Teaching and Learning Guide for: Gentrification: What It Is, Why It Is, and What Can Be Done About It
Authors: Shaw Kate 
Published: April 2010

Author’s Introduction

Gentrification is an important component of urban development, and essential to any proper understanding of uneven development. It is also a highly contested concept. It has what can be called a ‘typical’ pattern, with a myriad of variations. These variations are so extensive that some scholars argue that gentrification is a ‘chaotic concept’, that is, a concept so broad as to lose its analytical coherency. Others counter that the logic of gentrification has become so generalised in the 21st century that it should be seen as no less than a fundamental state and market‐driven ‘class remake’ of the city.

This Teaching and Learning Guide helps to conceptualise gentrification as a continuum which accommodates all the variations. Understanding gentrification in this way enables an intellectual approach that considers the possibilities for progressive policy responses to its inequitable effects.

Author Recommends

Smith, Neil (1979). Toward a theory of gentrification: a back to the city movement by capital, not people, Journal of the American Planners Association 45, pp. 538–548.

This seminal paper applies a political‐economic analysis to the process of gentrification, arguing that it is an inherent component of capitalist development. It set the ground for many subsequent debates, and continues to be as relevant now as it was then. Smith’s theory of the rent gap – possibly the single most significant contribution to understanding gentrification – is detailed in this paper.

Rose, Damaris (1984). Rethinking gentrification: beyond the uneven development of marxist urban theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1, pp. 47–74.

Rose challenges the political‐economy analysis as the only explanation for gentrification. She argues that it is a result also of restructured labour markets and changing lifestyles that are producing different kinds of households (e.g. single parent and/or female‐headed) with good reason for choosing to live in ‘gentrified’ areas. This is the first paper to raise the notion of gentrification as a ‘chaotic concept’.

Ley, David (1994). Gentrification and the politics of the new middle class. Environment and Planning D, Society and Space 12, pp. 53–74.

This paper discusses the rise of a ‘new middle class’ in Canada with a left‐liberal politics, which Ley argues is driving gentrification at least in this part of the world. Ley is a proponent of the argument that gentrification is a cultural movement shaped by people’s preferences for an inner‐city, ‘gentrified’ lifestyle.

Lees, Loretta (1994). Rethinking gentrification: beyond the positions of economics or culture. Progress in Human Geography 18 (2), pp. 137–150.

This important paper spells out the competing economic and cultural explanations for gentrification and draws together a large literature that essentially points to both explanations having a role to play.

Hackworth, Jason and Smith, Neil (2001). The Changing State of Gentrification, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 94 (4), pp. 464–477.

Another seminal work that introduces a model of waves of gentrification that account for its changing patterns over time.

Atkinson, Rowland and Bridge, Gary (2005). Gentrification in a global context: the new urban colonialism. London: Routledge.

This whole book is a collection of stories about gentrification from all over the world. The introduction is a very good summary of the debates up to 2005.

Slater, Tom (2006). The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30 (4), pp. 737–757.

This is a provocative piece that argues that gentrification research has itself become gentrified, in that scholars are no longer as interested in documenting the inequitable effects of gentrification, especially displacement, as they once were. Slater argues that the focus has swung too much in favour of the interests and motivations of the gentrifiers, at the expense of those who suffer from the process. Volume 32, issue no. 1 of the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (2008) carries an interesting collection of responses to Slater’s piece.

Lees, Loretta and Ley, David (2008). Introduction to special issue on gentrification and public policy. Urban Studies, 45 (12), pp. 2379–2384.

With the argument over cultural or economic explanations having worn itself out (or been resolved, depending on your point of view!) the attention of scholars is turning to what to do about gentrification. This special issue edited by Lees and Ley draws together a selection of papers on the relationship of policy to gentrification: do state policies always facilitate gentrification or can they work to mitigate its negative effects?

Porter, Libby and Shaw, Kate (2009), Whose Urban Renaissance? An international comparison of urban regeneration strategies. London: Routledge.

This book is a collection of stories of urban regeneration strategies on the ground – from state and market strategies that deliberately bring about gentrification to government interventions designed to avoid it or at least protect vulnerable residents. The introduction and conclusion develop the notion of gentrification as being on a continuum of social and economic geographic change based on patterns of disinvestment and reinvestment.

Lees, Loretta, Slater, Tom and Wyly, Elvin (2008). Gentrification. London: Routledge.

This is the most comprehensive textbook on gentrification in existence. It covers every possible aspect of gentrification and all the relevant debates, and is an excellent resource for all students of gentrification.

Online Materials

http://members.lycos.co.uk/gentrification/

Gentrification Web, designed by Tom Slater: ‘Either disinvestment and decay or gentrification and displacement is a false choice for low‐income communities’.

http://www.theregoestheneighbourhood.org/

There Goes the Neighbourhood is an exhibition, residency, discussion and publishing project. The central element of this project is an exploration of the politics of urban space, with a focus on Redfern, Sydney. The project examines the complex life of cities and how the phenomenon of gentrification is altering the relationship between democracy and demography around the world. Although urban change itself is not always a bad thing, gentrification often happens at an accelerated rate, out pricing the lower income and marginalized communities from the neighbourhood and dislocating them from their existing connections to urban space. The project brings together artists from Australia and around the world whose work addresses these issues.

http://www.inura.org/

The International Network for Urban Research and Action is a network of people involved in action and research in localities and cities. The Network consists of activists and researchers from community and environmental groups, universities and local administrations, who wish to share experiences and to participate in common research. Examples of the issues that Network members are involved in include: major urban renewal projects, the urban periphery, community‐led environmental schemes, urban traffic and transport, inner city labour markets, do‐it‐yourself culture and social housing provision. In each case, the research is closely tied to, and is a product of, local action and initiative.

http://www.architectsforpeace.org/index.php

Architects for peace is a humanitarian, not for profit professional organisation for architects, urban designers, engineers, planners, landscape architects and environmentalists, seeking urban development based on social justice, solidarity, respect and peace.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5045061_fight‐gentrification.html

How to fight gentrification (from a site on how to do just about anything)

Sample syllabus: Gentrification: what it is, why it is and what can be done about it

Topics for lectures and readings:

Week 1. Introduction: gentrification, its variations and its viability as a coherent concept

Shaw, Kate (2008). Gentrification: what it is, why it is, and what can be done about it. Geography Compass 2 (5), pp. 1697–1728.

Week 2. Gentrification’s variations I: variation in interpretations

Smith, Neil (1982). Gentrification and uneven development. Economic Geography 58 (1), pp. 39–55.

Ley, David (2003). Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification. Urban Studies 40 (12), pp. 2527–2544.

Vicario, Lorenzo and Martinez Monje, P. Manuel (2005) Another ‘Guggenheim effect’? Central city projects and gentrification in Bilbao. In: Atkinson, R. and Bridge, G. (eds) Gentrification in a Global Context: the new urban colonialism. London: Routledge

Week 3. Gentrification’s variations II: variation in assessments of displacement

Freeman, Lance and Braconi, Frank (2002). Gentrification and displacement. The Urban Prospect 8 (1), pp. 1–4.

Hamnett, Chris (2003). Gentrification and the middle‐class remaking of inner London, 1961–2001. Urban Studies 40 (12), pp. 2401–2426.

Slater, Tom (2006). The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30 (4), pp. 737–757.

Week 4. Gentrification’s variations III: variation in the agents

Warde, Alan (1991). Gentrification as consumption: issues of class and gender. Environment and Planning D, Society and Space 9, pp. 223–232.

Smith, Neil (1992). New city, new frontier: the Lower East Side as wild, wild west. In: Sorkin, M. (ed.) Variations on a theme park. USA: The Noonday Press.

Rose, Damaris (1996). Economic restructuring and the diversification of gentrification in the 1980s: a view from a marginal metropolis. In: Caulfield, J. and Peake, L. (eds) City lives and city forms: critical research and Canadian urbanism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Week 5. Gentrification’s variations IV: variation in forms

Zukin, Sharon (1989). Loft living. NJ: Rutgers University Press (Chapter 1: Living lofts as terrain and market).

Smith, Neil (1996). The New Urban Frontier: gentrification and the revanchist city. London: Routledge (Chapter 2: Is gentrification a dirty word?).

Ley, David (1996). The New Middle Class and the remaking of the central city. UK: Oxford University Press (Chapter 2: The changing inner‐city housing market).

Davidson, Mark and Lees, Loretta (2005). New‐build gentrification and London’s riverside renaissance. Environment and Planning A 37 (7), pp. 1165–1190.

Week 6. Is ‘gentrification’ too broad a concept to be meaningful?

Rose, Damaris (1984) Rethinking gentrification: beyond the uneven development of marxist urban theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1, pp. 47–74.

Beauregard, Robert (1986) The chaos and complexity of gentrification. In: Smith, N. and Williams, P. (eds) Gentrification of the city. USA: Allen and Unwin.

Lees, Loretta (2003b). Super‐gentrification: the case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City. Urban Studies 40 (12), pp. 2487–2509.

Clark, Eric (2005). The order and simplicity of gentrification – a political challenge. In: Atkinson, R. and Bridge, G. (eds) Gentrification in a global context: the new urban colonialism. London: Routledge.

Week 7. Accounting for the variations? Waves of gentrification

Hackworth, Jason and Smith, Neil (2001). The changing state of gentrification. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 94 (4), pp. 464–477.

Smith, Neil (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode 3, pp. 427–450.

Week 8. The underlying logics of gentrification I: The production of the gentrified environment: disinvestment and reinvestment in urban core

Smith, Neil and LeFaivre, Michelle (1984). A class analysis of gentrification. In: London, B. and Palen, J.J. (eds) Gentrification, displacement and neighbourhood revitalisation. New York: State University of New York Press.

Smith, Neil (1987). Of yuppies and housing: gentrification, social restructuring, and the urban dream, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 5, pp. 151–172.

Week 9. The underlying logics of gentrification II: the production of the gentrifiers: culture, consumption and the new middle class

Ley, David (1994). Gentrification and the politics of the new middle class. Environment and Planning D, Society and Space 12, pp. 53–74.

Caulfield, Jon (1994). City form and everyday life, Toronto’s gentrification and critical social practice. Canada: University of Toronto Press (Chapter 5: Everyday life, inner‐city resettlement, and critical social practice).

Week 10. Do we need a new ‘geography of neighbourhood renewal’, or can gentrification be understood as part of a continuum: complex, but coherent?

Lees, Loretta (2000). A reappraisal of gentrification: towards a ‘geography of gentrification’. Progress in Human Geography 18 (2), pp. 137–150.

Van Criekingen, Mathieu and Decroly, Jean‐Michel (2003). Revisiting the diversity of gentrification: neighbourhood renewal processes in Brussels and Montreal. Urban Studies 40 (12), pp. 2451–2468.

Lees, Loretta, Slater, Tom and Wyly, Elvin (2008). Gentrification. London: Routledge (Chapter 5: Contemporary gentrification).

Week 11. Gentrification on a continuum of social and economic geographic change

Porter, Libby and Shaw, Kate (2009). Whose Urban Renaissance? An international comparison of urban regeneration strategies. London: Routledge (Chapter 1: Introduction, and Chapter 24 Rising to a challenge).

Week 12. The policy implications of understanding gentrification as part of a continuum

Shaw, Kate (2005a). Local limits to gentrification: implications for a new urban policy. In: Atkinson, R. and Bridge, G. (eds) Gentrification in a global context: the new urban colonialism. London: Routledge.

Ley, David and Dobson, Cory (2008). Are there limits to gentrification? The contexts of impeded gentrification in Vancouver. Urban Studies 45 (12), pp. 2471–2498.

Walks, Alan and August, Martine (2008). The factors inhibiting gentrification in areas with little non‐market housing: policy lessons from the Toronto experience. Urban Studies 45 (12), pp. 2594–2625.

Shaw, Kate (2008). Commentary: is there hope for policy? Urban Studies 45 (12), pp. 2637–2642.

Focus Questions

1. Who wins and who loses from this process known as gentrification?

2. Who or what do you think causes it?

3. What do you think of the argument made by David Ley and Jon Caulfield that artists can drive gentrification?

4. Do you think the political economy and cultural explanations for gentrification are complementary or reconcilable?

5. Do you think gentrification is a chaotic or a coherent concept?

6. Does the continuum adequately replace the stage model of gentrification?

7. What kinds of policy interventions can be made to limit the negative effects of gentrification, and how successful do you think these are, or can be?