have damaged
needed larger quarters, partly because of their own real estate interests.2
his family and partly because of his sculp Although the impetus for subsidiz
ture, and the Kaplans wanted to help him ing artists’ housing in loft neighborhoods
without overstepping the patron-artist tie. originated in the upper-class patron-art-
They thought that a low-cost loft co-op ist connection, the idea became popular
might solve all the problems. So the Kaplan because of the active support of a middle-
Fund bought a loft building on Greenwich class arts constituency. This constituency
Street, in the West Village, and immediately played the midwife’s role in the curious
resold it at cost to a group of twelve artists sequence of events that led up to the birth
that included the Argentine sculptor. of the Greenwich Street co-op. Their back
Evidently encouraged by their suc ground is significant to the story. At the
cess, the Kaplan Fund bought a much end of the fifties and the beginning of the
larger building in 1969 with the intention sixties, a number of middle-class families
of repeating the experience. Westbeth, as had bought homes among the Federal-
the vacant office building beside the West style brick and mid-nineteenth-century
Side Highway at Bethune Street was soon brownstone townhouses in the West Village
called, was renovated and converted into around Greenwich Street. The residential
nearly four hundred large living and work properties that these new homeowners so
spaces for over a thousand tenants. But the proudly renovated abutted the area’s ware
Kaplans’ philanthropic intention of making houses, printing plants, and garages— the
an artists’ housing co-op in Westbeth seems commercial and light industrial facilities
to have coincided with certain interests of which, together with the houses, created the
both national and local political elites. ideal type of mixed-use neighborhood that
First, the Fund had been encouraged to buy Jane Jacobs praises in her book The D eath
Westbeth by Roger Stevens, who succeeded a n d Life o f Great American Cities. In fact,
August Heckscher as President Johnson’s this was the neighborhood where Jacobs
special adviser on the arts and then served lived at the time. The middle-class families
as chairman of the National Council for who were her neighbors formed the base
the Arts, from 1965 to 1969, and chairman of the grass-roots movement for neighbor
of the National Endowment for the Arts, hood preservation that she inspired. It is
from 1969 to 1972. Stevens had already important to know that the area’s residents
made a fortune in the private sector, from owed their mobilization to a plan put for
the 1930s to the 1960s, as a real estate devel ward by Mayor Wagner. Sharing the objec
oper. In addition, the Kaplan Fund’s work tives of local business and political elites in
on Westbeth enjoyed an unusual degree many declining cities of the Northeast and
FROM ARTS PRODUCTION TO HOUSING MARKET |
Midwest, Wagner wanted to have the West from the community board issued a call
Village declared a “blighted area” in order for artists’ housing in the West Village. With
to qualify for federal urban redevelopment great timeliness, the Kaplans were able to
subsidies. Once the area established an respond to this call.
entitlement to Title I funds, the city could Aside from the developers of Lincoln
use the money to build low-income hous Center, the West Village homeowners
ing there. Isolated between the unused showed a new awareness, at least implicitly,
piers on the Hudson River and the ware that an arts presence would affect real estate
houses of Greenwich and Hudson streets, development in the city. The middle-class
the “projects” would be practically invis constituency was most concerned about
ible. Nor would they encroach upon poten two issues: the use of space and property
tially revalorized Lower Manhattan land. values. Fearing disruption by, on the one
Needless to say, this plan sparked opposi hand, high-rise new construction and, on
tion among the West Village’s middle-class theotherhand, subdivision of existing units,
homeowners. They saw that if the projects the homeowners sought a strategy that
were built next-door to their homes, their would counter the spatial consequences of
modest investments would be eroded by current housing market trends. But as the
declining property values and their mixed- homeowners’ fight against Mayor Wagner
use neighborhood would be destroyed by had suggested, they also wanted to main
blockbusting real estate agents. Organized tain the emerging middle-class character of
by Jane Jacobs, the West Village homeown the neighborhood without either increas
ers fought City Hall. When Wagner ran for ing or decreasing property values. So in
reelection as a liberal in 1961, he was forced this sense, too, the West Villagers wanted
to concede the issue. strategy to fight market forces. The art
This initiation into local politics left two ists’ presence in the neighborhood as both
imprints on the West Village. First, the old producers and residents seemed to hedge
Jane Jacobs constituency remained mobi all bets. Because artists wanted to live and
lized and formed a new, more permanent work in lofts the way they were, they offered
base in the area’s Reform Democratic Club the possibility of having a stabilizing rather
and the community board. Second, the than an accelerating effect on a neighbor
homeowners remained sensitive to issues hood in transition. Surely this seemed rea
of neighborhood preservation. When sonable at the time.
buildings in their purview were put up for Initially, the same middle-class dream
sale or vacated, they were vigilant. In 1967 also dominated the efforts of SoHo’s art-
the local city council member started a ist-residents to secure the right to their
chain reaction when she heard that a loft lofts. But SoHo was different from the West
building in the neighborhood was going Village. In contrast to the narrow strip of
to be auctioned off by the city government land along the Hudson, SoHo took up a siz
for payment of back taxes. The chain ran able chunk of the middle of the island. As
through the West Village liberal constituen a future gateway to a redeveloped Lower
cy’s organizational links and personal con Manhattan, the area attracted the interest
nections to the J. M. Kaplan Fund. At the of big real estate investors and planners.
auction, a Fund representative bought the There were also the zoning regulations that
loft building on Greenwich Street with the prohibited residential use in a manufac
idea of turning it over to an artists’ co-op. turing zone. So in order to assure a hous
Before the Fund announced its intention, ing subsidy in SoHo, artists had to rely on
however, a Committee for Artists’ Housing the direct intervention of powerful forces:
122 | SHARON ZUKIN
the upper-class arts constituency and their compounded the developers’ difficulties by
patrician politicians. “People with money using historic preservation,” an artist-activ-
saved SoHo,” an early activist in the SoHo ist says, and when the smoke had cleared
Artists’ Tenants’ Association says. Another over the ruins of the developers’ plans, an
SoHo artist recalls, “We all had ‘uptown official landmark district remained.
friends.’” He explains: SoHo artists also learned the value of
the print media, beginning with the highly
We had gallery owners. Many of us worked in favorable 1970 article in Life magazine,
schools and universities. There were wealthy “Living Big in a Loft." "Suddenly, following
collectors we had sold to. There were some the Life story, we were a national phenom
very influential artists in the area—Robert enon,” an artist says. "We were too big for
Rauschenberg, Robert Indiana, lulie Judd them to ignore. We became known person
[wife of Minimalist artist Donald Judd]—who ally. Then / could call up Donald Elliott [the
could call on curators and museum board city planning commissioner] and some
members. Others of us had only an occasional
times get through to him. We had a deputy
wealthy person who had bought something
from us. We all put together the names of who mayor assigned to us.” “We learned to use
we could talk to and found that between us the foreign media,” another artist recalls.
we had a rather impressive list. It ranged from “Stories about us appeared in newspapers
people who had nothing to do with art, like in France or Germany. Our embassies sent
the chairmen of the boards of banks, to cura them back to the State Department, and
tors and international art dealers. We started the State Department sent them to Mayor
to call these people up to let them know, “Hey, Lindsay.” Facing a city administration that
there’s a unique phenomenon going on right had visions of presiding over a world capi
here that nobody knows about, and if we don’t tal, the artists realized that these news sto
do something, it’ll be destroyed.”3 ries had an effect on City Hall. “We made a
policy decision to cooperate with public
Despite initial misgivings about a com ity,” an activist says. “Many of the group
mon cause, the SoHo artists also allied were against it and we agonized over it. We
themselves with the historical preservation saw what publicity and legalization [of loft
constituency in the form of the Friends of living] might lead to. But if we hadn’t done
Cast Iron Architecture (FCI). An offshoot of it, SoHo wouldn’t exist at all today.”
the patrician Municipal Arts Society, this Despite their anxiety, the SoHo artists
organization was formed in 1970, in the enjoyed certain political advantages in the
midst of the struggle for “saving” SoHo. The struggle. “One thing that has never been
group was made up of people with money adequately acknowledged,” an early activ
and power. Several times during the 1960s, ist says, “is the importance of John Lindsay.
these people had suggested that a landmark We had in the mayor a cultured, sensitive,
“Cast Iron District” be declared in SoHo educated man who understood the value
to protect the distinctive loft buildings on of art in the life of this city. SoHo would not
Greene Street from being torn down. But have been established under Wagner and
the big real estate developers who wanted certainly never under Bearne. The Lindsay
to redevelop the area had held the historic administration was absolutely vital to our
preservationists to small-scale tactics. Once success. Throughout the struggle, we had
the artists joined them, the preservationists the support of Lindsay and his personal
launched a real offensive. Artists did much aides. It was aides to the mayor who told us
of the archival research that buttressed how to argue our case before the Planning
the argument for a landmark district. “We Commission.”4
FROM ARTS P R O D U CTIO N T O H O USIN G M ARKET | 123
Although the artists’ original patrician guys who had fought us every inch of the
support had been based on elements of cul way! It was sickening.*
tural patronage, their bid for open political
support depended on an economic argu A PRODUCTION SUBSIDY FOR THE
ment. The advice that Mayor Lindsay’s ARTS INFRASTRUCTURE
aides gave them was ‘‘to show our worth in
terms of money. Some of the artists balked,” As the state on both local and national levels
an activist says, “but the rest of us came up intervened more and more in the arts econ
with statistics on art employment, tourism, omy, the nature of the loft subsidy changed.
supplies—numbers the commission could It evolved from an indirect subsidy for art
understand.” In this discussion, Art evi ists’ housing to a direct subsidy for arts
dently yielded to the arts economy. “When production. This was consistent with the
we worked for the zoning changes we never reasoning behind the city government’s
talked aesthetics,” another activist says. switch to support zoning for artists in SoHo.
“We let them talk aesthetics. We took the But it was also consistent with a general sup
approach that we were workers who need port for real estate development. Subsidies
to work where we live for both economic for arts production gave artists no claim to
reasons and the nature of our work. We hit a particular place in the city. So they did not
them with vacancy rates and employment interfere with market forces. After the arts
figures. We offered to put property back on presence helped to revalorize a section of
the tax rolls.” A certain amount of organi the city like SoHo, then the artists could
zational confusion also aided their efforts. take their subsidies and move to another
“We had friends on people’s staffs,” an early declining area. Regarded in the short run
SoHo loft dweller sums up, “especially on as a bonanza for creative and performing
the City Planning Commission— We used artists, production subsidies for the arts
interagency negotiation and countervailing infrastructure proved, in the long run, to be
areas of responsibility to muddle bureau a cornucopia for housing developers. The
cratic efforts to harass us.” use of lofts as performance spaces offers a
Moreover, by the 1970s, art suggested a good example, particularly in the develop
new platform to politicians who were tired ment of the movement known as Loft Jazz.
of dealing with urban poverty. “I’ll tell you Beginning in the early seventies, some
a nasty little story,” an authoritative source musicians who played and composed
on the SoHo artists offers. “experimental,” or “non-mainstream,”
jazz gathered to perform in lofts instead of
At the final hearing where the Board of bars or concert halls. To some degree, their
Estimate voted to approve SoHo as an art work, like that of the artists who formed
ists’ district, there were lots of other groups co-op galleries, was unmarketable. But to
giving testimony on other matters. Poor some degree, also, these musicians delib
people from the South Bronx and Bed-Stuy erately cut themselves off from the tra
complaining about rats, rent control, and ditional access points to the jazz market.
things like that. The board just shelved those
They didn’t like the commercialism of hus
matters and moved right along. They didn’t
know how to proceed. Then they came to us. tling for record contracts and concert dates,
All the press secretaries were there, and the and as Black Muslims, many of them didn’t
journalists. The klieg lights went on, and the approve of the boozy atmosphere of jazz
cameras started to roll. And all these guys clubs. Loft Jazz was more serious, more pro
started making speeches about the impor vocative, and more self-consciously artistic
tance of art to New York City. Those same than the jazz scene had been. In 1972, when
124 | SHARON ZUKIN
the annual Newport Jazz Festival moved to to the entreaties of the other musicians, the
NewYork, several Loft Jazz musicians orga loft tenants turned their premises into jazz
nized their own “aiternative festival,” The clubs and little theaters. They kept rents and
NewYork Musicians’ Festival. Significantly, entrance prices low—and usually operated
their performances were funded by the on the fringes of the local laws governing
National Endowment for the Arts and Mayor entertainment spots and cabarets—and in
Lindsay’s Parks Department. The following time they captured a following. They were
year, the Loft Jazz movement was incorpo known, they were written up in the enter
rated into the regular Newport Festival pro tainment guides, and they even got fund
gram. Half the performances took place in ing from the government. On the one hand,
three jazz lofts: Ornette Coleman’s Axtists” the more serious and avant-garde perfor
House in SoHo, Sam Rivers’s nearby Studio mance spaces were able to qualify for NEA
Rivbea, and a loft in TriBeCa. Because this grants. The more the performers showed
part of the festival was billed as a ‘‘com college credentials as an indication of their
munity” effort, the other concerts were professional training, or in the case of jazz,
scheduled in community centers in vari a degree from the Berklee College of Music
ous neighborhoods. But the press confer or the New England Conservatory, the more
ence that announced the festival within the qualified they appeared for state support.
Festival was held at Artists’ House. There, On the other hand, a variety of local mecha
the NewYork Times noted, the surroundings nisms was developed to help with operat
were much more comfortable than a smoky ing expenses. In NewYork City, for example,
little jazz club. Artists’ House was a large loft this sort of aid flows through the Theater
with pillowcovered parquet floors, where Development Fund (TDF). TDF organizes
the audience could lean back, sipping wine, the sale of discount tickets for theaters and
while they listened to the music.5 otherperformancespacesthataresupposed
By the end of the seventies, Loft Jazz had to be in marginal economic circumstances.
died as a musical movement, but it lived on Through a system of “TDF vouchers,” a
in the performing of jazz in lofts. Although theater or a club is reimbursed for every
the entrepreneurialism involved in estab discount admission ticket that it sells. In
lishing these performance spaces was no practice, a performance place makes more
more formal than it had been, the organi money from a TDF voucher than from an
zation of the performances became more ordinary discount ticket, say, for students.
institutionalized, thanks largely to new TDF is funded by NEA, the New York State
state subsidies on all levels. Generally the Council on the Arts, and corporate and indi
new jazz clubs were set up by a new genera vidual donors. As the young owner of a club
tion of jazz musicians. Young and impover whose jazz performances are subsidized by
ished, educated, ambitious, these would-be both sorts of government grants acknowl
performers lacked a place to operate. Like edges, “This cat named Cy from Brooklyn
the artists who had already learned to turned me on. Can you believe it?! Exxon,
combine living and work space, the musi Ford, and the National Endowment for the
cians adapted lofts to their needs. Not only Arts are subsidizing my club!”
did they use part of their loft as a rehearsal Unfortunately for such entrepreneurs,
studio, but they often rented it out for the state subsidies and public acceptance failed
same purpose to other impecunious young to preserve their lofts as part of the urban
musicians. Eventually the need for practice arts infrastructure. Like artists in SoHo and
space led to a need for performance space, the West Village, by their presence they
and either for their own sake or in response helped to make their loft neighborhoods
FROM ARTS PRODUCTION TO HOUSING MARKET | 125
more visible and more acceptable to the a rehearsal space for a theater company;
general public. With live-in musical per the second floor is half residential and half
formers as “anchor,” their landlords were a dental equipment business; the third
able to convert their buildings informally floor is split between two mixed-use lofts,
to residential use. Performance companies one in which a nurse and an architect live
and performance spaces were evicted in and which the architect uses for his office,
favor of residential tenants who could pay and one occupied by a stockbroker and a
a higher rent and, eventually, for complete woman who runs a plant business in the
and legal residential conversions. Ironically, loft; the fourth floor is entirely residential;
some of the building owners profited from on the fifth floor, half is a doctor’s home, and
the arts infrastructure in more than one the other half is a living and working loft for
way. In quite a few cases, the people who a graphic artist and a fine artist; the sixth
decided on a residential conversion had floor is half residential, where the original
inherited or bought their building from buyer, an architect, sold out to a business
the old generation of loft building owners, man, and half is for both living and running
and these new landlords worked in the arts a catering business owned by a school
economy themselves. Many of them even teacher and a man who directs the food
lived in lofts. department of a hospital (this couple also
But these building owners are only the has a loft in another building which they
cutting edge of a larger process of change. rent out for parties); on the seventh floor,
In many loft neighborhoods a new type of half was sold by an architect to a doctor
cottage industry combines with loft living for a residence, and half is used by two
and the arts infrastructure to create a mixed men who live there and run a mail-order
use that remains entirely within the ser business in the loft; the eighth floor is
vice sector. Generally these loft tenants are divided into a living loft for a young widow
graphics or clothing designers—who may with children and a living loft for a city
farm out the actual production to work planner with work space for her husband,
ers in other areas of the city—and service who is a potter; the ninth floor has two liv
firms from the low end of the tertiary-sec- ing lofts. Such is the physical infrastruc
tor spectrum, like advertising agencies and ture that supports the conversion of an old
architects. Particularly when rents rise in manufacturing center to a new service-
the traditional office market, these sorts sector capital.
of tenants seek cheaper space in marginal For a while, various sorts of “nonproduc
areas. Though a corporate headquarters tive” use can coexist in this infrastructure.
could hardly move to a loft, in their case The creative disharmony is interesting
a loft address is chic. Meanwhile, the loft and sometimes even elegant. But sooner
areas that have been disrupted by a variety or later, a contradiction develops between
of productive uses settle down to a more the production of art and other, higher-
homogeneous variety of middle-class rent uses. At that point, real estate develop
mixed use. ment reasserts its dominance over the arts
In this process of social and neighbor economy. The development strategy that
hood change, a single loft building may rep has been repressed, delayed, or masked by
resent, in spatial terms, a cross-section. For the burgeoning arts infrastructure shows
example, a building in Greenwich Village that in the final count, any use of space is
that was converted “illegally” to co-op lofts expendable. Naturally, the reemergence or
shows a mixture of uses on every floor: the the intensification of a development strat
ground floor is half residential and half egy in the loft market arouses resentment
126 | SHARON ZUKIN
and opposition among loft dwellers. The in America, September 1966, p. 48.
organizations that have been formed over 2. Personal interviews on Fluxus and Greenwich
Street, April-June 1980; on Westbeth see Willkie
the years to defend the interests of this con Farr and Gallagher, “Housing for Artists: The New
stituency have had to formulate an increas York Experience” (Study prepared for Volunteer
ingly anti-development opposition. But as Lawyers for the Arts, NewYork, 1976), pp. 34-35.
the market has changed, so has the loft- Eventually Westbeth was developed as artists'
dwelling constituency. Their stand on real rental housing rather than a co-op, and the ensu
ing problems created or exacerbated certain ten
estate development contradicts, to some sions involving leases and entitlement to space in
degree, their own living in lofts. [...] the building.
3. Unless otherwise noted, the personal material in
this chapter comes from interviews conducted in
NOTES
NewYork in July and August 1980.
* The Board of Estimate, made up of the highest 4. The City Hall-patrician connection contrasts
citywide elected officials, acts as a court of final with more distant relations between political
appeal on land use issues. The South Bronx and officials and social elites in other cities, such as
Bedford Stuyvesant, in Brooklyn, are racial and Philadelphia, where artists' access to loft build
ethnic ghettos. ings had a much rougher road (see Jim Stratton,
1. The Tenth Street Studio withstood steadily rising Pioneering in the Urban Wilderness [New York:
property values until the 1950s. Then it was sold Urizen, 1977), p. 87).
to real estate developers, who demolished it and 5. New York Times, Mar. 19, 1973; also see
put up a new apartment house. For its origins, see Wildflowers: Loft Jazz in New York (Douglas
MaryS. Haverstock, “TheTenth Street Studio,”Art Records, 1977).
CH A P T E R 11
Forging the Link between Culture and Real

Estate: Urban Policy and Real Estate Development
Christopher Mele
In the midst of artists’ and musicians’ self underworld. Bernard’s, a restaurant located
promotion and hype, the social and built on the corner of Avenue C and East Ninth
environment of the East Village was fur Street, specialized in French organic cui
ther objectified in representations as a sine and catered to the uptown advertising
backdrop of a flourishing downtown cul executive crowd, whose chauffeur-driven
tural renaissance. In Steven Spielberg’s limousines were parked out front. The cor
1987 film Batteries Not Included, which ner of Avenue C and East Ninth Street was
was filmed in Loisaida, tiny robotic beings also an outdoor drug bazaar where crack
from outer space help a group of distraught cocaine was primarily sold. What went
residents fight against the demolition of on inside Bernard’s and what happened
their tenement by developers. The film’s outside were related as patrons consumed
happy ending suggests a humane form of a “glamour of poverty” along with their
urban restructuring in which minorities food.
and Whites, rich and poor, and old-timers Throughout the mid-1980s, the down
and newcomers coexist harmoniously in town scene was transformed by media,
a pluralist urban landscape. Other media spectators, and participants from the
coverage presented experimental cultural marginal and rebellious to an urban genre
forms as an awakening and salvation from well suited for urban revitalization. Both
the years of neighborhood decline and real estate developers and the city govern
decay. The blocks between Avenues A and ment employed representations of the
D that had constituted Loisaida became downtown scene to legitimize neighbor
known as “Alphabet City" in the more play hood restructuring practices and policies,
ful mainstream media representations. The to exculpate the social costs of community
real estate sector brought into the image of displacement, and to challenge the valid
decay an image of danger, seediness, and ity of resistance efforts mounted by threat
the mystique of “living on the edge,” at the ened residents. First, the rhetoric of cultural
same time its investment ventures sought renewal facilitated various development
to displace it.1 In retail, restaurants, and policies that encouraged real estate invest
other commercial space, the area’s raw ment and threatened to wrest control of
ness was cleverly packaged as suspense, public space away from low-income resi
intrigue, and adventure for those who imag dents. Second, symbolic representations
ined their visit to the area as an outing to the positively redefined the image of the East
128 | CHRISTOPHER MELE
Village to attract once-skeptical middle- markets for middle- and upper-class con
sized real estate developers, brokers, and sumers.1
large lending institutions. Finally, East In the 1980s, the city administration
Village developers employed the allure of sought to undo most of the programs that
downtown to attract mostly White, middle- had transferred some control over neigh
and upper-income, well-educated people borhood space to low- and moderate-
as tenants. income residents. The Koch administration
At the height of the city’s fiscal crisis, poli utilized its authority over a large percentage
ticians andpolicyanalystsreconceptualized of housing stock to leverage entrepreneur
post-Wo rid War II urban policies in general ial middle- to upper-class redevelopment
and subsidized low-income housing in par of housing in the East Village. The agency
ticular as too economically inefficient and ostensibly created to protect low-income
overly generous to the poor. Under the ide neighborhoods from the ravages of dis
ological leadership of the Reagan adminis investment, the Department of Housing
tration, the (few remaining) Great Society Preservation and Development (HPD),
urban programs and policies were subject became the institutional strong arm for
to extensive criticism, disavowal, and ulti private revitalization. Many of the city’s
mately blame for the lack of private growth tenant self-management and ownership
in the central city. The new urban initiatives programs were severely curtailed, under
and policies developed in the 1980s were financed, or totally eliminated to promote
shaped and defined by a post-fiscal crisis private redevelopment rather than com
discourse that emphasized increasing tax munity empowerment.4 Throughout the
revenues through development incentives 1980s, HPD demolished city-owned build
and the rollback of governmental provision ings (some occupied by squatters), leaving
of low-income housing. Political leaders empty parcels that were more attractive to
and policymakers drew lessons from the fis developers seeking to construct new hous
cal crisis, which was reconfigured as a crisis ing. In addition to undermining the gains of
of disincentives for urban investment rather community activists over land use, the city
than the city’s inability to address or contain administration devised ways to transfer its
mounting social problems. City agencies control of in rem units to private develop
with any degree of authority over private ers. In 1982, HPD announced its plan to auc
or public land use and development were tion part of its stock of TIL (Tenant-Interim
brought in line with an aggressive entrepre Lease) buildings to the highest bidders.
neurial and pro-growth ideology. During Protest by community groups and housing
the budgetary crisis, for example, the city’s organizations thwarted the auction plan,
planning department was restructured forcing the city to reinstate a moratorium on
to be less acquiescent to costly neighbor sales. In a similar vein, the city’s position on
hood and community initiatives (roughly, the urban garden movement shifted dras
the 1960s democratic planning model) and tically. In the 1970s the city was supportive
more amenable to private redevelopment of gardens, often leasing unkempt lots to
needs (e.g., granting developers excep residents to grow vegetables and flowers.
tions to zoning ordinances).2 With respect With the rebound of the housing market,
to low-income neighborhoods in particu however, the city placed a moratorium on
lar, the city’s position was to encourage and leasing lots to gardeners.5
subsidize efforts by the middle-sized and While city officials devised ways to retract
large developers and lending institutions to the gains of low- and moderate-income
enter and transform working-class housing residents and their representative housing
FORGING THE LINK BETWEEN CULTURE AND REAL ESTATE | 129
organizations, they explored new ways to to rein in the area’s free-wheeling, chaotic
take full advantage of the media attention on social environment. City policies, in short,
the East Village’s middle-class cultural set threatened to fundamentally undermine
tlement. In 1981-82, the Koch administra the subcultural basis of the downtown
tion proposed the Artists Homeownership scene that was completely enmeshed
Program (AHOP) to convert in rem prop in the local drug culture and reputedly
erties into artists’ housing. The program derived its creative energy from an envi
called for conversion of abandoned build ronment of despair. In the early 1980s, the
ings into cooperative housing for artists of police mounted an antidrug effort called
moderate incomes ($40,000-550,000 per Operation Pressure Point, sending over
year) and was billed as a means to prevent 230 officers and 40 detectives along with
displacement of East Village artists.6 The numerous vehicles and helicopters to begin
city’s Department of Housing Preservation what locals described as a military invasion
and Development chose a site on East of Loisaida. To drive out the entrenched
Eighth Street between Avenues B and C for two-decade-old drug economy, the police
the program’s first phase. Ten contiguous occupied streets, corners, empty lots, and
tenements were to be gutted and rebuilt parks: within a month 14,285 (!) people
into small lofts for living and working. The were arrested on drug-related charges.
city’s Board of Estimate defeated AHOP in Operation Pressure Point was a public rela
1983, however, after community groups tions victory for the Koch administration as
protested the availability of subsidies for sensational scenes of drug busts and police
middle-income rather than low-income occupation were widely circulated by the
housing development. The Lower East Side media and played well with the image of
Joint Planning Council mobilized against a neighborhood renaissance. Operation
the plan on the basis that its obvious inten Pressure Point had a less significant effect
tion was to heighten the neighborhood’s on the elimination of the local drug econ
allure to investors and private developers.7 omy, pushing transactions farther under
The councilwoman representing Loisaida ground and into apartments and tenement
and the surrounding district referred to the hallways. Under the guise of enforcement,
plan as “a front for gentrification.”8 AHOP the police also periodically cracked down
was a blatant attempt to re-create SoHo- on ad hoc outdoor flea markets along St.
styled development—that is, to harness the Mark’s Place, Second Avenue, and Avenue
downtown culture scene to trigger a dom A, which were a source of income for some
ino effect of upscale redevelopment. residents and many homeless persons.
Municipal agencies sought to promote Anti-loitering campaigns along neighbor
their own interests and those of developers hood streets and corners, ostensibly to curb
through manipulation of certain symbols the drug and prostitution trade, restricted a
representative of the East Village art scene long Lower East Side tradition of “hanging
and not others. That is, the city’s gesture to out,” especially among youth. In the mid-
promote the local arts was not an unequivo 1980s, the area’s many lots were fenced in,
cal acceptance of downtown subculture but preventing their use as gardens or make
rather of its milder representations condu shift junkyards, as well as for nefarious drug
cive to the development agenda. Indeed, transactions. While poor and minority resi
the Koch administration’s pro-develop dents felt the brunt of the city’s policing and
ment agenda contained draconian policies surveillance, the subcultural communities
to rid the neighborhood of its “unsavory were not left untouched. The downtown
elements,” to sanitize its public spaces, and scene was, after all, thoroughly steeped in
the drug consumption culture. City poli sition to the intended outcome, redevel
cies sought to sanitize the area’s seamy opment. “Quality of life” improvements,
reputation and to rein in the very same free such as those made to parks, streets, and
wheeling, chaotic social environment that public buildings, were often used to justify
initially gave impetus to the downtown cre and exculpate the social cost of residential
ative scene. Police raided and closed down displacement that was the consequence of
several of the neighborhood’s illegal after- private redevelopment efforts.
hours clubs, dampening the area’s hedo By controlling the use of public space,
nistic atmosphere. The surveillance and the city helped construct an identity more
regulation of activities within Tompkins inclined toward the middle-class residents
Square Park that escalated throughout the that developers ultimately were seeking
1980s fueled intense neighborhood resis to attract. Less subtle were city programs
tance beginning in 1988, as discussed in that directly encouraged displacement of
chapters. low-income communities and promoted
Most of the public social and cultural private upscale residential and com
practices of Loisaida emerged within the mercial initiatives. In the early 1980s, the
landscape of wide-scale abandonment city capitalized on the burst in economic
and disenfranchisement in the 1970s. As activity and launched several initiatives to
discussed in the preceding chapter, such subsidize new business, commercial, and
practices were an assertion of community residential construction as well as rehabili
identity and a collective challenge to the tation. Corporations and large developers
drugs and crimes that plagued the area. All received extensive tax abatements for the
of the city’s social control practices in the building of office towers, such as AT&T’s
1980s were aimed ostensibly at eliminat multimillion-dollar tax break for its new
ing illicit activities, but no effort was made headquarters on Madison Avenue (later
by the city to stipulate for Latino social and sold to the Sony corporation)9 or the more
cultural functions that had occurred in recent redevelopment of Times Square. The
these same public spaces. By proclaiming city also subsidized large multiuse devel
to have improved the "quality of life” for all opment projects, including South Street
residents through social control of public Seaport and Battery Park City, both in lower
space, the city also complicated the politics Manhattan.10 Although neither as obvious
of resistance against neighborhood redevel nor as spectacular, other government inter
opment. Operation Pressure Point cleared vention policies were geared toward small-
notorious drug blocks, such as East Second scale, piecemeal redevelopment of the
Street, and benefited residents, such as the city’s older neighborhoods. These incen
elderly or couples with children, who felt tives sought to draw real estate money into
trapped by the drug trade. Yet the neigh low-income and capital-deficient neigh
borhood’s increasing safety also made its borhoods to radically transform their
housing more attractive to developers and landscapes into middle- and upper-class
increased the threat of displacement for enclaves. Development programs known
these same populations. Support for “qual as MCI, J-51, and 421-a were the founda
ity of life” concerns among the area’s threat tion of an ambitious coalition between city
ened low-income residents frequently led agencies and private developers to renew
to their alliances with wealthier newcom the older housing stock unit by unit, build
ers on such issues. City policies shrouded ing by building.
the obvious political economic cleavage The city's pro-development agencies
and, consequently, diluted political oppo instituted incentives and subsidies for
FORGING THE LINK BETW EEN C ULTUR E AND REAL ESTATE |
owners to substantially renovate units in alterations” exemption clause to regulated

their buildings." Because of the design of rents was a popular tool in the East Village.
the incentive programs, they were profit Rent regulation procedures determine the
able to landlords only if they could charge new rent w'hen a unit is vacated, typically
substantially higher rents for the renovated a 12 percent increase of the former rent.
units. A program offered by the Division of Landlords circumvented this regulation,
Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) however, by substantially altering vacated
called the Major Capital Improvement apartments.'5 In addition to “gut" rehabili
(MCI) subsidized buildingwide improve tation, developers frequently redesigned
ments such as new windows, furnaces, interior spaces (e.g., combining two units
and boilers.12 The program allowed own or converting tenement dumbbell airshafts
ers to pass on all direct and indirect costs into elevators16). If apartments were altered
of improvement to tenants by increas so that they no longer approximated the
ing regulated rents gradually and perma size or dimension present when the base
nently (once the costs were paid, rent hikes (original) rents were first determined, then
remained as profit)." Two tax reduction landlords were eligible to charge much
programs, J-51 for old buildings and 421-a higher “first” rents based on the current
for new construction, also promoted neigh free-market value.17 Significant modifica
borhood upgrading. J-51 offered two forms tions allowed landlords to escalate rents
of benefits to owners in return for certain unit by unit, creating wide discrepancies
improvements: (1) tax abatements that in rents charged within the same building.
lowered the amount of property tax for a When regulated one-bedroom apartments
period ranging from twelve to twenty years, that rented from $90 to $125 per month
and (2) exemptions from any tax increases became vacant, the incentive to renovate
that resulted from reassessments based on was strong. [...]
capital improvements made. The Section
421-a program was part of the State of New NOTES
York’s Real Property Tax Law. For properties
1. Village Voice, Dcccmbcr 14,1982.
constructed under 421-a subsidy, property
2. Huxtable 1987.
taxes were phased in incrementally over a 3. Huxtable 1987.
ten-year period, including a total exemp 4. Sites 1994:201.
tion during construction and the first two 5. Schmelzkopf 1995:377.
years of operation. Eligible ow'ners agreed 6. NewYork Times, August 11,1981.
7. The Villager, May 13.1982:5.
to offer rent-stabilized units during the
8. NewYork Times, May4,1982.
period in which the tax abatement was 9. Sleeper 1987:437.
applied. The construction of Red Square, 10. Fainstein 1994:49.
a massive apartment complex located on 11. The incentives were typically tax abatements, but
Houston Street between Avenue A and First certain programs also allowed landlords to pass
the costs of renovation on to tenants.
Avenue, was subsidized by the Section 421-
12. Division of Housing and Community Renewal
a program. 1987.
Since these programs fostered significant 13. Apartment Law Insider, January 1990:1.
building renovations or new construction, 14. Interviews by author with real estate developers,
they directly encouraged the displacement 1990.
of minority and/ or low-income residents.'4 15. The setting of the base rent for rent stabiliza
tion was determined not solely by the year the
Significant “loopholes’ in rent regulation initial lease began but also by the original spa
laws also provided owners a means to tial dimensions of the apartment. The alteration
quick (re)development. The "substantial clause in the regulation read that a new first rent
surpassed the original base rent when a unit was Tomorrow: The Decline and Fall of the New York
substantially altered to the extent that it was not Vision/’ Dissent 34 (fall): 453-62.
in existence in its present form on the base date. New York Times, 1981. “The Mayors Lower East Side
Landlords could charge a new “first” rent only if Story: Tenements into Co-ops for Artists." August
the outer walls of a regulated apartment had been 11:9.
changed. After renovation, the apartment's outer ----- . 1982. "16 Tenements to Become Artist Units in
dimensions were required to be either larger or City Plan.” May 4:6.
smaller than before. ----- . 1988. “Tenements of 1880s Adapt to 1980s.”
16. New York Times, January 3,1988. January 3: Real Estate Section: 1.
17. Apartment Law Insider, December 1989:1. Schmelzkopf, Karen. 1995. “Urban Community
Gardens as Contested Space.” Geographical Review
85, no. 3 (July): 364-81.
R EFEREN CES Sites, William. 1994. “Public Action: New York City
Policy and the Gentrification of the Lower East
Apartment Law Insider, 1989. “Get Free Market Kent Side.” In From Urban Village to Fast Village: The
for Substantially Altered Apartment.” December: Battle fo r New York’s Lower East Side, Janet L. Abu-
1. Lughod et al. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell: 189-
Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 212 .
1987. “Major Capital Improvements (MCI)/' Sleeper, Jim. 1987. "Boom and Bust with Ed Koch,”
New York: Division of Housing and Community Dissent34 (fall): 413-52.
Renewal. The Villager. 1982. “Artists' Housing Program Meets
Fainstein, Susan S. 1994. The City Builders: Property, Resistance from Local Residents Who Fear
Politics, and Planning in London and New York. Displacement,” May 13:5.
Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Village Voice. 1982. “Space Invaders: Land Grab on the
Huxtable, Ada Louise, 1987. “Stumbling toward Lower East Side,” December 14:10.
C H A P T E R 12
Estate Agents as Interpreters of Economic

and Cultural Capital: The Gentrification
Premium in the Sydney Housing Market1
Gary Bridge
INTRODUCTION boundaries of gentrification and its eco

nomic premium for gentrifiers.
There is renewed vigour to the argument The research was conducted in three
about the causes and character of gentrifi districts in Sydney’s inner west—Balmain/
cation (Lees, 1996; Ley, 1996; Lyons, 1996; Rozelle, Glebe and Newtown. These areas
1998; Smith, 1996; Butler, 1997; Redfern, consist of Victorian/Edwardian terraces
1997a; 1997b;Bondi, 1999). This article pur and detached houses, many with the iron-
sues the social, economic and cultural con lace balconies so characteristic of Sydney’s
sequences of this process and, in particular, gentrification. They are within 1-2 miles
how it is maintained. The economic delin of the CBD, with good communications.
eations of the market for gentrified housing These are districts which have gentrified
and the social expression of taste by gentri over the last 20 years or so. Balmain is the
fiers can be investigated in their dynamic most established and expensive. It is situ
relationships using Bourdieu’s concepts ated on a peninsula and so has no through
of material and cultural capital. The way traffic and plenty of water views. Glebe
in which housing taste results in price at abuts Sydney University and was initially
the market reveals the boundary marking gentrified by academics and other public
of gentrification as a form of distinction. professionals. Newtown gentrified most
Aesthetics are important in consideration of recently and still has a large student popu
wider issues in gentrification—for instance lation and ‘bohemian’ atmosphere.
the degree to which this taste is constituted Average capital growth rates of return
from within gentrified districts or enforced on residential property in these districts
from without (by ‘the market’, or class con of the inner west from 1987 to 1997 stood
stitution prior to gentrification and outside at 11.5%, higher than the rate for inner
the gentrified neighbourhood—Bridge, Sydney (11.39%) and considerably higher
1994; 1995). than in the Sydney metropolitan area as a
Estate agents are the key intermediar whole (8.14%) (Residex Pty, 1997). Median
ies in the encounter between housing taste house prices ranged from $300,000 in
and price. This research investigates estate Newtown to $365,000 in Glebe to $500,000
agents’ understandings and representa in Balmain. The sociodemographic profile
tions of this relationship in Sydney’s inner of the incomers is overwhelmingly profes
west. It marks out the aesthetic and social sional (see Horvath et al., 1989). Typical
134 I GARY BRIDGE
entries for occupation in the book of regis tionship with potential purchasers (Clarke
tered prospective purchasers (the prospect, etal., 1994).
or key book) of an inner-west estate agent In this article I argue that their role as
were: corporate communications special financial and social intermediaries calls
ist, director of a real estate company, fund upon the use of social skills and the abil
manager, consultant for Deloitte Touche, ity to ‘interpret’ and translate between
assistant vice president of a bank, senior different tastes and different classes. This
civil engineer, executive director of a video situation is particularly pronounced in a
filming company. gentrifying neighbourhood where mid-
dle-class purchasers and tastes encounter
working-class vendors and tastes. In this
ESTATE AGENTS— RELIABLE
situation estate agents must also translate
WITNESSES?
between taste and price. In what ways will
The role of estate agents in gentrification the display of different tastes in the struc
has received surprisingly little attention in tural and cosmetic appearance of a house
the literature. Where they have been a part translate into its price on the market (and
of the analysis it has normally been in an in order to set a reserve price for auction in
institutional context where their activities the Australian case)? This translation work
have been seen at a general level to encour is implicated in the relationship between
age gentrification and assist the displace cultural and economic capital: how cultural
ment of working-class tenants and owners capital converts into economic capital;
(Williams, 1976; Hamnett and Randolph, how taste is reflected in price. Agents must
1986) or the niche-marketing of neighbour negotiate the boundaries of class demar
hoods (Lees, 1996). This is largely an insti cation and distinction. These boundaries
tutional and functional approach. Yet, at are at once fluid (like the edges of flames,
the level of micro-sociology, estate agents according to Bourdieu, 1984) and rigid. The
occupy a critical role as both financial and fluidity of these boundaries is shown in this
sociological intermediaries. article through the subtleties of the gen
One reason for the limited nature of aca trification aesthetic, and rigidities emerge
demic research using estate agents is that when that aesthetic is transgressed, in the
they are considered to be unreliable wit examples given, by over-gentrification and
nesses. Some of their methods involve eva ethnic rehabilitation.
siveness at best and duplicity at worst. In Estate agents must interpret and work on
addition, academic research has pointed to these social dynamics to succeed at their job
examples of extreme, illegal and deplorable and so their practices and spoken accounts
practices in the real estate industry such of these issues is potentially of great value.
as blockbusting and racial steering and Certainly the accounts given to me by
segregation (Massey and Denton, 1993). agents in Sydney showed a good degree of
Nevertheless, many individual estate agents consistency and sociological awareness.
consider that they aim to achieve probity in
their dealings. Indeed, it has been argued
ESTATE AGENTS AS SOCIAL AND
that their reputation as ‘slippery custom
FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES
ers’ is in part an outcome of their role as
intermediaries between vendor and poten As financial intermediaries, estate agents
tial purchaser, particularly in the UK and must first ‘make a price’. In the Sydney auc
Australia where they must represent the tion system, this means coming to agree
interests of the vendor but build up a rela ment on a reserve price for the vendor.
ESTATE AGENTS AS INTERPRETERS OF ECONOM IC AND C ULTUR AL CAPITAL | 135
This is a highly contested process that can typically move between working-class
involve dummy bids by the vendor’s agents vendors and middle-class purchasers. The
and buyers hiring professional bidders. latter group have their own characteristics.
The property may be withdrawn by the As a Sydney agent relates:
vendor at any time. Agents get commis
sion on sale only and so are keen to make nowadays we have to write ads that appeal
any sale. Vendors must pay the advertising to people that are well educated and who are
costs whether there is a sale or not. These . . . in the upper econom ic bracket and so they
have to be treated from the start (TM).
additional complexities2 add to the ‘inter
pretative’ nature of pricing a property. if I’m writing an ad for a property, I’ll go
Unlike other commodities, the price can through the property and I’ll look at the
not be fixed in advance of sale. Properties character and the Victorian history of the
are unique (although they have features home and write the ad around that, rather
in common) and the market is essentially than write about how many bedrooms, how
many lounge rooms, what it’s got. I’ll look
local, and so market forces are insufficiently
at the character first. And we’re finding the
strong to give a clear signal on price. Given buyers who are buying it are sophisticated,
these circumstances, valuation ‘is based and they’re looking for character. They buy
almost entirely on comparability, with gut it because of the history. They buy it because
feeling compensating for those areas where they’re turned off by the modernization of
comparison is impossible, and frequently a terrace, so you’re looking at a cultural-
being used as the leading basis for valuation’ different type of person who is looking for a
(Clarke et al., 1994: 76). Valuation is criti home which has character (WG).
cal in obtaining instructions (the vendor
selecting the agent to take on the property) Agents show a sensibility to the varying rela
in competition with other estate agencies tionship between taste and price. The fol
and as a basis for negotiation of sale. The lowing statement is almost Bourdieuian in
price is 'not a single figure but a series of its articulation of the relationship between
meanings affecting the parties involved’ cultural and economic capital:
{ibid.: 75). In the case of gentrification, this
what happens is a lot of the people who live
price must also reflect the aesthetic mark in Glebe, a lot of our clients, whether they be
up to capture the fact that another class of customers, purchasers or owners who have
purchasers value the properties in a differ a background or roots in Glebe, they might,
ent way. As one Sydney agent explains: they’ve been to university so they have an
academic, more sophisticated background,
If you get back and look at it as a valuer and more cultural background than an average
I say fine, the land is worth $100,000 and the suburb h a s. . . [theyl don’t have a lot of money
cost to build the house is $200,000 and the but they have the knowledge, they also have
rent is so much, returning that property at 8% the ability to convert these old homes which
or 7% or whatever it is, I can say that property were, 20 years ago, turned from beautiful
is worth— land and house worth 300, build old Victorian homes to just money earning,
ing a little bit of increase for the rent— so it’s devoid of character, aluminium-windowed
probably worth 320. That property can sell properties and they convert them back into
for $500,000 because it’s been restored cor the Victorian home. It’s a difference between,
rectly (WN). it’sadifferent social class, it’sagentrification of
it. A lot of the people in Glebe aren’t as wealthy
Estate agents are also social intermediar as they’d like to be but culturally they’re very
ies (House, 1977). When selling in gentri wealthy so consequently you . . . don’t get,
fying neighbourhoods, estate agents must well, you don’t get, they’re not very expensive
136 | GARY BRIDGE
homes, a dear home here would be $700,000, displacement or voluntary departure,

$800,000, that’s a dear house in Glebe. You get the aesthetics of working-class residents
the odd home which is worth over a million must feature more strongly in accounts of
but they’re spectacular homes and they gen gentrification. The relationship between
erally don’t change around (WG).
working-class and middle-class tastes and
various economic imperatives is especially
Agents’ appraisals of taste provide a contrast
important.
in terms of how working-class and middle-
These contrasts in the class-based
class sellers and buyers ‘see’ value. Looking
judgement of taste must be negotiated by
at the decisions by the children of working-
the agent when moving between working-
class residents concerning their parents’
class vendor and middle-class purchaser.
deceased estates in gentrified neighbour
This negotiation is put into a public and
hoods, many of the estate agents inter
performative context by the auction system
viewed argued that value was constructed
of house sales in Sydney.
differently. This was shown in contrasting
reactions to the Victorian terraces.
CLASS DEMARCATION AS PUBLIC
when you look at people who are passing
PERFORMANCE: HOUSING
away— they are usually in their 70s and 80s,
90s whatever. If the children are in their 50s,
AUCTIONS
60s— when you look at the age when they Auctions in Sydney come in two formats.
were growing up— they were living in small They can be conducted on the site of the
terraces, it was working class, they were co n
house itself and concern that single prop
sidered inferior you know, whatever, and
erty. Alternatively, large numbers of proper
it was always the dream that you have your
dream house with a block, your block of land
ties can be sold at auctions held by the large
and you go out to the suburbs— and that was estate agencies in various hotels around
the dream you know, that was the thing every Sydney. At these auctions each property
one wanted. So they’ve all gone out too, they is introduced by the auctioneer using a
aspired to do it and they have, so the last thing slide show and verbal descriptions of the
they want to do is to go back to their roots ‘cos property.
they still see it as working class (FV). I attended a number of such block auc
tions in November 1997. The purpose was
Another agent put it like this:
to compare price with aesthetic ‘condition’.
WG: They sell it [deceased estates]. . . I think In many cases these sales involved working-
where they live are cheaper areas and they class vendors and middle-class purchasers
see the price of a home in Glebe that they can present in the auction room. The auction
split the money up if it’s a family . . . and put eers’ public presentations thus had to draw
it somewhere where they see value, and they the potential middle-class purchasers
don't see value in Glebe. without offending the working-class ven
GB: So they’re different. . . dors. Agents operating as auctioneers used
a number of linguistic devices to bridge this
WG: Different group of people, yeah.
taste divide. In some cases, middle-class
GB: It’s a different perception of what? vendors were selling to middle-class buy
WG: Of what value is.
ers and so the description emphasized the
commonalities of taste; ‘a home from a by
These observations suggest that in order to gone era, leaded windows; extremely good
understand the class dynamics of neigh taste; it’s got apple pie right through it; a
bourhood change involving working-class lady that appreciates good taste’.
ESTATE AG ENTS AS INTERPRETERS OF ECONOM IC AND C ULTUR AL CAPITAL | 137
In other cases, the taste line has to be distinction. They have insufficient material
crossed. A range of euphemisms are used to capital to do so through obvious displays
signal acknowledgement of the perception of wealth (considerable wealth is its own
of the property by the middle-class buy social marker). The new middle class mark
ers without alienating the working-class themselves out through a cultural strategy
vendors (for whom the agents are working that involves displays of discernment and
after all). These included ‘well presented’, ‘good taste’. This cultural strategy relies on
‘beautifully presented’, ‘carefully presented the deployment of cultural capital.
home’. Insomewhat stronger cases, descrip Bourdieu’s (1979; 1984) arguments are
tions include ‘full of character but might potentially useful in understanding ele
need a bit of updating’. Describing ‘a high ments of gentrification. Gentrification can
pitched-roof cottage’ containing reproduc be seen as a ‘field’ in Bourdieu’s terms, a
tion furniture, thick pile carpets and 1970s terrain where the particular mixtures of
fittings, the auctioneer recommended that economic and cultural capital are deployed
the property ‘could be renovated’ and then by different classes to maintain distinction
added hastily, 'but don’t get me wrong, it’s a from each other. These relationships exist
very well presented property folks’ (hotel- both in social space and over time. This
based auction, November 1997). again applies to gentrification where the
This reveals the class aesthetics of the argument in this paper and elsewhere is that
process. To be successful, estate agents economic capital becomes more significant
must act as intermediaries between people than cultural capital as gentrification pro
of different classes who have different tastes ceeds. This, too, captures Bourdieu’s idea
in housing, house interiors and furnishings. that economic and cultural capital can,
They must have a sensitive understanding to a certain extent, be exchanged for one
of the subtleties of taste differences. These another. Bourdieu also offers gentrification
taste differences are at the heart of what researchers the conceptual framework to
Bourdieu identifies as cultural strategies to ask whether this residential strategy is part
maintain distinction. of a new cultural habitus of a putative ‘new
middle class’. Habitus is both 'the ability to
produce classifiable practices and works,
HOUSING AESTHETICS AND
and the capacity to differentiate and appre
‘DISTINCTION’
ciate those practices and products (taste)
In his important article, ‘Class defini [by which] the represented social world,
tion and the aesthetics of gentrification: i.e. the spaces of lifestyles, is constructed’
Victoriana in Melbourne’, Michael Jager (Bourdieu, 1984: 170). Those with social
started to pull together the links between power have a monopoly over ways of seeing
social class, aesthetics and housing form: and classifying objects according to their
‘The gentrifier is caught between a former criteria of good taste. The ability to create
gentry ethic of social representation being new systems of discernment is class power.
an end in itself, and a more traditional petty Gentrification can be seen as one such
bourgeois ethic of economic valorisation’ reclassification (away from the working-
(Jager, 1986:83). class city and the desirability of the middle-
This points to the tension between eco class suburbs) in which inner urban living
nomic capital and social representation. became once again invested with ideas of
It is a tension that is originally thought to status, style and cosmopolitanism. This
arise from the desire for certain sections innovation in taste could be viewed as an
of the new middle class to achieve social act of ‘symbolic violence’ over others, in
138 | GARY BRIDGE
this case, the working-class residents of identified the distinctive characteristic of

the inner city. This is the aesthetic border the new class as its ‘cosmopolitanism’.
that is the equivalent of gentrification-
induced displacement in those inner urban
THE CENTRAL CITY AS CULTURAL
neighbourhoods themselves (although
CAPITAL
this process might be more complex when
working-class taste is taken into account, as The aesthetic redefinition of the central city
I have suggested). as desirable is an act of class power. Yet the
Gentrification can be seen as a collection consumption of inner urban space brings
of class strategies involving varying deploy into conflict the cultural strategy of the new
ments of cultural and economic capital in middle class and their class relations. An
time and space. Bourdieu (1984) argues inner urban lifestyle is distinct in two ways.
that cultural capital is gained through edu In its location at the historic core of the city,
cation and family background. The cultural close to the centre, at the heart of things,
capital of the middle classes contrasts with it is defined against the lack of distinctive
that of the upper classes. Whereas aesthetic ness, the homogeneity and ‘anywhereness’
appreciation of the upper classes is innate of the suburbs (Ley, 1996). This is a separa
and intuitive, based on social background, tion of the new middle class and the 'middle
for the middle classes it is learned and self- middle class’ who occupy the suburbs. It
conscious. This makes the middle-class brings them into direct confrontation with
aesthetic more open to self-conscious dis working-class neighbourhoods and work
cussion and other influences. It makes it ing-class history and taste in the central
more public, more reflexive, less certain. In city. The cultural strategy in support of class
contrast, the aesthetic sensibilities of the distinction is direct and uncompromis
upper class are private, undisputed, invis ing. It is to transform working-class hous
ible. ing into a display of bourgeois good taste.
To adapt Bourdieu’s assumptions, what This involves emphasizing the historical
makes the new middle class ‘new’ is a qualities of the house by stripping back to
particular combination of economic and the original. Floorboards are stripped, sash
cultural capital that enables them to dis windows reinstalled, fireplaces restored or
tinguish themselves from other classes on reinserted in what is familiarly known as
a number of fronts. Their aesthetic sen the gentrification aesthetic.
sibilities are drawn from their education One of the features of gentrification has
and have to be consciously established been that the deployment of a cultural aes
and reproduced (most notably as reflexive thetic to provide social distinction has in
consumers). turn enhanced material capital. The legiti
Cultural capital makes up for the short mation of this process has been seen in
fall of material capital that would be neces considerable house price rises in the gentri
sary to have the straightforward distinction fied neighbourhoods of most large western
of capitalists. The objects and articulations capitalist cities (as noted for Sydney’s inner
of good taste are varied but are particularly west). In this sense, ‘taste’ has converted
exhibitedin spheres of consumption involv into ‘price’. Part of the reason for sustained
ing food, clothing, the media and certain rises (allowing for general housing market
locations for living and leisure. Of the latter, fluctuations) has been the fact that gentri
an inner urban lifestyle is the most charac fication has increasingly involved wealthier
teristic of the new middle class. Writing 20 members of the middle class. This is repre
years ago, Gouldner (1979) prophetically sented by the stage model of gentrification
ESTATE AGENTS AS INTERPRETERS OF ECONOM IC AND CULTUR AL CAPITAL | 139
(such as Harrison, 1983) based on earlier through to considerable internal structural

ecological neighbourhood lifecycle mod alterations. Much of this work is changing
els (Hoover and Vernon, 1962). In the early the historic structure of theVictorian terrace
days, gentrification is carried out by lower and the question arises as to how much the
paid professionals (teachers, academics, gentrification aesthetic based on historical
nurses) and involves modest upgrading of qualities of the house can encompass or is
the property. As the process consolidates, in tension with this modernization activity.
higher paid professionals are attracted. The Jager (1986) noted the tension between
process is also more commodified, involv history and modernization in his analysis
ing local builders turning over properties in of press adverts for housing in Melbourne
a gentrified style. When the neighbourhood (see also Mills, 1988). “‘Victorian with
is fully ‘established’, large developers might modern additions, ‘‘country life” but a well
get involved in converting former indus appointed kitchen’” (1986: 82). Jager goes
trial or commercial properties to inner-city on to argue:
lofts. Larger and larger amounts of capital
follow the gentrification aesthetic. At the The combination and 'history’ is not conflic-
scale of the city economy, culture attracts tual.butrathercomplementary. Forevenwith
capital (Zukin, 1982). renovation, modernisation takes the form of
neo-archaism—an attempt to return to a pre
industrial past with handmade bricks, and a
HOUSING RENOVATION, MATERIAL refutation of mass products. Victoriana dis
AND CULTURAL CAPITAL tinguishes itself from an industrialised low
culture. In this way the retrieval of history
At the level of the personal finances of the becomes an instance of modernity. This new-
gentrifiers in the early and consolidation romanticism of urban conservation incorpo
phases of gentrification, we have a mutually rates the most modern functional elements.
reinforcing relationship between cultural History is not restored in urban conservation,
and material capital, or taste and price. In but recovered in a distorted and partial form
the early stages, cultural capital ‘captures’ {ibid.: 88).
material capital. The relatively small invest
ments by lower-paid professionals in ‘risky’
AESTHETICS AND THE NEW
inner urban neighbourhoods reap con
MIDDLE CLASS
siderable material rewards through large
house price gains. However, as gentrifica There is an extensive literature on the ori
tion goes on, these social groups have been gins and composition of the ‘new mid
increasingly excluded and the wealthier dle class’ (Carchedi, 1977; Renner, 1978;
professionals have bought into the aes Ehrenreich and Ehrenreich, 1979; Gouldner,
thetic. In this sense, the quotient of material 1979; Goldthorpe, 1982; 1995; Wright, 1985;
capital required to meet the gentrification Resnick and Wolff, 1987). I have applied
aesthetic has risen. these debates to the gentrification lit
The aesthetic itself also changes in mate erature elsewhere (Bridge, 1995). Here we
rial terms. As Horvath and Engels (1985) focus on the mix of cultural and economic
noted, in the early days of gentrification, capital as a key feature of the constitution
the mark of social distinction was a lick of and characteristics of the new middle class.
paint (in a certain pastel shade of course). The changing material cost of the gentrifi
As the process progresses, more and more cation aesthetic raises the question about
is done to the home, from the stripping of the degree to which the gentrification liter
floorboards and reinstallation of fireplaces ature has relied on a fairly static view of just
140 | G A R Y B R ID G E
what the displays o f good taste are that co n They’ll keep the lofty ceilings, the cornices
stitute this cultural strategy of the new m id are great. . . the best capital improvement to
dle class. Here I argue that the relationship be made to properties is to include modern,
betw een m aterial and cultural capital (or functional kitchens and bathrooms . . . They
appreciate Victorian architecture from the
taste and price) continues to change. The
outside ’cos the streetscape has to be main
gentrification aesthetic contains a tension
tained. That maintains the value of the home.
over time and space that has im plications They won’t paint it in the wrong colours.
for our understanding of the relation They will go to a correct colour chart and do
ship betw een m aterial and cultural capital the exterior in a colour that would suit. But
and the class relations of the new middle internally you will have. . . recessed halogen
class. lighting but fireplaces will be retained, man
The aesthetic sensibilities of the new telpieces—things like that—but the colour
middle class are publicly discussed. Because schemes will be very, very contemporary
of their com parative econ om ic wealth and (MT).
the self-consciousness o f their aesthetic
they’re giving the Victorian image with the
realm, one characteristic of the new middle
year 2000 amenities and they’re really going
class is as taste and trend setters. As Jager
over the top (JH).
(1986:84-5) expresses it:
the majority of them are renovated in fairly
Victoriana is a fetish, in Marx’s sense, in that similar ways . . . they’ve got, sure, they’ve got
the objects of culture are made to bear the the floorboards and... they modernise them
burden of a more onerous social significance, but try to retain the original features. There’s
and yet retain a distinct material function. not many people that really gut them com
This is clearest with internal renovations, pletely and just completely modernise them
where actually the authenticity of the 20th and do that; Most people are trying to retain
century working-class home was as unde its traditional feel. There are a few exceptions
sirable as that of the 19th century Victorian to that rule. Also, because sale-wise they sell
home was unrealisable. For the economic better. .. most people are looking for a tradi
investment in Victoriana depended upon tional two-storey terrace that has the ornate
thoroughly modern renovations, especially ceilings and the fireplace and polished floors
in the kitchen, and the provision of modern and those sorts of things, so people want that
appliances. The Victorian aesthetic had its so they tend to maintain that. They might
limits; it legitimates but cannot be allowed to change the kitchen and bathrooms, make
compromise economic investment. them modern and open-plan and try to open
things up a bit more. But they’re fairly stan
Here we have the new middle class as taste- dard, just light variations on them (FV).
makers. Fashion is part of their class iden
FV: Not overly tizzy. Very simple straight lines
tity. New m iddle-class gentrifiers recognize
the need for a historical marker but also GB: What do you mean by tizzy?
need to be at the edge of taste-m aking. This
FV: Like it’s not sort of completely sort of
balance of sym bols of the old and the new tlouncy, it’s more, you know, like clean colours,
is at the heart of the socially differentiating clean lines but with the original features
nature of the gentrification aesthetic. This intact. So you might have the white walls and
was noted by all the Sydney estate agents the beautiful ceilings and fireplaces, polished
interviewed. For example: floors, simple lines, modern-day kitchen.
most people here want, they love the exterior, This balance o f history and m odernity can
but they just want modern functional style. be very fine.
ES TA TE A G EN TS AS INTER P R ETER S OF EC O N O M IC AND C U L T U R A L CAP ITA L |
I would just say in my experience most of the doing something in your kitchen and... they
good stuff that’s been sold has been sombre will open it up and so rather than having your
colours, like in creams and pastels and so on, kitchen and your bathroom at the back... and
married up with maybe a rather rich, bold then going past those to your backyard—it’s
cobalt blue wall or a blood red one or some all reversed... and lounge and dining is open
thing like that—or maybe a colour that harks plan as much as possible and then opening
back to the olden days which might be a very out onto the courtyard (TM).
rich burgundy, which would marry very well
above a fireplace with a gilt-edged mirror There are a number of reasons for these
and things like that—but the rest of the room alterations. The first is that greater infor
would be in a very pale colour because you’ve mality in contemporary living means
got to look at the light situation. We can’t cre that separate dining and living rooms are
ate light in the classic lounge dining (sic] of
unnecessary. Furthermore, the open-plan
a Victorian terrace—you can’t do anything
living space leading into a courtyard or
about it to put more light in (MT).
veranda captures most of the sunlight, ‘to
bring the outdoors in’, as one agent put it.
Jager explains the fine-tuning of the aes
Whereas the original design and cultural
thetic in terms of the size of material capita!
resonances of Victoriana was privacy, the
and the need to match expectations in order
contemporary gentrification aesthetic in
to gain a good resale price. As he argues:
Sydney seeks to capitalize on the natural
The fragility of small domestic capital in rela resource of the Australian sun and open
tion to other larger economic forces pres up the house to the light. There has been a
ent in the inner city areas ensures that the move from seclusion to display.
esthetic disposition will be tightly circum
scribed. This also explains the continuance You don’t need the kitchen at the back of the
of strictly economic imperatives and deter house. Why were kitchens at the back of the
minants embedded in the estheticization of house? Probably because they were busy
Victoriana. The slightly triumphalist facades working areas and if you’re having guests in
of MelbourneVictoriana are matched by more they didn’t come to the kitchen . . . but now
anxiously modelled interiors (1986: 89). kitchens are on display .. . aromas or what
ever, it doesn’t matter if they fill the house
However, the aesthetic can be broken down now, that’s part of it (TM).
into elements where a good deal of change
In their original form, status was seclu
is permissible and areas in which stable
sion in these Victorian terraces, now status
symbols of good taste must be held in place.
means opening up the home to the outside
In Sydney, behind the traditional facades,
and the appropriation of the outside world
considerable internal restructuring was
within the home. Several agents talked
tolerated. As one agent describes it:
about the importance of skylights to ‘open
What they will even do is in an old style up’ the house.
place—let’s say, for example, an old place The highest status inclusion of the out
down on ‘Dumont’ street where you would side in Sydney is a harbour view. The struc
have a lounge room, dining room, kitchen, ture of the Victorian terrace may undergo
bathroom—someone could come in and considerable structural renovation to cap
turn that all around so you have your kitchen ture this asset:
there (front of house] because it’s the closest
place to the noise and normally if you’re in this is a two-storey property and the outlook
the kitchen you’re not going to be disturbed is from upstairs, living is upstairs, kitchen,
by traffic noise because you’re going to be lounge dining and balcony is all upstairs and
142 | GARY BRIDGE
it’s not a fantastic water view but it’s just a city Goldthorpe, J. (1982) On the service class, its forma
skyline view, maybe the [Sydney Harbour] tion and future. In A. Giddens and G. Mackenzie
bridge or something like that, so rather than (eds.), Social class and the division o f labour: essays
having that given to one or two bedrooms in honour o f Ilya Neustadt. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
which are not really going to appreciate it, all
----- (1995) The service class revisited. In T. Butler and
the bedrooms are downstairs, there’s a bath
M. Savage (eds.), Social change and the middle
room downstairs . . . bedrooms downstairs classes. UCL Press, London.
and your living upstairs 'cos it captures the Gouldner, A. (1979) The future o f intellectuals and
view—that’s what you impress your visitors the rise o f the new class. The Seabury Press, New
with, the view. You don’t say, yeah, we’ve got York.
a view, come into my bedroom have a look at Ilamnett, C. and B. Randolph (1986) Tenurial trans
that, they go into the lounge (GK). [...] formation and the flat break-up markel in London:
the British condo experience. In N. Smith and P.
Williams (eds.), Gentrification o f the city. Allen and
NOTES Unwin, Boston.
Harrison, G. (1983) Gentrification in Knoxville,
1. The research reported here was conducted
Tennesse: astudyoftheFourthandGill neighbour
with the support of a Menzies Bicentennial
hoods. Urban Geography4 ,40-53.
Fellowship. 1 am very grateful to Robyn Dowling,
Hoover, E. and R. Vernon (1962) Anatomy o f a metropo
Bob Fagan, Richie Howitt, Kevin McCraken and lis. Doubleday, NewYork.
other colleagues at the Department of Geography
Horvath, R. and B. Kngels (1985) The residential
at Macquarie University who hosted my trip and restructuring of inner Sydney. In I. Burnley and
discussed ideas. Ron Horvath's gentrification
J. Forrest (eds.), Living in cities: urban ism and soci-
tour of Sydney was invaluable. My thanks to Ray
ety in metropolitan Australia. Allen and Unwin,
Forrest, Suzanne Hodge and Terry Rees who com
London.
mented on earlier drafts of this piece. The usual ----- , G. Harrison and R. Dowling (1989) Sydney: a
disclaimers apply. social atlas. Sydney University Press, Sydney.
2. I am very grateful to one of the anonymous refer House, J.D. (1977) Contemporary entrepreneurs:
ees for highlighting these contextual issues.
the sociology o f residential real estate agents.
Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.
Jager, M. (1986) Class definition and the esthetics
REFERENCES
of gentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne. In N.
Bondi, L. (1999) Gender, class and gentrification: Smith and P. Williams (eds.), Gentrification o f the
enriching the debate. Environment and Planning city. Allen and Unwin, London.
D: Society and Space 17,261-82. Lees, L. (1996) In pursuit of difference: representations
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline o f a theory o f practice. of gentrification. Environment and Planning A 28,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 453-70.
----- (1984) Distinction: a social critique o f the judge Iêy, D. (1996) The new middle class and the remaking
ment o f taste. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. o f the central city. Oxford University Press,
Bridge, G. (1994) Gentrification, class and residence: a Oxford.
reappraisal. Environment and Planning D: Society Lyons, M. (1996) Employment, féminisation, and gen
and Space 12,31-51. trification in London, 1981-93. Environment and
----- (1995) The space for class: on class analysis in the Planning A 28,341-56.
study of gentrification. Transactions o f the Institute ----- (1998) Neither chaos, nor stark simplicity: a com
o f British Geographers 20, 236-47. ment on 'Anew look at gentrification'. Environment
Butler, T. (1997) Gentrification and the middle classes. and Planning A 30,367-70.
Ashgatc, Aldershot. Massey, D. and M. Denton (1993) American apart
Carchedi, G. (1977) On the economic identification o f heid: segregation and the making o f the underclass.
social classes. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Clarke, M., D. Smith and M. McConville (1994) Slippery Mills, C. (1988) Life on the upslope: the postmodern
customers: estate agents, the public and regulation. landscape of gentrification. Environment and
Blackstone Press, London. Planning D: Society and Spaced, 169-89.
Ehrenreich, B. and J. Ehrenreich (1979) The profes Redfern, P. (1997a) A new look at gentrification:
sional managerial class. In R Walker (ed.), Between 1. Gentrification and domestic technologies.
capital and labour. The Harvester Press, Sussex. Environment and Planning A 29,1275-96.
ESTATE A G EN TS A S INTERPRETERS OF ECON OM IC AND CU LTU R A L CAPITAL | 143
----- (1997b) A new look at gentrification: 2. A model Smith, N. (1996) The new urban frontier:
of gentrification. Environment and Planning A 29, gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge,
1335-54. London.
Renner, K. (1978) The service class. In T. Bottomore Williams, P. (1976) The role of institutions in the inner
and P. Goode (eds.), Austro-Marxism. Clarendon London housing market: the case of Islington.
Press, Oxford. Transactions o f the Institute o f British Geographers
Residex Pty (1997) Sydney residential property return New Series 1,72-82.
report. Residex, Sydney. Wright, E.O (1985) Classes. Verso, London.
Resnick, S. and R. Wolff (1987) Knowledge and class: a Zukin, S. (1982) Loft living: culture and capital in
Marxian critique o f political economy. University of urban change. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Chicago Press, Chicago. Baltimore.
C H A P T E R 13
Tourism Gentrification: The Case of New

Orleans’ Vieux Carre (French Quarter)
Kevin Fox Gotham
Summary. This paper examines the process gentrification its own distinct dynamic and
of‘tourism gentrification’ using a case study local quality.
of the socio-spatial transformation of New
Orleans’ Vieux Carre (French Quarter) over
INTRODUCTION
the past half-century. Tourism gentrifica
tion refers to the transformation of a mid- Recent years have witnessed the growth of
dle-class neighbourhood into a relatively a vast and expanding scholarly literature
affluent and exclusive enclave marked by concerning the novelty, causal dynamics
a proliferation of corporate entertainment and socioeconomic impact of gentrifica
and tourism venues. Historically, the Vieux tion (for an overview, see Atkinson, 2003).
Carre has been the home of diverse groups Since the early 1990s recession, researchers
of people. Over the past two decades, have noted a ‘third wave’ of gentrification
however, median incomes and property in many cities, including the formation of
values have increased, escalating rents new alliances between private develop
have pushed out lower-income people ers and local government, a ‘reinvention’ of
and African Americans, and tourist attrac public institutions, and a ‘restructuring’ of
tions and large entertainment clubs now the gentrification process itself (Wyly and
dominate much of the neighbourhood. It Hammel, 1998,2004; Wyly, 2002). According
is argued that the changing flows of capital to Hackworth (2002), the growth of large cor
into the real estate market combined with porate developers, real estate investment
the growth of tourism enhance the signifi trusts (REITs) and new networks of mort
cance of consumption-oriented activities gage brokers is creating newforms o f‘corpo
in residential space and encourage gentri ratised gentrification’. For Smith (2002), the
fication. The paper contests explanations impulse behind gentrification is no longer
that view gentrification as an expression of restricted to the US or Europe, but is a global
consumerdemands, individual preferences and generalised process. As a “global urban
or market laws of supply and demand. It strategy”, gentrification is now "densely con
examines how the growth of securitization, nected into the circuits of global capital and
changes in consumption and increasing cultural circulation” (Smith, 2002, p. 80).
dominance of large entertainment firms Whatever the differences of emphasis and
manifest through the development of a interpretation, common to analyses of gen
tourism industry in New Orleans, giving trification is a focus on new mechanisms of
146 | KEVIN FOX GOTHAM
commercial reinvestment, new public sub 1999; Foley and Lauria, 2000; 2003). In 1995,
sidies for private investment and a greater theNationalTrustforHistorical Preservation
interconnectedness of local and global forces identified the Vieux Carre as one of the 10
(for an overview, see Brenner and Theodore, most endangered places in the country
2002). A key feature of recent research on due to the threat that commercial business
gentrification is the attempt to situate gen growth posed to the residential character of
trification within larger economic and polit the neighbourhood. In recent years, resi
ical processes, including the deregulation of dents and neighbourhood organisations
national markets, shifting patterns of global have lamented the increase of hotels, bed
finance and the power of transnational cor and breakfasts, time-shares, condominiums
porations (TNCs) and global production and large entertainment clubs (Vesey, 1999;
networks (Wyly, 2002; Wyly and Hammel, Kaufman, 1999). Both median incomes
1999, 2000). Yet despite much research and and property values have increased, espe
debate, few scholars agree on how analysts cially during the 1990s, and escalating rents
should conceptualise gentrification, what and conversion of affordable single-fam
should be the appropriate levels of analysis ily residences to expensive condominiums
for assessing the causes and consequences have pushed out lower-income people and
of gentrification and what data sources African Americans. As I point out, for most
researchers should use to measure gentri of its history, the Vieux Carre functioned as
fication empirically. While many scholars a residential neighbourhood composed of
contend that gentrification today is different diverse groups of people. Since the 1960s,
from that of the 1970s and 1980s, they dis however, the area has been transformed
agree over its form, incidence and impact. into an entertainment destination, mar
This paper contributes to recent urban keted vigorously by tourism promoters and
scholarshiponthecausesandconsequences redesigned to bring visitors into the city. As a
of gentrification, using a case study of the central component of New Orleans’ promo
transformation of New Orleans’s Vieux Carre tion as a tourist and entertainment city, the
(French Quarter) since the 1950s. Since at analysis of gentrification in the Vieux Carre
least the 1930s, the Vieux Carre has been a offers a unique case for understanding the
site of intense conflicts over commercial connection between global economic pro
revitalisation, historical preservation and cess and local actions in the transformation
neighbourhood integrity. In 1937, the neigh of urban space.
bourhood was designated as a historical In this paper, I situate the gentrification
district and remained the city’s only land of the Vieux Carre within the larger trans
mark district until the 1970s. In the 1960s, formation of New Orleans into a tourist city.
the local environmentalists and neighbour I first specify the conceptual problem and
hood activists joined forces with a burgeon outline a theoretical framework that will
ing national anti-expressway movement to guide my analysis. I then provide an over
halt the planning and construction of an view of residential and commercial change
elevated expressway along the Mississippi in the Vieux Carre over the past 60 years
River (Baumbach and Borah, 1981; Lewis, using data from the US Census Bureau and
1997). Since this time, residents and busi other government reports. I then focus on
nesses have teamed with historical preser the connection between tourism and gen
vationists and other activists to protest the trification. My analysis focuses on the why
growth of fast-food restaurants, mall-like and how questions regarding the motiva
shops and chain-like clothing stores that tion for using tourism as a strategy of urban
cater almost exclusively to tourists (Foley, regeneration, both of which are central to
TOURISM GENTRIFICATION | 147
explaining the process of gentrification. geographers, sociologists and other urban

I develop the concept tourism gentrifica scholars have studied the causal dynam
tion to highlight the role of state policy in ics, consequence and trajectories of gen
encouraging both gentrification and tour trification using diverse sources of data
ism development; and the actions of large and theoretical orientations (for overviews,
corporate entertainment firms in redevel see Atkinson, 2003; Brenner and Theodore,
oping the Vieux Carre into a space of enter 2002: Feagin and Parker, 1990, ch. 5;
tainment and consumption. I argue that Gotham, 2001b; Hutchison, 1992; Smith,
flows of capital in the real estate market 1996; Wittberg, 1992; Wyly and Hammel,
combined with the shift to tourism explain 2001). In the US, scholars have identified
gentrification more fully than do alternative three waves of gentrification (Hackworth,
accounts that focus narrowly on consumer 2002; Smith, 2002). The first wave, begin
demand or cultural preferences for upscale ning in the 1950s and lasting to the 1973
neighbourhoods. Tourism is about the pro recession, was an outgrowth of the Housing
duction of local difference, local cultures Acts of 1949 and 1954 that provided federal
and different local histories that appeal to funds for local redevelopment authorities
visitors’ tastes for the exotic and unique to designate ‘blighted’ areas, acquire and
(Coleman and Crang, 2002; Hoffman etal., clear land, and then sell the land to pri
2003; Urry, 2002). At the same time, the tour vate developers (Gotham, 2000, 2001a). In
ism industry is one of the largest industries the process, city governments and federal
in the world and is increasingly dominated monies supported private efforts to build
by global hotel firms and entertainment new upscale urban housing, thereby allow
companies—Disney, Universal, Sony, etc.— ing a new urban ‘gentry’ to move into areas
who have the ability to exploit a wide range previously dominated by the poor and the
of ‘brand synergies’ to transform locales working class. A second wave followed
into spaces for consumption (Hollands and in the 1970s and 1980s as new public-pri
Chatterton, 2003; Fainstein and Judd, 1999; vate ‘partnerships’ and market-centred
Meethan, 2001). Hannigan’s (1998) discus subsidies (such as tax abatements and tax
sion of the ‘maverick’ developers of the increment financing (TIFs)) financed gen
new entertainment-based ‘fantasy city’ trification (Squires, 1989). Two significant
points to how national or international features marked this second wave. The first
corporations today dominate urban rede was the integration of gentrification with
velopment and have the economic and new ‘cultural strategies’ of economic rede
political power to take their investments velopment, including new investments
elsewhere should local officials not prove in museums, art galleries and historical
compliant, a trend observed by Feagin and preservation (Zukin, 1997, 1995). A sec
Parker (1990), Smith (1996) and others. In ond significant feature was the increasing
this light, I view tourism as a globalised enmeshment of gentrification into global
process that connects the exogenous forces systems of real estate and banking finance.
of multinational corporations and capital This enmeshment was evident in the cre
flows, with the locally based powers of resi ation of new, massive developments includ
dents, elites and consumers. ing New York City’s South Street Seaport,
Boston’s Faneuil Hall, Baltimore’s Inner
Harbor and Philadelphia’s Society Hill.
TOURISM GENTRIFICATION
In recent years, scholars have argued
Research on gentrification has exploded that inner cities are experiencing a third
over the past two decades. Economists, wave of gentrification and a resurgence
of investment but disagree on the sources open and assertive in facilitating gentrifica
and causes of this gentrification and rein tion; anti-gentrification movements have
vestment (for overviews, see Bondi, 1999; become more marginalised than in earlier
Lees, 2000; Ley, 1996; South, 1996). Wyly decades; and, gentrification is diffusing
and Hammel (1999, 2001), for example, to more remote neighbourhoods. Overall,
maintain that the resurgence of gentrifica according to Hackworth (2002, p. 839), gen
tion in many cities emanates from recent trification now is “more corporate, more
transformations in federal regulatory pol state facilitated, and less resisted than ever
icy and mortgage financing. Specifically, before”.
local efforts under the federal HOPE VI pro In this paper, I develop and apply the
gramme that decentralises public housing concept of tourism gentrification as a
administration and establishes public-pri- heuristic device to explain the transfor
vate ventures to fund public housing rede mation of a middle-class neighbourhood
velopment have helped spur a new round into a relatively affluent and exclusive
of gentrification in many cities. In this con enclave marked by a proliferation of cor
ception, the federal government’s more porate entertainment and tourism venues.
decentralised and privatised low-income Scholars have noted that gentrification is
housing policy has altered key facets of the a “chaotic concept” (Lees, 2003, p. 2491)
gentrification process itself, opening new that lacks theoretical and empirical speci
markets for low-income and minority bor ficity. In a critique of the empirical litera
rowers and neighbourhoods, and increas ture on gentrification, Wyly and Hammel
ing access to conventional mortgage capital (1998) observed that "recent criticisms of
through automation and standardisation the coherence of theories of gentrification,
(see also Kasarda, 1999; Marcuse, 1999). In ... and methods for assessing its extent and
a case study of NewYork City’s Lower East significance have cast doubt on the utility
Side, Smith, and DeFillippis (1999) argue of further research on the subject” (p. 303).
that the ‘economics of gentrification’ was Five years later, in a comprehensive review
transformed in the 1990s as brand-name of the literature on gentrification, Atkinson
firms, international developers and mul (2003, p. 2343) noted that the “map of gen
tinational banks increasingly supplied the trification appears to be extending steadily”
capital to finance corporate-led gentrifica with dozens of scholars around the world
tion. Lees’ (2003) study of Brooklyn Heights, undertaking a variety of case studies, com
NewYork, suggests that a “new generation of parisons and statistical analyses of gentri
super-rich ‘financifiers’ fed by the fortunes fication. A major objective of this paper is
from global finance and corporate service to contribute to this burgeoning literature
industries” is the leading edge of “super- by examining the process of tourism gen
gentrification” which refers to “the trans trification. Following Wyly and Hammel
formation of already gentrified, prosperous (1998, p. 302), I argue that research on tour
and solidly upper-middle class neighbour ism gentrification is warranted not by the
hoods into much more exclusive and intensity or magnitude of gentrification,
expensive enclaves” (p. 2487). In a compre “but by the distinctiveness of the patterns
hensive survey of the literature, Hackworth inscribed by the process" (original empha
(2002) argues that four novel changes dis sis). Specifically, I maintain that there are at
tinguish the gentrification process in the least two reasons to consider the nature of
1990s and later: corporate developers are tourism gentrification.
now the leading initiators of gentrification, First, tourism gentrification highlights
federal and local governments are more the twin processes of globalisation and
localisation that define modern urbani of sophisticated marketing schemes that

sation and redevelopment processes. On seek to create demand for gentrified hous
the one hand, tourism is a ‘global’ indus ing (Ley, 1996,2003).
try dominated by large international hotel Secondly, the concept of tourism gentri
chains, tour operators, car rental agen fication presents a challenge to traditional
cies and financial services companies explanations of gentrification that assume
(American Express, Visa and so on). In demand-side or production-side factors
addition, tourism sustains many occupa drive the process. During the 1970s and
tions, advertising campaigns, recognisable 1980s, scholars developed differing expla
attractions and diverse forms of financial nations of the etiology, process and con
investment.1 On the other hand, tourism sequences of gentrification. Clay (1979,
is a ‘local’ industry characterised by grass pp. 57-60), Berry (1985; 1999, p. 783) and
roots cultural production, spatial fixity Kasarda (1999, p. 779) outlined a series of
of the tourism commodity and localised demand-side factors, including demo
consumption of place. T. C. Chang and graphic and economic factors, and individ
colleagues’ research on Singapore and ual preferences and consumer choice for
Montreal suggests that various public agen gentrified housing. A second production-
cies, private firms and tourism interests side perspective emphasised the impor
deploy locally specific images, themes and tance of state policy and regulation, the role
motifs to stimulate tourist demand to buy of disinvestment and the actions of pow
and consume local products and services erful actors and organised interests in the
(Chang, 2000a, 2000b; Chang et al., 1996). gentrification process. This later approach,
These points buttress studies by Teo and focused on ‘‘capitalist roots of gentrifica
Lim (2003) and Teo and Yeoh (1996) who tion” (Smith, 1996, p. 41) and viewed gen
find that while tourism may be a ‘global’ trification ‘‘as part and parcel of the class
force, it is also a locally based set of activities dynamics of urban transformation associ
and organisations involved in the produc ated with capital investment and disinvest
tion of local distinctiveness, local cultures ment” (Betancur, 2002, p. 781). The example
and different local histories that appeal to of tourism gentrification provides the con
visitors’ tastes for the exotic and unique. As ceptual link between production-side and
I point out below, the nexus of globalisation demand-side explanations of gentrification
and localisation is apparent in the Vieux while avoiding one-sided and reductive
Carre where corporate entertainment firms conceptions. On the production side, for
and retail chains are plugged into global example, tourism is about shifting patterns
financial circuits to leverage capital to rede of capital investment in the sphere of pro
velop residential and commercial space. In duction, new forms of financing real estate
the process, entertainment and retail firms development and the creation of spaces
accentuate the place-theme in their com of consumption. On the demand side, the
modities and activities by valorising the socio-physical spaces associated with gen
milieu where they are located, using place trification are also the “highly visual expres
images and symbols that connect the locale sion of changing patterns of consumption
with pleasurable experiences. At the same in cities” (Carpenter and Lees, 1995, p. 288).
time, the growth of tourism has an ‘elective Analysing tourism gentrification sheds light
affinity’ with widespread cultural and aes on the complementary nature of the differ
thetic changes including the emergence of ing explanations, provides an important
style as identity, the proliferation of adver opportunity for theoretical development
tising images and media, and development and offers a unique perspective on tourism
and urban redevelopment dynamics. While level, urban outlays declined from 12.4 per
my empirical analysis is specific to New cent of all federal expenditures in 1978 to 7.8
Orleans and the Vieux Carre, I argue that the per cent in 1984 (Gaffikin and Warf, 1993,
analysis has broader theoretical generality p. 73). In short, reduced federal monies,
and applicability to understanding gentri- fiscal constraints imposed on the city by
fication.- the state government and the suburbani
sation of people and businesses caused a
significant erosion in the ability of the city
BUILDING A TOURIST CITY
to raise revenue to fund basic government
During the immediate post-World War II operations and provide public services. As
years, New Orleans city officials and élites a result, by the latel970s, New Orleans was
began devising strategies to increase tour experiencing a fiscal crisis, forced to slash
ist travel to enhance the economic pros funding for public services while finan
perity and fiscal status of the central city. cially pressured to expend greater funds to
In the 1960s, dwindling urban population leverage capital investment and develop
and burgeoning suburban development new strategies for engineering urban rede
raised the spectre of economic stagnation velopment.
and created the context for city leaders to During the 1980s, New Orleans gained
further the development of tourism in the attention as an economically declining city
city. From 1967 to 1977, manufacturing in the prosperous Sunbelt region (Hirsch,
jobs in New Orleans declined in every year 1983). The oil market crash from 1982 to
except one. By 1977, only 11 per cent of the 1987 depressed the local jobs market, caus
labour force was employed in manufactur ing a dramatic increase in housing foreclo
ing, a situation that placed the city among sures and the out-migration of thousands
the lowest in industrial employment in the of middle-class families from the city and
nation (Smith and Keller, 1986). In 1974, the metropolitan area (Lauria and Baxter, 1999).
Louisiana State legislature passed several While the suburban areas grew in popu
statutes that significantly reduced the abil lation, the population of Orleans Parish
ity of local governments in the state to raise dropped from a high of 627 525 in 1960 to
revenue. These fiscal constraints included: an all-time low of 484 674 in 2000. The city
a reduction in the ability of local govern lost more than 34 000 residents during the
ments to collect income taxes, thereby 1960s, more than 35 000 during the 1970s,
increasing their reliance on revenue from more than 60 000 in the 1980s and more than
sales taxes; a statute that two-thirds of 10 000 from 1990 to 2000 (see Table 13.1). In
both houses of the state legislature had to recent years, local public officials, scholars
approve any increase in an existing local and journalists have acknowledged the del
tax; and, an expanded exemption on home eterious effects of the racial segregation in
owners’ property taxes. The state legislature area schools and housing, the loss of manu
increased this homestead exemption, from facturing jobs and increasing blight and
$50 000 of assessed valuation in 1974 to $75 rising poverty while downtown redevelop
000 in 1982 (Smith and Keller, 1986, pp. ISO- ment and suburban growth have been tak
154). At the local level, New Orleans’ long ing place (Lauria et al., 1995; Whelan and
tradition of elected assessors who owned Young, 1991; Brooks and Young, 1993). As
their assessor databases, and distribution of 1995, more than half the children living
of assessed property values, meant that in New Orleans, 51.6 per cent, were living
assessors appraised few homes over $75 000 below the federal poverty level. In a sur
(Knopp, 1990a; Lauria, 1984). At the federal vey of 216 counties and parishes in the US
TO UR ISM G EN TR IFICA TIO N |
Table 13.1 Population and d em ograp hic trends for O rleans Parish, Louisiana, 1940-2000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 200 0
Total population 494 537 570 445 627 525 593 471 557 515 496 938 484 674
W hite population 69.7 68.0 62.6 54.5 42.5 34.9 26.6
(percentage)
Black population 30.1 31.9 37.2 45.0 55.3 61.9 66.6
(percentage)
O th e r (percentage) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 2.2 3.2 3.7
Median household N/A 2 267 3 822 7 445 11 814 12 239 19 453

incom e ($)
M edian household N/A 14914 20 439 31 021 24 715 16125 19 453
incom e, 2000 (S)
Poverty status
Families (number) N/A N/A N/A 30 996 29 359 32 616 26 988
Families (percentage) N/A N/A N/A 21.6 21.8 27.3 23.7
Individuals (number) N/A N/A N/A 156776 143 793 152 042 130896
Individuals (percentage) N/A N/A N/A 26.8 26.4 31.6 27.9
M edian household 3 033 9711 16 000 21 000 50 600 69 600 87 300
value ($)
M edian household N/A 63 888 85 562 87 500 105 858 91 700 87 300
value, 2000 ($)
M edian rent ($) 15.38 25.18 60.00 67.00 153.00 277.00 378.00
M edian rent, 2000 ($) N/A 165.66 320.86 279.17 320.08 364.95 378.00
Total housing units 137165 173 608 202 643 208 524 226 452 225 573 215091
O w n e r-o c c u p ie d 31 552 56 091 71 297 73 517 81 970 82 279 87 589
R e n te r-o ccu p ie d 101 488 109 962 118 504 117 846 124 465 105 956 100 662
Num ber vacant 4 125 7 555 12 842 17 161 20 017 37 338 26 840
00
00
Percentage vacant 3.0 4.4 6.3 8.2 16.5 12.5
Source: C ensus of Population and Housing (1940-2000).
with at least 250 000 residents, the Census sive convention centre, new office towers in
Bureau found that the Orleans parish was the central business district, a major theme
one of the poorest, ranking fourth, with 25 park and a World War II museum. The city
per cent of its working population living in has also staged many mega-events, includ
poverty. Only 5 other counties in the nation ing the 1984 World’s Fair, periodic Super
had a poverty rate of 25 per cent or greater Bowls and (Nokia) Sugar Bowls, the NCAA
in 2000. In a study of median household basket-ball tournaments, the lazz and
incomes in those 216 counties and par Heritage Festival and the Essence Festival.
ishes, Orleans Parish again ranked among According to data gathered by the New
the poorest, third from the bottom at 213, Orleans Convention and Visitors Bureau,
with $27 111 (New Orleans Times-Picayune, therewere8.2millionvisitorstoNewOrleans
2001 ). in 2003, including 485 216 international vis
Over the decades, the city of New Orleans itors. Total visitor expenditures amounted
has pursued tourism as a strategy to gen to $3.8 billion with $198.34 million in tour
erate urban revitalisation and bolster the ism tax revenues.’ The hotel industry has
tax-base. The various components of this grown considerably over recent decades
tourism strategy have included the building as indicated by the skyrocketing number
of a domed stadium, a festival mall, a mas of hotel rooms in the metropolitan area.
In 1960, the city had a total of 4750 rooms. engineer-in-chief of Louisiana, and laid
This number increased to 10 686 in 1975, out by his assistant, Adrien de Pauger, in
19 500 in 1985, 25 500 in 1990 and almost March 1721. The early history of the Vieux
34 000 by 2000. The convention market has Carre was that of a French trading centre
also grown from 764 conventions in 1976 to and later, after 1762, a Spanish colonial
more than 3260 conventions in 1999. Other outpost. With the Louisiana Purchase in
tourism developments in the 1990s include 1803, the US inherited a thriving commer
the legalisation of gaming in Louisiana, cial centre supported by river trade. During
the creation of the New Orleans Tourism the first half of the 19th century, growth in
Marketing Corporation, the establishment New Orleans expanded beyond the Vieux
of the New Orleans Multicultural Tourism Carre, but the neighbourhood continued
Network, the creation of the Mayor’s Office as a centre of cultural and social life during
of Tourism and Arts, and the expansion of the century. By the mid 19th century the
Convention and Visitor's Bureau efforts to city rivalled NewYork as a commercial and
market the region to international tourists financial hub. The Civil War devastated the
(City of New Orleans, 2000). city and resulted in a period of protracted
In sum, the erosion of both federal and economic decline that would last into the
state government revenue over the past 20th century. By the mid 20th century, the
few decades means that New Orleans is Vieux Carre had acquired a reputation as a
more reliant on sales tax revenue than ever charming residential neighbourhood with a
before. This constrained fiscal environ unique historical background and architec
ment has pressured the city government to tural styles. Today, the Vieux Carre includes
intensify partnerships with private capital all the land within the original French and
to promote the growth of a consumption- Spanish city. It functions as a speciality
based tourism infrastructure. Today, the shopping area, an entertainment complex,
locus of New Orleans’ multibillion dollar a centre for arts and crafts, a residential area
tourism business is in the downtown and and a focus of culture and historical pres
the Vieux Carre. Tourism is a way of import ervation of regional and national impor
ing spending and exporting the tax burden tance.
to generate the revenue to facilitate urban Historically, the Vieux Carre has been the
redevelopment and gentrification. home of diverse groups of people. Yet over
the past few decades the neighbourhood
has become more socially homogeneous.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND POPULATION
Demographic trends show the social trans
CHANGES IN THE VIEUX CARRE
formation of the Vieux Carre from 1940 to
The Vieux Carre, or old French Quarter 2000. According to the US Census Bureau,
of New Orleans, is probably one of the the Vieux Carre consists of census tracts 38,
most famous historical districts in the US. 42 and 47. Between 1940 and 1970, the pop
Established in 1718, the area is bounded ulation of the Vieux Carre plummeted from
by Canal, Rampart and Esplanade Streets, 11 053 to 4176, a loss of more than 50 per
and the Mississippi River. The neighbour cent of its population. In comparison, the
hood itself consists of a mix of residential City of New Orleans grew by approximately
and commercial land uses in a rectangle 26.9 per cent from 1940 to 1960, from 494
grid of approximately 120 blocks along the 537 to 627 525, while losing population
Mississippi River. This area formed the over the next four census periods. While the
original French colonial town that had percentage of Whites living in the Vieux
been designed by Pierre L Blond de la Tour, Carre increased from 79 per cent in 1940
to 91.9 per cent in 2000; the percentage of Today, only 116 children less than 18
Blacks dropped from 19.7 per cent to 4.3 years of age live in the Vieux Carre. This
per cent. Interestingly, as the White seg number represents only 2.7 per cent of the
ment of population has increased in the total population of the neighbourhood. Of
Vieux Carre, it has declined for the city of the almost 3000 households in the Vieux
New Orleans. In 1960, Whites made up 62.6 Carre, more than 97 per cent do not have
per cent of the city’s population and Blacks children less than 18 years of age. This is in
were 37.2 per cent. As of the 2000 census, contrast to 64.7 per cent for Orleans Parish,
Blacks made up 67.3 per cent of the city’s 60.8 per cent for the state of Louisiana and
population and Whites were 28.1 per cent. 63.9 per cent for the entire US.4
Today, almost 11 per cent of the population The demographic and population trans
of the Vieux Carre lives below the poverty formation of the Vieux Carre coincides with
level, compared with 27.9 per cent for the a dramatic restructuring of the commercial
city of New Orleans. base of the neighbourhood. Vesey (1999),
From 1940 to 2000, the percentage of for example, found that from 1950 to 1999,
vacant housing units in the Vieux Carre the number of souvenir and t-shirt shops
increased from 9.5 per cent to almost 38 per increased from 26 to 110; retail apparel
cent. According to a 1992 University of New stores increased from 14 to 42; music clubs
Orleans study, the high vacancy rate in 1990 increased from 7 to 27; hotels increased
was concentrated in speculative apart from 21 to 40; and art galleries increased
ments constructed during the 1984 World’s from 10 to 40. In addition, from 1950 to 1999,
Fair (University of New Orleans, College of the number of groceries decreased from 44
Urban and Public Affairs, 1992, ch. 2, p. 10). to 4; miscellaneous food stores declined
The continuing high rate of vacancy in the from 44 to 19; hardware stores from 31 to 1;
1990s is because the high rental cost of com laundry services from 24 to 2. During this
mercial units discourages property owners time, several ‘mom-and-pop’ operations
from maintaining residential apartments that had been stable fixtures in the neigh
above the first floor. bourhood for decades closed including,
In census tract 38, median housing LaNasa Hardware, Reuter’s Feed and Seed
value in constant 2000 dollars increased and Puglia’s grocery store. Interestingly, the
more than seven times, from $64 474 in number of warehouses, industrial services,
1950 to $460 000 in 2000. The cost of rent freight distribution and manufacturing
also increased dramatically after 1950, sendees plummeted from 131 to 2. Today,
from $193.82 per month in census tract 38 souvenir shops are the most prevalent retail
to $549 per month in 2000. Census tracts business in the area. Overall, from 1950 to
42 and 47 show similar trends. As Table Al 1999, residential-oriented businesses, such
shows, median household income, median as barbers, department stores, shoe shops,
housing value and median rents are higher small groceries and laundry services,
in the Vieux Carre than Orleans Parish as decreased by more than 15 per cent, while
a whole. Overall, the census data show a tourist-oriented business, such as t-shirt
slight decline in median household income shops, poster shops, daiquiri shops, and
(in constant dollars), a loss of population, commercial tourism information centres
a decrease in percentage of minority resi expanded by 32 per cent.
dents and huge increases median house The huge increase in median house
hold value and cost of rent, from 1940 to hold value and median rent in the Vieux
2000—changes associated with gentrifying Carre during the 1990s suggests that the
areas. neighbourhood may be experiencing a
new round of intensified gentrification, or has been the critical financial innovation
what Lees (2003) calls ‘super-gentrifica- that has enabled private and public actors
tion’—for example, the movement of even to finance local property development in
wealthier residents into a previously gen global markets (Logan, 1993; Sassen, 2001,
trified neighbourhood. While the data in pp. 71-74).Theliquidationofrealestatecap-
Table Al show upward trends in median ital through securitisation received added
household income, median household impetus in the 1990s with the growth of real
value and median rent, they do not imply estate investment trusts (REITs), sharehold
that gentrification is a crescive process nor ing companies that invest in different types
that it has a stable outcome or specific end of real estate including shopping centres,
point. Quantitative data do not provide an office buildings, apartments and hotels.
explanation for the underlying causes of the While urban redevelopment involves many
population, demographic and commercial small players using local finance mecha
transformation of the neighbourhood. As nisms, they are increasingly operating in
I show below, the promotion of tourism a larger context of global capital markets
has been a major strategy for encouraging dominated by large investors, a trend docu
commercial development, attracting high- mented byWeber (2002), Dymski (1999) and
income residents and bolstering gentrifica Smith (2002). In this globalising context of
tion in the Vieux Carre. local property development, it is the supply
and demand for housing and commercial
development funds, rather than the supply
THE LOCAL STATE AND THE ROLE
and demand itself that determine the value
OF REAL ESTATE INVESTORS
of local properties. In short, the growth of
In the past, reinvestment in the Vieux Carre securitisation and the development of new
was associated with the activities of indi sources of financing have made it possible
vidual gentrifiers, small commercial firms for a substantial portion of the commercial
(art galleries, museums and so on) and real estate industry to invest in entertain
small property developers (Knopp, 1990a, ment, tourism and leisure-based consump
1990b; Lauria, 1984). Before the 1980s, fed tion activities (Hannigan, 1998; Nevarez,
erally insured and regulated savings and 2002; Chatterton and Hollands, 2003; Wyly
loans and small banks supplied much of the and Hammel, 2004, pp. 8,35).
capital for commercial and residential con This long-run and complex restructur
struction and investment. As a result, only a ing of the real estate industry connects with
limited amount of capital funds were avail institutional changes on the local level to
able for new construction and renovation. encourage commercial development and
In contrast, the 1980s and 1990s have seen gentrification in the Vieux Carre. Three
the development of national and global developments have been important. First,
markets for mortgage-backed securities in the 1970s, the city government reorgan
(MBS) and commercial-backed securities ised the French Market Corporation, one of
(CMBS) that have expanded the investor- the oldest public markets in the nation, as
base to finance residential and commercial a de fa cto private corporation to promote
real estate, and have allowed more funds to commerce and entertainment in the Vieux
flow into the mortgage market and com Carre. The rationalisation of the leasing
mercial real estate sector from broader structure and tenant mix, the construction
capital markets. Securitisation implies the of several parking lots and the renovation
transformation of illiquid financial assets of buildings focused on restaurants and
into liquid capital market securities and shops frequented by tourists (Reeves, 2000,
pp. 40-43). At this point in the market’s a music and dance club at 227 Bourbon,
history, as the website of the City of New and Opulence, a nightclub a few doors
Orleans government mentions, “entertain away. Bourbon Street has long been one of
ment and tourism became primary aspects New Orleans’ most valuable commercial
of market life” (www. frenchmarket.org/ real estate strips (Marks Lewis Torre and
history.html). While the French Market Associates, 1977). Nevertheless, space on
had been a public—private entity since the the street has become more desirable as
1930s, privatisation in the 1970s and later the tourism industry has expanded since
attempted to reconstitute the organisation the 1980s. The construction of upscale
as a for-profit organisation under the label hotels along Canal Street and in the central
of entrepreneurial government. Secondly, business district has increased foot traf
the mid to late 1970s saw the building of fic within the Vieux Carre and encouraged
Canal Place, a high-rise mixed-use retail investors to renovate properties in the first
development on the upriver side of the few blocks of Canal and turn old bars on
Vieux Carre. The planning and construction Bourbon Street into upscale themed music
of Canal Place reflected trends towards pri clubs. As a result, rents on the street have
vatisation andtherestructuringofthe public risen by at least 50 per cent since the mid
sector to promote economic competitive 1990s and in some cases have more than
ness, attract investment capital and create doubled. As of 2002, real estate agents were
a favourable 'business climate’ (Brooks and selling space on the street for $ 175-$250 per
Young, 1993; Lauria et al., 1995). Thirdly, square foot.
in 1992, city planners rezoned the first two Real estate agents admit to waging bid
blocks of Decatur Street as a Vieux Carre ding wars with each other to accelerate
Entertainment District, a move meant to property turnover and some meet with
spur redevelopment of several vacant com families who have owned property for gen
mercial properties and create an anchor of erations to see if they would be interested
commercial revitalisation that could have in selling. If so, they go and find national
spillover effects into surrounding areas. investors who want to invest {New Orleans
Large firms such as the House of Blues, Times—Picayune, 2002). Outside investors
Coyote Ugly Bar, Planet Hollywood, Jimmy and entertainment firms are attracted to
Buffet’s Margaritaville Cafe, Audubon the Vieux Carre because of many diverse
Institute’s Aquarium for the Americas and kinds of tourists that visit the area. Tourism
Harrah’s Casino have all opened since the officials note that tourists who come to the
early 1990s. Vieux Carre are of varying age levels, have
The creation of new real estate financ high levels of affluence and exhibit differ
ing mechanisms through securitisation ent types of lifestyle. The chance to gain
combined with local state action to encour international visibility through the annual
age tourism have together promoted the Mardi Gras celebration, the ability to do
growth of chain-like entertainment venues business 7 nights a week and sell drinks
in the Vieux Carre. Bourbon Street began 24 hours a day, and the constant flow of
to experience a new wave of investment tourists allow businesses to achieve quick
with the opening of the Chateau Sonesta profits. As large entertainment firms have
Hotel in 1995, Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club become the mainstay of capital invest
(225 Bourbon) in 1996, Redfish Grill in 1997 ment in the area, they have broken down
and the Storyville District Jazz Club in 1999. the barriers between residential and com
In 1998, Don Kleinhans, a national adult mercial use on particular streets—a trend
entertainment investor, opened Utopia, also observed by Chatterton and Hollands
(2002) in their analysis of night-time urban Mayors Office on Art and Tourism produce
playscapes in the UK. Where there used to advertisements, attractive brochure and
be a buffer between the retail commercial information packages, provide funding
zone of Canal Street and the entertainment and render services to stimulate consumer
zone of Bourbon Street, these two streets demand to travel to or live in the Vieux
are now fused together in their use of enter Carre. For example, tourism websites, ver
tainment and tourism to attract consumers. tical banners and billboards that adver
What is important is that the enmeshment tise Vieux Carre also promote restaurants,
of entertainment and tourism with differ shops and hotels. Streets in the Vieux Carre
ent land uses and spaces elides the distinc are laden with historical allusions to a tra
tion between consumption-based activities ditional and nostalgic view of the city as a
and other social activities, opening new friendly and coherent place, lined with red
contexts and opportunities for powerful brick town houses, cast-iron galleries over
actors to market the Vieux Carre for profit public sidewalks and enchanting back
and economic gain. Local and national yard gardens and slave quarters. Other
businesses produce and sell Vieux Gras streets are ornamented with neon signs
souvenirs and paraphernalia, multina and punctuated by antique lamp-posts and
tional companies use Vieux Carre and New cajun and zydeco music. These symbols
Orleans imagery and themes to sell their and motifs are selectively incorporated into
products; and, public—private organisa tourist guides and promotional materials
tions (tourism marketing corporations and to represent certain visual images of the
task forces) promote Vieux Carre to support city. One aim of these advertisements is to
inward investment and economic growth. conjure up emotionally satisfying themes
In the latter case, public and private sectors of past times, to promote an image of nos
overlap and place marketers and tourism talgia to attract tourists. Another aim is to
boosters increasingly emphasise ‘synergis remake residential space into commercial
tic’ opportunities for creating commercial space by interlocking visual attractions
value (Hannigan, 1998). with profit-making consumption-based
Sharon Zukin (1991) and David Ley (2003, opportunities such as eating, drinking and
p. 2538) suggest that ‘‘learning the field of shopping, thereby expanding the repertoire
gentrification is facilitated by a cadre of cul of consumption.
tural intermediaries in real estate, travel, Images and symbols of romance, nos
cuisine, the arts” who create and reproduce talgia, public sexuality, music, dancing and
knowledge, transmit images and dissemi shopping have long attracted tourists to
nate information about ‘cool’ and ‘trendy’ the Vieux Carre. Before the 1970s, the use
neighbourhoods. Cultural intermediar of advertising, marketing and other pro
ies do not exist in a cultural or economic motional efforts to increase tourism was a d
vacuum, but operate through organised hoc, uncoordinated and lacked sophistica
networks involving public relations firms, tion compared with the present. Not only
advertising and marketing corporations, was the socioeconomic context different
festival promoters and city agencies. Thus, from that of today, but also the intensity
organisations like the Arts Council of New and scale of advertising and the organisa
Orleans, French Quarter Festivals, Inc., the tion of aesthetic production were vastly
New Orleans Metropolitan Convention and different. Today, public and private groups
Visitors Bureau, the New Orleans Tourism such as the New OrleansTourism Marketing
Marketing Corporation, the New Orleans Corporation, the NewOrleans Multicultural
Multicultural Tourism Network and the Tourism Network, the Mayor’s Office of
Tourism and Arts and the Convention and protect the historical district. The City
Visitor’s Bureau ’simulate’ the Vieux Carre Council enacted the moratorium into law
using sophisticated advertising techniques in a comprehensive zoning ordinance in
aimed at promoting desire and fantasy, 1976, along with height restrictions. In 1982,
art and design directed to the production the City Council revised the moratorium to
of desirable tourist experiences and other allow new hotels on Canal Street and in the
highly refined techniques of image pro Vieux Carre but in existing buildings only.
duction and distribution. In the process, Over the past few years, the City Council
tourism interests and advertising agencies has issued permits that allow hotel firms
thematise local traditions, famous build to exceed the height restriction of 70 feet
ings and landmarks and other heritage and purchase residential buildings next
sights to the point that they become’ ’hyper- to hotels and convert them into lodging.
real’, with the production of'illusions’ over Despite vehement opposition from busi
riding descriptions of ‘reality’ (Baudrillard, ness owners and residents, in August 2004,
1983). The implication is that tourism the New Orleans City Planning Commission
institutions are not necessarily engaged in voted 6-1 to grant a single exception to the
promoting and advertising what the city 35-year-old prohibition against new or
has to offer. They are involved in adapt expanded hotels in the Vieux Carre (Eggler,
ing, reshaping and manipulating images 2004). Local residents and lawyers repre
of the place to be desirable to the targeted senting the French Quarter Citizens for the
consumer. Advertising the Vieux Carre as Preservation of Residential Quality and the
a site of famous architecture, romance, Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents,
cultural heritage, music and other enter and Associates YCPORA argue that these
tainment activities affects the production recent developments essentially nullify
and consumption of urban space for tour the original moratorium, encourage unre
ism. The same symbols, motifs and themes stricted development that is not open to
that relate to tourist advertising are equally public comment and give hotel develop
applicable to people interested in purchas ers unbridled freedom to build hotels and
ing a gentrified lifestyle. ignore the historical integrity of the neigh
The growth of tourism in the Vieux bourhood {City Business, 23 October 2000,
Carre has not been without negative con 11 December 2000).
sequences and neighbourhood coalitions
have opposed the transformation of the
neighbourhood into an entertainment
CONCLUSION
destination. The entry of large multina
tional hotel firms into the Vieux Carre—for In this paper, I have examined the case of
example, has sparked much local unrest, tourism gentrification in New Orleans’
leading several neighbourhood groups to Vieux Carre. To date, most research on
launch lawsuits aimed at halting construc gentrification has focused on issues of spa
tion. The lure of tourist profits, low labour tial differentiation, class transformation of
costs and anti-union sentiment have long urban neighbourhoods and the displace
attracted large hotels to New Orleans. On ment of former residents by an incoming
the other hand, local preservationists and gentry. By contrast, tourism gentrification
neighbourhood groups have long fought is commercial as well as residential and
the intrusion of large hotels in the Vieux reflects new institutional connections
Carre. In 1969, the City Council imposed between the local institutions, the real
a moratorium on new hotel building to estate industry and the global economy.
Thus, the phenomenon of tourism gen forced to develop new tools and subsidies to
trification presents a challenge to tradi attract new investment and, more impor
tional explanations of gentrification that tant, market themselves as tourist destina
assume demand-side or production-side tions. In this new context, more residential
factors drive the process. Gentrification is and commercial spaces become centres of
not an outcome of group preferences nor spectacle and tourist consumption rather
a reflection of market laws of supply and than places of material production, a devel
demand. One particular myth is the claim opment noted by Lloyd and Clark (2001) in
that consumer desires are forces to which their discussion of the "city as an entertain
capital merely reacts. Consumer taste for ment machine”. Thus, in many urban neigh
gentrified spaces is, instead, created and bourhoods there has been a proliferation of
marketed, and depends on the alterna varied but similarly themed tourist enclaves
tives offered by powerful capitalists who including historical districts, cultural dis
are primarily interested in producing the tricts, redevelopment zones and entertain
built environment from which they can ment destinations (Bures, 2001; Gottdiener,
extract the highest profit. As I have shown, 1997,2000; Reichl, 1997,1999; Zukin, 1997).
the transformation of the Vieux Carre into What is important is that local or even
an entertainment destination enhances national real estate markets cannot gen
the significance of consumption-oriented erate the huge amounts of capital needed
activities in residential space and encour to finance urban revitalisation drives and
ages gentrification. On the one hand, forms of tourism development. The growth
entertainment and tourism have brought a of securitisation in the 1980s and 1990s and
more upscale and affluent population to the the development of new sources of real
neighbourhood, have increased property estate financing have drawn large insti
values for home-owners, and have attracted tutional investors into financing urban
national retail chains. On the other hand, entertainment destinations and private
entertainment and tourism have priced out residential development. As a result, gen
working-class residents and have eroded trification and tourism are largely driven by
the bohemian character of the Vieux Carre. mega-sized financial firms and entertain
Finally, the growth of corporate tourism and ment corporations who have formed new
the increasing penetration of global enter institutional connections with traditional
tainment firms bespeak a shift in property city boosters (chambers of commerce, city
ownership away from many small groups governments, service industries) to market
and individuals towards a more transna cities and their neighbourhoods. As local
tional corporate influence in the Vieux elites use tourism as a strategy of economic
Carre. The pretentious and widely pro revitalisation, tourism services and facilities
mulgated claim that the ‘creative class’ and are incorporated into redevelopment zones
‘cultural intermediaries’ drive gentrifica and gentrifying areas. In this new urban
tion elides the complex and multidimen landscape, gentrification and tourism amal
sional effects of global-level socioeconomic gamate with other consumption-oriented
transformations and the powerful role activities such as shopping, restaurants,
corporate capital plays in the organisation cultural facilities and entertainment ven
and development of gentrified spaces. ues. That blurring of entertainment, com
For New Orleans and other US cities, mercial activity and residential space leads
major socioeconomic changes over the past to an altered relationship between culture
few decades have created a new competitive and economics in the production and con
environment in which cities are increasingly sumption of urban space.
Finally, this paper is an attem pt to widen ism analyses and in doing so co n trib u tes to
tourism analysis and m ove the study of a m ore critical urban sociology o f g entrifi
tourism beyond a narrow co n cern with cation.
flows, im p acts and form s. It is also an
attem pt to u nderstand the broader social
forces that affect g en trification and to NOTES
shed light on critical issues su ch as urban 1. In the past decade or so, tourism has emerged
restructuring and socio-cu ltu ral chan ge as the dominant sector within the contempo
in cities. Thus, accord ing to Sm ith and rary service economy in the US and around the
world. According to US Tourism Industries, tour
D eFilippis (1999, p. 651), “the frontier of ism’s export contributions grew by nearly 250 per
g entrification is m ore than ever co -o rd i cent between 1986 and 1996, from $26 billion to
nated with the frontiers o f global capital $90 billion (http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/). Despite
in vestm en t” m aking the new est wave of the recent economic slowdown and September
g entrification in cities “o n e part o f a larger 11, tourism is a $600 billion industry, represent
ing a more than 5 per cent of the nation’s GDP
spatial restructuring o f urban areas a sso ci and employing over 17 million people. Tourism
ated w ith the transform ations o f p ro d u c is also a major services export, producing a $14
tion, social reprod uction and fin an ce”. billion positive balance of trade in 2000 (US
Following this line o f thinking, I believe House of Representatives, 2002; for overviews,
that tourism analysis can shed light on see Hoffman et al., 2003; Fainstein and Judd,
1999).
the cau ses and co n seq u en ces o f gen trifi 2. I employ both primary and secondary data to
catio n better th an existing acco u n ts that develop my arguments. The secondary data
focus on identifying the popu lation and come from documents and planning reports
d em ographic variables responsible for issued by the New Orleans Metropolitan
residential and co m m ercial change in c it Convention and Visitors Bureau (NOMCVB) and
the New Orleans City Planning Commission,
ies. H ackw orth (2002) has no ted that direct among other agencies. Furthermore, I consulted
d isp lacem ent no longer seem s to have as the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper
m u ch m eanin g in the context o f new form s annual index, J 972-present, for references to
o f state action, corp orate-led gen trifica newspaper articles on the Vieux Carre, tourism
tion and larger p o litical-eco n o m ic shifts. in New Orleans and other information on the
local real estate industry and the role of business
Tourism is about co n su m p tio n -led growth élites in redevelopment efforts. I also performed
and the increasing im p o rtan ce o f the pro a Lexis-Nexis search of the Times-Picayune
d uction o f cultural goods, h eritage im ages newspaper for information on the Vieux Carre
and o th er sim ulacra. Also, tourism d evel in the 1990s. The primary data come from 7
o p m ent is a dynam ic process involving years of participant observation (as a resident
of New Orleans) and in-depth semi-structured
social interactions, relations and conflicts interviews with 36 local residents who have had
that are global in scale and highly c o m first-hand knowledge and experience with the
plex in character. As contem porary cities socio-spatial transformation of the Vieux Carre.
increasingly turn to tourism as a m eans of I gathered these interviews through a snowball
sample. To protect the confidentiality of inter
eco n o m ic developm ent, and as gen trifica
viewees, I use pseudonyms for non-public per
tion expands in m any cities, we need m ore sons quoted in the paper.
critical acco u n ts o f the nexus o f tourism 3. Figures come from the NewOrleans Metropolitan
and gentrification. Indeed, tourism studies Convention and Visitors Bureau (NOMCVB)
can co n tribu te m u ch to on-going d ebates (www.neworleanscvb.com/new_site/visitor/
o f urban eth n ic transform ation, g lobalisa researchfacts.cfm).
4. Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000 Full-
tion and gentrification. T he investigation Count Characteristics (SFI). Compilation by the
o f the Vieux Carre as a co n tested landscape Greater New Orleans Community Data Center
takes up this challenge o f broad ening tou r (wvw.gnocdc.org).
R EFEREN CES youthful nightime spaces, Urban Studies, 39(1),

pp. 95-116.
Atkinson, R. (2003) Introduction: misunderstood Chatterton, P. and Hollands, R. (2003) Urban
saviour or vengeful wrecker: the many meanings Nightscapes: Youth Cultures, Pleasure Spaces, and
and problems of gentrification, Urban Studies, Corporate Power. London: Routledge.
40(12), pp. 2343-2350. City Business (2000) Condo growth irks residents, 12
Baudrillard, J. (1983) Simulations. New York, NY: June.
Semiotext (e). City Business (2000) Residents, developers trade barbs
Baumbach, R. O. and Borah, W. (1981) The Second over hotel, 23 October, 21 (17), p. 8.
Battle o f New Orleans: A History o f the Vieux Carre City Business (2000) Quarter residents to fight hotel, 11
Riverfront Expressway Controversy. Alabama: December, 21(24), p. 13.
University of Alabama Press. City of New Orleans (2000) Master Plan Issues
Berry, B. J. L. (1985) Islands of renewal in seas of Paper, December. New Orleans, LA: City of New
decay, in: P.E. Peterson (Ed.) The New Urban Orleans.
Reality, pp. 69-96. Washington, DC: Brookings Clay, P (1979) Neighborhood Revival: Middle Class
Institution. Resettlement and Incumbent Upgrading in
Berry, B. (1999) Comment on E. K. Wyly and D. J. American Neighborhoods. Massachusetts:
Hammels ‘Islands of decay in seas of renewal: Lexington Books.
housing policy and the resurgence of gentrifica Coleman, S. and Crang, M. (Eds) (2002) Tourism:
tion—gentrification resurgent?, Housing Policy Between Place and Performance. London: Berghahn
Debate, 10(4), pp. 783-788. Books.
Betancur, J. J. (2002) The politics of gentrification: the Dymski, G. A. (1999) The Bank Merger Wave: The
case ofWestTown in Chicago, Urban Affairs Review, Economic Causes and Social Consequences o f
37(6), pp. 780-814. Financial Consolidation. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.
Bondi, L. (1999) Between the woof and the weft: Eggler, B. (2004) Quarter hotel conversion gets panel
response to Loretta Lees, Environment and OK; plan needs waiver of 35-year ban, New Orleans
Planning D, 17, pp. 253-255. Times-Picayune, 11 August.
Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (Eds) (2002) Spaces Fainstein, S. S. and Judd, D. R. (1999) Global forces,
o f Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in local strategies, and urban tourism, in: D. R. Judd
North America and Western Europe. New York: and S. S. Fainstein (Eds) The Tourist City, pp. 1-20.
Blackwell. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brooks, J. S. and Young, A. H. (1993) Revitalizing the Feagin, J. R. and Parker, R. (1990) Building American
central business district in the face of decline, the Cities: The Urban Real Estate Game, 2nd edn.
case of New Orleans, 1973-1993, Town Planning Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Review, 64(3), pp. 251-271. Foley, J. (1999) Neighborhood Movements, Identity,
Bures, R. (2001) Historic preservation, gentrification, and Change: in New Orleans's French Quarter.
and tourism: the transformation of Charleston, Ph.D. Dissertation, College of Urban and Public
South Carolina, in: K. F. Gotham (Ed.) Critical Affairs, University of New Orleans, New Orleans,
Perspectives on Urban Redevelopment, pp. 195-210. LA.
NewYork: Elsevier Press. Foley, J. and Lauria, M. (2000) Plans, planning, and
Carpenter, J. and Lees, L. (1995) Gentrification in New tragic choices, Planning Theory an d Practice, 1(2),
York, London, and Paris: an international compari pp. 219-233.
son, International Journal o f Urban and Regional Foley, J. and Lauria, M. (2003) Historic preservation
Research, 19(2), pp. 286-303. in New Orleans’ French Quarter: unresolved racial
Chang, T. C. (2000a) Renaissance revisited: Singapore tensions, in: H. Thomas and F. L Piccolo (Eds)
as a ‘Global City for the Arts’, International Knights and Castles: Minorities and Urban
Journal o f Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), Regeneration, pp. 67-89. Burlington, CT: Ashgate
pp. 818-831. Publishing Company.
Chang, T. C. (2000b) Singapore’s Little India: a tourist Gaffikin, F. and Warf, B. (1993) Urban policy and the
attraction as a contested landscape, Urban Studies, post-Keynesian state in the United Kingdom and
37(2), pp. 343-366. the United States, International Journal o f Urban
Chang,T. C. Milne, S., Fallon, D. and Pohlman, C. (1996) and Regional Research, 17(1), pp. 67-84.
Urban heritage tourism: the global-local nexus, Gotham, K. F. (2000) Growth machine up-links: urban
Annals o f Tourism Research, 23(2), pp. 284-305. renewal and the rise and fall of a pro-growth
Chatteron, P. and Hollands, R. (2002) Theorizing urban coalition in a U.S. City, Critical Sociology, 26(3),
playscapes: producing, regulating, and consuming pp. 268-300.
TOURISM GENTRIFICATION |
Gotham, K. F. (2001a) A city without slums: urban strategies, Journal o f Planning Education and
renewal, public housing, and downtown re Research, 4, pp. 16-24.
vitalization in Kansas City, Missouri, American Lauria, M. and Baxter, V. (1999) Residential mortgage
Journal o f Economics and Sociologyr, 60(1), foreclosure and racial transition in New Orleans,
pp. 285-316. Urban Affairs Review, 34(6), pp. 757-786.
Gotham, K. (Ed.) (2001b) Critical Perspectives on Urban Lauria, M., Whelan, R. K. and Young, A. H. (1995)
Redevelopment. NewYork: Elsevier Press. Revitalization of New Orleans in: F. W. Wagner,
Gottdiener, M. (1997) Theming o f America: Dreams, T. E. Joder and A. J. Mumphrey, Jr. (Eds) Urban
Visions, and Commercial Spaces. Boulder, CO: Revitalization: Policies and Programs, pp. 102-127.
VVestview Press. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gottdiener, M. (2000) The consumption of space and Lees, L. (2000) A re-appraisal of gentrification: towards
the spaces of consumption, in: M. Gottdiener (Ed.) a geography of gentrification, Progress in Human
New Forms o f Consumption: Consumers, Culture, Geography, 24, pp. 389-408.
and Commodification, pp. 265-284. Lanham, MD: Lees, L. (2003) Super-gentrification: the case of
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Brooklyn Heights, New York City, Urban Studies,
Hackworth, J. (2002) Postrecession gentrification 40(12), pp. 2487-2509.
in New York City, Urban Affairs Review, 37(6), Lewis, T. (1997) Divided Highways: Building the
pp. 815-843. Interstate Highways, Transforming American Life.
Hannigan, J. (1998) Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit NewYork: Viking Press.
in the Postmodern Metropolis. New York: Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Class and the Remaking
Routledge. o f the Central City. Oxford: Oxford University
Hirsch, A. R. (1983) New Orleans: sunbelt in the Press.
swamp, in: R. M. Bernard and B. R. Rice (Eds) Ley, D. (2003) Artists, aestheticization, and the field
Sunbelt Cities: Politics and Growth Since World of gentrification, Urban Studies, 40(12), pp. 2527-
War II, pp. 100-137. Austin, TX: University of 2544.
Texas Press. Lloyd, R. and Clark, T. N. (2001) The city as an enter
Hoffman, L. K., Fainstein, S. S. and Judd, D. R. (Eds) tainment machine, in: K. E Gotham (Ed.) Critical
(2003) Cities and Visitors: Regulating People, Perspectives on Urban Redevelopmen t, pp. 357-378.
Markets, and City Space. New York: Blackwell NewYork: Elsevier Press.
Publishing. Logan, J. (1993) Cycles and trends in the globaliza
Hollands, R. and Chatterton, P. (2003) Producingnight- tion of real estate, in: P. L. Knox (Ed.) The Restless
life in the new urban entertainment economy: Urban Landscape, pp. 33-54. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
corporatization, branding, and market segmenta Prentice Hall.
tion, International Journal o f Urban and Regional Marcuse, P. (1999) Comment on Elvin K. Wyly
Research, 27(2), pp. 361-385. and D. J. Hammers ‘Islands of decay in seas of
Hutichson, R. (1992) Gentrification and the trans renewal: housing policy and the resurgence of
formation of urban space, R. Hutchison (Ed.) gentrification’, Housing Policy Debate, 10(4),
Gentrification and Urban Change, pp. 1-14. New pp. 789-797.
York; JAI Press. Marks Lewis Torre and Associates (1977) Report on the
Kasarda, J. D. (1999) Comment on E. K. Wyly and existing conditions on Bourbon Street. Marks Lewis
D. J. Hammel's ‘Islands of decay in seas of Torre and Associates, New Orleans, LA.
renewal: housing policy and the resurgence of Meethan, K. (2001) Tourism in Global Society:
gentrification’, Housing Policy Debate, 10(4), Place, Culture, and Consumption. New York, NY:
pp. 773-781. Palgrave.
Kaufman, R. (1999) The social impacts o f condom in Nevarez, L. (2002) New Money, Nice Town: How Capital
ium conversion in the Vieux Carre neighborhood. Works in the New Urban Economy. London:
MS thesis, University of New Orleans. Roudedge.
Knopp, L. (1990a) Exploiting the rent gap: the theoreti New Orleans Times-Picayune (2001) Most of the
cal significance of using illegal appraisal schemes city’s workers fall into service jobs; Orleans poverty
to encourage gentrification in New Orleans, Urban rate among the worst in the U.S., 20 November,
Geography, 11 (1), pp. 48-64. p. 1.
Knopp, L. (1990b) Some theoretical implications of New Orleans Times-Picayune (2002) The new Bourbon
gay involvement in an urban land market, Political kings, 10 February, p. F-l.
Geography Quarterly, 9(4), pp. 337-352. Reeves, S. K. (2000) Making groceries: public markets
Lauria, M. (1984) The implications of Marxian rent and corner stores in old New Orleans, Gulf South
theory for community-controlled redevelopment Historical Review, 16(10), pp. 20-47.
Reichl, A. (1997) Historic preservation and progrowth and sustainable tourism planning. PhD thesis,
politics in U.S. cities, Urban Affairs Review, 32(4), University of New Orleans.
pp. 513-535. Weber, R. (2002) Extracting value from the city:
Reichl, A. (1999) Reconstructing Times Square'. Politics neoliberalism and urban redevelopment, in:
and Culture in Urban Development. Lawrence, KS: N. Brenner and N. Theodore (Eds) Spaces o f
University Press of Kansas. Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North
Sassen, S. (2001) Global Cities: New York, London, America and Western Europe, pp, 172-193. Malden,
Tokyo, 2nd edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University MA: Blackwell.
Press. Whelan, R. K. and Young, A. (1991) New Orleans: the
Smith,N. (1996) TheNew Urban Frontier: Gentrification ambivalent city, in: IT. V. Savitch and J. C. Thomas
and the Revanchist City. NewYork: Routledge. (Eds) Big City Politics in Transition, pp. 132-148.
Smith, N. (2002) New globalism, new urbanism: Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
gentrification as global urban strategy, in: Wittberg, P. (1992) Perspectives on gentrifica
N. Brenner and N. Theodore (Eds) Spaces o f tion: a comparative review of the literature, in:
Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North R. Hutchinson (Ed.) Gentrification and Urban
America and Western Europe, pp. 80-103. Oxford: Change, pp. 17-46. NewYork: JAI Press.
Blackwell. Wyly, E. (2002) Mortgaged metropolis: evolving
Smith, N. and Deftlippis, J. (1999) The reassertion of urban geographies of residential lending, Urban
economics: 1990s gentrification in the Lower East Geography, 23(1), pp. 1-29.
Side, International Journal o f Urban and Regional Wyly, E. and Hammel, D. J. (1998) Modeling the con
Research, 23(4), pp. 638-653. text and contingency of gentrification, Journal o f
Smith, M. R and Keller, M. (1986) 'Managed growth’ Urban Affairs, 20(3), pp. 303-326.
and the politics of uneven development Wyly, E. and Hammel, D. J. (1999) Islands of decay in
in New Orleans, in: S. Fainstein et al. (Eds) seas of renewal: housing policy and the resurgence
Restructuring the City: The Political Economy o f of gentrification, Housing Policy Debate, 10(4),
Urban Redevelopment, pp. 126-166. New York: pp. 711-771.
i-ongman. Wyly, E. and Hammel, D. J. (2000) Capital’s metropolis:
Squires, G. D. (1989) Public-partnerships: who Chicago and the transformation of American hous
gets what and why, in: G. Squires (Ed.) Unequal ing policy, Geografiska Annaler, 82B, pp. 181-206.
Partnerships: The Political Economy o f Urban Wyly, E. and Hammel, D. J. (2001) Gentrification, hous
Redevelopment in Postwar America, pp. 1-11. New ing policy, and the new' context of urban redevel
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. opment, in: K. F. Gotham (Ed.) Critical Perspectives
Teo, P and Yeoh, B. (1996) Remaking local heritage on Urban Redevelopment, pp. 211-275. NewYork:
for tourism, Annals o f Tourism Research, 21(1), Elsevier Press.
pp. 192-213. Wyly, E. and Hammel, D. J. (2004) Has mortgaged
Teo, P and Lim, H. L. (2003) Global and local interac capital found an inner-city spatial fix. (unpub
tions in tourism, Annals o f Tourism Research, 30(2), lished manuscript).
pp. 287-306. Zukin, S. (1991) Landscapes o f Power: From Detroit to
UniversityofNewOrleans. CollegeofUrbanand Public Disneyworld. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Affairs (1992) Changing Land Use in the Vieux Press.
Carre: Managing Growth to Preserve a National Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures o f Cities. Cambridge, MA:
Landmark District. New Orleans, LA: University of Blackwell.
New Orleans. Zukin, S. (1997) Cultural strategies of economic
Urry, J. (2002) Tourist Gaze, 2nd edn. London: Sage development and the hegemony of vision, in: A.
Publications. Merrifield and E. Swyngedouw (Eds) Urbanization
Vesey, C. (1999) Tourism impacts in the Vieux Carre: an o f Injustice, pp. 233-242. New York: New York
analysis o f cultural issues, residential perspectives, University Press.
A PPEN D IX
Table Al. Population and demographic trends for the French Quarter (census tracts 38,42,47 and total), 1940-2000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Census tract 38
Total population 4 747 3 622 2 889 2 096 2 039 1685 1 726
White population 80.6 92.2 92.2 97.7 96.1 95.9 91.9
(percentage)
(percentage)
Other (percentage) 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.8 1.8 4.9
Median household N/A 2 048 3917 9 053 12 291 21 923 27 616

income ($)
income, 2000 ($)
Poverty status
Families (number) N/A N/A N/A 32 16 13 N/A
Families (percentage) N/A N/A N/A 9.5 5.0 7.1 N/A
Individuals (number) N/A N/A N/A 320 195 304 182
Median household 2 941 9 800 25 000 44 100 117500 190 200 460 000
value ($)
value, 2000 (S)
Median rent (S) 10.22 29.46 63.00 106.00 228.00 368.00 549.00
Median rent, 2000 ($) N/A 193.82 336.90 441.67 476.99 484.85 549.00
Total housing units 1 526 1 613 1 709 1 624 1 672 1 692 1 684
Owner-occupied 158 227 208 204 232 234 384
Renter-occupied 1 295 1 208 1 195 1 105 1 133 936 754
Number vacant 73 178 306 315 307 522 546
Percentage vacant 4.8 11.0 17.9 19.4 18.4 30.9 32.4
1 940 1 950 1 960 1 970 1 980 1 990 2000
Census tract 42
Total population 5 426 4 734 3 982 2 786 3 049 2 024 2 055
(percentage)
(percentage)

income ($)
income, 2000 ($)
Poverty status
Families (number) N/A N/A N/A 16 42 47 N/A
Families (percentage) N/A N/A N/A 3.8 10.3 23.0 N/A
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Median household 3 766 10 000 12 100 37 100 100 000 203 600 353 800
value (S)
value, 2000 ($)
Median rent ($) 13.63 38.85 65.00 95.00 202.00 354.00 559.00
Median rent, 2000 (S) N/A 255.59 347.59 395.83 422.59 466.40 559.00
Total housing units 2 206 2 236 2 790 2 336 2 763 2512 2519
Owner-occupied 160 214 191 174 212 211 311
Renter-occupied 1 790 1 780 2126 1 654 1 865 1 176 1 191
Number vacant 256 242 473 508 686 1 125 1 017
Census tract 47
Total population 880 1 174 798 375 508 282 395
(percentage)
(percentage)

income ($)
income, 2000 ($)
Poverty status
Families (number) N/A N/A N/A N/A 19 13 N/A
Families (percentage) N/A N/A N/A N/A 20.0 26.5 N/A
Median household N/A N/A N/A N/A 52 137 500 N/A

value (S)
Median household N/A N/A N/A N/A 109 833 181 159 N/A
value, 2000 ($)
Median rent ($) N/A 39.40 38.00 114.00 346.00 395.00 514.00
Median rent, 2000 (S) N/A 259.21 203.21 475.00 723.85 520.42 514.00
Total housing units 229 376 571 338 430 298 439
Owner-occupied 6 23 23 19 11 12 21
Renter-occupied 175 326 473 243 347 202 247
Number vacant 48 27 75 76 72 84 171
All census tracts

Total population 11 053 9 530 7 669 5 257 5 596 3 4176
(percentage)
(percentage)
Median household N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

income ($)
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Poverty status
Families (number) N/A N/A N/A N/A 77 73 N/A
Median household N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

value ($)
Median rent ($) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total housing units 3 961 4 225 5 070 4 298 4 865 4 502 4 642
Owner-occupied 324 464 422 397 455 457 716
Renter-occupied 3 260 3314 3 794 3 002 3 345 2314 2192
Number vacant 377 447 854 899 1 065 1 731 1 734
S o u rce : C e n s u s of P opulation an d H o u s in g (1 940 -200 0)

PART III
W h o Are Gentrifiers and Why do

They Engage in Gentrification?
Images of and narratives about gentrifiers are prolific. They can be found in newspaper
profiles, such as a NewYork Times article about middle-aged, white restaurateurs opening
a French bistro in Brooklyn’s Ditmas Park (McNeil 2008). Another article features a thirty-
something White woman—a screenwriter who sings in a band—who purchased a house
in Los Angeles’ Eagle Rock and hopes that a Whole Foods will move to her block (Timberg
2009).
Newspapers are not the only source of images and narratives about gentrifiers. An
image dominant in media representations of gentrification is that of the gay male gentri
fier, who seeks to restore or beautify property (Brown-Saracino 2009). For instance, in the
midst of satirical commentary about gay marriage, Stephen Colbert, the host of the popu
lar Comedy Central program The Colbert Report, warned that “the same sex chickens have
come home to gentrify their roost” (5/16/09). Likewise, in 2005 the NBC sitcom Will an d
Grace included an episode in which a white, gay attorney purchases a weekend home in an
as-yet-ungentrified-village. Locals celebrate the prospect, believing that his presence will
ensure property value increases.
These images are not limited to television comedies; they reflect and inform experi
ences of gentrification (Brown-Saracino 2009). For instance, when I was studying a gen
trifying small town in Maine, a group of longtime residents assured me that despite their
discomfort with homosexuality they welcomed gay gentrifiers. Referencing one gay cou
ple’s elaborate Christmas decorations, they explained that they believed that such men
would ensure the town’s aesthetic appeal by restoring farmhouses and artfully landscap
ing grounds.
Embedded in such representations and anecdotes are a number of assumptions worthy
of our attention. Most obviously, they paint a portrait of the gentrifier as a person who pos
sesses certain demographic traits. In the first two cases, the gentrifier is depicted as white
and creative; as a chef, writer, musician, or some combination of the above. In the next
two cases, the gentrifier is presumed to be gay, male, white, highly educated, and affluent.
In other instances alternate demographic traits are emphasized. For instance, HBO’s Sex
an d the City portrays a white, heterosexual couple—an attorney and a pub owner—who,
after the birth of their son, move from Manhattan to Brooklyn and purchase a fixer-upper.
Thus, our collective imagination contains more than one image of the gentrifier, but most
such images emphasize gentrifiers’ affluence, education, and white privilege. When a
168 | JAPONICA BROWN-SARACINO
friend photographed a London billboard that read “Gentrify This!!!” it was easy enough to
imagine the artist’s intended audience, and for most viewers Stephen Colbert’s joke did
not require explanation.
Second, such images presume that gentrifiers share a set of cultural orientations and
motivations for engaging in gentrification. Note that three of the above examples empha
size gentrifers’ interest in historic preservation or home restoration, attention to property
aesthetics, and desire to save or uplift their new place of residence. Most also pay homage
to their cultural credentials, such as membership in a band, culinary skills, or sophisti
cated design tastes. These images suggest that gentrifiers have the ability to recognize the
potential of downtrodden places and properties and to direct their transformation.
According to the gentrification literature, the above images are not altogether inaccu
rate. In fact, some gentrification scholarship, especially work published in the late 1970s
and 1980s (e.g., Gale 1979), offers descriptions of gentrifiers that are not wildly divergent
from these media representations (with the one important exception that most scholars
concur that gay men compose only a minority of gentrifiers). Most scholars agree that gen
trifiers tend to be highly educated and residentially mobile, that many are white, and that
an ideological justification tends to accompany their movement into previously econom
ically depressed central city neighborhoods (e.g., Smith 1986, Zukin 1987, Spain 1993).
Urban and environmental planning scholar Daphne Spain terms this gentrifiers’ “frontier
and salvation ideology” (1993): gentrifiers’ belief that they can move into a downtrodden
neighborhood and reinvent or restore it.
However, as with other facets of gentrification, there is debate about precisely who gen
trifiers are, as well as about why they engage in gentrification and about the character of
their relationship to gentrifying places and the longtime residents who reside there. For
instance, is a white, twenty-something undergraduate who supports himself with student
loans and a part-time job a “gentrifier” if he rents an apartment in a neighborhood whose
residents are predominately Latino and working class? Is he a “gentrifier” if he is deeply
self-conscious about his influence on Latino neighbors and avoids patronizing new busi
nesses that seek to attract other young, white “hipsters”? What of a middle-aged software
developer who purchases a multi-million dollar home in a neighborhood that has been
steadily gentrifying for a decade and that is home to few of the poor and working class
individuals who once lived there (see Lees 2003)?
Most gentrification scholars devote at least some attention to such questions, for gentri
fiers are quite central to the gentrification process. While, as we have seen, scholars disagree
about whether gentrifiers drive or respond to conditions that enable gentrification, with the
exception of those who regard gentrification as driven by commerce or corporations (e.g.,
Gotham 2005), nearly all agree that gentrifiers are an essential component of gentrifica
tion. For this reason a variety of scholars examine the set of questions this section explores.
Namely, who are these people (or we, as for some readers the case may be)? Why do they
participate in gentrification? What is their relationship to their new place of residence?1
Embedded in these questions is a set of concerns about the significance and consequences
of demographic and ideological differences among gentrifiers, as well as a desire, on the part
of most scholars, to offer a precise definition of the gentrifier. The paragraphs below outline
each of these questions, as well as the concerns that underline them, and provide a prelimi
nary roadmap of how this section’s readings approach and answer them.
Who are gentrifiers! This question has three elements. First, it seeks to map the demo
graphic characteristics of those whom scholars identify as gentrifiers. Second, it asks how
WHO ARE GENTRIFIERS AND WHY DO THEY ENGAGE IN GENTRIFICATION? | 169
we should define the “gentrifier.” Third, it calls us to consider how gentrifiers’ traits shape
their relationship to their place of residence, as well as to gentrification.
Early scholarship emphasized how gentrifiers’ demographic traits facilitated their par
ticipation in gentrification, which, in the case of home buyers, often entailed willingness
to accept financial risk, an ability to invest time and labor in property renovation, and
flexibility to reside in places where local amenities and services, such as public schools,
are not geared to the middle class (Rose 1984, Berry 1985, Smith 1986, Zukin 1987, Spain
1993). As a result, the prototypical gentrifier is not only imagined to be white and highly
educated, but also to work in the central city and to be a part of a childless, dual-income
couple (Rose 1984:62).
However, many of the readings in this section challenge a monolithic view of the gentri
fier as a white professional who is affluent and childless. While many gentrifiers fit this bill
and such individuals may even compose the bulk of gentrifiers, the readings call us to rec
ognize the participation of other actors, such as African-American professionals (Taylor
2002), single mothers (Rose 1984), and bohemian artists (Lloyd 2005).
What is the importance and consequence of acknowledging the variety of actors who
engage in gentrification? Many of those who push for acknowledgement of gentrifiers’
diversity do so, in part, because they wish to encourage consideration of how a gentrifier’s
personal traits shape his or her relationship to gentrification. Specifically, they debate
about the precise role different types of gentrifiers play in the gentrification process (see
Caulfield 1994, Butler & Robson 2004) and seek to understand the extent to which gentri
fiers are “trapped” by their demographic traits. At least implicitly, they seek to determine
the extent to which gentrifiers’ intentions matter. For instance, are artists, who are often
displaced from their rentals as gentrification progresses (Lloyd 2005), perpetrators or vic
tims of gentrification? Does their economic insecurity encourage empathy for longtime
residents (ibid.)?
Thus, scholars debate about who gentrifiers are, how to define the term “gentrifier,” as
well as about how gentrifers’ traits shape their relationship to gentrification. In her selec
tion, Damaris Rose rejects the notion that there is a single answer to these questions. She
writes, “the terms ‘gentrification’ and ‘gentrifiers,’ as commonly used in the literature, are
‘chaotic conceptions’ which obscure the fact that a multiplicity of processes, rather than
a single causal process, produce changes in the occupation of inner-city neighborhoods
from lower to higher income residents” (1984: 62). My own research suggests that gentri
fiers vary greatly in their attitudes toward gentrification and longtime residents, as well
as in their practices, but that this variation cannot be neatly attributed to demographic
differences. In contrast, others call for a retreat from this “chaos,” urging gentrification
scholars to reach agreement about how to identify and define the gentrifier and, in turn,
gentrification (e.g., Zukin 1987, Slater 2006).
Why do gentrifiers engage in gentrification? Scholars debate about the possible motiva
tions for gentrifiers’ engagement in gentrification. Some point to gentrification’s economic
benefits, including the affordability of housing in gentrifying areas and the profit gentri
fiers may earn from purchasing in revitalizing areas (Smith 1979, Gale 1980, McDonald
1983, Beauregard 1986, Butler 1997). Others argue that central city amenities, such as
proximity to work opportunities and cultural amenities, attract gentrifiers (Butler 1997,
see also discussion in Zukin 1987). Still others suggest that cultural tastes, such as appre
ciation for historic homes or urban diversity, draw gentrifiers (e.g., Allen 1980, Zukin 1987,
Berrey 2005, Lloyd 2005).
170 | JAP O N ICA BROW N-SARACINO
Sharon Zukin’s pioneering work, Loft Living, a portion of which you will find in this sec
tion, complicates the prevailing assumption that gentrifiers’ motivations are primarily
economic. Zukin accomplishes this by outlining the influence of aesthetic values and the
lifestyle attributes of a particular group of middle class urban dwellers on the gentrifica
tion process. For instance, she writes that "loft living is part of a larger modern quest for
authenticity” (1982:67) that encourages appreciation for "the size of a house, the layout of
the rooms, the passage from one room to another, indicating not only a sense o f‘home’ but
also a sense of the self that is ‘at home’ there” (ibid.: 66). Without this taste for “authenticity”
and a home that compliments a particular sense of self, Zukin argues that "the real estate
market in living lofts that has developed over the past ten years could not have begun”
(ibid.: 58). Thus, she suggests that it is no t enough to say that either individual gentrifiers’ or
real estate developers’ desire for profit drove the loft movement that her book examines.
Tim Butler’s London research (1997) finds that some London gentrifiers, like Zukin’s
NewYork loft dwellers, move to gentrifying neighborhoods out of a desire to live in a par
ticular type of home. However, Butler argues that this is not the only impetus for gentrifers’
relocation. His essay in this section suggests that some gentrifiers cite a desire to minimize
their commute, others suggest that they sought affordable housing or hoped to earn profit
by purchasing in a gentrifying neighborhood, while still others express appreciation for a
sense of "diversity” that they associate with the central city.
Selections by Richard Lloyd, Monique Taylor and Michael Sibalis argue that gentrifi
ers engage in gentrification because they wish to reside alongside those who share their
traits; to be a part of a community composed of like-minded gentrifiers. For instance,
Richard Lloyd captures the desire of artist-gentrifiers, whom he terms “neo-bohemians,”
of Chicago’s Wicker Park to reside alongside other artists and Michael Sibalis demonstrates
how Parisian gay men sought to construct a safe haven by investing in the Marais.
A selection from my article, “Social Preservationists and the Search for Authenticity,”
suggests that, ironically, a subset of gentrifiers whom I identify as “social preservation
ists” engage in gentrification because they wish to live alongside longtime residents with
whom they associate "authentic” community. While at the time that I wrote the article I
argued that social preservationists’ ideology and practices were so distinct from those of
other gentrifiers that they belonged to a separate category, in later work 1proposed that the
social preservationist is one type of gentrifier (Brown-Saracino 2007, 2009). Building on
Damaris Rose, I argue that gentrifiers’ motivations for engaging in gentrification, relation
ship to their neighborhood or town, and daily practices are diverse. Social preservation, I
now believe, is one way of "doing” gentrification.
What is the character o f gentrifiers’ relationships to their neighborhood or town?
Threaded throughout the first two questions are concerns about gentrifiers’ relationships
to their neighborhood or town and how it varies by person and place. Authors debate about
the character of gentrifiers’ relationships to their place of residence. Some characterize
it as uniformly antagonistic (e.g., Smith 1996), while others suggest that sometimes it is
quite the opposite (e.g., Caulfield 1994, Butler & Robson 2003, Brown-Saracino 2004,2007,
2009). Furthermore, those who suggest that gentrifiers vary in their relationship to their
neighborhood or town debate about the characteristics of person or place that encour
age this variation: that drive one gentrifier’s interest in historic preservation and another’s
enthusiasm for new-build construction.
What are some of the orientations authors identify among gentrifiers? Most apparent
in this section’s readings is some gentrifers’ attachment to local history (Zukin 1982,1987,
WHO ARE GENTRIFIERS AND W HY DO TH EY ENGAGE IN GENTRIFICATION? |
Butler 1997). This is most evident in historic preservation efforts—which range from the
restoration of individual homes to efforts to construct historic districts. Some regard this
as part and parcel of gentrifiers’ effort to "save” their place of residence by returning it to its
heyday (Spain 1993). For others, appreciation for a place’s past is rooted in taste for a par
ticular architectural style (Zukin 1982,1987, Butler 1997) or romanticization of a specific
dimension of a place’s social past or present (Brown-Saracino 2009).
Other readings identify gentrifiers’ appreciation for diversity or “social mix” (Butler
1997, Lloyd 2005; see also Berrey 2005). These individuals celebrate an “authenticity” that
they associate with places that possess a diverse array of residents—from poor and work
ing class long-timers to more affluent newcomers.
In contrast, others wish to live alongside those who share their social traits. This is true
of many of the African-American gentrifiers Monique Taylor interviewed who, after facing
years of discrimination in predominately white environs, moved to Harlem to live along
side others who share their racial identity (2002).
Departing from this trend, just over half of the eighty gentrifiers I interviewed for my
book, A N eighborhood That Never Changes, suggest that their participation in gentrifica
tion was motivated by a desire to reside alongside those unlike them. Specifically, they
sought to live in a neighborhood or town populated by certain longtime residents with
whom they associate "authentic”community, such as Portuguese fishermen orVietnamese
merchants (2009).
What explains gentrifiers’ distinct orientations? While some scholars debate about
whether such diversity exists, many others offer competing explanations for its sources.
For instance, many suggest that orientations to gentrification are class-based (Rose 1984,
Lloyd 2005): that less affluent gentrifiers have more concern for longtime residents. A
related argument suggests that a gentrifier’s orientation emerges from the wave of gentri
fication of which he or she is a part. For instance, Richard Lloyd documents the displace
ment of the first wave ofWicker Park’s gentrifiers, suggesting that it encouraged some to
protest the filming of MTV’s T heRealW orldin the neighborhood (2005:119; see Clay 1979
on gentrification’s stages).
Other traits, such as sexual identity, may also influence one’s relationship to gentrifi
cation. For instance, Sibalis suggests that after years of seeking a safe place for commu
nion in the city, many gay male gentrifiers of Paris’ Marais neighborhood were relatively
unselfconscious about their efforts to claim the space as their own (2004). Others counter
that gentrifiers’ orientations are a product of an interaction between their traits and the
characteristics of their place of residence. For instance, Taylor argues that some African-
American professionals’ concern for preserving Harlem’s historical character emerges out
of a confluence of their own and the neighborhood’s racial identity (2002).
Scholarly debates about whether gentrifiers’ demographic traits—such as their class,
race, occupation, and sexual identity—shape their orientations to gentrification under
line a more pressing question about how to define the gentrifier; a question this section
encourages the reader to tackle. Namely, which individuals should we deem “gentrifiers”?
Should we identify gentrifiers by their shared economic position, demographic traits, ori
entation to longtime residents and other gentrifiers, or by their motivations for engaging
in gentrification? Do we wish to place the aforementioned college student and software
designer in the same category—as gentrifiers—and, if so, what does this suggest about
how gentrification works?
172 | JAPONICA BROWN-SARACINO
1. What is the significance, if any, of gentrifiers’ motivations for engaging in gentrifica
tion?
2. What roles do gentrifiers play in the gentrification process? Is the gentrifier as central to
gentrification as the readings in this section suggest?
3. If, as some of the readings suggest, gentrifiers are demographically and ideologically
diverse, what influence might this diversity have on the gentrification process and its
outcomes? For instance, what do the readings suggest about how gentrifiers’ racial and
class identities shape their orientation to gentrification? How might this vary by con
text?
4. Drawing on this section’s readings, draft a definition of the gentrifier. Compare your
definition with those of your classmates and consider the roots of the differences, if any,
between your definitions.
ACTIVITIES
1. Select a gentrifying neighborhood to study. Interview three to five residents who vary in
terms of their length of residence and/or economic position, racial or ethnic identity, or
gender. Develop a short set of general questions about their response to the neighbor
hood’s transformation. During the interview, listen carefully for talk of the‘'gentrifier.” If
your informants use the term, ask them what they mean by it and to offer a description
of a '‘gentrifier.” Determine whether their definitions and descriptions vary. If so, along
what lines? What explains this variation? If there is little variation or your informants do
not use the term, try to develop an explanation for why this is the case.
2. View the film Quinceañera, which is set in a gentrifying Los Angeles neighborhood. In
what ways are gentrifiers portrayed? What factors might influence this portrayal?
3. Borrowing from the anecdotes that frame the first paragraphs of this section’s introduc
tory essay and the previous excercise, document representations of gentrifiers in news
papers, novels, television shows, movies, or in music. How do the sources you analyze
describe and define gentrifiers? To what extent does the sympathy with which gentri
fiers are portrayed vary with the economic, demographic, and cultural traits the sources
describe them as possessing?
4. Read a first person account of an author’s participation in gentrification, such as
Kathleen Hirsch’s A Home in the Heart o f the C7iy(1998) about her move to Jamaica Plain
in Massachusetts. How does the author understand herself and her relationship to her
neighborhood and to gentrification?
NOTE
1. See Lees et al. (2008:90) for discussion of a similar set of questions.
RESOURCES
Allen, 1.1980. "The Ideology of Dense Neighborhood Redevelopment: Cultural Diversity and Transcendent Com
munity Experience.” Urban Affairs QuarterlyVol 15:409-428.
Anderson, E. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
WHO ARE GENTRIFIERS AND W HY DO TH EY EN G A G E IN GENTRIFICATION? | 173
Barry, J., & Derevlany, J. 1987. Yuppies Invade My House at Dinnertime: A Tale o f Brunch, Bombs, and Gentrification
in an American City. Big River Publishing.
Brown-Saracino, J. 2009. A Neighborhood That Never Changes: Gen trification, Social Preservation and the Search
fo r Authenticity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Butler, T., & Robson, G. 2003. London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Re-making o f Inner London. Oxford:
Berg.
Caulfield, J. 1994. City Form an d Everyday Life: Toronto’s Gentrification and Critical Social Practice. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Ley, David. 1996. 'The New Middle Class an d the Remaking o f the Central City. London: Oxford University Press.
Salamon, S. 2003. Newcomers to Old Towns: Suburbanization o f the Heartland. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Spain, D. 1993. “Been-Heres versus Come-Heres: Negotiating Conflicting Community Identities.” Journal o f the
American Planning Association, Vol. 59.
CHAPTER 14
The Creation of a “ Loft Lifestyle”

Sharon Zukin
Until the 1970s, living in a loft was consid ing centers made larger, more impressive
ered neither chic nor comfortable—if the lofts available for alternate uses. Until that
possibility was considered at all. Making point, lofts that had been used for living—
a home in a factory district clearly contra mostly by artists who were “living poor”—
dicted the dominant middle-class ideas of were fairly small, often unheated upper
“home” and “factory,” as well as the sepa floors of two- and three-story storefronts,
rate environments of family and work on and distinctly uncomfortable. On the other
which these ideas were based. Since the hand, an increasing number of middle-
1950s, suburbia had so dominated popular class people moved into certain cultural
images of the American home that it was patterns, particularly an active apprecia
almost impossible to imagine how anyone tion of “the arts” and historic preservation,
could conceive the desire to move down which had previously been upper-class
town into a former sweatshop or printing domains. Their growing identification with
plant. Yet the real estate market in living fine arts production and fine old buildings
lofts that has developed over the past ten led them first to try to protect space for art
years could not have begun without such a ists and historic preservation and then to
desire, at least on the part of a few people. appropriate this space—which was often in
The market could not have grown so fast— loft buildings—for themselves. In this pro
in the process, transforming lofts from old cess, art and historic preservation took on a
factor}' spaces into hot commodities—if broader meaning. They became both more
this peculiar desire had not also struck the commercial and less elitist.
imagination of more people in cities all over The changing appreciation of old loft
the country. Whether they actually bedded buildings also reflects a deeper preoccupa
down among the printing presses or merely tion with space and time. A sense that the
accepted loft living as a possible residen great industrial age has ended creates mel
tial style, people began to find the notion ancholy over the machines and the facto
of living in a loft attractive. This happened ries of the past. Certainly such sentiments
because of two changes that occurred in are aroused only at the end of an era, or with
the 1960s: a change in lofts and a change in a loss of function. As a perceptive observer
middle-class patterns of consumption. of “eccentric spaces” points out, "We visit
On the one hand, the movement of indus the docks in London but not in Rotterdam
try and investment out of old manufactur because commerce is romantic only when
176 | SHARON ZUKIN
it has vanished.”1 Only people who do not relations between people who live in such
know the steam and sweat of a real fac communities, in articles like “Some Sources
tory can find industrial space romantic or of Satisfaction in a Residential Slum” and
interesting. But in many ways industrial Herbert Gans’s elegy on Boston’s Italian West
spaces are more interesting than "post End, The Urban Villagers. Preserving rather
industrial” offices, apartment houses, and than destroying city neighborhoods took on
shopping centers. Their structure has both a broader meaning in the 1970s because of
a solidity and a gracefulness that suggest the growing concern with the earth's ecol
a time when form still identified “place” ogy. Even in the early sixties the impend
rather than “function.” Their facades are ing or real demolition of distinguished old
often adorned with archaic emblems and buildings—like Pennsylvania Station in
sculpture, apparently showing the equally New York City—threatened people with a
archaic skills of masons and carvers. Yet sense of irreparable loss. Like the recycling
this ornamentation is a conceit of nine- of scarce resources, the adaptive re-use of
teenth-century technology. The facades of such buildings eventually attracted greater
many loft buildings that were constructed public support.2
between 1820 and 1880 were cast in stan In this context, loft living is more sig
dardized iron parts that could be ordered nificant than the relatively small number
from a catalogue, mounted, and taken apart of SoHos or loft dwellers implies. It marks
at will. Ironically, the mass production of an a different perception of space and time
earlier industrial era looks to our eyes like and a new relation between art and indus
individuality. try. In a narrower sense, the market in liv
During the 1960s a consensus slowly ing lofts that developed after 1970 also sells
grew that such buildings should not be the social and cultural values of the 1960s
torn down to make room for new, high-rise to middle-class consumers of the seventies
construction that bore little relation to the and eighties. But are living lofts really such a
area or the people around it. Though far radical departure from conventional hous
from the majority view, this line of thought ing? Although loft living seems to reject
spread from Jane Jacobs’s somewhat sub suburbia and all it represents, living lofts
versive ideas about neighborhood pres have some of the same spatial values as a
ervation and urban vitality—which have typical suburban home, particularly a pref
sold more than a quarter-million copies erence for lots of air, light, and open space.
of her 1961 book—to highly commercial Certainly lofts are located on busy city
renovations like San Francisco’s Ghirardelli streets rather than grassy plots, but inside, a
Square, Boston’s Faneuil Hall, and the New loft has an air of detachment from the city.
York artists’ district of SoHo. An apprecia This suggests that loft living is appealing,
tion of “small” and "old,” instead of "large” in part, because it is paradoxical. The incon
and “new,” also appealed to the sixties’ lib gruity of living in a factory does not cease to
eral social conscience. In America’s inner surprise us. From the outside, of course, a
cities, the wholesale destruction of tene loft building looks like a factory, but inside,
ments for the sake of urban renewal dur we find a home. Although homes are con
ing the fifties and early sixties gave rise to sidered private space, the openness of a loft
protest and backlash. Some people blamed makes it a public space. Lofts are also pre
the destabilization of low-rent ghetto com dominantly homes for non-child-centered
munities, in part, for the riots of the mid- to households—for single persons and cou
late sixties. Several years before, sociolo ples without children. Yet the association
gists had called attention to the good social between loft living and a home-oriented
TH E CR EA TIO N OF A “LO FT LIFESTYLE" | 177
interest in stylish cuisine and decor pro good luck,” art writer Calvin Tompkins
motes a new cult of domesticity. Because it says, Rauschenberg “found a loft on Fulton
represents both home and work, hedonism Street, near the fish market, a big attic space
and domesticity, and public and private with twenty-foot ceilings but no heat or
space, loft living is paradoxical. Its success running water; the rent was fifteen dollars
in the urban housing market demonstrates a month, but he talked the landlord into let
that at this time paradox sells. ting him have it for ten. A hose and bucket
Discussing the lure of any market is a in the backyard served as his basin, and he
tricky matter. Consumers’ desires are so bathed at friends’ apartments, sometimes
shaped by the commodities that are avail surreptitiously, asking to use the bathroom
able, as well as by image-making and sta- and taking a lightning shower at the same
tus-seeking, that considering them may be time.” Ten years later, when the Jewish
almost irrelevant. The shrinking size of typ Museum on Fifth Avenue organized the first
ical new apartments and the mass media’s major retrospective exhibition of his work,
privileged treatment of loft living certainly Rauschenberg was living and working in
influenced the market in living lofts. Yet it another loft farther uptown, on the edge of
is a fact that this market did not exist in any Greenwich Village. Tompkins reports that
significant measure before 1971. Since that when he visited Rauschenberg there,
time, “living lofts” has become a house
hold word in cities of the United States
the doors of the freight elevator opened
and Western Europe, and loft living has directly into Rauschenberg’s loft. . . . Sam,
been elevated to a fashionable residential the taciturn black superintendent who oper
style. To some degree, deciding to live in a ated the lift during the day, had agreed to let
loft may reflect a fairly narrow economic Rauschenberg have the key after 6 p .m ., s o he
choice. Particularly for artists who want a could get up and down___ The loft was about
large space at a cheap rent, renting a loft a hundred feet long by thirty wide, A row of
amid the flotsam and jetsam of urban com supportingcolumns ran down the middle, but
merce may be just a question of marginal otherwise it was clear, unobstructed space.
utility. But many people choose to live in a Tall, grimy windows let in the distinctively
white light of downtown NewYork—also the
loft because the space itself appeals to them.
roar of trucks on Broadway. Near the windows
On the one hand, they like the giant scale
was a big, ramshackle wire cage contain
or the “raw,” unfinished quality of a loft. On ing a pair of kinkajous. . . . Beyond the cage
the other hand, they identify with the sense stood a group of large objects—a car door,
of adventure or the artists’ ambiance which a window frame, a roof ventilator mounted
still clings to living in a loft neighborhood. on wheels—components of an unfinished
To determine why these people want to live five-part sculpture.. . . Paintings, combines,
in lofts involves more subtle issues than and sculptures from the recently concluded
mere supply and demand. Not only have lewish Museum retrospective were stacked
lofts changed over the past thirty years but against the wall farther along. There was a big
so have cultural and aesthetic standards. table in the middle of the room, its surface
cluttered with magazines, pictures clipped
from magazines, felt pens and pencils, and
FROM “LIVING POOR’’ TO LUXURY tubes of paint and other materials. Toward
the back of the room, a counter projecting
In 1953, New York artist Robert from the end wall formed an alcove for the
Rauschenberg returned from a trip to refrigerator, the electric stove, and the bed—a
Europe and, practically penniless, looked mattress laid on the floor. All the rest of the
for a place to live. "With his customary loft was work space.3
178 | SHARON ZUKIN
In I960, Rauschenberg’s slightly younger the trapeze that one artist had installed in
contemporary, artist James Rosenquist, his loft, or the eight-by-twenty-four-foot
rented a studio for fifty dollars a month. It painting on which another was work
was not far from Rauschenberg’s first loft ing, exceeded the scale of most American
on the Lower Manhattan waterfront, “in a houses, the Oriental rug, track lighting,
beautiful area around Coenties Slip. It used polished wood floors, comfortable sofa and
to be [abstract painter] Agnes Martin’s stu chairs, and bicycle in the background of the
dio and it was all cracked plaster. .. no dec most prominent photograph looked reas
oration . . . very stark.” After inventing his suring. Indeed, upper-middle-class Life
new Pop Art style in that studio, Rosenquist readers could probably identify with art
was discovered by two art gallery owners. In ists "Bill and Yvonne Tarr [who] still live in
1963 he moved to a loft farther uptown, in Scarsdale, but plan to join Bill’s assortment
the area that eventually became known as of welded steel and bronze sculptures in
SoHo.' theTarrs’ 90-foot-long studio later this year.
During the same period, three prominent The kitchen, bath and family rooms will be
artists whose standard of living was very dif at ground level, with a living-dining-bed-
ferent from that of the unknown Rosenquist room combination perched on the elevated
and the relatively unknown Rauschenberg platform halfway between the loft’s ancient
invited eight hundred members of New wooden floor and a curved skylight reach
York's art community to a social gather ing to the 16-foot-high ceiling.”6
ing that also “took place in a loft.” But this Several months later, the glossy New York
1961 party amazed art writer Dore Ashton magazine—the first andmostwidely copied
because it was held in "a loft with parquet chronicle of urban “lifestyle”—also focused
floors, spoUess walls and a majestic colon on SoHo’s artists. Although they had come
nade running its length___Pinkerton men to an industrial area in search of cheap
were stationed at the door.” For Ashton, this space, these artists evidently knew how
loft party symbolized a change from “the to live—which mainly involved combin
comfortable old group” of artists to “the ing living and working. “They set up mod
new Artbusiness community.” “It was a far ern kitchens, living rooms, bedrooms and
cry,” she says, “from the days of penniless bathrooms along with their studios. When
bohemianism when the lean and hungry night came they did not go home like every
artists had themselves resembled thieves.”5 one else in SoHo, because they were home.”
By the end of the decade, when pho Home for artist Gerhardt Liebmann, for
tographs and descriptions of artists’ lofts example, is divided between a studio in the
began to reach a wider public of magazine front half of his loft and a fifty-foot length of
readers, the journalists declared that loft living space in back, with a rock garden, a
living had panache. A 1970 article in Life skylight, and slate floors.7
magazine, “Living Big in a Loft,” could eas Over the next few years, magazines
ily inspire either envy or repugnance, and it praised the versatility and the creativity of loft
is impossible to decide which Life intended design. In many lofts, the integration of work
when it wrote about the artists living in space, living areas and art objects was paral
SoHo’s loft buildings, “Behind these grubby leled by a fluid adaptation to structural fea
facades lurks an artists’ colony.. . . Sixteen- tures (primarily light, floor, and volume) and
foot ceilings, 45-foot rooms, and commu “incidental” arrangements. Photographed
nity spirit.” The large interior photographs in the professional journal Progressive
show as much air, space, and light as any Architecture, for example, “the loft of artist
suburban home could claim. Although Lowell Nesbitt is divided by eight-foot-high
TH E CR EA TIO N OF A “LO FT LIFESTYLE" | 179
partitions used to display his own work. River. The sun streamed in at all hours.” But
Various living areas are defined by the semi the focal point of Adri Stecking’s spacious
open hexagonal spaces created by the parti new home is even more remarkable. “It’s
tions, by groupings of plants, and by painted an eight-foot square Jacuzzi whirlpool bath
circles on the wooden flooring.” Mixed uses that accommodates ten people, is set into a
and high ceilings continued to invite mul white tile platform reached by eight steps,
tilevel design. In a loft that was featured in and is equipped with a cat board should any
the Sunday New York Times M agazine in [s/c] of the two resident felines fall into the
1974, architect Hanford Yang built a three- pool.”The Times devoted a full page to pho
level living area to display his art collection. tos of Adri in her Jacu zzi and her kitchen,
Artist Gerhardt Liebmann, whose loft had the floor plan of the loft, and an interview
been photographed by New York magazine with Adri and her interior designer.'0*
in 1970, turned up again in 1974 with one Although American living lofts generally
of “the great bathrooms of New York.” By convey a sense of modern elegance through
now he "has a flourishing greenhouse in the a spareness of design that is enhanced by
bathroom of his SoHo loft. ‘The bathroom is the opulence of larger-than-life decoration
an ideal place to raise plants if you have the and industrial appliances, as another Times
light,’” he says. And SoHo, according to Neti/ article, also in 1978, showed, the loft style
York magazine, was now the ideal place to was easily adaptable to an eclectic juxtapo
live if you wanted excitement.8 sition of seventeenth-century, Art Deco, and
A 1976 New York magazine article on "High Tech” design. This time the loft was
extravagant house plants— “Six City Jungle in Paris, but the language is familiar: “Once
Habitats”—shows large trees growing in a upon a time, thermos bottles were manu
designer’s SoHo loft. Another article, on an factured in the lofty space shown above.
architect’s elegant 140-foot-long loft, lauds Then interior designer Andree Putnam
the design detail as “a short course in neo moved in on it, connected it to her seven-
classical art trom pe 1,'oeil" that evokes "an teenth-century Paris apartment and trans
Italian palazzo.” The design of a passage formed it into elegant quarters for working
between the loft’s columns, or “colonnade,” and entertaining.”"
is said to be “loosely derived from a Vicenza By 1980, readers of the T im eshad become
building facade by the sixteenth-century so familiar with living lofts that a home fur
architect Andrea Palladio.”'’ nishings reporter considered a twenty-foot
By 1978, women’s sportwear designer ceiling in the living room matter of factly,
Adri Stecking (known professionally as Adri) as one of several “common design prob
was saying to a New York Times reporter, “I lems.” “ 'The scale was enormous and quite
fell in love with SoHo and walked the pave a problem,’ ” says the designer of a model
ments for months, but I couldn’t find the loft-apartment in a converted factory. “The
loft I wanted.” So she rented a loft—purely bare walls . . . were ‘too high, too overpow
for living—near midtown, south of the ering.’ ”The reporter recommends his solu
Flower Market district. “Each floor con tion as inexpensive and ingenious: “Using
tained about 4,000 square feet,” says the nine separate pieces of canvas, the designer
Times-, “‘a quarter of an acre [sz'c]!”’ says created an enormous 12-foot-square hang
Adri. “There were big window’s facing each ing that is delineated with adhesive tape
point of the compass,” and Adri’s loft “was into two-foot-square grids. . . . The upper
high enough to see the roof-tops of build left square sports a black triangle. ‘That’s
ings on each side and New Jersey to the the same effect as th e ... window,’ he noted,
west, separated by a blue strip of Hudson pointing to the skylight on the adjacent
180 I SHARON ZUKIN
wall.”12 Indeed, the high ceilings, exposed Beneath a reproduced drawing of the build
brick walls, hanging plants, and open ing as it looked in 1860, the advertisement
spaces of the loft style have become so well reads, “The finest business structure and
known that they inspire parody. An issue of most famous shop of its tim e... the first fire
the satirical Not the New York Times that was proof building in NewYork . . . constructed
published during the 1978 New York City of white marble . . . specially inspected by
newspaper strike featured a bogus inter the Prince ofWales on his visit to the United
view with Cary Grant and Andy Warhol, States___”**
who had converted their Upper East side A third ad that ran in the Times, in March
apartments to the “loft look.” 1980,appealstobothluxuryandpracticality.
With no intention of irony, the overstate It represents a real estate developer selling
ment of real estate advertisements reveals co-operative loft-apartments of approxi
what loft living now represents to a sophis mately the same size but “in three neighbor
ticated, affluent public. Directed to “the hoods, in three distinct price ranges.” The
discriminating buyer”—or at least to some first and least expensive loft-apartments
one who can afford the $54,000 to $120,000 are in a converted factory near but not in
purchase price and a monthly maintenance a gentrifying, brick townhouse neighbor
charge between $300 and $600 —an ad from hood of Brooklyn. They provide "up to 1400
the New York Times in May 1980 promises square feet of open space, enhanced by
“THE ULTIMATE in Loft Living”: high ceilings, oversize windows, and beau
tiful parquet floors.” The second option,
Looking for the ultimate loft apartment? Our in a converted office building in TriBeCa,
large duplexes give you everything that makes promises "up to 1185 square feet, the space
loft living so great . . . the expansiveness of is open, and the feeling is larger than life ..
OPEN SPACE . . . the spectacularly HIGH . .” The third and most expensive offering,
CEILINGS (up to 16 ft.). . . the FREEDOM to in a converted warehouse on the fringe of
create your own living environment... PLUS
Greenwich Village, marks “the return of
spectacular SKYLINE & RIVER VIEWS!
We’ve added an elegance you wouldn’t The Great NewYork Apartment. From 1370
expect of the loft lifestyle . . . magnificent to 2850 square feet of the most beautifully
lobby, intercom . . . carpeted hallways . . . laid-out open space in the city. With breath
deluxe appointments & amenities . . . luxu taking views, terraces, gardens, Manhattan’s
rious large new kitchen areas & stylish Oak only glass-walled elevator, and impeccable
stripped floors, etc. workmanship.” By this point and this price
level, lofts have moved “uptown.” There is
An advertisement that was posted, placard little left to distinguish loft living from lux
style, on a Manhattan lamppost at about ury housing.
the same time plays to both a sense of style Nevertheless, the advertisements imply
and a sense of history. that loft living still retains several distinc
tive characteristics: open space, a relation
These spectacular lofts are for artists, photog between art and industry, a sense of history,
raphers,performingartistsandurbanpioneers and a fascination of the middle-class imagi
with creative minds. At the corner of Prince
nation with the artist’s studio.
Street in the SOHO HISTORIC DISTRICT.
CO-OP LOFTS:
— Magnificent gallery spaces SPACE AND SELF
— Only one loft per floor—5000 sq. ft__
— Fantastic gallery and performing arts A home, as French philosopher Gaston
spaces__ Bachelard says in The Poetics o f Space,
TH E CR EA TIO N OF A “LO FT L IFE S T Y L E ” |
can mean many contradictory things to the middle class builds or buys necessarily
its inhabitants, It evokes an image of both reflects new ideas about space, and what
stability and expansiveness, a primal “hut it represents, in each time period. In that
dream” that inspires calm rooms that sense, loft living is part of a larger modern
seethe with inner turbulence. "The house quest for authenticity. Old buildings and
even more than the landscape,” Bachelard old neighborhoods are “authentic” in a
notes, “is a psychic state.”13 In different way that new construction and new com
periods and different cultures, the size of a munities are not. They have an identity that
house, the layout of the rooms, the passage comes from years of continuous use, and an
from one room to another, indicate not only individuality that creates a sense of “place”
a sense of “home” but also a sense of the self instead of “space.” They are “New York”
that is “at home” there. In sixteenth-century rather than “California,” or “San Francisco”
Europe, for example, people thought that rather than “Los Angeles.” Such places grow
self-expression was possible only in small organically, not spasmodically. Because
rooms, yet by the eighteenth century, their they are here today a n d tomorrow, they
descendants preferred large, airy rooms. In provide landmarks for the mind as well as
the late nineteenth century', tastes changed the senses. In a world that changes moment
once again. Mid-Victorian homes were by moment, anchoring the self to old places
warrens of small, specialized rooms sepa is a way of coping with the “continuous
rated by walls, passageways, and closets past.” So loft living rejects functionalism, Le
that “associated each space with a function Corbusier, and the severe idealism of form
or activity that assumed cultural, indeed that modern architecture represents. As a
ceremonial meaning.”11 style, it is respectful of social context. Thus
Needless to say, tastes in housing, like living lofts are a logical continuation of the
all architectural styles, are constrained by middle-class movement back to brown
available technology, materials, and costs. stone townhouses that began in the late fif
Tastes must also change over time. The sixties. Ironically, loft living turns to factories
teenth-century preference for small rooms in search of a more human habitat. Living in
indicates a withdrawal in spatial terms a loft is an attempt to replace modernism’s
from the corporate identities and large mass production of the individual with an
gatherings of medieval society to what we individualization of mass production.15
think of as Renaissance individualism. Living lofts, especially in an on-going
The eighteenth-century room parallels a manufacturing area, re-create the “mixed
new conception of the public self, which use” of earlier urban neighborhoods. To
demanded a more public space even in the some degree the attraction to artists’ liv
privacy of the home. The late-nineteenth- ing and working lofts—mixed use in the loft
century “specialization of space,” as histo itself—represents an attempt to overcome
rian Burton Bledstein calls it, symbolizes the separation of home and work that some
a retreat into private space to protect the social psychologists find so alienating.16
individual from undefined, and therefore If the isolation of middle-class residential
dangerous, encounters. All these examples suburbs breeds despair, then the mixed use
project a middle-class, or even an upper- of loft neighborhoods should foster affirma
middle-class, understanding of the relation tion in the middle-class psyche. Of course, a
between space, self, and society. Because middle-class preference for strictly residen
the middle class generally neither inherits tial neighborhoods pre-dates the suburbs
baronial ancestral halls nor can afford to by many years. Since the rise of separate
reconstruct such palaces, the housing that middle-class and working-class housing
182 | SHARON ZUKIN
markets in the 1840s, urban houses and This contrasts with the gradual transition
neighborhoods have been predominantly between, “outside” and "inside,” and public
either residential or commercial. Most and private space, in a typical home. Even
people still prefer purely residential hous in the modest lofts that do have an entrance
ing and neighborhoods—for either escape hall, both guests and hosts feel a mutual
or exclusivity. But symbolically, the mixed obligation to “see” and “show” the whole
use in loft living reconciles home and work loft. Of course, the uniqueness of each loft
and recaptures some of the former urban arrangement—due to the absence of stan
vitality. dard floor plans and the unexpectedness
In another way, too, living lofts represent of architectural detail—makes living lofts a
an effort to supersede the intense privacy of kind of tourist attraction that most houses
the detached suburban house with a more or apartments cannot be.
public space. The sheer physical layout of But it would be wrong to imagine that
most lofts, interrupted by few doors or walls, lofts use space in a totally new way. Strong
opens every area and every social function elements of continuity connect today’s
to all comers. This eliminates most rituals living lofts and older American hous
de passage and creates an impression of ing types, beginning with the brick walls,
informality and equality. In a loft’s vastness plane surfaces, and exposed structural
no single object or person can dominate. elements (wooden beams) in early New
Similarly, the absence of architectural barri England houses. Indeed, architectural his
ers between "service” and “entertainment” torian Siegfried Giedion characterized the
areas eliminates the hierarchy of functions typical American floor plan that developed
that is typical of most household arrange between 1850 and 1890 as the most open,
ments, as well as the hierarchy of persons— the most flexible, and the least subdivided
either male or female—who perform those that was possible. Because of both a lack
functions. Nor does the architectural plan of skilled labor and a colonial dependence
of a loft readily permit the hierarchy of spe on the British Georgian style, American
cialized rooms that was so popular in mid- construction throughout the nineteenth
dle-class Victorian homes. Lofts don’t have century stressed a lack of pretentiousness,
drawing rooms, morning rooms, or dress a direct approach to building materials,
ing rooms. Because loft areas are divided and an attention to comfort. Even the ideal
only according to general uses—"living” house that Henry David Thoreau imagined
and "working,” for example—they imply an before 1850 seems remarkably like a liv
easy transition from one activity to another, ing loft. It would have “only one room . . .
a sense of proportion and a purposefulness where some may live in the fireplace, some
that may really exceed the loft dweller’s. The in the recess of a window, and some on set
appropriation of large space in a loft also tees, some at one end of the hall, some at
reverses the sixteenth-century association another, and some aloft in the rafters with
between small rooms and self-expression. the sparrows, if they choose.”17
Loft living reflects a self that continually Thoreau’s central image reappears
demands “more space” to prove its indi in master-craftsman Gustav Stickley’s
viduality. description of the prototype house that he
Living in a loft is a little like living in a designed around 1900:
showcase. Because of the structure of many
small industrial buildings, most lofts are We have from the first planned houses that
entered directly from the elevator. So guests are based on the big fundamental principles
penetrate immediately into the living area. of honesty, simplicity, and usefulness.. . . We
THE CREATION OF A “LOFT LIFESTYLE" | 183
have put into practical effect our conviction pu blic’s desire for ever more open and more
that a house, whatever its dimensions, should flexible living areas, influenced the design
have plenty of free space unencumbered by of the suburban tract houses that were
unnecessary partitions or over-much furni built in great num bers after World War II.
ture. . . . It seems to us much more friendly,
Suburban ranch hom es had large efficient
homelike and comfortable to have one big liv
kitchens that flowed into m ulti-purpose
ing room into which one steps directly from
the entrance door .. . and to have this living “dens” or “family room s.” The open space
room the place where all the business and of this suburban style, as well as the 1960s
pleasure of the common family life may be car revival of Early Am erican rural hom es and
ried on. And we like it to have pleasant nooks barns, prepared the way for the accep tance
and corners which give a comfortable sense of of living lofts.19 [...)
semi-privacy and yet are not in any way shut
off from the larger life of the room__
Equally symbolic is our purpose in mak NOTES
ing the dining room either almost or wholly * This articic caused some dismay because it
a part of the living room:... Such an arrange appeared at a time when the city government’s
ment is a strong and subtle influence in the concern over job loss had directed criticism
direction of simpler living because entertain against the residential conversion of loft build
ment under such conditions naturally grows ings. The reporter made clear that Adri had
less elaborate and more friendly... .'8 bought a co-operative loft that was occupied by
an economically viable manufacturer who “was
in no hurry to leave.” Nonetheless, a commercial
Another reason for the decline of formal tenant has no “statutory right,” as some residen
entertaining, as Stickley also notes, was tial tenants in NewYork do, to remain beyond the
the increasing num ber of m iddle-class expiration of their lease, and Adri "moved in as
households w ithout servants. Unlike the soon as she was able to.”
** In light of NewYork City’s 1976 zoning resolution
rigid dom estic division betw een “upstairs” on SoHo and NoHo, the adjacent artists’ loft dis
and "downstairs,” the housewife who did tricts South and North of Houston Street, respec
her own cooking did not readily accept tively, these living lofts seem to have a doubtful
an enforced isolation in the kitchen, away legal status. That resolution permits residential
from the rest of the family. Early-twentieth- conversion of loft buildings in these areas for art
ists only, according to an established certification
century fem inists had dem anded that the procedure. Buildings that front on Broadway, as
kitchen be elim inated entirely from individ this one does, cannot be converted to joint living
ual hom es and replaced with nearby co m and working use even by artists if the floor size
munal dining halls. But in the thirties and exceeds 3,600 square feet. Probably the develop
forties, this radical dem and was subdued ers who were selling the floors in this building
had applied for a Buildings Department permit
by the rapidly expanding production of for studios with accessory living space, which
labor-saving, m echanical devices for doing NewYork City law did not consider a residential
kitchen work and by changes in the physi category until recently.
cal layout of kitchens. Frank Lloyd Wright’s 1. Robert Harbison, Eccentric Spaces (New York:
innovative houses opened up the kitchen to Avon, 1980), p. 131. Alternatively, such spaces
may be made to appear as though they had lost
the dining room so that the “w ork-space,” their function (and their human content); hence
as Wright called it, flowed into the living they become “picturesque.” In English art of the
area. Wright also adapted to hom e kitch late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries,
ens the principle of “stream lining” that had for example, "the rules of the picturesque allowed
been developed in nineteenth-century rail the intrusion of steam engines or mills or mines
[into landscape paintings] only if they were given
road travel with the creation of the Pullman an air of decrepitude or made to appear ancient
dining car. Wright’s preference for the open and ruinous, and so harmless" (Francis D.
floor plan, along with the hom e-buying Klingender, Art and the Industrial Revolution, ed.
184 I SH ARO N ZUKIN
and rev. Arthur Elton [London: Adams and Dart, 14. Harbison, Eccentric Spaces, pp. 22, 33; Burton J.
1968], p. 74). Bledstein, The Culture o f Professionalism (New
2. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life o f GreatAmerican York: Norton, 1976), p. 61.
Cities (New York: Vintage, 1961); Marc Fried and 15. See, for example, Orrin E. Klapp, Collective
Peggy Gleicher, “Some Sources of Satisfaction in Search fo r lde?itity (New York: Holt, Rinechart
the Residential Slum," Journal o f the American and Winston, 1969), pp. 23-28; Yi-Fu Tuan,
Institute o f Planners 72, no, 4 (1961): 305-15; Space an d Place: The Perspective o f Experience
Herbert Gans, The Urban Villagers (NewYork: Free (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
Press, 1962); Nathan Silver, Lost New York (New 1977); Dean McCannell, The Tourist: A New
York: Schocken, 1967); James Biddle, Foreword, Theory o f the Leisure Class (NewYork: Schocken,
in Constance M. Greiff, Lost America (Princeton: 1976); Kenneth Frampton, “The Aura of the Past,”
Pyne Press, 1971). Progressive Architecture, July 1974, pp. 48-79; Ada
3. Calvin Tompkins, Off the Wall: Robert Louise Huxtable, "The Troubled State of Modern
Rauschenberg and the Art World o f Our Time Architecture,” New York Review o f Books, May 1,
(Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 83,211. 1980, pp. 22-29.
4. “Nine Artists/Coenties Slip,” Whitney Museum, 16. For example, Philip Slater, The Pursuit o f
NewYork, 1974; Tompkins, Off the Wall, pp. 175- Loneliness: American Culture at the Breaking
76. Point (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970).
5. Dore Ashton, The New York School (New York: 17. Siegfried Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture
Viking, 1972), p. 299. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
6. “Living Big in a Loft,” Life, Mar. 27,1970, pp. 62-63. 1941), pt. 5; Thoreau, quoted in August Heckscher,
7. “SoHo Artists’ Bohemia Imperiled," New York The Public Happiness (New York: Atheneum,
Magazine, Aug. 24,1970, p. 46. 1962), pp. 258-59.
8. “A Very Lofty Realm,” Progressive Architecture, 18. Gustav Stickley, "Simplicity and Domestic Life”
October 1974; Norma Skurka, "Landmark Loft in (1909), reprinted in Roots o f Contemporary'
SoHo,” New York Times Magazine, Nov. 24, 1974; American Architecture, ed. Lewis Mumford (New
NewYork Magazine, May 20 and Sept. 30,1974. York: Grove Press, 1959), pp. 302-3.
9. New York Magazine, Mar. 8 and Oct. 11,1976. 19. Siegfried Giedion, Mechanization Takes
10. Bernardine Morris, “Built for Healthy Living: A Command (NewYork: Norton, 1969), pt. 6; idem,
Loft With Splash,” NewYork Times, Mar. 9,1978. Space, Time and Architecture, p. 289; Delores
11. Mary Russell, “At Home in a French Factory,” New Hayden, The Grand Domestic Revolution: A
York Times Magazine, Dec. 10,1978. History o f Feminist Designs fo r American Homes,
12. New York Times, July 10,1980. Neighborhoods and Cities (Cambridge, Mass.:
13. Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics o f Space, trans. M.I.T. Press, 1981); “A Romantic Solution,”
Marie Jolas (NewYork: Orion Press, 1964), p. 72. Progressive Arch itecture, November 1967.
CHAPTER 15
Living Like an Artist

Richard Lloyd
I really love your hairdo, yeah able to both insiders and outsiders, and for
I’m glad you like mine too the neighborhood to finally veer onto the
See what looking pretty cool will get you path that would differentiate it as Chicago’s
... But if you dig on vegan food 1990s bohemia.
Well come over to my work
Bars, restaurants, and coffee shops were
I’ll have them cook you something that you’ll
crucial to Wicker Park’s emerging neo
really love
Cause I like you bohemian scene, dramatically elevating
Yeah I like you its visibility to insiders and outsiders alike,
And I’m feelin’ so bohemian like you. They belong to the category of social insti
—The Dandy Warhols, tution that Ray Oldenberg identifies as
“Bohemian Like You," 2000 ‘’third places,” helping people to make new
social contacts and thus extend the local
community.' Oldenberg is inspired in part
Alan Gugel recalls of his early years in Wicker
by the tradition of café society evident in
Park: “When I moved into this neighbor
classic bohemian districts, and indeed sites
hood, that’s the one thing they kept saying,
such as Montmartre, Greenwich Village,
‘There’s a lot of artists, a lot of artists, move
North Beach, and the East Village all fea
down there.’ And when I got there, there
tured well-known venues—Le Chat Noir,
were no arts. I couldn’t see them.” Word of
City Lights Books, Cafe Trieste, the Mudd
mouth indicated that Wicker Park was a
Club, and a host of others—that helped
likely site for a penniless young artist to find
build the bohemian congregation. Such
cheap rents and like-minded individuals,
local institutions both drive neighborhood
but those who moved in during the 1980s
identity and reflect it. Bars and restaurants
at first found that the local scene was com
were hardly unknown to Wicker Park before
paratively underdeveloped, lacking public
its neo-bohemian turn, but the character of
spaces to which newcomers might easily
local venues would change as they increas
find their way. In the late 1980s, Wicker Park
ingly served a new population with distinct
was a neighborhood on the verge, but it
social and aesthetic dispositions.
required the increasing preponderance
The legacy of the past stages of neigh
of commercial spaces geared toward the
borhood life and demography is not swept
needs of the artists and aesthetes moving
away. They form the inheritance of new
there for the scene to become recogniz
residents, both in terms of the built
186 | RICHARD LLOYD
environment and the cultural palimpsest. opened that space. We made a good deal with
But local businesses that had once catered him because our theater company was doing
primarily to members of the Polish or pretty well by that point. So we were like, “OK,
Latino working class would suddenly see a you don’t charge us that much of anything
surge in patronage by tattooed young urban for the entire space, and we will build out the
space, we’ll build everything. We’ll build out
hipsters. Local artists—many of whom,
your space entirely, we’ll put in a grid, we’ll
like Alan Gugel and Erik Wulkowicz, had build in the risers, we’ll build the stage." He
advanced carpentry skills—accelerated was going to outfit the front for a coffee shop,
the rehabilitation process, trading labor for anyway. “You do all that, you don’t charge us
reduced rents or working as local contrac rent on the theater, and we will make sure
tors. Michael Warr, the founder and former it’s sold out. Don't worry.” We did Fear and
director of the Guild Complex, points out Loathing in Las Vegas, that was the first play
how the mix of talents contributed to the we did there.
reproduction of the material landscape,
now geared to new styles of culture and As this shows, artists in Wicker Park help
commerce: “make the scene” not simply by providing
local color, but also with real brow-sweat.
When you think of all the performances that Phyllis’ Musical Inn, my own first point
have taken place just in Wicker Park alone of entry into the neighborhood, was among
and all the types of work that go into build the earliest venues to capitalize on the
ing stages, you’re talking about a lot of skills. coalescence ofyoungcultural creators in the
Take some of the cafes that have gone up. If neighborhood, and in the 1980s it helped to
you look at F.arwax, for instance . . . most of
make the emergent scene visible, thus fur
the work that was done in that cafe was done
by artists in the neighborhood. One of the ther magnetizing participation. One future
things that was great about running the Guild entrepreneur recalls that visiting Phyllis’
Complex in Wicker Park was that you never helped to alert him to the neighborhood as
had to go far to find what you needed to get a potential investment location.
things done in terms of design, in terms of
printing, in terms of the artists themselves for Phyllis’ was my introduction to Wicker Park.
programming. ... I had a friend who dragged me down here
several times to see bands. That was back
The presence of venues like the Guild when Phyllis’ was fundamentally the only
Complex, a literary nonprofit that has thing—we’re talking ten years ago [mid-
occupied numerous neighborhood loca 1980s]—Phyllis’ and the Gold Star [a bar
located across the street on Division] were the
tions, increases the attractiveness of the
only places where non-ethnic white people
neighborhood for new waves of artists, and
could go without being in serious jeopardy of
the growing number of artists increases their lives.
the attractiveness of the neighborhood for
further investment. Steve Pink tells of the The grittiness of local bars like Phyllis’,
work his theater company did rehabbing which only recently had been propped
space in the Chopin Theater, which shares up by a hardscrabble clientele of grizzled
the buildingthat currently houses the Guild working-class boozers, fit in well with the
Complex: general construction of neo-bohemian
We opened the theater. It was owned by a authenticity in the neighborhood, and sev
Polish immigrant named Ziggy, who’s still eral such venues were co-opted into the
there. We approached him because he had hipster revolution in the manner of Phyllis’.
this great space in the Chopin Theater... .We Local performer Shappy Seaholtz recalls of
LIVING LIKE AN ARTIST | 187
the early 1990s: “There were some bars, but conversations going on, or possibly music
not the kind of bars you want to hang out at conversations. It was a kind of social (event)
except for maybe the brave few that would for artists to talk about art and music. Some
go to Phyllis’ or the Gold Star or the Rainbo. people would come in here, and they’d kind
Even then, it was full of hipsters, and I went of dig it, but they wouldn’t last more than a
couple of weeks. They w'ould feel like outsid
to a lot of cool art openings and shows.” For
ers, and they wouldn't last, and they would
the most part these venues were not yet stop coming in. On the other hand, if you
widely recognized outside the neighbor were into that scene, it was definitely the
hood as potential entertainment destina place to come because you could walk in and
tions, and early stalwarts recall them with jump in a conversation at a moment’s notice
typical nostalgia: if you were into that.
Are you familiar with the Borderline? Do you In addition to providing places for hang
remember what the Borderline looked like in ing out, new spaces in the neighborhood
1989? It used to be you would walk into this
heightened the visibility of local creative
place that’s literally like a wall, with a bunch
of stools on it, with a bunch of cigarettes on efforts. Many new art galleries were open
one side and a bunch of beer on the other ing in the nearby River West area and also
side, and it was covered with this real thick in Wicker Park itself. In 1988, the Ricky
Plexiglas, and it was probably the most dan Renier Gallery opened in what the Chicago
gerous place to be in. About the only places Tribune still described as “the wilds of
that were relatively fun was Dreamerz and Wicker Park,”2 and quickly switched from
the Rainbo Club. . . . Dreamerz was a total displaying European imports to showcas
biker bar—that was a rough kind of area to go ing local talent. In a practice similar to that
into. I stayed away from that place on Friday of the East Village, local bars began to dis
and Saturday nights, I'd go down to Rainbo play the work of neighborhood artists, and
because that was a little bit more relaxed. they still do. Venues showcasing the neigh
borhood music scene proliferated. On the
The Rainbo Club, located at Damen Avenue
same block as Phyllis’ Musical Inn, live
and Division Street on the southern fringe of
music could be heard at the Czar Bar and
the neighborhood, became one of the first
the Bop Shop, both venues whose offerings
bars in which local artists and musicians
evolved with the changing neighborhood
would congregate. A recognizable scene
dynamic. As the neighborhood’s celebrity
began to take shape, and many musicians
increased, the Double Door, a much larger
whose crossover to national success would
musical performance space, opened. In
help fuel the neighborhood’s celebrity were
addition to local acts, it showcased national
among the regulars, including Phair and
fare, including such famous rock acts as the
the members of the band Urge Overkill
Rolling Stones and Smashing Pumpkins.
(whose cover of Neil Diamond’s “[Girl]
But even as the neighborhood became
You’ll be a Woman Soon” was featured on
more popular and more expensive, the local
the soundtrack of the hipster film sensation
aesthetic continued to display the image of
Pulp Fiction). limmy Garbe, a musician who
grit as glamour. This image connoted an
has worked behind the bar at the Rainbo for
authentic bohemianism appealing not only
more than a decade, remembers the scene
to committed participants but also to spo
as not particularly hospitable to outsiders:
radic consumers. Michael Warr describes
We were kinda pegged as elitist, and I think the Hothouse, a performance venue that
it’s because people would come here, and has since moved from Milwaukee Avenue
there would be six or seven different art to the South Loop as having a “real kind of
I RICHARD LLOYD
bohemian feel That it wasn’t just a bright anyway could not have found their way
shiny new thing, and when I see bohemia, there without a heads up from the agents
that’s what I see. There’s a little bit of the Old of the corporate mass media, like MTV or
World, as close as you can get in the United the New York Times. In 2001, some locals
States. Bohemian isn’t just the look, but I do took the opportunity to protest directly the
think for me, that kind of grit, I think that is influence of MTV on the new urban bohe
relevant to the picture of bohemia.” mia, attempting to disrupt MTV’s staging of
Particularly with the popularity of the its program The Real World in a local loft.
bare-bones rock ‘n’ roll styles identified The protests against The Real World were
by labels as "grunge,” "alternative,” and prefigured by the negative neighborhood
“indie,” such venues satisfied the expecta reactions to the effects of its showcase arts
tions of a range of consumers, and by the festival. The ATC was launched in the late
1990s, patrons were drawn from the far 1980s by Jim Happy-Delpeche, a French
reaches of the Chicago area. expatriate art dealer. Its intention was to
In her ethnographic study of “alterna showcase the work of local artists, with dis
tive hard rockers” in “Wicker Park, Mimi plays in local business venues and in the
Schippers illustrates the disdain that many lofts of artists themselves. Of course, it also
committed scene members expressed had the effect of illuminating the neighbor
when increasing numbers began to invade hood’s ongoing redevelopment to a wider
the gritty venues of the neighborhood: audience, changing the image of the neigh
borhood from urban “wilderness” to hip
We pass the Empty Bottle on our right. The cultural destination.' Though the festival
Empty Bottle is a local rock club [on the clearly abetted the careers of several artists,
western fringe of Wicker Park] that serves up
strong, cheap drinks and features both local it also became a center of neighborhood
and touring bands for relatively lowcovers. It is controversy spawning significant opposi
one of the scenes that Maddie and other active tion and creating strong cleavages within
participants in the alternative rock scene fre the community.5
quent. However, tonight Veruca Salt, a local The controversy over the ATC shows
band who made it big, is playing to a sold out the contradictions that artists face in the
crowd. Maddie looks at the people waiting out convergence of ideological preference
side to get in and grimaces. “What a nightmare. and practical considerations, While many
Can you imagine being in there? It’s probably members of the arts community had an ide
packed and full of 708ers...—People from the ological commitment to maintaining the
suburbs. The area code. All those assholes neighborhood ethos and resisting further
who wouldn’t be caught dead in this neighbor
gentrification, they also want to sell their
hood three years ago, but now because Wicker
Park is the hip spot, they flock here. Especially work. Thus, few recognized neighborhood
for, like, Veruca Salt. Fucking MTV”1 artists actually boycotted participation in
the festival. However, for many participa
The fact that Schippers’ informant Maddie tion was reluctant and surly. Meanwhile,
was herself a product of the suburbs is a the “Lumpens,” the local subgroup behind
common inconsistency among scene par the leftist neighborhood magazine Lumpen
ticipants, as they make distinctions that Times, were widely believed to be behind
place themselves firmly on the cool side (at least spiritually) the defacement of ATC
of the fence. A species distinction is main fliers and posters and the dissemination
tained in noting that these presumptive of literature suggesting possible "guer
suburbanites would not have been caught rilla” tactics to disrupt the festival. Despite
dead in Wicker Park until recently, and local opposition, the festival persists and is
LIVING LIKE AN A R TIS T | 189
gaining popularity It has been crucial to the billion dollars in new home purchase loans
growth of Wicker Park’s citywide reputation were issued, with the significant majority
as an arts center, and to its concomitant of these going to White rather than Latino
redevelopment as an entertainment zone. As homeowners (table 15.2); Comparing cen
it became increasingly established, the ATC sus data in 1990 and 2000, we can see a stag
enjoyed significant corporate sponsorship gering increase in median rents, median
and the support of local businesses/' [...] home values, and median household
incomes (table 15.3).
During this period, the total population
RESIDENTIAL CHANGE
of the neighborhood remained roughly
New arrivals in Wicker Park, whether constant, but the population of children
“starving artists” or more affluent young decreased with the displacement of work-
professionals, tend to be well educated. ing-class families, and the employed popu
The absolute number of neighborhood lation (people 16 and older) increased from
residents possessing a bachelor's degree 15,447 to 19,774. Professionals increased
or higher almost tripled from 1990 to 2000. from 25 percent of employed neighborhood
In 1990, Wicker Park, with its high percent residents to 51 percent; in absolute terms,
age of foreign-born residents, had a much this meant an increase from 3,890 local pro
higher than average (for Cook County) fessionals in 1990 to 10,154 in 2000. Despite
percentage of adults lacking a high school the loss of children, the median age in
degree; in 2000, the percentage of adult 2000 was 31.4, compared to a Cook County
residents with undergraduate or gradu median, of 33.6, indicating that the neigh
ate degrees significantly exceeded Cook borhood was attracting a large number of
County norms (table 15.1). relatively young adults in professional occu
Other indicators confirm substantial pations. Thus, a neighborhood newcomer
residential turnover in the decade. The 1990 in 2000 was greeted by a very different local
census indicates that slightly more than half demography than the one encountered by
the neighborhood population was Hispanic the many artists who broke ground in the
or Latino (any race); by 2000, that figure late 1980s. Nonetheless, Wicker Park con
had dropped to 28 percent. New residential tinues to be regarded as an "artist’s neigh
investment was substantial. In the period borhood,” both by the press and by local
between 1993 and 1998, roughly half a residents, and it is distinguished from
Table 15.1 Educational Attainm ent in W icker Park, 1990 and 2000 (Percent ot P opulation 25 Ye a rs and O ver)
1990 200 0
C ook C ounty Wicker Park C ook C ounty W icker Park
L e ss than 9th grade 12 28 10 11

9th to 12th grade, 15 16 13 9
no diplom a
High sch o o l graduate 26 20 24 12
S om e college, no degree 19 12 20 13
A sso cia te d egree 5 4 5 4
B a ch e lor’s degree 14 12 17 32
G ra du a te or 8 8 11 18
professional d e gree
Total 99 100 100 99
Source-. US Bureau of the Census (sixteen-tract area).

190 | RICHARD LLOYD
Table 15.2 W ic k e r P a rk H o m e P u rc h a s e L o a n s fo r 1 9 9 3 -1 9 9 8 b y C e n s u s T ra c t
C en su s Tract T otal L o a n s % W hite % L atin o Total $ In ve stm e n t A v e ra g e L oa n
2402 229 86 5.6 4 8 ,0 5 3 ,0 0 0 2 0 9,83 8

2403 233 6 6 .5 26.1 4 3 ,3 8 9 ,0 0 0 186,218
2404 215 89 .7 1.3 3 5 ,3 5 8 ,0 0 0 164,455
2405 462 8 3 .3 6 6 9 ,9 1 8 ,0 0 0 151,337
2412 105 73 19 1 7 ,593 ,000 167,552
2413 143 87 .4 4.1 28 ,5 3 8 ,0 0 0 199,566
2414 325 82 .7 7.3 6 5 ,0 9 7 ,0 0 0 2 0 0,29 8
2415 246 8 0 .8 10 4 3 ,7 2 2 ,0 0 0 177,731
2421 184 76 .6 15.2 3 1 ,5 3 3 ,0 0 0 71,375
2422 220 76 .8 18.6 3 8 ,0 8 3 ,0 0 0 173,104
2423 147 8 0 .9 11.5 4 0 ,3 1 4 ,0 0 0 274,24 4
2424 57 78 .9 12.2 10 ,9 7 2 ,0 0 0 192,491
25 66 4 7 2 ,5 7 0 ,0 0 0
A v e ra g e 8 0 .8 10.9 184,166
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). compiled by Gray Data, Inc., analyzed by U IC Voorhes Center.
Note: Excludes Wicker Park tracts 2219, 2220,2221,2222.
Table 15.3 In c o m e , H o u s e V a lu e , a n d R e n t in W ic k e r P a rk (D ollars), 1990 a n d 20 00
1990 2000
C o o k C o u n ty W icke r P ark C o o k C o u n ty W icke r Park
M e d ia n h o u s e h o ld in co m e 3 2 ,6 7 3 23 ,327 45 ,922 54,791

M e d ia n h o u s e va lue 102,100 109,913 157,700 4 0 0 ,1 0 0
M e d ia n rent 411 325 648 802
Source: U S Bureau of the Census [sixteen-tract area).
lakefront com m unities like Lincoln Park for a great noble idea for an artist. But in time
its funkier, more offbeat character. people notice, and start buying up the build
As an Urbus Orbis regular, Borderline ings, and they [decide] “I’m going to rent to
employee, and respected local poet, Raul these artists, give them a two-year lease, then
is one of the few individuals to straddle start making repairs, and before they know
it I’m going to start raising the rent.” And
the worlds of the Latino im migrants and
now you have major developers jumping the
the artists in the neighborhood. Raul sees gun, seeing what’s happening already, and
clearly the com plicity of the arts com m u investing. The taxes go up, people can’t pay,
nity in the transform ation of the neighbor peoplemoveout.Thegrandmigrationiswhat’s
hood, underm ining existing diversity by happening.
displacing both the original residents and,
over time, m any of the pathbreaking artists Many artists express con cern about the dis
themselves. placem ent o f Latino residents when talking
about gentrification, although as Raul sug
Those art school kids, what they do is they
gests, these sentim ents are bound up with
move into a neighborhood, and they don’t
care who lives there. They don’t give a fuck, self-interested concerns. Here, the issues
and if they do, they still don’t give a fuck. are com plicated, because young, cultur
Because they’re moving in and that’s it, that’s ally com petent professionals can con trib
just their thing, they’re going to live there, ute to the developm ent and m aintenance
and they’re going to paint there, which is o f neo-bohem ia, consum ing its products
LIVING LIKE AN A R TIS T |
and ambiance. The increased visibility of NEO-BOHEMIA AND THE YOUNG

the neighborhood enhances the oppor URBAN PROFESSIONAL
tunities for local artists to get their work
In the ideological formulation of neo
to a wider audience, and the prolifera
bohemia, the yuppie is the imago of the
tion of entertainment venues can improve
mainstream, playing the role once held by
employment opportunities. Nonetheless,
the bourgeois shopkeeper in nineteenth-
the escalation of ground rents generates
century Paris or the “organization man”
local contradiction, as it can interfere with
of the Fordist United States. The collec
the reproduction of a creative labor force in
tive construction of the yuppie, character
the neighborhood.
ized by excessive simplifications, is crucial
The necessary compromise involves
to the formation of subcultural distinc
young artists being pushed to surround
tion among artists and their friends in
ing neighborhoods like Logan Square,
Wicker Park. As Pierre Bourdieu points out,
Humboldt Park, and Garfield Park—neigh
“Nothing classifies somebody more than
borhoods that resemble 1980s Wicker Park
the way he or she classifies.”7 Though art
in their composition. These artists continue
ists in and around Wicker Park are some
to avail themselves of the Wicker Park bars,
times resistant to labels like “bohemian,”
coffee shops, and display venues that have
they are much less reticent about declaring
a firmer hold in the neighborhood. Thus
what they are not, and what they are not
Wicker Park remains a central organizing
are yuppies. In her excellent study of the
space for new bohemian activity in Chicago
subcultural construction of the rave scene
even as many artists can no longer afford to
in England, Sarah Thornton makes a point
live there. Artists hover in orbit, still making
that also well describes the Wicker Park
the scene as they drop in to work, play, and
scene: "Although most clubbers and ravers
display. Escalating rents thus drive young
characterize their own crowd as mixed or
artists outside the borders of Wicker Park;
difficult to classify they are generally happy
they are excluded from living in a neigh
to identify a homogeneous crowd to which
borhood whose character they continue to
they don’t belong. And while there are many
influence disproportionately.
other scenes, most clubbers and ravers see
The new residents filling more upscale
themselves as outside and in opposition to
rehabs and condominium developments
th e‘mainstream.’”8
are the easily spotted culprits in neighbor
In Wicker Park, “yuppie” and “main
hood change and are blamed by artists for
stream” became practically interchange
ruining “their” scene. These residents no
able terms. Autumn, a young actress living
doubt often earn the enmity of their neigh
in the neighborhood during the 1990s, offers
bors by failing to adhere to the same norms
an exemplary local take on the figure of the
of neighborhood diversity, instead forming
yuppie:
homeowner associations that resist low-
income housing and agitating for increased
police presence. But even when the dis A yuppie would be like, in Lincoln Park or
positions of new residents mirror those of Wrigleyville, the upper middle class, materi
alistic, out for themselves, not very into com
artists, with whom they share youth and
munity, not very into the arts. Into making
above-average educations, profession themselves secure futures, and that’s what’s
als are still lumped onto the other side of most important. Not that I’m saying there’s
the fence in the system of cultural distinc anything wrong with that, but as an artist
tions that remain central to bohemian self- you’ve opened yourself up to the fact that you
identification. may not be secure for the rest of your life.
192 | RICHARD LLOYD
Autumn’s broad view illustrates important way artists signal the superiority of their
themes in the species distinction that art existence over both the poor and the privi
ists make between themselves and young leged. Says Shappy, a local performer:
professionals, including the use of spa
tial affiliation as a sign of membership. As I don’t think [yuppies] have any creative
gumption. Yes they may take chances on a
Autumn indicates, artists live in Wicker
business deal or an ad campaign or some
Park, or a handful of other gritty neighbor thing stupid... but they don’t have the balls to
hoods like Pilsen, Logan Square, Ukrainian put it in play in their own personal lives. And
Village, or Uptown, as opposed to the gen when they see people living I think they’re
trified lakefront communities of Lincoln jealous of the artist’s lifestyle, wishing they
Park and Wrigleyville. could feel like they could be free and live on
But by the time that Autumn had arrived macaroni and cheese and not have to worry
in Wicker Park, it was already fast becoming about these accounts and their bills and their
home to a large population of profession credit cards and their SUVs, and their blah,
als, complicating her spatial distinctions. blah, blah. You know, I think a lot of people
want to be more bohemian, but they don’t
In some cases these newcomers would
want to take the chance on actually living the
be given a pass, so to speak, by their more
life as a bohemian. They’re too insecure with
bohemian neighbors, so long as they per out their credit cards.
formed appropriate respect for the arts. As
Tom Lee puts it, “I know several people who Shappy finds evidence for his theory in
were commodities or options or equity trad the attraction of Wicker Park and its hip
ers at the Board of Trade. But they belonged. ster scene for young professionals in the
One of them, even though he trades during neighborhood, who dabble on the week
the day, he paints through the evenings and ends while remaining unwilling to make his
supports his wife, who’s an opera singer." level of commitment. Still, he also acknowl
For Lee, what it comes down to is "priori edges, “I live pretty modestly, and for fuck’s
ties—the life of the mind, creativity, is what sake, I’m 32 years old, and I’m probably still
is valued over the bank account.” Few yup below the poverty level, and it doesn’t really
pies are considered to have their priorities bother me, but yeah, it would be nice to
in order to this degree, however. Most artists have some chump change.”
concur with Autumn’s claim that the yuppie Both the materialism of yuppies and
emphasizes security while neglecting com their antipathy toward community have
munity and creativity. This view mirrors the become articles of faith, not just for artists,
negative image of the organization man and but also for most academics. According to
Fordist ideology, even though this is com the ethnographer Gerald Suttles, "The term
plicated objectively by the changing nature ‘yuppie’ most obviously applies to young
of work in the postindustrial economy, in singles, who are heavily preoccupied with
which even relatively privileged workers their nightlife, exploring the new reaches
endure much higher levels of instability in of consumerism, and staying abreast of the
employment.9Against the perception if not trends.”10 Gentrification scholar Neil Smith
the reality of yuppie timidity, the bohemian concurs: “Apart from age, upward mobility
ethic repudiates security and embraces and an urban domicile, yuppies are sup
contingency. posed to be distinguished by a lifestyle of
The insecurity and relative deprivation inveterate consumption.”11
of the artists’ lifestyle is often described as But the presence of educated profes
an advantage over the staid existence of sionals in Chicago has been central to the
buttoned-down professionals, and in this development of neo-bohemia, massively
LIVING LIKE AN ARTIST | 193
in creasin g th e d em an d for cu ltu ral goods Boundaryless: How the Newly Empowered
in th e city, d esp ite A u tu m n’s stereo ty p ical and Fully Networked Managerial Class of
Professionals Bought Into and Self-Managed Its
cla im th at they are in d ifferen t to th e arts.
Own Marginalization,” in Boundaryless Careers,
T h e o m n iv o ro u s cu ltu ral p re fe ren ces ed. Michael ArthurandDeniseRousseau (Oxford:
o f th e n ew u rb an class o f p o stin d u strial Oxford University Press, 1996); Katherine
p ro fessio n als sit b eh in d th e d ev elo p m en t Newman, Falling from Grace: The Experience
o f "th e city as an e n te rta in m e n t m a c h in e ” o f Downward Mobility in the American Middle
Class (New York: Vintage, 1988); Vicki Smith,
g en eratin g a ran g e o f cu ltu ral a m e n itie s.12
“New Forms of Work Organization,” Annual
Still, w hile th e se d ev elo p m en ts have b e e n Review o f Sociology 23 (1997): 315-339.
critica l to th e viability o f n ew b o h em ia s, 10. Suttles, Man-Made City, p. 97.
exp an d in g au d ien ces as w ell as em p loy 11. Smith, New Urban Frontier, p. 92.
m e n t o p p o rtu n itie s for artists, this h as n o t 12. Richard Lloyd and Terry Nichols Clark, “The
City as an Entertainment Machine,” Research in
in creased th e p o p u larity o f you ng p ro fe s
Urban Sociology'6 (2001): 359-380.
sion als. D istan cin g th em selv es from y u p
p ies p ro m o te s in -g ro u p solid arity for the REFERENCES
diverse ca st o f asp irin g artists an d h ip ster
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. In Other Words. London:
h a n g e rs-o n th at p o p u lated U rbus O rbis. Polity.
It also allow s th e m to dow nplay th e ir ow n Brodsky, M. 1994. “Labor Market Flexibility.” Monthly
co m p licity in th e g en trifica tio n d isp lacin g Labor Review 117,11:53-60.
p o o r L atino resid en ts. Finally, by d eriding Hirsch, Paul, and Mark Shanley. 1996. "The Rhetoric
of Boundaryless: How the Newly Empowered
th e so u lless sea rch for security, lo cal artists
and Fully Networked Managerial Class of
m ake th eir own c o m m itm e n t to risk into an Professionals Bought Into and Self-Managed Its
ex p ressio n o f co m p arativ e virtue. [ ...] Own Marginalization.” In Boundaryless Careers,
ed. Michael Arthur and Denise Rousseau. New
NOTES York: Oxford University Press.
Huebner, J. 1994. "Panic in Wicker Park: What’s Behind
1. Ray Oldenberg, The Great Good Place (New York: the Gentrification Backlash." Chicago Reader 23
Paragon, (1989). (August).
2. David McCracken, "Reneir Charts New Territory Lloyd, Richard, and Terry Nichols Clark. 2001. “The
in Wicker Park," Chicago Tribune, March 11,1988, City as an Entertainment Machine.” Critical
p. CN57. Perspectives on Urban Redevelopments. 359-380.
3. Schippers, Rockin’Out o f the Box, p. 42. Newman, Katherine, 1988. Falling from Grace: The
4. Neil Smith illustrates how the imagery of the Experience o f Downward Mobility in the American
frontier wilderness was incorporated into the Middle Class. NewYork: Vintage.
marketing of the East Village during the 1980s, Oldenburg, Ray. 1989. The Great Good Place. NewYork:
encouraging affluent residents to identify with Paragon.
the romantic imagery of the Old West pioneer. Schippers, Mimi. 2002. Rockin’ Out o f the Box: Gender
See Neil Smith, “New City, New Frontier: The Maneuvering in Alternative Hard Rock. New
Lower Hast Side as Wild, Wild West,” in Variations Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
on a Theme Park, ed. Michael Sorkin (New York: Smith, Neil. 1992. “New' City, New Frontier: The Lower
Hill and Wang, 1992). East Side as Wild, Wild West.” In Variations on a
5. Hucbncr, “Panic in Wicker Park." Theme Park, ed. Michael Sorkin. NewYork: Hill and
6. Lewis Lazare, “The Coyote’s Latest Howl,” Chicago Wang.
Reader, April 21,1995. ----- . 1996. The New Urban Frontier, New York:
7. Pierre Bourdieu, In Other Words (London: Polity, Routledge.
1990), p. 132. Smith, Vicki. 1997. “New Forms of Work Organization.”
8. SarahThornton, Club Cultures:Music, Media,and Annual Review o f Sociology23:315-339.
Subcultural Capital (Hanover, NH: University Suttles, Gerald. 1990. The Man-Made City. Chicago:
PressofNewEngland, (1996), p. 99. University of Chicago Press.
9. M. Brodsky, “Labor Market Flexibility,” Monthly Thornton, Sarah. 1996. Club Cultures: Music, Media,
Labor Review 117, 11 (1994): 53-60; Paul and Subcultural Capital. Hanover, NH: University
Ilirsch and Mark Shanley, "The Rhetoric of Press ofNew England.
CHAPTER 16
Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven

Development of Marxist Urban Theory
D. Rose
IS ‘GENTRIFICATION’ A CHAOTIC abatement, Such successive transactions

CONCEPT? have been documented in a number of cit
ies, including NewYork (Village Voice, 1982),
[. . .] Both neoclassical and marxist ap
Cape Town (Western, 1981), and Montreal
proaches to gentrification have assumed
(Dansereau et al., 1983 . . .). For example,
that it is a coherent concept that refers to
in NewYork City’s Lower East Side, the 'first
a single or unitary phenomenon. Despite
wave’ of in-movers consists of young white-
disagreements about the best term to use
collar workers, unemployed but educated
(London, 1980; Weston, 1982), everything
young people, economically marginal self-
that is generally subsumed within the con
employed young people, middle-class sin
cept is usually assumed to be a part of the
gle parents, and so on (Village Voice, 1982).
same phenomenon and assumed to be pro
The end result, after property values have
duced by the same causal process. Whatever
increased rapidly, is a new equilibrium of
the label, it is understood to refer to the
socioeconomic and cultural homogene
replacement of lower income residents of a
ity (Holcomb and Beauregard, 1981, pages
neighbourhood with inhabitants of a higher
42-44), As a descriptive model of occu
income and socioeconomic standing, and
pancy change this is reasonable enough. It
different material interests than the incum
seems to fit the history of some gentrifying
bent residents, by means of the renovation
neighbourhoods quite well, However, there
and ‘upgrading’ of dwellings. Gentrifying
are many different routes to the gentrifi
neighbourhoods are those undergoing
cation of a neighbourhood, with different
upward social mobility through this pro
types of actors taking the lead in different
cess. The process of change is thought to
contexts (de Giovanni, 1983). If one tries to
occur in several stages. In successive stages,
imbue the simple-stage model with gen
waves of in-migration of people with dif
eral theoretical significance, it is not only—
ferent characteristics from the original
obviously—teleological, but it may also
residents, and from each other, take place.
contain whatSayer(1982)referstoas‘chaotic
Properties change hands at least twice; the
conceptions’:
initial purchaser gets a bargain and then
sells at a large capital gain to an individual ‘‘In place of a theory of abstract elements of a
or company that carries out major renova situation and how they combine to compose
tions, often with a municipal subsidy or tax concrete phenomena, there is an acceptance
196 | D. ROSE
of unexamined, largely commonsense defi inner-city location (see section after next);
nitions of these empirical objects, and a gen and the ‘reluctant purchasers’or ‘les ache-
eralisation of the features of these ‘chaotic teurs non volontaires’ of condominium
conceptions. . . . (T]hese unities of diverse apartments—who may be long-time resi
aspects are treated as single objects which
dents of a building (L’Ecuyer, 1981). (I shall
can be used as a basis for aggregation or
henceforth refer to all types of moderate-
else added up for manipulation in statistical
analyses’”. income gentrifiers as ‘marginal gentrifi
(Sayer, 1982, page 75) ers’—admittedly an unbounded concept,
which I use in this paper for heuristic rea
For instance, there is some evidence to sons only.) The inclusion of the latter in the
suggest that initial in-movers are often ‘them’ o f‘them and us’ in the conceptuali
“attracted by low prices and tolerance of sation of gentrification/displacement con
unconventional lifestyles” (Holcomb and flicts has important political implications,
Beauregard, 1981, page 42). The large gay in- to which I shall return below.
migration to certain parts of San Francisco However, there is good reason to ques
is a good example (Castells and Murphy, tion the validity of such a simply con
1982). A crucial methodological problem, ceptualised material cleavage between
however, arises here. For in what sense can homeowners and tenants in gentrifying
it be validly said that this is the first stage neighbourhoods in North American cities
in the gentrification process?What concep from the mid-to-late 1970s to the present
tual grounds exist for assuming that these time. There is mounting evidence in North
‘first stagers’ and the ‘end-stage’ affluent America to suggest widening gaps within
residents have anything in common other the home-ownership tenure category
than the fact that their household incomes within the past ten to fifteen years, in terms
are higher than those of the original resi of initial access to and subsequent mate
dents? Presumably, some version of the rial opportunities afforded by homeowner
notion o f‘housing class’ or ‘property class’ ship. In the United States of America in the
is also implicit in this model. Homeowners 1970s, housing prices increased faster than
(in this instance, first and second waves of median family incomes. This led to sub
gentrifiers) are accordingly viewed as hav stantial capital gains for some of those who
ing materially different life-chances than were already homeowners at the beginning
renters (the incumbent residents of the of this period (Le Gates and Murphy, 1981,
neighbourhood), on account of the wealth- page 265). However, this inflation made
accumulative potential of homeownership access to homeownership more difficult
in a situation of inflating property values for renters wishing to purchase their first
(compare Saunders, 1978; 1979). If this home, because, as Rudel (1983b, page 1)
notion is accepted, then there is a firm basis points out, with reference to the USA from
for the assumption that all in-moving hom 1974 to 1978,
eowners have more materially in common
with one another than they do with any of .. unlike repurchasers who could apply the
equity in their current home toward the pur
the incumbent renters. Yet within this ‘all’
chase of another home, renters usually had
is also included moderate-income gentri to accumulate savings for rapidly increasing
fiers. Among these are people who are buy downpayments out of incomes which were
ing their first home, choosing the inner-city increasing much less rapidly”.
mainly for reasons of relative cheapness;
people whose combined employment For the young moderate-income house
and family responsibilities necessitate an hold, delaying starting a family and being a
RETHINKING G EN TR IFICA TIO N | 197
two-earner couple became the only way to As Thorns (1981, page 215) points out, not
raise the down payment. Recent evidence least among these problems is
from Australia, which had a similar house
price inflation, suggests that for such cou . . the range of accumulative potential
within owner-occupation itself. When capi
ples the wife’s income goes primarily toward
tal gains are examined for specific groups of
the down payment on a house: her income owner-occupiers it is clear that the rates of
does not lead to a decision to purchase a gain arc highly varied and not assured".
house that will require two incomes to keep
up the payments (Wulff, 1982). In Canada, Even within gentrifying neighbourhoods,
increasing real rates of interest—in a context capital gains are not certain. Houses and
where mortgage interest is not tax-deduct- apartments renovated from badly dete
ible, unlike in the USA and Britain—have riorated stock, that was never intended to
been more significant than price increases last a century or so, do literally wear out, as
in reducing access to and raising the carry the British experience with ‘improvement
ing costs of homeownership for first-time grants’ and the New York City experience
purchasers. It has thus become essential of condominium conversions in some dis
for women to go out to work and put the tricts have shown (Benwell Community
‘second income’ toward sustaining mort Project, 1978, pages 92-108; The New York
gage payments (SPCMT, 1980, pages Times, 1983c; 1983d). In such cases the
117-119). Uncertainty about household owner may lose money, unless there is tre
incomes in future years, decreased loca mendous pressure on the location for a
tional mobility, and unpredictable inter ‘higher and better use’ and governmental
est rates and loan conditions may create a structures that enforce on redevelopers
situation where, for many first- time buyers, large compensation payments in addition
the ‘wealth-accumulative potential’ of to the market value of the house.
homeownership exists only on paper. Yet it is many of these first-time purchas
One of the most important results of ers of moderate income who are 'putting
these rapid increases in the real costs of pressure’ on older inner-city neighbour
entering the homeownership market has hoods and often displacing poorer ten
thus been to create widening gaps between ants. Thus, I would venture to suggest, our
long-standing homeowners and first-time understanding of the historical develop
buyers (Le Gates and Murphy, 1981, page ment of this situation, and of the conflicts it
265). In the USA, however, this does not is creating, might be enhanced if we made
appear to have led to a decline in the num some different types of comparisons than
bers of people switching from rental hous the usual one of incumbent tenant versus
ing to homeownership, except in the West, incoming home-owning gentrifier, the
according to a recent analysis of Annual one the displacee, the other the displacer.
Housing Survey data from 1974-1978 Comparing these two is actually rather
(Rudel, 1983b). (Comparable data sets like comparing apples and oranges, in the
are not available for Canada.) These facts sense that their specific circumstances and
suggest some major problems with the needs may have been produced by differ
assumption that the category of 'all hom ent processes at different times. For exam
eowners’, based on a conceptualisation of ple, we might more usefully compare the
common wealth-accumulation potential, economic situation of people commonly
is a valid one for inferring major cleavages identified as first-stage gentrifiers with the
over material life-chances and 'interests’, economic situation of people in the same
as compared with a category o f‘all tenants’. type of occupation and life-cycle stage a
198 | D. ROSE
decade or so ago—the latter would prob voured to take such developments into
ably have been forming their households in account, ‘induced moves’ caused by ‘life
suburbia. Compared to existing residents cycle changes’ or employment changes are
of a working-class neighbourhood, the new still seen, incorrectly, as being analytically
people certainly make the neighbourhood separable from ‘adjustment moves’ based
upwardly socially mobile, but, compared to on neoclassical norms of, ceteris paribus,
their peers of ten years ago, some of these increasing consumer demand for residen
people have been considerably prole- tial space as income increases over time
tarianised, because of the restructuring of (Clark and Onaka, 1983).
white-collar labour processes, rollbacks in Even more importantly, opportunities
public-sector wages, deteriorating working for increasing household incomes over
conditions, and reduced job security. time are being severely curtailed, indepen
Moreover, we are used to thinking about dently of the factors mentioned above, for
‘upward mobility’ and progression through many people. The present phase of restruc
‘the family life-cycle’ in the same breath. turing of industrial and clerical labour pro
As Christopherson (1983, page 24) astutely cesses, and the associated segmentation
points out, geographical models of loca of labour markets over space—as well as
tional preference and change have been by sex and race—may limit lower income
imbued with the dual assumptions that a families’ chances of upward mobility. This
household’s residential locational shifts is of course exacerbated for female-headed
over a period of time are geared to the households (compare Christopherson,
income of a male head of a nuclear family, 1983). The impacts of new technology on
that steadily increases as his children grow lower level workers’ opportunities to move
up and until his retirement. Upward mobil up through the ranks is still hotly disputed.
ity as a condition of years of employment Yet several analysts are arguing that a ‘two-
experience and a single head of household tier’ work force is being created, with a gap
who is male are implicitly taken as the norm that is very difficult to leap across (The New
in such models. Yet, for many so-called‘first- York Times, 1983b).
stage’ gentrifiers, one or both parts of this In addition, many young professionals,
assumption may be invalid, as they now are though clearly in a much improved mate
for many other groups in the present phase rial situation, can also no longer assume job
of advanced capitalism. In the first place, security and steadily increasing incomes:
there are often two heads of household college and university teachers, public-
whose respective earning capacities may sector professionals on fixed-term con
diverge at certain stages in their life-cycles. tracts, and the growing army of profes
In the second place, female single parents, sionals turned self-employed because of
even if they hold professional jobs, are most the recession are examples which spring to
unlikely to have incomes that increase as mind. All of these people may be excluded
fast as the male norm, and in any case have from more traditional white-collar housing
major child-care expenses that detract markets by reason of house prices relative
from their incomes. In the third place, to their incomes. This has to be considered,
divorce, remarriage, complicated custody not only in terms of the increasing real costs
arrangements, and so on frequently cre of homeownership, but also in terms of the
ate major disruptions in family life-cycles downward social mobility of such groups
in relation to incomes and location deci relative to their parents or their peers of
sions. Although some recent neoclassical ten years ago. In New York, as previously
work on residential mobility has endea mentioned, and in Toronto and Montreal,
RETHINKING GENTRIFICATION | 199
renovation is spreading from the best qual the issue. The opposition to the plan was due
ity inner-city housing to stock of much to the fact that it would have drawn upon
lower quality in areas considered less desir scarce federal funds designated expressly
able (Dansereau et al, 1981; Weston, 1982). for low-income groups and that, after three
Although evidence about this is piecemeal, years, artists would have been able to sell
it seems that, increasingly, white-collar their renovated condominiums at market
households of much more modest incomes rates, thus making capital gains, reduc
than the type who gave gentrification its ing the stock of low-income housing, and
name, predominate among those in reno promoting further gentrification. In April
vated properties in such areas. 1983, however, the program was revived;
The changes referred to in this section but this time the City proposed to spatially
are clearly among the major reasons for the disperse the subsidised housing rather
‘explosion’ of condominium conversions in than locate it in an area “already rife with
older North American cities since the mid- real estate speculation” (Village Voice,
1970s (Le Gates and Murphy, 1981, pages 1983).
267-268) (this is not, however, the only In Montreal, there is also some evi
reason for the popularity of condomini dence to suggest that middle level white-
ums, as will be discussed later). As these collar households (incomes in the range
writers point out, some of the most bit $20000-$25000) are increasingly living in
ter gentrification/displacement conflicts nonprofit rental housing cooperatives—a
that have broken out in the USA in recent form of housing originally thought to have
years have been around this issue, espe appeal only for those on the lowest incomes
cially between people in the ‘tertiary’ work and/or living in ‘unconventional’ ways (St
force; young professional and managerial Martin, 1982). Funds available for non
people displacing lower level white-collar profit housing cooperatives are very lim
workers and essential service workers (Le ited, and the cooperatives have to become
Gates and Murphy, 1981, pages 266-267). self-financing over time under current
Both of these groups of people have good Canadian federal and Québec governmen
reasons for wanting an inner-city location. tal regulations. Thus the proportions in
This is partly because of the social and spa this income category may well increase at
tial restructuring of employment, which, as the expense of those in lower (but not the
previously mentioned, is reducing the very lowest) brackets, which will intensify
mobility of lower level workers and ‘margin the bimodal distribution of income catego
alised’ professionals alike. The continuing ries in cooperatives that now exists, peak
controversyoverartists’housinginNewYork ing at incomes in the range $7000-$11000
City is an interesting case in point. A three- and $20000-$25000 (St Martin, 1982).
year-long effort by the City’s Department Furthermore, there is strong pressure from
of Housing Preservation and Development the Canadian federal and Québec govern
to establish a scheme for building artists’ ments to ‘commodify’ housing coopera
condominiums out of dilapidated tene tives, allowing shares to be sold and capital
ments in the Lower East Side, subsidised gains to be made, much as in the NewYork
by federal funds, was defeated at the equity cooperative model (Fincher, 1982).
Board of Estimate in February 1983 (The Were this to happen, Canadian housing
New York Times, 1983e). This Artists’ Home cooperatives would obviously no longer be
Ownership Plan had run into major oppo outside of the capitalist housing market, as
sition from neighbourhood groups, and they are at present to a very large extent [see
artists themselves became divided over footnote (3)).
200 | D. ROSE
BEYOND CHAOTIC CONCEPTIONS concepts ‘gentrification’ and ‘gentrifiers’

need to be disaggregated so that we may
All of these developments mean that a then reconceptualise the processes that
growing number of moderate-income first produce the changes we observe, and so
time homebuyers are likely to be ‘compet that we may change, where necessary, our
ing’ with lower-income tenants for old ‘ways of seeing’ some forms of ‘gentrifica
inner-city housing. Direct competition is tion’ and some types o f‘gentrifiers’.
of course limited, as separate housing sub- In this section, I have gone a little way
markets are controlled by property-owners toward disaggregating ‘gentrification’. I
and developers who carry out the conver have focused on the needs of both of these
sion of low-priced rental units into moder broad groups (moderate-income ‘gentrifi
ately priced owner-occupied units, with the ers’ and lower income tenants) with respect
assistance of financial institutions. At the to considerations of housing costs (relative
same time, various forms of ‘sweat equity’ to income), income prospects, and job secu
renovation by moderate-income homebuy rity. However, we must also consider the
ers (recall that some of this is actually the forms of reproduction of people and labour-
labour of people working ‘informally’ who power that are enabled by various types
are local renters) seem likely to continue in of housing and neighbourhoods through
large cities with a high density of white-col their social and physical design and their
lar employment, as long as appropriate and locational aspects. These are equally cru
inexpensive old houses and apartments are cial factors because of important changes
available and as long as the new purchas in modes of reproduction which are histori
ers have the necessary resources to do the cally interrelated to the restructuring of the
work2. There is no reason to assume that the labour-force (compare Mackenzie, 1983;
growth in CBD employment will continue Mackenzie and Rose, 1983a). These form
indefinitely and that the prices of properties the subject of the next section.
renovated in the present period will inflate
as meteorically as those of recent years. It
CHANGING HOUSEHOLD
may well be that many of the current wave
STRUCTURES, ‘LIFESTYLES’, AND
of moderate-income buyers are unlikely to
THE REPRODUCTION OF PEOPLE
accumulate significant real wealth through
AND LABOUR POWER IN INNER-CITY
homeownership.
NEIGHBOURHOODS
I am suggesting, then, that the terms
‘gentrification’ and ‘gentrifiers’, as com Often cited as an additional factor in the
monly used in the literature, are ‘chaotic condominium conversion phenomenon is
conceptions’ which obscure the fact that a the growing number of one- and two-per-
multiplicity of processes, rather than a sin son households who do not conform to the
gle causal process, produce changes in the norm of the nuclear family and who have
occupation of inner-city neighbourhoods ‘nontraditional’ or ‘alternative’ life-styles.
from lower to higher income residents. They reject, and are repelled from, the North
Moreover, the existing concepts are also American suburban time-space rhythms of
chaotic in extant marxist usage because separate spheres of work and daily life and
they internally combine ‘necessary ten the manner in which the latter is yet domi
dencies’ with ‘contingent conditions’ (for nated by the former. One of the better known
example, the law of value combined with examples of this is among the gay popula
a particular housing stock with particu tion of San Francisco (Castells and Murphy,
lar occupants at a particular time). The 1982, pages 254-255). Pilot studies o f‘gentri-
RETHINKING G EN TR IFICA TIO N |
Tiers’ by urban geography undergraduates at Much of what are often referred to as

McGill University support these impressions ‘alternative life-styles’—reduced to exog
(Ayotte and Cohen, 1983; Chamberland and enous ‘fashions’ by neoclassical theorists
Hemens, 1983; Lawrence, 1982). and viewed pejoratively by some Marxists—
Furthermore, it is now increasingly in fact symptomise attempts by educated
accepted that women are playing an active young people, who may be unemployed,
and important role in bringing about gen- underemployed, temporarily employed
trification (Alonso, 1980; Holcomb, 1981; (or all three simultaneously), to find cre
Ley, 1981; Markusen, 1981; Roistacher ative ways of responding to new conditions
and Young, 1981; Wekerle, 1979; 1981). of paid and unpaid work and worsening
However, as I have argued elsewhere (Rose, economic conditions. For reasons which
1984), the reasons for this have not yet been need further investigation, people in such
adequately conceptualised. In particular, situations may tend to congregate in cer
there is a need to explore in detail the chang tain inner-city neighbourhoods where
ing patterns of female employment and certain kinds of self-employment—based
‘career ladders’ in white-collar work and how in people’s homes—and ‘informal’ eco
these interact with changing family forms, nomic activities are an essential means of
domestic responsibilities, and life-cycles ‘making-do’. This is frequently combined
to produce housing and neighbourhood with unemployment insurance compen
consumers with specific packages of needs. sation or social assistance. Interestingly,
Moreover, insufficient attention has been ‘under-the-table’ private-house-renova-
paid to differentiating between different tion work is an important part of this eco
groups of women involved in various forms nomic activity (information obtained from
of urban revitalisation, although there is a Montréal contacts, who will remain confi
growing attention to differentiating among dential for obvious reasons). Such activi
single parents (Klodawsky et al, 1983). ties have attracted some attention among
Traditional and marxist writings on the writers on urban social movements in
so-called nontraditional life-styles of many Europe (Ceccarelli, 1982; Mingione, 1981),
gentrifiers have both viewed ‘life-style’ but their existence has been largely unex
changes as being conceptually separate plored in North American contexts. The
socioeconomic aspects of restructuring concept of chom eur(euse) instruit(e) (edu
of white-collar employment (for example, cated unemployed male/female) has been
see Alonso, 1980; Cox and Mergler, 1982; used to describe this group in Québec City
Le Gates and Murphy, 1981). Attempts at (Villeneuve, 1983). They are perhaps ‘gen
linkage are only made after the various trifiers’ in terms of genre d e vie, but are not
‘elements’ have been conceptualised sepa able to purchase or even rent units with
rately (for example, Guterbock, 1980). But major renovations. Such developments are
as I have suggested earlier in this paper, it worthy of further research which relates
is precisely such analytical separations that them to the specific forms of restructuring
need to be overcome. I shall now discuss taking place in particular cities.
some of the changes in reproduction that It has been pointed out that gentrifica
appear to be occurring among ‘marginal tion generally results in more living space
gentrifiers’. Some of the reasons why these per gentrifier (Alonso, 1980), but in some
changes in reproduction, in interaction cases this may not just be regular liv
with changes in production, may affect the ing space. Extra space may in particular
residential location decisions of those con be sought out by those seeking to work at
cerned will be explored. home—for those on moderate incomes
202 | D. ROSE
and/or with requirements for a lot of space of the law (Life on Capital Hill, 1983). Even
for their work, this may result in relatively in inner cities similar norms may prevail
low housing quality. Artists’ loft conver over the courts. A recent ruling by the New
sions, now famous (or infamous, depend York State Court of Appeals upheld the
ing on one’s point of view) in New York provisions of a rental apartment lease in
City (Jackson, 1983; Zukin, 1982), but also Greenwich Village that prohibited unmar
found in Montreal and presumably in other ried couples from moving in together (The
places, may be seen as an extreme example New York Times, 1983a). If this ruling holds
of this. it wall presumably be a significant ‘push’
factor from renting an apartment to own
ing a condominium.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN,
More generally, the design—social
HOUSEHOLD ORGANISATION, AND
and environmental—of even moderately
THE PRODUCTION OF GENTRIFIERS
priced suburban residential areas may also
WITH ‘ALTERNATIVE LIFE-STYLES’
be a factor in ‘pushing’ some of the types of
Though many studies have shown that gen household seen as gentrifiers into the inner-
trification is not usually a ‘return to the city’ city areas they move to. Recent research on
by former suburbanites, it is now becom the ‘accessory-apartment’ phenomenon
ing clear that many who become gentri in a moderate-income Long Island sub
fiers do so substantially because of the urb suggests that, where such inexpensive
difficulties, not only of affording housing, in-house apartments are available, single
but also of carrying on their particular liv parents take them up in numbers out of all
ing arrangements in conventional suburbs proportion to their representation in the
(Rose, 1983). The types of household often general population (Rudel, 1983a). Quite
noted as predominating in the early stages possibly, this type of housing is not only
of neighbourhood renovation—single par attractive in terms of price but also because
ents, gay couples, unrelated people living of the opportunities for informal childcare
together, and so on—have grown rapidly networks in such demographically mixed
in numbers nationally both in the USA and neighbourhoods. But the vast majority of
in Canada in the last intercensal period. suburbs do not allow this type of housing (it
Evidence is beginning to surface that single may of course exist illegally) or other types
parents are disproportionately represented of housing and ‘social design’ appropriate
among the occupants of inner-city condo to the needs of single parents (Lees, 1983;
minium conversions in Canada (Dansereau SPCMT, 1979).
et al, 1981, page 115; Habitation, 1982; By contrast, many existing older inner-
Klodawsky et al, 1983). These are groups city neighbourhoods can provide hous
frequently still excluded from suburban ing with these features; duplex and triplex
communities because they do not meet the attached-housing5 in ‘ethnic’ areas of
norms of the nuclear family still entrenched Montreal is an example. Such neighbour
in zoning regulations (Hayden, 1981; Lees, hoods facilitate access to community ser
1983; Mackenzie and Rose, 1983a; 1983b; vices, enable shared use of facilities, provide
Wekerle, 1979)\ Exclusionary zoning, by lot an efficient and non-isolating environment
size, building regulations, and household for reproductive work, and enhance oppor
types, persists, especially in the USA1. In a tunities for women to develop locally based
recent case in a suburban municipality in friendship networks and a supportive envi
Denver, for instance, an unmarried couple ronment (Holcomb, 1981; Michelson, 1977;
living together were deemed to be in breach Rothblatt et al, 1979; Saegert and Winkel,
1981; Soper, 1981; Stamp, 1981; Women in one of the most important insights to be
Planning Steering Committee—Oregon gained from rethinking the chaotic concep
Chapter.no date). tions of gentrification that have dominated
Moreover, a number of studies in the marxist as well as positivist thinking up
‘residential-satisfaction’ literature have until now.
concluded that clustered condominium- Rather than analytically incorporating
type housing (whether in new communi what I have termed ‘marginal gentrifiers’
ties, up-zoned suburbs, or older inner-city within the same category as wealthy gentri
areas) may have distinct advantages for fiers, it would, I believe, be more useful to
all women with children, in that they can explore the possibility of such groups hav
potentially “provide more efficient and ing certain needs and desires in common
better organised housing environments with some of those they now compete with.
and a more supportive set of community In some cases they may be able to work
services” (Rothblatt et al, 1979, page 135; together to develop housing alternatives
also see Genovese, 1981; Michelson, 1977; that would provide them with the same
Popenoe, 1977). To say this is not to be an ‘ontological security’ (Saunders, 1982) as
environmental determinist, but only— homeownership, but without upward redis
and importantly—to realise that environ tributions of wealth and compatible with,
mental forms may impose real limits on or even dovetailing with, the needs of low-
the creation of alternative reproductive income tenants7. As a caveat to this, I am
forms (Hayden, 1981; Mackenzie and Rose, not suggesting that we naively assume that
1983b). As yet, few new communities have it would be easy, in a wide range of circum
been designed with such goals in mind, stances, to build such alliances. Yet it does
and thus existing inner-city neighbour seem important to further explore what the
hoods have been the foci of such efforts at wants and the needs of these ‘marginal gen
developing alternatives6. It remains to be trifiers’are forinner-cityhousing, above and
seen to what extent redesigning existing beyond the limited alternative choices that
suburbs might change the current pref are currently presented to them. It has been
erences of the groups discussed here for proposed, for instance, to develop ‘urban
inner-city living. homesteading’ programs for NewYork City
artists, in which they would form nonprofit
rental housing cooperatives without using
REDIRECTING THE QUESTIONS:
any public funds. Although this would not
REDEFINING URBAN
help low-income artists, it would reduce
REVITALISATION IN PRACTICE
pressure on the low-income housing stock,
The preceding discussion leads to the con would remove the units permanently from
clusion that the ‘attractions’ of inner-city the speculative housing market, and would
neighbourhoods for a number of groups of integrate artists more into the surround
‘gentrifiers’ may thus relate to the presence ing neighbourhoods (Village Voice, 1983).
of considerable need among such groups Explorations of such options should paral
and should not therefore be viewed in mere lel, but interact with, work that focuses on
‘life-style’ terms. Indeed, the very concept the housing needs of various groups of low-
of‘life-style’ conjures up scenarios of unbri income tenants (compare Klodawsky et al,
dled choice, influenced only by fashion, in 1983).
popular parlance. It is not just a matter of In the process of reshaping the physi
simple unrestrained ‘preference’, given the cal fabric and social networks of inner-city
nature of the available alternatives. This is neighbourhoods, it may be possible to
204 | D. ROSE
make them supportive of alternatives to the for traditional nuclear families, and
patriarchal family and conventional divi traditional gender roles still prevail over
sions and organisation of domestic labour the allocation of domestic responsibilities.
(compare Stamp, 1981). Also, on a very Sometimes such women may even gener
limited scale, such revitalising neighbour ate alternatives to the ‘double day’ and the
hoods maybe supportive of alternative ways individualised nature of so much reproduc
of making a living for some of those who tive work—but on a small spatial scale and
have been economically marginalised by probably with limited social ‘spread effects’
the present phase of restructuring. There are to those of lower incomes dealing with
possibilities of developing collective forms the same problems. Yet women with dual
of self-help (Castelis, 1981), rather than the roles and low incomes are concentrated
individualistic forms that are an integral in inner-city neighbourhoods, on which
part of the ideology of gentrification (Allen, they have traditionally relied, not only for
1980; Beauregard, 1983; Smith, 1983). Self- cheap housing and transportation, but also
employment, the informal production of for social support systems (Wekerle, 1981,
goods and services domestically or within page 197), as are young single women and
neighbourhoods, producer cooperatives newly divorced women, who may also be
(Blair, 1982; Boyte, 1980; Mingione, 1981; new to the job market as well as the hous
Pahl, 1980; Tabb, 1983), and the democra ing market (Roistacher and Young, 1981,
tising potential of new communications page 219). All these are particularly vulner
(Castells, 1983;Piercy, 1976; Williams, 1981, able to displacement induced by gentrifi
page 435)—all these are potentially ‘prefig- cation (Smith and LeFaivre, 1984). Thus the
urative’ forms of social organisation. moderate-income woman’s environmental
Nevertheless, there is no escaping the solution to the problems created by her dual
fact that those groups of people who may role exacerbates the problems of the low-
be developing alternative forms of repro income woman who is displaced to other
duction of social life are in many cases neighbourhoods which are more environ
displacing poorer residents with far fewer mentally restrictive and less socially sup
options—including many working-class portive (Rose, 1983). Holcomb et al (1983)
single parents and minorities. It is easy refer to the burden of increased childcare
to forget, for instance, the displacement costs incurred by low-income service work
of low-income single parents while laud ers when previous informal social networks
ing housing arrangements that enable a in Black neighbourhoods of US cities are
couple of middle-class single parents to disrupted by displacement resulting from
cooperatively manage their multiple roles gentrification. Goldstein, writing about art
(Markusen, 1981, page 32). ists’ housing in NewYork City (Village Voice,
As I have discussed elsewhere (Rose, 1983), makes a related point that is well
1983), in a sense, gentrification by taken:
employed women with children may be
a deliberately sought out environm ental “... the needs of artists for cheap housing are
ignored by community activists at their peril.
solution to a set of problems that are inher
Since the poverty of artists is often voluntary,
ently social problems. Becoming a gentrifier this particular proletariat is infinitely capable
makes it easier to have a waged job in addi of competing with other low income groups”.
tion to doing most of the household work
and childcare—in a social context where The restructuring of white-collar work is
working hours are fixed, hours of services tending to concentrate low-paid service
limited, transportation systems planned workers and young unmarried clerical
workers in inner-city neighbourhoods at between groups of women, can be seen as

the same time as it promotes gentrification matters of housing scarcity and differential
by upper-income professionals and reno access to resources only, although both of
vation by and for moderate-income white- these are clearly important. This is a matter
collar households (Le Gates and Hartman, for much further research, grounded in the
1981). Corporate headquarters and finan realities of neighbourhood politics as well
cial centres still need the labour of these as in analyses of the forms of restructuring
low-paid workers, and the people who fill of work processes and their implications
these jobs need to live in low-cost housing (which I have only touched on here). Nor
that is conveniently located in inner-city are we looking at a ‘simple’ class conflict. My
neighbourhoods. This is likely to remain perspective here differs from that of Smith
true even though back-office data process andLeFaivre (1984), who appear to see gen
ing functions are increasingly transferred trification and displacement in ‘pure’ class
to suburban locations (Gad, 1979; 1981;The terms, on the basis of the fact (which I do
New York Times, 1983g). The latter article not in principle dispute) that the “effects of
suggests that the gentrification of formerly this process are sharply delineated along
moderate-income areas is contributing to class lines” (1984, page 16). However, the
a shortage of adequately educated part- foregoing argument suggests that this con
time clerical workers. Hence restructuring clusion may be conceptually and logically
actively contributes to the spatially based premature, and in some cases perhaps
housing conflicts between different groups overly pessimistic.
of workers, noted by Le Gates and Murphy
(1981) and alluded to above. Moreover, in
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
some US cities, corporate redevelopment
and gentrification are proceeding hand in If we are trying to understand how and
hand amidst extreme poverty and unem why gentrification is occurring, with the
ployment. This is likely to exacerbate low- aim of going beyond sorrow and outrage
income housing problems. A particularly about displacement and developing some
graphic instance of this kind of spatially progressive political strategies (Planners
uneven development is depicted by a recent Network, 1980), then we need to analyse
New York Times (1983d) report. Headlined: these processes in terms that go far beyond
“In Hartford, It’s The Best and Worst of concepts of undifferentiated ‘gentrifiers’
Times”, the story focuses on a woman aged and upwardly mobile neighbourhoods. We
forty-four years, unemployed for fifteen need, for example, to have a perspective that
months in the inner city, who comments: allows us to understand the situation of this
“The town is flourishing. And I can’t find college-educated single parent, who wrote
a job, even washing dishes”. De Giovanni a letter to the Newsletter o f the N ational
(1983) reports a wave of speculator-led gen Congress o f N eighbourhood Women ( 1983):
trification since 1977 in the same city. These
problems are made more acute by the lack “I run through the daily obstacle course of
of opportunities for women in clerical and taking my daughter to day care, rushing off
to work, putting in my 8-9 hour day for my
service jobs, in labour markets that are
measly $195.00 a week, rushing back to day
increasingly segregated and spatially dif
care to pick my daughter up and home again
ferentiated, to increase their income over to our cozy studio apartment tucked in the
time (as discussed already). not-too-nice area of Oakland. I come home,
I do not believe that this conflict between cook, tuck my precious into bed and, and,
different fractions of labour, and frequently and Fall asleep by 9 pm , up at 5 am and the
206 | D. ROSE
race continues. But dammit—I want more!. groups, as well as the struggles they share,
. . . I want to get involved in the community originate in processes much broader than
and open up new possibilities and options the operation of the land and housing mar
not only for myself but for others living in this kets. Yet attempts to overcome such polari
neighbourhood”. sations do not have to be limited to the
‘sphere of production’. Indeed, the ‘sphere
In conventional parlance, the writer of this of everyday life’ and the reproductive work
letter would be seen as a ‘first-stage gentri carried on therein are at least equally cru
fier’ or a ‘pioneer’. But such a conceptuali cial and logical starting points of political
sation does not help us to comprehend her practice for those socialists who are also
needs, her aspirations, and her relationship feminists (for example, see Luxton, 1980;
to older established residents. Rowbotham et al, 1979; Sayer, 1981). For
I have argued here that chaotic concep instance, a ‘community’ newspaper in
tions of the problems and conflicts around Denver—clearly a product of the gentrifi
‘gentrification’ issues cannot lead us cation of the neighbourhood it serves—dis
toward solutions. We ought not to assume cusses a local zoning regulation preventing
in advance that all gentrifiers have the same unmarried couples from living together,
class positions as each other and that they commenting:
explore to what extent they may comprise
different fractions of the labour force. At “[This] zoning can be used against persons
present, they may have similar locational who are not acceptable in a neighbourhood.
needs for reasons that may be related to That could be the elderly, handicapped and
the interrelationships of their roles in gay. These people have already been discrim
social production and changes in reproduc inated against in many other areas. (Such
tion. These relationships are not, however, restrictive] zoning is just one more slightly
reducible to structural forces and changes hidden weapon against those who do not ‘fit
in’” (Life on Capital Hill, 1983, page 11).
in the economy, and are malleable, poten
tially, by conscious human agency. It may Though one might dismiss this as a piece of
well be that these groups have some needs easily voiced liberalism by the privileged, I
and 'interests’ in common8. Needs for cer do not believe such comments should be so
tain types of services, decentralised child easily discarded. To assess the possibility
care facilities, and housing that is taken of developing alliances and organisational
out of the private market come to mind. forms that could move us a step closer to
This is not to paper over the conflicts that ‘designing a city for all’ (Abu-Lughod, 1982)
also undoubtedly exist, but merely to stress in the smaller scale of a particular inner-
that, if we analytically lump together what I city neighbourhood, detailed empirical
have called marginal gentrifiers with their research is needed. This would explore
wealthy namesakes, we are preventing any the interrelationships between the form
recognition of the possibility of forming of restructuring taking place in the city’s
alliances between the former groups and economy, changes in labour processes, the
the groups likely to be displaced. production of different fractions of labour
The operation of the private-housing and changes in their reproduction, and the
market is the immediate vehicle which particular types of gentrification taking
pits these two against one another, forcing place there.
them into competition or even actual con Realistically, we cannot put an end to
flict over the displacement issue. However, all gentrification. Moreover, som e of the
some of the polarisations between the two changes which are usually subsumed
within the concept ‘gentrification’ can has tended to be dominated by the view that
bring into existing neighbourhoods intru state involvement, in the form of some kind of
subsidies to gentrifiers, is essential to the process.
sions of alternative ways o f living, which
This is not necessarily so in all cases of gentrifica
would never be tolerated if they were not tion [a point which Mabin (1983, personal com
being introduced by ‘m iddle-class’ and munication) reminded me about]. However, pilot
‘professional’ people in the first instance. research on renovation by moderate-income
W hether or not such alternatives remain gentrifiers in Montréal (Ayotte and Cohen, 1983)
does suggest that they might not have carried out
lim ited to versions in the 1980s of bour
the renovation without City grants [which, inci
geois bohem ianism and individualistic dentally, the Citywill entirely recoup in increased
self-help, or w hether they can diffuse and property' taxes within eight or nine years, accord
broaden and consciously and collectively ing to an official at the Service de Restauration.
be directed toward ‘prefigurative’ ways of 3. An extensive literature now exists on the prob
lems that women, especially those who arc both
living and working, is a wide open and co n
parents and wage earners outside the home, face
tingent question. It is this political (with a in conventional suburbs. See Wekerle (1981) fora
small ‘p’) concern that has motivated the review of the literature to that date.
m ethodological and exploratory discussion 4. Exclusionary zoning according to household
pursued in this paper (com pare Fincher, type was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court of
Canada in 1979 (Lees, 1983). in the USA, some
1983).
relaxations in such zoning have been introduced,
Thus, rather than being constrained by but they usually only cover existing residents
the ‘chaotic co n cep t’ of gentrification as it of the municipality concerned and/or elderly
is now generally understood, I believe that people (Muller, 1981, page 97).
it is now an urgent research priority to dis- 5. ‘Plexes’ generally comprise two or three super
imposed dwellings, in which each apartment
aggregate this concept, question som e of
(or every two apartments) has a private street-
the existing categories, and start to explore related entrance and an individual street address.
the actual processes through which those (Upper-level apartments have an outside stair
groups we now subsum e under the category case to street level.) Since many plexes were origi
‘gentrifiers’ are produced and reproduced. nally built for owner occupancy, their structural
quality, size and internal arrangement of space
Such work should eventually yield an
are frequently superior to those of purpose-built
expanded, and m uch m ore adequate, sp ec rental units. These attributes make plex apart
ification of the necessary tendencies and ments attractive to moderate-income purchasers
contingent conditions for gentrification (as buying in the copropriété (co-ownership) tenure
currently defined) to take place. It is to be form, as well as to people who may buy an entire
plex building and then convert two of the units
hoped that it will also help to generate more
into a single dwelling (Wexler, 1984, personal
subtle and sensitive m ethods for explor communication).
ing particular em pirical situations where 6. However, there is an interesting review of new
these tendencies m ay or may not becom e projects of Canadian architect-designed sub
reality. This may help us clarify what consti urban housing for mixes of family types and
incomes in, significantly, a recent issue of a wom
tute progressive types of intervention and
en’s magazine (see Surpin, 1983), and formal
to identify ‘oppositional spaces’, within the shared housing schemes, for reasons of social
noncom m odified sphere of daily life (com support for the elderly and for single parents,
pare Conway, 1982; Rose, 1980), where such are being pioneered in the Greater Vancouver
interventions may be tried out. area and are now drawing some attention in the
USA (Urban Reader, 1982b). Small ’grandmother
houses’ in families’ backyards are also begin
ning to make a reappearance in a few places in
NOTES the USA, although in most municipalities zoning
1. Canadian dollars. laws would render them illegal (Urban Reader,
2. The literature on gentrification in North America 1982b).
208 I D. RO SE
7. In my view, nonprofit rental housing coopera Christopherson S, 1983, “The household and class
tives broadly based along the lines of the Québec formation: determinants of residential location
model (that is, all members co-own all buildings in Ciudad Juárez” Environment and Planning D:
comprising the cooperative, but do not own alien Society and Space 1, pp. 323-338.
able shares of the capital value; each member is a Clark W A V, Onaka J L, 1983, “Life cycle and housing
tenant of the cooperative and pays a low to mod adjustment as explanations of residential mobil
erate rent for her/his unit; limits are placed on the ity” Urban Studies 20, pp. 47-57.
income distribution of tenants) are among the Conway D, 1982, “Self-help housing, the commodity
most promising of feasible alternatives, in spite nature of housing and amelioration of the housing
of the problems they have encountered (Fincher, deficit: continuing the Turner—Burgess debate”
1982; St. Martin, 1982). Antipode 14, pp. 40-46.
8. The notion of‘class interests' is a very problematic Cox K R, Mergler G J, 1982, “Gentrification and urban
one. It is inherently a normative and evaluative form” RR-27, Center for Real Estate Administration
notion, connoting someone's view of what con and Research, Ohio State University, Columbus,
stitutes 'correct' consciousness and/or practice, OH 43210, USA.
and has its origins in the political philosophy of Dansereau F, Godbout J, Collin J-P, L’Écuyer D, Lessard
utilitarianism (Therborn, 1980, pages 100-105). M-J, Larouche G, Chabot L, 1981 “La transformation
This is discussed in more detail in Rose (1984, d’immeubles locatifs en copropriété d’occupation”
chapter 5). I am grateful to Mabin (1979, personal rapport présenté au Gouvernement du Québec,
communication) for initially drawing my atten Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique—
tion to the difficulties of defining ‘interests’. Urbanisation, Université du Québec, 3465 rue
Durocher, Montréal, Québec H2X2C6, Canada.
R EFEREN CES De Giovanni F, 1983, “Patterns of housing market
activity in revitalizing neighborhoods” Journal o f
Abu-Lughod J, 1982, "Designing a city for all”, in American Planning Association 49, pp. 22-39.
Internal Structure o f the City (second edition) Ed. Fincher R, 1982, "The commodification of Québec’s
L. S. Bourne (Oxford University Press, New York) progressive housing cooperatives” mimeo avail
pp. 594-602. able from the author, Department of Geography,
Alonso W, 1980, “The population factor in urban struc McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario IÜ8 41,8,
ture” in Internal Structure o f the City (second edi Canada.
tion), Ed. L. S. Bourne (Oxford University Press, Genovese R G, 1981, “A women’s self-help network
NewYork) pp. 540-551. as a response to service needs in the suburbs” in
Ayotte M, Cohen L, 1983, “A questionnaire on gentrifi Women and the American City Eds C R Stimpson,
cation in Plateau Mont-Royal (Montréal)” mimeo E Dixler, M I Nelson, K B Yatrakis (University of
available from the authors, c/o Department of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp. 245-253.
Geography, McGill University, Montréal, Québec GuterbockT M, 1980, “The political economy of urban
H3A2K6, Canada. revitalization: competing theories” Urban Affairs
Benwell Community Project, 1978 PrivateHousingand Quarterly 15, pp. 429-438.
the Working Class Final Report Series no 3 (Benwell Habitation 1982 “Pourquoi acheter un condomin
CDP Publications, Newcastle upon Tyne). ium?” 4, pp. 5-8.
Castells M, Murphy K, 1982, “Cultural identity and Hayden D, 1981 The Grand Domestic Revolution: A
urban structure: the spatial organisation of San History' o f Feminist Design fo r American Homes,
Francisco’s gay community” in Urban Policy under Neighborhoods and Cities (MIT Press, Cambridge,
Capitalism volume 22 of Urban Affairs Annual MA).
Reviews Eds. N. I. Fainstein, S. S. Fainstein (Sage, Holcomb B, 1981, “Women’s roles in distressing and
Beverly Hills, CA) pp. 237-260. revitalising cities” Transition 11, pp. 1-6.
Ceccarelli P, 1982, “Politics, parties and urban move Holcomb B, Beauregard RA, 1981, “Revitalizing cities”
ments: Western Europe” in Urban Policy under Association of American Geographers Resource
Capitalism volume 22 of Urban Affairs Annual Paper, Washington, DC.
Reviews Eds. N. I. Fainstein, S. S. Fainstein (Sage, Holcomb B, Green P, Page C, 1983, “Blacks and urban
Beverly Hills, CA) pp. 261-276. revitalization: winners or losers?” paper pre
Chamberland D, Hemens B, 1983, “Pilot survey of sented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of
the McGill Ghetto gentrifiers" mimeo available American Geographers, Denver, CO, 24-27 April;
from the authors, c/o Department of Geography, mimeo available from the authors, Department of
McGill University, Montréal, Québec H3A 2K6, Urban Studies, Lucy Stone Hall, Rutgers University,
Canada. New Brunswick, NI08903, USA.
Jackson P, 1983, “Residential loft conversion and paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
neighbourhood change” paper presented at the Association of American Geographers, Denver, CO,
Annual Meeting of the Association of American 24-27 April; mimeo available from D Rose.
Geographers, Denver, CO, 24-27April; mimeo avail Markusen A, 1981, “City spatial structure, women’s
able from the author, Department of Geography, household work and national urban policy” in
University College London, London WC1E 6BT, Women and the American City Eds. C R Stimpson,
England. E Dixler, M I Nelson, K B Yatrakis (University of
Klodawsky F, Spector A, Hendrix C, 1983, “The housing Chicago Press, Chicago IL) pp. 20-41.
needs of single parent families in Canada” mimeo Michelson W, 1977 Environmental Choice, Human
available from Ark Research Associates, 165 Hinton Behavior and Residential Satisfaction (Oxford
Avenue North, Ottawa, Ontario K2Y 0Z9, Canada. University Press, NewYork).
Lawrence J, 1982, "An evaluation of neighbourhood Mingione E, 1981, "Perspectives on the spatial division
revitalization: Montreal's Shaughnessy Village” of labour under the recent productive restructur
mimeo available from the author, c/o Department ing and informalisation of the economy” paper
of Geography, McGill University, Montréal, Québec presented at the Conference on New Perspectives
H3A 2K6, Canada. on the Urban Political Economy, Washington,
L’Écuyer D, 1981, “La conversion: revue de la littéra DC, 22-24 May; mimeo available from the author,
ture”rapport intérimaire soumis au Gouvernement University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
du Québec, sous la direction de Jacques Godbout; Muller P O, 1981 Contemporary Suburban America
Institut National de la Rechercher Scientifique— (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NI).
Urbanisation, 3465 rue Durocher, Montréal, Planners Network, 1980, “Towards a union of progres
Québec H2X2C6, Canada. sive planners”proceedings of the Planners Network
Lees D, 1983, “Suburban dream . . . suburban night Conference, Columbia University, NJ, 10 May;
mare?” Chatelaine May issue, pp. 49-51, 76, 80, mimeo available from RA Beauregard, Department
83-84. of Urban Planning, Rutgers University, Lucy Stone
Le Gates R T, Hartman C, 1981, “Displacement” Hall, Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA.
Clearinghouse Review 15, pp. 207-249. Popenoe D, 1977, The Suburban Environment
Le Gates R T, Murphy K, 1981, “Austerity, shelter and (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
social conflict in the United States” International RoistacherEA,YoungJ, 1981, “Working women and city
Journal o f Urban and Regional Research 5, structure: implications of the subtle revolution” in
255-276. Women and the American City' Eds. C R Stimpson,
Ley D, 1981, “Inner-city revitalization in Canada: a E Dixler, M I Nelson, K B Yatrakis (University of
Vancouver case study” Canadian Geographer XXV, Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp. 217-222.
pp. 124-148. Rose D, 1980, “Toward a re-evaluation of the politi
Life on Capitol Hill 1983, “Local zoning struggle affects cal significance of home-ownership in Britain” in
unmarried couple” by J Carling, volume 9, issue 4, Housing, Construction and the State Conference of
pp. 8 and 11. Socialist Economists, Political Economy of Housing
London B, 1980, “Gentrification as urban reinva Workshop (CSE-PEHW, London) pp. 71-76.
sion” in Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Rose D, 1983, “Women and gentrification: some
Renovation Eds S Laska, D Spain (Pergamon Press, research problems” paper presented at the Third
NewYork) pp. 77-92. Annual Women in Planning Conference, Rutgers
Luxton M, 1980, More than a Labour o f Love (Women’s University, New Brunswick, NJ, 22 April; mimeo
Press, Toronto). available from the author.
Mackenzie S, 1983, Gender and Environment: Rose D, 1984 Home Ownership, Uneven Development
Production and Reproduction in Post-war Brighton and Industrial Change: The Making o f a ‘Separate
PhD thesis, Graduate Division of Geography, Sphere’ in Late Nineteenth Century Britain D Phil
University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RH, thesis, Graduate Division of Geography, University
England. of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BNI9QN, England.
Mackenzie S, Rose D, 1983a, “Industrial change, the Rothblatt D W, Garr D I, Sprague 1,1979 The Suburban
domestic economy and home life" in Redundant Environment an d Women (Praeger, NewYork).
Spaces in Cities and Regions? Studies in Industrial Rowbotham S, Segal L, Wainwright H, 1979 Beyond the
Decline and Social Change Eds J Anderson, Fragments: Feminism and the Making o f Socialism
S Duncan, R Hudson (Academic Press, London) (Merlin Press, London).
pp. 155-200. Rudel T K, 1983a, “Household change, accessory
Mackenzie S, Rose D, 1983b, “Perspectives on urban apartments and the provision of low-income hous
restructuring: problems for feminist research” ing in American suburbs”; mimeo available from
210 | D. RO SE
the author, Department of Human Ecology, Cook small is beautiful, again” Homemakers’ Magazine
College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ March issue, pp 115-130.
08903, USA. The New York Times, 1983a, “Apartment sharers fret
Rudel T K, 1983b, "Inflation and regional change in over lease ruling” by G Dullea; 16 May issue.
access to home ownership in the 1970s”; mimeo The NewYork Times, 1983b, "Computers: worker men
available from the author, Department of Human ace?” by B Nelson; 4 September issue.
Ecology, Cook College, Rutgers University, New The NewYork Times, 1983c, "Controlling the co-op con
Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA. version wave” letter to the Editor from J. Eisland,
Saegert S, Winkel G, 1981, "The home: a critical prob City Councillor; 13 April issue.
lem for changing sex roles” in New Space fo r Women The New York Times, 1983d, “In Hartford, it’s the best
Eds G Wekerle, R Peterson, D Morley (Westview and worst of times” by S R Freedman; 14 April
Press, Boulder, CO) pp. 41-64. issue.
St. Martin 1,1982, “La théorie de l’embourgeoisement The New York Times, 1983e, “A housing plan for
et les coopératives d’habitation à Montréal”; artists loses in Board of Estimate”; 11 February
mimeo available from the author, c/o Department issue.
of Urban Planning, McGill University, Montréal, Therborn G, 1980 The Ideology o f Power and the Power
Québec H3A2K6, Canada. o f Ideology (Verso, London).
Saunders P, 1978, “Domestic property and social Thorns D C, 1981, “The implications of differential
class” International Journal o f Urban and Regional rates of capital gain from owner-occupation for the
Research 2, pp. 233-251. formation and development of housing classes”
Saunders P, 1979, Urban Politics: A Sociological International Journal o f Urban and Regional
Interpretation (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Research 5, pp. 205-217.
Middx). Urban Reader 1982b, “Three’s company” volume 10,
Saunders F* 1982, "Beyond housing classes: the soci issue 3/4, pp 33-34.
ological significance of private property rights Village Voice, 1982a, “Portrait of the artist as a good
in means of consumption” WP-33, Urban and use” by R Goldstein; 14 December issue, pp. 10,14,
Regional Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, 16, and 50.
Brighton BN1 9RH, England. Village Voice, 1982b, “Space invaders: land grab on the
Sayer A, 1981, "What kind of marxism for feminism?”; Lower East Side”by M Gottlieb; 14 December issue,
mimeo available from the author, School of Social pp. 20 and 22.
Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton Village Voice, 1983, “AHOP vs UHAB: artists’ housing,
BN19QN, England. round two” by R Goldstein; 31 May issue, page 21.
Sayer A, 1982, “Explanation in economic geography” Wekerle G, 1979, “A woman’s place is in the city”
Progress in Human Geography 6, pp. 68-88. paper prepared for the Lincoln Institute of Land
Smith N, LeFaivre M, 1984, “A class analysis of gen Policy; mimeo available from the author, Faculty
trification” in Gentrification, Displacement and of Environmental Studies, York University,
Neighborhood Revitalization Eds. B London, Downsview, Ontario M3J1P3, Canada.
J Palen (State University of NewYork Press, Albany, Wekerle G, 1981, “Women in the urban environ
NY) in press. ment: a review essay” in Women and the American
Soper M, 1981, “Housing for single-parent families: City Eds. C R Stimpson, E Dixler, M J Nelson, K B
a women’s design” in New Space fo r Women Eds. Yatrakis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
G Wekerle, R Peterson, D Morley (Westview Press, pp. 185-211.
Boulder, CO) pp. 319-332. Western J, 1981 Outcast Cape Town (University of
SPCMT, 1980 Metro’s Suburbs in Transition. Part 2: Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN).
Planning Agenda fo r the Eighties Social Planning Weston J, 1982, “Gentrification and displacement: an
Council of Metro Toronto, 185 BloorSt East,Toronto inner-city dilemma” Habitat25, pp. 10-19.
Ontario M4W 3J3, Canada. Women in Planning Steering Committee—Oregon
Stamp J, 1981, "Towards supportive neighborhoods: Chapter, no date Planning with Women in Mind
women's role in changing the segregated city” Region West Research Consultants, 520 SW Sixth,
in New Space fo r Women Eds. G Wekerle, Suite 1107, Portland, OR 97204, USA.
R Peterson, D Morley (Westview Press, Boulder, Wulff M G, 1982, "The two-income household: relative
CO) pp. 189-198. contribution of earners to housing costs” Urban
Surpin M. 1983, "The adaptable environment, part 2: Studies 19, pp. 343-350.
CHAPTER 17
The Dilemma of Racial Difference

Monique Taylor
“Come on in and don’t mind the dust. I’m fingers into the jar of hair cream and tugs
just here doing Kim’s hair”. June Wilson, at strands of Kim’s hair. Neatly lined rows of
a slight black woman dressed in a bright braids take shape around Kim’s head as we
orange, yellow, and green African-print sip coffee and talk about Wilson’s decision
jumpsuit, welcomes me into the living room to move to Harlem.
of her 145th Street brownstone. The room— Wilson gestures excitedly as she talks
a makeshift parlor with cardboard boxes for about her first years of brownstone living
furniture, and paint-stained sheets draped in Harlem. Despite her enthusiasm, it is not
about—reflects the chaos that entered immediately apparent why this woman, a
Wilson’s life when she purchased this house magazine editor, would choose to live here.
and moved to Harlem in the late 1980s. She recites a litany of problems. Banks are
The room is a wreck—exposed plaster, not forthcoming with loans. There is no end
green paint peeling from the walls, dan in sight to living in a shell of a house. Plus
gling wires, tools everywhere. On one wall, there is the crime, the noise of the streets,
a framed African print—a museum exhibit and the overall negative reputation of the
reproduction—explodes in black, red, and community.
yellow zigzag lines. It hints at a more styl A successful, middle-class professional,
ish life prior to this move. In 1988, Wilson Wilson certainly had choices about where
moved to Harlem and four years later is to make her home. When her work moved
still in the midst of the extensive rehabili her from the Midwest to New York, why
tation of a nineteenth-century brownstone had she not heeded the advice of friends or
she hopes to “restore to its original glory.” the prodding by realtors who tried to steer
But progress is slow, she explains, “I’ve had her clear of Harlem when she arrived? For
to deal from the ground up, new heating, Wilson, living in a black community and
new heating system, new floors, new roof, working toward its improvement represent
new bathrooms, and I still deal with the a respite from her work in a predominantly
plumbing.” white environment:
Kim, a black woman in her early thirties,
sits atop a high stool, a towel around her I know this is not such a positive thing to say,
shoulders, a jar of hair cream in one hand, but I worked in an environment where 1didn't
combs in the other. Today is Sunday—hair see many people that looked like me. So it was
day, they tell me. Wilson alternately dips her important for me to set up house in an area
212 | MONIQUE TAYLOR
where I would be the m ost comfortable. That description much at odds with the images
meant being around black people who were of invasion and conquest that frequently
race-minded. accompany angry rhetoric over gentrifica
tion.
Seeking “race-minded” people is not new Throughout our conversation, Wilson
to Wilson. Wilson’s racial consciousness talks about the purchase of her home not as
and her worldview were shaped by a keen an individual act but as part of a collective
awareness of the color line. This line was restoration and preservation effort. And in
solidified in the segregated schools and a twist, she places herself squarely on the
neighborhoods of her youth. A firm com side of those being invaded, though she is
mitment to race was reinforced through among the newcomers:
black pride at home. Her activist spirit was
forged by direct political involvement in I see it as a war, and there are a lot of soldiers
the protests and marches of the turbulent here who are ready to do battle. They really
1960s: are ready to do battle, whether it’s working
with the comm unity groups, working with
the churches, actively purchasing properties
If I see the storm, I usually try to make my way
here and trying to turn them from diamonds
right through the middle of it. My family was
in the rough into something that shines. You
very active in the civil rights movement, and
know, there are a lot of people who are getting
we marched with Martin Luther King. So I
caught up.
had, like, several m arches under my belt by
the time I was eight. And, you know, we had
the stuff down. My family was about building A commitment to race and community-
little revolutionaries to go out there. So this building comes through in Wilson’s com
[the move to Harlem] in my head is easy. ments. To the extent that she belongs to
a broader movement, however, Wilson’s
Wilsonshrugsoffthedisarrayasatemporary account defies conventional wisdom; At a
state. Besides, with the racial socialization time when political and economic changes
she gained from family and black institu seem to obviate such a move,1 a “return to
tions, Wilson considers her move to Harlem the city” movement by blacks as gentry in
as putting her racial politics into practice. a black community presents a fascinating
In fact, Wilson’s renovation of the brown vantage for examining the nuanced reali
stone is meant to convey a larger symbol ties of race and class in post-civil rights
ism, which I detect when she describes her America.
own “revolutionary” role in Harlem: But new arrivals have at times been
greeted with a m k o f trepidation, suspicion,
It’s an easy comm unity to becom e visible in and distrust. Vocal opposition to redevel
because there are so many things to be done. opment depicts a threat to the history and
And it’s an easy comm unity to win over if you identity of the community. This explains, in
have the right words. It’s easy because its been part, why some long-term residents, com
hurt so many times. It’s like a baby waiting to munity activists, realtors, and redevelop
be nurtured. ment officials, heard from in preceding
pages, would voice a preference for a black
Using a language and tone of mothering, middle-class role in revitalizing Harlem.
Wilson depicts her arrival in terms of race The arrival of middle-class blacks gives
and gender. Her words fall in line with a way to other contradictions. Community
long tradition of birth and awakening met indecision and a lack of consensus
aphors associated with Harlem. But this is a over the years have combined to sustain a
TH E DILEMMA OF RACIAL DIFFERENCE | 213
long-standing collective worry that “the everything up in the air. The neighborhood,
whites are coming, the whites are corning.” along with its housing stock, its residents,
Over time, this cry has become one “official its market value, its reputation, its cher
reality” defining, in racial terms, a crisis ished traditions and shared memories, is
confronting Harlem. Where anti-develop pushed onto a stage of history that becomes
ment rhetoric moves race to a central loca a maelstrom of markets and money, design
tion, the invasion by gentry is understood as and displacement, capital and class strug
a white-versus-black issue. The community gle. The bottom line, in the end, is that rents
is energized as a collective body when new tend to rise. Money matters—rising rents, a
life is breathed into old enemies— ’’whites,” higher tax base, less desire for affordable or
"outsiders,” “the city.” Caught in a familiar mixed-income housing—make it plain that
tangle of “us” and “them,” Harlem girds all do not benefit equally from the urban
itself against vaguely defined villains. "renaissance” and “revival” of gentrified
This community discourse circulates and communities.
ends up supporting a view of newly arriv Unfortunately, both of these scenar
ing middle-class blacks as Harlem “insid ios—the white takeover and the yuppie
ers.” Newcomers like Wilson claim a place makeover—make it difficult to account for
for themselves in Harlem’s redevelopment Wilson and others like her who claim they
story through an assumed, and automatic, are drawn to Harlem as a symbol of racial
"insider” status. But while it makes for identity and community. Middle-class
romantic headlines,- the storybook tale of blacks are not a neat fit with the 1980s yup
a black “renaissance and revival” is incom pie persona. On the whole, while the 1980s
plete. By downplaying conflicts embedded did give us Bill Cosby, in the mainstream of
in the economic forces that foster neigh popular culture, middle-class blacks were
borhood revitalization, these accounts marginal. But behind the noise produced
sidestep the possibility of a not-so-happy by yuppie and baby-boomer trends, fads,
ending. and accomplishments, middle-class blacks
Academic studies of gentrification cast were crying out to be heard. Accounts of
a critical eye at the class inequalities found (black) middle-class angst in a new cul
in such neighborhood changes. From an tural landscape by “post-civil rights” and
economic perspective,3 gentrification is a “affirmative action” (black) baby boomers
social process signaled by historical shifts marked a not entirely problem-free coming
in capital and real-estate markets. Cycles of age.4
of investment and reinvestment occur in By looking at race as a multifaceted real
“blighted” and undervalued urban land ity, we will be attuned to the shifting, fluid,
scapes, pushing aside decades of neglect and multiple identities found in the sto
and decline due to disinvestment. Newly ries of Harlem’s black gentry, They reveal
arriving gentry are viewed as class actors identities that fit, and do not fit, within the
whose role in the process prompts ques historical strait-jacket of black and white
tions such as “renaissance and revival for categories. Along with June Wilson, this
whom?” chapter introduces eleven other black mid
In a community, on a block, or at a par dle-class newcomers who purchased and
ticular street, real people are actors thrown settled in brownstones, co-op apartments,
together to negotiate sometimes shared or condominiums in Harlem during the
and often differing views of communities late 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s. Race and
in transition. For an unknown amount of racism bind these individuals to a shared
time the process of gentrification throws narrative of black economic success and a
desire to become homeowners in the black Harlem. Smith had a preference for a black
community. [...] neighborhood, he explained, like the one in
Chicago where he had grown up. This pref
erence was reinforced when he experienced
HOME AS A REFUGE
what he called "a violent reaction from rac
Scholars of race and ethnicity explain pat ism” in Chicago:
terns of migration by looking at push and
pull factors, placing history and social In Chicago we bought a house in a white area
structure as a context for movements of that was firebombed before vve moved into it.
Because I travel so much, I was worried about
human populations. Push and pull are
leaving my wife and kids alone. I made a deci
the twin forces that gentrification studies sion to live in a black community, no m atter
examine as well as they attempt to explain the ills.
the makeup of gentry and why they end
up in the neighborhoods they do. Politics, For the Smith family, overt racism accom
economy, and culture provide a starting panied their entry into the white world.
point for narrowing factors that explain the The firebombing of one’s home, while an
actions of individuals as freely acting agents extreme case, is a harrowing expression of
who are historically and socially situated. exclusion from white America. Although
In the case of Harlem, a critical social fact Smith’s middle-class purchasing power
accountingfor the presence ofa black gentry enables him to afford to buy a home in a
at this historical moment is the significance white neighborhood, his class position
of race. Further, the return by middle-class does not guarantee the family is welcome.
blacks to an inner-city, black community Despite gains from civil rights legislation
goes against the general trend of subur in the area of fair housing, choices about
banization and decreasing segregation for where to live are nonetheless influenced by
middle-class blacks on which sociologists racially defined constraints. In this instance,
have focused since the 1960s. The choice hostility and violent aggression informally
to come “home to Harlem” seems to defy replace codified restrictive covenants as
one of the central gains of the civil rights a way to keep blacks from buying in white
era: the promise of residential integration. neighborhoods.
In fact, it is what makes Harlem’s gentrifi The migration of middle-class blacks
cation a unique case for exploring modern into Harlem is not only pushed from the
race meaning. outside, though. Networks of people from
One of the consequences of middle- within and outside of the community sup
class black mobility in a post-segregation port this black in-migration:
era is movement into “integrated” work and
neighborhood settings that places middle- I started to meet people here in Harlem and
class blacks at the forefront of racial change just felt very much at home, started get
in America. In interviews with Harlem’s ting involved in a lot of community-based
black gentry, I often heard expressed a feel activities here, so whenever I had a chance,
I was here anyway. And I started packing up,
ing that they continue to confront a some
spending the night over here. You know, I just
times brutal color line as they integrate had clothes in New Jersey, it got to that point.
neighborhoods and workplaces. So finally, a woman that adopted me as a god
When Reggie Smith, a television journal m other of sorts, she said, well, I think that we
ist, returned with his family from a long just need to have you here. And people started
term assignment in Kenya, he wanted to looking out for apartments. And within a year
buy a home and to live in the city. He picked after meeting her, I wound up moving into
T H E D ILEM M A O F R A C IA L D IF F E R E N C E | 215
her building. So that’s how I wound up on I lived in a luxury building, and getting in
Hamilton Terrace and in Harlem. the elevator and [having] some white, some
little white, snotty-nosed kid coming up to
I do see young professionals like myself mov
me saying, “What are you doing in the build
ing in here, because I didn’t move to Harlem
ing? Who are you going to see?”You know, the
alone, so to speak. I came byway of a network
whole kind of trip that 1 had to go through
of friends, actually, that I knew from school,
every day although I lived in there longer
from my black-college experience. And then
than they had. I mean, these were graduate
my next-door neighbors I knew from school
students at Columbia, you know, who were
from Atlanta—they both are professional
asking me questions like, “Why are you in this
actors. So I kind of came into a community
building?”
of people. So I see individuals—musicians
So I got tired of going through that kind of
like Sherif Ani, people like Barbara Johnson—
ritual, that ridiculous kind of scenario that
owning houses here, young professionals
you have to go through with middle-class
wanting to move in because they want to be
white people who are definitely afraid of their
with their own people, and they want a sense
shadow, especially a black shadow. So you
of community that they don’t get in other
get in an elevator when they see you every
parts of NewYork.
day and they’re afraid. If it’s 12:00 at night,
they just can’t deal with it, you know. So I got
M alcolm Balderidge, a writer, defines get tired of that. I got tired of going through that.
ting “back to the com m unity” as a way to It wasn’t my problem, it was their problem. It
counter the racism he associated with liv was just they weren’t willing to change, you
ing on M anhattan’s Upper West Side: know.
I wanted to live here because I got tired of liv Portia Hamilton was born and raised in
ing in a very middle-class white community, Scarsdale, a com m unity she describes as
not because I’m against white folks or any “very white, upper, upper-class.” After her
thing like that, because I'm not. But I got tired divorce and a brief period of residence in
of always having to prove myself. North Carolina, Hamilton and her two ch il
dren, Jerry and Shawnee, moved to Harlem
“I was not willing to change,” Balderidge in 1986. Hamilton’s m em ories of growing up
continues, "and becom e a more proper- as one o f “a handful of blacks” in Scarsdale
looking African American, you know, cut my point to the more subtle effects that race
hair and not be so energetic." He clutches can have on blacks living in m ostly white
and shakes a strand of his dreadlocks before com m unities. “As a black fem ale,” she told
continuing: me, “there were very interesting d ichoto
mies. There was the best of both worlds and
Since I wasn't willing to become a Negro like
the worst of both worlds, so to speak”:
that, then I decided I would leave. You know,
I thought it would be best for my own psy
The white families got to be sure [what black
chological and mental makeup to live in an
families were there], and they did not offend
African American community where they
us in any way, shape, or form. So they made
don’t ask me those kinds of questions, where
sure we were included. Until we got to high
they don’t feel threatened.
school. And then you can really tell the dif
ference. And I couldn’t understand it. What 1
For Balderidge, the suspicious and often didn’t understand is—it doesn’t matter about
frightened looks of whites in the elevator what goes on when you’re in the elementary
late at night in his prior residence were part grades. What makes the difference is when
of what he term ed “racial harassm ent” at you hit the age where you’re sexually active
the hands of his neighbors: and you think about reproduction. And
216 | M O N IQ UE TAYLO R
that’s when you can start seeing differences. It was the best thing that could have happened
The parties decrease, the invitations to par to me. I was absolutely petrified. I mean kids
ties decrease, and that kind of thing. So my using profanity and fighting with teachers. I
friends became more my church friends than mean, I was not exposed to it. I would sit back
my school friends. like a scared kitten. But my grades improved.
I shot up to all A’s. And it helped build my self-
While Hamilton notes the acceptance she confidence. What I have since learned as an
and her brother experienced in “genteel, adult is there were always those subtle mes
old-money” upper-class, white Scarsdale, sages when we were growing up in Scarsdale
that we really weren’t quite good enough. And
in her teen years, differences defined along
it may not ever have been articulated that
racial lines increased: way, but you got the message. And so my self
esteem was nil.
I was just frustrated, and I was sick and tired
of being there. And I just wanted to be some
where else. I think part of it was fear. Most of Hamilton’s move to the South, an experi
my friends at the time were white, and I was ence she likens to having “died and gone
dating a young man who was white. And we to heaven,” shaped her later decision as
went up and down in that relationship, our a parent to move with her two children to
mamas and daddies fussing at us. I think it Harlem.
was the fear that motivated me. The fear that Hamilton was drawn to Harlem by the
I would not have a social life more than any press accounts rather than by friends who
thing else. lived there:
More and more, Hamilton’s childhood The kids used to fuss—mommy you have to
friendships and activities with white get married again. And I’m saying, “I’ll never
schoolmates were replaced with a social life get married living in Scarsdale.” So I said,
centered in the black church she and her let me come to Harlem and be part of this
family attended. “renaissance" I’m hearing so much about.
Hamilton and her brother each reacted in And I had dreams and visions, and I saw art
their own way to their social distance from parties and political conversations going on
the larger white community. Her brother, in homes. And 1 felt that’s where I needed to
she said, became withdrawn and bickered be. So I came.
at home more and more. Her strategy was
to leave: Hamilton reasons that her own children,
first raised in Scarsdale, then with relatives
I rebelled against it myself. My brother in a black community in the South, “needed
rebelled against it, too. And we rebelled in very that exposure to a much larger black com
different ways. When I got to eleventh grade, I munity.”
said, “Listen, I’ve had it with this white world For Ruth Baxter-Brown, a journalist, the
up here. I’ve got to do something different.” attraction of having a home in Harlem was
So I did. I convinced my mother to let me go to provide a balance between two worlds,
south to live with my aunt. And I thought I’d offering a haven from her job downtown:
died and gone to heaven.
I have real strong feelings—I really wanted to
Having escaped the alienation of white live around black people. I really did. I really
Scarsdale, Hamilton completed high got tired of going downtown and having white
school living in an all-black community, at folks act like I don’t belong down there. I get
an all-black school. Hamilton described the that all day long. I don’t want to hear that shit
transformation: when I get home. When I get home, I want to
T H E DILEMMA O F RACIAL D IFFER EN CE | 217
have people wave at me when I come up the Harlem is, blacks still think making it is get
street. And that’s what I get living in Harlem. ting the hell out of here, moving to Scarsdale.
You know how many people I know who are
Baxter-Brown looks to Harlem as a commu black who used to live in Harlem, but yet don’t
nity that allows her to recreate the world in read black magazines, but got these nice cor
which she grew up, a black community in porate jobs? They ran away from their culture.
Well, they’re going to be running back. There’s
the Midwest. In Harlem, she says, commu
guilt that comes from the reawareness of peo
nity rituals of her neighbors signal that she
ple saying, “Hey, I ran off and did all of these
belongs: things, but I’m still the last hired and first
fired, I still have less of an economic cushion
It feels like home. It’s the kind of neighbor to fall back on in hard times. I still, after all of
hood I grew up in. I like being on the street this, two cars and all of that, I really when it
where I know everybody. I like coming up the counts—where it counts—don’t really have
block and having people stop and say hi. I like anything. So, what’s been missing is, I’ve been
knowing who is home from college and who chasing this dream that really doesn’t protect
is just out of the hospital. me.”
George Carver also defines the move to In this comment, Carver argues that the
Harlem as a way to resolve the tension of tenuous position of the black middle class,
straddling two worlds: “I feel that way wher coupled with the lingering racism they
ever I live because I’m a black American, experience, fuels this longing for a “return”
African American. We live in two different to something of deeper significance.
worlds, different cultures.” While he sug But Etta Harrison said a lack of assimila
gests that there may be other strategies that tion elsewhere was not a motivation for her
blacks employ to deal with their marginal- own move:
ity, the move to Harlem is a statement of
the appreciation for black culture among I don’t really give a damn about that. I mean
middle-class blacks: that’s why you go home at night. Because this
is home. You need to be in an environment
“Well, I mean, we’re talking about blacks where you feel comfortable. Where you don’t
being accepted, blacks being comfortable always have to project a certain kind of image
with who they are and what they are, blacks to people. We are here because we feel com
accepting their own culture and their own fortable to a certain extent. I’ve chosen to live
values. That’s what it is. An expression of that here in Harlem. That’s it. I’m not interested in
may be coming to Harlem. Thinking that I knowing the white folks who won’t talk to me
made it is determined by the fact that I have about who I am as a black person. I know who
left. That’s no longer it. I am. I don’t want to discuss it with you, you
know. I don’t want to be explaining myself.
Carver believes that middle-class blacks, That’s why you come home. That’s why you’re
despite having accrued material rewards here. Because other people will look at you
and know who you are, and they don't have to
from their success, are in search of deeper
ask anything about you.
meaning in their lives:
Yolanda Jackson, a city housing official,
We used to think having a swimming pool or
having that BMW was all that ever mattered, cited frustrations over racist encounters
or sending our kids to Harvard was all that with her former neighbors as a primary
matters. Hey, there is a lot more. reason for moving to Harlem. Jackson
Part of the definition is intellectual. It’s how recounted throwing a party for a Senegalese
you view yourself. And part of the issue about filmmaker in the Upper East Side apartment
where she formerly lived. As she and guests as a result of “homeostasis,” that is, conti
enjoyed cocktails on the balcony, neigh nuities that accompany change. In any his
bors on a balcony overhead began shouting toric era, this homeostatic principle—the
racial slurs. To add to Jackson’s embarrass maintenance of relatively stable conditions
ment, another neighbor called the police to by internal processes that counteract any
register a noise complaint. departure from the norm—is a means of
Though she laughed as she retold the gauging the persistence of certain features
story, Jackson described that episode as of race relations.
one of a "handful” of unhappy encounters “It comes as no surprise,” writes
with white neighbors, including the time a Patterson, “that just as the black working
neighbor mistook her for a maid when they and middle classes began to make some
met up in the building’s laundry room. There headway under the impact of affirma
and at her job, Jackson says, she was aJways tive action laws, there was an upsurge of
aware of a boundary—made clear through direct racism, reflected most crudely in the
the words of neighbors and coworkers, or upsurge of KKK and other neofascist groups
simply indifference—that had defined her as well as the increased number of overt
as an outsider: “It’s like always this attitude racist attacks (including one unambiguous
that you feel and sometimes is articulated in old-style lynching of a randomly selected
the things people say or how they respond working-class black southern youth) but
to you [that] you don’t belong there.” On more subtly, and far more dangerously, in
the one hand, Jackson’s job in an integrated the powerful cultural signals given by the
setting and her residence on Manhattan’s Reagan presidency that racist intolerance is
Upper East Side are evidence of the dis once again acceptable.”5
solution of a codified color line that once Increased contact with whites gives rise
restricted black-white contact. But in those to encounters with racism and heightens, in
integrated environments, some whites, a way that would seem to defy expectations,
through words and actions, erect a bound racial consciousness among middle-class
ary that to Jackson implies that "you don’t blacks. As told in stories about work and
belong.” home, the rituals of segregation that were
Interviews with Harlem’s black gentry once used to maintain social distance and
revealed, again and again, an emotional establish positions of superiority and infe
tension arising as they crossed once restric riority continue to shape contact between
tive boundaries: whites and blacks. Social scientists argue
that “harsh discrimination against blacks...
When you’re out there getting your tail kicked leads blacks to form an ‘oppositional social
by people who don’t care who you are enough identity’ and an ‘oppositional cultural frame
to even call you by the right name, or mistake of reference.”6 Fordham and Ogbu identify
who you are when you walk into a restaurant
“beliefs and practices that protect black
or a building, even the one you live in, that’s
people’s sense of personal identity against
important. That’s very important, you know.
Blacks have to manage a lot of rage. There’s a
insults and humiliations of the dominant
lot of reasons why we suffer from hyperten white group,” such as through “unconven
sion and other diseases at a disproportionate tional ways of moving, gesturing, talking
rate. That happens to be one of them, in my and thinking that are viewed as irrational
opinion. and frightening by whites,” The push and
pull factors that draw middle-class blacks
Sociologist Orlando Patterson character to Harlem indicate the roots of such oppo
ized the resurgence of racism in the 1980s sitional practices and identities.7 [...]
THE DILEMMA OF RACIAL D IFFERENCE | 219
NOTES REFEREN CES

1. See Massey and Denton, American Apartheid. Anderson, Kay, and Fay Gale, eds. Inventing Places:
2. David Sibley, “Outsiders in Society and Space/’ Studies in Cultural Geography. Melbourne,
in Inventing Places, ed. Anderson and Gale, Australia: Longman Cheshire, 1992.
107. Massey, Douglas M., and Nancy A. Denton, American
3. Ibid., 120. Apartheid: Segregation and the Making o f the
4. Ibid., 112. Underclass. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
5. Osofsky, Harlem, 90. Press, 1994.
6. Ibid., 111. Osofsky, Gilbert. Harlem: The Making o f a Ghetto. 2d
7. See Osofsky, Harlem. ed. NewYork: Harper and Row, 1971.
CHAPTER 18
Urban Space and Homosexuality: The Example

of the Marais, Paris’ Gay Ghetto
Michael Sibalis
INTRODUCTION In the early 1960s gay men began moving

into Eureka Valley, a working-class Irish-
During recent decades, ‘gay ghettos’ have
Catholic neighbourhood whose inhabit
emerged in many large cities in North
ants were deserting the city’s centre for
America and western Europe. The word
the suburbs, The gay men renovated the
‘ghetto’ originated in 16th-century Venice
dilapidated (and therefore still affordable)
and initially referred to an area of a city
Victorian houses, opened new businesses,
where local authorities forced Jews to reside,
including gay bars, and created a visibly gay
American sociologists of the Chicago School
neighbourhood (soon dubbed ‘the Castro’
appropriated the word in the 1920s to des
after Castro Street) that urban sociolo
ignate urban districts inhabited predomi
gist Manuel Castells has described as “not
nantly by racial, ethnic or social minorities,
only a residential space but also a space for
whether by compulsion or by choice. By the
social interaction, for business activities of
1970s, sociologists were applying the term
all kinds, for leisure and pleasure, for feasts
‘gay ghetto’ to neighbourhoods character
and politics” (Castells and Murphy, 1982, p.
ised by the presence of
246; Castells, 1983, pp. 138-170; Duggins,
2002; Stryker, 2002). The pattern apparent
gay institutions [like bars, bookstores, res
taurants and clothing stores] in number, a in San Francisco has been replicated (with
conspicuous and locally dominant gay sub variations) elsewhere, leading to the for
culture that is socially isolated from the larger mation of gay ghettos in many other large
community, and a residential population that North American cities, such as Bay Village
is substantially gay in Boston (Patti-son, 1983), the Marigny
(Levine, 1979, p. 364). neighbourhood in New Orleans (Knopp,
1990) and Cabbage-town in Toronto
such as West Hollywood in Los Angeles and (Bouthtillette, 1994). By constructing their
the West Village (part of Greenwich Village) own urban enclaves, gay men have come to
in NewYork. “figure prominently” in the "urban renais
The classic (and most studied) gay ghetto sance”—which is to say in the redevelop
is, of course, San Francisco’s. A homosexual ment and gentrification of the inner city
community first emerged in that city in the (Lauria and Knopp, 1985). An attractive and
1920s and 1930s, most notably within the centrally located but rundown neighbour
bohemian atmosphere of North Beach. hood ripe for gentrification draws in gays
222 | M IC HAEL SIBALIS
who are not only responding to economic its British and American counterparts, the
incentives (lowrents and real-estate prices), Marais came into being largely as a product
but also seeking to create a territory which of impersonal economic forces (the real-
they can inhabit and control and where estate market) and contemporary social
they can feel at home within a self-con- change (the emergence of a significant
tained community set apart from a world urban gay population with its own distinc
perceived as indifferent or even hostile. tive sub-culture). There are also notable
Their presence encourages the opening of differences, however. Paris’ gay ghetto
bars and other businesses that cater to a gay resulted to a large extent from politically
clientele. A gay ghetto provides them with a motivated decisions made by a few busi
territorial base for the development of a gay nessmen who intentionally set out in the
movement, which can then become a force late 1970s to promote a more open gay life
in municipal politics. style in France. Another key difference is
Great Britain, too, has its gay ghet the hostile reaction provoked by the ghetto
tos, although residential enclaves have in France. While the development of urban
been slower to appear there than in North gay enclaves has everywhere brought some
America. In London, the ‘gay village’ of Soho degree of social and political tensions in
and especially Old Compton Street (“the their wake, only in France, where the domi
gayest 100 yards in Britain") is a commer nant political discourse rejects multicul-
cial and not a residential neighbourhood turalism and minority rights in favour of
(Binnie, 1995, pp. 194-198). Newcastle’s gay ‘universal’ values presumably shared by all
scene is “predominantly non-residential citizens, has the existence of the gay ghetto
inner-city apart from a large block of hous been perceived as a threat to the very foun
ing association flats on Waterloo Street, dations of national solidarity and become
many residents of which are gay” (Lewis, an issue of broad ideological significance.
1994, p. 90). Manchester’s ‘gay village’, cen This paper begins with a description of
tred on Bloom Street and Canal Street and the distinctive character of the historical
reputedly the largest in Britain outside Marais quarter and how it has been shaped
London, consists of bars, clubs, businesses by urban development and economic
and a community centre that serve the city’s change over many centuries. Gentrification
gay population, but once again it is primar and the proliferation of gay venues con
ily a social scene rather than a residential stitute only the most recent phase in this
district, although single men have been neighbourhood’s very long history. After
moving into the city centre since the 1990s examining the relationship between homo
(Hindle, 1994, pp. 17-22; Quilley, 1997). sexual men and Parisian space during the
France has only one gay ghetto, in the 20th century, the paper looks at the social
historical Marais quarter of central Paris. and economic factors that fostered the
This paper is a case study of the Marais. It development of the Marais as the site of
seeks not only to throw light on the similar a gay ghetto in the 1980s and 1990s, and
processes by which gay ghettos everywhere most notably the motives and role of cer
tend to emerge and grow, but also to exam tain gay businessmen who financed the
ine those features that are unique to the transformation. The paper then turns to
French experience. The gay Marais shares the relationship in France between the gay
certain characteristics of both the British ghetto (territoriality) and the emergent gay
gay village, which is primarily commer community’s new sense of identity. It ends
cial, and the North American gay ghetto, with a detailed account of the disputes that
which is commercial and residential. Like have raged around the very existence of the
URBAN SP A C E AND H O M O S EXU A LITY: TH E EXAMPLE O F T H E MARAIS, PARIS' GAY G H E TT O | 223
Marais and the ‘ghettoisation’ of homo aristocracy were set am ong the lesser build
sexual life that it purportedly represents, ings of their socially-inferior dependents—
issues that have made the Marais the target the whole ensem ble an appropriately
of virulent criticism from both outside and splendid setting for seventeenth-century life
(Kain, 1981, p. 209).
inside the gay community.
The sociale élite began abandoning the
THE MARAIS Marais after Louis XIV moved the royal court
The Marais, situated in central Paris on the to Versailles in the 1680s. The process con
Left Bank of the Seine, is the oldest quar tinued apace in the 18th and 19th centuries,
ter of the city to have survived the cen when aristocrats preferred to live in the new
turies relatively intact (Chatelain, 1967), western quarters of Paris: the Faubourg
Saint-Germain on the Left Bank and the
‘Marais’ means ‘marshland’ and most of the
Faubourg Saint-Honoré on the Right (Le
Marais was indeed swamp until drained in
Moël, 1997). Their departure ‘‘left room for
the 8th century, but in medieval times the
word also referred to land used for grow a new social occupation of the space” by
ing vegetables; the one-time prevalence of shopkeepers, craftsmen and wage-earners
market gardening in the area most likely (Prigent, 1980, p. 19). By the late 19th cen
explains its name. The Marais straddles 2 of tury, the installation of small industry and
Paris’ 20 arrondissem ents (administrative commerce in the quarter and the sub-divi
districts), encompassing most of the 3rd sion of its mansions into apartments had
arrondissem ent (everything but those parts turned most of the formerly aristocratic
Marais into an overcrowded and rundown
west of the Rue Beaubourg or north of the
Rue de Turbigo) and about half of the 4th slum. In 1965, the Marais was still home to
arrondissem ent (excluding what lies west of 7000 businesses (especially manufacturers
the Rue du Renard, south of the Seine’s Right and wholesalers in jewellery, optics, leather
Bank, or east of the Boulevard Henri-IV). goods and ready-made clothes) employing
King Philippe-Augustus’ fortified wall (built 40 000 people (Kain, 1981, p. 213).1In 1975,
1190-1215) took in only the southern part only 17.3 per cent of all Parisian housing
dated from before 1871, but the figure was
of this area and religious orders built con
65.1 per cent in the Marais; 1 in 5 Parisian
vents and monasteries in the fields beyond.
apartments had been constructed since
Further urban development followed upon
the construction of a new wall by Charles V 1948, but only 1 in 20 in the Marais (Prigent,
in the mid 14th century, which put the entire 1980, p. 32).
Marais within city limits. In the first decade
It was perhaps inevitable that the Marais, with
of the 17th century, Henry IV decided to
its architectural beauty, its calm am bience,
reshape the Marais as a luxurious residen and its relatively central location, would one
tial quarter. At its apogee in the mid 17th day revert to its original status as a quarter of
century, the Marais boasted numerous pal fashion and wealth
aces and town houses inhabited by wealthy (Evenson, 1979, p. 320).
aristocrats, high state officials and finan
ciers (Babelon, 1997; Faure, 1997, pp. 7-51; This resulted from the Malraux Law of 4
Gady, 2002, pp. 9-21 ). The result was a August 1962 (Stungo, 1972). This was “one
of the most important and influential
relatively hom ogeneous tow nscape at least pieces of European conservation legisla
as far as age and style are con cern ed. . . . tion”, which “laid down a ‘grand design’ for
The hôtels particuliers [mansions] of the a renaissance of the historical quarters of
224 | MICHAEL SIBALIS
French towns” (Kain, 1981, p. 200). The goal Rue du Roi-de-Sicile, or Yiddish- or Polish
was no longer to preserve only individual speaking Jews in and around the Rue des
buildings and monuments, but rather an Rosiers” and “the small workshops that
entire urban site, to maintain a given neigh cluttered the courtyards of seventeenth-
bourhood’s traditional character while century town houses and palaces” (Cobb,
modernising living conditions within it. In 1985, p. 193). What no one anticipated was
1964/65, the City of Paris, with the support that the “aesthetic oasis reserved for the
of the national government, designated 126 bourgeoisie” created by urban renewal
hectares of the Marais a “safeguarded sec (Prigent, 1980, p. 96) would also draw a
tor” for preservation and renovation (Kain, flood of gay men and even some lesbians
1981, p. 201). into the quarter. But in fact Parisian gays,
Gentrification thus began in the 1960s like gays elsewhere in the world, had their
and took off rapidly in the late 1970s and part in the gentrification process, as one
early 1980s. In fact, the Marais had the high businessman recently recalled with some
est gentrification rate of any neighbour exaggeration:
hood in the capital in the period 1975-82
(Winchester and White, 1988, p. 47). The I ’ve seen how in twenty years real estate prices
population decline (already evident in the have been multiplied by ten. . . . I knew the
1950s) accelerated and, as the working class Marais when everything was neglected and
left, the middle class and white-collar work there were not even mailboxes in the build
ings. If the quarter has changed, it’s undoubt
ers moved in. The Marais lost about 40 per
edly because there has been a municipal
cent of its inhabitants between the 1960s
effort, but also and above all the investment
and the end of the century, as indicated by of gays. The Parisian example resembles
the population figures for all of the 3rd and other capital cities: gays have always taken
4th arrondissements: 1968: 110 281; 1975: over the most decayed, the oldest and at the
82 172; 1990: 68 903; 1999: 65 979 (Le Clere, same time the prettiest quarters
1985, p. 649; INSEE, 2000, p. 75/3).The safe (Garcia, 2002, p. 14).
guarded sector accounts for about half this
population.2
GAY MEN AND URBAN SPACE
The national and municipal govern
IN PARIS
ments promoted the transformation of
the Marais by renovating the many public Gay men have a special relationship to
buildings in the sector and by providing urban space. Only in cities are there enough
owners with grants to improve their proper homosexually inclined men to permit the
ties. Investment by real-estate developers, emergence of a self-aware community
commercial companies and individual cit with its own commercial venues, social
izens also played an important role (Kain, and political organisations and distinctive
1981, p. 214; Carpenter and Lees, 1995). sub-culture (Harry and DeVall, 1978, pp.
What was once an “uncelebrated area of 134-154). In the words of the Danish soci
extreme overcrowding and urban poverty” ologist Henning Bech, "being homosexual
thus became “a gentrified landscape of con . . . is . . . a way of being, a form o f existence".
sumption” in which, moreover, “consumer Homosexuals belong to one of a number of
ism . . . is associated only with the ‘best’ or social worlds (Bech does not identify the
most fashionable” (Noin and White, 1997, others) that are all
pp. 212-213), a change that dismayed some
people nostalgic for the colourful past of essentially urban: they are largely worlds
“Algerian workers in the small hotels of the of strangers and not just of personal
URBAN SPACE AND HOM OSEXUALITY: THE EXAMPLE OF TH E MARAIS, PARIS' GAY G H ETTO | 225
acquaintances; they depend in part upon the homosexual geography of the capital has
the non-personal, urban free flow of signs changed dramatically. Saint-Germain and
and information, as well as upon the pool of the Rue Sainte-Anne arc out. Les Halles and
strangers, for recruitment and reproduction; especially the Marais are in
they occupy tim e-space slices of the city and (Jallier, 1983, p. 35).
need urban stages to be enacted on
(Bech, 1997, pp. 153-156). Several factors explain the shift. First of all,
there was the accessibility of the Marais,
which is centrally located and easily reached
We know a great deal about the urban spaces by public transport. A few hundred metres
used by Parisian homosexuals (generally to the west lies Les Halles, former site of
called ‘sodomites’ or ‘pederasts’ before Paris’ wholesale food market, which was
1900) since the early 1700s, both outdoor transferred to the suburbs in 1969. In the
ones (parks, gardens, riverbanks, quays 1970s, Les Halles underwent major com
and streets) and indoor ones (taverns, bars, mercial redevelopment, which included
clubs and restaurants). In the 18th and 19th construction of an underground station
centuries, these were spread across the city, (opened in December 1977) to link the sub
but were usually situated on its margins, way system and the RER (Réseau Express
either literally (on its physical periphery) or Régional), a network of suburban trains
figuratively (in poorer and seamierdistricts) that served 60 per cent of the population of
(Sibalis, 2001). Beginning in the 1880s, the Paris region (Michel, 1988). The nearby
however, commercial venues catering to Avenue Victoria, running between City Hall
homosexuals clustered in the Montmartre and Chátelet, is also the main terminus for
quarter of northern Paris, known for bohe- the city’s night buses, which operate from
mianism and illicit sexuality, including 1.30a.m. to 5.30a.m.
female prostitution. In the 1920s and 1930s, Secondly, the renovated Marais had an
other districts, like the Rue de Lappe near undoubted aesthetic appeal. In the over
the Bastille or Montparnasse in the south, blown rhetoric and rather stilted English of
also became important to Paris’ homo a recent bilingual guidebook:
sexual sub-culture. After the Second World
War, homosexuals frequented the bars, No other area of Paris has such a strong per
clubs and cafes of the Left Bank district of sonality in spite of its [architectural] diversity.
Saint-Germain-des-Pres, the centre of post The same beauty of its dwellings can be seen
war intellectual life and non-conformity. In in every street, the same refinement of the
stones, the same warmth of the thoroughfares
the 1970s, homosexual nightlife migrated
and everywhere the sam e poetic poetry [sic].
across the Seine to the streets between the
The M arais. . . has a spirit, a soul, an im m ate
Palais-Royal and the Opera House and, rial existence beyond the mirror of life
most famously, to the Rue Sainte-Anne. In (Auffray, 2001,p . 8).
marked contrast to Montmartre and Saint-
Germain, this was a quiet residential and The attractiveness increased in the 1970s
business neighbourhood, almost deserted and 1980s, when the Marais was turned into
after the workday ended; the possibility an important cultural and artistic quarter.
of going out in relative secrecy is probably The Pompidou Centre (a new national
what attracted gay customers to its venues museum of contemporary art) opened on
(Sibalis, 1999, pp. 26-31). its western edge in 1977 and the opening
The popularity of the Rue Sainte-Anne or refurbishing of other museums and the
lasted hardly more than a decade. In June proliferation of commercial art galleries
1983, a gay journalist observed that soon followed.
226 I M ICHAEL SIBALIS
But there is a third factor that explains clientele that went out less often and with
how and why the Marais became the cen heterosexual clients who stayed or returned”
tre of Parisian gay life. Gay businessmen {Le Parisién, 2001). In 1980, Leroux sold out
recognised that the Marais, with its low (LeVillage still survives under another name)
rents and real-estate prices, was ripe for and opened a larger gay bar, Le Duplex on
investment. In this respect, the gay Marais, the nearby Rue Michel-le-Comte, which he
like gay villages and ghettos in Britain and still owns today (Jallier, 1983, p. 36).
North America, developed spontaneously Maurice McGrath, a former sailor in the
in response to favourable market condi Royal Navy and owner of a Parisian travel
tions. But gay investors in Paris were con agency, soon noticed that “the bar ‘Le
cerned with more than the balance sheet. Village’ was starting to do very well and the
They consciously set out to create a new gay Marais was promising to become a French
quarter as much because of their personal ‘Greenwich village’ ” (Le Douce, 1983, p. 40).
convictions as from their desire to benefit Eager to embark on a new business venture,
financially from an evident commercial he has explained, “I discovered in the Marais,
opportunity. a great many establishments that had been
for sale for a long time. These cafes were no
longer frequented, because poorly situated,
BUSINESSMEN AND THE GAY
and the quarter’s population was chang
MARAIS’
ing” (Roland-Henry, 1983). McGrath and
Joël Leroux launched the first gay bar in eight associates opened a bar on the Rue du
the Marais in December 1978. An accoun Perche in November 1979, but in September
tant bored with his job, Leroux decided “to 1980 he branched out on his own with the Bar
change [his] skin" (as he put it) and bought Central, at the intersection of the Rue Vieille-
“for a song" a small cafe on the Rue du Plâtre, du-Temple and the Rue Sainte-Croix-de-la-
which he renamed Le Village after NewYork Bretonnerie (Le Douce, 1983). Like Leroux,
City’s Greenwich Village and reopened as a McGrath believed that “It was necessary to
gay bar. Le Village was something quite new change the gay scene in France,. . . The idea
to Paris. Whereas most gay venues did busi of a daytime bar had been launched with Le
ness only in the late evening and at night, Village and I took the plunge___One of the
its hours were noon to 2a.m. Le Village also goals I set myself in opening Le Central was
opened directly onto the street, just like any to make homosexual life part of everyday
other café in the city, and it charged regu life” (Roland-Henry, 1983). “My ambition
lar prices for coffee and beer. Gay bars and then was to make homosexuality com
clubs more usually protected themselves monplace, to make it visible in broad day”
with locked doors guarded by doormen; (Chayet, 1996).
customers rang for admittance, then paid For men like Leroux and McGrath, open
a cover charge and exorbitant prices for ing a gay venue in the Marais was evidently
the privilege of entering and consuming. both a business decision and a political
“Starting from the principle that we [gays] statement. Their bars embodied a new
had nothing to hide”, Leroux has explained, kind of gay culture patterned on the con
“I wanted people inside to be able to see temporary American scene: militant and
what was happening outside and vice versa” self-assertive; the days of clandestinity and
{Le Parisian, 2001). His bar was an immedi internalised shame were definitively over.
ate success and doubled its turnover within But militancy did not preclude shrewd
a year: “There was the clientele of the clubs business sense and an eye for financial
of Saint-Germain mixed in with another opportunity. As one journalist has put it:
In creating establishments run by and for visibility indeed spreads into public space
themselves, gays . . . have grouped together but also into nearby businesses” (Bordet,
in the same scctor interdependent activities, 2001, p. 136).Agoodexampleofthisspread-
for practical reasons, not without self-inter ing out occurred on the Rue des Archives. In
ested motives on the part of the businesses:
1995, the owners of a traditional café at 17
to bring together in the same place offer and
Rue des Archives, on the corner of the Rue
demand
(Madesclaire, 1995, p. 48).
Sainte-Croix-de-la-Bretonnerie, worried by
a decline in their regular business, set out
to attract the new gay clientele present in
BernardBoussetis today the mostsuccessful
the neighbourhood by changing its decor
of this breed of gay entrepreneurs who built
and renaming it the Open Bar, “to show
up the gay Marais venue by venue. He began
that we are open to everyone: homos, les
his business career in StTropez in the 1960s
bians, heteros, without distinction” (Ulrich,
and eventually acquired a gay bathhouse in
1996). Bernard Bousset soon bought them
Paris, the IDM, in the 9th arrondissetment.
out, renovated the place and renamed it the
In April 1987, he opened Le Quetzal, a gay
Open Café: “In summer it overflows and on
bar on the Rue de la Verrerie in the Marais,
some evenings the Rue des Archives seems
and he soon acquired other businesses in
to have become the terrace of the Open
the quarter. In 1990, he founded the SNEG
Café” (Garcia, 2002, p. 11). The year 1995
(Syndicat National des Entreprises Gaies,
also saw the opening of the (gay) Café Cox
or National Syndicate of Gay Enterprises),
next door at 15 Rue des Archives. Largely
a lobby group for gay businessmen that he
because of the proximity of these two gay
would lead during the first decade of its
cafes, four non-gay venues across the street
existence (Neuville, 1995).
(a Chinese restaurant at No. 16, a pizzeria
Gradually more and more bars, cafes and
at No. 12 and two ordinary cafes at Nos 8
restaurants catering to a predominantly gay
and 18) soon found themselves welcoming
clientele appeared in the Marais (Martel,
throngs of gay customers all day and into
1999, pp. 171-173), while other gay-owned
the early hours of the morning.
or gay-friendly businesses sprang up to sell
The development of the gay Marais
books (Les Mots a la Bouche, the city’s gay
coincided with the burgeoning of the ‘pink
bookstore since 1980, moved to the Marais
economy’ in France—the gay market that
in 1983), clothing, furniture, art, antiques,
businessisreportedlyeagertotap (Wharton,
home decorations and so on. There has
1997). By the turnofthe century, French gay
even been a gay pharmacy on the Rue du
men had become “a much courted clien
Temple since the mid 1990s. Its owner has
tele” (Revel, 2001), averaging 25 to 40 years
explained, in words that any gay business
in age, with a purchasing power estimated
man could echo, that
to be 30 per cent higher than that of the het
la Pharmacie du Village uses its geographical
erosexual consumer (Cornevin, 1996). The
position, at the heart of the Marais, to target a Marais has become “a considerable mag
gay clientele by winning their confidence and net” whose 184 gay or gay-friendly bars,
establishing a reassuring complicity with its restaurants and shops attract an average 20
clients 000 clients a day. This reportedly generates
(Laforgerie, 1997, p. 26). 1000 jobs directly and another 1500 indi
rectly, “which makes the gay businesses as a
The presence of such establishments whole the principal employer of the [fourth]
inevitably had repercussions for other arrondissement" (Garcia, 2002, p. 10). If one
venues in the quarter as “homosexual newspaper reporter is to be believed:
228 I MICHAEL SIBALIS
From the grocer to the restauranteur, all rub Actually, observation and anecdotal evi
their hands and try to win over this clientele dence suggest that many gay men do in
known for its high purchasing pow'er. “They fact live in the Marais, but rising rents and
buy without looking at the price" marvels real-estate prices in central Paris make this
Maryse, saleswoman at the furniture store
difficult for all but the relatively well-to-do.
Maison de Ville
As a result, probably more gay men live in
(Le Parisién, 2001).
adjacent (and somewhat cheaper) districts,
As the above quotations imply, the vast like the 11th arrondissement, than in the
majority of the Marais’ gay clientele is Marais itself.3 Moreover, many gays prefer
male. There are at present no more than to put distance between where they live and
three or four lesbian bars in the Marais and, where they go out to socialise and homo
while women can enter most (but not all) sexuals can certainly be found in every
of the men’s bars, they are rarely made to neighbourhood of the city (Bordet, 2001, p.
feel welcome there. Although cafes, res 116). Thirdly, the Marais is not the only gay
taurants and shops do welcome women, scene in Paris.
female customers are nonetheless clearly
in a minority. Generally speaking, lesbian The Marais had the pretension to be Castro
communities are less territorially based Street [in San Francisco] or Christopher Street
than gay male communities and lesbians [in NewYork City], It has never entirely su c
socialise far less in bars and clubs than do ceeded___ Gay life is spread out and several
decades have scattered meeting places to the
male homosexuals (Lockard, 1985; Retter,
four corners of the capital
1997). A study published 15 years ago, and
(Vanier, 1991, p. 56).
therefore rather outdated by now, suggests
that while lesbians are most probably over
To take a few of the more obvious exam
represented among the residents of inner
ples: Le Palace, which opened in 1978 and
Paris, ‘lesbian facilities’ (bars, restaurants
became the most fashionable Parisian gay
and nightclubs, but also social centres, cin
club of the 1980s, was situated on the Rue
emas and bookshops) are less geographi
du Faubourg-Montmartre, well outside the
cally concentrated than those serving gay
Marais, while Le Queen, opened in 1994
men (Winchester and White, 1988).
and the most chic gay club of the 1990s, is
Even taking into account only homo
even further away, on the Champs-Elysées.
sexual men, however, the expression ‘gay
The Rue Keller, in the 11th arrondissem ent
Marais’ is somewhat misleading. First of all,
and some 1500 metres east of the gay bars
gays have not taken over the entire Marais.
of the Marais, has developed quite inde
Gay businesses cluster along relatively
pendently since the late 1970s into a small
few streets, principally in the south-west-
but distinct centre of gay bars and clubs; the
ern corner of the quarter, like the first 200
city’s Lesbian and Gay Centre even moved
metres of the much longer Rue des Archives
there in the early 1990s.
or the relatively short (300 metres long) Rue
Emmanuel Redoutey, in studying the
Sainte-Croix-de-la-Bretonnerie, which one
geographical distribution of gay and gay-
newspaper has called “gay Paris’ display
friendly spaces across Paris, has used the
window” (Baverel, 1996). Secondly,
image of a cone.
If homosexuals com e here to consum e and
to seduce each other, only an infinitesimal Like the tip of an iceberg, the concentra
minority have moved into the Marais. The tion of establishments in the Marais quarter,
ghetto is primarily commercial where self-identified homosexuals exercise a
(Chayet, 1996). kind of supremacy over businesses and over
the animation of several streets that are also embarrassment or risk of harassment. In
treasured by tourists, plays a central role [in the convoluted jargon of a geographer, such
gay life] public displays of affection constitute an
(Redoutey, 2002, p. 60).
appropriation and territorialisation [of a
(By one recent estimate, 40 per cent of Paris’ quarter! through the street behaviour of the
clientele of gay establishments [who] chal
gay or gay-friendly venues are located in
lenge the hetero-centric character of public
the 3rd and 4th arrondissements.Y About spaces and thus give the Marais a conspicu
40 establishments ‘‘occupy a broader ous territoriality
zone in the heart of Paris” that takes in (Bordet, 2001, p. 119).
arrondissements adjacent to the Marais.
These venues, usually less obvious to pass- The average homosexual would put it more
ers-by than those located in the Marais, simply. According to one gay man,
are mainly bathhouses and ‘sex bars’ with
‘back-rooms’ or ‘dark-rooms’ where clients One feels more among family here [in the
can engage in sexual relations. (There are Marais] than anywhere else in Paris. Perhaps
that’s what we m ean by the [gay] community
also nightclubs and discotheques in this
(Dame, 1995).
zone, which Redoutey neglects to men
tion.)5 Finally, the wide base of the cone And for another, who recently moved from
comprises outdoor spaces (public toilets, Lille to Paris, the Marais represents his
streets, quays along the Seine and canals, community’s financial clout:
and public parks) that homosexual men use
for pick-ups and anonymous semi-pub- I was glad to see that les pédés ['fags’ or ‘poof
lic sexual relations. This broad base covers ters’) had money and could open stylish
the entire city, as well as two vast wooded establishments. I was glad to belong to som e
parks on its outskirts: the Bois de Boulogne thing organized, which represented a certain
to the west and the Bois de Vincennes to the econom ic power
east. For Redoutey, the Marais showcases a (Laforgerie, 1998, p. 20).
socially “acceptable” homosexuality in con
trast to “an underground and disparaged Their enthusiastic appreciation of the
homosexuality [in bathhouses, sex clubs ghetto is a relatively recent attitude and
and outdoor cruising-grounds] whose dif even today is not shared by all gays and
fuse expression occupies the dark corners lesbians. As long ago as 1964, the monthly
of the city" (Redoutey, 2002, p. 63). But it is magazine Arcadie, organ of France’s politi
the Marais, precisely because it is more vis cally conservative ‘homophile’ association,
ible and more acceptable, that draws public the Club Littéraire et Scientifique des Pays
attention, represents gay life to the straight Latin (Literary and Scientific Club of the
world and has served as the territorial base Latin Countries), warned French homosex
for the construction of a gay community. uals against copying what was occurring in
the US by creating
THE MARAIS AND THE EMERGENCE a little artificial world, enclosed and suffo
OF A COMMUNITY cating, where everything would be hom osex
ual: not only the bars, restaurants and movie
The Marais has thus become a clearly theatres, but also the houses, the streets (in
delineated gay space in the heart of Paris, New York several streets are already almost
where gay men and lesbians can stroll entirely inhabited by hom osexuals), the
hand-in-hand or kiss in the street without neighbourhoods. . . . A world where one
230 | MICHAEL SIBALIS
could live one’s entire life without seeing The relationship evoked here by
anything other than hom osexuals, without Hocquenghem—linking territory, collective
knowing anything other than hom osexual identity and political activism—is a com
ity. In Europe that is called ghettos. . . . We plex one. Veteran militant Jean Le Bitoux, for
hate this false, harmful and grotesque co n
instance, has argued that the gay commu
ception of homosexuality
nity appeared first and then produced the
(Daniel, 1964, p. 387).
gay Marais:
Radical gay militants of the 1970s had little The homosexual comm unity that was suc
in common with their homophile elders, cessfully emerging . . . most likely wanted to
but they too denounced gay ghettos—both complete this social em ergence in the 1980s
the ‘commercial ghetto’, meaning the bars with a space ‘for expressing an identity’ [un
at Saint-Germain-des-Prés or on the Rue espace ‘idenm aire). An emergent community
Sainte-Anne, and the 'wild ghetto’ con needed a new geographical anchorage
(Le Bitoux, 1997, p. 49).
stituted by the parks, gardens and public
urinals where homosexual men hunted for
sexual adventure (Martel, 1999, p. 77). Other analyses invert the equation, how
Radicals believed that ghettos encour ever, insisting that the Marais created a gay
aged a separatist homosexual identity (J. community and not the other way around.
Girard, 1981, pp. 132-133), whereas they For example, Yves Roussel has noted that,
wanted homosexuals to participate in the whatever their political camp, homosexual
revolutionary transformation of society as activists of the 1950s- 1970s rejected the for
a whole: “Instead of shutting everybody up mation of a distinct gay community (con
in their own space, we need to change the servatives advocating assimilation into
world so that we find ourselves all mixed society, radicals wanting to overthrow it),
together” (Boyer, 1979/80, p. 74). but that by the 1990s a new generation had
Some gay radicals, however, eventually come to embrace ‘identity politics’.
changed their minds and came to recognise
the political potential of the gay ghetto. Guy Many are the men and women who see
themselves as belonging to a minority group,
Ilocquenghem (1946-88), the emblem
which is the victim of a process of exclusion;
atic radical militant of the 1970s, told an
this sentiment of exclusion has combined
American interviewer in 1980: with the intense desire to constitute and to
structure a homosexual community
We don’t have a gay com m unity in Prance. (Roussel, 1995, p. 85).
That is, we have a gay movem ent— with
several organisations actively working for He has attributed this shift to several fac
political rights, as in all the Western cou n tors, including the need to mobilise against
tries— but people do not feel part of a com the AIDS epidemic, but one particularly
munity, nor do they live together in certain significant determinant has been “the
parts of the city, as they do here in NewYork
emergence of a vast ensemble of gay com
City or in San Francisco— for example. And
mercial enterprises [that] have allowed for
this is the most im portant difference and the
most significant aspect of gay life in the U.S.:
the constitution of a community of homo
not only having a ‘m ovem ent’, but having sexual consumers with characteristic life
a sense of com m unity— even if it takes the styles” (Roussel, 1995, p. 107). Jan-Willem
form o f ‘ghettos’— because it is the basis for Duyvendak has similarly concluded that “in
anything else the middle of the 1980s, the concentration
(Blasius, 1980, p. 36). of gay clubs and bars, such as in the Marais
URBAN SP A C E AND H O M O S EXU A LITY: TH E EXAMPLE O F T H E MARAIS, PARIS' GAY G H E TT O |
in Paris, provided a certain ‘infrastructure’ by the early 90s it seemed impossible to imag
for a community”, although he minimises ine the existence of one without the other.
this community’s political activism: “the The resulting community, which may initially
militants took the occasion to go dancing have been defined by a sexual orientation,
rather than to demonstrate” (Duyvendak, became increasingly united by shared tastes,
cultural preferences in music and food, and
1993, p. 79).
even by a distinct ‘Marais look' among the gay
Gay businessmen share this view that male inhabitants
their venues have contributed to the grow (Gunther, 1999, p. 34).
ing sense of community among French
gays. In the mid 1980s, the gay entrepreneur Not surprisingly, the proliferation and
David Girard (1959-90) responded to those increasing visibility of gay establishments
activists who criticised him for his brazen in the Marais and the concomitant devel
capitalist spirit by declaring that opment of a self-conscious gay community
have re-suited in conflict with some long
The bar owner who, in the summer, opens time residents who resent the on-going
an outdoor terrace where dozens of guys . . .
influx of gays and the dramatic changes
meet openly, is at least as militant as they are.
... I think that I have done more for gays than that they have brought about in the quarter.
they ever have There is also discord among homosexuals
(D. Girard, 1986, p. 164). and lesbians themselves, many of whom
disapprove of the Marais or feel excluded
He even told his customers: ‘‘This gay life by its dominant cultural values. [...]
that is ever more present and diversified
in Paris,. . . it is first of all you who create it NOTES
by consuming” (D. Girard, 1983). This was
1. As compared with 22 351 establishments employ
precisely the message put out in an adver
ing 72 374 in 1860 and 9721 establishments
tising campaign by the SNEG in 1996: ‘To employing 44 637 in 1956 (Benedetti, 1960, pp.
consume gay is to affirm one’s identity” 9-27).
( “C onsom m er gay, c ’est s’a ffirm er’). The 2. The available figures for the safeguarded sector
campaign’s avowed purpose was to pro alone are 1918:100000:1954:79000; 1962:75000;
1968: 66 000; 1982: 40 000 (Audry and Starkman,
mote its members, but “it is equally a com
1987).
munitarian campaign, a way to bring home 3. These remarks are based on personal observa
to people the visibility of gay establish tion and on interviews with officers of several
ments” (Primo, 1998). gay associations that draw their membership
Arguments like these are certainly self- from across the city. The official census does not
categorise the French by religion, race or sexual
interested on the part of the business
orientation.
men who advance them, but that does not 4. In October-December 2001, according to listings
mean that they are without merit. As Scott in e-m@ale magazine, of 230 gay or gay-friendly
Gunther has recently pointed out, establishments in the city, 77 (33.5 per cent) were
in the 4th arrondissement and 18 (7.8 per cent) in
The transformed Marais of the 80s provided the 3rd (Bordet, 2001, p.64).
5. The SNHG claims that more than half of Paris’
a space for the development of a gay identity
gay businesses (252of488) are situated in central
that had not existed before in France. As the Paris (the entire 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th arrondisse
community grew, gays themselves gained a ments, which it misleadingly labels 'the Marais’),
reputation as respectable, resourceful, and including 52 gay bars (of 88 in all Paris), 69 gay
affluent.. . . Throughout the 80s, the emerg restaurants (of 99), 11 gay discotheques (of
ing gay identity and geographical space of the 17) and 5 bathhouses (of 16) (Laforgerie, 2003,
Marais became increasingly inseparable and p. 32.)
232 I MICHAEL SIBALIS
R EFEREN CES Cobb, R. (1985) People and Places. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Audry, J.-M. and Starkman, N. (1987) L’évolution Cornevin, C. (1996) 100,000 gays dans la capitale, Le
récente du Marais, in: Le Marais, mythe et réalité, Figaro, 25 April, p. 24.
pp. 264-269. Paris: Picard. Daniel, M. (1964) Le plus grave danger, Arcadie,
Auffray, M.-F. (2001) Le Marais: la légende des pierres, 11(129), pp. 385-389.
if stones could speak, trans. by E. Povvis. Paris: Darne, R (1995) Ghetto? Milieu? Communauté? Un
Hervas. débat ouvert, Exit, le journal, 21 July, pp. 8-9.
Babelon, J.-P. (1997) L’urbanisation du Marais, Cahiers Duggins, J. (2002) Out in the Castro: creating a gay sub
du Cen tre de Recherches et d'Études sur Paris et l'Ile- culture, 1947-1969, in: W. Leyland (F.d.) Out in the
de-France, 9, pp. 17-34. Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism, pp. 17-28. San
Baverel, P. (1996) Le Drapeau gay flotte rue Sainte- Francisco, CA: Leyland Publications.
Croix-de-la-Bretonnerie, Le Monde, 22 June, p. 11. Duyvendak, J.-W. (1993) Une ‘communauté’ homo
Bech, H. (1997) When Men Meet: Homosexuality and sexuelle en France et aux Pays-Bas? Blocs, tribus
Modernity, trans. by T. Mesquit and T. Davies. et liens, Sociétés: Revue des Sciences Humaines et
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sociales, 39, pp. 75-81.
Benedetti, J. (1960) Préfecture de la Seine: Le Quartier Evenson, N. (1979) Paris: A Century o f Change, 1878-
du Marais. Paris: Imprimerie Municipale. 1978. New I Iaven, CT: Yale University Press.
Binnie, J. (1995) Trading paces: consumption, sexual Faure, J. (1997) Le Marais: organisation du cadre bâti.
ity and the production of queer space, in: D. Bell Paris: L’Harmattan.
and G. Valentine (Eds) M apping Desire: Geography Gady, A. (2002) Le Marais: guide historique et architec
o f Sexualities, pp. 182-199. London: Routledge. tural. Paris: Le Passage.
Blasius, M. (1980) Interview: Guy Hocquenghem, Garcia, D. (Ed.) (2002) Dossier: le gay Marais, ghetto ou
Christopher Street, 4(8), pp. 36-45. village? Le Nou vel Observateur: Paris Ile-de-France,
Bordet, G. (2001) Homosexualité, altérité et territoire: 1947 (February-March), pp. 8-16.
les commerces gais sur le bas des pentes de la Croix- Girard, D. (1983) Èdito, 5 su r5 ,1 (September), p. 1.
Rousse et dans le Marais. Unpublished Mémoire de Girard, D. (1986) Cher David: les nuits de citizen gay.
maîtrise de géographie, Université Lumière-Lyon 2. Paris: Ramsey.
Bouthillette, A.-M. (1994) Gentrification by gay Girard, J. (1981) Le Mouvement hom osexual en France
male communities: a case study of Toronto’s 1945-1980. Paris: Syros.
Cabbagetown, in: S. Whittle (Ed.) The Margins o f the Gunther, S. (1999) The indifferent ghetto, Harvard Gay
City: Gay Men's Urban Lives, pp. 65-83. Aldershot: and Lesbian Review, 6(1), pp. 34-36.
Arena. Harry, J. and DeVall,W.B. (1978) TheSocialOrganization
Boyer, J. (1979/80) Quand les homosexuels se lancent o f Gay Maies. NewYork: Praeger.
à la conquête de l’espace, Masques, 3(Winter), pp. Hindle, P. (1994) Gay communities and gay space in
73-74. the city, in: S. Whittle (Ed.) The Margins o f the City:
Carpenter, J. and Lees, L. (1995) Gentrification in New Gay Men's Urban Lives, pp. 7-25. Aldershot: Arena.
York, London and Paris: an international compari INSEE (Institut national de la statistique et des études
son, International Journal o f Urban and Regional économiques) (2000) Populations légales: recen
Research, 19, pp. 286-303. sement de la population de 1999: France. Paris:
Castells, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots: A Cross- INSEE.
cultural Theory o f Urban Movements. Berkeley, CA: Jallier, G. (1983) Marais, Halles, le créneau gay,
University of California Press. Samouraï, 8 (June), pp. 34-38.
Castells, M. and Murphy, K. (1982) Cultural identity Kain, R. (1981) Conservation planning in France:
and urban structure: the spatial organization of policy and practice in the Marais, Paris, in: R. J. P.
San Francisco’s Gay Community, in: N. I. Fainstein Kain (Ed.) Planning fo r Conservation, pp. 199-233.
and S. S. Fainstein (Eds.) Urban Policy under London: Mansell.
Capitalism, pp. 237-259. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Knopp, L. (1990) Some theoretical implications of gay
Publications. involvement in an urban land market, Political
Chatelain, P. (1967) Quartiers historiques et centre Geography Quarterly, 9, pp. 337-352.
ville: l’exemple du quartier du Marais, in: Urban Laforgerie, J.-F. (1997) Argent rose, argent roi, ExAequo,
Core and Inner City: Proceedings o f the International 6(April), pp. 24-29.
Study Week, Amsterdam, 11-17September 1966, pp. Laforgerie, J.-E (1998) Dehors, dedans: mon ghetto, Ex
340-355. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Aequo, 14( January), pp. 16-22.
Chayet, S. (1996) Marais, le triangle rose, Le Point, Laforgerie, J.-F. (2003) Le Marais est-il en crise?, Illico,
1232(27 April), p. 96. 78(6 June), pp. 30-33.
URBAN S P A C E AND HOMOSEXUALITY: THE EXAM PLE OF THE MARAIS, PA R IS’ G A Y GHETTO | 233
Lauria, M. and Knopp, L. (1985) Toward an analysis of city, in: G. B. Ingram, A.-M. Bouthillier andY. Retter,
the role of gay communities in the urban renais (Eds) Queers in Space: Communities, Public Places,
sance, Urban Geography, 6, pp. 152-169. Sites o f Resistance, pp. 275-292. Seattle, WA: Bay
Le Bitoux, J. (1997) Marcher dans le gai Marais, Revue Press.
h, 1(July), pp. 47-51. Redoutey, E. (2002) Géographie de l’homosexualité
Le Gère, M. (Ed.) (1985) Paris de la préhistoire ci nos à Paris, 1984-2000, Revue Urbanisme, 325(July-
jours. Saint-Jean-d’ Angély: Éditions Bordessoules. August),pp. 59-63.
Le Douce, A. (1983) Maurice McGrath, un patron gay, Retter, Y. (1997) Lesbian spaces in Los Angeles, 1970-
Samouraï, 8(June), pp. 39-41. 90, in G. B. Ingram, A.-M. Bouthillier andY. Retter
Le Moël, M. (1997) Désaffection et dégradation du (Eds) Queers in Space: Communities, Public Places,
Marais au XVII le et XIXe siècle, Cahiers du Centre de Sites o f Resistance, pp. 325-337. Seattle, WA: Bay
Recherches et d ’É tudes sur Paris et l’île-de-France, Press.
59, pp. 65-78. Revel, R. (2001) Une clientèle très courtisée, L’Express,
Le Parisien (2001) Joël a ‘inventé’ le Marais en 1978,18 21-27 June, p. 90.
April, pp. 12-13. Roland-Henry, O. (1983) Le Central, 5 sur 5,
Levine, M. P. (1979) Gay Ghetto, Journal o f 4 (December), p. 7.
Homosexuality4{4), pp. 363-377. Roussel, Y. (1995) Le mouvement homosexuel fran
Lewis, M. (1994) A sociological pub crawl around gay çais face aux stratégies identitaires, Les Temps
Newcastle, in: S. Whittle (Ed.) The Margins o f the Modernes, 50(582), pp. 85-108.
City: Gay Men’s Urban Lives, pp. 85-100. Aldershot: Sibalis, M. (1999) Paris, in: D. Higgs (Ed.) Queer Sites:
Arena. Gay Urban Histories since 1600, pp. 10-37. London:
Lockard, D. ( 1985) The lesbian community: an anthro Routledge.
pological approach, Journal o f Homosexuality, 11, Sibalis, M. (2001) Les espaces des homosexuels dans
pp. 83-95. le Paris d’avant I Iaussmann, in: K. Bowie (Ed.) La
Madesclaire, T. (1995) Le ghetto gay, en être ou pas?, Modernité avant Haussmann, Formes de l’espace
Illico, 57(August), p. 48-55. urbain à Paris 1801-1853, pp. 231-241. Paris:
Martel, F. (1999) The Pink and the Black: Homosexuals Éditions Recherches.
in France since 1968. Stanford, CA: Stanford Stryker, S. (2002) How the Castro became San
University Press. Francisco’s gay neighborhood, in: W. Leyland (Ed.)
Michel, C. (1988) Les Halles: la renaissance d ’un quart Out in the Castro: Desire, Promise, Activism, pp. 29-
ier 1966-1988. Paris: Mason. 34. San Francisco, CA: Leyland Publications.
Neuville, P. (1995) Le Grand Bernard, Le Frondeur, 18 Stungo, A. (1972) The Malraux Act 1962-72, Journal o f
December, p. 6. the Royal Town Planning Institute, 58(8), pp. 357-
Noin, D. and White, P. (1997) Paris. Chichester: John 362.
Wiley & Sons. Ulrich, C. (1996) Le Marais, quartier général du lobby
Pattison, T. (1983) The stages of gentrification: the case homosexual, L’É vénement du jeudi, 20-26 June, pp.
of Bay Village, in: P. L. Clay and R. M. Hollister (Eds) 28-29.
Neighborhood Policy and Planning, pp. 77-92. Vanier, L. (1991) Sexe sur Seine, Gai PiedHebdo, 482(21
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. March), pp. 56-58.
Prigent, A. (1980) La réhabilitation du Marais de Paris. Wharton, S. (1997) Financial (self)-identification: the
Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. pink economy in France, in: S. Perry and M. Cross
Primo, T. (1998) Bernard Bousset: de la mémoire avant (Eds) Voices o f France: Social, Political and Cultural
toute chose, e-m @le magazine, 17(29 January), pp. Identity, pp. 171-186. London: Pinter.
18-19. Winchester, H. P. M. and White, P. E. (1988) The loca
Quilley, S. (1997) Constructing Manchester's “new tion of marginalised groups in the inner city,
urban village”: gay space in the entrepreneurial Environmen t an d Planning D, 6, pp. 37-54.
Thi s page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 19
Consumption and Culture

Tim Butler
STYLE AND ATTRACTIVENESS The importance of ensuring a high quality

of life in inner London is now at the top of
If London is to remain at the core of the
the agenda of inward investment agencies
international service economy, it needs to
such as London First. London, despite all of
retain its attractiveness to the highly skilled
its inner-urban difficulties, remains posi
middle class as a place to work and live. The
tively attractive not only to the very rich
Economist, discussing the future of New
but also to many ‘families living on middle
York City at the end of the eighties, had this
incomes’; in the rest of this chapter I hope
to say about its prospects:
to show why. Inner-city gentrification per
mits a style of life that can still considered
. . . NewYork has kept its lead in several of the
businesses that are destined to grow fastest in positively attractive.
the next century: advertising, corporate law, Pahl (1989) has argued persuasively that
publishing, media (both print and broad we need to pay attention not merely to the
cast), m anagement consultancy, accou n way that people are defined by structures
tancy and public relations (The Economist, 20 but also to how they define themselves. In
October 1990). his argument, this is particularly important
for ‘non-subordinate’ social classes—nota
The Econom ist went on to argue that it is bly the middle class. Thrift (1989) has also
the quality of life in New York City which argued that service-class culture is’ an
is threatening to drive these middle-class important starting point for understand
professionals out: ing the service class. In his view, consump
tion and lifestyle are important indicators
There is an increasingly big caveat. The qual of self-identity amongst the service class
ity of life in New York has fallen below' the (‘You are what you see’). Although this is
level that middle-class people are prepared
over-emphasised, he perceptively identifies
to tolerate. The rich can soar above it all.
service-class aspirations with ‘traditional
They send their children to private schools,
values’ which are subject to subtle, and not
travel by yellow-cab or stretch-limo, live in
apartment blocks guarded by doormen and so subtle, manufacture and manipulation
leave for beach houses in the Hamptons at by the marketing industry. In particular
weekends. But for families living on middle Thrift identifies ‘heritage’ and ‘the country
incomes, living in New York is like living in side’ as pre-eminent bearers of traditional
modern Calcutta or medieval London (ibid.). values. These are manifested by appropriate
236 I TIM BUTLER
images of country houses and their accou narrow self-interest of local authorities, local
trements (Barbour jackets; Range Rovers residents and profit-oriented developers.
and so on). It is largely irrelevant whether The campaign waged by the De Beauvoir
people are buying ‘real old country houses’, Association to save what remained of the
or the carefully-crafted modern imitations ‘Old Town’ from comprehensive redevel
heavily larded with ‘the vernacular’ since opment in the 1970s was largely successful
both, in their different ways, are seen as and resulted in a number of measures to
statements about how their owners wish enhance its environmental attractiveness.
to be seen and to what they aspire (Thrift Many of the busy traffic ‘rat runs’ were cut
1987; Hamnett [1973]). Oldness, or images off and the social and architectural signifi
of oldness, are important to a new class that cance of the area was acknowledged by its
is trying to emphasise its ‘place’ in the social designation as a ‘conservation area’. Many
structure; just as the industrial middle class of the houses were listed as being of archi
married and bought its way into the aristoc tectural importance. The founding of the
racy in the early nineteenth century so the De Beauvoir Association was therefore a
service class is doing so in the late twentieth key ‘moment’ in the gentrification process;
century (Wiener 1985;Thrift 1987). style and history were crucial arguments in
Whilst concentrating on rural images winning the argument against redevelop
of success and style, Thrift acknowledges ment. By the late 1980s, the Association was
that there is another subset of the service clearly not the focus it had been which is, in
class who identify with a set of metropoli many ways, a tribute to its success.'
tan values, associated with urban life and In North Defoe preservation and con
gentrification. What matters most for those servation struggles have also been part
gentrifying the inner city is that their houses of the process of the area’s gentrification
are moulded from ‘real history’ and are not but in rather different ways. Two major
pale imitations designed by Barratts, Laings campaigns in the last decade have been
and their ilk (Jager 1986; Wright 1985a, to preserve Abney Park cemetery and to
1985c). To this section of the middle class, prevent Thames Water filling in the res
modern versions of the old are not accept ervoirs—located just to the west of Stoke
able. This is clear in the gentrifying areas of Newington—for housing development.
Hackney and particularly in De Beauvoir Both have raised wider planning issues. In
where considerable store is put on ‘histori the case of the cemetery, the issue has been
cal authenticity’. This however is not simply to maintain it in its present rather wild and
about housing; it is, as we have seen, also overgrown form and to prevent, on the one
about areas. hand its ‘de-naturing’ back into a carefully
In both areas, despite their differences, manicured and organized cemetery or,
conservation and preservation struggles on the other hand, its redevelopment into
have been central to the gentrification pro housing. The attractions of a wild urban
cess not only physically but also in creating green space may be lost on some of the
a sense of cohesion amongst the incomers. older residents but reflect very clearly the
The struggle to preserve its historical value concerns of a newer population to retain
has, in both areas, served to bring incomers the links with the historical past (Daniel
together, at least in the early days of gen Defoe and General William Booth, amongst
trification. In both De Beauvoir and North others, are buried there) but also to encour
Defoe there is a sense of history and his age urban wilderness areas in order to pre
torical authenticity which newcomers have serve the flora and fauna.2 Much the same
struggled to save from the ‘philistinism’ and argument was deployed (less successfully)
CONSUM PTION AND CULTUR E | 237
against the proposal by Thames Water to fill by continual reference to the signifi
in the reservoirs and build housing on them. cance of the nineteenth century heritage.
In this case the argument also involves one Suitably sanitized, this history is now a
of public access to another ‘wild area’ but positive attraction for choosing to live in
again one with its historical attractions— De Beauvoir or North Defoe. Preservation
for example, the spectacular architecture of and gentrification thus appear to be inex
the Victorian pumping station. tricably linked (Kasinitz 1988, Cybriwsky
In both areas, conservation/preservation 1986, Wright 1985a). The fight to maintain
struggles have played an important role in the status quo and an image for the future
the gentrification process and how the area is therefore firmly rooted in the expropria
should look. The contrasts are immediate tion of the past. It is also often the means
and obvious, in De Beauvoir what is being whereby a class of people with this ‘cultural
preserved is an organized townplan, the style capital' can come together to protect ‘his
of individual dwellings and the architectural torical authenticity’ and, at the same time,
integrity of the whole area; in North Defoe fight for f/ie/rfuture. In other words, the fight
it is the ‘feel’ of the area, its open spaces for preservation is a focus for relatively iso
and what might be termed its communal lated middle-class people to unite together
resources. It is as if in De Beauvoir private to promote their individual and collective
spaces are the focus whilst in North Defoe it interests. It is an indirect way in which a
is public space. There is a danger though that group of middle-class individuals can iden
this contrast can be oversimplified, as there tify not only with each other but also with a
is litde, if any, green space in De Beauvoir to series of values connected with history and
be preserved and little architectural integ heritage to give themselves and their class a
rity in North Defoe. The attraction of De ‘place’ in the urban social order.
Beauvoir is its layout as a ‘town’, but one that Whilst these have been important issues
is well provided with large and sunny private for respondents and residents in general
gardens. The green spaces are private and in the two areas, it may not necessarily
off the street. In Stoke Newington by con account for why they came to these areas,
trast there is—by urban standards—almost although it is likely to be the case that they
a superfluity of green- and open spaces: wanted to live in an ‘old house’ in an area
Clissold Park; Abney Park Cemetery; the res with a history (Wright 1985a).
ervoirs; Springfield Park and the Lea Valley
recreational area. It is therefore perhaps not
WHY THEY CAME
surprising that there is a different emphasis
in attempts to preserve the environment. In Respondents were asked why they had
De Beauvoir what is being preserved is above moved from their previous residence; Table
all the authenticity of a nineteenth century 19.1 gives their responses.‘There was no sin
urban development and architectural style gle dominant reason for moving into either
whilst in North Defoe it is a sense of com of the areas, but strictly labour or housing
munity and a community resource. What market induced reasons, such as 'trading
is significant is that there are preservation up’ in the housing market or moving for job-
issues, since they are the means by which the related reasons, were relatively unimport
incoming middle class can impose its mean ant. The single most important reason was
ing on the physical area and impart what simply that people wanted a bigger house;
Castells (1983) has termed ‘urban meaning’ if they were already owner-occupiers,1
as a kind of stamp of cultural ownership. they were moving in order to get a larger
The preservation struggle is legitimated property. In practice, this often meant they
238 | TIM BUTLER
wanted to move out of a flat into a house, been at a Rock Against Racism thing at
although in De Beauvoir, where many of Victoria Park which was about the first
the houses were quite small, it often meant time that I had been to the East End; I
moving to a bigger house. If they were not can’t claim any relationship with this
already owner-occupiers, their reasons area at all, it was like the back of beyond
were a combination of a desire to move into to me and I had never been anywhere
a space they could call their ‘own’ and a fear near it and we saw this house in H . . .
that they would be left behind by a property Road and it was three floors and there
market that seemed (in 1988) to be spiralling was nothing wrong with it. We had actu
upwards out of control.5 No single reason ally spent about a year looking at houses
emerged for why respondents had moved in Fulham and Wandsworth and they
into the area. ‘By accident’ was a common were always terrible—you would always
response, although frequently such people go into a street and the one with stone-
had moved within the area. Olivia is a good cladding was the one that you had the
example of someone moving out of rented details of, there was always something
accommodation, who stumbled on Stoke really terrible about it and this house
Newington by accident and has now cho though it was dilapidated was a fine
sen to move again in the area: house, lots of space and it was incredibly
cheap. Then it was £13,000—in 1978. So
Originally we came here in the late we moved there originally and I think
1970s because we knew we wanted to there was always the sense that it was not
buy somewhere to live and we had been the greatest area in the world in terms
looking at flats in West London and we of the upkeep of the buildings, and the
began to realise that we might be able to streets were really dirty and nobody ever
buy houses with tenants on the ground cleaned them but it was quite lively and
floor; we somehow got the idea that we it never seemed threatening or worry
might be able to buy a house not a flat. A ing and it was always nice to be near the
friend who was living in Islington men park and then Rex got the job [locally]
tioned that there were nice houses in and then it was useful to be in the area
this area and we came here by chance. and we got more involved in the area
We walked over one day after we had and knew more people here.
Table 19.1 R e a so ns for m oving from previous property
Reasons lo r m oving D e Beauvoir N orth Defoe All All

% % % no.
B igg e r pro p erty 45 42 43 103

C h a n g e in household 34 28 31 73
T o o w n 'ow n hom e' 31 26 25 62
G e t on housing ladder 20 22 21 49
W a nted a garden 20 13 16 39
T o trade up 16 13 15 35
T o b e nearer jo b 18 11 14 35
C h a n g e d financial circum stances 12 10 11 27
Leave shared house 7 9 8 19
T o m ove to area 12 4 8 18
C h a n g e in jo b 8 7 8 18
W anted freehold 9 4 7 16
J o b location cha nged 10 3 6 15
C O N S U M P TIO N AND C U L T U R E | 239
We had no idea of staying here for a lot in value but we still couldn’t afford
long, it was not the idea of ‘here I am to move out, but we could afford a much
going to settle and spend my life in’; we better house in the area and when we
were quite young and without much bought this house, it took several years
cash and it was the idea that here we to get used to the idea of having so
could have a nice house and we were much space and that you could live a
just thinking the other day that we could fairly luxurious lifestyle in. The flats we
not believe we had been here this long had been living in before H ... Road was
—we have been here ten years. I cannot like one floor of one of these houses and
envisage moving in the next five or six before that when 1 had been at school
years or ten years. I had lived in a flat with my sister in
TB: Were you w orking a t the tim e ? [Chelsea] which was two rooms which
Olivia: No I was doing my graduate fitted into less than this kitchen; so from
research, so I was on a grant and it was the age of sixteen for nearly ten years I
near the station. The main advantage had been used to really contained small
was cheap, economy but at the same spaces and it seemed really incredible
time in an urban setting. We had been that we had this house. From 1982 we
living in a rented flat in Fulham and part didn’t move in until 1983 because it was
of me thought that living in the inner almost completely shelled by building
city was quite interesting but part of me work. From 1983 until Joseph’s birth we
was quite embarrassed about having to put almost all our energies into doing
explain where it was as nobody knew it. it up. There were other things with our
I used to kick myself for hearing myself lives and jobs but we put an awful lot
almost apologising for living here; I into the house, it has eaten up an enor
would go into a long explanation about mous chunk of our lives almost without
that was where I lived and it was really our realizing it. We certainly never got
very interesting and full of local colour the sense of we are all right now and we
whereas if you said something like can have the space to look around and
Primrose Hill you wouldn’t have to say think whether we want to be here. Since
anything with it. There was the sense Joseph’s been born you get all these
that when you were talking to people other types of priorities, about where
from the same class or background that he has got a nursery, who he is getting to
you were being somewhat rebellious or know which school he is likely to go to; I
strange to be living in Stoke Newington, like the idea of him going to Grazebrook,
not just that you were poor. I have got very good friends who live
TB: Might the suburbs have been an alter around the corner who I feel are good
native? neighbours. I am used to around here,
Olivia: No, never looked, no never thought you can get most of the things that you
of it. want. I do get fed up sometimes—I
TB: Why have you continued to live in the don’t like the idea that I would spend my
area, w hat are the attractions ? entire life here. I have spent ten years of
Olivia: With the boom of prices around my life here and I don’t want to wake up
here we were able to move from the first in thirty years time and be in the same
house we had. We then had a second house. Maybe when Joseph has fin
stage of looking for houses which was ished at Grazebrook and if we have any
in 1982 and this was still the cheapest more money than we have now, then
area in London. Our house had gone up we might move somewhere else.
240 | TIM BUTLER
TB: Why d id you decide that you w anted to supply of fruit and vegetable whereas in
m ove fro m the original hou se ? De Beauvoir there wasn’t something at
Olivia: I’d always convinced myself that it the end of the road, you always had to go
was nicer than it was; it backed on to out in the car if you wanted to shop and
some warehouses at the back, it was you always bumped into people when
very dark, it didn’t have a garden, it faced you went to shop. It was much more a
north-south rather than east-west so place, I still think that actually Finsbury
one side of the house tended always to Park, Stroud Green or down towards the
be dark and one wasn’t. The kitchen was Arsenal which are all a bit more expen
quite small, things like that which you sive are not such nice places to be living.
didn’t notice at first since it was so much
bigger than what we were used to. We Olivia is not atypical of respondents and the
had thought it was the best we could do complex of reasons she gives for why she
but when we realized we could do better and Rex made their series of moves is also
then we decided to move. not atypical but cannot even be hinted at by
From being here at the time when the survey data.
only restaurants were unpretentious We saw, in the previous chapter (table
Turkish kebab houses, when there were 5.5), that 21 per cent of respondents in De
hardly any amenities put there spe Beauvoir and 34 per cent in North Defoe
cifically to cater to a wealthy clientele, had moved within the area in which they
everything seemed very much like living were now living on at least one previous
on the edge. Fox’s wine bar opened and occasion; in both areas about half had pre
it made everyone feel terribly reassured viously lived either in Hackney or Islington
that they were living in an up and com and three quarters of the residents had
ing area. Every time you met someone moved from within the inner London area.
in the park, or the street or somewhere The data suggest that gentrification in
they said ‘have you seen there’s a wine Hackney, and especially in North Defoe,
bar opening’; this ripple went through is largely by people moving within a fairly
the entire area, it was almost like a sigh tightly defined area of the inner city. Reasons
of relief that ‘ my god, you didn’t put all for living in Hackney seemed to be largely
of your money onto a dud and some social (‘friends in the area’), aesthetic (‘the
thing is happening is changing’. Part of style of the architecture’), economic (‘the
me felt quite resentful, almost a glamour relatively low cost of housing’) and often
of living somewhere distanced from that largely accidental. Although travel-to-work
kind of world but at the same time it was and cost reasons were not insignificant,
much more convenient and much eas they were rarely the deciding factors. What
ier to pop out and eat something. When was clear was that whatever people’s initial
we were looking in 1982, we looked at reasons for moving into the area, many liked
houses in De Beauvoir and it always living there and had moved again, often
seemed much more grim and further more than once. Having made the decision
away from any greenery. There were far to move, one third of those in De Beauvoir
more amenities here, Church Street had and half in North Defoe decided to look
all the things you needed even before it only in those areas. A quarter of those now
was done up with the delicatessen, it had living in De Beauvoir had decided on the
the Turkish delicatessen before that, the N1 postcode area (as had eight per cent in
photography shop, Fox’s, different Greek North Defoe) and, for the most part, ended
and Indian shops that had quite a good up where they were now partly because it
CONSUM PTION AND CULTUR E |
represented better value for money. Harriet the basement and it wasn’t wildly con
is a ‘paradigm case’ of someone who moved venient especially with a child throw
to De Beauvoir several years ago and has ing up in the middle of the night and
now moved again in the area, even though mother having to run downstairs to the
she and her husband could have afforded to bathroom to clean up, so we were really
move to a more expensive area: just looking for somewhere a bit bigger.
At that stage we were a little bit richer
Our reason for coming here was very and we looked in Islington again and
specific, we were living in south-east we saw houses that were a little bit too
London and the year after we married expensive and there you were paying
my mother died; my father was living for houses that had been done up. Then
in north-west London and we needed we happened to hear about this house
to be in-between the two. So we liter because we knew the chap who was liv
ally took a map of London and stuck a ing here and he had only half done it up
pin in and found ourselves roughly in and the price reflected that and he was
this neck of the woods and started to needing to sell.
look around at houses and found that TB: Did you look at other areas ?
Islington was just a little bit too expen Harriet: No, it was either Islington or here
sive and around here was still a bit and this was, from our point of view,
expensive but better. absolutely idyllic—just what we wanted,
TB: So the pin went into Islington ? everyone aspires to a house in . . . I sup
Harriet: That’s right; so that’s what brought pose. . . . we look out at houses that
us here, it wasn’t that we knew anything are a long way away, the park, a play
at all about the area before but it was lit ground—everything you could possibly
erally the need to be between two lots of want for the kids, no through traffic. The
families... that’s not very romantic... we only busy time of the week is Saturday
didn’t move to . . . first of all. We were in morning when ‘The Waste’ operates in
U . .. Road to begin with. We had always Kingsland Road and then all the visi
wanted an old house, having immedi tors to ‘The Waste’ park their cars here,
ately we had married bought a brand but that’s all gone by two or three in the
new flat. We had always hankered after afternoon. We’ve got this wonderful long
somewhere old and looking around here back garden which is about 120 foot... it
we found just the size house we needed couldn’t be better. Who needs a house in
at the time, which was a two bedroomed the country on a day like this!
little terraced house with a manageable
garden and, at the time we moved in, Both Olivia and Harriet therefore moved
there were temporary road closures and into the area for largely accidental rea
they were later to become permanent sons, in Harriet’s case because of the need
so that was another attraction to the to be equidistant between north-west and
area—the thought that it was all going south-east London and for Olivia because
to become nice and quiet but that didn’t they could buy a house with vacant posses
come until after the public enquiry... sion in Stoke Newington whereas the most
We moved into this house in January they could hope for in Fulham would be a
1981 . . . at that stage we had one child flat or part-vacant house. Whilst there were
and we had a house where the bath clearly many reasons for why people came
room was in the basement, it was a to the two areas in the first instance, what is
rear extension with the bathroom in equally clear is that when they might have
242 | TIM BUTLER
Table 19.2 Reasons given for buying present property
Reasons fo r buying chosen De Beauvoir N orth Defoe All All

p rop e rty % % % %
Liked the pro p erty 85 77 81 190

Liked the area 45 62 53 125
Price 41 57 49 114
Jo u rn e y to w ork 41 39 40 93
Liked the garden 46 25 36 84
Liked the street 28 35 31 73
Friends in area 18 45 31 72
N eed to b e in area 13 17 15 35
Social mix 8 17 12 28
moved elsewhere they took a very con North Defoe; in part at least this reflects the
scious decision to stay largely because of fact that gardens tended to be large, south
the area. facing and therefore sunny as well as the fact
Not surprisingly, the property itself as that there were few public green spaces. On
well as the area, particularly in the case of the other hand, in North Defoe respondents
houses, was often a major factor in deter gave greater emphasis to communal factors
mining where they bought. Table 19.2 indi such as having friends in the area and lik
cates the mainreasonsgivenbyrespondents ing the street. Area factors and social con
for why they bought their present property: tacts were relatively more important here
The property itself was rated rather than in De Beauvoir where the individual
more important in De Beauvoir than North dwelling was the determining factor. This
Defoe. This is not intended to suggest that was reflected in the stylistic and preserva
people elsewhere buy houses they dislike, tion emphasis on the individual dwelling,
but rather, given the estate agents’ dictum whereas in North Defoe the preservation
that the prime factors are ‘location, loca issues were more general to the area and its
tion and location’, there is an emphasis here attractions were its public spaces.
on the individual house and its attractive One of the reasons that many people
ness—particularly in De Beauvoir. Area and are attracted to inner-city living is that it
price were the next most quoted factors. involves minimal travelling time to work
The fact that the property, the area and the (this is particularly so when both partners
price were the three most quoted factors are working). Although this reason was not
for deciding where to buy is unsurprising. often stated explicitly as a reason for liv
The difference between the two areas is ing in Hackney, it was implicitly one of the
however revealing: in De Beauvoir the indi reasons for living in inner London. Robert
vidual property was quoted more often and and Victoria, for example, had never heard
price and area were given less importance. of De Beauvoir when they started to look at
Respondents were more concerned about houses in London:
the house they bought, whereas in North
Defoe, respondents seemed more inter We were living in Bristol in 1971 and I
ested in the area and in the price. passed an examination with my com
This impression is reinforced by the pany and was invited to work in London;
relative importance of other factors; in De it was promotion-based and that is really
Beauvoir the garden was given as a factor the reason why we are here. Vicky once
by 46 per cent compared to 25 per cent in she learnt that I had been offered work
in London, started to look for work in Robert: I am not really sure that I could
one of the London hospitals and I think echo Vicky’s confidence on that one,
at the time you had hopes of working at because we really didn’t know much
the London Hospital at Whitechapel. I about London at the time.
knew I would be working near St. Paul’s Victoria: I think the Brixton riots were on
so that determined very approximately . . . having said that I was also brought
the part of London that we would start up in Upper Norwood and therefore
looking for a house in. knew quite a bit about where Des Res's
Victoria: And we had also made the very south of the River were and, so that
basic decision that we would not spend irrespective of where the Brixton riots
time or money travelling, that was our were, I don’t think I would ever have
intention. We thought it would be bet had Brixton as a high priority.
ter both from the point of view of the Robert: It was really the house that sold
children as we didn’t want to commute itself to us
. . . you know if you are working 9 to 5 Victoria: It was the hall . . . it may sound
and you have an hour, an hour and a stupid, but we bought the house for the
half’s travelling on top of that you are hall. We realised it needed things doing
out 7.30 to 6.30 and we didn’t want to be to it . . . nobody in their right minds
that far from home with our young kids, would have bought it. . . . if we had
neither did we want to be paying that rejected this one we would have to have
amount of money out so therefore we started from scratch.
were thinking if we had to pay a £1000
more on the mortgage was that better
It is revealing that, in both areas, a rela
than paying a £ 1000 on travel expenses,
tively low importance is given to the social
the home-help and things like that?
mix of the area. This may reflect the differ
We decided ‘no’, we would pay the big
ence between, on the one hand, a general
ger mortgage and pay out the money
statement of ‘ideal preferences’ for living
that way. So there was this dual thing
in a heterogeneous neighbourhood (as
about it and, having made this deci
opposed to a bland single class one) but,
sion that we didn’t want to travel, that
on the other hand, a recognition of the
we were prepared to pay more money
actual reality of living in a socially-mixed
for property... that was the policy deci
neighbourhood (Wright 1985a). This is
sion we took. As Robert said, at the time
expressed by Harriet, in the following
we were looking, I had a firm job offer
terms:
at the London. So quite literally we
drew circles in the map centred on the
London Hospital and where you knew We like the feeling that it is a mixed
your office was going to be. neighbourhood but, if we are truthful,
Robert: By St. Paul’s, and in fact we con we like the feeling that Hackney is a lit
nected them by a straight line and tle further away. . . when you have the
bisected the line north and south of the odd burglars and vandals then you are
River and said something within a three brought up short and think ‘well this is
mile travelling radius. Hackney’. But we do like the feeling that
Victoria: It hit Lambeth, it hit Brixton and this is a very mixed community and
we said that’s not really on and where there are people who have lived here for
do we fancy living ? donkeys’ years and can talk about what
TB: Why weren ‘t they on? it was like forty or fifty years ago.
244 | TIM BUTLER
David, on the other hand, is very clear that and I am sure it does give them some
the social mix in Stoke Newington was one thing whereas it doesn’t for us. We aren’t
of the main reasons why they came to live in having our local Indian neighbours to
Stoke Newington: dinner all the time.
There’s a great social mix here, we’ve There is therefore a gap between senti
got an orthodox Jewish family that side, ment and reality, between the idea of a
an English family two doors down who mixed community and the reality of living
have become great mates. We’ve got a in a deprived inner-city area. For some liv
black family this side who we are very ing in such an area is a positive bonus, for
friendly with and an Anglo-French others it is a nice idea as long as it does
family the other side up there, a New not impinge too closely onto their lives. In
Zealander over there and there’s no ten practice, the experience of social mix and
sion at all in the street. There’s a mixture polarization has not been such a happy
of French, English, Jews, Blacks, Asians one; Patrick Wright (1985a) makes the point
and everyone rubs along very happily that the ‘local colour’ is fine as long as it is
. . . I don’t like to be set in an enclave of properly in its place and non-threatening.
all middle class or all anything because 1 ‘Social mix’ is a code for 'racially mixed’ and
think that as soon as you get all anything this probably underlies the contradiction
the same frictions start, you get the ‘one between fine sentiments and a sense of the
upmanships’, the silly, petty ‘I have got vaguely exotic on the one hand (recall how
to be better than the next door. Olivia used to describe Stoke Newington
as ‘interesting’ to her friends) and the real
Suzanne however, is sceptical about the tensions arising out of material deprivation
attractions of living in a mixed area and and ethnic diversity on the other.
the reasons that are often given for this, The differences between the two areas
although her partner values living in an in terms of where one might want to live
area where people are 'not dissociated’ and were the presence of friends in the area in
where he is not cocooned from deprivation. Defoe and the desire to have a garden in
They were talking about moving to nearer De Beauvoir. Both were statistically signifi
where she works and he objected because cant and they neatly summarize the differ
he likes living in Stoke Newington and, if ence in outlook between the two areas and
they were to move, he would want to find the relative differences in priorities of their
somewhere similar—to which she replied: residents.
The evidence reviewed so far has pointed
I don’t know whether we can find to the factors that respondents gave for why
another mildly decaying, vaguely they ended up in their current home in the
socially mixed area which is not very research areas. Often, the original reason for
pleasant to live in. We have other moving to the area was accidental, or else
friends who live the other side of the economic (‘more house for your money’)
High Street just off Brook Road, and but many of them became attached to the
they are no more social activists than area and stayed there. Their reasons varied
we are but they have three kids who go but can be generalised as a liking for their
to the local schools and they really are home, the area and their social interac
on very good terms with their neigh tions in the area. Two central questions are
bours, or their kids’ neighbours and left about why respondents chose to live
they genuinely do live a very mixed life where they do; firstly why they chose to live
in inner London at all and secondly how think that he finds fifteen minutes driv
much their decisions about where to live ing to work just about all he can cope
was governed by a desire to make money with. We have toyed with the idea as
from their home? we have got richer of the possibility of
The first question is crucial to the thesis, somewhere for the weekends. In fact
but is unfortunately one of the most diffi I think that it was about this time last
cult to answer. This is partly because of the year that we put in an offer on a place
survey design which merely asked if they somewhere in Cambridgeshire which
had considered looking outside London I then vetoed because I could see that
and then only prompted for reasons in my husband was just going to take his
the case of those who had. The dismissive work there every weekend and I would
answers I received to this question rein be packing up the household on Friday
force the data—that most had never seri night and I think we have really put that
ously considered moving out. But for those idea out of our heads.
with children, pondering what to do about
their education, many were considering a Olivia had never considered moving out of
move out of London, as we shall see later. London either and stressed the virtues of
Thirteen percent had considered moving city living—for her, Stoke Newington was
out of London when they were planning the almost rural:
move into their present home (15 per cent
in De Beauvoir and 11 per cent in North Rex’s sister lives in Watford and other
Defoe). Most of those who considered look people we know live in what you know
ing outside London, soon ruled it out for as the commuter belt around London
a combination of reasons such as a hatred and that had never appealed to me. I like
of commuting (26 per cent); both partners living in a city and around here seemed
having a job in London (28 per cent); a need like the inner city, in a way, it did seem
to be near the job (12 per cent); and, 34 like the inner city . . . I had always lived
per cent who just wanted to be in London. for the five or six years previously in the
These figures only relate to those who con centre of London, big streets, traffic . . .
sidered leaving and most of those stressed this was our most rural.
that it was a combination of factors usu
ally involving all of the above reasons. The This was part of the difficulty, most respon
overwhelming majority of people (87 per dents simply had not considered moving
cent) had not considered leaving London, out of London. By virtue of the research
mainly for the above reasons. This comes design, I was interviewing those who had
out clearly in conversation with Harriet: decided to stay. Many of those with young
children were beginning to reconsider the
TB: You asked w ho w ould ever live outside option of moving out of London but, as we
London. D id you ever consider m oving shall see below, many of the same reasons
out o f London altogether? for staying in London were still applicable.
Harriet: We hate suburbia . . . it’s all the In the case of families with young children
same; we have got for example some and both parents working, the need to live
relatives who live in Southgate and we near work was stronger than ever which
get lost every time we go there. We both mitigated against a move out of London.
lived in suburbia for a large chunk of Respondents lived in London both to be
our lives and my husband just wouldn't near work and the cultural facilities of
commute, he would find it intolerable. I London but also, overwhelmingly, because
246 | TIM BUTLER
Table 19.3 Percentage mean gain on current home
Length o f residence House Flat All

DeB ND D bB ND House Flat
Und er a year 15 37 26 26 24 26
1 to 3 years 56 74 60 138 67 99
3 to 5 years 154 159 162 141 156 147
5 to 10 years 186 230 197 - 198 197
they could not envisage living elsewhere: from a flat to a house, or felt impelled to
it was where their friends were and where get into owner-occupation—very few of
they had lived, for the most part, since them mentioned capital accumulation as
leaving university and entering the labour an explicit goal. Most of those who did not
market. already own property felt that they had no
The second issue of capital accumula alternative but to buy. The rise in property
tion is an interesting and complex one. In prices and the way in which the property
the quantitative data less than 10 per cent market in the UK is skewed towards owner-
of respondents said that they had looked occupation, left them feeling that they
at their housing moves mainly in terms of might be condemning themselves to live
capital accumulation; rather more (just in a second class property market for ever
under a third) agreed it was a consider if they did not make the move into owner-
ation, but the majority view was that they occupation. About 80 per cent of the first-
wanted a ‘home’. Nevertheless how much time buyers gave these ‘rational’ economic
their property was worth and how much reasons and 15 per cent said that they
it had appreciated in capital terms since wanted to be able to have more control over
they bought it, was something they were their domestic ‘space’.
all very aware of. The rise in property prices Given the awareness of how property in
had enabled many of them to upgrade their general in Hackney had risen in price over
housing and had given them a capital asset recent years and the alacrity with which
far larger than most of them could ever the majority of respondents could tell you
hope to acquire through saving. At the same what their individual property was worth, I
time many were quite embarrassed about am cautious about accepting at face value
the sums their houses were worth. the claims that their motivations were
Almost everyone stressed their main strictly, or largely, non-financial. Whatever
motivation for moving was because they their expressed views on the subject,
needed a larger house or wanted to move most respondents had made considerable
Table 19.4 London and Hackney price rises for all property1'1
London Hackney
Year £ index £ index
1983 35,860 100 29,888 100

1984 42,629 119 34,049 114
1985 48,880 136 40,465 135
1986 55,999 156 51,357 172
1987 75,501 211 75,055 251
1988 80,827 225 73,175 245
Source: Nationwide Anglia tables supplied to the author.

Financial gains from their homes. The per Owner-occupation and the general
centage gain in table 19.3 was calculated long-term rise in property prices meant
on the basis of what they had paid for the that, when the survey work was being
property, taking into account the amounts undertaken in 1988/9, it w'as largely taken-
that had been spent on improving the for-granted that one makes money out of
property, on the basis of the owner’s cur owrner-occupation. This was distinguished
rent valuation of it. These figures show that from making ‘super profits’ through spec
the capital gains which respondents have ulating on areas that might rise faster than
made from owner-occupation have been property prices in general. Despite what
substantial, far more than they might have they said, my impression is that most
expected from savings out of income. The respondents expected to end up with a
major discrepancy between the two areas is large capital asset and this was seen as one
flats which had been bought between one of the not unimportant consequences of
and three years prior to the survey. During buying a n d d oin g up an old property in an
this period Hat conversions ‘took off’ and area like Hackney. In the interviews some
de facto became the only affordable ‘starter respondents w'ere quite open about this
housing’ and it was this that accounted and it is possible that they were merely
for their spectacular rise in value. On the stating explicitly a point of view that most
whole, such flat conversions were not car of the others held implicitly. Robert and
ried out in De Beauvoir but were more com Victoria were very aware of the potential
mon in North Defoe, which accounts for gains to be made in the London housing
the rather large gains made in flat values in market and this was a reason for their mak
North Defoe. ing the move from Bristol:
The gains are broadly compatible with
those reported by the Nationwide Anglia. We saw the whole move to London as a
Table 19.4 indicates price rises from a 1983 money-making opportunity . . . it was
base of 100 for London as a whole and for a promotion but also if we were going
Hackney: to plough money into the house, then
The figures in table 19.4, are no t weighted w'e saw that the opportunity of living
to take into account different mixes of in London had lots and lots of advan
property but give some guide for purposes tages but one was house prices, that
of comparison. Despite this shortcoming, housing w'as one of the most sensible
the increase in prices for Hackney 1983-86 capital investments that you can make
is broadly similar to that enjoyed by the and therefore that we reckoned that
respondents and is slightly greater than w'e would probably be in London for
the increase for London as a whole. The fifteen to eighteen years but then w'e
national increase between 4th quarter 1983 w'ould move out. Never having actu
and 4th quarter 1988 would have seen the ally saved during that eighteen years
same index standing at 204 (calculated from w'e would have the chance for capi
Nationwide Anglia 1988). Although there is tal accumulation, so again there was
debate about how these gains should be that fairly calculating thing when w'e
calculated,7 there can be little doubt that were looking at house property lists.
as a capital asset domestic property in It had to be convenient, it had to have
Hackney has shown large increases, which minimum travelling times, it had to be
were rather greater than the rise in house the right size—we didn’t plan to move
prices in the rest of London and the country again. Again from the snotty point of
as a whole. view that this time the company would
248 | TIM BUTLER
pay everything and that another time This was a commonly held view, that one’s
we would have to pay it all so we didn’t home was a major asset and that investment
want to move again, having moved and of time and money in it was partly justified
when we sold we wanted to have had on these grounds since many respondents
the opportunity for maximum capital when asked if they had any savings, would
asset. .. point around them and say ‘apart from the
TB: Were you looking therefore fo r a run house, no’. What justified it also in their
down area that was likely to appreciate terms was partly that they might have taken
faster than average ? a risk (as Olivia expressed it ‘put our money
Victoria: No we weren’t that clever, no but on a dud’) but more significantly that they
we certainly looked to buy in at the top had put time and energy into it, thus any
of our price range but at the bottom of capital appreciation was justified (‘earned’)
the range in the area and therefore had and not just the result of idle speculation.
the potential to climb. We certainly This was probably reinforced by the fact
looked for a house that, if we improved that they were doing up an old property
it, would capital appreciate and we to be not just how they wanted it but how
rejected a house that we went to look it ‘ought’ to be which usually equated with
at in Greenwich because the previous how it ‘used’ to be. Aesthetic considerations
owners had done exactly that to it. They meant that any gain should be contextu-
had done it badly, that terrible stuff they alised by having made it look ‘right’.
put on the roof.
Robert: It was quite a clinical operation
because my company allowed me so ‘JUST AS WE WANTED IT’
many days to come and find a place, I The house was covered in Artex when we
could have up to a week’s special leave, bought it and we spent a lot of money doing it
so I took Vicky along to London . . . our up just as we wanted it (Georgina).
search centred around Highbury, this
house here and then we had one in The desire to live in an old house emerges as
Greenwich and one further down south. a powerful reason for living in the inner city;
I know there was a place near Finsbury most of the in-depth interview respondents
Park which we just looked at and ran talked about the significance of ‘oldness’
away from . .. (Wright 1985a; Jager 1986). David owns a
Victoria: We had five or six properties to business which has become increasingly
view of which two were hot favourites, successful over the last few years. He moved
this was one and the one in Greenwich into his present house 3 years ago, having
was the other . . . we didn’t know De previously lived in a modern block of flats in
Beauvoir . . . De Beauvoir was a non the area. Prior to that he and his wife lived in
existent concept. All I can remember Dalston for about five years. Despite having
is having a Bristol estate agent saying enjoyed living in a modern purpose-built
to me ‘Oh, you are not going to ‘Flash flat, he couldn’t stand the idea of living in a
Hack’ are you?’ and someone mak modern house:
ing the comment that N1 put 10 per
cent on the house price—N1 was OK It’s too rigid, there’s something about
and E8 wasn’t; no we certainly weren’t houses whose walls which are off key;
driven by the gentrification of De they are much more human. It's settled,
Beauvoir or De Beauvoir being a lesser it’s been here, things have happened to
Canonbury. this house. The people that were before
us, had this house for twenty five years; sense of meaning both to the locality and
they had a family here and the house to how the individual fits into it.8This feel
reflects that. It was a happy family, I think ing was strong in both De Beauvoir and
that’s very important. It’s all very mysti North Defoe; what matters is how the area
cal and hard to prove but I can walk into ‘feels’ and how their house ‘looks’, and
a house and some houses I have been this has some bearing on self-image (‘you
into on this street and I wouldn’t buy. It are what you see’—Thrift 1989) and how
can be identical but it doesn’t feel right. ‘people like us’ live in the inner city doing
I knew I was taking on various problems up an old house (Jager 1986; Wright 1985a;
here that were going to cost money but it Zukin 1988). Unsurprisingly, respondents
didn’t bother me and there is something were not only keen supporters of conserva
about the feel of this house that I had an tion and preservation movements in their
empathy with and that’s w'hy I bought it. areas but also had invested considerable
There’s something my lawyer does not amounts of time, thought and money in
understand about me; when we bought their homes.
this house he did the conveyancing for
me and he said ‘you’ve got to sell it, you’ve People like us live in the inner London
got to sell it straight away’ because he suburbs really . . . We wanted to live
thought I had got a very good price and somewhere that was mixed and various
he thought I could sell it immediately and vibrant; full of young middle class
and make a large profit and buy some people doing places up.
where nicer. He has known me for fifteen
years and he still doesn’t understand the ‘Doing it up’ was therefore a major activity.
way that Ruth and I operate. I have a lot Sixty four percent of respondents in both
of friends who live in areas like Battersea, areas had undertaken significant improve
De Beauvoir and even Islington and even ments.9Table 19.5 indicates the main kinds
though there’s a slump in property all of improvements that had been under
they talk about is the price of their prop taken. A wide range of improvements have
erty and how much it’s worth. Round here been carried out. What is particularly inter
it doesn’t really happen. Property in this esting is that a relatively small proportion
street doesn’t move very often. We are the were functionally or structurally necessary.
newcomers we’ve been here three and a Only 19 per cent of respondents had con
half years, Richard’s been here twenty ditions attached to their mortgage offer
five, the people two doors up moved in requiring them to carry out improvements
just before us; Nigel and Francois have and less than half of these had part of the
been here fourteen years, the woman advance retained until they had carried
the other side of the road, she’s been here out the work to the mortgage lender’s sat
just over seventy six years. It’s unusual in isfaction. ‘Retentions’10were three times as
that respect. frequent in North Defoe as De Beauvoir (13
per cent against 4 per cent), although this
David was at pains to stress how much the was partly compensated by a larger num
social relations of the area meant to him, ber in De Beauvoir who were required to
how important it was that the house had make improvements although no money
a history and how little he was concerned was retained. Three-quarters of those living
about making money out of it. Architecture, in houses had undertaken improvements
the layout of the streets and houses, and compared to only a third of those living in
‘ambience’ combine, as it were, to give a flats.
250 I TIM BUTLER
Table 19.5 Improvements
Nature o f im provem ent De Beauvoir North Defoe Total Total

% % % no.
Redecoration throughout 43 36 39 95
N ew kitchen 43 35 39 94
New bathroom 39 37 38 92
O ther major im provements 34 37 36 86
Damp & w oo d treatment 26 36 31 74
Installing central heating 25 34 29 71
New/major repair to roof 30 26 28 68
Major structural w ork 25 26 25 61
Rewiring 22 25 24 57
On the whole therefore, the houses/flats Whilst there was clearly a high degree
beingboughtwerein reasonably good struc of involvement, time and ‘personal capi
tural condition. An ‘index of improvement’ tal’ invested in doing up the home, rela
w'as constructed on the basis of the num tively few respondents had done much
ber of improvements undertaken by each of the w'ork themselves in any real sense.
respondent. Approximately 10 per cent of Pahl (1984) has suggested, on the basis of
respondents had almost totally‘gutted’ and his intensive study of working-class hom
rebuilt their property, a further third had eowners in the Isle of Sheppey that ‘domes
carried out more than five of the improve tic self provisioning’ is an important aspect
ments (as itemized in Table 19.5) and about of homeownership. By this he refers to the
a third had done nothing significant to use of domestic labour to carry out tasks
the property since buying it. Nearly twice that are otherwise paid for. In particular,
as many people in De Beauvoir had com he refers to the widespread occurrence of
pletely ‘redone’ their property compared to ‘DIY’ in home improvement. This, in his
North Defoe, although the rate of mortgage account, is a major source of capital accu
retention suggested that property there mulation and is a point echoed elsewhere
w'as in better structural condition. Despite by Saunders (1990); “sweat equity’ (i.e. the
this, considerable sums of money had been use of one’s owti labour power) is seen as a
expended on improvements. route to capital accumulation which would
Sixty four percent of those who had not normally be possible via the capitalist
made improvements in De Beauvoir had labour market.
spent more than £10,000 compared to 38 Very few respondents used their own
per cent in North Defoe. Twenty percent in ‘sweat equity’ to increase the capital value
De Beauvoir had spent more than £30,000. of their home. Just over a quarter claimed
The amount spent also varied according to they had undertaken the work ora large part
the type of building they lived in, with over of it themselves. The figures are somewhat
90 per cent of those living in flats having misleading because they include those
spent less than £ 10,000 compared to 60 per who basically managed the operation and
cent of those living in houses having spent co-ordinated the work of tradesmen carry
more than £10,000. This is hardly surpris ing out specific tasks. Of those who claimed
ing but it does point once more to the large to carry out the w'ork themselves, most of
sums being spent by respondents who lived these were in North Defoe who were largely
in houses. driven by economic necessity. This group
C O N S U M P TIO N AND C U L T U R E |
Table 19.6 Reasons for doing improvements
Reasons fo r doing im provem ents De Beauvoir N orth Defoe All

% % %
Im proving the attractiveness 61 47 54

M aintaining the structure 38 49 44
P roviding m ore living sp a ce 21 17 19
Fulfilling m ortgage requirem ents 14 17 15
A d d in g to the capital value 14 9 11
was less than 10 per cent of those under modernistic, nature of many of the internal
taking improvements; very few people improvements. There is though a signifi
had done the work themselves either from cance to the changes that are made to the
financial necessity or for the self-satisfac- ‘functional’ areas of the house, notably the
tion. kitchen and the bathroom where the style is
One hundred and forty seven respon often modern and functional, which com
dents had undertaken improvements but pares with those that are carried out in the
only 41 people had borrowed money to pay ‘living areas’ where great effort was often
for them. In both areas large amounts of expended on re-installing fireplaces, sash
money had been spent on improvements, windows and elaborate plaster work.
many of which appeared to be paid for with Firstly, respondents valued the labour-
out recourse to borrowing. This might sug saving efficiencies in well-designed mod
gest this was money that might otherwise ern kitchens as well as appreciating the
have been invested. The key question then ergonomics and functionality inherent in
is why did they spend so much money and much contemporary design. Secondly, it
time on carrying out the improvements, is meant as an indication of their histori
especially when not forced to by mortgage cal and stylistic sensitivity that they can
lender? When respondents were asked why blend the historical and contemporary.
they had carried out improvements, nearly Thirdly, it also reflects the contradictory
three quarters said to 'make it generally nature of the middle class as a modern (or
more habitable’. Their specific responses post-modern) class, but one whose sense
are given in table 19.6. Aesthetics and a of identity is partly drawn from the sym
sense of style come through as important bols of the past—they may work in the most
reasons for carrying out improvements, modern sectors of the economy yet they
particularly in De Beauvoir. Nevertheless seek to give some meaning to their lives
we have seen the most frequent kind of through the consumption of symbols of a
work was complete redecoration and the bygone age (Thrift 1989). The juxtaposition
installation of new bathrooms and kitch of functionality and style both between the
ens, which might be seen both as functional interior and the exterior but also within the
and as having little to do with the house’s interior reflects the contradiction within
historical appeal. This apparent contradic the middle class between the role they play
tion has been noted elsewhere in the gentri in the economy and how they might wish to
fication literature; Moore (1982) and Jager be regarded socially.
(1986) have both noted an emphasis being This is not to suggest that many of the
placed on the ‘period’ nature of the dwell improvements were not to secure the
ing from the outside which is often in direct structural integrity of the property; but
contrast with the modern, and sometimes all of the respondents quoted so far have
252 I TIM BUTLER
stressed that what they were attracted to come and look at it and admire and that
was the architectural and lifestyle features I find really weird.
of old houses and, to some extent, this may
resolve the connection between capital Doing up old houses is perhaps a ‘task’
accumulation and the attraction of ‘old but it is one which legitimates both mak
ness’. For Georgina, one of the attractions of ing money and making it comfortable and
De Beauvoir/Islington is the housing style, attractive.
although she throws an interesting angle on Whilst respondents clearly wished to live
the question of houses both as a source of in houses that were attractive and comfort
capital accumulation and as an aesthetic able to them, they wished to maximise the
object to be lived in and admired: capital value of them. As Zukin has demon
strated artistic and cultural values can be a
Another interesting thing is why this useful smokescreen for more blatant finan
generation of mine is so fascinated by cial motives (Zukin 1988). Whilst housing
its original features and doing up old is clearly the best investment most people
houses: I suppose it’s a kind of post are able to make, it has to be seen as a by
modernism really a kind of rejection product of something that is essentially a
of the new. In the culture that I grew use-value (i.e. a place to live). Many of the
up in East London, people were doing advantages of property ownership stem
it all the time [doing up houses]; you from this (for example, tax relief on mort
can’t restore a house in the suburbs gage payments and exemption from capital
in the sense that we can, like put in a gains tax on sale) which is an encourage
marble fireplace like the one that was ment to maintain the concept of housing
here originally but you can do them as primarily a use-value. Improvements
up. My parents spent the whole of my should be regarded in this light both as
childhood doing up houses and sell something intensely personal but also as
ing them. Simon’s parents even more a task or duty. Thus if capital appreciation
in the country did up houses, in their accrues it is something that can be justi
case old houses in the country and fied both in terms of not only the physical
sold them. And that’s how they made labour but also the conceptual labour that
their money, they have never been rich was involved as well as perhaps the risks
but they made far more money from of putting money into gentrified property.
that than they ever made from Simon’s Thus style is the medium by which a class
father’s job. So for our generation, I that doesn’t like to talk about money in too
think we have grown up with this sense personal terms is able to justify the capital
that property is a kind of task really and appreciation it has made.
a way to make money just as important Once again however, individual accounts
as doing a job in a sense. I think there point to a more sophisticated understand
is also an element of fashion, I find it ing of why people like their homes and why
vaguely absurd sometimes all these they have spent so much time, energy and
young people doing up Victorian slums money on doing them up:
so that they look like the next Victorian
slum, with our mahogany loo seats— I would hate to have a [modern]
we are not buying any more because Georgian town-house; I could never
of the rain forests. This kind of obses see myself living in that sort of thing
sion in getting your house to look like because it was something that was
it should is just so that other people can imposed upon me, there’s something
about [a north London terrace] that ‘PEOPLE LIKE US’

was here before me. There’s something When you see an old middle-class couple,
about the way it’s laid out and the way you know it’s som eone’s parents visiting them
it’s built that I find empathetic, I don’t (Olivia).
find empathetic the imposition of
Barratt’s ‘Georgian style’ on me. Why The remarkable homogeneity of respon
can’t they just build something new that dents as an age group, clustered tightly in
is designed, why are they harking back? their late twenties through to their early for
If it’s so good, I’ll go and get another ties, is striking. The comment above how
one. This one was a risk, we originally ever also gives an indication of the sense
moved in and it was ‘artexed’ all over; of exclusiveness felt by respondents who,
the original doors had gone off here despite the fact they are a minority group
(between the fron t an d rear living rooms and talk (in abstract terms at least) about
TB) and I can’t find any to put back on liking social mix, are largely ‘blind’ to other
and there’s a ‘Georgian door’ on the social groups. They do not know them,
front which is a good six inches shorter don’t interact with them and tend to forget
than it should be and there were certain they exist: ‘It seems almost over-populated
abominations here but I liked the style with people with young kids; if you go the
of the houses and what I would like Park its almost a nightmare of clonedom.
to do is put back into it some of what Clissold Park used to consist of all sorts of
was missing. I know it’s silly but there’s people from different cultures and commu
some horrible bubble glass over the nities now it is all people like us’. Of course
front door, that’s coming out tomorrow. it isn’t; as has been demonstrated, many of
Ruth’s found a glass engraver around the middle class do not have children and
the corner that has just made some many of the non-middle-class majority do
plain engraved glass, cut out in the mid still use the Park. Olivia however, tends to
dle with thirty five which is the number; see only people like herself, when she has
it’s very plain, it’s not original but it will kids others like her have kids and they have
fit and it will look nicer than what was a tendency to make themselves highly vis
there. I can’t see myself imposing or fit ible, so she only sees ‘clones' of herself
ting together with a brand new house in when she takes her children to the Park.
the same way. It’s not just that her vision is selective but,
as Dickens (1988) points out, the middle
Part of the attraction of living in an old classes are remarkably successful in casting
house in an old area is that you can restore ‘civil society’ in their own image.
and improve the property, thus guaran This is partly, of course, a result of mid
teeing some capital appreciation whilst dle-class spending power and the changes
appearing to be altruistically loyal to a that have taken place in Stoke Newington
sense of historical and stylistic preserva Church Street are witness to this—the
tion and conservation. It is perhaps this estate agents, restaurants, women’s gyms,
professed innocence of economic self- delicatessens, art shops and so on. It is
interest yet acute awareness of the eco however more than this, it is about its abil
nomic worth of all that one does, which ity to impose itself and its values on an area.
typifies the urban middle class and distin Therefore, whilst Olivia’s view of who is hav
guishes it from the vulgarities of suburban ing children is clearly coloured by her own
life where the value of everything is written situation, it is nevertheless true that she and
on a brand new price tag. her kind have largely taken over the Park at
254 I TIM BUTLER
certain times of day—lunch time and late Most of these people just happened to
afternoon—and one might be forgiven for have moved here and for that reason
thinking that this was any middle-class others of us have arrived.
suburb. It is also, as she points out, true that
increasingly her friendship circle is com This reinforces the point made earlier,
prised of people with children. which is that people often moved into the
As we have seen, it is important to Olivia area by accident in the first place, but they
that it isn’t a middle-class suburb but, have subsequently stayed and friendships
equally, she is sceptical about those who have often been an important reason for
think they ‘live the social mix’ -including staying. Many people, both in the original
her partner who worked for many years at interviews and the subsequent in-depth
a local ‘community’ venture: ‘Rex thought interviews, stressed that they preferred to
he interacted with others; his organization live somewhere where they were on good
originally thought it was serving the needs terms with their neighbours and knew peo
of a mixed population but actually they had ple in the area but at the same time were
to realise that this was not their audience. left alone. For the most part however, their
They did much better when they realised real friends lived in similar areas elsewhere
who it was: middle-class people aged in inner London. David puts it likes this:
between 20 and 40’. ‘People don’t turn a blind eye in this street,
De Beauvoir and, more recently, Stoke but they don’t get involved in your day to
Newington have become established as day business; it’s a nice balance’. They want
middle-class enclaves and the middle class a degree of social closeness without physi
are an important part of the local struc cally being too close; this is the attraction of
ture, not least as consumers. It is precisely living in a multi-class area where immediate
because both North Defoe and De Beauvoir neighbours are often not likely to be people
have become gentrified areas, where other they will have too much in common with.12
people like themselves live, that respon Mick was, until relatively recently, heav
dents continue to be attracted to living ily involved in local political activity as
there. was his partner. Although he is now more
Olivia originally moved into the area for settled into a domestic routine and works
accidental reasons and most of her friends from home, their friends still stem largely
lived elsewhere. Now, as she has said, from their days of political activity and live
many of her friends live in the area and if in other similar inner-city areas:
they moved away she would ‘be in a bit of
a crisis’. Suzanne, on the other hand, has If you are interested in political activ
almost no contact with her neighbours and ity there is far more of it in the inner
little time for the attractions" of living in a city than elsewhere, than Enfield for
socially mixed area: example. I don’t think there’s anything
that would have attracted us to mov
Living in comparative opulence next ing out of the centre of London except
door to people living in comparative that possibly one might have been able
poverty, [it] just makes me feel guiltily to find somewhere to live more cheaply
uncomfortable rather than wonderfully but there was the whole question of
identified. A lot of people that I have, our friends and our social network. You
by and large, long term contacts with could actually get to see people with
live within a mile but they are contacts out making gargantuan journeys and
made at university or subsequently. so we wanted to stay within shouting
distance of most of our friends, a lot of our friendships have changed. We tend
whom were Hackney or Islington based to be more involved in people in the
and those who weren’t who we knew area with children who we see whereas
through work or the union, they almost in the old days we were more involved
all lived in the inner city in one way or with people who were very active in
another be it in Wandsworth or wher putting through the road closures. This
ever, but it was possible to meet them may change again if we have a fight on
for a drink or whatever without too our hands for more roads.
much difficulty. I think we would have A lot of the people we now know
been very much deterred by that aspect who have got children came in later
of it together with not only the practical than that earlier wave. The people we
feeling that we were cutting ourselves were friendly with are now quite elderly
off from our friends but also the feeling and one or two have now moved out
that there’s a ‘living death’ out there. of London and others have got quite
Friends tend not to live in the area but grown up children who we are now
we have a lot of friends we have made using for baby-sitting but I suppose the
who live here, either because they are friends of ours who have got children in
our neighbours; it’s quite a neighbourly the area are not our original contacts.
area and working at home is a good way If we see people at the weekends,
to get to know the neighbours because it’s more seeing the people who are the
you are always on the street. Or people middle-class professional people, the
we know through political activities arty people or whatever you like to call
since we have been here, although nei them—the poets and journalists of the
ther of us is now as politically active as neighbourhood.
we have been and through the nurser
ies. The nurseries generate quite a pow The interview data therefore suggest that
erful nexus. interactions with similar people, ‘people
We have got to knowa few people from like us’, who are assumed to live in the
the nursery and those that we have got inner city is a strong reason for living in De
to know adult to adult is through enjoy Beauvoir and North Defoe. This is gener
ment of each other’s company but there ally supported by the quantitative data on
are more people who we know one way how people spend their leisure time which,
or another because they have their chil given the high level of economic activity, is
dren at the nursery and who we have the only real time that most respondents
got to know because they are involved are in the area.13 Table 19.7 gives the data
in nursery politics. for how respondents defined their major
leisure activity:
In De Beauvoir there is even greater inter The main problem with this data is that
action through the children and child-care in reality most people undertook a range
networks and parents have often got to of activities and this does not appear in
know each other through the ‘nanny net the responses. One fifth of respondents
work’: in both areas gave their main activity as
‘socializing’ which reinforces the argu
We have made masses of friends, ment advanced above that a major reason
though in the last few years since the for living in inner London is largely social.
De Beauvoir Association hasn’t really It suggests that the existence of other such
had anything to do we have found that people with whom they spend significant
256 | TIM BUTLER
Table 19.7 Respondents' major leisure activity
M ain leisure activity De Beauvoir N orth Defoe Total

% % %
H om e centred 31 27 30
Socialising 19 20 20
O ther 20 18 19
Reading 12 17 14
M usic 14 6 10
Relaxing 4 12 8
Table 19.8 Fre que ncy o f ‘going out'
Frequency o f going out De Beauvoir N orth Defoe Total

% % %
M ore than tw ice a w eek 37 50 43

T w ic e a w eek 29 16 24
O n c e a w eek 19 15 17
L e ss than o n c e a w eek 15 19 17
Table 19.9 F re q u e n cy of 'going o u t’ controlling for children
Frequency o f going o u t R espondents w ith Respondents w ithout

‘co n tro lle d ’ b y children children children
% %
M ore than tw ice a w e ek 19 60
Tw ic e a w eek 20 25
O n c e a w e ek 26 11
L e ss than o n ce a w eek 34 4
Total 100 100
amounts of time, even if they do not live in having children has more effect on pat
the immediate area, is important to them, terns of socialization in North Defoe than
in other words networks are an important in De Beauvoir. Those without children in
fact of life. Respondents were also asked North Defoe tended to go out more often
how often they ‘went out’ i.e. spent time out and those with children less often than
of their home in non-work time. respondents in De Beauvoir. This is possi
In North Defoe half of all respondents bly accounted for by relative differences in
went out more than twice a week. The varia wealth; respondents in De Beauvoir were
tion in how often people went out is largely more likely to have a nanny or to be able to
accounted for by whether or not they had afford to hire a baby-sitter.
children. The same influence of children in the
Table 19.9 illustrates this very clearly household can be seen on the kinds of lei
and demonstrates how the presence of sure activities undertaken by respondents:
children had a very significant impact on The presence of children in the house
how ‘hom e-centred’ respondents were. hold appears to have a major impact
There was an area difference here with on the kind of leisure activities; those
some evidence for the suggestion that with children being mainly involved in
CONSUM PTION AND C ULTUR E | 257
Table 19.10 Respondents’ major leisure activity
Main leisure activity Respondents with Respondents without

children children
% %
Hom e centred 42 20
Socialising 10 27
Other 15 22
Reading 18 12
Music 11 10
Relaxing 6 9
Total 100 100
n = 103 n = 141
home-centred activities, especially if read because a third of those with children in De

ing is included, whilst those without chil Beauvoir ate out at least once a week com
dren are more likely to socialize. pared to only 14 per cent in North Defoe,
The benefits for the latter group of the whilst 30 per cent ate out 'rarely’ compared
inner city are perhaps obvious, the pres to 52 per cent in North Defoe. This sug
ence of like-minded people and, crucially, gests that having children is having more
places to eat. Most respondents ate out of an effect on respondents in North Defoe,
frequently and this appears to have been a partly perhaps for financial reasons but also
major form of socialising. Eating out may because their children tend to be younger,
appear a somewhat odd indicator of social Nevertheless despite the differences, eating
behaviour, but it is an important focus of out is clearly a significant part of the culture
social interaction amongst the middle class of most respondents, nearly two thirds of
and is also dependent on the availability of all respondents ate out at least once a fort
suitable reasonably cheap and convivial night.
eating places. Both Stoke Newington and Respondents were asked how often they
Islington abound in such restaurants. made use of central London facilities for
Forty five percent of respondents ate out film, theatre and art:15
at least once a week; more people tended to A larger number of respondents in De
eat out in North Defoe than in De Beauvoir Beauvoir used such facilities, particu
and this is partly a function of the area14 larly the ‘higher’ art forms of art galleries
but mainly of whether they had children and theatre. Even the cinema often meant
(table 19.11). The differences between the specialist cinemas such as the National
two groups of respondents are revealing Film Theatre on the South Bank. Roger for
Table 19.11 Frequency of eating out controlling for children
Frequency o f eating out Respondents with Respondents w ithout

'controlled' for children children children
% %
At least weekly 25 59
Fortnightly 16 19
Monthly 18 15
Rarely 40 7
Total 100 100
n = 104 n-141
258 | TIM BUTLER
Table 19.12 Use of cultural facilities
Facility regularly visited De Beauvoir North Defoe All

% % %
Cinema 60 54 55
Theatre 53 31 42
Art gallery 39 26 33
example quoted the easy accessibility of the All this is not to suggest that respondents
NFT from their De Beauvoir home as a posi did not feel the strains of living in the inner
tive benefit of living there: city; Flarriet’s comment about how the ‘dirt
of London rarely got to [her] ’ is probably the
I am a member of the NFT, we go exception to the rule.16
there regularly, we go to the Festival For many of the respondents the cultural
Hall regularly; we have these manic facilities of the centre were important, for
drives, it’s about 15 to 20 minutes to the others the ability to socialize with friends
South Bank and we reckon on going to was important and a third group were
quite a lot of concerts and so on, films home-centred. It might be argued that the
and theatre but theatre less so at the last group gained least benefit from inner-
moment. city living but since this was the group that
was most likely to have children with both
Harriet also talked about the importance of parents at work, the benefits of the inner
theatre: city have already been discussed. Moreover,
as we have seen one of the attractions of
inner-city areas is that of buying old hous
The amenities of London are one of the
ing and restoring it. The data can be mis
main attractions [o f living in London],
leading since my impression is that most
theatres are in easy reach. We can go to
respondents actually divided their leisure
the Barbican for a concert and be home
time across a range of activities and that the
seven minutes after the end of the show
figures quoted here are only for the most
. . . w e do regularly, even to the point
salient. Thus, being able to socialize with a
where one evening my husband was
wide range of long-standing friends from a
bored in the middle of ‘Three Sisters’
similar background and being able to make
and came home and did some w'ork and
use of the facilities provided by London
met me at the end of the show. We do
were both important concomitants of liv
make good use of what London has to
ing in a gentrified area. [.. .1
offer from that point of view and for the
children too. For example in the school
holidays there’s masses on, the Barbican NOTES
library has activities, there’s a Barbican 1. The proposals to drive a north London relief road
children’s cinema club. There are things through the Square looked like reviving it.
on at the Geffrye Museum which we take 2. It might also be quite simply that older work
ing-class residents have relatives buried in the
the children to, there’s very good leisure
cemetery and thus want to see their loved ones
centres within easy reach and for adults remembered in a more dignified and appropriate
there’sswimmingpoolsaround, all those setting. Very few, if any, of the younger middle-
sorts of amenities. class are or will be in a similar situation.
CO N SUM PTIO N AND CU LTU RE | 259
3. Respondents were not prompted and they could 13. Most women with children work, so it is only
give more than one reason, the figures thus indi those who work at home who are likely to be
cate the various reasons cited. around during the weekdays.
4. Approximately two thirds were existing owner 14 In North Defoe there are a large number of
occupiers (see table 5.3). cheap restaurants on Stoke Newington Church
5. Interestingly, in view of the recent interest in Street within easy walking distance, whereas in
owner occupation, many respondents went De Beauvoir it is necessary to drive to Islington
out of their way to say that they felt little inher where there is a wide range of restaurants but
ent desire to own property but rather that the which tend to be more expensive and require
consequences of not owning were too awful to booking. In other words, one can eat out cheaply
contemplate, given the nature of the non-owned and on impulse in North Defoe but this is not so
property market in the UK. See Saunders (1990) easy in De Beauvoir.
for a discussion of his concept of owner occupa 15 With hindsight, there should have been a ques
tion as a ‘natural desire'. tion about live music.
6. There was not in fact a decline in prices in 1988 in 16 Approximately one third of respondents had
Hackney This figure arose form the change in the taken three or more holidays in the previous year.
mix of properties to which the Nationwide Anglia The number of holidays was high and, it might be
made advances: there was a general increase in assumed, was a central ‘coping strategy’ for deal
advances but particularly of flats and this served to ing with the stresses of inner city living.
lower the overall average although terraced houses
actually increased from 242 in 1987 to 289 in 1988.
7. For a discussion see Saunders (1990).
R EFEREN CES
8. Castells (1983) introduces the concept o f‘urban
meaning’ which relates social and built forms of Castells, M. (1983), The City and the Grassroots,
the urban. Whether there is any basis in reality University of California Press, Berkeley and Los
for the distinctions that are drawn, for example, Angeles.
between liberal North London gentrification and Cybriwsky, R., D. Ley, and J. Western, (1986), The politi
the more yuppie and conservative areas to the cal and social reconstruction of revitalized neigh
South and West, such as Battersea and Fulham, is borhoods: Society Hill, Philadelphia, and False
an unresearched question. Creek, Vancouver, in Gentrification o f the City, N.
9. ‘Improvements’ were defined as being more than Smith, and P. Williams (eds.), pp. 92-120, Allen and
routine maintenance or small-scale redecora Unwin, London.
tion. Dickens, P. (1988), One Nation, Pluto, London.
10. This refers to the practice whereby mortgage [Hamnett, C. (1973), Improvement grants as an indi
lenders retain part of the advance until an agreed cation of gentrification in inner London, Area, vol.
programme of repairs and renovations has been 4(4), pp. 252-61.]
carried out. Jager, M. (1986), Class definition and the aesthet
11. ‘Just the immediate look makes you think ics of gentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne, in
of 1950 and after the war, respectability and Gentrification o f the City, N. Smith and P. Williams
ghastly rigid stuffiness, lack of horizons and so (eds.), pp. 78-91, Allen and Unwin, London.
on. The people who live there aren't like that at Kasinitz, P. (1988), The gentrification of'Boerum Hill’:
all, but then we turn to who does live there and neighbourhood change and conflicts over defini
I feel horribly identified with the joke cliché and tions, Qualitative Sociology, vol. 11, pp. 161-82.
I would rather live somewhere that was just Moore, P. (1982), Gentrification and the residential
much more intensely urban like Clerkenwell geography of the new class, unpublished paper
. . . not to go for really posh places as that’s not available from Scarborough College, University o f
really it, somewhere older... that has got romance Toronto.
and if I look at the streets I think they are beauti Pahl, R. (1984), Divisions o f Labour, Blackwell, Oxford.
ful, if they are not awful, and don’t have the leaden ----- (1989), Is the emperor naked? Some questions on
respectability bit that the houses here represent the adequacy of sociological theory in urban and
even if that’s not what’s going on.’ (Suzanne) regional research, International Journal o f Urban
12. This is reminiscent of Richard North’s rather and Regional Research, vol. 13, pp. 709-20.
sharp characterization in The Independent of Saunders, P. (1990), A Na tion o f Homeowners, Unwin
Stoke Newington being populated by ‘Drabbies’ Hyman, London.
who mind everyone’s business in theory but ‘don’t Thrift, N. (1987), Introduction: the geography of late
speak to their neighbours’. twentieth-century class formation, in Class and
260 I TIM BUTLER
Space, N. Thrift and P. Williams (eds.), Routledge Wright, P. (1985a), On Living in an Old Country: The
and Kegan Paul, London. National Past in Contemporary Britain, Verso,
----- (1989), Images of social change, in C. Hamnett, London.
L. McDowell and P. Sarre (eds.), Sage, London, pp. ----- (1985c), Ideal homes, New Socialist, No 31, pp.
12-42. 16-19.
Wiener, M. (1985), English Culture and the Decline o f Zukin, S. (1988), Loft Living: Culture and Capital in
the Industrial Spirit 1850-1980, Penguin Books, Urban Change, Radius, London.
Harmondsworth.
CHAPTER 20
Social Preservationists and the Quest for

Authentic Community
There is an ethic and set of practices, less educated and affluent. Furthermore,
unnamed and little noticed, that shape adherence to the ideology of social preser
both urban and rural communities. I call vation is fluid—some who practice social
this ethic and set of practices social preser preservation become gentrifiers (and vice
vation; the culturally motivated choice of versa)—and, ironically, the methods of
certain people, who tend to be highly edu social preservation and their practitioners
cated and residentially mobile, to live in the may serve as (unintentional) conduits for
central city or small town in order to live in neighborhood reinvestment. Nonetheless,
authentic social space, embodied by the there is an important distinction between
sustained presence of “original” residents.' the ideologies of gentrification and social
Like environmentalists who seek to pre preservation: while gentrification is an
serve the natural environment, social pres investment in the social, economic, and
ervationists work to preserve the space they cultural future of space, social preservation
have entered. Social preservationists com is an investment of economic, political,
bine the ideology of social preservation—a and cultural resources in the past and pres
set of values that demand the presence of ent social attributes of a place. Gentrifiers
old-timers—with practice: they engage seek to tame the “frontier,” while social
in efforts to prevent the displacement of preservationists work to preserve the
old-timers in their area, despite acknowl wilderness, including its inhabitants,
edging the disruption caused by their own despite their own ability to invest in and
in-migration.2 This concern for the sus benefit from “improvements” or revitaliza
tained presence of old-timers is rooted in a tion.
combination of altruistic concern for those Many people may agree with or express
threatened by displacement and taste for the ideology of social preservation even
an “authentic” version of community pred though they do not relocate to live beside
icated on the struggle of marginalized old- old-timers or fail to put the ideology to
timers. practical use. There may be gentrifiers and
Sociologists have failed to differentiate real estate agents who have a taste for cul
social preservation from gentrification, tural difference, diversity, or “the cultural
perhaps because both involve partici practices of the categorical ‘other’ ” (Mele,
pants with similar demographic attributes 2000, p. 4). However, there is an impor
who move to areas populated by those tant difference between the symbolic
262 | JAP O N IC A BROW N-SARACINO
consumption of diversity that other authors demonstrated that the attitudes and behav
have noted and social preservation.' ior of newcomers I identified in my pilot
Social preservationists enact their appre study were not limited to changing rural
ciation and consumption of difference communities; the patterns I had first noted
through practices intended to preserve in Leyden were present in all four sites. I
that difference. Such practices are particu came to call this unexpected orientation
larly salient given social preservationists’ “social preservation,” an ethic and set of
self-reflexive pose: an awareness of their practices that seemed quite different from
impact on their surroundings, a sophisti those of gentrifiers. That is, I came to see
cated understanding of political economy, that social preservationists are not merely a
and a concern that symbolic preservation variant of gentrifiers but an entirely differ
could cause the social displacement of old- ent “species.”
timers. The sites do not constitute a random
This article, based on a study of four sample, but they do provide valuable sets
communities where social preservation of variations and comparisons (in terms of
takes place, two small Massachusetts towns population characteristics, political econ
and two Chicago neighborhoods, describes omy, and geographical location). The sites
and analyzes the ethic and practice of social are equally divided between the small town
preservation.' I begin with a review of my and the urban neighborhood. The sites are
research methods, followed by an examina as follows.
tion of the literature on gentrification and
a discussion of the similarities and differ • Leyden, Massachusetts, a town of
ences between gentrification and social approximately 700 residents near the
preservation. Massachusetts/Vermont border. Over
the course of the last half-century, the
town changed from a remote dairy
METHODS
farming community to a bedroom vil
This project began as a comparative study lage, from which most residents com
of gentrifying, or gentrified, urban and mute to work. Newcomers include
rural communities. A pilot study of Leyden, organic farmers, artists, and writers,
Massachusetts,5 a rural village, indicated but most are professionals who com
subtle but striking discontinuities between mute to work in neighboring towns.
the disposition of rural “gentrifiers” and the • Provincetown, Massachusetts, an iso
literature’s description of their urban coun lated beach community on the east
terparts.6 To discern between urban and ernmost tip of Cape Cod. Traditionally
rural gentrification, I selected four research a Portuguese fishing village, over the
sites, two urban neighborhoods and two past century Provincetown has become
small towns, because of demographic a renowned home and vacation desti
changes in them over the past decade nation for artists and writers, as well as
that indicated gentrification, such as gays and lesbians. The population var
significant population change, rising ies throughout the year from approxi
property values, and the formation or mately 3,400 (in the winter) to 50,000
dissolution of identity groups. I sought (on busy summer day).
communities that were similar in the • Chicago’s Andersonville neighborhood
aforementioned ways, but that remained was a stopping point for Swedish immi
geographically and demographically dis grants in the 19th and early 20th cen
tinct from one another.7 My early findings turies. In recent decades it has become
SOCIAL PRESERVATIONISTS AND THE Q U ES T FOR A U TH EN TIC COM M UNITY | 263
a popular neighborhood for women, DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

especially lesbians, and is an increas GENTRIFICATION AND SOCIAL
ingly trendy place of residence for PRESERVATION
young and middle-age professionals—
For the past 25 years, sociologists, urban
both single and coupled heterosexuals
planners, andpolicymakershavepaidmuch
and gay men.
attention to gentrification, the movement
• For much of the 20th century, Chicago’s
of young, affluent professionals into the
Argyle neighborhood, only a few blocks
central city in search of affordable housing
from Andersonville, was home to a
in close proximity to employment oppor
large population of Jews and working-
tunities. In the last century, gentrification
class natives of Appalachia. Since the
began as baby-boomers sought affordable
Vietnam War era, many Asian immi
homes during a housing crunch induced
grants have established residence in
by the sheer size of the generation (Long,
Argyle. Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese,
1980, p. 66)."' At the same time, changes
Cambodian, and Laotian establish
in the national economy after World War
ments dominate the neighborhood’s
II offered both companies and individual
main commercial street. In recent
professionals greater flexibility in their
years, young, white professionals have
locations, opening the inner city and small
moved to Argyle.3
town to industry and an expanding service
Through a snowball sample, beginning sector (Spain, 1993, pp. 157-158). Urban
with community leaders and activists, I "boosters” with an interest in the economic
interviewed 82 individuals: 29 residents of revitalization of the central city, such as
Provincetown, Massachusetts, 20 residents businesses, the media, politicians, univer
of Leyden, Massachusetts, 17 residents of sities, and cultural institutions, encouraged
Chicago’s Argyle neighborhood, and 16 of the return of white professionals to urban
the Andersonville neighborhood. In each areas (Logan and Molotch, 1987, pp. 74,
site, roughly one-half of the informants are 66-84).
newcomers, and the other half old-timers. Gentrification often results in neigh
Newcomers included both social preser borhood revitalization, indicated by rising
vationists and gentrifiers, with the snow housing costs and infrastructure trans
ball method leading to a greater number formations geared towards gentrifiers.
of the former category than the latter. The Improvements facilitate the physical dis
interviews varied in duration from one-half placement of lower- and working-class
hour to three hours, with most lasting at residents. This displacement is sometimes
least one hour. I observed church services, accidental, while in other instances it is the
block club meetings, political assemblies, opposite, as in the case of a Vermont restau
safety meetings, plenary sessions, as well rateur who paid the homeless to leave town
as the daily life of residents on the street, (Smith, 1996, p. 27).
in parks, stores, and other public places. I In addition to physical displacement,
collected ethnographic data in the Chicago old-timers often face social displacement,
neighborhoods over the course of one and "the replacement of one group by another,
one-half years, in Provincetown for two in some relatively bounded geographi
months with several repeat visits for com cal area, in terms of prestige and power”
munity events, and in Leyden for a period (Chernoff, 1980, p. 204), embodied by the
of six months.1’ In addition, I observed 14 replacement of cultural, social, and eco
community festivals. nomic institutions of the poor and working
class by those of the gentrifiers, who tend or economic capital that lends itself to resi
to be racially, educationally, economi dential mobility. In fact, social preserva
cally, and occupationally distinct from the tionists and gentrifiers sometimes share
original inhabitants of the neighborhoods neighborhoods or towns. For instance, an
to which they move (Spain, 1980, p. 28). Andersonville gentrifier explained why she
Typically, real estate agents and gentrifiers moved to the neighborhood: “I liked the
seek to strip urban space from its "histori amount of space I could get for the money
cal association with the poor immigrants” . . . and the fact that I could still get down
(Smith, 1996, p. 8) who once lived in the cen town very quickly several different ways__
tral city. Or, in Elijah Anderson’s words, “the You know, I wanted to be near the lake.”
emerging neighborhood is valued largely Yet, the two groups remain ideologically
to the extent that it is shown to be sepa distinct. They diverge in the impetus for
rate from low-income black communities” their relocation to the central city or small
(Anderson, 1990, p. 26). Although in some town, as well as in their vision of the future
cases gentrifiers preserve aesthetic vestiges of such space. For instance, the ideology of
of the neighborhood’s past, these practices gentrification often underlines historic and
are distinct from social preservationists’ as landscape preservation as the cornerstone
they do not aim to preserve residents. of revitalization (Zukin, 1987, p. 133), while
Urban scholars agree that “economic social preservationists, on the other hand,
factors alone [can] not fully account for or are more interested in preserving the pres
explain” (Long and DeAre, 1980, p. 2) the ence and practices of old-timers. According
impetus for gentrification. In the 1970s and to a social preservationist who resides near
1980s, baby-boomers’ cultural attributes the University of Illinois Chicago campus,
facilitated gentrification, particularly their historic preservation encourages rising
predilection for late marriage and child property values and the displacement of
bearing (Lipton, 1977,p. 146).These lifestyle original residents and therefore is antitheti
choices contributed to the differentiation cal to real preservation.
of baby-boomers’ housing needs from the
These 7 old buildings . . . they’re only saving
previous generation (Long, 1980), as well
the shell of the buildings. They’re going to
as from less affluent members of the same
completely gut the inside. . . The real big trag
generation. At the forefront of such cultural edy here is that while I think saving buildings
attributes was an ideology that supported are important, that people arc more impor
gentrification, the "frontier and salvation” tant than buildings and to have a huge build
mentality. This mentality glamorized per ing saved where the people who lived here are
sonal sacrifice and “sweat equity” as meth all gone is to me not real preservation. What
ods for “settling” the untamed central city. to m e real preservation is about— and a lot of
Economic boosters and the popular press even preservationists don’t understand this—
credited gentrifiers with “infus[ing] mori is preservation of a place, which is the build
bund communities with new health and an ing fabric but it’s also the people too, and the
culture. And the food, and the signage and
appreciation for cultural activities” (Spain,
the music and the interaction. That’s a place,
1993, p. 158), and w'ith spurring an “urban
that’s culture, and this was a great place and it
‘renaissance’” (Zukin, 1987, p. 130). should’ve been saved.
I have found little evidence that the (Eight Forty Eight, February 28,2002)
demographic or cultural attributes of social
preservationists are notably distinct from There are moments, however, when the
those of the typical gentrifier. Both tend to ideologies of gentrification and social
be highly educated with the cultural, social, preservation seem to confer. For instance,
SO C IA L P R ESER VATIO N ISTS AND TH E Q U E S T FOR A U TH E N T IC CO M M U N ITY | 265
social preservationists and gentrifiers The popular media have recognized

share distaste for homogeneous sub the ironic presence of an anti-gentrifica-
urbs. Nonetheless, important distinctions tion ideology among those who appear
remain. For instance, gentrifiers avoid to be gentrifiers. An April Fool’s Day issue
“child-centered” community and seek of a San Francisco newspaper “read ‘Old
social diversity (Zukin, 1987, p. 131), while Yuppies Decry New Yuppies’ and ‘Pot Calls
social preservationists seek communi Kettle Black’” (Solnit and Schwartzenberg,
ties defined by the presence of children 2000, p. 122). The satirical newspaper
and the homogeneity of original residents The Onion published a facetious article
(i.e., residents who are alike, while distinct titled, “Resident of Three Years Decries
from social preservationists). The ideol Neighborhood’s Recent Gentrification.”
ogy of gentrification emphasizes a reduc The article reads:
tion in crime and increased social control.
Gentrifiers approach original residents A three-year resident of Chicago’s Wicker
“warily until familiarity with neighbor Park neighborhood, lashed out Monday
hood routine ensures politeness . . . [They] against encroaching gentrification. “See that
often expect crime to be as prevalent as big Barnes & Noble on the corner? You better
believe it wasn’t there back in ‘98,’’said Smales,
‘background noise’” (Zukin, 1987, p. 133)
34, a finance manager with Accenture. “This
and regard this as another threat that they,
whole place is turning into Yuppieville. You
the “urban cowboys,” must contend with can’t throw a rock without hitting a couple in
(Smith, 1996, p. 13). Social preservationists matching Ralph Lauren baseball caps walk
em brace the “background noise” of their ing a black lab.” Smales then took his golden
neighborhood: crime, an informant said, lab for a walk.
is necessary to prevent the neighborhood (Onion, 2001)
from becoming “too nice.” Social preserva
tionists, who tend to be well versed in the While fictional, such satire notes a social
language of gentrification (in fact, most are trend—young professionals’ wariness of
equipped with a sophisticated sociological gentrification, which has become a power
vocabulary),11 seek to make acquaintances ful symbol (Smith, 1996, p. 34).
and friends of original residents. Similarly, afewsociologistshaveobserved
Figure 20.1 illustrates the key areas of urban professionals who actively resist
distinction between social preservationists upscale development or who seek relation
and gentrifiers. ships with the racial or economic “other.”
Type of newcomer Origins Vision Attitude toward Attitude towards

newcomers old-timers
Social Lifestyle choice Wilderness to be Dilutes the Colorful;

preservationist and affordable preserved and authenticity of “authentic”;
housing for enjoyed; recognition of space; displaces desirable
middle class old-timers’ culture old-timers
Gentrifier Lifestyle choice Frontier to be tamed Welcome fellow Threatened by;
and affordable and later marketed; "pioneers"; critical of. If
housing for embodiments of increased safety; preservation occurs
middle class high culture Rising property it is historic or
values symbolic
Figure 20.1 Key distinctions between the social preservationist and the gentrifier.
266 I JA P O N IC A B R O W N -SA R ACIN O
Neil Smith suggests that by the 1980s the neighborhood. Finally, they distinguish the
anti-gentrification movement induced the present state of their neighborhood or town
Board of Real Estate of New York to print an from an imagined, gentrified version of that
addefendingthe process (Smith, 1996, p. 32). space. As the empirical evidence demon
Elijah Anderson describes a movement of strates, for social preservationists, authen
white liberals into a neighborhood to estab tic people constitute authentic place, and
lish a racially and economically egalitarian therefore valuable space.
community. “Indeed,” Anderson writes, To uphold these claims of authenticity,
"many found inspiration, if not affirma social preservationists work to prevent the
tion, in their relationships with blacks of the neighborhood from becom in g inauthentic
Village and the nearby ghetto” (Anderson, by resisting gentrification through political
1990, pp. 8,17). Richard Florida, in his book and social practices. The practices of social
The Rise o f the Creative Class, writes: “The preservation include the symbolic use of
creative class is drawn to more organic and festivals, political protest, and participa
indigenous street-level culture,”—specifi tion in political institutions, as well as a set
cally a ‘cultural community’ that is often of private practices rooted in their appre
‘reviving-downscale’ (Florida, 2002, pp. ciation for the old-timers with whom they
182-183). Like Florida, Richard Lloyd notes live. Before these practices begin, however,
an aesthetic appreciation for “urban grit” social preservationists engage in the con
among neobohemians, artist gentrifiers struction of the old-timers they later w'ork
of Chicago’s Wicker Park, who express an to preserve.
appreciation for the neighborhood’s “street
level diversity, in which even gang activity
AUTHENTICITY CLAIMS
and homelessness are valued as markers
of urban authenticity” (Lloyd, 2002, p. 520). The desire to live among those original resi
The presence of danger frames the city as dents they associate with authentic com
distinct from the suburbs, and authenticates munity is the predominant criterion for
urban experience (Lloyd, 2002, p. 528). Still, social preservationists’ residential choice.
neobohemians ’ appreciation for “diversity” For social preservationists, community
is largely aesthetic, and their distaste for cannot be taken for granted—it arises out
newcomers of their own class or culture is of conditions distinct from those that char
more about the disruption of their culture acterize traditional middle-class venues
than the disruption of old-timers’ authen such as the suburb or affluent urban neigh
tic community (Lloyd, 2002, p. 529). This borhood. The social preservationist asso
makes neobohemianism a variant of gentri ciates community with individuals bound
fication, but not a departure therefrom. together by shared religion, ethnicity,
In the following sections, I address social race, class, and—most importantly—way
preservationists’ ideological claims about of life.12 Specifically, they equate the eco
the social authenticity of the places in which nomic and social struggle of marginalized
they live, which they formulate by distin groups with strong social ties.11This notion
guishing between authentic and inauthen of community is not unique to social pres
tic communities. Social preservationists ervation. Common myths of community
select the arbiters of authentic community “em phasize. . . a distinctive ‘way of life’ that
by distinguishing old-timers from other links people in a collective endeavor with
residents. They also contrast their com otherlike-mindedindividuals”(Greenhouse
munity with “inauthentic” communities, et al., 1994, p. 173).14 What is notewor
most often the suburb and affluent urban thy about social preservationists is their
relocation in search of community, and their mance by saying: “This is my seventeenth

belief that authentic community belongs year in Provincetown,’’ The audience met
to a particular group of people—of which her announcement with much applause.
they are not a part. For social preservation "Some of us,” Isadora said, “come across the
ists the distinction between newcomers bridge [onto Cape Cod] and never leave.”
and old-timers is the basis for community The crowd remained quiet. “So... seven
authenticity. However, they do not deem all teen years,” Isadora spoke carefully, "am I
original residents (those there before they a townie yet?” The auditorium resounded
arrived) to be “old-timers.” Rather, they use with silence. Finally, a few residents replied,
a complicated and sometimes contradic "Yes,” but a collective, “No,” countered their
tory set of criteria to define the old-timer, affirmation. “I’m not?” Isadora asked, her
which I discuss below. tone unsurprised. “Well then, how long do
I have to be here to be a townie?” This time
the audience agreed, a chorus of "Forever!”
rang throughout the hall. “Well you better
REAL PEOPLE: OLD-TIMERS VERSUS
get used to it,” Isadora said before breaking
OTHERS
into song, "because I’m going to be.”
Each year, on a Saturday in March, residents In all four sites, social preservationists
of Provincetown gather at their town hall, a measure the authenticity of their space by
white clapboard buildingat the center of the the presence of “townies” or “old-timers,”
village, forthe“Year Rounders’Festival.”The whose authenticity is measured against the
day is complete with informational booths, presence of inauthentic newcomers (Isadora
dinner, a variety show, and a Navy Band. and others of the kind) or original residents
During the variety show' in 2002, a middle- outside of the old-timer category.15 Old-
aged and amply sized female imperson timers’ identity is predicated on ( 1) length of
ator, Isadora with More and Moreah, took residence, (2) family ties and legacy, (3) eco
to the stage. The audience w'as notably dif nomic strata, (4) membership in a geographi
ferent from Isadora’s summer tourist audi cally rooted social network and the purity of
ences. Children ran between chairs, while that network, and (5) a configuration of racial,
grandparents bounced babies on their laps. ethnic, and cultural characteristics. As Figure
Neighbors, wearing workshirts and jeans, 20.2 indicates, the importance of the above
sat beside each other. features varies across the research sites.
Isadora, wearing a blonde wig and a As is true of many people, particularly
flowing pink gown, prefaced her perfor those who live in changing communities,
Leyden Andersonviile Argyle Provincetown
1. Length of 1. Ethnicity 1. Race 1. Ethnicity

Old-timers’ residence 2. Length of 2. Econom ic strata; 2. Economic strata
attributes 2. Family ties residence ownership of a 3. Religion
emphasized 3. Membership in 3. Family ties small business 4. Family ties
by social geographically 4. Membership catering to Asian 5. Membership in
preservationists rooted network in geographically clientele geographically
4. Econom ic strata, rooted network rooted network
specifically 6. Length of resi-
dence
struggling dairy
farmers
Figure 2 0.2 Old timers' attributes emphasized by social preservationists by research site.
268 | JA P O N IC A B R O W N -SA R ACIN O
social preservationists admire those who ervationists do not mention the race of
have long resided in the locale. Especially in old-timers, whiteness remains central to
the rural sites, the modal characteristic of their classification schema. At a ceremony
old-timers is the length of their relationship on the first anniversary of the September
to place of residence. As a baby born to royal 11, 2001, terrorist attack, an Andersonville
parents is as much a part of the monarchy minister acknowledged the neighbor
as her elders, old-timers’ status is rooted in hood’s diversity: “When one walks along
relationships to space and particular fami [Andersonville’s main thoroughfare] you
lies that predate the individual old-timer. see Pakistanis, Iranians, Koreans, Chinese,
Therefore, old-timer status largely depends and Japanese.” Chuckling, he paid hom
on family ties and legacy. A Leyden pres age to the group in whose museum the cer
ervationist identified old-timers as “fami emony took place: “Of course we have our
lies who have been here for generations.” Swedes. We can never forget them!” In fact,
Old-timers have blood ties to their place of the neighborhood does not forget them—
residence. These ties are inscribed on the when business leaders sought support for
landscape: old-timers’ family names mark a new streetscape on the neighborhood’s
cemetery gravestones, storefronts, and thoroughfare, residents urged a Swedish
street signs. A Provincetown social preser theme: “Keep Swedish delis, traditions
vationist described old-timers as having alive.”17 Indeed, the streetscape has a dis
"40,000 uncles and brothers and kids.’’16 tinctly Swedish theme: Swedish bells deco-
Social preservationists borrow from ratesidewalkcement.andthestreetbanners
existing status markers in their apprecia are the colors of the Swedish flag. Similarly,
tion for old-timers. According to rules that when the Argyle community planned their
old-timers use as much as social preser own streetscape, many newcomers asked
vationists, old-timer status is a birthright the organizers to emphasize the neighbor
seldom transcended by marriage. A woman hood’s Asian population: "Please consider
born and raised in Andersonville teased capitalizing on the ethnicity of the street. I
that her husband is a “new'comer” because believe the feel of the renovation should be
he was not born there. In fact, her husband of the charm of the neighborhood... should
has lived in the neighborhood for 30 years. be in keeping with the Asian flavor of the
In an unemotional manner, a Provincetown neighborhood as it already exists.” Thus,
newcomer said: “I have a lot of friends from social preservationists attach the racial or
all walks of life down here, and I’m very ethnic identity of old-timers to neighbor
comfortable, but would I ever feel like a hood or town identity.
townie even though I was married to a Yet, social preservationists sometimes
townie? No, never. It's a line you don't cross." conflate ethnicity and race with occupation.
In this way, social preservationists are not For example, in Provincetown, involvement
solely responsible for the construction of with the fishing industry identifies a person
the old-timer category; they abide by, and as Portuguese, but, as one social preserva
often highlight, existing distinctions. tionist discovered, this is not a fail proof
In three of the research sites, social method.
preservationists explicitly identify old-
timers by their racial or ethnic identity. In I always thought Ithis guy] was this old
Provincetown, old-timer is synonymous Portuguese fisherman, b ecause he has really
with Portuguese, while in Andersonville it brown and leathery skin and he’s always lived
is synonymous with Swedish, and in Argyle in P -to w n . . . but he’s not. He’s black, I m ean,
with Asian. Although Leyden social pres he’s African- A m erican ... Som ebody said, “He
SOCIAL PRESERVATIONISTS AND THE Q U ES T FOR A U TH EN TIC COM M UNITY | 269
doesn’t want anyone to know he’s black.” And plained that the town is “too nice” and no
I’m like, “He’s not black, he’s Portuguese."And longer “tacky.”
then [the man we were discussing] looked Social preservationists also identify
at me like I fell off the turnip truck. I’m like,
old-timers as members of a geographi
“Wait, you’re black?” He’s like, everybody’s
cally rooted social network. A Leyden social
like, “Look at him! Look at him! How can you
preservationist said, old-timers are rich in
not know?”And I’m like, "I just thought he was
brown from the sun. I just thought he was old
“friendship [s] that extend back in time.”
and weathered.” And they were like “What?!” Social preservationists either correlate old-
Because it’s just your assumptions. You don’t timers with multi-generational residence
assume that any African-American person in their current locale, or with a group dis
lives in Provincetown or is a true townie, placed from their native land (e.g., Asians
because everybody here is Portuguese. on Argyle Street). This stands in contrast
to newcomers’ geographically dispersed
In other instances, social preservationists social networks, which some preserva
primarily associate old-timers with par tionists term “commuter friendships.” The
ticular businesses or trades. In Leyden, old- "purity” or authenticity of old-timers’ net
timer is synonymous with “dairy farmer” works are preserved through the preclusion
despite the fact that there are few operat of newcomers from them. In the words of
ing farms in town. In Provincetown, as the a highly educated Leyden social preserva
population of fishermen diminishes, new tionist, deftly using sociological terms to
comers identify old-timers by other trades: describe old-timers: “They’ve got an old
“The people who do the excavating and the boy network and an old girl network, and
people who are the septic people . . . you this same sense of a network doesn’t exist
know, the septic people, it’s been in their for newcomers who’ve moved to town.”
family for a million years.” In the Chicago Deciphering the complex web of old-tim-
neighborhoods, newcomers recognize old- ers’ relationships requires historical, gene
timers by their relationship to family-owned alogical, and geographic knowledge. The
ethnic businesses. A newcomer described interweaving of individuals and families
Argyle old-timers as “struggling new citi across time and space distinguishes "real”
zens in America, and [they] have their own community members from newcomers.
little ethnic businesses.” The discourse that I asked an old-timer the name of another
links old-timers to certain businesses or old-timer who stopped to chat during our
trades is a way of talking about class. When interview. The man, I discovered, had to be
asked what she meant by the term “local,” identified through his relationship to other
a Provincetown preservationist said: “You old-timers, beginning with his wife.
don’t see them on Commercial Street; they
don’t eat at all those fancy restaurants Who’s Anna? She’s of the Steward family, the
. . . They’re living in these side streets not a [famous] sailing ship. loseph Steward was
brand new condo . . . A lot of those people her dad. He was the first one to do whale
watching in pretty much the world. Started
spent a lot of time in unemployment.” This
the whale watching industry right here in
concern for working-class old-timers is dis
Provincetown. loseph Steward. Andrew
tinct from the typical response of the middle Brown owned the [newspaper]. Andrew’s ex-
class to those who struggle economically. In wife is loan Smith who’s the chairman of the
fact, social preservationists glamorize old- board of Selectmen. Anna Steward’s his pres
timers’ financial struggle. One reminisced ent wife who’s on the board of selectmen, who
about the “visible poverty” of Provincetown was the president of my high school class.
a few decades ago, while another com Those are real Provincetown people.
Similarly, in Andersonville, newcomers and fully maintained woodlots, is as marked by

old-timers alike spoke of old-timers in rela humanhandsasChicago’s urban landscape.
tionship to one another: “Have you inter To preserve Leyden and Provincetown in a
viewed Sven’s brother?” Thus, membership natural state, which many newcomers work
in the “old-timer” category is predicated on to do, necessitates constructing what that
insider knowledge, as well as relationship “natural state” is—it is difficult to imagine
to other old-timers. Leyden newcomers rallying to transform
As obscure as membership rules appear their land to the thick forest that greeted the
from afar, for residents they are easily town’s European settlers, or Provincetown to
understood. One social preservationist the uninhabitable conditions that encour
recalled her favorite line from a book about aged the Pilgrims’ move to Plymouth.
Provincetown: “You’ll never be a native if The preservation of the social wilderness
you’re not.” The sentiment resonated with necessitates the construction of a stage of
the preservationist’s personal observations. social development that is no more or less
authentic than the preservation of natural
I m eet these old lesbians that [a] re like in landscape. Andersonville’s social preserva
their 60s . . . They’ve lived (here] for years, tionists devote more attention to the neigh
and years and years and years, but there’s borhood’s Swedish elements than to its
always this thing about who’s a townie, who’s substantial population of Middle-Eastern
a native, who lives here and who doesn’t . . . restaurants and residents, despite the fact
[They’ve] lived here for 20 years, they’re still that in 2000 Swedes composed less than 4
not a native. percent of the neighborhood population
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Social preser
The line that separates “real” people from vationists relinquish Argyle’s resplendent
newcomers varies within and between the past as home to one of the first motion pic
research sites. However, in each locale, old- ture studios, to a contemporary focus on its
timer status is not merely a birthright, but Asian population. Similarly, in Leyden they
also requires a certain “character.” For social neglect a concentration on white settlers,
preservationists, an Ivy League educated or even the Native Americans who came
Portuguese resident of Provincetown is less before them, for a focus on a moment in
“real” than her high school educated coun the town’s history when dairy farms domi
terpart. Similarly, a Vietnamese-American nated the landscape. Provincetown social
lifelong resident of Argyle Street is more preservationists do not highlight the long
“real” than his African-American counter legacy of WASP whaling captains or the line
part, despite the fact that there are a greater houses that compose the historical register.
number of African Americans than Asians Using preformed notions of authentic com
in the neighborhood (U.S. Census Bureau, munity, social preservationists construct
2000). These rules serve social preservation the arbiters of that community. In turn,
ists because they validate the authenticity social preservationists rely on old-timers to
of old-timers, and hence the authenticity of sketch a picture of authentic community.
their place of residence. In each locale, the
social preservationist celebrates the racial,
REAL PLACES: SOCIALLY
ethnic, religious, or cultural character of the
PRESERVED LOCALES VERSUS
old-timer; to do this they maintain a com
INAUTHENTIC “OTHER” SPACE
posite sketch of what a “real” old-timer is.
The natural landscape so beloved to In interviews, social preservationists dis
Leyden newcomers, open fields and care tinguish the authenticity of their town or
SO C IA L P R ESER VATIO N ISTS AND TH E Q U E S T FOR A U TH E N T IC CO M M U N ITY |
neighborhood by contrasdng it with other The presence of children and their

places they have lived; the stronger the dis families is important to social preserva
tinction between the two, the more authen tionists. At a Chicago protest demand
tic they consider their current place of ing low-income housing, a middle-class
residence to be. “Other” places, social pres speaker said: “We know that gentrification
ervationists suggest, are characterized by is horrible. It destroys families and commu
the absen ce of old-timers, and by the pres nities.” Another speaker, a 30-something
ence of affluent residents, aesthetic homo white homeowner, spoke of his choice to
geneity, and retail chains. In fact, most live in a neighborhood adjacent to Argyle:
social preservationists are equipped with "We wanted to live in a community where
"origin stories”: elaborate and rehearsed families can afford to live... We don’t want
narratives of how they came to live in a to lose them.” Provincetown social preser
place of authentic community. Origin sto vationists mourn the fact that in a recent
ries contrast the spiritual, political, or aes year the town recorded only one birth. In
thetic qualities of social preservationists’ this way, social preservationists often con
place of residence with the spiritually vacu flate families with those vulnerable to dis
ous, capitalist-driven, aestheticallyhomog- placement; their demands for low-income
enous place from which they moved. Social housing are synonymous with a desire for
preservationists adopt the language of community populated by children and
mid- and late-19th-century scholars who their parents. A middle-aged Andersonville
worried that with increasing urbanism, "the social preservationist is nostalgic for his
primary relationships of place and kin give childhood neighborhood, dominated by
way to rational, individualistic encounters extended families.
typified by market transactions” (Hunter,
1975, p. 538). The “authentic” community It is hard as you get older— it is hard the
possesses children, extended families, con stan t transform ation and lack of sta
economic diversity, social interaction, bility . . . It doesn't give you anything to
hold on to. This is not an intergenerational
ethnic groups, civic involvement, old-
comm unity. When I grew up peoples’ grand
timers, their accompanying traditions, and
parents were there and parents. When
social networks. Mrs. _____ yelled at me, I knew it was so
Social preservationists measure authen and so’s cousin. Grandpa was still speaking
tic community by the familiarity or friend Hungarian every other word and my other
ship between neighbors. When asked how Grandfather, Swedish. . . . All th at’s gone.
they evaluate the intimacy of a community, There’s a total break in continuity.
social preservationists repeatedly refer to
informal exchanges between neighbors, This nostalgia has transformed into a desire
such as sharing holiday dishes or the sim to reside alongside people bound together
ple act of greeting people on the street. A by Geimenschaft qualities, such as senti
23-year-old Chicago social preservationist ment, intimacy, and blood.
explained why she moved from downtown: Social preservationists also compare
"[It’s] not n eighborhoody enough there.” authentic community to the current stale
Social preservationists seek Geimenschaft: of their place of residence—by rallying for
community defined by “binding, primary turning the clock back to a more “authen
interactional relationships based on senti tic” period in the neighborhood or town,
ment,” which they associate with certain or by preventing further change. Social
groups living in certain places (Christen preservationists express a basic distaste for
son, 1984, p. 160). affluent newcomers, whose presence, like a
bulldozer in the natural wilderness, threat Provincetown juxtaposed herself with more
ens the social wilderness. A Provincetown wealthy newcomers: “I sort of have a hatred
social preservationist, who is a prominent for... the capitalist urge that happens here,
business owner and civic leader, recounted or . . . the rich people that move in . . . peo
her memory of the town before newcomers ple who have a million dollars who [think]
inundated it, positing the past as the site of this is a great gay place to party, and I’m just
true community. going to build a huge condo here so I can
come here over the summer and party.” She
The difference between then and now is that expressed concern that wealthy people can
people went out of their way to help you. If not appreciate the true value of the town as
you were new in town— like I couldn’t find a an ethnic enclave and fishing village.
place to live. |A w om anl, she got m e my first
Social preservationists borrow from a
place to live. She went and found it for me. I
discourse about the decline of American
didn’t have to do anything. People, in general,
community explored by Robert Putnam in
were more friendly, I think. More com munity
oriented (emphasis added). Bowling Alone. Putnam writes of “the things
that have vanished almost unnoticed—
Social preservationists arguethat“improve- neighborhood parties and get-togethers
ments” displace original residents, with friends, the unreflective kindness of
especially children. A Provincetown pres strangers, the shared pursuit of the public
ervationist who works in nonprofit man good rather than a solitary quest for pri
agement complained: “Now every house vate goods” (Putnam, 2000, p. 403). More
in town has a construction truck in front of than anything else, social preservation
it.” She expressed sorrow that [t]he fishing ists search for a community defined by the
community is really gone,” and with it the above qualities. They emphasize neighbor
impetus for her relocation. hood parties, interactions with strangers,
The social preservationist, whose quest community festivals, and working-class
for residence in a socially preserved locale families. In so doing they juxtapose their
is rooted in the search for authentic com community against the “socially isolated”
munity (embodied by the imagined “same suburb or affluent urban neighborhood
ness” of old-timers), avoids the formation The distaste for modern community
of community based on the sameness o f forms is not a new phenomenon, nor is it
newcomers. An Argyle resident wrote in unique to social preservationists. In 1887
opposition of proposed improvements Toennies suggested that with increasing
to the neighborhood’s main commercial industrialization and urbanization com
strip: "The biggest reason that I like liv munity would be defined by Gesellschaft,
ing in this area is the ethnic diversity and “an interactional system characterized
the range of incomes and social classes” by self-interest, competition, and negoti
(Argyle Survey, 2001). Another wrote: “Try ated accommodation" (Christenson, 1984,
to keep Vietnam town a secret. Keep tour p. 160). In 1975, among newcomers to a
ists and suburbanites away” (Argyle Survey, Rochester neighborhood Albert Hunter
2001). Social preservationists value places noted “a very conscious rejection of sub
that lack certain elements associated with urbia, or rather a conscious rejection of the
wealth. For instance, a Chicago preser somewhat stereotyped ‘image’ of suburbia
vationist described the changes she has by residents in the area, and a correspond
seen in Andersonville: “It’s jogging stroll ingly positive assertion of the values of
ers and Starbucks now, and it makes me ‘urban living’” (Hunter, 1975, p. 546). For
sick.” A middle-class, lesbian newcomer to Hunter’s Rochester informants, as well as
for mine in Chicago and Massachusetts, Provincetown social preservationists refer to Por
the choice to live in a particular locale is a tuguese lifelong residents as “townies" or locals”;
in Argyle they are "the Asians." I use the term old-
mode of self-definition: "Community ide timer, rather than varying between that term and
ology provides a convincing rendering of others, for purposes of ease, as the significance
varied social, moral, and other qualities of of the term is constant across the research sites.
communities and their inhabitants, diverse Further discussion of the process by which social
qualities that can be appropriated for self- preservationists select old-timers from among
the pool of original residents is in the section,
characterization” (Hummon, 1990, p, 143). "The Real People.”
Social preservationists actively con 3. See Zukin (1995), Anderson (1990), Mele (2000),
struct themselves as distinct from gentrifi Grazian (2003), and Lloyd (2002).
ers, especially when the lines between the 4. To give the ethic and practices of social pres
two ideologies blur: At a Chicago protest for ervation the analysis they warrant, this article
primarily uses data on social preservationists,
affordable housing, a white middle-class rather than my interviews with old-timers and
man received great cheers when he said: gentrifiers, and related fieldnotes. Future work
"Our gentrifying friends with their diver will explore other groups’ response to social pres
sity . . . like Lincoln Park Zoo where you can ervationists.
see a polar bear or a penguin. They want 5. This is the real name of the research site, as are the
names of the other sites. Real place names, rather
a neighborhood with 3 African American
than pseudonyms, are used for two reasons. First,
families, a few gays, a few Spanish speaking Provincetown and the Chicago neighborhoods
people. Ours is a community that is as it is are easily identifiable, no m atter what name they
today with many people of different back are called. Second, the use of pseudonyms would
grounds.” Social preservationists derive have required disguising important characteris
tics of the sites, which would have hindered dis
their identity as much from who they are cussion of the Findings. However, all informants
not, or where they do not live, as from who are referred to by pseudonym.
they are or where they d o live. When social 6. Much of the data for this research site was
preservationists’ conflicting values become collected in 1998 and 1999 by the author (Brown-
self-apparent—to live in the central city Saracino, 1999).
7. Examples of other comparative research designs
while simultaneously preserving it, or to include Law and Community in Three American
maintain the presence of old-timers while Towns (Greenhouse et al., 1994), Cultures of
simultaneously improving town infrastruc Solidarity (Fantasia, 1988), and Money, Morals
ture and thereby increasing taxes—they and Manners (Lamont, 1992).
emphasize the hypocrisy of gentrifiers or 8. The units of analysis for this study vary across the
research sites. Argyle and Andersonville are unof
affluent suburbanites, and engage in prac
ficial neighborhoods within overlapping official
tices to prevent gentrification or suburban Chicago neighborhoods, while Provincetown
ization. [...] and Leyden are both incorporated towns.
9. My relationship to the sites studied aided the
research. I have either lived in or paid an extended
NOTES visit to each of the research sites prior to or during
the period of observation.
1. The “original" residentsthat embodythe"authen- 10. Some argue that gentrification began in the mid-
tic” community are "original only in the sense that 19th century, then known as "embourgeoise
they were there before the social preservationists ment" (Smith, 1996, p. 36).
arrived. This notion does not acknowledge the 11. For instance, many social preservationists are
long history of neighborhood succession. Claims quick to use terms such as “gentrification,"
of authenticity discussed in this article are those "urban pioneers," and "social networks.”
of informants, not of the author. 12. In this way, social preservationists regard old-
2. Social preservationists use the term old-timer, timers as a status group, bounded by “some com
or its equivalent, to differentiate “real” locals mon characterestic shared by many people,” or a
or original residents from other inhabitants. style of life that is independent of econom ic class
274 | JA PO N IC A BR O W N -SARACIN O
(Weber, in Runciman, 1978, p. 48). Indeed, social REFEREN CE

preservationists give status to those shared char
acteristics that differentiate "old-timers” from Anderson, E. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change
newcomers and make them worthy of preserva in an Urban Community. Chicago, IL: University of
tion. This status is not dependent on old-timers' Chicago Press.
access to economic resources. Rather, “‘status' is Argyle Streetscape Task Force. 2001. Argyle Streetscape
not necessarily connected with a ‘class situation’: Task Force Over-View & Survey.
normally, it stands rather in glaring contradiction Brown-Saracino, J. 1999. Newcomers v. Old-timers:
to the pretensions of naked property ownership” Symbolic Class Conflict in a Small Massachusetts
(Weber, in Runciman, 1978, p. 49). Town, unpublished honors thesis. Northampton,
13. A newcomer described Argyle old-timers as MA: Smith College.
“struggling new citizens in America, and {they] Chernoff, M. 1980. “Social displacement in a reno
have their own little ethnic businesses." Despite vating neighborhood’s commercial district:
the fact that most of the Asian-American resi Atlanta,” in Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood
dents of Argyle street have lived in the United Revitalization, Laska, S.B., Spain, D., eds. NewYork:
States for 30 years or less, social preservationists Pergamon: 204-19.
grant them “old-timer” status. This is indicative Christenson, I. A. 1984. “Geimenschaft and
of the centrality of “character” to the definition of Gesellschaft: Testing the Spatial and Community
old-timers—of the extent to which the category is Hypotheses,” Social Forces63(1), 160-168.
predicated on nontemporal factors such as race, di Leonardo, M. 1998. Exotics a t Home: Anthropologies,
occupation, and class. Others, American Modernity. Chicago, IL: University
14. Some scholars argue that this is not a myth at all. of Chicago Press.
For instance, Amitai Etzioni writes that one of the Eight Forty Eight. 2002. Interview with Maxwell Street
key principles of community is a “commitment Activist. Available at \mv.wbez.org.
to a set of shared values, norms and meanings, Etzioni, A. 1996. “The Responsive Community:
and a shared history and identity—in short, a A Communitarian Perspective,” American
shared culture” (Etzioni, 1996, p. 5). If this is, in Sociological Review 61 (1), 1-11.
fact, an accurate definition of community, then it Fantasia, R. 1988. Cultures o f Solidarity: Consciousness,
is almost impossible for the social preservationist Action and Contemporary American Workers.
to become a member of a community composed Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
of those whom he or she considers to be “other.” Florida, R. L. 2002. The Rise o f the Creative Class: And
15. “One of the more obvious and unambiguous How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community
local social statuses is the number of years lived and Everyday Life. NewYork: Basic Books.
in a community... the local distinctions between Grazian, D. 2003. Blue Chicago: The Search fo r
‘newcomers’ and ‘old-timers' are very real. It is Authenticity in Chicago Blues Clubs. Chicago, IL:
a social typology that legitimizes and qualifies a University of Chicago Press.
person’s behavior within a community, signifying Greenhouse, C. J., Yngresson, B., and Engel, D. M. 1994.
investment and commitments to a local area and Law and Community• in Three American Towns.
its citizens” (Hunter, 1974, p. 96). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16. “Scholarship, journalism, and grassroots expres Hummon, D. M. 1990. Commonplaces: Community
sions celebrate white ethnics for their family loy Ideology and Identity in American Culture. Albany,
alties and neighborhood ties. In fact, advertising NY: State University of NewYork.
in this period began to exploit ‘cute’ white ethnic Hunter, A. 1974. SymbolicCommunities.ThePersistence
imaginery—the pizza-baking grandmother, the and Change o f Chicago’s Local Community.
extended family at the laden dinner table—in Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
order to invest frozen and canned foods with the Hunter, A. 1975. "The Loss of Community: An Empirical
cachet of the gemeinschaft” (di Leonardo, 1998, Test Through Replication,” American Sociological
p. 94). Review40(5), 537-552.
17. From a survey conducted by an Andersonville Iâmont, M. 1992. Money, Morals and Manners.
streetscape taskforce. Three groups were sur Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
veyed: “Customers, operationalized as the Lipton, S. G. 1977. “Evidence of Central City Revival,”
attendees of the 1997 Midsommarfest; mer Journal o f the American Institute o f Planners 43,
chants, surveyed from the fall of 1997, and resi 136-147.
dents, operationalized as the surrounding block Lloyd, R. 2002. “Neo-Bohemia: Art and Neighborhood
club members, surveyed in the early months of Redevelopment in Chicago,” Journal o f Urban
1998” (Andersonville Streetscape Memo). Affairs24(5), 517-532.
SO CIAL PRESERVATIONISTS AND THE Q U EST FOR AUTHENTIC COM M UNITY | 275
Logan, J. R., and Molotch, H. L. 1987. Urban Fortunes: Solnit, R., and Schwartzenberg, S. 2000 . Hollow City.
The Political Economy o f Place. Berkeley, CA: New York: Verso.
University of California Press. Spain, D. 1980. “Indicators of Urban Revitalization:
Long, L. H. 1980. “Back to the Countryside and Back Racial and Socioeconomic Changes in Central-
to the City in the Same Decade,” in S. Laska and D. City' Housing,” in S. Laska and D. Spain (eds.), Back
Spain (eds.), Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation,
Renovation, pp. 61-76. NewYork: Pergamon Press. 27-41. NewYork: Pergamon Press.
Long, L., andDeAre, D. 1980. Migration to Metropolitan Spain, D. 1993. "Been-Heres Versus Come-Heres:
Areas: Appraising the Trends and Reasons for Negotiating Conflicting Community Identities,”
Moving. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Journal o f the American PlanningAssociation 59(2),
Commerce. 156-171.
Mele, C. 2000. Selling the Lower East Side: Culture, Real The Onion. 2001. "Resident of Three Years Decries
Estate and Resistance in New York City. Minneapolis, Neighborhood's Recent Gentrification'' lune 20.
MN: University of Minnesota Press. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. DP-2. Profile o f
Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone. NewYork: Simon & Selected Social Characteristics: 2000. www.census,
Schuster. gov.
Runciman, W. C. (ed.). 1978. Weber: Selections in Zukin, S. 1987. “Gentrification: Culture and Capital in
Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University the Urban Core," Annual Review o f Sociology 13,
Press. 129-147.
Smith, N. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification Zukin, S. 1995. The Cultures o f Cities. Cambridge:
and the Revanchist City. Unpublished. Blackwell Publishers.
PAR T IV
V iciâ t are the Outcomes and

Consequences of Gentrification?
M any of us have the sense th at we know gentrification w hen we see it (see Jager 1986). For
instance, several years ago m em bers of m y family visited m e in Chicago and, on a sunny
spring day, we walked m ore th an two miles north from the Boystown neighborhood— a
neighborhood on C hicago’s north side that contains m any bars, clubs, restaurants, and
shops that cater to gay m en— to m y ap artm en t in Edgewater. As we walked along a single
avenue it w as apparent that we were com ing in and out of pockets of gentrification, or that
we were at least walking through neighborhoods that were at different stages of gentrifica
tion (Clay 1979).
We left our point of origin— the restaurants, boutiques, condom inium s, and gay bars
of Boystown— and entered Wrigleyville, w here dozens of sports bars and restaurants clus
ter around Wrigley Field. There was a notable difference in the physical features of the
next neighborhood, Uptown, with its dilapidated theaters, discount stores, and Single-
R esident-O ccupancy buildings. However, even in Uptown we passed the legendary Green
Mill Jazz Club and a new sports bar. Had we walked a few blocks east or west we would have
seen cond om inium conversions and newly restored single family hom es.
I am not sure if it was spoken, but it is plausible that one of us com m en ted on Boystown’s
advanced stage of gentrification. As we entered Uptown one of m y guests m ay have asked,
“Is this neighborhood gentrifying?”
I raise this to underline the fact th at arm chair assessm en t of gentrification tends to rest
on visible representations of gentrification’s outcom es. We look for signs of its “su ccess” or
progress, such as com m ercial establishm ents geared toward the middle or upper middle
class, renovated hom es and new cond om inium buildings, expensively coifed residents
pushing baby strollers, or, alternately, young artists and their galleries. We m ight also
determ ine that a neighborhood is gentrified b ecau se of the absence of certain features,
such as m em b ers of the group for which a neighborhood is nam ed (e.g., a Little Italy w ith
out Italians, C hicago’s Andersonville with few Swedes).
In short, there is m uch im plicit agreem en t— am ong scholars and others— about how
to recognize gentrification. Arguably, this agreem ent centers on a com m on set of exp ecta
tions about gentrification’s ou tcom es and conseq uences. And, in fact, the gentrification
literature suggests th at in m any cases such assessm ents are accu rate. D epending on the
city or neighborhood, visual evidence of gentrification likely includes m any of the im ages
I noted on m y walk through Chicago: carefully m aintained streetscap es, high-end bistros,
278 I JAPONICA BROWN-SARACINO
historically preserved homes, health food stores, and streets marked by expensive vehicles
(see Zukin 1987). Behind these signifiers typically rest changes that are less immediately
visible: rising housing costs, changing demographic characteristics, shifts in local politics,
and tension over norms about the use of public space. Indeed, most scholars concur that,
to some degree, displacement, social tension, the privatization of public space, and physi
cal transformation of building stock are part and parcel of gentrification (see Spain 1993).
And yet, despite our implicit attention to these common markers, below the surface
there are disagreements—among scholars and laypeople alike—about some fundamental
facets of gentrification’s consequences and outcomes. For instance, there is debate about
the extent to which gentrification produces the displacement of longtime residents, as
well as about which population groups are most at risk of displacement. Specifically, many
scholars argue that gentrification leads to the widespread displacement of longtime resi
dents (e.g., Sumka 1979, Le Gates & Hartman 1981, 1986, Atkinson 2003), however some
counter that the literature overstates displacement rates (e.g., Freeman & Braconi 2004,
Freeman 2006; for criticisms see Marcuse 2005, Newman &Wyly 2006). Still others suggest
that displacement is widespread, but nonetheless offer caveats. For instance, Derek Hyra
(2008) demonstrates that as a result of differences in city politics the magnitude of dis
placement and the type of individuals displaced varies between two gentrifying neighbor
hoods: New York’s Harlem and Chicago’s Bronzeville. Scholars also debate about whether
gentrification’s outcomes are most pronounced in neighborhood housing stock or com
mercial establishments, such as transformed shops, restaurants, and other businesses
(Gotham 2005, Deener 2007, Hyra 2008, Zukin et al. 2009).
At the center of scholarship on gentrification’s outcomes and consequences is debate
between those who believe that gentrification is of public benefit and those who argue that
such “benefits” are of tremendous cost for longtime residents (on this debate see Smith &
Williams 1986, Atkinson 2003, Lees et al. 2008). Those in the first and much smaller camp
suggest, often with caveats, that gentrification reversed decades of urban decay by rein
troducing crucial economic, cultural, social, and institutional resources to central city
neighborhoods (e.g., Florida 2002, Freeman 2006). They suggest that gentrification not
only benefits gentrifiers but also many individuals who rely on the institutions that gen
trifiers help revitalize, such as schools (Freeman 2006). The second camp counters that
gentrification disrupts longtime residents’ social and familial networks, severs their ties to
important institutions, from health centers to places of worship, and that in many cases
it leads to loss of housing and business closure (e.g., Chernoff 1980, Zukin 1987). They
suggest that few longtime residents are able to remain in a gentrified neighborhood long
enough to benefit from the changes that some scholars celebrate.
That said, it would be an oversimplification to suggest that the two camps are entirely
discrete. For instance, Richard Florida proposes strategies for cities to attract members of
the “creative class"—“people in science and engineering architecture and design, educa
tion, arts, music and entertainment... \and\creativeprofessionalsm business and finance,
law, health care, and related fields” (2002 : 8 )—to help revitalize urban economies, yet he
also warns that advanced gentrification can be counterproductive by making neighbor
hoods unaffordable or unattractive to creative class members (ibid.). Similarly, the book
from which the essay in this section by Mary Pattillo was excerpted documents gentrifica
tion’s daily costs forworkingclass, African-American residents of a Chicago neighborhood,
yet acknowledges that in its early stages some longtime residents believed gentrification
improved their quality of life.
W HAT ARE THE O U TCO M ES AND CO N S EQ U EN C ES OF GENTRIFICATION? | 279
Likewise, it would be equally simplistic to imagine that within each camp there is uni
form agreement about gentrification’s precise benefits and costs. For instance, scholars
offer competing conclusions about the facet of gentrification that is most harmful to long
time residents. Many of the readings in this section emphasize gentrification’s material
consequences for longtime residents, such as loss of housing, while Michael Chernoff
insists that "social displacement” is equally consequential (1980).
There are three basic questions that scholars within and between both camps ask about
gentrification’s outcomes and consequences. First, they seek to isolate gentrification’s
benefits and, second, its consequences. As part and parcel of those questions they ask who
benefits from gentrification and who bears its costs. Finally, they seek to isolate and debate
the precise factors that produce gentrification’s outcomes. The following paragraphs
introduce each of these questions and begin to outline the positions of the authors in this
section.
What are gentrification’s benefits? While Richard Florida’s selection is not explicitly
about gentrification (he relies instead on language about “revitalization”), it represents
the hope that gentrification proponents hold for the return of the middle class to the city.
Specifically, they hope it will breed broad transformation by revitalizing economically
depressed areas, increasing tax revenues, introducing or rehabilitating cultural and social
amenities, and restoring historic properties (Duany 2001, Byrne 2003). In turn, they envi
sion that such changes will lead to job creation (Byrne 2003) and decreased crime rates
(McDonald 1986; see discussion in Atkinson 2003,2004). Indeed, Florida encourages cit
ies to spur an influx of the “creative class” by introducing some changes associated with
gentrification with the hope that the creative class will encourage economic growth (see
discussion in Atkinson & Easthope 2009).
Others, such as Lance Freeman, attend to gentrification’s neighborhood-level benefits.
While Freeman acknowledges that class tensions thwart some of gentrification’s potential
benefits, he nonetheless argues that an influx of residents with high cultural, social, and
economic capital heightens collective efficacy that, in turn, improves neighborhood insti
tutions, such as schools, that serve not only gentrifiers, but also longtime residents. In his
essay in this section of the book Freeman also proposes that gentrification may benefit
some longtime residents by exposing them to gentrifiers’ social connections. He writes,
“Gentrification certainly brings individuals with more leverageable connections into spa
tial proximity with indigenous residents” (2006:147). In addition, he notes that gentrifiers
demand, fund, and often receive “better amenities and services” (2006:152) that benefit
an entire neighborhood (see also Henig & Gale 1987). Imagine, for instance, the grocery
store that ignores years of complaints only to improve its produce selection in response to
gentrifiers’ demands, or long neglected sidewalks that the city repairs upon the opening
of high-end bistros and clothing boutiques. As Paul Lev}' and Roman Cybriwsky suggest
(1980:145), the latter is one example of a mechanism by which gentrification may reduce
longtime residents’ social isolation from the city of which they are a part. Yet, in the same
essay, Levy and Cybriwsky caution that many longtime residents, for whom displacement
is inevitable, will benefit from this reduced isolation for only a short time.
Who benefits from gentrification? Many contend—particularly in the popular press—
that neighborhood gentrification promises to benefit the broader city or town in which it
occurs by increasing tax revenues and improving the physical infrastructure of depressed
areas (see discussion in Atkinson 2004). As Richard Florida implies, many hope that gentri
fication will bolster place reputation by cultivating a “‘hip’ urban lifestyle found in places
280 | JAP O N ICA BROW N-SARACINO
like San Francisco, Seattle, NewYork and Chicago” (2002: 285). In addition, some argue
that gentrification increases a sense of safety, most assuredly for new residents, as gentri
fiers form neighborhood watch committees and call on city police to increase local patrols
(McDonald 1986). Most also concur that gentrification benefits gentrifiers by providing
them—at least in its early stages—with relatively affordable housing options, lifestyle ame
nities, proximity to work opportunities, and, in the case of property and business owners,
potential financial profit. That said, others, such as Levy and Cybriswky (1980), note that
gentrification may displace some early gentrifiers, such as artists and students, suggest
ing that it is an oversimplification to suggest that gentrification is uniformly beneficial—
even for gentrifiers (Clay 1979; Kerstein 1990; Lloyd 2005). And, of course, even some of
those who recognize gentrification’s benefits for cities or gentrifiers do not believe that it
is defensible in light of the process’ consequences for long-timers (Peck 2005), particularly
for marginalized population groups such as the poor, elderly (Henig 1984), female-headed
households (Bondi 1991), and racial minorities (Perez 2005).
Does gentrification benefit longtime residents? Several of the selections in this section
suggest in clear terms that it does not, perhaps most notably the essays by Gina Perez and
Michael Chernoff. Such authors specify that the achievement of many of gentrification’s
"benefits,” such as an increased sense of safety, harm longtime residents. For instance,
several of the selections note that gentrifiers and officials rely, in part, on police harass
ment of poor and working class residents to achieve a sense of safety. However, others
acknowledge that longtime residents nonetheless hope to benefit from gentrification
(e.g., Pattillo 2008), and, as mentioned above, a few scholars, such as Lance Freeman,
suggest that in some cases this hope is realized. Likewise, while Richard Florida cau
tions against over-gentrification, he suggests that amenities geared toward the creative
class can be shared by all: "amenities—like bike lanes or off-road trails for running,
cycling, rollerblading or just walking your dog—benefit a wide swath of the population”
(2002:294).
What are gentrification’s consequences? Levy and Cybriwsky remind us that the very
measures some use to evaluate gentrification’s success, such as rising property values and
an influx of affluent professionals, spell “personal disaster” (1980: 139) for others. This
disaster often takes the form of physical displacement, which, as several of this section’s
readings demonstrate, results in the disruption of longstanding ties and, in some cases,
homelessness.
However, physical displacement is not gentrification’s only consequence. In their
selection Levy and Cybriwsky suggest that it is a mistake to measure gentrification’s con
sequences purely in economic or demographic terms, such as by calculating increases
in residential and commercial rents and property taxes or the number of individuals dis
placed. While they wish for us to attend to such factors, they also encourage attention
to cultural conflicts that they believe pervade gentrifying places, particularly in gentri
fication’s early and mid stages when longtime and new residents are most likely to com-
ingle (Clay 1979). Likewise, Michael Chernoff points to the practical and psychological
consequences of a loss of local power and influence for longtime residents, and, relying
on a more contemporary case, Gina Perez argues that this loss of control is heightened
when “Gentrification reconfigures a neighborhood’s racial and social landscape” (2004:
145). This perspective poses a challenge to those who suggest that longtime residents will
benefit from gentrification-induced institutional and municipal transformations (Florida
2002, Freeman 2005).
W HAT ARE THE O U TCO M ES AND CO N S EQ U EN C ES OF GENTRIFICATION? |
I f gentrification com es with attendant negative consequences, who does it harm? The
literature suggests that longtime residents absorb the brunt of gentrification’s negative
consequences. Although, as mentioned above, some suggest that early stage gentrifiers
and their establishments sometimes also suffer consequences, such as displacement, and
Levy and Cybriwsky suggest that a broad cross-section of residents experience a "loss of
social cohesion” (1980:145) as they negotiate the economic and cultural divides that per
meate gentrifying neighborhoods.
With regards to gentrification’s consequences for longtime residents, Derek Hyra’s
selection (2008) demonstrates that the extent and nature of that harm varies from city
to city depending on municipal policies. For instance, the specific segment of longtime
residents whom gentrification displaces varies by neighborhood: in Chicago’s Bronzeville
gentrification displaced many public housing residents, while in Harlem many of those
displaced are individuals who earn a moderate income and therefore do not qualify for
public housing.
Other authors’ work suggests that the harm longtime residents experience varies in
accordance with their demographic characteristics, such as their economic position,
racial or ethnic identity, gender, and age, as well as in relationship to their personal cir
cumstances, such as whether they own or rent, or whether they share their home with
someone else who can help shoulder the burdens of rising costs (Henig 1981, Atkinson
2002, Brown-Saracino 2009). Many scholars argue that the social groups with the fewest
resources, such as the elderly, the poor, and racial and ethnic minorities bear the brunt of
gentrification’s costs (Henig 1981, Atkinson 2002, Vigdor 2002).
What factors are responsible fo r gentrification’s outcom es an d consequences? As this
book has already demonstrated, there is debate about the precise factors that drive gentri
fication and this translates into disagreement about the source of gentrification’s conse
quences. This is apparent in this section in, for instance, differences between selections by
Gina Perez and Mary Pattillo, each of which profiles the daily harassment poor and work
ing class residents of color face in gentrifying neighborhoods. While Perez attends to the
culpability of individual harassers, such as a merchant or police officer who discriminates
against Puerto Rican youth, Pattillo emphasizes how formal institutions, such as a uni
versity and a neighborhood organization, develop policies that fuel patterns of race- and
class-based mistreatment.
Throughout this book, authors have underlined the influence of various factors on gen
trification’s contours—from the presence and character of corporate interests (Gotham
2005), to a city’s relative affluence (Glass 1968), and gentrifiers’ characteristics and inter
ests (Taylor 2002, Lloyd 2005, Pattillo 2007). In short, most agree that gentrification varies
by place, time, and stage, and, likewise, the authors in this section examine how gentrifica
tion’s outcomes and consequences vary by context. For instance, they underline the influ
ence of market forces (Pattillo 2008), city policies (Hyra 2008), local institutions (Pattillo
2008, Florida 2002), and a neighborhood’s spatial location within a city (Levy & Cybriwsky
1980:142).
Cumulatively, they suggest that the experience of living in a gentrifying neighborhood
varies by place and time, by group, and from individual to individual. Yet, this section
reminds us that even those who believe that gentrification benefits neighborhoods and
cities acknowledge that gentrification typically produces consequences such as some
degree of physical and social displacement, class and cultural conflict, and, in many
cases, ethnic and racial tensions and discrimination. They debate the extent to which
displacement occurs, as well as about how to measure it (Atkinson 2000), and about the
nature and source of neighborhood conflict, but few anticipate a gentrification without
such features.
In the opening paragraphs of this essay I argued that gentrification’s consequences are
often apparent in the physical landscape and that we tend to use visual representations
of gentrification’s outcomes to define and recognize the process. While the authors in this
section might agree with my assessment, they would likely debate about their meaning
or significance. Does a new sports bar in Uptown spell hope or doom? Is Boystown an
example of an urban revitalization that we should celebrate or of a patterned commer
cialization of neighborhood culture that we should shun? From whose perspective ought
we answer such questions (Lang 1982)? If physical or social displacement occurs, which
local population groups are most likely to be displaced? As a result of their different per
spectives, the authors’ policy recommendations range from methods for enabling gen
trification (Florida 2002), to strategies for preventing displacement (Hyra 2008). As you
read, you might consider how you would answer the questions and dilemmas that the
authors pose.
1. What are the sources of the cultural conflicts that Levy and Cybriswky emphasize and
that other authors attend to? How and why do those sources vary by context?
2. What policy recommendations would you offer to address physical displacement?
To what extent would your recommendations for addressing “social displacement”
(Chernoff 1980:204) be similar to or different from those for physical displacement?
3. Imagine that you chair a committee of social workers, the directors of city agencies, and
nonprofit administrators who share the task of addressing gentrification’s costs in your
city. Your review of research on gentrification suggests that gentrification’s outcomes
are context-specific. That is, outcomes vary, within a set of parameters, from neighbor
hood to neighborhood. How would this acknowledgement influence your committee’s
recommendations for addressing city-wide physical and social displacement? What
neighborhood-level characteristics would you look for to help predict the services
required in a given neighborhood?
4. Which population groups are most at risk of displacement or most likely to suffer from
gentrification’s other negative consequences? Does the level of harm residents expe
rience vary in accordance with the class, cultural, racial, and ethnic characteristics of
longtime residents and gentrifiers? If you think that it does vary, what evidence is there
in the readings about how and why it does so?
ACTIVITIES
1. Visit a neighborhood that the academic literature or popular press identifies as gentri
fied or gentrifying. During your visit, walk the neighborhood streets taking careful notes
on the neighborhood’s aesthetic features (the state and quality of its sidewalks, build
ings, cars, green space, etc.), the types of businesses present, and the characteristics of
residents as well as of their interactions with one another. Based on your preliminary
observations, what outcomes or consequences of gentrification are apparent? Which
do you suspect might be present but are not readily apparent?
W HAT ARE THE O U TCO M ES AND CO N S EQ U EN C ES OF GENTRIFICATION? | 283
a. Visit a second neighborhood and repeat the activity. Consider the similarities and
differences between the two places. What characteristics of the two neighborhoods
or their gentrifications explain any differences that you noted?
RESOURCES
Atkinson, R„ 2000. “Measuring Gentrification and Displacement in Greater London.” Urban Studies, 37,
149-165.
Atkinson, R., & Kasthope H., 2009. “The Consequences of the Creative Class: The Pursuit of Creative Strategies in
Australia’s Cities,” International Journal o f Urban and Regional Research, 3 3,1:6 4 -7 9 .
Hamnett, C., &Williams, P., 1980. "Social Change in London: A Study of Gentrification.” Urban Affairs Quarterly,
15,469-487.
Henig, J. R., 1981. Gentrification and Displacement of the Elderly: An Empirical Analysis. The Gerontologist, 21,
67-75.
Lee, B., & Hodge, D., 1984. “Social Differentials in Metropolitan Residential Displacement.” In J. Palen & B.
London, editors, Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press, 140-169.
Marcuse, P., 1986. “Abandonment, Gentrification and Displacement: The Linkages in NewYork City.” InN. Smith,
& P. Williams, editors, Gentrification o f the City. London: Unwin Hyman, 153-177.
CHAPTER 21
The Hidden Dimensions of Culture and Class:

Philadelphia
Paul R. Levy and Roman A. Cybriwsky
For more than 20 years reinvestment and attempted to block construction of upper-
resettlement trends have been reshaping income townhouses and marched on City
residential neighborhoods near downtown Hall demanding an end to “recycling” poli
Philadelphia. Stimulated initially by urban cies. While these are scattered and unre
renewal activity in the 1950s and 1960s, the lated incidents, they are representative of
process of rehabilitation has been proceed many similar events that point to another
ing with remarkable speed in that part of the side of the reinvestment process: a dimen
urban core that Philadelphians call Central sion of cultural and economic conflict that
City. At least 10 neighborhoods already have belies the facile optimism of the boosters of
substantial upper-income populations, “revitalization.”
while another eight are showing marked As obvious a lesson as it seems, rein
reinvestment trends. Nightlife, once virtu vestors are being reminded almost daily
ally nonexistent in central Philadelphia, is that the inner city is not the open and rela
booming as well. Fashionable bars, restau tively unpopulated suburban frontier of
rants, nightclubs, discos and cabarets are the 1950s. For despite the grim language
proliferating in areas where the sidewalks of “decline,” "disinvestment,” “abandon
used to roll up after sundown. A recent sur ment,” and “decay,” most older urban
vey, for example, indicated that no fewer neighborhoods hardly ever became devoid
than 150 new restaurants have opened of people and supportive social and eco
in Center City during the past two years nomic institutions. Instead, the inner city
(Thompson, 1979). of Philadelphia, like the cores of most other
Yet from beneath the glitter and enthu northeastern and north central cities, has
siasm, a darker side occasionally surfaces. been the home for a variety of social groups
After months of grumbling about “tourists” whose recent experiences and views of the
parking on their sidewalks, white ethnic world are markedly different from those
residents in one neighborhood recently of the affluent, enthusiastic and confident
staged a protest in which they blocked traf professionals who are settling in next door.
fic and slashed automobile tires. In a Puerto It is hardly surprising that the “newcom
Rican area, the firebombing of a house by a ers” are not exactly being welcomed with
neighbor undid in one night many months open arms. Much attention, of course, has
of a new resident’s rehabilitation work. And been paid to the most dramatic side effects
in a black neighborhood, angry protestors of reinvestment—the phenomenon of
286 | PAUL R. LEVY AND ROMAN A. CYBRIW SKY
displacement. But far too little thought has is to look at the different attitudes toward
been devoted to the more subtle and per change in Fairmount and Queen Village.
plexing tensions which are generated sim Newcomers chose to reinvest in these areas
ply by mutual coexistence. not only to be close to jobs downtown, but
Unless planners and policy makers also precisely because these neighborhoods
become aware of the nature of these cul were changing. They saw these areas physi
tural clashes (which involve differing cally and psychologically as extensions of
attitudes toward the neighborhood, the downtown renewal, and were attracted, in
home, sex roles, childrearing and work), large part, because these were places “on
the next decade of urban resettlement may the way up.” For them, Fairmount or Queen
be characterized by bitter and occasion Village was valued not so much for what
ally vicious conflicts between econom ic it had been, but rather for what it might
and social groups which have traditionally become.
been segregated in American society. If This generalization might not apply to
predictions about population redistribu the few early newcomers who arrived in
tion trends are co rrect. . . , then we may be Fairmount or Queen Village in the 1960s.
involved in nothing less than the complete There were few predictions at that time that
remaking of the inner residential cores of these neighborhoods were on the thresh
most older American cities. Put bluntly, old of change, and it is doubtful that many
we do not have the luxury of doing it badly early arrivers knew, or even wanted, the
again. type of transition that would follow. Most
This chapter focuses on the cultural and of the early migrants came because house
class tensions that have emerged in recent prices were low and because they valued
years in two reinvestment neighborhoods socially heterogeneous environments.
in central Philadelphia. Yet our context is a They decried the “monotony” of suburbia
much broader overview of the patterns of and the “sterility” of Society Hill, and hoped
disinvestment and public urban renewal to fit in socially with their new neighbors.
during the past two decades. For the con However, by the early 1970s, the type
flicts generated by private reinvestment of resettlers began to change. Many were
have not occurred within a social or histori endued with a “pioneer” spirit, and felt
cal vacuum. Rather, the perceptions dif that their very presence was pushing
ferent groups hold of events in the present back the "wilderness” at the "urban fron
have been very much influenced by their tier.” For them, the prospect of changing
experiences in the past. Thus, it is important a neighborhood was both a challenge and
to establish that although the remaking of a social responsibility. They undertook
the commerical and residential downtown major housing renovation projects, which
has appeared an unquestioned success to typically employed either ultramodern or
some, for others it has been a deeply unset “historically authentic” styles, depending
tling experience that has often bordered on on the person and the house. In altering
personal disaster. [...] the physical landscape, they contributed
to what they defined as urban betterment,
and signaled to other young, professional
CONTRASTING CONCEPTIONS OF
people that the neighborhood might
THE NEIGHBORHOOD
become another Society Hill, a standard
Perhaps the best way to comprehend the against which the extent of reinvestment
varying interpretations of the term “neigh in other neighborhoods is often compared.
borhood” between new and old residents As a newcomer to Fairmount said in 1972:
T H E HIDDEN DIM ENSIONS OF C U L T U R E AND C LA S S : PHILADELPHIA | 287
“More and more people like us are moving Community life revolved around the
into neighborhoods like this. The cities are many churches, schools, clubs, and small
coming around, revitalizing. “ cornerbusinesses which dotbothneighbor-
For many newcomers the neighbor hoods. Often, these institutions were iden
hood was perceived as a means to an end tified with specific ethnic groups. As Robert
rather than as an end in itself. It was clear Park (1915) noted more than six decades
by the early 1970s that both neighborhoods ago, no sooner did European immigrants
were good for investment, and many new settle in a place than they attempted to rec
residents were drawn partly because they reate the institutions and folkways of their
could realize a substantial profit by selling former village life. As quickly as they moved
their houses after a short stay. Many saw in and located jobs, they established reli
Fairmount or Queen Village as a way station gious institutions, social clubs and benefi
in their personal life cycles or professional cial associations. “The effect of this,” wrote
careers.Astheyadvancedeconomically,oras Park (1915, pp. 579-580), was
children were born and approached school
age, many newcomers would move to other to convert what was first a m ere geographic
settings. In this way, residential turnover expression into a neighborhood, that is to
rates increased greatly in both neighbor say, a locality with sentim ents, traditions,
and a history of its own. Within this neighbor
hoods, because new arrivals started to take
hood the continuity of the historical process
the place not only of established residents,
is som ehow maintained. The past imposes
but also of earlier newcomers. For a number itself upon the present, and the life of every
of reasons that will become obvious shortly, locality moves on with a certain m om entum
this transience is often deeply resented by of its own, m ore or less independent of the
the “indigenous” population. larger circle of life and the interests about it.
Such attitudes among newcomers con
trasted sharply with neighborhood percep To be sure, ethnicity is now less important
tions held by long-term residents. For many in defining social relations than it once was,
adults in Fairmount and Queen Village, their and old immigrant neighborhoods are not
neighborhood is the only one that they have as isolated socially from the surrounding
ever lived in. Some have lived in the same areas as when Park made his observations.
house for longer than 50 years, and quite a But remnants of such patterns persisted
few can trace their family’s presence in the into the 1970s both in Fairmount and Queen
area for three or more generations. Other Village. It is difficult to measure such things
residents are immigrants from the chaos precisely, but an indication that ethnicity
of post-World War II Europe, and for them and propinquity remain important is pro
Fairmount or Queen Village is the first and vided by a survey of marriage patterns in
only residence they have known in America. Fairmount. Of 174 marriages which involved
Many long-term residents have relatives or at least one neighborhood resident, 43.7
lifelong friends in the neighborhood, and percent involved partners within the same
until prices escalated recently, it was not ethnic group. Moreover, in nearly one-half
unusual for newly married children to buy a of the cases, husband and wife lived within
house on the same block as their parents. In four blocks of each other prior to marriage .1
Fairmount in 1974 after reinvestment had So too, the sentiments and traditions that
begun, as many as two-fifths of long-term Park described remain, and have contrib
residents had relatives elsewhere in the uted over the years to the neighborhoods’
neighborhood and approximately one-fifth strong sense of identity and cohesion. As
had relatives on the same block. Caroline Golab (1977, p. 166) wrote in her
study of Philadelphia’s immigrant commu defined variously by age, kinship, ethnicity

nities, the neighborhood was important to and proximity. Children play hopscotch,
residents in an emotional sense, stickball and street hockey where there are
vacant parking spaces or tour the neighbor
b ecause it was the physical entity em body hood on their bicycles, while street corners
ing their comm unity, their system of social
and playgrounds belong to teenagers who
and em otional relationships. Their hom es
frequently hang out in large groups. During
b ecam e extensions of them selves and the
hot summer weather, bar patrons take their
neighborhood b ecam e the physical exten
sion of their hom es. The neighborhood was a
drinks outside and form tight clusters at
personalized, alm ost internalized thing. Any tavern corners. First impressions of such
threat to it was a threat to them . patterns might suggest chaos and crowd
ing in a tightly packed neighborhood, but
Thus, for long-term residents Fairmount or both areas have a complex territorial order
Queen Village has been “home” in the full which prescribes a time and place for differ
meaning of the word. The neighborhood ent people and their activities and thereby
was not just a locale within the city, but reduces conflict.
also a community of family and friends and Newcomers are not part of this way of
the setting for an entire way of life. A social life. Most are not interested in participat
worker in Queen Village explained the con ing, but even those who came to the neigh
ception of neighborhood held by long-term borhood “to be with the people” generally
residents as follows: “A neighborhood is find that the “people” will have little to do
more than their house. It’s more than the with them. Outdoor life in Fairmount and
money they can invest or the money they Queen Village, as it was observed in other
could get. It’s a sense of pride, a sense of urban villages (Gans, 1962; Suttles, 1968), is
family. It’s a sense of sensitivity. It’s a sense tightly bonded by social networks, friend
of church. It’s a sense. It’s a sixth or seventh ships from childhood, common ethnicity
sense that no newcomer can ever have." and common work experiences. Outsiders
cannot possibly share this. Neighboring
relations between established residents
USE OF OUTDOOR SPACE
and newcomers might be cordial, but full
These contrasting conceptions of long integration of the two groups rarely occurs.
term residents and newcomers manifest Only in those specific instances when the
themselves in the use of the neighborhood. two share a common external enemy, such
For example, in good weather, and espe as Queen Village’s battle against exit ramps
cially after dinner, sidewalks and streets for Interstate 95, have effective bonds been
are crowded with long-term residents of established.
all ages engaged in a social routine that For newcomers, the outdoors is rarely the
reflects the cohesiveness of the neighbor setting for sustained social interaction. It is
hood. The front steps of houses, which abut used instead for such specific activities as
sidewalks in these row-house communi jogging or walking the dog. While new resi
ties, often function as outdoor extensions dents might spend some of their free time
of living rooms. Inside space is generally in restaurants and nightclubs near their
reserved for immediate family, but outside, homes, they do not consider the immedi
residents sit on their steps or in aluminum ate neighborhood to be the locus of their
folding chairs and greet passing neighbors. social lives. They know fewer of their neigh
Certain doorsteps have become regular bors, including other newcomers, than
congregation points for groups of residents do long-term residents, and when they do
T H E HIDDEN DIM ENSIONS OF C U L T U R E AND C LA S S : PHILADELPHIA | 289
visit friends in the neighborhood, they visit an empty industrial property with a large
indoors. In fact, many of the newly rehabili parking lot that children used as a sports
tated or newly constructed houses occu field has recently given way to the construc
pied by newcomers have no front steps at tion of expensive townhouses. In Queen
all. Instead, the house presents to the world Village new people have been known to
a locked, iron gateway, or some other sys press for the removal of some “obnoxious”
tem of security. non-residential use, only to learn later that
they were threatening to eliminate a neigh
bor’s job. So too, there is resentment among
CULTURE CONFLICT
long-term residents about the proliferation
The transition in Fairmount and Queen of trendy boutiques and fashionable res
Village, has, therefore, brought into con taurants and nightclubs.This is especially
tact two groups with contrasting percep the case in Queen Village, which now has
tions of neighborhood and with different 43 restaurants and bars that cater to afflu
lifestyles. These contacts have often pro ent tastes. Twenty-two of these opened
duced conflict. For example, one source between 1977 and the first half of 1979. In
of tension concerns the exterior decor of the midst of a recent protest against traffic,
houses. Many newcomers are interested trash and late-night noise that results from
in the preservation of old housing styles, such establishments, an elderly Queen
and have had the facades of their dwellings Village woman contemptuously exclaimed:
restored to the “original" appearance. In “Our neighborhood is being used as a play
Queen Village, the older of the two neigh ground for the rich!” (Kaufman, 1979).
borhoods, historic certification of houses Indeed, this contrast might be seen as
is popular among new residents. By con reflective of a major cultural difference
trast, more old-timers prefer simple and between representatives of a declining
functional structures, and have covered economy based on the old work ethic and
their facades with artificial stone and have on production, and those employed in
added aluminum storm and screen doors. expanding service fields oriented toward
Problems arise when well-meaning new amenities and the ethic of consumption.
comers suggest to neighbors that they fix In The Hidden Injuries o f Class, Richard
up their house "the way it is supposed to Sennett and Jonathan Cobb (1972) have
b e .” This is more than an insult about the remarked upon the peculiar ambivalence
appearance of a house; it is also indicative that blue-collar people show toward those
of an attitude that consciously promotes who do not labor with their hands. While
neighborhood change. Old residents resist they recognize and often resent the supe
such suggestions because they are well rior social status of the white-collar profes
aware that tax reassessments generally fol sional, they find it difficult to believe that
low in the wake of highly visible improve these people actually work. This is further
ments. Many have thus come to consider reinforced by the very different work pat
renovated exteriors, be they historic or terns of the increasing number of artists,
modern, as symbols of unwanted intrusion professors and self-employed individuals
and unwelcome change. who have recently settled in the two neigh
Similarly, the process of new construc borhoods. When new people obviously
tion and changing land use patterns can have the money to afford expensive houses
also generate tensions, especially when and new cars, or when they frequent new
they interfere with customary lifestyles restaurants and bars until all hours of the
and routines. For example, in Fairmount night, the resentment grows.
Thus, as increasing numbers of new housing values and tax assessments sharply
comers arrived in Fairmount and Queen upward. For example, the average sales
Village, the basic character of the neighbor price (adjusted for inflation) in Fairmount
hoods changed. The tastes of new residents rose by more than 400 percent between
started to dominate the landscape in both 1961 and 1976 (Cybriwsky and Meyer,
areas, and old ways of living started to dis 1977). In parts of Queen Village the increase
appear. Television and air-conditioning was even higher.2 Tax assessments rose in
have taken their toll as well on old habits of Queen Village by an average of 129 percent
“sitting out." But increasingly with popula between 1970 and 1 9 7 9 ,’ and some prop
tion turnover, old-time residents remarked erties had increases of between 400 and 500
that “this place isn’t like it used to be.” Since percent. 1 This compares to an increase of
1970, a number of immigrant institutions 17 percent in the contiguous First Ward. In
have closed because of suddenly declining sum, the conflicts that we have described
patronage, and others are on the verge of involve more than misunderstandings
closing. As one elderly Ukrainian woman between different cultural groups. Rather,
in Fairmount lamented: “Our people keep for long-term residents who can no longer
dying or moving out.” So too, many of the afford their neighborhood, an entire way
small “ma and pa” stores and friendly cor of life is at stake. A community worker in
ner taps are gone, replaced by new busi Queen Village summed up her perceptions
ness with new owners. An anecdote that is of the process as follows:
repeatedly told in Queen Village captures
well what many old-timers feel is happen What you have is a class problem. You have
ing in their neighborhood. “You know,” one people com ing in who have money, who can
version goes, “it used to be I would go out to make repairs. They had very good motives.
the corner store to buy a newspaper and my They were going to upgrade the com m unity
wife wouldn’t expect me back for at least an and support the ethnic people who were
hour. I’d usually get caught up talking with there. They w anted som e of the life style,
security and safety and knowing neighbors
someone. Now I go out, there’s no one on
and the friendliness that you don’t always get.
the street, so I’m back in two minutes and
But w hat happened is, you had individuals
my wife asks me what's wrong.” just buying the property and doing repairs or
w hatever and it caught on. So you had people
who could afford $40,000, you know, young
CATACLYSMIC CHANGE
married, professionals, som e children, m ov
All these conflicts might be considered no ing i n . . . . So it b ecam e obvious to the co m
more than the intriguing contrasts gener munity that these were outsiders. You can
ated by the diversity of urban life were it not take one or two, but when you begin to get in
for economic factors which have repeatedly the m inority.. . .
exacerbated tensions. As rehabilitation has
proceeded, each neighborhood has been It ought to be clear from this, though too
pulled into the orbit of the Center City hous often it is not, that the “enemies” in reinvest
ing market by powerful economic forces. ment neighborhoods are neither new peo
Very quickly, increasing demand exhausted ple nor old, but a process of change that can
the supply of vacant properties, and market only be termed cataclysmic. Our research
pressures soon forced the eviction of long has indicated that in the initial stages of the
term tenants from apartments and rented process, rehabilitation activity did not seem
houses. Likewise, the price of rehabilita threatening to a majority of residents. Many
tion and new construction soon pushed were pleased by the arrival of "new blood”
TH E HIDDEN DIMENSIONS OF C ULTUR E AND CLASS: PHILADELPHIA |
and the resulting improvements to deterio THE INNER CITY AT A CROSSROADS

rating buildings. But there seems to have
been a threshold that was crossed, after There seems to be no end in sight. Inflation
which feelings and perceptions radically and rising energy costs are increasing the
altered. Some became embittered when a demand for inner-city housing, and within
relative or friend suddenly was forced to go. the past two years, reinvestment patterns
Others became aware of the change only have surfaced beyond the immediate
when their recently married children could downtown area. For example, a recent in-
not afford housing in the area. Many were house study by the Philadelphia Planning
annoyed by illegal real estate solicitation. Commission found that in the deteriorat
Others began to see the consequences of ing neighborhood of Northern Liberties
rampant speculation. In Queen Village, the northeast of Center City, 50 percent of the
sudden increase in apartments created a properties changed hands in 1978 alone.
dramatic parking problem seemingly over A recent issue of P hiladelphia M agazine
night. In both neighborhoods, the demoli even contained a “handicappers” guide
tion of old warehouses and businesses to to the next “in” neighborhoods, complete
make way for townhouse developments with tips from experts on how to speculate
seemed to signal to many that the process in inner-city real estate (Saline, 1979 and
had “gotten out of control.” companion articles in the same issue). It
As rehabilitation moved block by block appears that several neighborhoods are
through the neighborhoods, feelings thus on the verge of replicating the pat
changed from surprise, to helplessness, terns of cataclysmic change which we have
to rage. Old-timers began to feel that their observed in Fairmount and Queen Village.
communities were being bought out from Many observers of the reinvestment
under them. A former resident of Queen process have argued that this is only the
Village expressed it this way: “There is an inevitable course of neighborhood change.
incredible feeling of impotence. I can’t do Given the cumulative “snow-balling” effect
anything about these people. . . . They are of market forces, it is often asserted that
coming in and they are liable to do me in. no other type of transition will be possible.
. . . We are at their mercy. They are the big The fact that residential location frequently
guys coming in. They have the money. I just serves as a symbol for social prestige is one
hope that they don’t do us in.” The pastor reason why rapid turnover is to be expected.
of a black church in Queen Village, whose Individuals and groups, it is argued, ulti
congregation was rapidly displaced, put it mately prefer to live with those who share
more starkly: “. . .the process looks to me their values, their customs and their tastes
inexorable. Money follows money—and it’s (Perin, 1977). Indeed, since 59 percent
just eating the neighborhood alive!” of all the dollars spent on new housing
Indeed, the rate of change has been so construction and rehabilitation in South
intense that newcomers who bought houses Philadelphia were spent in Queen Village
not more than five years ago have joined alone,5 there seems to be some evidence for
established residents in seeking limits and this clustering effect.
restrictions on local development. Many in Whether this truly reflects individual
Queen village joke about what is termed the preference, oris the result of the steering and
"last-one-in syndrome,” but there is seri marketing activities of realtors, developers,
ous concern by all residents about parking, speculators, and "fashionable” magazines,
apartment density, bars and restaurants, remains a question for further research. But
and skyrocketing prices. let us assume, for the sake of argument, that
such “boom town” development will char cars, graffiti painting on their homes, verbal
acterize future patterns of urban reinvest abuse and harassment on the street are not
ment. What then are the consequences for uncommon. Our observations also suggest
our cities? that such incidents are most heavily con
One only has to look back at the experi centrated on the blocks which are undergo
ence and the literature of urban renewal ing the most rapid transition.
to become painfully aware of the social Even outside reinvestment areas, there
and psychological consequences of forced have been significant reverberations. For
dislocation (Fried, 1963). Similarly, Kai T. example, throughout low-income, minor
Erikson (1976) has analyzed quite sensi ity areas of Philadelphia, there is a growing
tively the traumas which result from the sense of uncertainty about the future. Fears
loss of the sense of "communality,” as all of “recycling” are emerging in some neigh
supportive social institutions disintegrated borhoods far from downtown where there
in the wake of the flood in West Virginia’s are no signs of reinvestment activity. In
Buffalo Creek in 1972. One does not have to some areas, groups have thus been oppos
like either the physical appearance or the ing any public Community Development
values of older urban communities to rec expenditures out of fear that this will only
ognize that they created a cohesive moral ignite a wildfire of speculation. Conspiracy
order that regulated the daily activities of theories abound concerning which neigh
life on the street. As we destroy these social borhoods will be forcibly changed into the
networks and patterns of interaction, we “next Society Hill.”
destroy one of the things that has made our It is too early to discern whether rein
cities livable and safe. vestment trends in other neighborhoods
But beyond these social costs are obvious will reach the fevered pitch which charac
economic ones. Just because we have swept terizes Philadelphia’s current “hot spots.”
the problems of older urban neighborhoods The public sector may yet be roused to
out of the view of the “revived” downtown effective action. Differing neighborhood
does not mean that we have solved them. characteristics and land use patterns may
On the contrary, we may actually exacerbate moderate the process in other communi
them. Private upper-income rehabilitation ties, as might mounting resistance from
decreases the supply of low-cost housing lower-income groups. External influences,
without decreasing the demand. It can thus such as energy, may take an unexpected
only impose uprooted people on contiguous twist. Even the fashionableness of the
neighborhoods, create overcrowding, and city may prove to be a fad of limited dura
further strain already overextended social tion. Yet, if trends persist on their present
services. So too, it obviously is impossible to course, it will certainly not be the first time
plan adequately or budget appropriately for in the history of urban development that
rapidly changing populations. short-range, highly profitable gains have
Finally, there is the disturbing possibility been achieved by imposing the costs not
that if we do not cool off these “hot spots” only on the poor, but also upon a not so
of reinvestment by moderating the process distant future.
or dispersing demand, then it is likely that
some form of backlash will result. Already NOTES
in both neighborhoods we have studied,
1. These statistics were obtained from analysis of
newcomers have been subjected to vandal- daily lists of marriage license applicants pub
istic initiations that begin with the arrival of lished in the Philadelphia Inquirer, 1968 and
the moving truck. Damage to new people’s 1969. These years were chosen to eliminate
THE HIDDEN DIMENSIONS OF CU LTU R E AND CLA SS: PHILADELPHIA | 293
newcomers, who at that time were a small part of Gans, Herbert J. 1962. The Urban Villagers: Group and
the area's population. Class in the Life o f Italian-Americans. NewYork:
2. The data are from the Philadelphia Real Estate Free Press.
Directory and are for four representative reinvest Golab, Caroline. 1977. Immigrant Destinations.
ment blocks in the neighborhood. We are grateful Philadelphia: Temple University.
to Deborah McColloch for doing the tabulations. Kaufman, Marc. 1979. “Oldtimers Fear They Will Be
3. These statistics are from records of the Forced Out.” Philadelphia Bulletin. May 13, pp.
Philadelphia Tax Assessors Office and were com Cl-2.
piled by Lynne Goldman. Park, Robert E. 1915. “The City: Suggestions for the
4. This information was provided by the Queen Investigation of Human Behavior in the City
Village Neighbors Association from their files on Environment.” American Journal o f Sociology 20
property tax appeals. (March): pp. 577-612.
5. This figure was made available by the Department Perin, Constance. 1977. Everything in Its Place: Social
of Licenses and Inspections in Philadelphia. Order and Land Use in America. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University.
REFEREN CES Saline, Carol. 1979. “A New Philadelphia: Get It
While It’s Hot!” Philadelphia Magazine (June):
Cybriwsky, Roman A., and Meyer, James T. 1977. p. 122 .
“Geographical Aspects of the Housing Market in a Sennet, Richard, and Cobb, Jonathan. 1972. The
Rejuvenating Neighborhood." Papers in Geography Hidden Injuries o f Class. NewYork: Knopf.
16 (December): Suttles, Gerald D. 1968. The Social Order o f the Slum:
Erikson, KaiT. 1976. Everything in Its Path. NewYork: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City. Chicago:
Simon and Schuster. University of Chicago.
Fried, Marc. 1963. “Grieving for a Lost Home.” In L. J. Thompson, Bill. 1979. "What’s That Boom in
Duhl, ed., The Urban Condition, pp. 151-171. New Philadelphia?” Philadelphia Inquirer. April 29, pp.
York: Basic Books. Gl, 4.
CHAPTER 22
Social Displacement in a Renovating

Neighborhood’s Commercial District: Atlanta
Michael Chernoff
This is a case study of a neighborhood com the conflict which has arisen in Little Five
mercial district, Little Five Points (LFP) in Points and which may be inevitable in any
Atlanta, which has changed in composition changing residential or business neighor-
over the past several years. Any city area bood.
changes over time, but here the new arriv Social displacement can manifestitselfin
als share characteristics which distinguish several ways. For example, the loss of politi
them from the older business people. The cal control in an area can lead to demoral
newcomers are demographically differ ization, or a sense of one’s lifestyle being
ent and hold different philosophies toward threatened. At some point, residents or
their businesses, and the commercial businesses may feel compelled to leave the
district as a whole, than do the older mer area; thus physical displacement may stem
chants. This compositional change and the from social rather than economic pressure.
tension it produces will be discussed within Social displacement might be marked by
the framework of social displacement, in a gradual withdrawal from neighborhood
contrast to physical displacement. activities by the displaced. They drop out of
By social displacement I mean the local organizations or remove themselves
replacement of one group by another, in from political activities. Thus, they com
some relatively bounded geographic area, plete their own displacement by relinquish
in terms of prestige and power. This includes ing attachments to the associations which
the ability to affect decisions and policies were formerly the bases of their power.
in the area, to set goals and priorities, and These reactions will be discussed below as
to be recognized by outsiders as the legiti regards Little Five Points.
mate spokesmen for the area. Social dis The literature on residential revitaliza
placement is then a typical accompanying tion has documented the demographic
feature of physical displacement. Yet physi features of the new residential inmigrant
cal displacement need not always go along populations (Black, Chapter 1 in [Back to
with social displacement. In the case con the City], Bradley, 1977, 1978; Fichter, 1977;
sidered here, the older group of business Gale, Chapter 7 in [Back to the City]-, Laska
people has not been displaced physically, and Spain Chapter 8 in [B ack to the City]-,
but they have lost a considerable amount Zeitz, 1976).
of the neighborhood control they once had. In addition, revitalization has sparked
This idea provides a guide to understanding interest in the displacement of lower-
296 | M IC H A ELCH ER N O FF
incomegroups (U.S. Senate, 1977).Typically This chapter focuses on the controversy

the focus is on the physical dislocation of among the neighborhood and commercial
people and the economic impact of this residents over a proposed redevelopment
dislocation with an eye toward developing plan for Little Five Points for which $350,000
mechanisms to ease the burden of higher of federal Community Development Block
rents and property taxes or actual physi Grant (CDBG) funds have been allocated. A
cal displacement (as when a multifamily formal plan exists (City of Atlanta), calling
unit is converted to single-family status). for sidewalk repair, general beautification,
Some small body of research has been con and most controversially, the establishment
cerned with the social problems associated of two small pedestrian malls achieved by
with revitalization, rather than the physical an alteration of street patterns in LFP.
displacement per se (cf. Cybriwsky, 1978; The exploration of social displacement in
see also Levy and Cybriwsky, Chapter 9 in LFP begins in the mid-1960s, with changes
[Back to the City]). Cybriwsky describes the in the surrounding residential areas, the
resentment of the new migrants by the old spread of change to LFP itself, and the
and even some vandalism directed against resultant change in the composition of the
the property of the new residents. In gen LFP business community. The dispute over
eral, however, relatively little work to date the plan will be examined as it reflects the
has dealt with the social dynamics which social displacement problems associated
often accompany neighborhood change. with the compositional changes. [...]
Studies concerned with revitalizing com
mercial areas have dealt even less with the
THE DEVELOPMENT OF
social than those concerned exclusively with
COMMERCIAL CONFLICT
residential areas. Loan availability, the dol
lar volume in the market area and the mix The first clashes among members of the LFP
of goods and services (Goldstein and Davis, business district occurred in the mid-1960s
1977; Lemmon, 1978) are examples of types over transportation. One centered on a state
of economic factors which have been exam plan to construct two major interstate high
ined. While these studies attend to the resi ways which would have passed close to the
dential context of the commercial district, center of LFP one cutting directly through
they do so mainly in terms of market consid Inman Park. The second involved a plan to
erations. Rarely is there mention of the social widen Moreland Avenue, the main traffic
aspects of the relationship between the two. artery through LFP Part of this latter project
One can draw a conceptual distinction was actually completed, running south from
between a commercial area and its residen the center of LFP; the proposal was to com
tial context, but in fact the two are typically plete the widening through the rest of LFP to
linked. The former, by offering a particu the north. In general, the business commu
lar type of goods and services, may draw a nity at that time was in favor of both projects,
certain population to adjoining neighbor believing that they would stimulate business
hoods. Conversely, the composition of resi by bringing additional traffic into the area.
dential neighborhoods can influence the This sentiment was not shared by resi
decisions of merchants and proprietors to dents of a number of neighborhoods
locate in the area or to modify the nature of through which the roads were to pass.
their merchandise, hoping to capture a por Although land acquisition and the demo
tion of the proximate market. Because of the lition of housing units had already begun,
interrelationships, changes in one can lead a coalition of neighborhood groups was
to changes in the other. formed to fight the highways, an effort that
S O C IA L D ISP LACEM ENT IN A RENOVATING N EIG H B O R H O O D ’S CO M M ERCIAL D ISTR ICT | 297
proved to be at least temporarily success The conflicts over the highways and street
ful. The Moreland Avenue project likewise widening are, however, more than just past
fell upon hard times and although not ulti battles. They continue to provide an expla
mately defeated, it has been halted for the nation for the attitudes people hold toward
time being. Both these issues represent the the LFP redevelopment plan. The plan’s
first confrontation between the business proponents are especially sensitive to the
district and the new migrants to the sur situation created by the defeat of the high
rounding residential areas. ways. One said:
While the business community may have
been fairly well united in its support for the The people who have been the most ada
interstate construction and arterial widen mant against the plan are people who are
ing, it did not prevail. The newer residents major property owners in the area. You go
in surrounding neighborhoods, essen back about ten years.. . . and we were look
ing to have a freeway through this area and
tially middle-class, were a political force of
a widened Moreland Avenue and a MARTA
growing potency. Coupled with the general [Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit
awareness across the country of local neigh Authority] station built right on top of
borhood power, whether of the lower- or Moreland Avenue down here. So if you were
middle-class variety, the anti-highway vic- a property owner in Little Five Points, you’d
toriesenhancedtheconfidenceoftheneigh- been here 20,30 years; you’d seen your prop
borhood residents in their ability to affect erty values decline and go downhill. You’re
public plans (cf. Advisory Commission on older; you’re thinking about your retirement
Intergovernmental Relations, 1972; Cole, or where you’d like to live. You’d like to get
1974; Kansas City Urban Observatory, n.d.; your money out of your property. You’d like to
sell it for a good price. Well, the freeway, the
Yin and Yates, 1974; Yin and Lucas, 1973).
widening, and all this stuff, all of a sudden you
see a lot of hope. The property in the area’s
The Fight over the Highways going to be worth something again. So first of
all here come all these neighborhood people
Many members of the LFP business com and they kill off the freeway. Then they kill
munity recognize the controversies over off the Moreland Avenue widening. MARTA
Moreland Avenue and the two freeways as moves the rapid transit station__ So all of a
the root of conflict in the area which today sudden, and then, as if to add insult to injury,
is manifested in the dispute over the rede now they start coming and talking about clos
velopment plan to “beautify” LFP. As a plan ing streets in Little Five Points. It’s not hard to
opponent put it: see how from some people’s point of view, all
of a sudden they were going to have this great
opportunity to at some point sell their prop
There has been conflict over several things
between the business community and the erty or redevelop it and do real well and from
their point of view all that’s been destroyed.
housing restorers, the restoration group.
And here it’s going to be this little neighbor
It started a number of years ago when the
hood shopping area where you don’t have big
Stone-Mountain [Interstate485] Freeway was
companies interested in the land.
proposed.. . . And the business community
felt it would be the greatest boon to business
Looking back over the same issues, cur
that had ever come through the neighbor
hood and the restoration group said no, it rent plan opponents take the view that ( 1)
would just totally destroy everything they’d the widening and the new freeways would
been working for.. .. That was the beginning have been good for business, (2 ) the neigh
of some conflicts and some disagreements. borhood people are generally opposed to
There have been quite a few other issues. vehicular traffic for selfish reasons, and (3)
298 | MICHAEL CHERNOFF
opposition to the roads reflects an unreal the first “new” businesses began arriving
istic vision of what is necessary in the area. about five years ago. Since that time, many
Moreover, several argued that the defeat of have moved into the area, some of them
these projects involved collusion between only briefly. The features of the new busi
area residents and city officials, a “conspir nesses which are most pertinent to this dis
atorial” theory of sorts. cussion are that ( 1) they are often owned by
area residents, often people from Candler
[Regarding the Moreland Avenue widening] Park, (2) the goods and services they offer
some of the [City] Council people had got are more directly aimed at the residents of
some information that the federal govern surrounding neighborhoods, (3) they rely
ment was going to issue some Community to a large extent on local residents for their
Development funds to revitalize some of business, and, most importantly, (4) they
the older residential-business areas. So they
have a view of the kind of business district
smelt [sic] an opportunity to make a dollar. So
Little Five Points should be which contrasts
they had a meeting that nobody would know
anything about and the City voted to turn
with the orientation of some of the older
thumbs down on the widening. . . . Some of merchants.
this group, friends of the Council group, even These new proprietors, many already
one or more Council persons got together and active in neighborhood civic associations,
formed a corporation and bought the build began joining the Business Association a
ings [in L F P ].. . . They bought that because few years ago. Now they are the "majority”
they were figuring on being able to get this in LFP. This change is noteworthy because
money. it previews the social displacement expe
rienced by older merchants and property
That a “conspiracy” theory should emerge owners in the area. For the first time, the
among the minority is not remarkable in and hegemony of the traditional business lead
of itself. But the emergence of this explana ers was challenged. The challenge was, and
tion of events and the defeat of the roads set is, over very real issues, represented today
the stage for an intensification of such feel by the redevelopment plan for the use of
ings over subsequent issues. The quotation CDBG funds.
above is a rare expression of “conspiracy” I use the term “infiltration” somewhat
related to the earlier highway issues; it is a facetiously to describe the changing com
more frequent response to the current rede position of the business district. The new
velopment plan. Whereas the controversy businesses are legitimate rent-paying ten
over the Interstate and the street widening ants or property owners. But their arrival
occurred between the business community represents the spread to LFP and the type of
and an "outside” agent (i.e., the residential individual who is moving into Inman Park
communities), the present conflict illus and Candler Park. This development rein
trates the same attitudinal differences but forces the link between the two. Whichever
the range of opinions is now found within is the primary casual direction (the desire
the business community itself. by new residents to reform the business
area or the lure of new residents to their
neighborhoods because of the business
The “Infiltration” o f Little Five Points
district) there is a decreasing distinction
Although it is impossible to specify the between the characteristics of the neigh
characteristics of a “new” kind of business borhoods and those of the majority of mer
in LFP, as opposed to the older businesses, chants in LFP. This difference between the
observers in the area generally agree that new and old business people will be made
SOCIAL DISPLACEM ENT IN A RENOVATING NEIG H BO R H O O D ’S COM M ERCIAL DISTRICT | 299
clear in an examination of the dispute over business people in LFP, people who estab
the redevelopment plan. lished businesses there for the express pur
pose of taking advantage of the grant money.
The conduct of this new group during the
THE CONFLICT OVER THE
development of the plan was believed to be
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
generally secretive and deliberately exclu
As mentioned earlier, the redevelopment sionary of the older business people. As one
plan calls for a number of “beautification” of the long-time owners says: “The owners
projects in and changes in the street pat of the [business] and the [business]. .. have
terns within the business district. It is on some silent partners that have ties to City
this latter aspect of the plan that the con Hall. Well, I think that some of the people
troversy hinges. The term "street closing” that have stock in those two corporations
has itself become something of a battle cry either work for or hold elected positions in
for the plan’s opponents. Proponents, con the City of Atlanta.” Another, referring to a
versely, use other terms, like ‘‘traffic rerout neighborhood meeting to discuss and vote
ing.” Despite the apparent centering of the on the plan: “I hadn’t planned to go because
argument over the effects on business of the I didn't know they were going to have it.
new traffic pattern, there appear to be other That was always the way. Everything was
factors involved and other considerations already done and we were not told; we were
in the minds of the participants. not supposed to know. They didn’t want us
Essentially, the conflict over the plan to know about it.”
is the first major issue to arise within the
reconstituted business district, pitting one
Characterization o f “the Others”
portion of the community against another
instead of against some outside entity. The Along with the lack of trust between the
framework of social displacement offers groups over the origin and intent of the
insights to the dispute that a consideration plan is a questioning of the character of
of the strictly ‘‘economic impact” facets the "opposition.” Some of this uneasiness
cannot explain. The interviews reveal an results from age differences (original busi
awareness by participants of other dimen ness people are older in years than the
sions. The plan has become a symbolic newer) and the accompanying lifestyle and
issue, reflective of control of power over the sociopolitical differences. Older merchants
affairs of the local business community. apply such terms as “hippie type” and
“radical” to some of the newer proprietors
and newer residents in surrounding areas.
The “Conspiracy” Theory
Beyond this, though, is a tendency to ques
One common thread running through the tion the legitimacy of some of the newer
comments of the plan’s opponents is the businesses. Here is a representative state
“closed” and secretive nature of the devel ment from an opponent of the plan:
opment of the plan and, indeed, the inten
tions of its original formulators. Opponents I don’t approve of th e type businesses w e’re
argue that the plan was developed by a small getting in here that, to m e, have no really vis
number of local people who had close ties ible m eans of support. And it m akes m e su s
to City Hall and who used those connec picious really as to how the businesses are
tions to their advantage in getting the plan being su p p orted ___ W here’s the m oney c o m
approved. Also, they believe that the plan ing from? Is som eb od y else supplying it? O r . . .
is intended to benefit a small number of have we got a m arijuan a o p eration on the side
at certain hours? The money has to be coming years. These older business people are, after
from someplace and it don’t com e from the all, people who in the past were dominant
business that walks in the place and buys the in the community and who played a major
m erchandise.. . . They’re being subsidized or role in any issue or decision facing LFR Now,
there’s something that’s not legitimate.
numerically if in no other way, they have
been supplanted by individuals they do not
Conversely, plan proponents portray some know personally. The loss of hegemony, in
of the older merchants as ‘‘being afraid of the Business Association and in community
change.” The older businesses are seen affairs in general, is a critical aspect of the
as unwilling or unable to change to take social displacement argument. Several plan
advantage of the new character of the resi proponents seemed sensitive to this issue:
dential neighborhoods. They are carrying
goods not desired by those new residents I think there was a kind of proprietorship,
and staying with marketing and display sense of proprietorship, of Little Five Points
that maybe it’s expected that people would
practices that put them at a competitive
com e to them as the people who had been
disadvantage. Plan proponents seem to here and ask their advice and ask them what
believe that there is money enough to be they wanted, and they would be in control.
made by everyone if only the older business
people wall face up to the changes which They at one time ran the Association, were
have taken place in the neighborhoods and the Association, and usually had a say. Now
they are the minority, and they feel that they
make the necessary alterations.
have probably been pushed out. And they
These remarks of the plan’s friends and resent this.
foes speak to the replacement of one group
by another in the general area which encom . . . som e people who’ve been here a very long
passes both the residential and business time, and I’m sure naturally feel they have
communities. The proponents of the plan some prerogative by virtue of howlong they’ve
been here. Then me and other people com e
insist that no damage has been done to the
marching in here with their own ideas of how
older businesses save what they brought it ought to be, join the Business Association,
upon themselves by not being “smart” in and work to support this revitalization plan.
their operations. The opponents of the plan
make more personal their attack upon the In a straightforward sense, the older busi
individuals and business which now form ness people in LFP have lost their dominant
the majority in an area which was once position in the community. It is possible to
“theirs.” document the change through the office
holding in the Business Association and by
votes on community issues. A strictly politi
The Prerogatives o f Tenure
cal transformation has taken place; barring
In the remarks made by some plan oppo some major reversal, the organizational
nents concerning the manner in which the control of LFP lies in the hands of the newer
plan was developed and “pushed” through business people.
the approval process, there is an attitude
of having been excluded from that pro
Different Visions o f the Future
cess, even deliberately. In the past, a more
homogeneous business community may Social displacement is seen not only in
well have operated in a more informal man the control of the Business Association
ner. People were well acquainted with one and the sense of exclusion during the plan
another, with ties extending back over the development sequence. A different view of
SOCIAL DISPLACEM ENT IN A RENOVATING NEIG H BO R H O O D ’S COM M ERCIAL DISTRICT |
the business district has developed among in this neighborhood . . . live here or nearby.
the newer businesses. Or, at least, this It’s not just a place where they work. It’s the
“philosophy” is seen by the participants center of their community.
as being distinct. The plan’s proponents
stress their commitment to a community- These distinctions point to the changing
oriented, community-controlled business dominant philosophy governing decisions
district. They want a strong pedestrian affecting LFP. Or at least they indicate a per
environment as opposed to an automobile ception of such a difference. And the per
oriented “strip.” This manifests itself over ception is the more important factor to the
the Moreland Avenue widening issue. Plan people involved.
proponents believe older businesses view
LFP as a work place only, and their interests OBSERVATIONS ON SOCIAL
in the area are seen to be purely business. DISPLACEMENT
Plan opponents, who recognize the plan as
an attempt to create this localized, pedes Social displacement seems to be a good
trian shopping center, believe that this term to describe the process taking place
thrust is not in the ultimate best interests in Little Five Points, wherein one group of
of business in LFP. The proponents are seen individuals is gaining a dominant position
as “illogical” or “dreamers.” Moreover they at the expense of another. The history of
are seen as talking out of both sides of their the area in the past 15 years shows, first, a
mouths. On the one hand, say the oppo transition in the residential neighborhoods
nents, they talk “community," but in fact around LFP that evidenced itself in the suc
they are interested in making money from cessful battle against the interstate projects
the redevelopment plan, and the desire for and against the position of the business
this profit is what lies behind the formula community. Over time, the effect of the res
tion of the plan in the first place: “I think that idential transition filtered into the business
the groups that is [sic] controlling the plan district directly as the neighborhoods pro
are the ones that expect to benefit from it vided a base from which small businesses
from a financial standpoint.” In contrast to arose and drew their support. Currently,
the above, the proponents state: there is a confrontation between the “old”
and “new” interests in LFP over the redevel
I think it has a lot to do with the residential opment plan.
thing, to get back to that— I think it com es The plan itself is crucial in highlighting
down more to community. There are people
the division which has developed in LFP
who feel that this is my com m un ity.. . . This
and in bringing into the open the attitudes
is typically of the point of view of people I
call new businesses. The old businesses, they
and opinions of members of the business
don’t see it that way. It’s a place where they community. It is catalytic in its effect. The
work. Their com m itm ent ends more or less process of social displacement which has
with that. been going on for ten years might have led
to a similar division over any such issue.
They don’t live here. They don’t have real
So in some respects, the division over the
com m itm ent to this area other than it’s where
they own a business or own some property.
plan was inevitable; it reflects the changing
And maybe they were interested in selling off composition of the residential and business
their property or selling off their businesses communities. This change, involving peo
and moving their business out to where they ple with different characteristics and dif
live. Most of the people that I know that are ferent viewpoints, has led simultaneously
involved in [business] or any other business to a transformation in the way the business
community views itself, its purpose, and its result of their being better educated, and in
relationship to the residential neighbor the know about all this stuff, it’s being used
hoods. against us.”
It is difficult to say whether LFP is more One obvious response is that govern
polarized today than a decade ago. Certainly mental agencies sponsoring plans or proj
the lack of communication between the ects for changing areas, either residential
two groups contributes to stereotypical or commerical, should show a higher level
thinking. The sterotyping evidences itself of sensitivity for the older participants and
in the retrospective construction of real should work harder to make sure they are
ity, wherein past issues, like the highway, made aware of and given full opportunity
are likely to be interpreted in terms of the to participate in the development of such
current division. Moreover, it can be seen in projects. The older business people in Little
the expectations of the positions individu Five Points complain that they were never
als will take on upcoming issues, such as advised of the redevelopment plan or that
the use of the vacant highway right-of-way. they learned about it only after it had been
These processes play upon one another. significantly developed. This may well be
Thus, perhaps the reason “conspiracy”is not the case even though announcements of
seen as dominant for the highway conflict meetings are a matter of public record. But
is that older-term business people viewed it these members of the community may be
as an isolated situation. But when the rede more accustomed to discussing matters
velopment plan is added to the picture, the informally with information being passed
"whole thing is put in perspective.” by word of mouth. They had not been
participants in the rise of “commu
nity power” and suffered for lack of that
Policy Implications
participation.
Despite the seemingly necessary con Sensitivity to this problem would not, of
frontation, a confrontation found in other course, change the overall course of events
studies (Cybriwsky, 1978; see also Chapter in communities like Little Five Points. But
9 in this volume), there are, I believe, steps it could perhaps reduce the destructiveness
which could have minimized the severity of of bad relationships in a commercial area
the cleavage and "softened” the blow asso which is struggling to revive itself and which
ciated with social displacement. The new can only be hurt by an internal division.
business people, schooled in neighbor Inner-city shopping areas have too many
hood associations and neighborhood bat problems to contend with to be able to tol
tles, were familiar with the tactics required erate “family feuds.” In LFP, there is little in
to manage an issue. They were accustomed the way of personal antagonism except in a
to the mechanism of public meetings and few isolated cases. But the general level of
the necessity of making sure that one’s side mistrust and the absence of communica
is adequately represented at such meetings. tion help explain why the community has
Older business people, in fact, make fre found it difficult to reach a compromise on
quent use of the term “packing” to describe the plan.
the recruitment of support for the plan at The emergence of a common enemy
public meetings. And they seem aware of could reunite this area, but it is hardly a
the general feeling that they are at a disad development which can be planned or
vantage in dealing with the government: “I upon which one should base one’s hopes.
do think that they have advantages that the Without assigning blame for the current
older taxpayers have paid for and now, as a breakdown in communication, various
SO CIAL D ISPLACEM EN T IN A RENOVATING N EIG H BO RH O O D ’S CO M M ER CIA L DISTRICT | 303
participants, including the newer mer Neighborhood Change.” Annals o f the Association
chants and the city itself, could have acted o f American Geographers 68 (March): 17-33.
Fichter, R. 1977. Young Professionals and City
in ways which would have reduced the level Neighborhoods. Boston: Parkman Center for Urban
of tension. The older business people have Affairs.
a stake in the area and as members of the Goldstein, B., and Davis, R. 1977. Neighborhoods in
community should not be overlooked. the Urban Economy. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington
Books.
Kansas City Urban Observatory, n.d. Citizen
REFEREN CES Participation Groups: A Report to the National
Urban Observatory. Lawrence, Kansas: Urban
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Studies Group, University of Kansas.
Relations. 1972. The New Grass Roots? Lemmon, W. 1978. “Neighborhood Business Districts:
Decentralization an d Citizen Participation in Establishing Where the Strength Is . . . and Isn’t.”
Urban Areas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Paper presented at the National Conference of the
Printing Office. American Institute of Planners, New Orleans.
Bradley, Donald. 1977. “Neighborhood Transition: McWilliams, S. 1975. “Recycling a Declining
Middle-Class Home Buying in an Inner-City, Community: Middle-Class Migration to Virginia
Deteriorating Community.” Paper presented at Highland.” Master’s thesis Georgia State Univer
the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological sity, Atlanta.
Association, Chicago. Yin, R.K., and Lucas, W.A. 1973. “Decentralization and
------, 1978. “Back to the City?” Atlanta Economic Alienation.” Policy'Sciences 4:327-336.
Review2S (March/April): 15-21. ----- and Yates, D. 1974. “Street-Level Governments:
City of Atlanta. 1976. Little Five Points Business Revital Assessing Decentralization and Urban Sendees.”
ization Plan. Atlanta: Department of Community Nation’s Cities 12:34-58.
and Human Development, City of Atlanta. Zeitz, E. 1976. “The Process of Private Urban
Cole, R.L. 1974. Citizen Participation in the Urban Renewal in Three Areas of Washington, District
Policy Process. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath. of Columbia.” Ph. D. dissertation. American
Cybriwsky, Roman A. 1978. “Social Aspects of University, Washington, D.C.
CHAPTER 23
The New Urban Renewal, Part 2: Public

Housing Reforms
Derek S. Hyra
In the U nited States, the adverse conditions dem olish buildings with excessive code viola
of inn er city, black co m m u n ities and the h is tions or vacancies.4Lastly, to make it financially
tory o f public h ou sing policies are closely feasible for cities to facilitate the d em o li
intertw ined (M assey an d K anaiaupuni tion p ro cess, the o n e-fo r-o n e rep lacem en t
1993; Plunz 1990). Federal policies, su ch as req u irem en t for razed units w as p e rm a
the H ousing A cts o f 1949 and 1954, an d local n ently rep ealed with the e n a ctm e n t o f the
political d ecisions led to the p lacem en t Q uality H ousing and W ork Responsibility
o f m an y public h ou sing developm ents in Act o f 1998 (G oetz 2 0 0 3 ). A lthough th ere is a
black ghettos. Moreover, in the late 1960s federal push to d em olish the n atio n ’s high-
and early 1970s, Congress en acted the Brooke rise public h ou sing stock, n ot every m ajor
A m endm ents, which set a preference for city follows this directive.
extrem ely low -incom e tenants, fu rth er c o n H arlem and Bronzeville are b oth revi
cen tratin g the p o o r in A frican-A m erican talizing, how ever, the co n se q u e n ce s of
n e ig h b o rh o o d s.1 d evelo p m en t are vastly different for p u b
W hile m u ch o f the p ast n ational h ou sing lic h ou sing resid ents in each c o m m u
and u rb an renew al legislation is cou pled nity. Bronzeville is exp erien cin g m assive
with the d em ise o f u rb an black co m m u n i d isp lacem en t o f public h ou sing ten an ts;
ties, re ce n t public h ou sing reform s are c o n n early 9 ,0 0 0 public h ou sing units are being
n ected w ith the p ro cess o f revitalization. dem olish ed and roughly 1 7 ,000 people
In the 1990s federal policym akers passed are being rem o v ed .’ W hile C h icago razes
a series o f housing reform s in an a ttem p t a large p ercen t o f its public housing, New
to alleviate co n ce n tra te d n eighb orh ood York City is rehabilitating th eir high-rise
poverty. In 1992 the U .S. D ep artm en t of public h ousing, esp ecially in H arlem . Som e
H ousing an d U rb an D ev elo p m en t (HUD) H arlem ites claim public h ou sing residents
began the H ousingO pp ortun ities forPeop le are less likely to be disp laced th an low-
Everyw here (HOPE VI) p ro g ram (Popkin, in co m e ren ters in H arlem ’s private h ou sing
Levy, Harris, Comey, Cunningham , and m arket. H arlem ’s red ev elo p m en t h as m u ch
Buron 2 0 0 2 ).2 Betw een 1996 an d 2 0 03, this less d isp lacem en t am o n g its m o st v u ln er
p ro g ram provided funding for the d em o li able pop ulation .
tion o f nearly 6 0 ,0 0 0 public housing units Although recen t federal h ou sing reform s
nationw ide. ' Then in 1996 C ongress ordered are im p o rtan t to the revitalization o f dis
public housing authorities to rehabilitate or ad van tag ed n eighb orh oods, th ey do n ot
306 I D ER EK S . HYRA
completely explain community-level out between Chicago and NewYork City’s pub
comes. Political circumstances in NewYork lic housing and present the Bronzeville and
City and Chicago, both past and present, Harlem cases.1’ Both cases illustrate how
are essential to understanding how federal federal public housing relates to the cur
reforms influence Harlem and Bronzeville’s rent redevelopment and how this is impor
redevelopment. As discussed at length in tant for understanding who is being left
the previous chapter, distinct governance out and who is benefiting. I then discuss
systems in NewYork City and Chicago yield how past city-level political circumstances
alternate choices and actions related to surrounding public housing are critical
the Empowerment Zone implementation. for understanding the present community
This political difference is critical to the situations.
conditions of the public housing stock in
these cities: NewYork City sustains it, while
PUBLIC HOUSING: CHICAGO
Chicago consistently makes detrimental
AND NEWYORK STYLE
decisions that deplete their housing stock.
The decentralized political environment Public housing is often seen as a harbinger
in New York City results in greater tenant of crime, drugs, teen pregnancy, laziness,
activism and better public housing man mismanagement, and corruption, but con
agement, which over time helps explain ditions in public housing vary greatly from
the city’s superior public housing. This city to city. Overall, New York City’s and
situation elucidates why Harlem’s redevel Chicago’s public housing are at the extremes
opment, compared to Bronzeville's, is asso of a continuum; the NewYork City Housing
ciated with significantly less displacement Authority (NYCHA) manages some of the
among its low-income residents. best (Thompson 1999), while the Chicago
Considerable displacement is connected Housing Authority (CHA) has some of the
with therevivalofcertaininnercity areas, but worst projects in the country (Schill 1997).
this second round of urban renewal differs The public housing conditions in
from the urban renewal of the 1940s, ‘50s, Bronzeville and Harlem are strikingly differ
and ‘6 0 s, which was detrimental to urban ent. Most Bronzeville projects are isolated
black America. There is little doubt that from the rest of the community (see figs.
whites were the primary beneficiaries of the 5.1 and 5.2). For instance, large highways
first round of urban renewal. Institutional and railroad tracks segregate public hous
racism embedded in federal urban renewal ing buildings from the rest of the commu
legislation led to increased segregation and nity. Moreover, the buildings are stepped
isolation for poor urban African Americans back from the street and appear as if they
and preserved downtown growth in many were dropped out of the sky onto land more
areas (Hirsch [1983] 1998; Massey and desolate and empty than a ghost town. Few
Denton 1993; von Hoffman 2000). Today, businesses and homes are nearby most of
however, certain African Americans reap the large-scale projects.
benefits from the second round of urban Bronzeville’s public housing is extremely
renewal. Black real estate developers and dilapidated and controlled by gangs.
homeowners are experiencing direct finan Entering public housing means stepping
cial gains from the current inner city rede into the middle of the drug trade. Gang
velopment, forcing scholars to reconsider members monitor the outside of the build
the legacy of institutional racism related to ings and sell illicit substances, calling out
federal development initiatives. drug code phrases like “ghost face” and “dog
In this chapter I discuss the differences face”from first-floorhallways.The unlawful
TH E NEW URBAN RENEWAL, PART 2: PUBLIC HOUSING REFORMS | 307
activity makes public housing quite intimi HOPE VI program, has been awarded thirty-
dating and dangerous, especially when turf nine grants, totaling $340 million, from the
wars, which often involve gunfire, break U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
out. After negotiating the daily drug activ Development for public housing demoli
ity, residents typically take stairs to their tion and the construction of mixed-income
apartments because elevators are often replacement housing.7The NYCHA, a much
broken. The stairwells are dark, since light larger public housing system, has received
fixtures frequently do not work, are covered only four HOPE VI grants totaling $90 mil
with graffiti and reek of urine and mari lion. Of the $90 million, only one grant is
juana. Many apartments suffer from rat specifically for the demolition of 102 units,
and cockroach infestations. Overall, CHA while thirty-one grants are awarded to
buildings are in a state of disrepair. They are Chicago for the razing of 12,500 units.8 As
ding}', unsafe and unhealthy environments the city of Chicago destroys a vast portion
to raise children. of its subsidized housing stock, New York
Harlem’s public housing is in better City puts funds toward rehabilitation, set
shape and not isolated from the rest of the ting the context for public housing resident
community. The sixteen to twenty-story displacement from Bronzeville and not
buildings abut the street and Harlem’s Harlem.
apartment buildings and beautiful brown-
stones surround some of these high-rises
BRONZEVILLE’S REDEVELOPMENT
(fig. 5.3). NYCHA projects are not dilapi
AND PUBLIC HOUSING REFORMS
dated, but they are grimy and gritty, like
much of New York City. There is signifi
The CHA’s Plan fo r Transformation
cantly less gang presence. Although some
drug dealing exists in Harlem’s public hous In 1999 Mayor Richard M. Daley convinced
ing, drug activity usually occurs in nearby the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
abandoned buildings and adjacent streets. Development (HUD) to return the manage
Gang violence and shootings occur in and ment of the CHA to the city after a four-year
around the projects, but less frequently period of HUD receivership.'1 Shortly after,
than in Bronzeville. In NewYork City pub the CHA announced a monumental $1.6
lic housing floors are cleaner, the elevators billion “Plan for Transformation.” The plan
usually work and graffiti is much less com is one of the largest and most ambitious
mon. Hallways and stairwells are illumi urban redevelopment initiatives to emerge
nated and odors are much less potent. since the 1960s. Chicago proposed to raze
The difference between public hous nearly all high-rise public housing build
ing conditions in Chicago and New York ings and redevelop 25,000 units, resulting in
City gives insight into the drastically dif a loss of approximately 13,000 apartments
ferent results in their federally ordered (CHA 2000). According to the plan, 6,000
viability tests. The CHA has the highest families would be relocated to private hous
proportion of failing housing units in the ing with Section 8 vouchers.10 To end their
United States. Barely half of CHA units pass reputation for the worst public housing in
(CHA2000), while nearly all of NYCHA’s the country, Chicago intends to eliminate
buildings do (Thompson 1999). Because their dilapidated stock.
of the awful condition of Chicago’s pub In 1999, Bronzeville had the highest con
lic housing, the CHA receives a greater centration of high-rise public housing in
portion of urban renewal funds from the the city. Most line the State Street Corridor,
federal government. The CHA, under the a three-mile stretch that runs parallel to the
308 I D ER EK S . HYRA
Dan Ryan Expressway and spans from 22nd banker employed at a Bronzeville branch of
Street to 55th Street. Some speculated that a large commercial bank observes:
this area contained the highest concentra
tion of public housing in the world. South Well, I’ve been here going on three years
State Street had five major housing proj working for the bank. What I’ve seen of course
ects—Raymond Hilliard Homes, Harold is a tremendous change in housing with the
Ickes, Dearborn Homes, Stateway Gardens, increase in rehabbing. lust improving the
and the Robert Taylor Homes. Of these proj - stock of the housing, increasing the number
ects, the Robert Taylor Homes, comprising of condos, condo conversions. . . And I think
twenty-eight sixteen-story high-rises, was losing the public housing is probably having
the largest and most daunting. In addition the biggest effect on how the comm unity is
changing because incomes are increasing.
to these housing developments, other large-
The low to moderate-incom e people are leav
scale, public housing projects, including the ing, so businesses find this com m unity... a lot
Washington Park Homes, the Ida B. Wells more attractive because the incom e is higher,
Homes, and the Prairie Court Homes, were the housing stock is better. So I would say
scattered throughout Bronzeville. While that’s the biggest factor [leading to change],
standing almost anywhere in the commu it’s losing the public housing___ When all of
nity, one cannot escape the sight, or weight, the public housing com es down, the impact
of Chicago’s high-rise public housing. of losing public housing in this comm unity is
Housing project conditions make the going to be tremendous. Property values will
community, at times, unsafe and danger skyrocket.
ous. One Bronzeville resident, who worked
in public housing during the early 1990s, Although Bronzeville’s property values
describes the circumstances at the proj were increasing before the CHA’s Plan for
ects as "frightening”: “I remember when Transformation, development activity
I worked in Wells [Ida B. Wells Homes]. and interest in the area accelerated once
We were doing the Wells initiative. At one demolition began.11 Large downtown real
point I had a girlfriend that lived in Lake estate developers, who once overlooked
Meadows and a girlfriend that lived in Bronzeville, are now buying tracts of land
Hyde Park. I remember telling this girl directly across from lots where high-rise
friend who lived in Hyde Park, ‘Don’t drive public housing once stood. At the same
down Cottage Grove at night because time, landlords and homeowners are reha
they’re shooting the cars. They were just bilitating their properties. Moreover, sev
doing random shooting between Madden eral large apartment complexes that once
Park and Abraham Lincoln Center.’ For like accepted Section 8 vouchers are being
four or five years there was gunfire where converted to luxury condominiums. As
you couldn’t drive down Cottage Grove at one longtime Bronzeville resident explains,
night.” The harsh reality of gun violence “You are going to see this place go [devel
at these developments has inhibited resi opment] crazy now that they’ve torn down
dential investment in the communitv. Stateway and Robert Taylor.”
However, once the city declared that they Bronzeville’s large public housing proj
were going to demolish all of the com ects are being converted into "mixed-
munity’s high-rises, totaling nearly 9,000 income” housing developments. These
units, real estate developers became very new developments, which are HOPE VI
interested in Bronzeville. sites, will have one-third public housing
Bronzeville’s economic development is units, one-third market rate rentals, and
strongly associated with the CFIA’s plan. A one-third market rate homeownership.
At the former Statevvay Gardens project, and the Movement to Opportunity (MTO)
now called Park Boulevard, the high-end, programs suggest relocating out of public
marke trate homes are selling for $625,000 housing and concentrated poverty to more
(Shashaty 2007). prosperous neighborhoods may be ben
At the former Robert Taylor Homes, eficial to households (Orr, Feins, Beecroft,
renamed Legends South, prices for sin et al. 2003; Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum
gle-family homes start at $325,000.'- The 2000). However, with Chicago’s demoli
public investment from the federal govern tion and relocation most tenants end
ment, and the city’s decision to construct up in highly segregated, disadvantaged
townhomes on and near former public neighborhoods. Beside a 120-day vacate
housing lots, helps to increase property val notice, a three-hour “Housing Choice” lec
ues throughout the community. ture about housing options, and a three-
Local city decisions about where to hour “Good Neighbor” session to learn how
target federal funding strongly influence to maintain their Section 8 apartments,
Bronzeville’s development. While most of little guidance is given to tenants. Many of
Chicago’s high-rises, mainly concentrated Bronzeville’s community leaders are skep
on the west and south side of the city, are tical that two three-hour courses will ade
slated for demolition, only certain projects quately prepare CHA tenants. One woman,
receive HOPE VI funding to build mixed- who had worked with residents trying to
income replacement housing. Mayor Daley transition out of public housing before the
has ensured that Bronzeville receives over Plan for Transformation was put in place,
half of the city’s HOPE VI demolition funds, asserts that it will take an intensive lour-
approximately $45 million. Additionally, teen-week program to effectively prepare
nearly $100 million is targeted toward the longtime CHA families to move. She calls
construction of "mixed-income” housing the Good Neighbor program and the relo
developments.13 Other public funds, gen cation process “a joke.”
erated through the use of Tax Increment The Plan for Transformation’s relocation
Districts (TIFs), discussed in chapter 3, are strategy is severely under-funded, making
also being used to subsidize the construc it extremely difficult for residents to find
tion of mixed-income replacement hous decent housing. The CHA budgeted $6
ing. 14According to a local newspaper article, million for relocating residents in its first
“Mayor Richard Daley has flexed consider implementation year, less than 1 percent
able muscle to see this area revitalized.”15 of its $1.6 billion plan. Successful reloca
While Bronzeville develops, an impor tion programs and social service mobility
tant question becomes: what is going to programs have one housing counselor for
happen to displaced public housing resi every 25 to 40 families; the CHA plan has
dents? Theoretically, the demolition pro only enough money for one counselor for
cess provides an opportunity for public every 139 families (Synderman and Dailey
housing residents to find better homes. 2001). Some developments have one relo
Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociologist who has cation counselor for at least 500 families
done substantial fieldwork at the Robert (Sullivan 2003).
Taylor Homes, comments, “Outright demo Additionally, Chicago’s housing market
lition of the housing developments would is incapable of accommodating so many
enable the integration of tenants into the Section 8 vouchers holders. A report com
larger (mainstream) city” (2000,8). missioned by the Metropolitan Planning
Studies on public housing resident Council, a citywide civic organization,
mobility stemming from the Gautreaux indicates that the city’s private low-income
310 | D ER EK S . HYRA
rental market is extremely tight, with a 4 centration of Section 8 vouchers have more
percent vacancy rate (Lenz and Coles 1999). crime than some of the locations previously
“Very poor African Americans are [being] saturated with public housing (Bennett and
removed from their homes and given a Reed 1999). Jamie Kalvin, director of the
voucher to find housing that for the most Neighborhood Conservation Corporation
part does not exist” (Ranney 2003,198). (NCC), an organization that advocates for
The public housing demolition in residents of Bronzeville’s Stateway Gardens
Chicago has relocated neighborhood pov housing project, states, “Individuals and
erty, not alleviated it. The vast majority of families are being hurt and are being ren
residents are moving to new, segregated and dered more vulnerable by this [relocation]
disadvantaged neighborhoods further from process. And it’s not hard to see, if you actu
the city center. Tom Sullivan, a consultant ally make yourself available to it.”'“ Rather
hired by the CHA to monitor the relocation than helping public housing tenants reach
efforts, claims, "The result has been that the mainstream society, the demolition pro
vertical ghettos . . . are being replaced with cess may be making the situation for many
horizontal ghettos” (2003,13). As o f2002,80 families and children even worse.
percent of those relocating are residing in
communities that are over 90 percent black
Illustration o f Displacement
and nearly 70 percent of residents leaving
the high-rises with vouchers are going to One afternoon, Jamie and I help Tony and
neighborhoods where the poverty rate is his family, who have been squatting at
above 23 percent” (Fischer 2003).16 While Stateway for almost four years, move to
this poverty rate is lower than Bronzeville's another neighborhood. Tony has worked
once was, as more families relocate, pov sporadically at Stateway for ten years as a
erty rates in communities where former janitor’s assistant. The maintenance staff
CHA tenants are clustering will likely rise. pays him, under the table, for the work they
Additionally, subsequent relocation stud are supposed to do. Tony and his wife have
ies that track the movement of former CHA five- and six-year-old girls. His wife works
tenants, such as the one conducted by the night shift at a local fast food restaurant.
Venkatesh and colleagues (2004), show that Even though some reports suggest that 6
nearly all tenants areendingup insegregated to 16 percent of the CHA tenant popula
high-poverty areas. These new horizontal tion is squatting, meaning they are not
ghettos are forming in neighborhoods on legal leaseholders and are living in vacant
the far south and west sides of Chicago and units, the CHA effectively ignores these ten
in the inner south suburbs.17 ants and provides little relocation support
The Chicago public housing relocation (Venkatesh 2002; Venkatesh, Celimli, Miller,
process may put former tenants in a more et al. 2004). The NCC has made an effort to
vulnerable situation. Many tenants are help this population at Stateway.19
moving to neighborhoods with less formal Tony’s Stateway apartment is on the
and informal social support services and fourth floor and we help him move the day
possibly higher crime rates. Low-income before his building is to be razed. Since the
residents of inner city Chicago are "closer in elevators are broken, we walk all of Tony’s
proximity to social service providers than family belongings, including clothing in
poor populations living in suburban areas,” large plastic bags down the dark stairwells
where many of the voucher holders are to Jamie’s truck. Jamie has connected Tony’s
relocating (Allard 2004, 5). Furthermore, family with a housing assistance organiza
Chicago communities with the highest con tion, which has helped Tony get a Section 8
THE NEW URBAN RENEWAL, PART 2: PUBLIC HOUSING REFORMS |
voucher and an apartment. As we help the ments are completed. During the “Housing
family leave the building, it is apparent that Choice” sessions, residents are asked if they
although Tony’s children are excited about want the "right of return”to the replacement
the move, Tony is extremely nervous. He has mixed-income housing. How'ever, most
lived at Stateway for almost ten years and he residents know their chances of return
and his wife have not yet visited their new ing to newiy constructed units are slim. Tre,
community. His wife tells me that she hopes a Stateway Gardens resident, says to me,
the apartment is near a grocery store. “Ain’t no one gonna come back here. This is
Tony’s new apartment is in a four story, prime real estate.” A Bronzeville’s organiza
red brick, horseshoe-shaped building, in tional leader states, “It would be a miracle if
an African-American neighborhood south a third of [public housing] residents moved
of Bronzeville with a high concentration of back.” Many real estate developers are set
Section 8 voucher holders. The apartments ting very strict guidelines for the readmit
have little, rusty metal balconies that over tance of public housing residents to the new
look a courtyard. The hallways are carpeted mixed-income projects. This procedure,
and have working light fixtures. This, how along with the limited number of available
ever, is nobody’s dream apartment. The units, makes the promise of a new home an
wood floors are old and scuffed up, it needs unlikely scenario for former public housing
a new paint job, and bathrooms are grimy. tenants.
Regardless, this apartment is a marked Louanna (Lou) Jones, then the Illinois
improvement. Jamie jokingly asked, “So do state representative from Bronzeville,
we want to go back to Stateway?”Tony’s wife explains the difficult situation: “You’re
and children laugh. Tony says nothing and between a rock and a hard place. In order
has a look of concern. to revitalize the area or rebuild the area,
I go outside with Tony and we start to and advance the area, you have people get
bring in his family’s belongings. While walk ting angry because they [CHA tenants] do
ing up the stairs, I ask him w'hat he thinks not have anywhere [in the community] to
of the new apartment. He tells me bluntly, go.”While massive amounts of kw-income
“I don’t like it. I don’t know my way around residents get displaced, others in Bronzeville
here.” He proclaims that he is more con benefit from the redevelopment.
cerned about being robbed at this place
than Stateway because he knows that peo
Who’s Benefiting?
ple there watch his back. He is apprehensive
about the new' neighborhood and insists he Some claim that Chicago’s actions are
saw street gangs as we approached his new tantamount to the urban renewal of the
residence. In addition, he says it will be dif past, which was extremely detrimental to
ficult to get public transportation back to his African Americans (Bennett and Reed 1999;
job atStateway. Although the newapartment Popkin, Gwiasda, Olson, et al. 2000; Ranney
is in better condition than the one they left, 2003). Although there are some similarities,
there is a strong possibility this neighbor the current development in Bronzeville dif
hood will become more impoverished as fers. Urban renewal in Chicago between
the rest of the CHA buildings come down. 1940 and 1960 primarily benefited w'hite
The vast majority of public housing ten real estate developers and profit-seeking
ants wall not benefit from CHA’s Plan for corporations, while blacks remained segre
Transformation. Possibly, a small percent gated and powerless (Ilirsch [1983] 1998).
age may be able to return to the community Today, however, certain African-American
when the new mixed-income develop businesses are benefiting.
312 | D ER EK S . HYRA
Although several major white con are seeing substantial increases in their
struction firms, architecture companies, home equity. Properties worth $100,000 or
and real estate developers have large $200,000 ten years ago are doubling and
contracts to demolish, design, and rede tripling in value. In other words, the new
velop new mixed-income developments phase of urban renewal is connected to a
in Bronzeville, politically well-connected, certain level of black prosperity.
black-owned development, management Although Bronzeville’s redevelopment
and construction companies are profiting is greatly influenced by new federal leg
from Chicago’s Plan for Transformation. islation, the legacy of Chicago’s political
Black-owned firms such as Elzie machine and its housing management
Higginbottom’s East Lake Management, decisions have contributed to the decay and
Allison Davis’s Davis Group, Rev. Leon downfall of public housing through a mis
Finney Jr.’s Woodlawn Development use of national housing resources for local
Corporation, and Paul King’s UBM, Inc political objectives. In short, the political
hold million-dollar contracts to build and history of Chicago’s democratic machine
manage new housing developments.-0 In has driven the demolition of Bronzeville
a two-year span, East Lake Management public housing. [...]
received nearly $30 million to oversee thir
teen of the CHA’s developments.-1Smaller
HARLEM’S REDEVELOPMENT AND
black homebuilding companies also
PUBLIC HOUSING REFORMS
receive city funds to construct homes in
the community. As Bronzeville’s Alderman By contrast, public housing in New York
Dorothy Tillman insists, “We [need] . . . to City is not being demolished. Instead,
ensure that African Americans take part in the NYCHA is rehabilitating its high-rise
the redevelopment.” housing stock, and displacement among
Moreover, Mayor Daley nominates Harlem’s low-income residents is less exten
respected black leaders willing to support sive. Many of Harlem’s low-income public
the city’s demolition and relocation efforts housing residents will have an opportunity
to high-ranking posts within the CHA. In to benefit from the improvement of their
1999, when the Plan for Transformation neighborhood. This circumstance is con
was announced, Mayor Daley appointed nected to the fragmented political structure
Phil Jackson, a former resident of the in New York City, which results in superior
Robert Taylor Homes, to head the CHA, public housing management and increased
and Sharon Gilliam as chair of the CHA’s tenant activism. The New York City politi
Board of Commissioners. Additionally, cal system explains why public housing
when Jackson stepped down in 2000, Daley remains in Harlem.
appointed another African American, Terry Harlem has a substantial number of
Peterson, as the executive director of the sizable public housing projects. The King
CHA. These positions are more meaningful Towers, St. Nicholas Houses, Rangel Houses,
than mere tokenism, considering black real Drew-Hamilton Houses, Frederick Samuel
estate developers receive substantial CHA Houses, Taft Houses, Harlem River Houses,
contracts. and Polo Ground Towers house more than
The public investments in Bronzeville 20,000 Harlem residents (NYCHA 2001).
relate to increased property values for a While property values are rising in Harlem,
number of black homeowners. Middle- and some suggest they would rise faster if public
upper-income families who bought houses housing was torn down.22 However, elected
in the area in the 1980s and early 1990s officials I speak with insist that razing the
projects would "not be politically feasible.” rehabilitation. The officials hand out an
The tenants would not tolerate it. overview of scheduled improvements to be
Residents of the NYCHA are more active made in Harlem (NYCHA 2002a). In addi
and connected to their political structure tion to these improvements, the NYCHA
than those in Chicago. Charles Rangel, has a comprehensive plan for the continual
Harlem’s U.S. congressman, considers upkeep and long-term preservation of its
public housing tenants an essential part of housing stock.23
his constituency, and others concur. One After the housing officials conclude their
high-level NYCHA manager says that New talk, Ms. Harper announces the start of the
York City public housing residents have a strategy sessions. At each table, residents
‘‘strong political network” and are impor use easels to write down improvement
tant constituents of political leaders—they ideas. I sit next to an older African-American
are politically engaged and force politicians woman from the Frederick Samuel Houses
to make public housing concerns top pri who complains about shoddy tile work
orities. This level of engagement among recently installed in her building’s entrance.
the public housing residents with both I ask her if the contractor who did the work
politicians and NYCHA management at is still around. She says, “Yes, we are still
public housing meetings in Harlem has working with them. It don’t make no sense.
maintained the quality of NYCHA build They should just do it right the first time!”
ings. Tenant advocacy has protected public After the strategy session, we socialize
housing in Harlem from the distress and over a buffet style dinner. The meal helps
corruption endemic to public housing in ensure friendly negotiations between the
Chicago. factions. After eating, Ms. Harper asks each
table to report on their major complaints.
The most common concern is the need for
Rehabilitation and Tenant Activism
more NYCHA inspectors to monitor the
I attend a monthly meeting of the Manhattan contractors working in various buildings.
North Council of Presidents, a group of Other complaints include graffiti, broken
Northern Manhattan Public Housing elevators, and a lack of police presence.
Projects resident leaders. The meeting is held After the representatives of each project
in the gym ofWest Harlem’s Manhattanville conclude their presentations, a person
Housing Project, and run by tenant leader from the housing authority collects all w it-
Sandra Harper. Attending are tenant repre ten comments. Resident involvement hap
sentatives, residents, building superinten pens not just at these monthly gatherings; it
dents, managers, and current contractors also, and perhaps more importantly, occurs
for each public housing development. At at individual housing projects.
6:30 p.m., Ms. Harper, holding a cordless Tenant activism ensures standards are
microphone, announces in her deep, grav maintained in Harlem’s public housing.
elly voice, “Alright, let’s get this started,” as While working for Assemblyman Keith
if she was declaring the beginning of a box Wright, I receive a call from one of the resi
ing match. She lays out the agenda for the dent leaders at the Drew-Hamilton Houses.
night: NYCHA officials are to update tenants One building’s faulty foundation is caus
on renovations, and residents are to discuss ing small cracks in several apartments’
problems with the buildings. walls. The resident leadership convenes
Ms. Harper gives the microphone to an emergency meeting and insists that
three NYCHA officials who discuss capital Assemblyman Wright attend to ensure that
improvement funds available for project NYCHA officials repair the building. During
314 | D ER EK S. HYRA
the w ell-atten d ed m eeting, th e resid ent opers, and giving form er ten an ts Section 8
leadership d e m a n d s th at NYCHA officials vouch ers. A ccording to H arlem ’s affordable
publicly p ro m ise to ad dress the situ ation . housing activists m o st o f these Section 8
T he official agrees th at regardless o f co st recipients w ere unable to find housing in the
he will have the building’s stru ctu re m o n i co m m u n ity an d m oved to o th er New York
tored and repaired. He an d the assem bly City boroughs, su ch as Brooklyn and the
m an , a m e m b e r o f the state C o m m ittee on Bronx, and to parts o f Newark, New Jersey.24
H ousing, agree to find the funding n eeded M any living in p rivate m arket housing
to m ake the b u ild in g secu re an d safe.T en ant also face the th reat o f d isp lacem en t. Som e
leadership an d a ctio n explain w hy H arlem ’s ten an ts are forced to leave p ro p erties w hen
public h ou sing stock rem ains viable. rental b row n stones are co n v erted to sin-
T h ev iab ility o fH arlem ’sp u b lich o u sin g is gle-fam ily h om es. Further, w hile w orking
critical to u n d e rstan d in g th e co n seq u en ces for A ssem blym an W right, I m et ten an ts in
o f red ev elo p m en t. W hile d isp lacem en t ren t-co n tro lled ap a rtm e n ts w ho had been
o ccu rs a m o n g the w orking p o o r w ho are offered $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 to $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 to v a ca te their
private m arket ren ters an d th o se in city- units.2'’ S om e landlords even d am ag ed their
ow ned buildings, it is n ot h ap p en in g to buildings to m ake th em tem p orally unsafe,
public h ou sing residents. “Public housing forcing ten an ts to v acate.
is the only thing preventing th e total g en tri On an unusually h ot April m orning, I w it
fication o f H arlem ,” an individual rem arks ness the gentrification p ressu res in H arlem
at a co m m u n ity forum . “Viable public firsthand. As soon as I arrive in the m o rn
h ou sing en sures th at a sizable p ortio n of ing at Keith’s office, M ignonne, his e x e cu
H arlem ’s low -in co m e p op ulation will have tive assistan t, tells m e I n eed to head o ver to
an o p p o rtu n ity to benefit from the c o m m u 321 St. N icholas Avenue. She received a call
n ity’s revitalization. from a resid ent saying th at all the ten an ts
w ere being evicted.
W hen I arrive over thirty peop le are
Displacement in Harlem
outside th e a p a rtm e n t building, crying,
Even though public housing residents are scream in g , and bew ildered. A few feet aw ay
not being rem oved, d isp lacem en t is still a from m e, a teen ag e girl hugs h er m o th er
m ajor co n ce rn in H arlem . W hile n ot on the an d says, as tears run dow n h er face, “M om ,
scale of d isp lacem en t from dilapidated CHA w here are w e going to go? Are w e h ave to
buildings in Chicago, low -in com e residents going to b e co m e h om eless?" H er m other,
in H arlem , as well as ow ners o f sm all busi d esp erately trying to hold it together,
nesses are vulnerable. As n oted in ch ap ter respon ds calmly, “Baby, w e’ll p robab ly have
3, the city o n ce ow ned a large p ercen tag e of to go to a sh elter to n igh t.” At this p oint I am
H arlem ’s housing units. These units, m ostly totally con fu sed . I need to know w hy these
single-fam ily h om es and sm all ap artm en t fam ilies are being evicted . I find Freddy,
buildings, w ere repossessed in the 1970s o n e o f Keith’s staff and we find o n e o f the
and 1980s, w hen landlords failed to pay building’s ten an t leaders w ho explains th at
their p roperty taxes. The city’s D ep artm en t late last night the city d eterm in ed th at the
o f H ousing Preservation and D evelopm ent building w as “stru ctu rally u nsou nd and
(HPD) is now in ch arge o f these properties. At issued an em erg en cy v a ca te order. The
o n e point in the early 1980s, the HPD housed forty-eight fam ilies had to relo cate im m e
the hom eless in m an y o f th ese units. In the diately to sh elters th rou g h o u t the city.
1990s the city began selling these properties T he em erg en cy v a ca te order, acco rd in g
to nonprofit and for-profit real estate devel to certain residents, is su spicious. Although
THE NEW URBAN RENEWAL, PART 2: PUBLIC HOUSING REFORMS | 315
sections of the building have been in need rents threaten the viability of indigenous
of repair, some community leaders and businesses.
residents believe that there was no need Studies conducted in the early 1990s pre
to remove everyone from the building or dicted displacement in Harlem (see Smith
in such an expeditious manner. The build [1996] 2,000), and others document it viv
ing is in an ideal location, just a block from idly (Davila 2004; Taylor 2002); however, a
125th Street. Buildings in the area, like recent study suggests displacement is not
one just a block north, have recently been as much of a pressing concern in Harlem as
rehabilitated and converted to luxury it is in other NewYork City neighborhoods.
apartments. One tenant of the building Using the New York City’s Housing and
claims, “This is crim inal. . . They just want Vacancy Survey Lance Freeman and Frank
us out. This is gentrification.”2'' The next Braconi demonstrate that displacement
day, I overhear on the street two people talk rates are lower in gentrifying NewYork City
ing about the building. One declares, “They neighborhoods, such as Harlem than those
[the city and developer] are trying to get the with more stable real estate markets (2004).
people out so they can charge higher rents. Unfortunately they assume only low-
They used to burn the roof to get the people income households or those without col
out, now they say it’s structurally unsound. lege degrees face the threat of displacement,
It's a fraud.”Two years after the initial vacate and they do not account for the removal of
order, the building has not yet been reha those above the federal poverty line or those
bilitated. When the building reopens, it is with a college degree. While many low-
likely that many of the original tenants will income residents are safe because Harlem s
not return, and rental prices will be higher public housing remains, moderate-income
than before the abrupt shutdown. renters, whose income likely exceeds the
Several small businesses are also fac poverty rate, and small businesses remain
ing the prospects of removal. For instance, vulnerable to displacement from the com
small mom and pop businesses along the munity. Therefore, Freeman and Braconi’s
major streets, such as Adam Clayton Powell study underestimates the percent of dis
Jr. Boulevard, Malcolm X Boulevard, 125th placement in Harlem.21’While displacement
Street, and, more recently, 135th Street are is less visible in Harlem, than Bronzeville, it
feeling the squeeze as rental prices con is occurring and is a major concern.30 [...]
tinue to rise. Small businesses contend not
only with rising commercial rents, but with
competition from arriving chain stores. A NOTES
small optometry business on 125th Street 1. The Brooke Amendments removed minimum
was forced out of Harlem when Sterling rent requirements and increased the tenant share
Optical opened up a franchise in the com of rent from 20 to 25 percent (which was subse
munity.-7Local coffee shops are also finding quently raised to 30 percent) of their income.
This policy favored low-income households and
it hard to compete with mainstream outlets unemployed tenants since many working resi
like Starbucks as landlords seek to increase dents could afford private market housing with
rents. Donna Lewis, owner of Home Sweet 25 percent of their income (Popkin, Buron, Lev)',
Harlem Cafe, attests, “Landlords are and Cunningham 2000). Thus, this policy had the
increasingly using legal tactics to push out adverse cffect of increasing poverty concentra
tion by encouraging working tenants to move
community businesses all around Harlem out of public housing (Spence 1993; Thompson
in order to make room for investors with 1999).
deeper pockets.”28 The encroachment of 2. The HOPE VI program allocated over $5.5 billion
chain stores and increasing commercial within a ten-year period to demolish distressed
316 I D E R E K S . HYRA
public housing and construct "mixed-income” 12. John Handley, "Redeveloping Public Housing,”
replacement housing. Chicago Tribune, August 22,2004.
3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Dev 13. As of FY 2006, the city of Chicago received $ 340
elopment’s website: http://www.hud.gov/offices/ million in HOPE VI funding for demolition and
pih/programs/ph/hope6/grants/demolition/. the construction of "mixed-income”housing, and
4. Before the enactment of the HOPE VI program, 43 percent of Chicago's HOPEVI funds were spent
Congress commissioned a national assessment in Bronzeville (U.S. Department of Housing and
of the country’s distressed public housing infra Urban Development’s website: http://www.hud.
structure in 1989 (see National Commission on gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/).
Severely Distressed Public Housing 1992). The 14. Jeanette Almada, "Building to Start in Summer
findings set the context for subsequent legislation on Statcway Redevelopment,” Chicago Tribune,
that would lead to the demolition of the country’s February 16, 2003. Also see Shashaty’s article
distressed public housing stock. “Home Sales Fill Funding Gap for Mixed-income
5. In 1996 an estimated 25,413 people lived in Redevelopments” in Affordable Housing Finance
Chicago Housing Authority public housing units (2007), 47-48,74.
slated for demolition in Bronzeville. Assuming 15. “The Bronzeville Renaissance,” New City, August
one-third will return to redeveloped units in the 8 , 2002 .
community, approximately 17,000 will be dis 16. The CHA began its demolition and relocation
placed. This is probably a conservative estimate process before the announcement of the "Plan
since it does not account for displacement that for Transformation” in 1999. These figures rep
occurs when private market rental units are resent residents that relocated from CHA build
converted to condominiums. Chicago does not ings between 1995 and 2002. The data in Paul
have strong rent control restrictions and several Fischer's (2003) study were used as evidence in a
sizeable Bronzeville rental complexes were con class action lawsuit against CHA for violating fair
verted to condominiums while I conducted my housing laws (see Wallace v. CHA 2003).
research (see Barry Pearce, "Back to Bronzeville,” 17. Some of Chicago’s inner south suburbs have
New Homes, August, 2001). poverty rates ranging from 30 to 40 percent
6. Though there are many public housing projects (Alexander 1998), and the movement of the poor
in Bronzeville and Harlem, I chose to focus on from the inner city in large municipalities like
Stateway Gardens in Bronzeville and the St. Chicago, New York, Boston, and Washington,
Nicholas Houses in Harlem. Stateway Gardens D.C., correlates with a rising suburban poverty
and the St. Nicholas Houses are large-scale rate (Puentes and Warren 2006).
housing developments that are typical of the 18. At Stateway Gardens, I worked with Jamie’s
high-rise housing stock managed, respec organization for six months. The NCC office is
tively, by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) a hub for various programs that provide health
in Bronzeville and the New York City Housing services, individual and family counseling,
Authority (NYCHA) in Harlem. In addition to employment training, and legal assistance to
the case studies of the two projects, I also visited residents.
other housing projects in these communities and 19. Estimating the number of squatters in CHA
attended numerous meetings sponsored by the buildings is extremely difficult. The two works
NYCHA and the CHA. cited only document the percent of squatters
7. This information is available on the U.S. Depart existing in the Robert Taylor Homes, which may
ment of Housing and Urban Development’s web- not necessarily be representative of the CHA
site:http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ system.
ph/hope6/. 20. See Keith Robbins, N’Digo Profiles, 2003; Angela
8. Of the 60,000 distressed public housing units Rozas, "Revival of an Old Housing Complex,”
taken down nationwide, Chicago is responsible Chicago Tribune, December 5, 2003; Jeanette
for 20 percent. Almada, “Building to Start in Summer on Stateway
9. Because of persistent corruption at the Chicago Redevelopment," Chicago Tribune, February 16,
Housing Authority, HUD managed the CHA from 2003; Chinta Strausberg “CHA Panel OK’s $10 Mil
1995 to 1999. Contract to King,” Chicago Defender, December
10. The voucher covers expenses beyond 30 percent 17,2002.
of household income for a rental of a unit at the 21. John Bebow, “The Collector,” Chicago Tribune
‘fair market rate.” Magazine, October 3,2004.
11. John Handley, "A New Age for Bronzeville,” 22. Julia Vitullo-Martin, "Project Vision,” Wall Street
Chicago Tribune, December, 1,2002. Journal, August 18,2006.
THE NEW URBAN RENEWAL, PART 2: PUBLIC HOUSING REFORMS | 317
23. For more on NYCHA's plan to rehabilitate public Hirsch, A. R. 11983] 1998. Making the Second Ghetto:
housing see their 2006 publication, “The Plan to Race and Housing in Chicago 1940-1960. Chicago:
Preserve Public Housing.” University of Chicago Press.
24. My analysis of neighborhood poverty between Lenz, T. J. and J. Coles. 1999. The Regional Rental
1990 and 2000 demonstrates that there was an Market Analysis: Chicago: Metropolitan Planning
expansion of high-poverty areas (40+ poverty' Council.
rate) in Brooklyn and in the Bronx, as well as in Massey, D. S. and N. A. Denton. 1993. American
Newark, NJ. Another study on displacement and Apartheid. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
relocation in NewYork City supports this finding Press.
(Newman and Wyly 2006). Massey, D. S. and S. M. Kanaiaupuni. 1993. Public
25. In rent-controlled apartments, if the original I lousing and the Concentration of Poverty. Social
tenant moves out landlords can substantially Science Quarterly, 74(1), 109-22.
increase the rent. New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). 2001.
26. Michael Brick, “Tenants Hvacuate Building Special Tabulation o f Tenant Characteristics. New
Deemed Unsafe,” New York Times, April 17, York: Author.
2003. ----- . 2002. Capital Fund Program Presentation:
27. Amy Waldman, "Where Green Trumps Black and Manhattan North Council o f Presidents. NewYork:
White,” NewYork Times, December 11,1999. Author.
28. "Assemblyman Keith Wright Holds Press Orr, L., J. D. Feins, R. Jacob, E. Beecroft, L. Sanbonmatsu,
Conference Blasting Happyland Slumlord,” News L. F. Katz, J. B. Liebman, and J. Kling. 2003. Moving
from Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright, March 23, to Opportunity fo r Fair Housing Demonstration
2006. Program: Interim Impacts Evaluation. Washington,
29. For a further critique of Freeman and Braconi’s D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
(2004) study see Newman and Wyly (2006). Development.
30. Estimating the magnitude of displacement is an Plunz, R. 1990. A History o f Housing in New York City.
extremely difficult task. I do not have data on the NewYork: Columbia University Press.
level of displacement in Harlem. My point is to Popkin, S. J., V. E. Gwiasda, L. M. Olson, D. P.
merely demonstrate that it is an important com Rosenbaum, and L. Buron. 2000. The Hidden War.
munity concern. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Popkin, S. J., D. K. Levy, L. E. Harris, J. Comey, M. K.
Cunningham, and L. Buron. 2002. HOPE VI Panel
Study: Baseline Report. Washington, D.C.: Urban
REFERENCES
Institute.
Allard, S. W. 2004. Access to Social Services: The Ranney, D. 2003. Global Decisions, Local Collisions.
Changing Urban Geography o f Poverty and Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Social Provision. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Rubinowitz, L. S. and J. E. Rosenbaum. 2000. Crossing
Institution. the Class and Color Lines: From Public Housing to
Bennett, L. and A. Reed. 1999. The New Face of Urban White Suburbia. Chicago: University of Chicago
RenewaLThe Near North Redevelopment Initiative Press.
and the Cabrini-Green Neighborhood. In A. Reed Schill, M. H. 1997. Chicago's Mixed-income New
(ed.), Without Justice fo r All, pp. 175-211. Boulder, Communities Strategy: The Future Face of
CO: Westview Press. Public Housing? In W. V. Vilet. (ed.), Affordable
Chicago Housing Authority. 2000. Chicago Housing Housing and Urban Redevelopment in the United
Authority: Plan for Transformation. Chicago: States, vol. 46, 135-57. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Author. Publications.
Davila, A. 2004. Empowered Culture? New York City’s Shashaty, A. 2007. Home Sales Fill Funding Gap for
Empowerment Zone and the Selling of El Barrio. Mixed-Incomc Redevelopments. Affordable
ANNALS, AAPSS, 594(1), 49-64. Housing Finance, /5(3), 47-48,74.
Fischer, P. 2003. Where Are the Public Housing Families Smith, N. 11996] 2000. The New Urban Frontier. New
Going? An Update. Chicago: Woods Fund of York: Routledge.
Chicago. Sullivan, T. 2003. Report 5 o f the Independent Monitor.
Freeman, L. and F. Braconi, 2004. Gentrification and Document provided by the View from the Ground,
Displacement. Journal o f American Planning www.vicwfromthcground.com.
Association, 70(1), 39-52. Taylor, M. M. 2002. Harlem: Between Heaven and Hell.
Goetz, E. G. 2003. Clearing Ihe Way. Washington, D.C.: Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Urban Institute Press. Thompson, J. P. 1999. Public Housing in NewYork City.
318 | D E R E K S . HYRA
In M. H. Schill. (ed.), Housing and Community Venkatesh, S. A., I. Celimli, D. Miller, A. Murphy,
Development in New York City, 119-42. Albany: and B. Turner. 2004. Chicago Public Housing
State University of NewYork Press. Transformation: AResearch Report. Workingpaper,
Venkatesh, S. A. 2000. American Project. Cambridge, Center for Urban Research and Policy, Columbia
MA: Harvard University Press. University, NewYork.
----- . 2002. The Robert Taylor Homes Relocation Study. von Hoffman, A. 2000. A Study in Contradictions: The
Working paper, Center for Urban Research and Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949.
Policy, Columbia University, NewYork. Housing Policy Debate, 7/(2), 299-326.
CHAPTER 2 4
Gentrification, Intrametropolitan Migration,

and the Politics of Place
Gina M. Pérez
As I arrived to teach my G.E.D. class at the told him that when I was sixteen, my fam
Ruiz Belvis Cultural Center one spring after ily moved into our own home after years of
noon, Eddie Vêlez—a seventeen-year-old renting houses and apartments in northern
Puerto Rican/Mexican student—asked if I California. Eddie didn’t seem interested in
would switch roles and tell him about my hearing about how' I had moved frequently
life for a change. “I know you know a lot when I was younger. Instead, he w'anted to
about me,” he said, with a characteristically compare our lives at his current age of sev
wry smile. "Now' I want to know about you enteen. At that age, I was living in a house
and your family” For months, Eddie and I that my parents were buying, attending
had been discussing his options for after he a good Catholic high school from which
passed his G.E.D. Like many of my students, I would graduate with high honors, and
he was considering going into the military. I like him, making post graduation plans.
was encouraging him to go to college, telling But, unlike Eddie, I knew I w'as headed for
him how smart he was, especially in math college and that I would most likely move
and science. Eddie admitted that for the first away from home to do so. It w'as just a mat
time ever he was actually enjoying school, ter of deciding, based on financial aid pack
partly because he realized that he was “good ages and scholarships, which one I would
at it”. When other students needed help or attend. This, I believed, was one of the most
felt intimidated in math—which w'as almost important differences betw'een us. Eddie
daily—Eddie quickly volunteered to explain had a slightly different analysis.
algebra, fractions, or geometry to them. “See, we come from completely different
This, I reminded him, only confirmed that families,” he concluded. “I move around
he should continue his studies and become all the time. Every four to five years. Now
a teacher, the kind of teacher he never had we have to move again. The landlady came
while he w'as in school, as he said. But on that upstairs the other day and started crying
day Eddie was interested in understand because she know's my brother is dealin’.
ing the roots of our ongoing disagreement They pass by the house and are whistling
about his future, so he asked me pointed for him to come out. She’s got kids. And
questions about my parents, the schools I she’s scared. So now'we have to move again.
attended, and w'here my family lived. In our last place, w'e only lived there a year.”
“So when you were my age,” he clari Eddie smiled and paused, adding sadly,
fied, “your parents were buying a house.” I “Noww'e have to move again.” Even though
320 | GINA M. PÉREZ
I wanted him to go to college rather than some of this movement involves return or
enter the military, Eddie explained, I had to circular migration to Puerto Rico, most of
consider how different our families and our their mobility entails intrametropolitan
lives really were. He moved around a lot, migration. Like other economically mar
while I had lived in a stable household when ginal groups in the city, Chicago Puerto
I was his age. My family was supportive of Ricans’ housing options are severely lim
my decisions, while his father, when he was ited. Federal cutbacks in community
drunk or high, asked him why he couldn’t development and subsidized housing con
be more like his brother. Eddie looked at me struction beginning in the 1970s, as well
and smiled. “My brother deals drugs and is as municipal failure to maintain low-cost
in a gang. Why does he want me to be like housing, have created a housing crisis for
him?” As the other students returned from the city’s poor and working-class popula
break, Eddie concluded, “I just wanted to tion, which is forced to live in old housing
see how different my background is from stock, usually in overcrowded conditions.
your background,” and we returned to According to the Chicago Urban League,
the classroom to work on the day’s math federal funding for low-income housing in
exercises. Illinois has been cut by 87 percent since the
Eddie’s questions that day underscored 1980s, and despite state, local, and private
my “outsider within” status.1As a middle- efforts to meet the growing need for afford
class Puerto Rican feminist researcher able housing, Chicago’s housing crisis has
among poor and working-class puertor become even more critical in the 1990s.3
riqueños studying for their G.E.D., my Poor and working-class residents are
students often reminded me of how class also vulnerable to political-economic
background shaped our understanding changes that “revitalize” formerly neglected
and expectations of each other. My role as urban areas, ultimately displacing them.
their teacher accentuated this hierarchi The past decade’s prosperity wave, wit
cal relationship, which was also influenced nessing almost unprecedented growth in
by education and cultural capital. Eddie’s middle-income housing construction and
inquiry into my background therefore rehabilitation of the city’s housing stock,
reveals an important problem with mul- has passed by many residents, particu
ticulturalist thinking that exhorts ethnic larly those shuttling between Chicago and
minorities to serve as role models to urban Puerto Rico. In fact, neighborhoods like
youth. It ignores how one’s social location— Humboldt Park, whose residents are largely
including class, gender, race, sexuality, and Latino or African American and poor, have
culture—shapes a diversity of outcomes been virtually ignored by affordable hous
within ethnic groups." This kind of think ing projects and slated instead for the
ing also helps to reproduce the idea of a demolition of buildings, which are usually
meritocracy in which those who work hard replaced by high-rent lofts and condomini
are justly rewarded. For Eddie, residential ums.1 As one puertorriqueña remarked to
mobility is key to understanding one’s social me as we washed clothes at a Laundromat
location. Living in one’s own home provides in Humboldt Park, "yuppies” and rehabili
residential security, freeing one up to pur tated housing usually result in poor and
sue goals and dreams that are sidelined working-class families getting priced out
when one lives day-to-day, unsure of where of their neighborhoods. Comparing her
one’s family might be the next day. observations in Humboldt Park with the
Many poor and working-class Puerto gentrification she witnessed in the Belmont
Ricans in Chicago move a lot. Although area in the 1980s, she warned us, “Did you
G EN TR IFICA TIO N , IN TRAM ETROPOLITA N M IGRATION, AND T H E P O LITICS O F P LACE |
see those rehabbed houses on Humboldt Street—the border between Humboldt

Boulevard and YVabansia? When I saw they Park and West Town—lie the elevated El
were rehabbing, I was like, ‘Forget about it. tracks and the Bloomingdale Street via
We’re out of here.’ ” duct, and below them, a row of old houses
In what follows, I focus on the politics of badly in need of repair. Next door are new
place and the process of place-making in luxury townhomes and lofts. Some of them
Chicago, another site within a transnational have been converted from old housing
social field linking Puerto Rico to mainland stock, warehouses, and factories, others
communities. I look at poor and working- are new buildings with garages and private
class puertorriqueños’ extremely mobile yards. Farther east, below the old Canadian
lives and the factors impelling this intra railroad tracks, are long cement walls cov
metropolitan migration. Evictions, prob ered with boldly colored murals painted
lems resulting from overcrowded living by neighborhood youth participating in
conditions, and domestic disputes contrib the Mayor’s Summer Youth Program. One
ute to Puerto Ricans’ high residential mobil mural features a young man holding a can
ity. But like poor whites, blacks, and other of spray paint, posed ominously in front of
Latinos, Puerto Rican residents are also a large shark with the word “CULTURA”—
vulnerable to the politics of uneven devel culture—written across it. Against a back
opment targeting their neighborhoods for drop of the Puerto Rican flag, the message
urban "revival.” Low-income residents in reads, “This mural is dedicated 2, all the
gentrifying communities are not only phys sisters and brothers who hold pride in our
ically displacedby these political-economic culture and defend it. Boricua, d efien de lo
processes, but they are also heavily policed tuyo [Boricua, defend what is yours].”
by law enforcement officials charged with Still farther east, just before the Ruiz
ensuring a “safe” space for new residents. Belvis Cultural Center, are more lofts and
Grassroots efforts to resist these changes new buildings under construction and a
are constructed transnationally, as com sign advertising “an entire block of build-
munity organizers strategically deploy cul able land, residential or commercial.” A
tural symbols to construct a “Puerto Rican billboard in front of elegant new town-
space” that preserves neighborhood use houses reads, "Urban GardensTownhomes.
value. These efforts to deter displacement 2-3 bedrooms/2.5-3.5 bath. 5 signature
through resistance, political mobilization, floorplans; 2 car garage; open and luminif-
and coalition-building challenge an image erous; private outdoor space; gated secu
of the underclass that emphasizes patholog rity courtyard; formal dining room, family
ical behavior, presenting instead a portrait room. From $249,000.” More modest lofts
of agency and collective action among poor ($199,000) lie just to the west on a new,
and working-class Puerto Ricans whose lives unnamed street. And farther east, as you
are circumscribed by the politics of uneven turn southeast on Milwaukee toward the six
development that increasingly define the corners hub of Wicker Park, are more older
“global city” of Chicago. [...] buildings, warehouses, and closed facto
ries with signs in their windows saying “For
Lease” and "For Sale.” The juxtaposition is
THE NEAR NORTHWEST SIDE STORY
truly remarkable.
Traveling east from Humboldt Park to As one stands in front of the Centro—with
Wicker Park provides an important glimpse its brightly painted sign decorated with veji
into the geography of gentrification. Just gantes, m aracas, and güiros (Puerto Rican
west of Western Avenue on Wabansia cultural symbols and instruments) above
a front window displaying paintings and and the insane)”—becomes the “locus
woodcarvings by local artists—it is clear of punishment, justice, and example in
why developers, the local alderman, real Brazil” as well as a legitimate field of inter
estate agents, and new upwardly mobile ventions and manipulations unprotected
professional (and usually white) residents by individual civil rights.6My male students
want the Centro to move: It is a risky space often arrived in class tired, upset, and frus
frequented by potentially dangerous young trated with the ways in which gentrification
men and women who disrupt the new vision had transformed their daily routine. Police
of the neighborhood. Since the 1980s, the harassed them, stopped them randomly to
Centro has resisted myriad attempts to dis question and frisk them, taunted them, and
place them, including arbitrary zoning and often engaged in unlawful procedures just
building code enforcement; harassment by to humiliate them. One twenty-one-year-
neighbors complaining about young men old student, Leo Chacón, lived just west of
“hanging out” in front of the Centro; city the Centro and complained bitterly about
fines levied against the Centro for inappro the changes he witnessed in his neighbor
priate licenses; and phone calls, mailings, hood. “The whites,” he explained, were
and periodic visits by private individuals moving into the neighborhood, and Latino
and developers interested in buying the homeowners were facilitating this process
building where the Centro is located. The by “selling out,” selling their homes to new
Centro’s board has remained defiant, comers and then moving to the suburbs.
spending tens of thousands of dollars to Leo’s new neighbors constantly called the
remain compliant with shifting city licens police on him and his friends when they
ing, building, and zoning codes. But like the were hanging out in front of their own
neighborhood’s working-class residents in apartments and homes. Now, he explained,
the early 1980s, the Centro’s staff, students, the police passed by routinely, and they
and other patrons are frequently harassed had stopped Leo and other men frequently
and intimidated by powerful interests, enough to know them by name. “Where ya
including law enforcement. Their narra goin’, Mr. Chacón? How are ya doin’ today,
tives of gentrification's impact on their lives Mr. Chacón?’ The cops are always stop
are sobering, and confirm David Harvey’s ping me and trying to pin shit on me. I
contention that “the perpetual reshaping of ain’t done nothing. Ever since these white
the geographic landscape of capitalism is a folks moved in, I can’t even walk in my own
process of violence and pain.”5 'hood.” Leo was not the only one to com
The young men who study at the Centro plain about how the police treated him.
and participate in its cultural programs are During my three years teaching and vol
the most vulnerable to these demographic unteering at the Centro, all of the young
shifts and the attendant use of state power men with whom I worked had similar sto
to protect the neighborhood’s newest resi ries. As young men of color—most Puerto
dents through surveillance and manipu Rican, others Mexican or Mexican/Puerto
lation of young Puerto Ricans’ bodies. In Rican—they were clearly marked, embody
her excellent discussion of criminality ing a profile targeted by law enforcement
and the exercise of state power in Brazil, officials. During breaks, these young men
anthropologist Teresa Caldeira provides complained bitterly about how the police
similar examples of how the body—of both treated them, and they were surprised to dis
“alleged criminals” and “all categories of cover that they were all hassled by the same
people considered in need of special con officers. One day, Leo and Marvin Polanco,
trol (including children, women, the poor an eighteen-year-old Puerto Rican student,
GENTRIFICATION, INTRAMETROPOLITAN MIGRATION, AND TH E POLITICS OF PLACE | 323
described a particular Latino police officer for a description of the officer. But when
and his white partner, who were known for Marvin described the officer, the officers
harassing young men in the neighborhood. dismissed their story, saying that no cops
in their district fit that description. Soon
M: It was three guys, right. We were all
after, the original two officers returned and
Puerto Rican. And then . . . these cops
began harassing Marvin again, this time for
. . . they were coming down Evergreen
reporting them.
Street [in Humboldt Park], They were
going to stop some gang members, M: The white guy, he told me, “You want
but then when they saw us, they came me to take you by the Kings [opposition
and stopped us. And we weren’t even gang members from another neigh
on the corner. We were like twenty or borhood] so they could jump you?” I’m
thirty feet away from the corner, right, like, “Go take me by the Kings. I got an
and [this Latino cop] comes and stops aunt and uncle that live around there.
us. “Hey, you guys" [lowering his voice You can do me a favor and drop me
to sound authoritative], “What ‘cha off.” [Leo laughs.] And then he told me,
doin’?” He starts checking us out, right, “Oh, you want me to take you by such
and then this guy, he said his name’s and such gang?” I’m like, “Go ahead. I
Corona, and he comes and hits my got family there too. You’re doin’ me a
friend on the chin. “Oh, why you tryin’ favor.” And he’s like, “Gettin’ smart?”
to get smart” you know? My friend and he pointed in my chest again. And
was like, “No, sir. I’m not tryin’ to get I was like cryin’ because it hurt. And I
smart.” You know. And he gave him all couldn’t do nothin’ about it.
the respect. And there was this white
L: Yes, you could.
guy, right.
M: I mean, ‘cu z. . . [pauses] it’s your word
L: His white partner, right?
against a cop’s, man. I mean, if you’re
M: Yeah! And he came to me like, “What a cop, man, I don’t know. I don’t care
you ridin’ on?” “I’m not ridin’ nothin’,” what anybody says, you understand?
you know. He’s saying I was gettin' They’re gonna win. You can’t, you can’t
smart with him. He started goin’ like sue the government, man. I can’t sue
[he pokes his finger into his chest], you nobody.
know? Real hard to me, pointing on my
Marvin’s feelings were echoed by other men
chest real hard. I’m like, “No, why are
in the class. As I drove another G.E.D. stu
you doin’ this, “ you know? He’s like,
dent, Robby León, home one day, he told me
“Shut up.” I’m like, “You shut up.” And
similar stories. When I pulled into a grocery
he, the Hispanic one . . . he said, “Why
store parking lot near our homes, a police
you don’t wanna respect us?”And I was
officer blocked the way, refusing to let me
like, “I respect everybody who respects
park in the lot. He just stared at Robby and
me.” [Leo huffs knowingly in complete
me in my truck. When I began to roll down
disgust and then puts his hand out to
my window to say something to the offi
Marvin.] You know what I’m sayin?
cer, Robby stopped me, “No, just chill. That
[taking Leo’s hand, and they shake]. So
guy’s an asshole. He knows me. That's why
then, um, he hit my friend again. Then
he’s stopped there.”After a few minutes, the
we made a report.
officer slowly pulled out of the way, staring
When other police officers arrived to take hard at Robby. ‘I can’t believe that guy,” I
down Marvin’s complaint, they asked yelled. It was obvious that he was blocking
324 I GINA M. PÉREZ
me and I couldn’t move. It was the first time the law’s purpose was to fight Chicago’s
I had experienced, albeit in a very minimal gang problem, it helped to reproduce a kind
way, the mental games and taunting my of racial profiling common in contempo
students consistently described. “That guy rary law enforcement that targets men and
[and some other cops] are real assholes. women based solely on skin color. Mayor
That guy made me pull down my pants in Daley— one of the law’s staunchest advo
public. Why do you think I wear boxers?" I cates—lamented the U.S. Supreme Court
didn’t know Roberto wore boxers, but I did ruling: “We have to ask ourselves if it is con
know that like my other male students, he stitutional for gang-bangers and drug deal
was the target of police harassment. They ers to own a corner.. . . [Everybody] knows
searched young women too, he explained, that they aren’t out there cooking hot dogs
but you had to keep calm and know your and studying Sunday-school lessons.”8
rights. A woman officer tried to search his Increased policing of young men of color
girlfriend once, but she refused because she is one way to sanitize public space. Private
knew that while she was on her porch, the businesses engage in similar activities,
officer needed a warrant, something I did encouraging patronage from certain cli
not know. This kind of knowledge, he and my ents and discouraging others. This became
other students assured me, was one of their particularly clear to me one day as I had
few defenses against police misconduct. It lunch with Eddie, Nelly, and three other
is also an example of how local knowledge G.E.D. students at a popular diner we all fre
is produced in a context of unequal power quented. I had brought my lunch that day
relations and subordination. but joined my students at their invitation.
Law enforcement is a key component in I entered the restaurant first and sat down
the gentrification process. Like old build at a table near the window, waiting for the
ings that are destroyed, gutted, and then others to get their food. Soon we were all sit
rebuilt, gentrification reconfigures a neigh ting together, eating, laughing, and sharing
borhood’s racial and social landscape. In stories, enjoying being together outside of
the urban imaginary, young brown and the classroom. As we were getting ready to
black men are discursively constructed as leave, Frankie, an eighteen-year-old Puerto
dangerous, threatening, requiring surveil Rican student, saw us in the restaurant and
lance and punishment because they trans came in to join us, a Sprite in his hand. As
gress norms of dress, class, and ethnicity. As soon as Frankie sat down, an owner whom I
Dwight Conquergood points out, “The dis had come to know approached him aggres
course of transgression legitimizes official sively, asking him what he thought he was
systems of surveillance, reform, enforce doing sitting in his store with a soda he didn’t
ment, and demolition.”7 Another example buy there. Frankie had his headphones on,
of “legitimate”state surveillance is Chicago’s and he looked confused, removed his head
anti-loitering law, which was ruled uncon phones, and asked the older man to repeat
stitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in what he had said. By this time, the old man
1999. Passed in 1992, the law resulted in was livid and began screaming, “You get
more than 42,000 arrests of primarily young out of my store!” Stunned, Frankie stood up
black and Latino men, who were charged and walked out, mumbling, “This is messed
with unlawfully congregating on the street up,” and paced in front of the store window
with “no apparent purpose.” In 1995, the while talking to another student, Francisco.
Illinois courts suspended enforcement of The man then turned to a woman who was
the law, although police continued to use it sitting near us, grabbed her arm, and kicked
to arrest and harass young men. Although her out as well. The woman screamed at
GENTRIFICATION, INTRAMETROPOLITAN MIGRATION, AND TH E POLITICS OF PLACE | 325
him to let her go, and she stormed out of the should have seen what happened.” Nelly
store cursing at him in garbled English. then explained that we had a fight with the
At this point, my students and I were man who kicked him out, and Frankie was
visibly disturbed. “I’m never coming here really surprised. “Man, I ain’t never going
again,” Nelly said loudly. “He just lost him there again,” Frankie said. “That man’s all
self a customer doing that.” I then suggested messed up.” For the rest of the afternoon, we
to everyone that we should leave and finish discussed what happened. We were all ner
our lunch in the Centro. As we walked out vous, pumped with adrenaline, thinking of
the door, I turned to the owner, who recog what we should have said to the man. ‘That
nized me (I stopped at his store almost daily was racism, I think,” Nelly summed up, and
to buyfries), andsaid very calmly, "Youknow we all agreed. Once we were a bit calmer,
that student with the Sprite who you kicked Eddie asked me, “Are you going to write this
out? Well, he’s a student of mine and we down?” “Of course I am” I answered. And all
came here to eat lunch; he was only in here my students laughed. For me, this was data,
to join me and the rest of the class.” Before a perfect example of how certain people—
I could say any more, he started yelling at in this case, young Latino men who dress a
me in broken English, “You don’t know! He particular way—are constructed as danger
comes in here and doesn’t eat! ” I yelled back ous, undesirable, and threatening, and how
that there were others with us who weren’t these discursive practices have very real,
eating food from his store, but he didn’t material consequences. For my students,
bother to kick us out. He singled Frankie out this was a common, albeit lamentable, inci
for no apparent reason. “You get out of here! dent reinforcing their marginalization in
You are no kind of teacher! My daughter is their own neighborhoods. It was no acci
a teacher, and you are no kind of teacher! dent that Frankie was singled out and I was
You need to learn to control your students!” not. Gentrification discursively inscribes
Control my students? From what? From sit who is dangerous and who is a desirable
ting quietly with me and drinking a Sprite customer, justifying rude treatment of
bought from a convenience store? those who appear to pose a threat, namely
At this point, Nelly yelled back, “Don’t you young, poor people of color.
yell at my teacher! You show her respect!” The consequences of these gentrifica
The man screamed that I was no teacher tion processes are extremely gendered.
and to get out of his store. As I left, I turned Young women, for example, are less likely
to him again, “You know, I tried to tell you than men to be harassed by the police, but
calmly and I respected you. Why can’t you they do experience hostility from other
respect me and my students?” He screamed city and neighborhood institutions. Many
at me again to leave. At this point, Eddie women I knew agonized over their inter
was moving closer to the counter where actions with city bureaucrats and other
the man was. I grabbed Eddie’s arm and we professionals because they felt marked lin
all left. “I was about to go off on that man,” guistically, educationally, racially, and in
Eddie told me outside. “I was going to push terms of class. They sometimes asked me
all that stuff from the counter onto the floor. to accompany them to appointments, to
But I thought that wouldn’t be a good idea.” make calls to city agencies for them, and at
I agreed with him, congratulating him and times, to attend their children's school func
the other students for keeping calm as we tions in their place. I usually would do so,
walked back to the Centro. but I would also talk with them, explaining
When Eddie saw Frankie, he told him that they were perfectly articulate women
breathlessly, “Dog, you missed it. You who didn’t have to be intimidated by others.
That was easy for me to say, they told me, For a month, Nelly attended class sporadi
since I spoke proper English a n d Spanish. cally. When she finally did come to class she
They were poor, sometimes relied on wel explained that she was having a hard time
fare, and barely had a high school educa finding an apartment she could afford in
tion—targets of public derision. her gentrifying neighborhood. Landlords
One spring day, for example, Nelly asked refused to return her calls, were not forth
me to take her to a lawyer’s office in the coming when she tried to make appoint
Loop. Earlier that year, she and her boy ments with them, and when she finally was
friend had been in a serious car accident, able to see something, they showed her
and she had recently been notified that small, ding)' apartments with paint peel
her settlement check was ready for pickup. ing from the walls. One apartment didn’t
Nelly was extremely excited, telling me of even have a back door. "I want to stay in
her plans for the money. Her four-year-old the neighborhood where I am now,” she
son, Malik, sat between us in my truck and said sadly. But this was looking increas
was just as excited as his mom, asking her if ingly more difficult with such high rent. All
she would buy him new toys with the money. of this made her ven' depressed. When she
We both laughed as she reassured him that finally did find an apartment, it was in an
he would get new things too. Nelly wanted unfamiliar, largely Polish neighborhood in
me to accompany her into the office, but by the western section of Logan Square. Even
the time we arrived, Malik was asleep, and though it was a nice area, Nelly felt uncom
Nelly decided she could go in by herself, fortable, judged, and at times invisible.
while I wailed in the truck with her son.
When she returned half an hour later, N: If you go to a real nice neighborhood
Nelly was visibly upset. After subtracting . . . you know, because I’m nappy
lawyer’s fees, charges for the ambulance, headed [she laughs nervously]. You
and other hidden costs, it came to less know, they treat you like nothing... like
money than she had expected, and when they think you steal or like—suppose
she had tried to talk with someone in the you buy a pack of cigarettes and they’re
office about this, she was ignored. “I hate $2.75, well, they’ll count [the money]
going to places like that. I know they’re and assume something like, “Oh, well,
rippin’ me off because all they see when this person looks like trouble,” you
they look at me, you know— they think know. This person’s Puerto Rican___In
that I don’t have any education, or I’m not their mind, a spic or whatever.
educated. And they take advantage.” As
I: How do you know they think that?
we drove back to her apartment in Logan
What do they do that makes you think
Square, she fought back tears, telling me
they think that?
that she had been counting on that money
to pay her bills. But the worst part of all was N: Because [she laughs] I could tell
the humiliation she had experienced, feel because of the way they act. With an
ing that she was “looked down on” for who attitude, you know. Like . . . they can’t
she was. even look at you .. . . I don’t know how
She expressed similar concerns when to describe it, but it’s a look that I know.
looking for a new apartment. After many It’s just—I’m a real nice person. People
years of living doubled up with her mother, judge me like—maybe because I’m big
Nelly had to move. Things were getting tense . . . I’m like big-boned and I feel like
in the overcrowded apartment they shared, people think that I’m mean. But I’m
and she needed to find a new place to live. not. I’m real good. I'm a good person,
G EN TR IFICA TIO N , IN TRAM ETROPOLITA N M IGRATION, AND T H E P O LITICS O F P LACE | 327
you know. And I don’t like prejudice here, my neighborhood is 60 percent

. . . b u t. . . sometimes I do say some Polish. So, like, these people—not
thing like, "1 hate polacks.” [She looks these people because I don’t want to
embarrassed and laughs nervously. I sound like a racist [she laughs]. But
ask her why.] . . . Because they think of I feel like they look at us like nothing.
us as like real bad people. They think of They’ll pass right by me__ I always say
Puerto Ricans as like— they don’t know hello to little old m e n ... these little old
our history, you know? You know what men that pass by. Not that I know them
I’m saying? They think they’re white . . . but I always see them and say hi.
because they have blonde hair. And And som etim es... somebody will pass
being white is no big thing, you know.. by and I’ll just smile and they look at me
.. It’s like [we’re all] human beings. We like, “Why are you even smiling at me? I
all got mouths, eyes,. .. arms, and legs. don’t like you.” [She pauses.]. . . Lately
Not all of us . . . none of us are perfect. I don’t even smile. I just don’t even look
You know, there’s some people who at people. I just keep on minding my
don’t got legs or whatever. But if it’s just own business.
like they treat you, like we’re nothing
.... I got an example. One day I was with Nelly’s feeling of being invisible, judged,
my mom and we went to Walgreens. and uncomfortable in a new neighborhood
And my mom, she bought a pack of is one reason why many women resist mov
cigarettes . . . and my mom was like, ing to new areas. In response, Puerto Rican
“Can I have some matches?” And she women have come up with new housing
was a Polish lady. And she looked at my options, like doubling up with other fam
mom and she got a pack of matches ily members and close friends, periodically
and she threw them at my mom. Okay? taking in boarders, and squeezing large
And . . . I don’t know if I overreacted, extended families into smaller apartments
but I grabbed her arm and I told her, in order to remain in neighborhoods where,
“Don’t throw the matches at my mom, over the years, they have cultivated rich
because you don’t know who I am. You networks of neighbors, stores, and small
don’t know who she is. Just because businesses that enable them to feed and
we’re Puerto Rican doesn't . . . mean clothe their families from month to month.
you have to discriminate.” And she Mercedes and her family, for example, could
was like, “Do you want to talk to my have found a bigger and better apartment
manager?” And I go, “Yeah, I want to farther west in the city, but she would rather
speak to your manager.” And he was stay in Humboldt Park, near her network of
Polish. friends who provide companionship and
financial and emotional help. When she
I: So what did he say?
returned to Chicago a year after moving
N: He was like, “Oh, there was nothing to San Sebastián, she found an apartment
wrong. She didn’t mean it. She was around the corner from the neglected and
probably just in a hurry.” I go, “There’s deteriorating apartment where she had
nobody in the store barely!” . . . I told lived before. The dangerous but gentrifying
him, “I’ll never [come] here again. And neighborhood has an important use value
if I have any friends that come here, I’ll for her that would be difficult to replace,
never tell them to come here.” It was and women like Mercedes have invested
on Belmont [Avenue]. You know, that great amounts of time and energy in cul
upsets me. [She pauses.] Like around tivating these relationships and figuring
328 I GINA M. PÉREZ
out where to buy basic foodstuffs based on holds in the new neighborhoods. They are
price and quality. often more dependent on others for trans
Aida, for example, consistently talked portation as well. When puertorriqueñas do
about moving away from the locum (cra have their own cars, they rarely own them,
ziness) of her gang- and drug-ridden instead paying a large portion of their
neighborhood, but she recognized the monthly income in order to finance them,
convenience of living in West Town and an increasingly common strategy among
was proud of her economic strategies, the poor, who rely on what Brett Williams
which effectively stretched the house calls the “fringe banking system” in order to
hold monthly income. "I buy my meat get by."’ Chicago’s housing crisis has clearly
at Lorimar. I get my eggs and milk from had a profound impact on the lives of the
Edmar’s. And I can walk over to K-Mart, over city’s most vulnerable residents.
on Milwaukee [Avenue]. I have everything I Residents of the Near Northwest Side
need right here.” This was often a point of often express frustration with the changes
contention between her and her husband, occasioned by gentrification. They fre
Eli, who wanted to find a larger apartment quently say they are powerless against
farther west, away from their troubled the police; against the negative stereo
neighborhood. But because Aida did not types that people form about them based
have a driver’s license, she didn’t want to be on their language, class, education, and
far from familiar stores and kin and friend phenotype (including skin color, hair, and
ship networks. “One day I’ll get my house,” facial features); and against the economic
she would say. “I’ll get my license and my and political clout newcomers bring with
house, but not yet.” them to their neighborhoods. Indeed, the
These creative strategies for remain poor believe they have little power in their
ing in one’s neighborhood are frequently lives, and gentrification only heightens
insufficient, however, and Latino families their sense of impotence. Of course there
are increasingly forced to move farther are moments of resistance—young men
west, into new and unfamiliar neighbor using exceedingly polite language to resist
hoods. According to 2000 census data, police officers, knowing and claiming one’s
Hermosa, Avondale, and Belmont Cragin— civil rights to circumvent unlawful police
the community areas just west of the Near practices, refusing to leave one’s neighbor
Northwest Side neighborhoods—have hood despite pressures from landlords and
indexed a dramatic rise in their Latino newcomers. [...]
population of between 40 and 200 percent.3
And although these new places may appear
NOTES
to be safer, more spacious, and quieter
than their previous communities, women 1. Borrowing from Collins’s nolion of the “outsider
are faced with creating new support net within” (1991), Zavella (1993) discusses impor
tant ethical questions facing “insider/outsider”
works, learning to navigate unfamiliar sur feminist researchers navigating the power rela
roundings, and becoming more dependent tions in which they are implicated.
on automobiles—their own and those of 2. Zavella 1991,314.
friends and family—to get around the city. 3. Dehavenon 1996, xviii; Slayton 1987.
These changes may seem inconsequen 4. See "Humboldt Park residents want buildings
salvaged," Chicago Tribune, Oct. 20, 1996; "The
tial, but they have a profound impact on neighborhood as we know it?” West Town Tenants
women both emotionally and materially. Union Newsletter, fall 1997; “To build or not to
The women must invest a lot of time to cre build,” Chicago Reader, Feb. 5,1999.
ate relations that are critical for their house 5. Harvey 1990,72. For an excellent analysis of these
GENTRIFICATION, INTRAMETROPOLITAN MIGRATION, AND THE POLITICS OF P LA C E | 329
dynamics in another Chicago neighborhood Structuring diversity: Ethnographic perspectives on

involving other ethnic and racial groups, see the new immigration, edited by Louise Lamphere,
Conquergood 1992. 95-144. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Calderia 2000, 367-368. See also Roberts 1997 Dehavenon, Anna Lou. 1996. Doubling up: A strategy
and Aponte-Pares 2001 for analysis of the racial - of urban reciprocity to avoid homeless
ized body and the social construction of place. ness in Detroit. In There’s no place like home:
7. Conquergood 1992,135. Anthropological perspectives on housing and
8. Quoted in "Chicago expresses annoyance but homelessness in the United States, 51-66. Westport,
understanding over decision on loitering,” New Conn.: Bergin and Garvey.
York Times, June 12,1999 (late edition). Flores-Gonzalez, Nilda. 2001. “Paseo Boricua:’'
9. Flores-Gonzalez (2001) documents the following Claiming a Puerto Rican Space in Chicago. Journal
increases from 1990-2000:1Iermosa 41.6 percent; o f the Centerfo r Puerto Rican Studies 13 (2): 8-21.
Avondale 99.6 percent; and Belmont Cragin 198.1 Harvey, David. 1990. The condition o f postmodernity.
percent. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Press.
10. The American poor's increasing reliance on Hudson, Mike. 1996. Merchants o f Misery. Monroe,
the fringe banking system includes using pawn Maine: Common Courage Press.
shops, check-cashing businesses, and rent- Slayton, Robert A. 1987. The Reagan approach to
to-own stores to supply themselves with basic housing: An examination of local impact. Chicago:
necessities, and securing homes and cars with Chicago Urban League.
high-interest loans, a strategy that has enriched Williams, Brett. 2001. What’s debt got to do with it? In
some of the nation’s largest financial institutions The new poverty studies: The ethnography o f power,
while burdening the poor with high-cost debt. politics, and impoverished people in the United
Williams 2001,99. See also Hudson 1996. States, edited by Judith Goode and Jeff Maskovsky,
79-102. NewYork: NewYork University Press.
REFERENCES Zavella, 1991. Mujeres in factories: Race and class per
spectives on women, work and family. In Gender
Caldeira, Teresa P. R. 2000. City o f walls: Crime, seg at the crossroads o f knowledge: Feminist anthro-
regation, and citizenship in Sao Paulo. Berkeley: pology in the postmodern era, edited by Micaela
University of California Press. di Leonardo. Berkeley: University of California
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1991. Black fem inist thought: Press.
Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics o f ------. 1993. Feminist insider dilemmas: Constructing
empowerment. NewYork: Routledge. ethnic identity with Chicana informants. Frontiers
Conquergood, Dwight. 1992. Life in Big Red. In 13 (3): 53-76.
CHAPTER 25
Avenging Violence with Violence

Mary Pattillo
My final example of anticrime activism in courtyard buildings. I would have loved

North Kenwood-Oakland is the request to have seen the University of Chicago
made to the University of Chicago to extend buy one of those, make it a dormitory,
its police patrols into the neighborhood. forcing integration. Now, that would
The hearty welcome of the University of have immediately added $10,000 to
Chicago police in 2003 was a strong indi $20,000 in appreciation of property val
cation of gentrifiers’ desire to quell dis ues because [before] you didn’t have a
order by any means necessary. “There’s mixed income. You also would have had
a new generation now,” said Jonathan the extra sendees that would have came
Kleinbard, former vice president for com with that. The University of Chicago
munity affairs at the University of Chicago. police would have had jurisdiction north
He was surprised to hear of the expanded of 47th Street. It would have had a higher
patrol, which would have been unthinkable level of security.
during his tenure at the university. “I just
resisted [expanding the police boundar Clemons’s vision—illustrative as much
ies] and I thought it would be like declaring for its multilayered attention to racial and
war. And it’s now happened.” Kleinbard’s class integration, property values, and
astonishment at the requests for the uni crime, as for its ahistorical cheerfulness—is
versity’s police services by “ministers and now a reality. When the university came to
home owners” in North Kenwood-Oakland the Conservation Community Council in
is rooted in the tumultuous historical rela June 2003 to present its proposal to begin
tionship between the university and its sur patrols of NKO, the reception was as ebul
rounding communities, mostly as a result lient as Clemons had imagined it might be.
of its aggressive urban renewal efforts in the Alderman Preckwinkle presented the pro
1950s. Given this background, the vision of posal as coming at her request. She was not
Kirk Clemons, a middle-class home owner being selfish in taking the credit, but rather
who moved to North Kenwood-Oakland in making herself liable for the blame if there
1997, is nothing short of amazing: [...] were a backlash based on the historical sus
picion of the university. She repeated her
My grand scheme, what I would have spiel that when people attempt to revital
been pushing for from a political point ize a neighborhood, two things are espe
of view, is: You’ve got three big rental cially important—public safety and good
332 | MARY PATTILLO
schools. The university had already opened increasingly successful efforts to tame the
a charter elementary school, and now it was neighborhood.
willing to assist with public safety. The lat
ter commitment would cost the university
THE NEXT LEVEL: QUALITY OF LIFE
approximately $300,000 a year, plus the cost
of installing emergency phones throughout In his presentation to the community, the
the neighborhood at roughly $10,000 each. chief of the University of Chicago police
"Why expand into North Kenwood- made explicit the new direction of crime
Oakland?” asked the chief of the University fighting efforts in North Kenwood-Oakland.
of Chicago police as a set up to his own three- He told community residents that the uni
part answer: the neighborhood is getting versity police planned to be helpful not just
better, the university feels a greater respon in fighting major crime incidents, but also
sibility for its contiguous neighborhoods, in attacking loitering, bottle breaking, and
and it’s a win-win situation. NKO wins by the like. The university specializes in “qual-
receiving university police services on top ity-of-life” policing, he told the audience,
of those of the Chicago Police Department. ceaselessly observing and investigating
And the university wins by further "stabiliz nuisances until perpetrators are so both
ing” its surroundings, extending the range ered that they stop. The steady progression
of neighborhoods in which faculty, staff, in what behaviors are subject to policing,
and students may choose to live from violent and property crimes to softer
After the alderman and the police chief crimes such as loitering and littering,
concluded their presentations, the meeting brings us to a turning point beyond which
was open for questions from CCC members some residents, mostly those who have low
and residents at large. I was the only per incomes and have been in the neighbor
son to ask a skeptical question: "Have there hood longer, switch from being part of the
been any complaints since the university policing effort—complaining about drug
has started patrolling Woodlawn?” I asked. dealers, calling 911 when they hear gun
Woodlawn is the community to the south shots, taking precautions when walking
of the university, and is also predominantly through the neighborhood for fear of rob
black and low-income. "Three that I can beries or other assaults—to being the tar
remember,” answered the chief. “Two were gets o/policing.
from people who were arrested for selling The list of behaviors that evoke the con
drugs, and those were unfounded. The third tempt of residents is long, and they are fre
was when two young men were stopped on quent topics of conversation and attention
the way to church, and that one needed to at block clubs meetings, in casual neigh
be addressed.” I then queried the audience, borhood conversation, and at the Chicago
“Are people in the audience generally sup Alternative Policing Strategy beat meetings.
portive or skeptical?” I asked, not wanting The vignette opening this chapter already
to misinterpret the considerable silence. raised the issue of where the appropriate
My neighbors looked at me as if I had landed place is to barbecue in the summer. Other
from outer space. For the residents at the such concerns include littering and bro
meeting, a preponderance of home owners ken glass, loud music, public drinking, fix
and newcomers, this was a no-brainer. The ing cars on the street, "loitering” and other
offer of patrols was unanimously approved. kinds of congregating (which could include
The generations had been replaced in standing in front of one’s own apartment
North Kenwood-Oakland, and the young building), porch sitting, honking horns,
pioneers welcomed any assistance in their double- parking, and unauthorized home
AVENGING VIO LEN CE WITH VIO LEN CE | 333
repairs. Residents’ responses to these activ North Kenwood as a success. Part of the rea
ities increase in earnestness from inaction, son for this positive evaluation is of course
to making polite pleas to offending neigh the stringent screening and behavior man
bors or building management, to making agement to which residents are subjected.
organized efforts through block clubs or Defining the objectionable behavior
approaching offenders as a group, to lodg more clearly, resident Paul Knight argued
ing complaints with or calling the police, to about loiterers:
insisting that the police take action. At some
point, all of the behaviors in the list above They don’t know what they’re doing. And it
have been raised at beat meetings, and thus looks bad. And they’re not educating them
all have reached the level of being subject to selves or distinguishing themselves in any
official policing and official sanction. way or contributing to the greater good.
Hanging out in front of a liquor store makes
The rhetoric around managing neigh
the neighborhood look bad [even] ifit wasn’t. 1
borhood behaviors is unabashedly norma
go over on Narragansett [a street on Chicago’s
tive and charged with the class tensions predominantly white northwest side], you
expected under gentrification. “This know, they’re inside the liquor store, or sitting
again [is] a problem with the CHA,” began in the tavern, or whatever. Bridgeport even
Robert Blackwell as he explained why he [a white and Latino working-class neighbor
was skeptical about the reconstruction of hood] there’s nobody hanging out in front of
public housing. “There is very little pun a liquor store.
ishment for bad behavior. And that’s what
people, I think, are really worried about. I Soeurette Hector was even more adamant
don’t think it’s the idea of I don’t want to live in her dismay over the bad behaviors of fel
around anybody who doesn’t have as much low residents.
money as we do. It’s how are these people
going to behave.” Blackwell’s comments There are several nuisances, but two I would
are interesting because he initially denies say would be the top priorities. The first one
that his evaluation of appropriate behav is the undesirables. You know, either they
will have to be taught how to live correctly
iors is based on class considerations while
or they will have to find where they feel co m
simultaneously setting up his categories
fortable to do whatever they’re doing. It’s
based on class, specifically public hous nothing against them, but if they don’t know
ing residents versus non-public housing the meaning of community, either they get
residents. Soon after this comment, he real someone to teach them or they need to go
izes his inconsistency, noting, “So there’s a someplace where they can behave, yon know,
little bit of classism—not a little bit, a lot of have the same behavior.
classism.”
Moreover, his emphasis here is on bad Hectorillustratestheconfidence with which
behaviors, like property upkeep, that are not many newer residents assert their vision of
criminal but that, in his view, require sanc proper neighborhood comportment. She
tions nonetheless. These kinds of behav went on to give examples of such breaches
iors fall into the list of quality-of-life issues of residential etiquette, including driving
that residents often rehearse. Blackwell motorcycles at 2 AM, public urination, and
was quick to add that he has been pleas drinking in the neighborhood park.
antly surprised by just how inconspicuous Aliberal (orperhapslibertarian) response
the new public housing and its residents to Soeurette Hector’s protestations can be
have been. Despite his initial protests, he offered for each of these behaviors: For one
now sees the mixed-income experiment in thing, not all people are on the same waking
334 | MARY PATTILLO
and sleeping schedule. Some people work socializing in the summer. Many managers
variable shifts, young people have summer make sure that certain rules, such as those
vacation, and the self-employed work when prohibiting loud music, are written into
they want to. Hence leisure activities at 2 AM their leases and discussed with tenants so
including riding motorcycles, do not inter that there is no confusion over what infrac
rupt the sleep of everyone, just those with tions could result in eviction. These are
nine-to-five jobs. As one resident of public relatively routine forms of building man
housing said, “Sometimes on a hot sum agement and are appreciated as much by
mer night, I don’t blame them [for being in the tenants of the buildings themselves as
the park after the 10 PM closing time]. Me by their new middle-class neighbors.
and my kids don’t come in the house at nine Yet sometimes these efforts become
o'clock. Yeah, they be woke at eleven. Yup. more austere and elicit greater resistance
In the summer what else you got to do with from low-income residents. Jenine Harris,
them? You don’t want them woke at eight manager of a project-based Section 8 build
o'clock in the morning.” Children playing ing, was very cognizant of, perhaps even
outdoors at 11 PM is likely to annoy neigh stressed out by, the gentrification of the
bors who must rise early for work. The point neighborhood. Her awareness was height
of this exercise is not for me to decide the ened when the apartment building adja
ideological, moral, or legal high ground cent to the one she managed was converted
of different kinds of behaviors, but rather to condominiums:
to expose the subjective and prescriptive
contours of defining what is “undesirable.” It’s been hell because I’m trying to get people
Moreover, Hector has relatively more power to maintain this building in a certain way, but
to actualize her values. Her story about the people aren’t ready for the change. The ten
undesirable young men drinking in the park ants aren’t ready for the change. They’re not
ends with an action that made her proud. ready to live in a certain way that now the
Her ten-year-old son flagged down nearby new residents of this area are accustom ed
police officers to report the bad behav to, or they expect. Like the condo association
next door. You know, they don't hang out in
ior. “I was, like, so thrilled,” she recalled. “I
front. But the culture of a lot of the residents
remember when I was a little girl, we used in [this] building is they hang out [because]
to have those things and the police used to they com e from areas or developments that
be our friends.” that was the norm. So that was a big change
Property managers (of private and pub- for me to adjust to the hanging out and to not
licly subsidized buildings) are also subject to be so aggressive in asking them not to. You
the complaints of gentrifiers and are under know that’s been a change. I got a lot of resis
pressure to keep their tenants in line with tance when I first got here because, you know,
the desires of the new neighbors. Tenant they gonna buck the system. My approach is
screening and selection is just the first a little different from the other m anagement.
step in ensuring a certain kind of resident. I don’t try to dictate to them, you know, what
they should do and how they should live. I
Next, building managers see themselves as
just try to incorporate them and show 'em
actively participating in behavior modifica different things and give 'em different things
tion. Some of their strategies are structural to do. But it’s been very, very hard trying to get
such as installing barbecue pits behind a the residents to understand that there’s, you
building so that residents do not barbecue know, no smoking in the hallways, smoke-
out front, as one manager told me. Another free environment, drug-free environment,
manager told me she installed individual air not to hang in front of the area and just some
conditioning units to cut down on outdoor behavioral things.
AVENGING VIO LEN CE WITH VIO LEN CE | 335
Harris tried to be a sensitive landlord, but neighbors but, more seriously, the pressure
still felt there were certain rules that needed of the police when neighbors complained
to be enforced, especially given the added about her son repairing cars on the street.
scrutiny of the new condo owners next McDaniel feared for her son, who had spent
door. time in jail and could not risk being on the
What might have been the response of police radar for even the most minor infrac
the tenants in Jenine Harris’s building to her tion. Despite her feistiness, she ultimately
gently prodding them away from hanging acquiesced. Emma McDaniel instructed
out? Or the reaction of the young men who her adult children not to antagonize the
were asked by the police to leave the park new neighbors and to follow the new block
at the behest of Soeurette Hector’s son? “I’ll rules if confronted. She was already strug
tell you what. When you start paying our gling financially and surely did not need any
taxes, my taxes, then you tell me where to more headaches in the way of complaining
barbeque,” was the response of one mid neighbors and watchful police officers.
dle-aged man who had lived in NKO for Andrea Wilson took the opposite
decades when his new neighbor asked him approach when the management of the
not to barbecue on his front porch. There apartment building where she, her mother,
was a similar feud about barbecuing on the and her grandmother had all grown up grew
front porch on Emma McDaniel’s block. A progressively more strict. “The manage
new neighbor did not like it, and the old ment now, I don’t particularly care for,” she
neighbor did not care. McDaniel gave me began. “They don’t want the kids running
her interpretation of the whole thing. around. They can’t play in front. They don’t
want you standing in front of the building.
If it had’ve been me, I’m telling you, honey, You can’t do this, you can’t do that. It’s like
they’d have called the police on me. And I you a prisoner in your own home. Basically,
said, “You know, what kind of stuff is this?” they don’t want you to do anything.”Wilson
You know, these are things that they have was in her twenties and had a young son
been doing all these years. And some of our whom she felt had nowhere to play, even
back(yards) aren’t like other people. And lean
though the U-shaped building enclosed a
understand if you’re out there and you got
large grassy courtyard. Her extended fam
clowns out there with you and they’re acting
up and they’re cursing and they’re all disre
ily combined the income from her job at a
spectful. Nobody wants that. Nobody wants record store and her mother’s nursing salary
that. But, I mean, it’s the point that, honey, to pay the modest rent. Her grandmother
anything you do in your house or around had her own apartment, which she paid
your house, you don't annoy me. You’re not for with a Section 8 voucher. But they saw
bothering me. I’m not going to bother you, changes coming. Wilson commented on
honey, because that is your place to enjoy. nearby buildings being converted to con
To do what you want to do. And I mean, I just dos, the new construction, and the remod
said, ‘'W hat’s going on?" You know. eling. She appreciated that the vacant lots
were being filled, but as a result, she said,
Her frustration with the new rules on her “it’s getting more expensive to live around
block is palpable. Not surprisingly, she too here.” Furthermore, along with the new
has a limit. She does not condone cursing, housing came new rules, and the landlord
clowns, disrespect, or general “acting up.” began hassling her, her friends, and her
But the new rules, in her opinion, had gone family about standing in front of the build
too far. Her family had personally experi ing. Wilson fought back, and planted herself
enced not only the condescension of her in front of her apartment building.
336 | MARY PATTILLO
Like where I live, my bedroom face the front system, but through the prerogatives of
of the building. So I used to go outside a lot ownership.
to sit up under my window. [The landlord]
didn’t want anybody to sit there. My m om felt He wanted to raise our security [deposit]
that if I’m paying rent why can my daughter from $75 to $900. He wanted to raise our rent
not sit there. She [was] like, “Well, just go out to $1,100. We were already paying $875. So
there and sit anyway. And if he have som e by the first of November we had to have $900
thing to say, tell him to com e talk to m e.” rent and a $900 security which is no way. Got
And it was like he’ll com e, he’ll do things to move. So within a month we were packed
like just sit there and watch us to see if his up and moved in here.
staring’ll make us move. We just sit there
and not pay any attention to him. And then
The Wilson family was able to find an apart
finally h e’d just drive off. I guess he just got
ment that was still near Andrea’s grand
tired of it.
mother’s in a subsidized building a few
blocks away. Andrea Wilson’s run-in with
Contrary to Emma McDaniel’s experience, her landlord, which she sees as connected
where she feared police reprisal, Andrea to the changes in the neighborhood, exem
Wilson and her family felt emboldened by plifies the turning point, where established
their long tenure to defy rules that they per residents, who initially benefited from
ceived to be excessively rigid. Still, the suc change—seeing fewer vacant lots, having
cess of Wilson’s stoop-sitting protest was more retail options, and so on—start to be
short-lived. The landlord got the ultimate hurt by it, either through law enforcement
revenge, not through the criminal justice or market forces. [...]
CHAPTER 26
Neighborhood Effects in a Changing Hood

Lance Freeman
SOCIAL TIES But while gaining access to higher welfare

benefits or a job as a nursing assistant did
Social ties are another mechanism through improve their lives, these improvements
which having more affluent neighbors might were marginal at best and did not put
be an advantage. More specifically, more them on a secure trajectory out of poverty.
affluent neighbors might be advantageous Instead these ties helped them get by but
for a particular type of social ties. Briggs not get ahead. Because the women were
(1998) distinguishes between two types of themselves poor with limited access to
social ties, or what he calls social capital. resources, knowing them did not lead to
One type of ties refers to those that provide upward mobility.
support, or help cope with day-to-day life. The second type of ties Briggs describes
These are ties of the type that one might use doesjustthat—helppeoplegetahead.These
for a small loan until payday, to watch the are ties that can lead not only to a job but a
kids, and to confide in. We all make of use of good job, or ties that would help one navi
such ties, but there some evidence to suggest gate the wider middle-class world in a way
that the poor are especially reliant on them that significantly affects one’s life chances.
to substitute for goods and services that the These are where more affluent neighbors
more fortunate among us typically buy. In are presumably beneficial. Whereas a poor
American Dream, journalist Jason Deparle neighbor might provide information on
(2004) describes how three women on wel how to qualify for housing assistance or
fare relied on each other to provide tempo obtain a job at a fast-food outlet, a middle-
rary housing to each other’s families and class neighbor might be able to advise a
supervision for each other’s children in addi youth on how to prepare and apply to col
tion to emotional support and how this sup lege or for a stable job with room for upward
port was necessary for them to survive. [...] mobility. Moreover, although some might
For getting ahead or becoming upwardly assume that the notion of social ties implies
mobile, however, these ties were of limited intimate contacts of the type that I argued
use. To be sure, the women shared with were unlikely between the gentry and oth
each other information about the superi ers, what social scientists refer to as w eak
ority of welfare benefits in Milwaukee vis- ties are of import as well (Granovetter 1973).
à-vis Chicago and job information, such Neighbors and other casual acquaintances
as opportunities as nursing assistants. are examples of this type. Thus, it would
338 I LANCE FREEMAN
not be necessary for someone to develop lan ce: I’ll ask you about is community
intimate relationships with their neigh organizations or churches, or religious
bors; ties of a more casual type will suffice institutions, have you noticed—I don’t
to bring potential benefits. The neighbor know if you are involved or active with
hood effects thesis therefore suggests that them, but have younoticed any changes
more affluent neighbors might lead to ties in those since you’ve been there?
that are more leverageable, that is, ties that BARBARA: Well my sorority did a project at
can lead to upward mobility. Frederick Douglass Academy [a local
How likely is gentrification to lead to high school], and we worked with
these types of ties? As we saw with the case high school girls. We did a project on
of peer effects and collective socializa Saturdays. We worked with the girls. We
tion, there is reason to be cautious about took them on trips. We had workshops
expecting neighborhood effects to mani and we mentored them. And a lot of
fest themselves in the context of gentrifi them started coming out. Maybe the
cation. Relationships between the gentry first time we had like ten, fifteen. After
and indigenous residents appear too fleet a while we had like sixty girls coming
ing. Is there reason to be cautious when out. And the principal was very thank
thinking about social ties in the context of ful. He said, “Because you do me a favor
gentrification? by being there and having the kids
Gentrification certainly brings individu come in to hang out there,” because he
als with more leverageable connections said that statistics show that between
into spatial proximity with indigenous resi those hours more kids get arrested on
dents. Moreover, the type of relationships a Saturday—because the cops are look
necessary for leverageable social ties to ing for overtime. And so any little thing
be beneficial—weak ones—certainly seem can get them. And I thought that was a
plausible in the context of gentrification. scary thought, you know. So those type
Indeed, my research in Clinton Hill and of projects go on unnoticed. You know,
Harlem did reveal instances where indi we never got an award or a thank you
viduals who might be considered part of for doing these kind of things.
the gentry played roles that were benefi
cial to indigenous residents. We were first Barbara also described the process by
introduced to Barbara. .. as she related her which her building was converted from
satisfaction in seeing the value of her home a rental to a cooperative. In NewYork City
rise. With her suburban upbringing, degree there are regulations governing this process
from an Ivy League university, and current that are designed to prevent preconversion
enrollment in graduate school, Barbara fits residents from being displaced. According
the profile of a pioneer, that is, a middle- to Barbara, the landlord was deviating from
class person who serves in the vanguard of these guidelines in a way that was disad
gentrification. The neighborhood effects vantageous to the tenants.
thesis suggests that someone like this living
Like, the owners barely advertised to the ten
in a neighborhood like Harlem might serve
ants that that they could purchase a coop. So
as a role model to others in the community me and a few owners at the time said, “You
and could potentially serve as a bridge to need to advertise this place. You need to put a
the wider middle-class world. Below are sign up that says it’s a coop, in case anybody
snippets of some her interactions with the is interested in buying.” There was a time I
Harlem community that shed some light on becam e very adamant. I was very confron
these notions. tational with the managing agency who was
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS IN A CHANGING HOOD | 339
supposed to be taking these concerns back to a real difference to some of the residents in
the sponsor. Then I found out that the owner the community. Likewise, by informing her
of the buildinghas another coop on the Upper neighbors about their rights as tenants and
West Side. There he was following the rules to about opportunities to become homeown
a T. And he wasn’t getting away with any of
ers, her presence in the neighborhood could
the things there. I just found this out, and I
make a real difference to at least some of the
went to the state office building and I got lots
of information. And I threatened to take him residents in the community.
to court and things like that. And they were From the perspective of some her neigh
becoming concerned because they were like, bors, coming into contact with Barbara was
“Uh-oh, she’s starting to do her research.”And potentially very important. Nonetheless,
I asked everybody [in the building! to meet those neighbors who might have benefited
in. And I said, "We have to figure out a way from her presence (either through being
to get these apartments. And maybe if we all mentored or being informed of opportu
com e together and we ask to purchase, he’ll nities to become homeowners) did not
give you a break, because tw'enty-five percent develop intimate, long-lastingrelationships
down is too much. But as a group, collectively,
with her. Indeed, when asked to describe her
you can go and say to him, ‘You know what?
relationships with her neighbors she used
We’ve been here in this building.’”
the common “hi and bye” refrain described
These examples are instructive in illuminat earlier in this chapter. Despite the fleeting
ing how even weak ties between the gentry nature of these relationships, they still had
and indigenous residents can nonetheless the potential to connect these residents to
have important effects. In this case Barbara important resources.
served as a mentor in a formal capacity Barbara’s story raises the question of
through her sorority at a local high school. how common are these types of causal but
Her proximity to a local high school no potentially leverageable social ties? To be
doubt played a role in her getting involved sure, Barbara is exceptional—most people
as a mentor, as she frequently mentioned do not participate in mentoring programs or
her concern about and desire to assist the organize their neighbors. Moreover, active
people in her community. Certainly her people like this are present in all classes.
residence in a building with other residents Nevertheless, Barbara is better situated
put them in a situation of mutual interest. to navigate the wider middle-class world
Her knowing where to turn to obtain infor and provide entry to someone attempting
mation about tenant’s rights under a coop to break into that world. To the extent that
conversion as well as her savvy negotiating gentrification brings into the neighborhood
with the landlord proved to be a valuable more individuals with access and savvy like
resource to her neighbors. her, there is the potential for indigenous
If her mentoring helped persuade a teen residents to benefit.
to select a college or choose a career or even Casual contact between the gentry and
avoid getting arrested as the principal sug indigenous residents would seem more
gested, her ties to these youths may indeed likely than the type of intimate relation
have helped them get ahead. Choosing a ships necessary for collective socialization
college or a career can be bewildering to or peer effects to manifest. But these casual
any teen; for one who does not personally relationships may indeed be important as
know adults who have tread in these paths Barbara’s story and the example to follow
before, the choices may seem not only attests.
bewildering but are probably truncated as Anthony was introduced earlier as a col
well. In this way, her mentoring can make lege-educated professional who moved
340 | LANCE FREEMAN
to Clinton Hill four years ago and who walking around doing a certain thing,
grew up in suburban Maryland. As an you know, may be he doesn’t look just
armchair sociologist, he describes the like you, but he’s still a man doing some
potential benefits exposure to the gentry thing, that’s still more positive than not
could bring to the indigenous residents of seeing anything at all. So, I think that
his neighborhood: plays itself out as like a certain positive,
I hope some of the kids can come up.
Anything else, um, I guess as far
la n c e : Like, for instance, I make it a point to
as the neighborhood changing that I wear, not right now, to wear like suits or
haven’t touched upon, that, um— like khakis and stuff, not because I’m, I
ANTHONY: Not really, and I think it’s a gen want to be your European, not because
eral positive because it’s maintaining I want to simulate, just because I want
its racial diversity and like I said it’s people to see something different. So, I
safer, above anything it’s safe, the safe think that’s the biggest positive of gen
ness. And I think that there’s a certain, I trification and it’s definitely like that in
think there’s a certain male black crisis. Clinton Hill. And, I’m not saying you
But I think it’s good because now you’re have to be white or, you’ve got to sim
seeing all types of black folks. You’ve got ulate to European ways or American
your artsy black person in Clinton Hill ways, but so at least you know, you can
now, you know the job-like person or understand, kind of how society works
whatever it is, and you’ve got your gay in that, you can, you can have good
couples, you got your, your suited black health care, you can have good food,
person out there, you’ve got the guys or you can have good services or like,
with the baggy pants, whatever, but that the police is like another thing, too. But
shouldn’t be all you’ll see. 'Cause the maybe the police is there to serve you,
media, that’s how they portray us in the you know. A lot of people are just really
media, they give you one version and, scared of the police or they hate the
and you see it on TV, then that’s all you police or all these things, its all stereo
see, well that must be all there is. Now typical, I’m not saying the police are the
you see the dad with the kid, that’s a big best in NewYork, you know a lot of them
strongmessagethatthesekidsneversee. probably are racists, but you know, you
On the downside there is some shadi are paying taxes and they serve you,
ness going on in terms of people trying you know, and so instead of just being
to raise rent and get people kicked out scared of the police, you’re saying, a
and stuff, but I think there is a general lot of people don’t want us calling the
positive to the people that can stay. But police when we see things going wrong
I talk to a lot of black kids from housing in the neighborhood, right, but we have
projects, lots of kids that never left their a right to call just like everyone else.
block, never even been to Manhattan, So, people need to see that you control
you know, never left the Bronx, never the police, they don’t control you, you
left Bed-Stuy, never left East NewYork, know, so like you demand service in the
and like well what’s out there, they don’t neighborhood and no you’re not going
really even know. I mean they think to harass our kids and like, you’ve got
the whole world is like what they’ve to control the police, you can’t just not
seen and the males that they see aren’t call them in and but, that people wreak
necessarily the best role models I don’t havoc in your neighborhood because
think. And even if you see a white man you don’t want the police to come in.
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS IN A CHANGING HOOD |
Anthony articulates in layman’s terms the Institutional Resources

notion that weak social ties can influence
Anthony’s narrative also brings into focus
the indigenous residents of gentrifying
another potential mechanism through
neighborhoods. His theory that the youths
which having more affluent neighbors may
of Clinton Hill will be influenced by see
be beneficial—their impact on institutional
ing him and other blacks walking around
resources. As noted before, I use institu
in suits is speculation and dubious for the
tional resources to refer to those institu
reasons described. Without knowing what
tions that provide services and amenities to
one does to become a suit, Anthony’s mere
a neighborhood. These institutions might
presence seems unlikely to significantly
be externally based, such as in the case of
alter life chances.
the chain stores, police, or public schools;
Anthony’s comments about the police,
draw their resources from within the com
however, are illustrative of the notion that
munity as in the case of community-based
the gentry can present an alternative way of
organizations like the development corpo
thinking to indigenous residents. The long
rations; or be some combination of both, as
time residents’ fears of the police are prob
in the case of schools. The neighborhood
ably well founded. Nevertheless, Anthony’s
effects thesis posits that relative to poorer
reasoning that the police should be viewed
residents, the middle class will bring more
as servants of the community rather than
institutional resources to the neighborhood
an occupying force would seem more
for the following reasons: (1) The middle
likely to result in better police protection
class wall be better positioned to create and
in the long run. In the larger middle-class
support community-based organizations.
world, the notion that the police work for
Indeed, when Wilson (1987, p. 56) first wrote
the community is generally accepted, and
about “concentration effects” he described
the police generally act accordingly. In the
how “economically and stable and secure
‘hood, the police behave as an occupying
families” would keep churches, schools,
army and are treated that way. But holding
stores, and recreational facilities and other
the police accountable as servants of the
institutions viable even during times of eco
community, rather than ignoring them as
nomic deprivation. He reasoned that it was
appeared to be the inclination of many of
the absence of these families during trying
the indigenous residents probably holds
times that would cause these institutions
more promise for getting better police
to wither. (2) Because of their greater pur
protection. This is not to deny that get
chasing power, middle-class residents will
ting better police protection or any other
be more attractive to commerce and hence
public service, especially in disadvantaged
stores will follow. (3) More affluent residents,
communities, is an uphill battle. But if
perhaps because of being better connected
Anthony’s perspective on how to view the
to the wider society and/or their knowledge
police does rub off on some of his neigh
of how to manipulate bureaucracy, are able
bors, they may be more likely to demand
to command better resources for the com
and receive better police protection. In
munity. By bringing such middle-class resi
this way, the presence of Anthony, who
dents to the neighborhood, gentrification
as a gentrifier and a catalyst for demand
would be expected to impact the institu
ing and receiving better services, could
tional resources present there. What did my
be beneficial to the indigenous residents.
research reveal regarding this thesis?
Moreover, better services, whatever their
My conversations with neighborhood
origin, are something that certainly benefit
residents and observations all strongly
indigenous residents.
342 I LANCE FREEMAN
suggest that the institutional resources in and that in at least some instances changed
the form of better amenities and services the dynamics of institutions serving the
were improving. Indeed much of chap neighborhood. Barbara’s efforts to orga
ters 4 and 5 were devoted to describing nize a coop, Jennifer’s experience in the
residents’ perceptions of and reactions to local school where parents raised money,
these improvements, so I do not reiterate and Michael’s attempts to change how his
that here. What is less clear, based on my coop board dealt with the police are all such
research, is the role the gentry are playing examples. In these instances, gentrifica
in this improvement. Many of the residents tion introduced individuals with different
attributed the improvements to the powers outlooks and resources that influenced the
that be favoring the gentry and providing type of services residents received and their
them with preferential treatment. Others access to these services.
attributed the changes to the squeaky wheel Thus one could argue that gentrification
syndrome—that is, the gentry were more both strengthened internally based orga
likely to demand and consequently receive nizations, by bringing people with diverse
better amenities and services. And as was backgrounds and talents into some groups
mentioned earlier, some respondents were and changed the way externally based
eager to take credit for the improvements institutions interacted with the neighbor
themselves, pointingtotheirefforts through hood, encouraging these latter institu
community-based organizations. As I tions to provide more and better services.
described in chapter 2, a number of com- Whether the absence of the gentry would
munity-based organizations were active in cause the internally based institutions to
both Clinton Hill and Harlem both before wither as Wilson implies is not clear. When
and contemporaneously with the onset of I discussed local community-based organi
gentrification. Some of their actions, such zations with residents these organizations
as building housing and improving store were typically not described in a way that
fronts were undeniably having an impact suggested dramatic changes were afoot as a
that all could see. In addition, as I noted in result of gentrification. Thus I have no evi
several places earlier in this chapter, the dence that gentrification was leading to a
gentry sometimes became active in exist widespread increase in community-based
ing institutions, such as the local public organizations that served the neighbor
school where parents began raising money hood. Indeed, there were examples of orga
for supplies or the example where Michael nizations whose raison d’etre was to combat
advocated for a new way of dealing with the gentrification or the ills associated with it
police. Thus there are several competing like the West Harlem Tenants Coalition and
and not necessarily exclusive explanations Harlem Operation Take Back.
about the role of institutions and how they The proliferation and maturation of
interacted with the process of gentrification the community development movement
to create better neighborhood conditions. should also give one pause before expect
Given that the research presented in this ing gentrification to substantially increase
book did not focus on the evolution of com- the number or visibility of indigenous com-
munity-based organizations, only how they munity-based institutions. By the begin
were perceived by residents, definitively ning of the twenty-first century when
ruling out specific explanations would be the research that informs this book com
premature. It is fair to conclude, however, menced, an infrastructure of foundations,
that the presence of the gentry did attract intermediaries, informal networks, and
more commerce to these neighborhoods professional organizations had developed
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS IN A CHANGING HOOD | 343
to support local organizations across urban would also advise caution in applying this
America, and this infrastructure was espe interpretation to different contexts. The
cially strong in cities like New York with a narratives I presented in earlier chapters
long tradition of community organizing. suggested most people were appreciative
It would therefore be surprising if gentri of the improvements in amenities and ser
fication greatly enriched the community vices. It is easy to imagine, however, that
institutions already in place in these neigh certain services such as those for the indi
borhoods. The gentry probably diversified gent or substance abusers, might decline
many of these institutions to be sure, but with gentrification either because the
beyond that one should be cautious before gentry don’t want these services around,
inferring much of the changes in amenities the service providers cannot afford to stay,
and services to them. or the service provider’s clientele base is
The role the gentry seem to have played is shrinking. People making use of these ser
not one of creating or supplanting existing vices might associate gentrification with a
institutions. Rather it is one of augmenting decrease in amenities and services. People
these institutions. The narratives cited ear fitting this profile were not represented
lier in this chapter when gentrifiers volun in my conversations (at least no one was
teered at schools, raised funds, or suggested obviously a substance abuser), so I cannot
a different way of engaging the police are rule out the possibility that some residents
examples of such. The presence of the gen already hold this sentiment. It should also
try could then lead to better services and be kept in mind that Harlem and the section
amenities perhaps because the powers that of Clinton Hill that was the subject of this
be are more sympathetic to their needs. It is study suffered from a dearth of services and
also perhaps because the gentry are more amenities that would be available in most
savvy about demanding better services, as middle-class neighborhoods. Whether res
in the story Anthony told about demanding idents of a poor or working-class neighbor
better police service. It could be the gentry hood that nonetheless had ample services
have the resources to contribute to improv and amenities, such as is common in many
ing some services themselves as the story immigrant communities, would feel as pos
Jennifer related about the local schools ear itively about this aspect of gentrification is
lier in this chapter would seem to suggest. open to debate. [...]
In the case of stores, it could also be that
proprietors are attracted to the purchasing
power of the gentry and open stores that REFERENCES
might be of use to indigenous residents as
Briggs, Xavier. 1998. Brown Kids in White Suburbs:
well. Whatever the mechanism, it seems Housing Mobility and the Many Faces of Social
clear that many residents perceived the Capital. Housing Policy Debate 9(4): 177-221.
arrival of the gentry to be linked to improve Deparle, Jason. 2004. American Dream: Three Women,
ments in services and amenities. Ten Kids and a Nation’s Drive to End Welfare. New
York: Viking Books.
Although I would argue that gentrifi
Granovetter, Mark. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties.
cation has the potential to benefit indig American Journal o f Sociology 78:1360-80.
enous residents through improving the Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged.
institutional resources available to them, I Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
CHAPTER 27
Building the Creative Community

Richard Florida
How do you b u ild a truly Creative creativity across the board—in all of its vari
Community—one that can survive and ous facets and dimensions—and building
prosper in this emerging age? The key can a community that is attractive to creative
no longer be found in the usual strate people, not just to high-tech companies. As
gies. Recruiting more companies won’t former Seattle mayor Paul Schell once said,
do it; neither will trying to become the success lies in “creating a place where the
next Silicon Valley. The rise of the Creative creative experience can flourish.”2 Instead
Economy has altered the rules of the eco of subsidizing companies, stadiums and
nomic development game. Companies retail centers, communities need to be
were the force behind the old game and cit open to diversity and invest in the kinds
ies measured their status by the number of of lifestyle options and amenities people
corporate headquarters they were home to. really want. In fact you cannot be a thriving
Even today many cities, states and regions high-tech center if you don’t do this.
continue to use financial incentives—some
of them obscenely extravagant—in their
BEYOND NERDISTAN
efforts to lure companies.
But while companies remain impor When they are not trying to lure firms, many
tant, they no longer call all the shots. As we cities around the country seek to emulate
have seen, companies increasingly go, and the Silicon Valley model of high-tech eco
are started, where talented and creative nomic development. City after city has
people are. Robert Nunn, the CEO of ADD tried to turn itself into a clone of the Valley
Semiconductor, told the Wall Street Journal by creating R&D parks, office complexes,
the “key element of building a technology technology incubators and the like, all on
business is attracting the right people to the a quintessentially suburban model. Ross
company. It’s a combination of experience, DeVol of the Milken Institute has compiled
skill set, raw intelligence, and energy. The a list of the hundreds of communities that
most important thing is to be somewhere call themselves a “Silicon Somewhere.”
where you have a pool of people to draw This is essentially betting the future on
that."1 an economic development model from
The bottom line is that cities need a the past. Though successful in its day, this
people clim ate even more than they need model misunderstands the changing role
a business climate. This means supporting of creativity in spurring innovation and
346 | RICHARD FLORIDA
economic growth. In fact the heyday of University of North Carolina researcher: “In
the high-tech nerdistan may be ending. Raleigh-Durham, we can always visit the
Many of these places have fallen victim to hog farms.”5 Kotkin finds similar problems
serious problems and some may be reach in Southern California’s Orange County.
ing their limits to sustainable growth. The “There isn’t that buzz that it’s cool and
comfort and security of places like Silicon innovative,” is the way the Milken Institute’s
Valley have gradually given way to sprawl, DeVol explains it.6
pollution and paralyzing traffic jams. As we In reality, as Kotkin points out in his book
have seen, my focus groups and statistical The New Geography, there are at least three
research tell me that Creative Class people kinds of high-tech communities. First are
increasingly prefer authenticity to this sort the classic nerdistans from Silicon Valley
of generica. As a high-technology executive proper and the Research Triangle to north
told the Wall Street Jou rn al in October 2001, ern Virginia. Then there are what David
“I really didn’t want to live in San Jose. Every Brooks calls “latte towns” or what Kotkin
time I went up there, the concrete jungle got terms the “valhallas,” more rural places
me down.”* His company eventually settled with plentiful outdoor amenities, such as
on a more urban Southern California loca Boulder, Colorado. Finally, there are the
tion in downtown Pasadena close to the Cal older urban centers whose rebirth has been
Tech campus. fueled in part by a combination of creativ
Places like Phoenix are well aware of ity and lifestyle amenities: New York’s SoHo,
the limits of the model and are trying to San Francisco’s SoMa and Mission districts
create concentrated populations and life and Seattle’s Pioneer Square, just to name
style amenities in their downtowns. As a few.
one of Phoenix’s leading business journal Leading Creative Centers, however, pro
ists told me, “Our lack of old buildings and vide all three options. The San Francisco
authentic urban neighborhoods puts us at Bay Area consists of a classic nerdistan
a huge disadvantage in attracting top tal (Silicon Valley), several valhallas (from the
ent.” Commenting on the low-wage factory Napa Valley and Marin County south to
and office jobs that dominate its sprawling Santa Cruz), and a creative urban center.
suburbs, he added: “We are like Pittsburgh The greater Boston area contains the Route
or St. Louis fifty years ago, but without the 128 suburban complex, Cambridge, where
world-class universities.”1Joel Kotkin finds Harvard and MIT are located, and the Back
that the lack of lifestyle amenities is caus Bay, Beacon Hill and the North End. Seattle
ing significant problems in attracting top has suburban Bellevue and Redmond,
creative people to places like the North beautiful mountains and country, and a
Carolina Research Triangle. He quotes a series of revitalized urban neighborhoods.
major real estate developer as saying, “We The Denver region combines the university
got into the mindset of the 1960s and 1970s. and lifestyle assets of Boulder with abun
We segregated all our uses and this contrib dant skiing and the urban character of its
uted to the sprawl here.”Adds a second, "Ask LoDo district. Austin includes traditional
anyone where a downtown is and nobody nerdistan developments to the north,
can tell you. There’s not much of a sense of lifestyle centers for cycling and outdoor
place here__ The people I am selling space activities, and a revitalizing university/
to are screaming about cultural issues.” The downtown community centered on vibrant
Research Triangle lacks the "hip” urban Sixth Street, the warehouse district and the
lifestyle found in places like San Francisco, music scene. In the Creative Age, as we have
Seattle, New York and Chicago, laments a seen, options are what matter.
BUILDING THE CREATIVE COM M UNITY | 347
BACK TO THE CITY hoods were beyond salvation and bulldozed

them in the name of “urban renewal.” The
Virtually all commentators on urban replacement of once bustling mixed-use
America over the past fifty years had agreed neighborhoods with office buildings cre
on one thing: Cities had lost much of their ated the familiar skyscraper ghost towns—
historic economic function and were in an filled with workers by day but empty and
irreversible decline. As George Gilder once dangerous at night, as the middle-class
put it: "Big cities are leftover baggage from workers climbed into their cars and drove
the industrial era.”7 Both companies and to their lives in the suburbs, leaving only the
people were moving away from the city underclass in the city.
into the new suburban enclaves and what I saw these changes played out vividly in
Joel Garreau aptly dubbed “Edge Cities.”8 my own life. I was born in 1957 in Newark,
But urban centers have long been crucibles New Jersey, the city that became the poster
for innovation and creativity. Now they are child for urban decay. But Newark in my
coming back. Their turnaround is driven in youth was a wonderland for a little boy,
large measure by the attitudes and location the kind of place Philip Roth has so elo
choices of the Creative Class. quently written about—a bustling mix of
During the 1970s and 1980s when I was industries with a prosperous downtown
in college and graduate school, my profes and thriving multiethnic neighborhoods.
sors argued that cities’ technological and I would sometimes visit my mother in the
organizational changes had made them downtown office building of the Newark
irrelevant as economic bases. The rise of Star Ledger where she worked. On weekend
large-scale mass production, they said, had our extended family would gather at my
brought about a shift in the kinds of spaces grandmother’s home in the predominantly
required for modern manufacturing. While Italian-American North Newark neighbor
early manufacturing could be accommo hood and on warm nights we’d take in the
dated in multistory buildings of the sort professional bicycle races in Branch Brook
found in many older neighborhoods—such Park. During holiday seasons, we shopped
as in NewYork’s SoHo or Flatiron districts— in the retail district at department stores
these kinds of buildings and these kinds of like Bamberger’s. And among the times I
neighborhoods were made obsolete by the recall most fondly were Saturdays with my
shift to large-scale factories in greenfield father. On some of these, he took me to
locations. Manufacturing was moving to Newark Public Library, turning me loose in
giant horizontal factories in the suburbs, the the stacks, where I would eventually devour
Sunbelt or abroad that offered the advan volume upon volume on urban America.
tages of mass production and economies Then, almost all at once, everything
of scale. People were following suit, leaving changed. I vividly recall one Saturday
for bigger homes on bigger lots in the sub drive with my father through downtown
urbs. Government policies helped fuel this Newark in the summer of 1967, when I was
shift by encouraging home ownership and ten. The once bustling streets were bar
constructing extensive freeway systems. ricaded, buildings in flames. Everywhere
City leaders tried to stanch the trend by I could see police, National Guardsmen
buttressing the one economic activity left and armored vehicles brought in to quell
in cities: building taller and denser central the riots. My mother’s office building in
business districts, often increasingly filled downtown Newark was transformed into a
with government or nonprofit activities. barbed-wire fortress. In subsequent years
Others simply decided that some neighbor I witnessed the rise and fall of the once
348 I RICHARD FLORIDA
grand factory where my father had worked to roll, and water-skiers jet down the once
for many years, Victory' Optical, which pro toxic rivers.
vided solid livelihoods for ethnic families Second, cities have become the prime
in Newark and surrounding communities. location for the creative lifestyle and the
For many people who grew up as 1 did, the new amenities that go with it. We have
decline of manufacturing and of America’s already seen the role that lifestyle amenities
great urban centers signaled the end of this play in attracting people and stimulating
country’s golden age. regional economic growth. In a study for the
But the past decade has seen a dra Fannie Mae Foundation and the Brookings
matic turnaround in the fortunes of urban Institution, Rebecca Sohmer and Robert
America. In the face of expert pessimism, Lang examined the trend of people mov
cities are back. The 2000 Census documents ing downtown in some twenty-one large
the dramatic resurgence of cities from New American cities." Gary Gates and I com
York City to Oakland, California—the lat pared their back-to-the-city findings to our
ter ranked as one of Forbes magazine’s indicators of creativity and diversity. We
top twenty places for high-tech business found that downtown revitalization is asso
in 2000, and among the top twenty on the ciated with the same lifestyle factors that
Milken High-Tech Index as well.'1Even less appeal to the Creative Class. The Gay Index,
established places have bounced back. for instance, is strongly associated with per
Jersey City, which ranked sixth on the 2000 cent change in downtown population; and
Gay Index, grew by 5 percent. My birthplace both the Gay Index and the Bohemian Index
of Newark at least stopped losing people: It correlate with the share of a region's popu
has even seen the rise of a new performing lation living downtown. The Composite
arts center, downtown restaurants and a Diversity Index is the best predictor of both
local arts scene. At the June 2000 meeting the percent change in downtown popula
of the United States Conference of Mayors, tion and the percent of a region’s popula
the New York Times reported that "The tion living downtown.12We also found that
mayors complained about too many high- thriving downtowns are associated with
skilled jobs, and not enough people to fill vibrant high-tech industries. The Milken
them; too many well-off people moving High-Tech Index, for instance, is positively
back to the city, and not enough houses correlated with the share of a region’s popu
for all of them, driving up prices for every lation living downtown.
one else; and too much demand for parks Third, cities are benefiting from power
and serenity, and not enough open space ful demographic shifts. With fewer people
to offer the new city dwellers appalled by living as married couples and more staying
sprawl.”10 single longer, urban areas serve as lifestyle
Several forces have combined to bring centers and as mating markets for single
people and economic activity back to people. Cities have also benefited from
urban areas. First, crime is down and cit their historic role as ports of entry. Like most
ies are safer. In NewYork City, couples now cities, NewYork lost native-born Americans
stroll city blocks where even the hardiest in the last census, but it more than made
urban dweller once feared to tread. Cities up fo r the loss by adding nearly a million new
are cleaner. People no longer are subjected immigrants. As we have seen, my research
to the soot, smoke and garbage of indus documents the striking statistical correla
trial cities of the past. In Pittsburgh, people tion between ethnic diversity and high-
picnic in urban parks, rollerbladers and tech industry. Immigrants, seen not long
cyclists whiz along trails where trains used ago as mainly a burden on city services,
BUILDING TH E CR EA TIVE CO M M U N ITY | 349
turn out to be one of the keys to economic businesses and cultural activities.” This is
growth. a great benefit for small companies who do
Fourth, cities have reemerged as centers not have to offer the internal amenities like
of creativity and incubators of innovation. restaurants or health clubs that larger com
High-tech companies and other creative panies do when they are available in the
endeavors continue to sprout in urban immediate neighborhood. People thrive on
neighborhoods that were once written the thick labor markets, job opportunities
off, in cities from New York to Chicago and and amenities there. Microsoft even runs a
Boston. The 2000 State o f the Cities Report round-the-clock bus to take its employees
by the U.S. Department of Housing and who live in and around downtown Seattle
Urban Development found that cities have to its suburban headquarters.
become centers for high-tech job growth. Fifth, the current round of urban revi
High-tech jobs made up almost 10 percent talization is giving rise to serious tensions
of all jobs in central cities according to the between established neighborhood resi
report, nearly identical to the percentage dents and newer, more affluent people
found in the suburbs. Further high-tech job moving in. In an increasing number of
growth in cities increased by 26.7 percent cities, the scales have tipped from revital
betweenl992 and 1997, more than three ization to rampant gentrification and dis
times their overall increase.13 placement.15 Some of these places have
Seattle illustrates the trend. Nearly half become unaffordable for any but the most
of all high-tech jobs in Seattle are located affluent. In February 2000, the New York
in the city versus 35 percent in the suburbs, Times reported that even employed peo
according to research by Paul Sommers and ple making $50,000 a year could not find
Daniel Carlson of the University ofWash- affordable housing in Silicon Valley, where
ington.11 Almost a third of all high-tech the average housing price was more than
companies and jobs in the region are in the $410,000, and the average monthly rent for
central business district, Pioneer Square a two-bedroom apartment was $1,700.16
and Belltown, even though Microsoft and its More than a third of the estimated 20,000
tens of thousands of employees are located homeless people in Santa Clara County (the
outside the city in the suburban hamlet of heart of Silicon Valley) had full-time jobs.
Redmond. Amazon.com put its new head At the height of the technolog)' boom, the
quarters in an abandoned hospital on the Valley’s No.22 bus became known as “the
outskirts of downtown. Real Networks rolling hotel” because a growing number of
occupies the waterfront pier where MTV’s workers had nowhere else to sleep.17In their
Real World was filmed. Microsoft founder 2000 book The H ollow City, Rebecca Solnit
Paul Allen has acquired and restored whole and Susan Schwartzenberg argued that ris
districts of old industrial buildings for his ing rents were undermining San Francisco’s
new “wireless world” complex of enter unique image as a creative center by driv
prises. One of the city’s leading real estate ing out artists, musicians, small shopkeep
firms, Martin Smith Real Estate, has created ers and people with children. “When the
an “urban technolog)' campus” of buildings new economy arrived in San Francisco”
in and around downtown. In their study of they write, “it began to lay waste to the city’s
these shifts, Sommers and Carlson found existing culture”.18
that many high-tech companies prefer the San Francisco has long been a trend-set-
urban environment for its “vertical charac ting city, and the conflict that emerged there
ter, specialty shops, street life, entertain in the summer of 2000 may be a powerful
ment and proximity to a great mixture of portent of things to come. That summer
a powerful anti-high-tech development would get upgraded services and facilities

coalition emerged in the city’s SoMa and such as parks, libraries and underground
Mission districts and quickly spread city- utility lines in exchange for higher-density
wide. The group that brought together housing development. The San Diego plan
artists, club owners and neighborhood resi also seeks to reduce traffic congestion and
dents conducted more than three dozen ral sprawl by inducing people to shop and
lies and protests in the weeks leading up to work either a short walk or bus ride from
the November 7th election, including one where they live. The reason: The city that
where a group of demonstrators smashed a ranks third on my Creativity Index wants
computer with a baseball bat outside City to continue to attract creative people and
Hall. In a protracted battle that ultimately is running out of buildable space. Smaller
came to be known as the "SoMa Wars,” the cities like Chapel Hill, North Carolina, have
coalition collected more than 30,000 signa developed urban corridors and street-level
tures across the city to successfully place amenities and generated thriving music
"Proposition L” on the ballot—a measure scenes. In the late 1990s, Orange County,
to ban high-tech development and other California, launched the “Eclectic Orange
forms of gentrification from SoMa, the Festival,” a six-week festival of cutting-
Mission and other largely residential neigh edge culture, music, art and performance,
borhoods. The measure was ultimately to counter its staid culturally conservative
defeated by less than 1 percent of the vote.13 image.
While the technolog)' downturn of the last Furthermore, many formerly buttoned-
few years relieved some of this pressure on down suburbs have sought to recreate some
urban housing markets, gentrification in of the urban-style amenities that members
major urban centers continues to threaten of the Creative Class desire by develop
the diversity and creativity that have driven ing pedestrian-friendly town centers filled
these cities’ innovation and growth in the with coffee shops, sidewalk cafes, designer
first place. As these pressures continue to merchants and renovated office lofts.
build, the prospect of a new set of “place The new urbanist architect Andres Duany
wars” threatens to overshadow the devel has worked with developers to create
opment and politics of leading cities across new suburbs that are denser and more
the nation. pedestrian-friendly and that have town
Finally, in one of the most ironic twists centers. My friend Don Carter of IJDA
in recent memory, both sprawling cit Architects has worked with cities and sub
ies and traditional suburbs are seeking urbs around the country to remake their
to emulate elements of urban life. Cities town centers and neighborhoods into more
like Atlanta, Los Angeles, Phoenix and San authentic places, and also with major cor
Jose have all undertaken major efforts to porations to transform their surplus indus
increase density in and around their urban trial land into mixed-use new urbanist
centers, develop downtown housing and communities.
redevelop their downtown cores. San Diego These examples illustrate not only how
has embarked on an ambitious $2.5 billion far the cities have come back, but how truly
“City ofVillages” initiative to generate more pervasive the demand for quality of place
compact, community-oriented develop has become. Now even the suburbs are try
ment by rebuilding its older neighborhoods ing to emulate aspects of the quality of place
as pedestrian-friendly centers, where associated with larger urban centers. And
homes are close to shops, parks and pub they are doing so for hard-nosed economic
lic transit.20Under the plan, neighborhoods reasons—to attract the talented people and
BUILDING TH E CR EA TIVE CO M M U N ITY |
thus the companies that power growth in If you ask most community leaders what
today’s economy. [...] kinds of people they’d most want to attract,
they’d likely say successful married couples
in their thirties and forties—people with
BUILDING A PEOPLE CLIMATE
good middle-to-upper-income jobs and
As I tell city and regional leaders around stable family lives. And in fact this is what
the country,the key to success today lies in many communities (particularly subur
developing a world-class p eo p le climate. ban ones) actually do by emphasizing ser
While it certainly remains important to vices like good school systems, parks, with
have a solid business climate, having an plenty of amenities for children and strict
effective people climate is even more essen (read: exclusionary) zoning for single-fam
tial. By this I mean a general strategy aimed ily housing. I certainly think it is important
at attracting and retaining people—espe for cities and communities to be good for
cially, but not limited to, creative people. children and families, and am fully sup
This entails remaining open to diversity portive of better schools and parks. But
and actively working to cultivate it, and as we have seen, less than a quarter of all
investing in the lifestyle amenities that peo American households consist of traditional
ple really want and use often, as opposed to nuclear families. Communities that want to
using financial incentives to attract com be economically competitive need a truly
panies, build professional sports stadiums open and inclusive people climate, which
or develop retail complexes. The benefits of can appeal to the diverse groups of people
this kind of strategy are obvious. Whereas that make up both the Creative Class and
companies—or sports teams for that mat American society writ large.
ter— that get financial incentives can pull 1 have already shown the importance of
up and leave at virtually a moment’s notice, attracting immigrants and bohemians and
investments in amenities like urban parks, of being a place that is open to all kinds
for example, last for generations. Other of diversity including gays . . . we saw that
amenities—like bike lanes or off-road trails openness to immigration is particularly
for running, cycling, rollerblading or just important for smaller cities and regions,
walking your dog—benefit a wide swath of while the ability to attract so-called bohe
the population. mians is key for larger cities and regions.
There is no one-size-fits-all model for What I would simply add here is that for
a successful people climate. As we have cities and regions to attract these groups
seen, the members of the Creative Class are they need to develop the kinds of people
diverse across the dimensionsof age, ethnic climates that appeal to them and meet
ity and race, marital status and sexual pref their needs.
erence. An effective people climate needs Furthermore, one group that has been
to emphasize openness and diversity, and neglected by most communities, at least
to help reinforce low barriers to entry. Thus, until recently, is young people. Young work
it cannot be restrictive or monolithic. Truly ers have typically been thought of as tran
Creative Communities appeal to many dif sients who contribute little to a city’s bottom
ferent groups. line. But in the Creative Age, they matter
I have yet to find an American commu for two reasons. First, they are workhorses.
nity whose leaders and citizens have sat They are able to work longer and harder,
down and written out an explicit strategy and are more prone to take risks, precisely
for building a people climate. Most com because they are young and childless. In
munities, however, do have a de facto one. rapidly changing industries, it’s often the
352 | RICHARD FLORIDA
recent graduates who have the most up- streets, which appeal to the middle-aged
to-date skills. This is why so many leading people who hold positions of influence and
companies from Microsoft to Goldman really make our economy run? I reply that
Sachs and McKinsey aggressively target of course it’s important to have a people
them in their recruiting strategies. climate that is valued by older people and
Second, people are staying single longer. married couples. A successful city needs a
As we have already seen, the average age range of options to suit all kinds of people.
of marriage for both men and women has But an environment attractive to young
risen some five years over the past genera Creative Class people must be part of the
tion. College-educated people postpone mix.
marriage longer than the national averages. Furthermore, it is clear to me that a
Among this group, one of the fastest-grow- people climate oriented to young people
ing categories is the never-been-married. is also attractive to the Creative (’lass more
In December 2001, The Economist coined broadly. Creative Class people do not lose
the phrase the “Bridget Jones Economy” their lifestyle preferences as they age. They
to reflect the importance of young singles don’t stop bicycling or running, for instance,
in the resurgence of large cities across the just because they have children. When they
United States and in Europe. To prosper put their children in child seats or jog
in the Creative Age, regions have to offer ging strollers, amenities like traffic-free
a people climate that satisfies this group’s bike paths become more important than
social interests and lifestyle needs, as well ever. They also continue to value diversity
as addressing those of other groups. and tolerance. The middle-aged and older
Some commentators have objected people I speak with may no longer hang in
to some of my findings, and thus my eco nightspots until 4 A.M., but they enjoy stim
nomic advice, saying that they are overly ulating, dynamic places with high levels of
oriented toward younger Creative Class cultural interplay. And if they have children,
people, like the Austin-bound student we that’s the kind of environment they want
saw a few chapters back. These people, my them to grow up in. Some things that ben
critics argue, represent only a small part of efit young people are even supported by
the nation’s skilled workforce. Of course a those old enough to be their grandparents.
spiky-haired college senior would prefer When a colleague of mine spoke to a group
a place like Austin, which has lots of other of senior citizens in Pittsburgh in the win
talented young people and where many of ter of 2000 about the importance of lifestyle
the amenities and nightlife activities are amenities like bike paths, he got a fascinat
geared to the young. But is making one’s ing response. The seniors liked the idea a
city into a playland for single twenty-some- lot, because the bike lanes would keep the
things really a formula for economic suc cyclists off the sidewalk, where the seniors
cess? Does it produce a community that is were sometimes frightened by them and
socially viable in the long run? These critics even knocked down.
point to the fact that leading creative cit A woman from Minneapolis that I inter
ies like San Francisco and Seattle have very viewed put the age issue in perspective. She
few children.21 And they often ask ques originally came to Minneapolis as a young
tions like: Aren’t these young, single col single because of the lifestyle it offered. She
lege grads eventually going to grow up, get liked being able to engage in active outdoor
married and develop more mature prefer recreation with other young singles in the
ences? Doesn’t it make more sense for cities city’s fabulous park system and being able
to focus on good school systems and safe to walk from her house to the local night
BUILDING THE CREATIVE COMMUNITY | 353
spots. She never thought it would b e a good deeper. In the su m m er o f 2001, there was
p lace to have a fam ily and raise children. a big h u b bu b in Pittsburgh over a list o f
But w hen she got m arried and had children, A m erica’s tw enty-five m ost “child-friendly
she was m ore than pleasantly surprised to cities.” T h e co m m o tio n was over the fact
find that m any o f the sam e lifestyle a m e n i th at Pittsburgh, w hich has always seen itself
ties she enjoyed while she was single— the as a fam ily tow n, was ranked th irteen th . Of
parks and w alkable neighborh ood s— were the twelve cities th at ranked above it, all
even m ore attractive to her as a m arried ranked in the top tw enty on the Creativity
p erson and new parent. Index— and all but two in th e top tw enty on
Furtherm ore, co m m u n ities that appeal the Gay Index.
to diverse groups also can b e very attra c W hile som e m ight see this as a c o n
tive to traditional m idd le-in com e families. tradiction (How can gay cities b e family-
O f cou rse m any Creative Class people with friendly?), for m e the co n n e ctio n is sim ple.
fam ilies are ethnically diverse and m any C ities that offer high quality lifestyle a m e n i
o th ers prefer th at their children grow up in ties to som e groups are likely to view quality
diverse environm ents. But it can go even o f place in general as being very im portant.
Table 27.1 Child-Friendly Cities Are Also leading Creativity and Gay Regions
Rank Region Child-Friendly Creativity Gay Index
Score Index Rank
1 Portland, OR A+ 16 20
2 Seattle A+ 5 8
3 Minneapolis A 10 31
4 New York A 9 14
5 San Francisco A 1 1
6 Boston A- 3 22
7 Denver A- 13 18
8 Fort Worth“ B+ 10 9
9 Houston B+ 7 10
10 San Diego B+ 3 3
11 Silicon Valley1 B 1 1
12 Dallas B 10 9
13 Pittsburgh B 36 48
14 St. Louis B 31 45
15 Cleveland B 30 43
16 Chicago B 15 26
17 Philadelphia B 17 33
18 Phoenix C+ 19 16
19 Los Angeles C 12 4
20 Miami C 29 2
21 Tampa C 26 19
22 Washington, D.C. C 8 13
23 Baltimore“ C- 8 13
24 Detroit C- 39 46
25 Atlanta C- 13 7
Note: Rankings for Creativity Index and G ay Index are out of forty-nine regions over 1 million in population,
a Part of region; Dallas region,
b San Franoiscosco region,
c W ashington, D .C ., region.
Source: Child-friendly score is from Zero Population G row th.

It's a n a lo g o u s to c o m p a n ie s a d o p tin g in n o is correlated with percent downtown population

v ative c u s to m e r -o r ie n te d b u s in e s s p r a c at 0.48 and change in downtown share at 0.39.
The Bohemian Index is correlated with percent
tice s: T h e b e s t c o m p a n ie s te n d to g e t it rig h t
downtown at 0.54 and change in downtown share
a c r o s s th e b o a rd . T h e b e s t citie s, lik e th e at 0.35. The Milken High-Tech Index is correlated
b e s t c o m p a n ie s , d o m a n y th in g s w ell, o ffe r with percent downtown at 0.50 and downtown
in g s o m e th in g fo r everybod y. [ ...] share at 0.30. All are statistically significant.
13. The Sta te o f the Cities2000.Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department ofHousingandUrban Development,
NOTES June 2000. High-tech jobs made up 9.2 percent
of all city jobs compared to 9.3 percent for the
1. Peter Loftus, “Location, Location, Location.” Wall suburbs. Suburbs experienced a faster rate of
Street Journal, October 15,2001, p. R14. high-tech job growth: 34.7 versus 26.7 percent for
2. As quoted in Scott Kitsner, "Seattle Reboots Its cities.
Future.” Fast Company, May 2001, p. 44. 14. Paul Sommers and Daniel Carlson, “The New
3. Uri Cummings as quoted in Loftus, “Location, Society in Metropolitan Seattle: High Tech Firm
Location, Location,” p. R14. Location Decisions Within the Metropolitan
4. Personal communication, Fall 2001. Landscape.” Washington, D.C.: Brookings
5. Joel Kotkin, "The High-Tech South Part II: Raleigh Institution, May 2000.
Durham—The South’s Answer to Silicon Valley?” 15. On gentrification see Neil Smith, The New Urban
Reis.com, January 10,2001. Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City.
6. Edmund Sanders and P. J. I Iuffstutter, "Dreams of London: Routledge, 1996.
High-Tech Glory Passing Orange County By.” Los 16. Evelyn Nieves, “Many in Silicon Valley Cannot
Angles Times, July 9, 2000; Joel Kotkin, “Orange Afford I lousing Even at $50,000 a Year.” NewYork
County" The Fate of a Post-Suburban Paradise.” Times, February 20, 2000. Also see John Riter,
Lajolla, Calif.: I.ajolla Institute, October 2000; "Priced Out of Silicon Valley.” USA Today, May 18,
available at www.lajollainstitute.org. 2000; “The California Housing Market: Squeezed
7. George Gilder, Microcosm: The Quantum Out.” The Economist, July 22,2000.
Revolution in Economics and Technology. New 17. Nieves, “Many in Silicon Valley.”
York: Touchstone, 1990. 18. Rebecca Solnit and Susan Schwartzenberg,
8. Joel Garreau, Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Hollow City: The Siege o f San Francisco and the
NewYork: Doubleday & Company, 1991. Crisis o f American Urbanism. New York: Verso,
9. On Oakland’s turnaround, see Joel Kotkin, “Grass- 2000. On San Francisco’s history, also see Richard
Roots Business: The City by the Bay? To Them, It’s Walker, “Landscape and City Life: Four Ecologies
Oakland.” NewYork Time, February 18,2001. of Residence in the San Francisco Bay Area.”
10. Timothy Egan, “Urban Mayors Share the (Not Ecumene, 2(1), 1995, pp. 33-64.
Unwelcome) Burden of Coping with Prosperity,” 19. See Bill Hayes, "Artists vs. Dotcoms: Fighting
NewYork Times, June 13,2000. San Francisco’s Gold Rush.” New York Times,
11. Rebecca R. Sohmer and Robert E. Lang, December 14, 2000. Also see the detailed cover
"Downtown Rebound.”Washington, D.C.: Fannie age in the San Francisco Gate at www.sfgate.com.
Mae Foundation and Brookings Institution 20. See Lori Weisberg and Susan Gembrowski,
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Center "Planners Say It Takes Villages to Grow a City.”
Note, May 2001. San Diego Union Tribune, January 6,2002.
12. The Sohmer and Lang data set covers only a 21. Between 1990 and 2000, San Francisco was
small sample of cities, and Gates and 1 could the only U.S. city to lose children while adding
only match twenty-one cities to our data. We population. Over this period, the city lost 4,100
ran the analyses for two measures of downtown children, as the share of the city’s population
growth: percent change in downtown popula under eighteen years of age dropped from 16.1
tion and change in percent of the population liv percent to 14.5 percent. Nearly a quarter of San
ing downtown. The correlation between the CDI Franciscans are between twenty-five and thirty-
and percent downtown population is 0.52 and for four, an age group that grew 14 percent during the
change in downtown share is 0.46. The Gay Index 1990s.
Conclusion: Why We Debate
This book has introduced key perspectives and positions on four areas of debate that have
colored and structured the gentrification literature for more than four decades. From
debate about how to define gentrification and the “gentrifier,” to questions about how,
when, where, and why gentrification occurs, and arguments about gentrification’s out
comes and consequences, our knowledge of gentrification not only produces, but also
arises, at least in part, from a series of debates and conversations about the process. In
other words, it would be a mistake to regard the debates that this book features as a dis
traction or nuisance, for they have pushed us to develop and continually reformulate the
questions responsible for much of our understanding of gentrification.
That said, I do not wish to suggest that researchers always engage in debate with a goal
as lofty as productivity or the development of a vast literature in mind. Why, then, do we
debate about gentrification? On the one hand, questions and debates color scholarly lit
erature on any topic. Knowledge is refined by authors’ conversations about and disagree
ments over components of their subject. In this sense, the fact that there is debate about
gentrification is relatively unremarkable. However, as the reader may have begun to sus
pect, the gentrification literature is notable in both its breadth and in the intensity of the
debates that compose it.
Why is gentrification scholarship particularly contentious? The readings suggest that
the literature is far from unruly; there is, in fact, substantial agreement about key facets of
gentrification. For instance, scholars debate about the centrality of government policies
and culture to gentrification, but few suggest that either facet is without effect. Likewise,
some debate the level and nature of harm that gentrification produces for long-timers,
but very few argue that it is without negative repercussions for those residents. On the
whole, most debates are over apparently small facets or dimensions of gentrification. This
invites the question of why scholars fight at all if their debates are not over what seem to be
gentrification’s central facts.
I believe that there are several reasons why debate is fundamental to the gentrifi
cation literature. These include the literature’s sheer volume (i.e. debate stimulates yet
more debate), the diversity of approaches scholars take to the study of gentrification,
the longevity of research on the topic, the speed and breadth by which gentrification
emerged and expanded across the globe, and, finally, our collective fascination with the
process.
356 I JAPONICA BROWN-SARACINO
How does each of the above factors lead to debate? The volume of literature on, and
the longevity of the study of, gentrification stimulate debate in three ways. First, the cen
trality of debate about gentrification is a product of the num ber of academics who study
the process, as well as the range of perspectives from which they write. In most cynical
terms, much has been written about gentrification, and, as with other topics of study, over
time scholars may have, to a degree, engaged in debate to differentiate their work from
that of other scholars. Second, and less cynically, researchers have the benefit of decades
of scholarship that provides something of a rubric for gentrification and therefore that,
somewhat counter-intuitively, can reveal departures from that rubric. For instance, when
I began my fieldwork, familiarity with the literature on the role of the “urban pioneer"
(e.g., Spain 1993, Smith 1996) helped make departures from that prototype quite glaring.
Third, scholars in a variety of fields write about gentrification, and, while there is much
within-field variation, the types of questions scholars pose and the arguments they make
vary to some degree by their field of study. Thus, in some instances, the literature captures
debates between sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, geographers, planners,
and others about not only gentrification, but broader issues, such as the relative import of
place, political structures, or historical precedent. This suggests that sometimes we are not
just talking about gentrification when we speak of gentrification. As I further explore later
in this conclusion, scholars debate gentrification, in part, because it is a potent symbol of
broader trends that concern many disciplines.
The magnitude of gentrification itself also contributes to the amount and intensity of
debate on the subject. Specifically, the global expanse of the process (Lees et al. 2008: xvii),
combined with the small army of scholars who study it (Hamnett 1991), produce diverse
accounts of the process. In turn, the diversity of cases challenges any single definition of or
explanation for gentrification. For instance, if one scholar suggests that artists are always
at the forefront of gentrification, there are a dozen who can provide evidence of gentrifi-
cations pioneered by other social groups (e.g., Rothenberg 1995, Pattillo 2007, Hyra 2008,
Brown-Saracino 2009). If another proposes that historic preservation is central to gentri
fication, som eone else might present a case of a gentrification dependent on new-build
construction (Davidson & Lees 2005).
While editing this book I convened monthly meetings of graduate students from Loyola
University Chicago and Northwestern University to read about gentrification and discuss
several of this book’s central themes and questions. Our collective knowledge of gentri
fication was quite broad and varied, as most of the participants were conducting their
own studies of gentrification. There were m om ents during our meetings when our spirited
discussions quieted and we seemed to reach agreement about one central question or
another, such as how to define the gentrifier. However, just as inevitably, after a brief pause
one or more of us would report, rather sheepishly, an instance from our fieldwork that
challenged the definition on which we had just reached agreement and we were forced yet
again to refine our concept. Thus, the sheer number of docum ented cases of gentrification
produces a rich and nuanced understanding of the process, but it also leaves the door open
for debate— especially in instances when one seeks to specify gentrification’s “rules.”
In addition, as I have suggested throughout, many of us have firsthand experience with
gentrification. For this reason, many are aware of exceptions to the rules that some schol
ars propose, and when we pick up a book or article on gentrification we often bring pre
formed ideas to our reading. Indeed, you may have found this to be the case as you read the
essays that com pose this book. When you read excerpts on gentrification’s consequences,
C O N C L U S IO N : W HY WE D EBATE | 357
you may have wondered how to explain why political officials in your hometown were
more proactive than the literature would predict about preventing long-timers’ full-scale
displacement. As a result, you might draft a proposal for a policy designed to protect long-
timers from gentrification-induced harm. Reading your policy proposal, another might
counter that she witnessed the failure of a similar plan in another place, and the questions
and debate continue.
In short, at this interval we have the benefit and burden of a wealth of data, both formal
and informal, about gentrification. Not only do we know a lot about a few cases of gentri-
fication, such as that which has occurred in New York’s Lower East Side or Harlem, we are
also aware of gentrification’s existence and contours in disparate places and times, as well
as of the involvement of a variety of actors. It is difficult to imagine how such conditions
could produce anything other than queries and debate.
The fact that gentrification fascinates many of us further exacerbates debate. As anyone
who studies gentrification knows, many welcome the opportunity to talk about gentrifi
cation. Rarely have I spoken of my research at a dinner party or family gathering without
friends or family members jumping into the conversation to volunteer detailed descrip
tions of gentrifications that they have witnessed, fallen victim to, or perpetuated. Even in
instances when those with whom I spoke were unfamiliar with the term “gentrification,”
recognition always instantly followed my explanation, and, armed with new vocabulary,
friends and family typically offer an account of the transformation of their hometown, city
neighborhood, or favorite vacation destination. What’s more, many seem to take pleasure
in discussing the costs and benefits of gentrification. Rarely have I heard an individual
speak of gentrification in value-neutral terms (Brown-Saracino 2009). I believe that our
value-laden response originates, at least in part, from the fact that gentrification encom
passes two conflicts of concern to many: social class conflict, as well as a common internal
debate about how to react or respond to change.
Media are also abound with discussion of and debate about gentrification. As one exam
ple, cumulatively between 1986 and 2006 nine papers in seven U.S. cities with a population
of one million or greater published 4,445 articles on gentrification (Brown-Saracino & Rumpf
2008). Articles that include the term gentrification constituted between .009% and .07% of
the papers’ material, and in five papers such articles constituted .03% or more of material
(ibid.: 8). Furthermore, newspaper coverage of gentrification is not only prolific, but also
diverse. Depictions of gentrification change over time, and vary by city and paper (ibid.).
Thus, readers are regularly exposed to a variety of representations of gentrification, as, I
would surmise, are television and film viewers, and this likely provides fodder for debate.
While, on the one hand, gentrification’s place in common parlance and the media may
be a product of gentrification’s ubiquity, I suspect that it also has something to do with
the fact that gentrification has become shorthand for a broad set of transformations. As
authors of several selections in the book’s first two sections argue, gentrification is symp
tomatic of a vast social, economic, and geographic realignment that has influenced cities
and towns across the globe. To avoid repeating the history of that transformation here,
suffice it to say that gentrification arose in many cities with deindustrialization and glo
balization and a related turn, in many of the world’s economic capitals, to an emphasis on
the service-sector economy.
As the anecdotes about my conversations about gentrification are meant to illustrate,
this change is highly visible and does not go unnoticed. Many cities look nothing like they
did even twenty-five years ago; corporate headquarters and elegant condominiums have
replaced smokestacks and housing for factory workers and The New York Tim eswaxes nos
talgic for the grit of Times Square (Ouroussoff 2 0 0 9 :1) in a city that only a few decades ago
many regarded as dangerous and dirty (Greenberg 2008). Those of us who witnessed this
transformation, or inherited stories of its costs or benefits—the grandfather forced into
early retirement and poverty by the closure of the Portsmouth factory in which he worked,
the family friend whose San Francisco apartment quadrupled in value during the dot-com
bubble—may find talk of gentrification to be a relatively easy way of broaching discussion
of much broader changes. And, as few of us are indifferent to those changes and the per
sonal transformations they have wrought, we welcome the opportunity to explore their
implications by debating gentrification. In short, gentrification is a symptom and a sym
bol of something much broader than itself, and sometimes we use gentrification to debate
the vast transformations that shape our lives.
The question of why we debate is accompanied by another and perhaps more important
question: what are the implications of the gentrification debates that we inherit (Smith &
Williams 1986, Atkinson 2003)? As I suggested at the outset of this conclusion, I believe
that debate about gentrification is productive in a variety of ways. First and most directly,
it ensures the intellectual rigor of gentrification scholarship by pushing scholars to refine
their concepts and develop sophisticated research designs. After all, your research design
is likely to be particularly sound if you build on tried and tested concepts and anticipate
that others will challenge your thesis. Second, gentrification debate helps fuel the devel
opment and evolution of the larger subfields and disciplines of which gentrification schol
ars are a part. It does so by forcing scholars to engage in conversation with researchers in
other disciplines about some of their fields’ under-interrogated intellectual foundations.
Finally, the debates are of practical benefit for those who wish to embark on studies of
gentrification more than forty years after Ruth Glass first coined the term (1964). Arguably,
debate has helped to prevent stasis in the gentrification field and leaves open the door for
studies that challenge or expand on existing theses or that explore uncharted territory (and
they help us to identify the precise dimensions of gentrification that are uncharted). Over
and again I have found that just when I think that we know all that there is to know about
gentrification, a new article or book appears that challenges my thinking, or a student
comes to my office with a proposal for a novel study of the subject that builds on questions
that scholars have tossed back and forth in the literature. In short, the debates have helped
to create space for your own inquiries and, by so thoroughly laying out charted territory,
help to elucidate that which we have yet to explore.
Specifically, each section of this book contains a variety of models for conducting
research on gentrification. The readings illustrate ongoing or emerging debates that one
might seek to enter. For instance, you might find the debate about the factors that drive
gentrification particularly intriguing. As a result, to test prevailing theories about the vari
ables that propel gentrification you might undertake a study that seeks to understand how
the gentrification of some neighborhoods continues or falters during periods of economic
recession (Ley 1992).
Just as importantly, the readings provide a set of models of different research designs
one might use to conduct a study of gentrification. For instance, if one wishes to isolate
the influence of economic recession on gentrification, one might seek to study a neigh
borhood over time, ideally from the recession’s early stages until economic conditions
improve (Ley 1992). Alternately, one might, like Derek Hyra (2008) and others, conduct
a comparative study of gentrifying neighborhoods. To understand the consequences of
C O N C L U S IO N : W HY WE D EBATE | 359
recession for gentrification you might select sites in regions of the world differentially
influenced by the global recession.
Likewise, the selections outline a number of methods one can rely on to conduct studies
of gentrification. Methods range from quantitative measures of changing property values
(e.g., Smith 1979), to interview surveys (e.g., Butler 1997, Bridge 2002), and ethnogra
phies of gentrifying neighborhoods (e.g., Taylor 2002, Lloyd 2005, Pattillo 2007, Hyra 2008,
Brown-Saracino 2009). Indeed, the selections even vary in terms of the precise employ
ment of these different types of methods. For instance, the selections in the book represent
multiple approaches to the ethnographic study of gentrifying places. On the one hand,
Derek Hyra conducts a “vertical” ethnography (2008: 179), which prioritizes attention to
the influence of national and city policies and politics over daily life in gentrifying Harlem
and Bronzeville. On the other, authors such as Richard Lloyd (2005) and Monique Taylor
(2002) prioritized observation of gentrifiers and the places in which they congregate, while
Mary Pattillo conducted a more holistic ethnography of an entire gentrifying area (2007),
frequently observing and speaking with new and longtime residents alike.
The method—and the particular employment of the method that you use—will depend
on the research questions you choose to pose. That is, you will select a research design that
will allow you to answer your research questions in the most direct and comprehensive
manner possible. For instance, Derek Hyra wished to know how city politics influenced
the implementation of federal policies, such as those that relate to public housing, and
this necessitated that he study neighborhoods that shared several demographic and eco
nomic characteristics in two cities with distinct political structures and cultures (2008).
Some readers may find a question lingering behind my suggestions for utilizing this
book to conduct further studies of gentrification. In short, you may wonder if we have
studied and debated all that there is to study and debate about gentrification. Such con
cern is not unwarranted, and for that reason the following paragraphs briefly consider this
question.
In short, I do not believe that we are done with gentrification, largely because gentrifi
cation is not done with us. The process persists in many of the cities in which it was first
studied, such as London and NewYork, and continues to expand to new places, from rural
American and European villages to metropolises in nations with less robust economies
than those in which it first emerged (Atkinson & Bridge 2005). Furthermore, gentrification
still holds a central place in our imagination (see Lees et al. 2008: 243-245). If you begin
listening for it, you may note that it is rare to go a day without encountering mention of the
process. Recently, I thought I might have, and then, while preparing dinner, I listened to a
National Public Radio program that featured discussion of a film that takes the gentrifica
tion of a neighborhood as its starting point.
More pressingly, as the selections in this book illustrate, the process itself is continually
changing. Gentrification’s location, the actors who live in gentrifying spaces, institutional
responses to the process, and the interpersonal dynamics that accompany gentrification
are in constant flux. Thus, we have a great deal to learn about the new forms that gentrifica
tion takes, and much to debate about how limber our definition of and understanding of
gentrification’s origins and dynamics should be.
For this reason I believe that, whether you wish to write a seminar paper, conduct a the
sis, speak to your block club about your neighborhood’s gentrification, or, more generally,
to become a more informed resident of contemporary cities and towns, this book’s selec
tions serve as a resource for posing and answering questions about gentrification. Having
360 I JAP O N ICA BROW N-SARACINO
outlined gentrification’s history, as well as the lineage of scholarship on the topic, the book
provides a sense of the direction in which gentrification and the study thereof are moving.
As a result, the book equips you to engage in newly emerging conversation and debate
about gentrification and to help us better understand the ramifications of the process for
cities and towns, as well as for our relations with one another.
The latter is, arguably, the greatest contribution of the gentrification debates.
Gentrification does not happen in a vacuum, nor are its discussions limited to academic
classrooms or city planning offices. Gentrification has touched—not just influenced, but
touched—many of us. As many ethnographers and journalists can attest, gentrification
induces private tears and, in some instances, very public shouting matches and heavy
silences (Atkinson 2003). I will not soon forget the angry crowd of fishermen who packed
a Selectmen’s meeting in the town hall in Provincetown, Massachusetts to lobby for the
maintenance and preservation of their increasingly tourist-ridden pier. For the most part
their voices were subdued, but their head shaking and feet stomping conveyed a quiet rage
about the transformation of their home from fishing village to upscale tourist destina
tion. Nor will I forget the community forum at which white, middle class Chicago gentri
fiers rose from their seats, shouting, in an effort to silence an affordable housing advocate.
Their clamor, as well as the in-kind response of affordable housing advocates, was so great
that police officers took to the stage and threatened to disband the meeting. We are rarely
privy to the smaller conflicts and moments of unanticipated communion—harsh words
between a gentrifier and a long-timer about the early morning noise that emanates from
the latter’s farm or an elderly long-timers’ pleasant discovery that a young gentrifier has
shoveled her snowy walk—that shape daily lives in gentrifying places. However, for those
who people gentrifying places, these private interactions likely inspire as many questions
as do moments of overt, public debate.
Such questions and on-the-ground debates would likely persist with or without the
intellectual volleying that this book highlights. However, the book’s selections ground the
debates that emerge in Provincetown’s town hall and a Chicago Community College caf
eteria in gentrification’s history and in a wealth of empirical data on the process. I do not
expect nor wish for this information to resolve the debates I observed in Provincetown and
Chicago. However, it is plausible that a reminder of our history will help to shape the direc
tion of future debate about and responses to gentrification as the process and the ways in
which we think about it continue to evolve.
1. What directions do you anticipate gentrification will take in the next decade?
2. What topics or aspects of gentrification do you believe scholars will debate over the next
decade?
3. Do you agree with the author’s argument that gentrification debate is productive? Why
so or why not?
ACTIVITIES
1. Review gentrification literature published in the last year. What debates are scholars
examining? Is there any evidence of new debates arising?
2. For a week, keep a notebook on hand so that you can record instances in which you hear
CONCLUSION: WHY WE DEBATE |
talk of gentrification. When people speak of gentrification in the dining hall, at coffee
shops, or on television news programs, what debates do they evoke?
3. Develop a research proposal for your own, original study of gentrification. Develop a set
of research questions and hypotheses, and select a research site or case and the appro
priate method(s). In addition, as you develop your questions and hypotheses, map how
they relate to the debates outlined in this book. On which side of the specific debates
your research topic relates to do you fall? How does your perspective on the debates
influence your questions and hypotheses?
COPYRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks the following authors and publishers for generously permitting republication
of their work:
Hyra, D. 2008. “The New Urban Renewal, Part 2: Public Housing Reforms," The New Urban Renewal:
The Economic Transformation o f Harlem an d Bronzeville. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reprinted with permission from the University of Chicago Press.
Pattillo, M. 2008. “AvengingViolence with Violence,” Black on the Block. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. Reprinted with permission from the University' of Chicago Press.
Rose, D. 1984, “Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development of Marxist Urban
Theory,” Environment an d Planning D: Society an d Space2 (1): 47-74. Reprinted with permission
from Pion.
Smith, N. 1979. “Toward a Theory of Gentrification: a Back to the City Movement by Capital, not
People,”Journal o f (he American Planning Association, 45(4): 538-547. Reprinted with permission
from Taylor and Francis Ltd., http://www.informaworld.com.
Smith, N. 1998. “A Short History of Gentrification” from Chapter Two, The New Urban Frontier. New
York: Routledge: 34-40. Reprinted with permission from Taylor and Francis Ltd., http://www.
informaworld.com.
Smith, N. 1998. “Building the Frontier Myth,” from Introduction to The New Urban Frontier. New
York: Routledge: 12-18. Reprinted with permission from Taylor and Francis Ltd., http://www.
informaworld.com.
Atkinson, R.Y&Bridge, G. 2004. “Introduction,” in Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban
Colonialism, Atkinson, R. & Bridge, G„ eds. London & NewYork: Routledge: 1-12. Reprinted with
permission from Taylor and Francis Ltd., http://www.informaworld.com.
Ley, D. 2007. New Middle Class an d the Making o f the Central City. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reprinted with permission from Oxford University Press.
Freeman, L. 2006. “Neighborhood Effects in a Changing Hood,” There Goes the ‘Hood: Views o f
Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press: 144-154. Reprinted
with permission from Temple University Press.
Taylor, M. 2002. “The Dilemma of Racial Difference,” Harlem: Betiveen Heaven and Hell. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press: 57-61 and 68-75. Reprinted with permission from University of
Minnesota Press.
Mele, C. 2000. “Forging the Link between Culture and Real Estate: Urban Policy and Real Estate
Development,” in “Developing the East Village,” Selling the Lower East Side: Real Estate, Culture
an d Resistance in New York City. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 236-242. Reprinted
with permission from University of Minnesota Press.
364 I COPYRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Florida, R. 2002, “Building the Creative Community,” The Rise o f the Creative Class. New York City,
NewYork: Basic Books: 283-291 & 293-297. Reprinted by permission of Basic Books, a member of
Perseus Books Group:
Lev)', P.R. & Cybriwksy, R.A. 1980. "The Hidden Dimensions of Culture and Class: Philadelphia,” Back
to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation, Laska, S.B., & Spain, D., eds. New'York: Pergamon
Press: 138-139 & 143-153. Reprinted by permission of Daphne Spain and Shirley Laska.
Chernoff, M. 1980. "Social Displacement in a Renovating Neighborhood’s Commercial District:
Atlanta,” Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation, Laska, S.B., & Spain, D., eds. New
York: Pergamon Press: 204-206 & 208-218. Reprinted by permission of Daphne Spain and Shirley
Laska.
Lees, L. 2003. “Super-gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, NewYork City,” Urban Studies,
40(12): 2487-2492. Reprinted w'ith permission from Sage Publications.
Gotham, K. F. 2005. “Tourism Gentrification: The Case of New Orleans’ Vieux Carre (French
Quarter),’’ Urban Studies, 42(7): 1099-1111 and 1114-1115. Reprinted with permission from Sage
Publications.
Sibalis, M. 2004. "Urban Space and Homosexuality: The Example of the Marais, Paris’ Gay Ghetto,”
Urban Studies4l (9): 1739-1750. Reprinted with permission from Sage Publications.
Zukin, S. 1991. "Gentrification as Market and Place,” from “Gentrification and Cuisine”in Landscapes
o f Power. Berkeley: University of California Press: 187-195. Reprinted with permission from the
University of California Press.
Logan, J. & Molotch, H. 1987. “The City as Growth Machine,” Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy
o f Place. Berkeley: University of California Press: 50-52 and 62-74. Reprinted with permission
from the University of California Press.
Perez, G.M. 2004. “Gentrification, Intrametropolitan Migration, and the Politics of Place,” The
Near Northwest Side Story: Migration, Displacement, an d Puerto Rican Families. Berkeley:
The University of California Press: 127-130 and 142-152. Reprinted with permission from the
University of California Press.
Lloyd, R. 2005. “Living Like an Artist,” Neo-Bohemia: Art an d Commerce in the Post-Industrial City.
NewYork: Routledge: 99-106 and 115-122. Reprinted with the permission of Taylor and Francis
Ltd., www.informaworld.com
Brown-Saracino, Japonica. 2004. “Social Preservationists and the Quest for Authentic Community”
City an d Community 3(2): June, 2004, p 135-147. Reprinted with the permission of the author.
Butler, T. 1997. “Consumption and Culture," Gentrification an d the Middle Classes. Aldershot:
Ashgate Publishing: 106-136. Reprinted with the permission of the author.
Glass R, 1964, “Introduction”, London, Aspects o f Change. London: Centre for Urban Studies:
xiii-xxiii; xxiv-xxvi; xxx-xxxi. Every effort was made to contact the rights holder for this publica
tion. The rights holder is welcome to contact the publisher.
Zukin, S. 1982. “The Creation of a ‘Loft Lifestyle’,’’ in Loft Living: Culture an d Capital in Urban Change.
Rutgers University Press: 58-70. © 1982 Sharon Zukin. Reprinted with permission of The Johns
Hopkins University.
Zukin, S. 1982. “From Arts Production to Housing Market,” in Loft Living: Culture an d Capital in
Urban Change. Rutgers University Press: 112-121. © 1982 Sharon Zukin. Reprinted with permis
sion of The Johns Hopkins University.
Bridge, G. 2001. “Estate Agents as Interpreters of Economic and Cultural Capital: The Gentrification
Premium in the Sydney Housing Market,” International Journal o f Urban and Regional Research
25:87-96. Reprinted with permission ofWiley-Blackwell.
Bibliography
Allen, I. 1980. “The Ideology of Dense Neighborhood Redevelopment: Cultural Diversity and Tran
scendent Community Experience,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, 15:409-428.
Anderson, E. 1990. Streetwise:Race, Class, an d Change in an Urban Community. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Argyle Streetscape Task Force. 2001. Argyle Streetscape Task Force Overview and Survey.
Atkinson, R. 2000. “Measuring Gentrification and Displacement in Greater London," Urban Studies,
37,1: 149-165.
Atkinson, R. 2002. “Docs Gentrification Help or Harm Urban Neighbourhoods? An Assessment of
the Evidence-Base in the Context of the New Urban Agenda,” ESRC Cen ter fo r Neighbourhood
Research.
Atkinson, R. 2003. “Introduction: Misunderstood Saviour or Vengeful Wrecker?The Many Meanings
and Problems of Gentrification” Urban Studies, 40:2343-2350.
Atkinson, R. 2004. “The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons for the Urban Renais
sance?” European Journal o f Housing Policy, 4,1,2004:107-131.
Atkinson, R. & Easthope, H. 2009. “The Consequences of the Creative Class: The Pursuit of Creative
Strategies in Australia’s Cities," International Journal o f Urban an d Regional Research, 33, 1:
64-79.
Atkinson, R. Y. & Bridge, G. 2004. “Introduction," in R. Atkinson & G. Bridge, eds. Gentrification in a
Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. London & NewYork: Routledge: 1-12.
Atkinson, R. Y. & Bridge, G. 2005. Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism,
Atkinson, London & NewYork: Routledge.
Badyina, A. & Golubchikov, O. 2005. “Gentrification in Central Moscow—A Market Process or
Deliberate Social Policy? Money, Power and People in Housing Regeneration in Ostozhenka,”
GeografiskaAnnaler:Series, B. Human Geography, 33,2:113-129.
Bailey, N. & Robertson, D. 1997. “Housing Policy, Urban Renewal and Gentrification,” Urban Studies,
34,4:561-578.
Barry, J. & Derevlany, J. 1987. Yuppies Invade My House at Dinnertime: A Tale o f Brunch, Bombs, and
Gentrification in an American City. Winona, MO: Big River Publishing.
Beauregard, R. A. 1986. “Planning Practice,” Urban Geography, 7:172-178.
Beauregard, R. A. 1990. “Trajectories of Neighborhood Change: The Case of Gentrification,'’
Environment an d Planning A 25,5:715-732.
Becker, H. 1998. Tricks o f the Trade: How to Think AboutYour Research WhileYou’re Doing it. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bell, D. 1973. The Coming o f Post-Industrial Society. NewYork: Harper Colophon Books.
366 | BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berrey, E. C. 2005. "Divided Over Diversity: Political Discourse in a Chicago Neighborhood,” City and
Community, 4,2, June 2005:143-170.
Berry, B. 1980. "Inner City Features: An American Dilemma Revisited,” Transactions o f the Institute
o f British Geographers^, 1:1-28.
Berry, B. J. L. 1985. “Islands of Renewal in Seas of Decay,” in P. E. Peterson, ed., The New Urban Reality.
Washington, DC: Brookings Inst: 69-96.
Betancur, J. J. 2002. “The Politics of Gentrification: The Case of West Town in Chicago,” Urban Affairs
Review, 37,6:780-814.
Bondi, L. 1991. “Gender Divisions and Gentrification: A Critique,” Transactions o f the Institute o f
British Geographers, 16:290-298.
Bourne, L. S. 1993. “The Myth and Reality of Gentrification: A Commentary on Emerging Urban
Forms,” Urban Studies, 30,1:183-189.
Boyd, M. 2008. Jim Crow Nostalgia: Reconstructing Race in Bronzeville. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Bridge, G. 2001. “Estate Agents as Interpreters of Economic and Cultural Capital: The Gentrification
Premium in the Sydney Housing Market,” International Journal o f Urban and Regional Research,
25: 87-96.
Brown-Saracino, J. 1999. Newcomers v. Old-timers: Symbolic Class Conflict in a Small Massachusetts
Town, unpublished honors thesis. Northampton, MA: Smith College.
Brown-Saracino, J. 2004. “Social Preservationists and the Quest for Authentic Community,” City and
Community3,2: lune, 2004:135-147.
Brown-Saracino, J. 2006. Social Preservation: The Quest fo r Authentic People, Place an d Community,
dissertation, Northwestern University.
Brown-Saracino, J. 2007. “Virtuous Marginality: Social Preservationists and the Selection of the Old-
timer.” Theory an d Society, 36,5:437-46.
Brown-Saracino, J. 2009. A Neighborhood That Never Changes: Gentrification, Social Preservation
an d the Search fo r Authenticity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brown-Saracino, J. & Rumpf, C. 2008. “Nuanced Imageries of Gentrification: Evidence from
Newspaper Coverage in Major U.S. Cities, 1986-2006." Presented at American Sociological
Association Meetings, August 2008.
Butler, T. 1997. Gentrification and the Middle Classes. London: Ashgate.
Butler, T. & Robson, G. 2001. “Social Capital, Gentrification and Neighbourhood Change in
London: A Comparison of Three South London Neighbourhoods," Urban Studies, 38, 12:
2145-2162.
Butler, T. & Robson, G. 2003. London Calling: The Middle Classes an d the Re-m aking o f Inner London.
Oxford: Berg.
Byrne, J. P. 2003. “Two Cheers for Gentrification,” Howard Law Journal, 46:405.
Caulfield, J. 1994. City Form an d Everyday Life: Toronto’s Gentrification an d Critical Social Practice.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Chernoff, M. 1980. "Social Displacement in a Renovating Neighborhood’s Commercial District:
Atlanta,” in S. B. Laska & D. Spain, eds., Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Revitalization.
NewYork: Pergamon: 204-19.
Clark, E. 2005. “The Order and Simplicity of Gentrification: A Political Challenge,” in R. Atkinson
& G. Bridge, eds., Gentrification in a Global Context : The New Urban Colonialism. London:
Routledge: 256-264.
Clay, P. 1979. Neighborhood Renewal: Middle-Class Resettlement an d Incumbent Upgrading in
American Neighborhoods. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Criekingen, M. & Decroly, 1.2003. “Revisiting the Diversity of Gentrification: Neighborhood Referral
Processes in Brussels and Montreal,” Urban Economics, 40,12.
Davidson, M. & Lees, L. 2005. “New-Build Gentrification and London’s Riverside Renaissance,”
Environment an d Planning A, 37:1165-1190.
BIBLIOGRAPHY | 367
Deener, A. 2007. “Commerce as the Structure and Symbol of Neighborhood Life: Reshaping the
Meaning of Community in Venice, California,” City & Community, 6,4:291-314.
Duany, A. 2001. Three Cheers for Gentrification. American Enterprise Magazine April /May: 36-9.
Engels, E 1975. The Housing Question. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Florida, R. 2002, “Building the Creative Community,” The Rise o f the Creative Class. NewYork City,
NewYork: Basic Books: 283-291 & 293-297.
Freeman, L. 2006. “Neighborhood Effects in a Changing Hood,” There Goes the ‘Hood: Views o f
Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press: 144-154.
Freeman, L. & Braconi, F. 2002. "Gentrification and Displacement," The Urban Prospect8.1:1-4.
Freeman, L. & Braconi, E 2004. "Gentrification and Displacement: New York City in the 1990s,”
Journal o f the American Planning Association 70.1:39-52.
Gaillard, A. 1977. Paris: La Ville. Paris: H. Champion.
Gale, D. E. 1979. "Middle Class Resettlement in Older Urban Neighborhoods: The Evidence and the
Implications,”Journal o f the American Planning Association, 45:293-204.
Gale, D. E. 1980. N eighborhood Revitalization an d the Postindustrial City: A Multinational
Perspective. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Gale, D. E. 1980. "Neighborhood Resettlement: Washington, D.C.,” in S. B. Laska & D. Spain, eds.,
Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation. NewYork: Pergamon Press: 95-115.
Glass, R. 1964, “Introduction”, London, Aspects o f Change. London: Centre for Urban Studies: xiii—
xxiii; xxiv-xxvi; xxx-xxxi.
Gotham, K. F. 2005. “Tourism Gentrification: The Case of New Orleans’Vieux Carre (French Quarter),”
Urban Studies, 42,7:1099-1111 and 1114-1115.
Greenberg, M. 2008. Branding New York: How a City in Crisis Was Sold to the World. New York:
Routledge.
Griswold, W. 1986. Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy an d Revenge Tragedy in the London Theatre
1576-1980. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hackworth, J. 2002. “Post-recession Gentrification in NewYork City,” Urban Affairs Review, 37: 815-
43.
Hackworth, I. & Smith, N. 2001. "The Changing State of Gentrification,” Tijdschrift voor Economische
en Sociale Geografie, 92,4:464-477.
Hamnett, C. 1991. “The Blind Men and the Elephant: The Explanation of Gentrification,”
Transactions o f the Institute o f British Geographers 16,2:173-189.
Hamnett, C. &Williams, P 1980, “Social Change in London: A Study of Gentrification,’’ Urban Affairs
Quarterly, 15,469-487.
Harvey, D. 1985. The Urbanization o f Capital. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harvey, D. 1989. "From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban
Governance in Late Capitalism,’’ Geografìska Annalerh 71:3-17.
Heidkamp, C.P., & Lucas, S. 2006. “Finding the Gentrification Frontier Using Census Data: The Case
of Portland, Maine,” Urban Geography, 27:101-125.
Henig, J. R. 1984. “Gentrification and Displacement of the Elderly: An Empirical Analysis,” in J. Palen
& B. London, eds., Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press: 170-84.
Henig, J. R. & Gale, D. E. 1987. “The Political Incorporation of Newcomers to Racially Changing
Neighborhoods,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22 3:399-419.
Henig, J. R. 1981. “Gentrification and Displacement of the Elderly: An Empirical Analysis” The
Gerontologist, 21,1:67-75.
Hyra, D. 2008. “The New Urban Renewal, Part 2: Public Housing Reforms,” in TheNeiv Urban Renewal:
The Economic Transformation o f Harlem an d Bronzeville. Chicago: University of Chicago Press:
83-96 and 100-105.
Jager, M. 1986. "Class Definition and the Aesthetics of Gentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne,” in
N. Smith & P. Williams, cds., Gentrification o f the City. London: Unwin Hyman: 78-91.
368 | BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kerstein, R. 1990. “Stage Models of Gentrification”. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 25,4:620-39.

Lang, M. 1982. Gentrification am id Urban Decline: Strategies fo r America's Older Cities. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
LeGates, R. & Hartman, C. 1981. “Displacement," The Clearinghouse Review, July: 207-49.
LeGates, R. & Hartman, C. 1986. “The Anatomy of Displacement in the United States,"in J. Palen & B.
London, eds., Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization. Albany, NY: State
University of NewYork Press: 178-200.
Lee, B. & Hodge, D., 1984. "Social Differentials in Metropolitan Residential Displacement,” In J. Palen
& B. London, eds., Gentrification, Displacement an d Neighborhood Revitalization. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press: 140-169.
Lees L. 2000. "A reappraisal of gentrification towards a ‘geography of gentrification,’” Progress in
Human Geography, 24:389-408.
Lees, L. 2006. “Gentrifying Down the Urban Hierarchy: The Cascade Effect in Portland, Maine,” Small
Cities: Urban Experience Beyond the Metropolis. NewYork: Routledge.
Lees L. 2007. “Progress in Gentrification Research?” Environment an d Planning ASS: 228-234.
Lees, L. 2003. “Super-gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, NewYork City,” Urban Studies,
40,12: 2487-2492.
Lees, L., Slater,T., &Wyly, E. 2008. Gentrification. London: Routledge.
Levy, P. R. & Cybriwksy, R. A. 1980. “The Hidden Dimensions of Culture and Class: Philadelphia,”
in S. B. Laska & D. Spain, eds., Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation. New York:
Pergamon Press: 138-139 & 143-153.
Ley, D., 1986. "Alternative Explanations of Inner-city Gentrification: A Canadian Assessment,’’An/ifl/s
o f the Association o f American Geographers, 76 ,521-535.
Ley, D., 1993. “Gentrification in Recession: Social Change in Six Canadian Inner Cities, 1981-1986,”
Urban Geography, 13,230-256.
Ley, David. 1996. “Introduction: Restructuring and Dislocations,” in The New Middle Class and the
Remaking o f the Central City. London: Oxford University Press: 1-11.
Ley, David. 1996. The New Middle Class an d the Remaking o f the Central City. London: Oxford
University Press.
Ley, D. 2003. “Artists, Aestheticization and the Field of Gentrification,” Urban Studies, 40, 12: 2527-
2544.
Lloyd, R. 2005. “Living Like an Artist,” in Neo-Bohemia: Art an d Commerce in the Post-Industrial City.
NewYork: Routledge: 99-106 and 115-122.
Logan, J.& Molotch, H. 1987.“TheCityasGrowthMachine,”in Urban Eortunes.The Political Economy
o f Place. Berkeley: University of California Press: 50-52 and 62-74.
Macgregor, L. 2005. Habits o f the Heartland: Producing Community in a Small Midwestern Town.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Madison, Dissertation.
Marcuse, P., 1986. “Abandonment, Gentrification and Displacement: The Linkages in New Y
ork City.” in N. Smith, & P. Wiliams, eds., Gentrification o f the City. London: Unwin Hyman: 153—
177.
Marcuse, P 2005. “On the Presentation of Research about Gentrification,” Department of Urban
Planning, Columbia University, NewYork.
Markusen, A. 1981. “City Spatial Structure, Women’s Household Work, and National Urban Policy,” in
C. Stimpson, E. Dixler, M. I. Nelson & K. B. Yatrakis, eds., Women an d the American City, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press: 20-41.
Martin, L. 2007. "Fighting for Control: Political Displacement in Atlanta’s Gentrifying
Neighborhoods,” Urban Affairs Review, 42,5:603-628.
McDonald, S. C. 1983. Human an d Market Dynamics in the Gentrification o f aBoston Neighborhood.
PhD thesis. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
McDonald, S. 1986. “Does Gentrification Affect Crime Rates?,” in A. J. Reiss & M. Tonry (eds.)
Communities and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY | 369
McNeil, D.G. 2008. “Restless Pioneers, Seeding Brooklyn,” New York Times, July 9.
Mele, C. 2000. “Forging the Link between Culture and Real Estate: Urban Policy and Real Estate
Development,” in “Developing the East Village,” Selling the Lower East Side: Real Estate, Culture
and Resistance in New York City. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 236-242.
Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice an d the Fight fo r Public Space. NewYork:
Guilford Press.
Newman, K. &Wyly, E. 2006. “The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Dis
placement in NewYork City," Urban Studies, 43,1:23-57.
Ouroussoff, N. 2009. “Lose the Traffic. Keep that Times Square Grit,” New York Times, May 25,
2009:1.
Parsons, D. 1980. Rural Gentrification: The Influence o f Rural Settlement Planning Policies.
Department of Geography Research Paper no. 3, University of Sussex, Brighton.
Pattillo, M. 2007. “Avenging Violence with Violence,” in Black on the Block. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press: 286-294.
Pattison, T. 1983. Neighborhood Policy an d Planning. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books
Peck, J. 2005 “Struggling with the Creative Class,” International Journal o f Urban an d Regional
Research, 29,4,740-70.
Peck, J. 2006. “Liberating the City: Between New York and New Orleans,” Urban Geography, 27, 8:
681-713.
Perez, Gina M. 2004. The Near Northwest Side Story: Migration, Displacement, and Puerto Rican
Families. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Phillips, M. 2004. “Other Geographies of Gentrification,” Progress in Human Geography, 28,5:5-30.
Rofe, M. (2003) “‘I Want to be Global’: Theorising the Gentrifying Class as an Emergent Elite Global
Community," Urban Studies, 40:2511-26.
Rose, D. 1984. “Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development of Marxist Urban
Theory,” Environment an d Planning D: Society an d Space, 1:57-69.
Rose, D. 2004. “Discourses and Experiences of Social Mix in Gentrifying Neighbourhoods: AMontreal
Case Study,” Canadian Journal o f Urban Research, 13:278-316.
Rothenberg, Tamar. 1995. ‘“And She Told Two Friends. . . ’: Lesbians Creating Urban Social Space," in
David Bell & Gill Valentine, eds., Mapping Desire: Geographies ofSexuality. London: Routledge.
Salamon, S. 2003. Newcomers to Old Towns: Suburbanization o f the Heartland. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Sassen, S. 1998. Globalization an d its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility o f People an d Money.
NewYork: New Press.
Shaw, K. 2005. “Local Limits to Gentrification: Implications for a New Urban Policy,” in R. Atkinson
& G. Bridge, eds., Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism, London:
Routledge.
Sibalis, M. 2004. “Urban Space and Homosexuality: The Example of the Marais, Paris’ Gay Ghetto,”
Urban Studies, 41,9:1739-1750.
Slater, T., Curran, W, & Lees, L., 2004. “Gentrification Research: New Directions and Critical Scholar
ship,” Environment an d Planning A, 36:1141-1150.
Slater, T. 2006. “The Eviction of Critical Perspectives from Gentrification Research,” International
Journal o f Urban and Regional Research, 30,4:737-757.
Smith, A. 1989. “Gentrification and the Spatial Constitution of the State: The Restructuring of
London’s Docklands,” Antipode, 21:232-60.
Smith, N. & J. DeFilippis. 1999. “The Reassertion of Economics: 1990s Gentrification in the Lower
East Side,” International Journal o f Urban an d Regional Research, 23:638-53.
Smith, D. R & Holt, L. 2005. “‘Lesbian Migrants in the Gentrified Valley’ and ‘Other’ Geographies of
Rural Gentrification,” Journal o f Rural Studies, 21:313-322.
Smith, D. P. & D. A. Phillips. 2001. “Socio-cultural Representations of Greentrified Pennine Rurality,”
Journal o f Rural Studies, 17:4:457-469.
370 I BIBLIOGRAPHY
Smith, N. 1986. “Gentrification, the Frontier, and the Restructuring of Urban Space,” in N. Smith &
P. Williams, eds., Gentrification o f the City. Boston: Allen & Unwin: 15-34.
Smith, N. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification an d the Revanchist City. London:
Routledge.
Smith, N. 1979. “Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement by Capital not
People,” Journal o f the American Planning Association, 45,4: 538-547.
Smith, N. 1998a. “A Short History of Gentrification” from Chapter Two, The New Urban Frontier. New
York: Routledge: 34-40.
Smith, N. 1998b. "Building the Frontier Myth,” from Introduction to The New Urban Frontier. New
York: Routledge: 12-18.
Smith, N. 2002. “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as a Global Urban Strategy,”
Antipode, 34,3:427-450.
Smith, N„ &Williams, P. 1986. Gentrification o f the City. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Spain, D. 1993. "Been-Heres versus Come-Heres: Negotiating Conflicting Community Identities,”
Journal o f the American Planning Association, 59.
Sumka.H. 1979. “Neighborhood Revitalization and Displacement: AReviewoftheEvidence.”/oi»?3tf/
o f the American Planning Association, 45,480-7.
Taylor, M. 2002. “The Dilemma of Racial Difference,” in Harlem: Between Heaven and Hell.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 57-61 and 68-75.
Timberg, S. 2009. “When the Next Wave Wipes Out,” New York Times, February 25.
Van Criekengen, M. & Decroly, J. M. 2003. “Revisiting the Diversity of Gentrification: Neighbourhood
Renewal Processes in Brussels and Montreal,” Urban Studies, 40:2451-2468.
Vigdor, J. 2002. “Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?” Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs,
134-173.
Warde, A. 1991. “Gentrification as Consumption: Issues of Class and Gender,” Environment and
Planning D: Society an d Space, 9:223-232.
Wyly, E. & Hammel, D. 1999. “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resur
gence of Gentrification,” Housing Policy Debate, 10,4: pp. 711-781.
Wyly, E. K. & Hammel, D.J., 2000. “Capital’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Transformation of American
Housing Policy,” GeografiskaAnnaler. Series B, Human Geography, 82,181-206.
Wyly, E. & Hammel, D. 2004. “Mapping Neoliberal American Urbanism,” in R. Atkinson & G. Bridge,
eds., Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism, London: Routledge: 18-38.
Zukin, S. 1982. “From Arts Production to Housing Market,” in Loft Living: Culture an d Capital in
Urban Change. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 112-121.
Zukin, S. 1982. “The Creation of a Loft Lifestyle,” in Loft Living: Culture an d Capital in Urban Change.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 58-70.
Zukin, S. 1987. “Gentrification and Capital in the Urban Core,” Annual Review o f Sociology, V 13:
129-147.
Zukin, S. 1990. “Socio-Spatial Prototypes of a New Organization of Production: The Role of Real
Cultural Capital,” Sociology, 24,1:37-56.
Zukin, S. 1991. “Gentrification as Market and Place,” from “Gentrification and Cuisine”in Landscapes
o f Power: From Detroit to DisneyWorld. Berkeley: University of California Press: 187-195.
Zukin, S., Trujillo, V., Frase, D., Jackson, T. 2009. “New Retail Capital and Neighborhood Change,”
City & Community, 8,1:47-64.
Index
accessory-apartment phenomenon 202 authentic community 170,171,261-83

aesthetics 133,137-8,139-42 authenticity 170,171,266-7; historical 11,42,
affordable housing 1,2,17,59,63,105,146,170, 67,73,98,115,140,181, 186,236,237,286,
213,221,247,263, 273, 280,314,320, 360 346,350
Allen, Paul 349
Alsop, Susan Mary Alsop 33 Bachelard, Gaston 180-1
alternative lifestyles 201, 202-3 Balderidge, Malcolm 215
American Airlines 99 Baltimore 35; Federal Hill 72; Inner
Ani, Sherif 215 Harbor 147
Ann Arbor, Michigan 88 Barcelona (Spain) 51
anticrime activism 331-6 Batteries Not Included 127
anti-gentrification movement 148,265,266 Baudelaire, Charles: 'Eyes of the Poor, The’ 31
artists 1,2,4,12,33,39,41,42,119-26,169,170, Baxter-Brown, Ruth 216-17
199,266; in Chicago, Wicker Park 55,185-94; Bearne, Mayor of NewYork 122
loft living 175-84,202; in NewYork, East Beijing 59
Village 64,127,129; in NewYork, Soho 114, Berlin 33,51
119-23,176,178,180; subsidies for 119-23 Blackwell, Robert 333
Artists Homeownership Program (AHOP) 129 Bledstein, Borton 181
Arts Council of New Orleans 156 Board of Real Estate of New York 266
arts infrastructure, production subsidy 123-6 Bohemian Index 348
Ashton, Dore 178 boosterism 1,59,91,96,106,107
Ashworth, W. 27 Booth, Charles 22
Athens 56 Booth, General William Booth 236
Atlanta, Georgia 88,350 Boston, Massachusetts: Back Bay 38,346;
Atlanta, Georgia, Little Five Points (LFP) 295- Bay Village 221; Beacon Hill 33,38,346;
303; Candler Park 298; characterization Cambridge 346; Faneuil Hall 147,176;
of,the Others' 299-300; commercial Italian West End 176; North End 346;
conflict 296-9; conflict over redevelopment Route 128 suburban complex 346; South
plant 299-301; conspiracy theory 299; End 37
fight over the highways 296-7; infiltration Boulder, Colorado 346
of 298-9; Inman Park 298; Moreland Bourdieu, Pierre 43 n. 13,55,133,134,137-8,
Avenue project 296-7,301; prerogatives 191
of tenure 300; social displacement 301-3; Bousset, Bernard 227
visions of the future 300-1 brand synergies 147
Atlantic City, New lersey 88 Brattleboro, Vermont 3
Auckland 56 Bremen 33
auctions in Sydney 136-7 Bright Lights, Big City 114
Austin, Texas 346 Brisbane 33
372 | INDEX
Brooke Amendments 305,315 n. 1 Colbert, Stephen 167,168

Brooklyn Gas 98 Colbert Report, The 167
Brown, Andrew 269 Coleman, Ornette 124
Brussels 51 collective social action 81,84 n. 6
Budapest 34 colonialism 51-2
Burt, Nathanial 73 commercial-backed securities (CMBS) 154
business climate 88-91 Composite Diversity Index 348
concentration effects 341
Calder 119 Connally, John, ofTexas 94
Canada Mortgage and Housing consumer preference 72
Corporation 108 consumer sovereignty hypotheses 71, 74,75
Cape Town 195 consumption factors 7
capital depreciation 71,75,78-9,81-3 consumption side explanations 64-5
capitalized ground rent 77-8 Copenhagen 34
Carter, Don 350 Cosby, Bill 213
Carver, George 217 cosmopolitanism 138
Chacon,Leo 322 cosmopolitans 58
chaotic concept 148,169,195-9,200,206, Creative Class 158,266,278,279,280,346-8,
207 350-3
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 350 Creative Community 345-54
Chicago, Illinois 16,32,67,93,273,280,305, Creative Economy 345
306; Alternative Policing Strategy 332; Creativity Index 353
Andersonville 262-3,264,268,270,271, Crocodile Dundee 114
272,277; anti-loitering law 1992 324; Crombie, David, Mayor ofToronto 109
Argyle neighborhood 64,67,263,268-72; cultural capital 237,320; decontextualized 57;
Avondale 328; Belmont area 320,328; gentrification and 55,133-43; housing
Boystown 277; Bronzevillc 278,279,281, renovation, material and 139
307-12; central business district (CBD) 76; cultural community 266
concentric ring model 31;Edgewater 277; cultural explanations of gentrification 55,
gentrifiers 360; Goose Island 37; 71-2
Hermosa 328; Humboldt Park 320-1; land culture, of gentrifiers 7,66
values 76; near Northwest side 321-8;
North Kenwood-Oakland neighborhood 63, Daley, Mayor Richard M. 307,309,312,324
331-6; public housing 306-7; Uptown 277; Dallas 95; Fort Worth 88,99
Woodlawn 332; Wrigleyville 277-, see also De Beauvoir Association 236,255
Chicago: Wicker Park de Kooning 119
Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) 306,307, Dearborn Homes 308
308,310,312; Plan for Transformation decentralization 26,33,35,37,87,306
307-10,311,312 Declaration of Independence 39
Chicago School 221 definitional chaos 12
Chicago Urban League 320 Defoe, Daniel 236
Chicago: Wicker Park 63,170,171,185,186, de-industrialization 54,59
265,266,321; educational attainment 189; demand side explanations 64-5
home purchase loans for 1993-1998 190; Denver, Colorado 206; Boulder 346;LoDo
income, house value, and rent, 1990 and district 346
2000 190; neo-bohemia and the young urban deterritorialization 113
professional 191-3; residential change Detroit, Michigan 108
189-91 Dewar, Marion, Mayor of Ottawa 110
child-centered community 265 distanciation 47
Child-Friendly Cities 353 distinction, housing 137-8
chomeur(euse) instruit(e) (educated Dixon, Illinois 88
unemployed male/female) 201 dot-com bubble 358
Clemons, Kirk 331 Drapeau, lean, Mayor ofVancouver 106
Club Littéraire et Scientifique des Pays Latin Duany, Andres 350
(Literary and Scientific Club of the Latin Dugway Proving Grounds disaster 95,97
Countries) 229 Dundee 33
INDEX I 373
Eastern Airlines 99 Gilliam, Sharon 312

eccentric spaces 175 Girard, David 231
ecological neighbourhood lifecycle models 139 Glasgow as European City of Culture 33
economic explanations 72 global city 34
economic valorization 48 Good Neighbor program 309
economics of gentrification 148 Granada 34
Edge Cities 347 Grant, Gary' 180
Edict of Nantes 32 Great Society urban programs 128
Edinburgh 33,35 Greater London Plan (1944) 23
Edmonton 104,106 Greater Philadelphia Movement (GPM) 84 n. 2
Elliott, Donald 122 ground rent 64,66,71,75,77-8,79-80,81,83,
embourgeoisement 15,31,32,33,108-11 191
Empowerment Zone implementation 305 growth coalitions 59,66
Engels, Friedrich 15,31-2 growth machine 38,66,87-102,106
environmental design, household organisation Gugel, Alan 185,186
and 202-3 Guggenheim effect 51
estate agents 133-43; as reliable witnesses Guild Complex 186
134; as social and financial
intermediaries 134-6 habitus 41,56,137
Evanston, Illinois 88 Halifax 106; Historic Properties 107
Expo 67110 Hamilton, Portia 215-16
Happy-Delpeche, Jim 188
Fantus rankings of business climates 88,90 Harold Ickcs 308
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 119 Harper, Sandra 313
Festival of Britain (1951) 29 n. 9 Harris, Jenine 334-5
financial deregulation of the City of London Harrison, Etta 217
(Big Bang) 54 Haussmann 32
FIRE employment (Finance, Insurance, Real Haussmann, Baron 31
Estate) 34 Hawaii 94
Flag Wars (documentary) 11 Heckscher, August 119,120
Fluxhouse Number 2 119 Hector, Soeurette 333-4,335
Foison, Robert, mayor of Dallas 94 Hoboken 33
Foreign Direct Investment 57 home as a refuge 214-18
Frank Cehry’s museum, Bilbao 51 homeostasis, racism and 218
French Market Corporation 154 Hooker [ChemicalCompany] 97
French Quarter Citizens for the Preservation of HOPE VI program 148,305,307,309,315 n. 2,
Residential Quality 157 316 n. 4,316 n. 17
French Quarter Festivals, Inc. 156 house value 77,78,79,80,190
Friends of Cast Iron Architecture (FCI) 122 household structures 200-2
frontier myth 113-17 Housing Acts 1949 and 1954 (US) 147,305
housing aesthetics 137-8
Garbe, Jimm7 187 housing class 196
Gautreaux 309 Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere
gay ghettos 221 program see HOPE VI program
Gay Index 348,353 housing subsidy for artists 119-23
Gaylord 97 Hoyt, Homer 104
gays and lesbians and gentrification 167, Hunter, Albert 272
221-33,262 Huntington, Henry 98
gentrification, definition 1,11-17
gentrifier 137; definition 6; origins Ida B. Wells Homes 308
of relocation 170,264; relation to improvements 32; house 250-1; in London
longtime residents 295-305; and social 33
preservation 170,261, 262,263-6; as urban inauthentic communities 266
pioneers 37 Indiana, Robert 122
Georgetown,Washington, DC 32-3 Industrial Development Research Council 88
Giedion, Siegfried 182 infrastructural improvements 2
374 I INDEX
inner-city decline schema; 1. New London 15,16,33,45, 51, 54,56, 58,108;

construction and the first cycle of use 78-9; Battersea 249; Brixton 243; Canary
2. Landlordism and homeownership 79- Wharf 34; Chelsea Harbour 58;Clissold
80; 3. Blockbusting and blow out 80; 4. Park 253; Docklands 40,175; Fulham 238,
Redlining 80; 5. Abandonment 80-1 241; Hackney 236,239,242,246,247,255;
institutional resources 341-3 inner-city 235; Islington 33,58,239,241,
International Olympic Committee 67 249,255,257; Lambeth 243; property
investment in built environment 75-81 prices 246; Soho 222; Stoke Newington 238,
244,253,254,257; Wandsworth 238,255; see
J.M. Kaplan Fund 119-20,121 also London: De Beauvoir
Jackson, Phil 312 London: De Beauvoir 236-7; frequency of
Jackson,Yolanda 217-18 going out 256; major lesiure activity 256,
Jacobs, Jane 39,120,121 257; Old Town 236; percentage mean gain on
Jersey City 348 current home 246; reason for buying present
Johannesburg 34 property 242; reason for moving 237-8; use
Johnson, Barbara 215 of cultural facilities 258
Johnson, James J. 119 longtime residents: displacement 2,4,8,12,
Johnson, Lyndon B. 120 15,278; reactions to gentrification 5,168,
Jones, Louanna (Lou) 311 169,170,279; relations with newcomers 269;
Judd, Donald 122 social displacement 262; social
Judd, Julie 122 preservation 170,267-70
Los Angeles 16,98,111,350; downtown
Kalvin, Jamie 310 renewal projects 98; St. Patrick’s Day
Kansas City, Quality Hill 37 parades 91; West Hollywood 221
King, Martin Luther 212 Lost Boston 39
KKK 218 Lost Chicago 39
Kleinbard,Jonathan 331 Lost London 39
Knight, Paul 333 Love Canal disaster, Niagara Falls, NewYork
Koch administration 128,129 1978 95,97
Kotkin, Joel 346 Lower East Side Joint Planning Council 129
laissez-faire 22,26 Maciunas, George 119

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 33 Madrid 33,34,56
Land Compensation Act, 1961 28 n. 5 Malraux Law (4 August 1962) 223
land values 76 Manchester 31-2,222
land-use classes 26 map of gentrification 148
last-one-in syndrome 291 marginal gentrifier 53,196,201,203,206FI
latte towns 346 Martin, Agnes 178
Lauren, Ralph 115 Marx, Karl 77
Le Bitoux, Jean 230 material capital 133
Le Corbusier 181 McDaniel, Emma 335,336
Lee, Tom 192 McGrath, Maurice 226
Leeds (UK) 51 Melbourne 51,139
León, Robby 324-5 Miami, Florida 99
Leroux, Joël 226 Milken High-Tech Index 348
Lesher, Dean (‘Citizen Lesher’) 97 Milken Institute 346
Lewis, Donna 315 Minneapolis, Minnesota 35,99,352
Leyden, Massachusetts 261, 262,263,270 Montreal 104,110,149,195,198,199,202; Old
Liebmann, Gerhardt 178,179 Town 107
lifestyles 200-2 moral laws 88
Lindsay, John, Mayor of NewYork 38,122,123, mortgage-backed securities (MBS) 154
124 Moscow 51
Liverpool 108 Moses, Commissioner Robert 94
local media 96-8 Movement to Opportunity (MTO)
Loft Jazz 123-4 programs 309
loft living 39,123-5,175-84,202 MTV 171,188,349
INDEX I 375
multiplier effects 88 NewYork City: Harlem 211-19,278,338,342,

Mumbai 16,56 357; displacement in 305,312,314-15;
Municipal Arts Society 122 Drevv-Hamilton Houses 312,313; Frederick
Samuel Houses 312,313; Harlem River
National Council for the Arts 120 Houses 312; Operation Take Back 342; Polo
National Endowment for the Arts 120,124 Ground Towers 312; public housing 305,
National Trust for Historical Preservation 146 306-7; Rangel Houses 312; redevelopment
Neighborhood Conservation Corporation and public housing reforms 312-15;
(NCC) 310 rehabilitation and tenant activism 313-15;
neo-bohemians 170,185,186,191-3,266 St. Nicholas Houses 312; Taft Houses 312;
neoclassical approach to gentrification 74 The King Towers 312
Nesbitt, Lowell 178 NewYork City Housing and Vacancy Survey
New Haven, Connecticut 93-4 315
new middle class 137,139-42 NewYork City Housing Authority (NYCHA) 306,
New Orleans, Louisiana: as tourist city 150-2; 307,312
Marigny neighbourhood 221; see also New NewYork Department of Housing Preservation
Orleans: Vieux Carre and Development (HPD) 128,129,199,
New Orleans City Planning Commission 157 314
New Orleans Convention and Visitor’s NewYork Division of Housing and Community
Bureau 152 Renewal (DHCR) 131
New Orleans Mayor’s Office of Tourism and NewYork draft riot (1863) 116
Arts 152,156-7 NewYork East Village 127-9,131
New Orleans Metropolitan Convention and NewYork railway strike (1877) 116
Visitors Bureau 156,157 NewYork Times Square 113,358; renewal
New Orleans Multicultural Tourism plan 98
Network 152,156 Newark, New Jersey 347-8
New Orleans Tourism Marketing Newcastle’s gay scene 222
Corporation 152,156; Canal Place 155; Newport Jazz Festival 124
demographic and population changes 152- Niagara Falls 95
4,163-5; Entertainment District 155; local North Carolina Research Triangle 346
state and role of real estate investors 154-7 Northampton 3
New Survey o f London Life an d Labour 22 Northwest Airlines 99
NewYork City 16,49,51,58,90,92,96,
111, 195,197,235,280,306,348; 421-a Ogden, Mayor, of Chicago 94
development program 130,131;Armory Oklahoma City 95
Condominium 113,‘artist housing 199,202, Old Philadelphia Development Corporation 84
204; Artists’ Home Ownership Plan 199; n. 6
Artists’ House 124; Battery Park City 34, Oldenberg, Ray 185
40,58,130; Brooklyn 40,98; Brooklyn Old-timers seelongtimers
Heights 16,45-9,148; Clinton Hill 338, ontological security 56,203
340,342; displacements 12,39,46,48, Operation Pressure Point 129-30
52,105,130,131,305,312,314-15; East oppositional spaces 207
Village 65,185; Flatiron districts 347; Orange County, California, ‘Eclectic Orange
Greenwich Village 2,33,39,119,185,202, Festival' 350
226; J-51 development program 130, Oslo, AckerBrygge 34
131; Loisaida 127,129,130; Lower East Otis and Chandler 96
Side 195,357; Major Capital Improvement Ottawa 106,110; Parliament Hill 107
(MCI) program 130,131; Manhattan 38,
39,130; New Deal alliances 38; North Pacific Electric 98
Beach 185; Pennsylvania Station 176; public Palladio, Andrea 179
housing 305,306-7; SoHo 74,108,121-2, Paris 33,107,224-6; Bastille 225;
124,176,346,347; South Street Seaport 130, Montmartre 185,225; Montparnasse 34;
147; urban homesteading programs 203; Opera House 225; Palais-Royal 225;
WASP suburbs 94; West Village (part of Pompidou Centre 225; Saint-Germain-des-
Greenwich Village) 120-1,124,221; see also Pres 225; student uprising 1968 106; see also
NewYork City: Harlem Paris: Marais
376 | INDEX
Paris: Marais 2,170,171; businessmen Reagan, Ronald 128,218

and 226-9; emergence of community 229- Real Estate Board of New York 36
31; as gay enclave 221-33; Le Village 226 real estate investment trusts (REITs) 145,154
Pastier, John 98 Real World, The 171
Pauger, Adrien de 152 Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia 73
Penn,William 72 rent gap 38,49,54,56,64,66,81-3
people climate 351-4 rent regulation 131
Peterson, Terry 312 residential-satisfaction literature 203
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: cataclysmic retentions 249
change 290-1; Center city 285,291; revanchism 55
Chestnut Hill 73; culture and class in 285- Ribicoff Committee on the Crisis of the
93; culture conflict 289-90; Delaware Cities 72
waterfront 39; Fairmount 83,286,287,288, Rio de Janeiro 34
289-90,291; inner city at a crossroads 201-2; Rivers, Sam 124
Mt.Airy 73; Northern Liberties 291; Robert Taylor Homes (Legends South) 308,309,
Queen Village 39,83,286,287,288,289-91; 312
Rittenhouse Square 38,73; Society Hill 34, Rockford, Illinois 93
38,39,72-3,74,82,84 n. 6,147,286; Spruce Rodin, Auguste 119
Hill 73; use of outdoor space 288-9 Rosenquist, James 178
Philadelphia Planning Commission 291 Rotterdam 175
Phoenix, Arizona 346,350 rural gentrification 52,262
Picasso, Pablo 119
Pink, Steve 186 sale price 77
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 33,348,352,353 San Diego: ‘City of Villages’ initiative 350
place marketing of cities 59 San Francisco, California 51,58,108,280,349-
Plexes 207 n. 5 50,352; Eureka Valley 221; as gay ghetto 221;
Plunkitt, George Washington 94 gay population 196,200; Ghirardelli
Polanco, Leo and Marvin 322-3 Square 176; North Beach 221; SoMa and
politicians 93-6 Mission districts 346,350; SoMa Wars 350
Portland, Maine 1,68 San Francisco Bay Area, Contra Costa County
post-industrial cities 72 suburbs 97
potential ground rent 78 San Jose, California 96,350
pragmatic state capitalism 95 Sao Paulo 34,59
Prague 34 Schanberg, Sydney 98
Prairie Court Homes 308 Schell, Paul, former Seattle mayor 345
Preckwinkle, Alderman 331 Seaholtz, Shappy 186-7
preservation: historic 39,41,42,47,122,146, Seattle, Washington 51, 56,280,349,352;
147,152,168,170-1,175; landscape 42,264, Bellevue and Redmond 346; Pioneer
270; social 170,261-83 Square 346
production factors 7,64 Sex and the City 167
property class 196 Shakcl, Mrs Edna 103,104,105,106,108
property taxes 2 Shanghai 51,58
Provincetown, Massachusetts 262,263,267-70, Shappy 192
271-2,360; old timers vs gentrifiers 267-70; Silicon Somewhere communities 345
Year Rounders’ Festival 267 Silicon Valley 345,346,349
Pulliam 97 Singapore 149
Putnam, Andree 179 Smith, Joan 269
Smith, Reggie 214
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act Smith, Ricardo 77
(1998) 305 SNEG (Syndicat National des Entreprises
Québec City 201 Gaies, or National Syndicate of Gay
Enterprises) 227
racial difference 211-20 snow-balling effect 291
Rangel, Charles 313 social displacement 8,262,263,278,279,281,
Rauschenberg, Robert 122,177 282,295-303
Raymond Hilliard Homes 308 social mix 171,244,253
INDEX | 377
social preservation 170,261-83; and tourism gentrification 145-63

authenticity 266-7; and gentrification 170, Town an d Country magazine 33
261, 262,263-6; and longtime residents 170, Town and Country Planning Act: 1947 22,28
267-70; origins 261; practices 261-2 n. 5; 1953 28 n. 5; amending Act 1954 28 n. 5;
social ties 337-43 1959 28 n. 5; 1962 28 n. 5
SoHo Artists’ Tenants’ Association 122 TriBeCa 124
space and self 180-3 Trudeau, Pierre 106
Spaxman, Ray 107
Spielberg, Steven 127 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
spot rehabilitation 34 Development (HUD) 305,307,349
St. Petersburg, Florida 88 UDA Architects 350
state and gentrification 6,7,42,64-5,67,81-3, ultragentrifier 46,49
147,154-7,159,207 n.2 unfettered capitalism 95
State of New York’s Real Property Tax Law 131 upward mobility 198
Stale o f the Cities Report (2000) 349 urban diffusion 22
Stateway Gardens 308,309 urban grit 266
Stecking, Adri (Adri) 179 urban homesteaders 113
Stellenbosch 34 urban meaning 237,259 n. 8
Stevens, Roger 120 urban pioneers 113,356
Steward, Anna 269 urban renaissance 58,75
Steward, Joseph 269 urban revitalization 282
Stickley, Gustav 182,183 Utah civic leadership 95
style and attractiveness 235-7
subsidies 147; arts infrastructure 123-6; Vancouver 54; Committee of Progressive
artists'housing 119-23 Electors (COPE) 105,110; Fairview
suburbanization 35 district 103-4,105-6,109; False Creek 104,
Sullivan, Tom 310 108,109; Gastown 107; Granville Island
supergentrification 16,45-9,148,154 107-8,109; Kitsilano 103,109; The Electors’
supersonic transport (SST) 98 Action Movement (TEAM) 105,106,
supply side factors 64 109
sweat equity 53,250,264 vandalism 80,296
Sydney 51; auctions in 136-7; Balmain/ vertical ethnography 359
Rozelle 133; Darling Harbour 34,58; verticalization 34
Glebe 33,133; housing market 133-43; Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents, and
Newtown 133 Associates (VCPORA) 157
Tarr, Bill and Yvonne 178 Wagner, Mayor 120-1,122

tax abatements 147 Warhol, Andy 180
tax incentives 1 Warr, Michael 186,187
tax increment financing (TIFs) 147,309 Washington Park Homes 308
Tax Reform Act (1986) (US) 42 Washington’s Capitol Hill 72
Tenth Street Studio 119,126 n. 1 West Harlem Tenants Coalition 342
Theater Development Fund (TDF) 124 West Harlem’s Manhattanville Housing
third-wave gentrification 47-9 Project 313
Thoreau, Henry David 182 West Virginia’s Buffalo Creek 292
TIL (Tenant-Interim Lease) buildings 128 Wilson, Andrea 335,336
Tillman, Alderman Dorothy 312 Wilson, June 211,212,213
Toennies 272 Winnipeg 108
Tokyo 58; Shinjuku 33 Wright, Flank Lloyd 183
Tompkins, Calvin 177 Wright,Keith 313,314
Tompkins Square riot of 1874 114,116 Wulkowicz, Erik 186
Toronto 108,198; Cabbage-town 221;
map of housing and land use (1941) 104; Yang, Hanford 179
Yorkville 109
Tour, Pierre L Blond de la 152 zones of transition 24
.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk
A lib ra ry a t y o u r fin g e rtip s !
eBooks are electronic versions of printed books. You can

store them on your PC/laptop or browse them online.
They have advantages for anyone needing rapid access

to a wide variety of published, copyright information.
eBooks can help your research by enabling you to

bookmark chapters, annotate text and use instant searches
to find specific words or phrases. Several eBook files would
fit on even a small laptop or PDA.
N E W : Save money by eSubscribing: cheap, online access

to any eBook for as long as you need it.
Annual subscription packages

We now offer special low-cost bulk subscriptions to
packages of eBooks in certain subject areas. These are
available to libraries or to individuals.
For more information please contact

[email protected]
We're continually developing the eBook concept, so

keep up to date by visiting the website.
w w w .e B o o k s to re .ta n d f.c o .u k

Brown-Saracino, Japonica - The Gentrification Debates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brown-Saracino, Japonica - The Gentrification Debates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brown-Saracino, Japonica - The Gentrification Debates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gentrification Debates

Japónica Brown-Saracino is assistant professor of sociology at Loyola University Chicago

Books in the Series:

Also o f Interestfrom Routledge

Edited by Japónica Brown-Saracino

Series Foreword xvii

Overview: The Gentrification Debates 1

PART I: WHAT IS GENTRIFICATION? DEFINITIONS AND KEY CONCEPTS

2. A Short History of Gentrification 31

3. Gentrification as Market and Place 37

4. Super-gentrification: The Case of BrooklynHeights, New York City 45

5. Globalisation and the New Urban Colonialism 51

PART II: HOW, WHERE AND WHEN DOES GENTRIFICATION OCCUR?

7. The City as a Growth Machine 87

8. Introduction: Restructuring and Dislocations 103

9. Building the Frontier Myth 113

10. From Arts Production to Housing Market 119

12. Estate Agents as Interpreters of Economic and Cultural Capital: The

13. Tourism Gentrification: The Case of New Orleans’ Vieux Carre

PART III: WHO ARE GENTRIFIERS AND WHY DO THEY ENGAGE

15. Living Like an Artist 185

16. Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development of Marxist

17. The Dilemma of Racial Difference 211

19. Consumption and Culture 235

PART IV: WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES AND CONSEQUENCES

22. Social Displacement in a Renovating Neighborhood’s Commercial District:

24. Gentrification, Intrametropolitan Migration, and the Politics of Place 319

25. Avenging Violence with Violence 331

26. Neighborhood Effects in a Changing Hood 337

27. Building the Creative Community 345

Conclusion: Why We Debate 355

Copyright Acknowledgements 363

Series Foreword xvii

Overview: The Gentrification Debates 1

PART I: WHAT IS GENTRIFICATION? DEFINITIONS AND KEY

1. “Introduction: Aspects of Change," London, Aspects o f Change. London:

3. “Gentrification as Market and Place,” from “Gentrification and Cuisine” in

4. “Super-gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City,” Urban

5. “Globalisation and the New Urban Colonialism,” in Gentrification in a Global

PART II: HOW, W H E R E AND W HEN D OES GENTRIFICATION O C C U R ?

6. “Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement by Capital,

7. “The City as a Growth Machine,” Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of

Expanding on a tradition apparent in Sharon Zukin’s Loft Living, sociologist Christopher

12.“Estate Agents as Interpreters of Economic and Cultural Capital: The

PART III: WHO ARE G EN T R IFIER S AND W H Y DO T H E Y ENGAGE IN

16. "Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development of Marxist

PART IV: WHAT ARE TH E OUTCOM ES AND CO N SEQ U EN C ES OF

22. “Social Displacement in a Renovating Neighborhood’s Commercial District:

24. “Gentrification, Intrametropolitan Migration, and the Politics of Place," The

28. Conclusion: Why We Debate

The Gentrification Debates, edited by Japonica Brown-Saracino

INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS GENTRIFICATION?

The disagreement I have outlined thus far—about whether gentrification is character­

interrupted by a once-Italian café or a more

A Short History of Gentrification

become a “classic battleground” of gentri­ discrete experiences of “spot rehabilita­

In this regard, whatwethinkofas gentrifi­ processes of urban economic, political

Gentrification as Market and Place

[...] Gentrification refers to a profound spa­ justification of middle-class appropriation,

The disagreement I have outlined thus far—about whether gentrification is character

become a “classic battleground” of gentri discrete experiences of “spot rehabilita

In this regard, whatwethinkofas gentrifi processes of urban economic, political

[...] Gentrification refers to a profound spa justification of middle-class appropriation,

Gentrification is now global. It is no lon strategies involving commercial or presti

affluent areas (e.g., Ley 1986). This contagion-explanation is apparent in my aforemen

growth is hindered elsewhere in the indus relied on considerable capital investments

target a neighborhood as a potential mar Society Hill—but occupier developers are

an d th e p o o r w ould in h e rit th e old d e c lin according to whether it is a rehabilitation process

INTRODUCTION boundaries of gentrification and its eco

localisation that define modern urbani of sophisticated marketing schemes that