Recent Trends and Debates Concerning Gentrification in Contemporary Cities - Essay Example

?Outline Recent Trends and Debates Concerning Gentrification in Contemporary Cities The history of gentrification commenced with Ruth Glass as the first person to coin it. Glass describes the term as the alteration of the residential areas of the city from working class to middle class. The middle class was replaced by the elite urban class in the mid-nineteenth century. In the 1970s, sociologist and urban geographers have started to use the term when referring to the invasion of affluent people in a working class area (Parker, 2004, p.86). This is the common trend that seemed to aggravate the condition of the poor. Homeowners who can afford to pay high rent intended to stay for good, while people who do not belong in the same circle must step out. Since working class cannot match the high standard of living, they settle in a community wherein people of similar level exist. With the start of the post-gentrification era, homeless individuals staged riot against the destruction of social reproduction wherein they lost the smooth flow of living. Displacement destroys the continuity of gender relations and the availability of food, clothing, and shelter. The tension and fear created on the working class in this era are centered on the insecurity they feel of being displace. Smith refers to this scenario as the revanchist city wherein government removes the poor individuals residing in the city to encourage tourist investment. Poor households are considered bad publicity, which discourage investors to establish business in a certain area. Thus, government provides more opportunities for high-wage earner individuals than ordinary working class (Bridge & Watson, 2010, p.202). Furthermore, many debates and arguments have materialised on the definition of gentrification. Using Clarke, et al. (2003, p.83) definition, the term refers to the “regeneration of rundown inner city areas caused by the return of new generation of affluent middle-class residents from which the middle classes once fled.” To put it simple, gentrification describes the social change that transforms the status of residents. The social change is evident in the re-urbanisation. Criekingen (2010, pp.381-382) defines re-urbanisation as “a process of repopulating the inner city with a variety of social groups and lifestyles.” The definition of gentrification has been discussed as the upgrading the social status of individuals from working class to middle class. Moreover, the structure of the built environment has changed aesthetically to match the status quo of the residents in a certain area. This act is similar with redeveloping the entire city and replacing the residents that once occupied the space. Gentrification has garnered different alternative terms in the 21st century, which signifies the changes in its process. Regeneration, revitalisation, renaissance, and residentialisation are used interchangeably when attributing the displacement of individuals. Moreover, displacement also receives a new label called professionalisation because of changes in the built environment and the occupants as professional members (Goworowska, 2008, p.18). The terms are the source of debate among scholars. The sociologist of knowledge explains that the terms are formed based on the perception, observation, or interpretation of individuals regarding gentrification. With the scholar’s differing views on the gentrification process and changes in the usage of words, the debate continues. One of the views concerning gentrification is the ‘back-to-the-city’ move wherein invaders originally came from the inner city to claim what they have before. However, this theory has no significant support from the government’s data. Others have asserted that invaders are bored living outside the city, and they have decided to return in exchange of the vibrant city life. The revitalisation exists when the neighborhood moves within the inner city. There are evidences that this pattern of living occurs in the dual-wage earner family. The definition of gentrification creates confusion because, literally, it refers to a ‘person of gentle birth,’ while the current definition signifies the replacement of working class individuals. The back-to-the-city theory may be associated with the literal meaning of gentry due to the fact that people are claiming the area, since they believe that they belong to it. Furthermore, the new label called revitalisation is quite distant to the definition of gentrification because renovators are attracted by the average price of houses compared to other cities (Palen & London, 1984, pp. F6-7). The relation of revitalisation and gentrification is evident because because displacement occurs after the renovators transferred to the middle class area. Renaissance generates from the initiatives of the Urban Task Force in advocating housing development. Government aims to regenerate the city to qualify in the global standard of development; hence, they invest in restructuring residential areas and shift it into a capitalist society where the government can generate income. However, UK experienced an economic downturn, which delays their initiative in urban planning (Tallon, 2010, p.200). In Johannesburg, the renaissance policy of the government targets the re-attraction of private capital and the middle-class households. The view of gentrification has changed due to the dubbing of new terms that pertains to world class economy and regeneration into a global age (Porter & Shaw, 2009, p.25). Gentrification has been associated with destruction; hence, government altered it to renaissance policy to change the negative impression of low-income households. To understand the concept of gentrification, Davidson and Lees (2005, p.1170) illustrate its four core elements: “reinvestment of capital, social upgrading of locale by incoming high income groups, landscape change, direct or indirect displacement of income groups”. These elements constitute the standard characteristic of gentrification. Gentrification has undergone three waves. The three waves signify the development of gentrification from the state-led gentrification, super-gentrification, new-build gentrification, and reurbanisation. State has a role to play in the process of gentrification. The government is aiming for reconstruction and redevelopment of society, including the annihilation of a poor environment. Rerat, et al. (2009, p.340) assert that the role of local government in state-led gentrification is described as “neoliberal urban agenda.” They are considered as one of the players in the gentrification system. According to the study of He (2007, p.173), the characterisation of gentrification is rooted to the aim of the government to motivate entrepreneurs in capital investment. The federal government of Shanghai coerced residents in supporting the restructuring of the built environment to attract investments. It does not only aim to attract investors, but its goal is to retain the middle class family with a possibility to become entrepreneurs. The development of Shanghai into a global city status is led by state-sponsored gentrification. Housing development is one of the areas that must be improved, so Shanghai’s government concentrated its effort in retail redevelopment, recreation, and even office areas. Davidson (2008, p.2377); Davidson and Lees (2005) argue that the current trend of the government is social mixing. The programme set by the UK Labour government in 2000 aims to establish a sustainable community wherein a place is vibrant, secure, and “economically viable urban communities.” It also entails of attracting middle classes to live in the city to experience a stable environment with less inequality, employment opportunities, and high quality of life including public health and education services. The government believes that state-led gentrification could change the social status of a society through displacing poor households. Even Slater (2006) views gentrification as a method of developing and elevating the social status of individuals, and reflects the country’s economic status. However, Atkinson (2004, pp.111-112) proves that gentrification has negative impacts on the community. First, displacement means homelessness and unaffordable housing property. Rent also increases, which discriminates poor individuals. The cost of services increases similar with crime and the psychological cost of relocation. Moreover, the source of livelihood is also affected due to the relocation process for individuals who work in the city. Since all the services and housing rent increase, they have no other choices but to be displaced. Ejik (2010, p.169) has associated state-led gentrification to the trend of suburbanisation in Europe and US wherein settlers decide whether to stay or move to the city. The government has exerted effort to attract affluent individuals back into the city by promoting the liveliness of the city. Along with the promotion is the reconstruction of houses, which caters to social class and reference of consumers. Aside from offering diverse types of housing, the government provides employment opportunities in the service sector. Since 1990s, the concept of gentrification has transformed into a new shape due to the different interpretation of the scholar. Some have used reindustrialisation and redevelopment, but the introduction of a new concept derived a debate on the issue of what actually is a gentrification. Due to the expansion of gentrification, Lee has expressed its concern on the clarity and sharpness of its definition. With the new version of gentrification called the super-gentrification proposed by Lees, the debate on the broad concept of gentrification continues (Shaw, 2008, pp.1706-1707). According to Lees (2003, p.2490), this term was labelled by Hackworth and Smith as the “third wave” gentrification. Supergentrification has two forms: classic or tradition by which less opulent persons are misplaced geographically, and old houses are renovated aesthetically through the help of builders and interior designers. In examining the case of Barnsburry, London, Butler and Lees (2006, p.469) have used the term supergentrification in describing the scenario of social replacement. Middle class is replaced by an elite class because the trend is marked by the high prices of the housing market in the inner city of London. The term ‘super’ denotes the higher wave of gentrifiers with higher professional and working degree than the previous occupants. This scenario is accentuated in the argument of Smith that gentrification revamps into a globalise and capitalist society. The changes are influenced by the financial sector workers who earn larger amount than ordinary working class. Smith (2002, p.427) added that gentrification is perceived as a global urban strategy that “replaces liberal urban policy in cities of the advanced capitalist world.” Instead of transforming social production, Smith argued that the new concept of gentrification aims for capitalist production. The concept of super-gentrification is contested by Redfern where he formulated a new approach by arguing that the plausible factor for gentrification to exist is caused by deteriorating price of domestic technologies. In addition, the debate on the supply and demand are two issues that incorporate in his study. Supply constitutes the “availability of improvable housing,” while demand entails the “anxiety among the population about their identity and status’ (Goworowska, 2008, p.21). Another example of third wave gentrification is the new build gentrification. It is characterised by constructing newly residential areas such as apartment and other comfortable housing estates. In the concept of new build gentrification, the developers look for ‘brownfield sites or vacant land’ where they do not relocate low income groups. The mere fact that new build gentrification is manifested in the structuration and development of barren land into residential areas produced conflicting views among sociologists. Based on the four elements of gentrification, the key word is reinvestment. New build gentrification should not be considered as a new form of gentrification because the developers sell the developed residential areas to consumers. Consumers tend to live in a different style of urban living. Furthermore, the occurrence of displacement in the new build gentrification is not possible since the developers construct houses in a vacant land where no social classes existed. Lamber and Boody believe that new build gentrification altered the developer’s process of selling assets or property. Davidson and Lees (2005, p.1169) answered the queries of Lambert and Boody with regard to the concept of new build gentrification. The authors asserted that gentrification occurs because the capital is reinvested by the developers and consumers. The developers market the newly build houses to high-wage earners who can afford this urban lifestyle. In marketing, developers prioritise the advertising of gentrification by persuading people to live in a class and luxurious environment. Thus, developers apply art and beauty to attract consumers. Moreover, development is associated with the third element that pertains to the landscape. The authors sum that with the marketing activities of developers and architects, they show the gentrification process, which involves the “capital reinvestment, social upgrading, and middle-class colonisation.” Furthermore, Lutzeler (2008, p.288) agrees with the affirmation of the authors that new-build gentrification involves the “displacement of lower income groups,” whether directly or indirectly. When the society changes its ambiance from average prices to high prices, the ordinary wage-earner will be indirectly displaced. However, Walks and Maaranen (2008, p.6) iterate the argument of Baum and Boddy that “infill developments on greyfield sites and the conversion of non-residential spaces into new dwellings do not directly displace existing residents.” Greyfield site is a land area wherein it produces no revenue due to mismanagement. The only consolation to regain profit is to redevelop the land. It violates the common forms of gentrification since the negative impact of gentrification is not evident. Similar with Lutzeler, Marcuse formulates the four types of displacement which indicate that gentrification is not limited to the idea of ‘eviction and rent hike’ because it could happen directly or indirectly. Residents can be forced to move out by their landlords due to the unpredictable environment; others are hindered to enter because of gentrification, and residents could be pressured due to their income. Re-urbanisation is predicted as the future of the city. It is the fourth stage of urbanisation. This term refers to the movement of the entire population from the rural areas to the urban area because of industrialisation. Then, it is replaced by suburbanisation wherein the decline of population growth is rooted from the movement of people to suburbs in order to find a better environment and housing environment. The third stage is the desurbanisation, which invokes the decline in the population growth of suburban. Finally, reurbanisation regenerates and improves the environment including the social and physical aspects (Haase, et al., 2003, p.11). The debate and trends in gentrification persists because scholars have been battling the concept of re-urbanisation. Gentrification is concerned with the spatial relation; that is referring to the social groups or classes. The spatial process describes people as occupants of space. On the other hand, re-urbanisation is a broad concept because of the involvement of population changes. There is an argument that re-urbanisation is a “wider socio-spatial extent than gentrification because it involves a variety of multidirectional flows and socio-demographic strata, rather than the concentrated spatial agency of a specific social class.” The term re-urbanisation is associated with the new labels of gentrification such as ‘revival,’ ‘revitalisation,’ or ‘renaissance.’ Re-urbanisation provides win-win solutions to the problems in the city and considers its socio-spatial conversion, but it does not consider the experiences of low income households and the effects of transformation. Moreover, it describes the changes in the households’ behaviour and the course of their life. The context of re-urbanisation relies on housing demography. The changes in the household’s demography are condensed in the ‘second demographic transition.’ It provides the detailed structure of the alteration in the population of urban areas. The transition starts from the deterioration of fertility including the “postponement of marriage and increased cohabitation, later age of childbearing, increase in divorce and couple separation, and increase in single-parent families” (Haase, et al., 2003, p.10). The shift in the pattern of individual’s behaviour is shaped by social factors such as the trend of individualism, the rising power of feminism, and the driving force of self-fulfillment. The social factors lead to the direction of people’s choices in the way they live. The concept of reurbanisation is similar with gentrification process such as new neighbors, vibrant inner city, livable environment, sustainable, and socially mixed residents. Re-urbanisation is perceived by scholars as a term that denotes the meaning of displacement. The controversial effect of displacement is coined as ‘replace’ due to the emergence of revitalisation and renaissance policies. However, Haase, et al. (2010, p.447) identified the distinctiveness of re-urbanisation from gentrification. Indeed, it aims for the sustainability of the physical environment. Its goal is similar with gentrification in creating traffic for middle class households, but re-urbanisation differs due to its focus on the functionality of residents in the decline of population growth, which influenced by a “variety of residential groups.” The household demographics cater to the “age, social, lifestyle, and income groups,” which are called reurbanites. In response to the debates on gentrification, the rent gap theory supports the argument on the issue in land rent, which is referenced to the Marxist economic theory. The theory states that residential areas experience disinvestment in the long run due to its obsolete infrastructure. To increase the house rent, the residential areas must undergo reconstruction and redevelopment to utilise the land area for capitalism. Therefore, when the city is constructed that is ideal for elite class, then the house rent will also increase, which encourages for potential investors (Hammel, 1999, p.1284). However, Ley (2003) used the principle of Hamnett and Zukin that the consequence of gentrification is driven by the social and cultural process. The changes in the physical environment are driven by artist’s appreciation of art or the aesthetic beauty that can be seen in the cultural aspect. This view is in contrast of the rent gap theory that caters to the economic principle. Furthermore, the wider concept of gentrification as driven by the social and cultural process is represented in its ‘hip factor’ that refers to the ““cool, bohemian, arty tribes who occupy the cafes, galleries and cycle paths.” They are the image of a creative environment, which settles for a comfortable lifestyle. The physical environment changes due to gentrification. Slater (2006, p.738) views it as a “sign of a healthy economic present and future for cities across the globe.” It may be that the author stresses the importance of the physical environment to pass the global standards. Wealth is associated with beautification; hence, if the physical environment is beautiful, vibrant, energetic, or lively, there is no doubt that people live in comfort. This is similar with the notion that gentrification is the result of the social process, which defines the built environment. Hence, the physical environment defines the social status of individuals that is shaped by the social process. Anheier and Isar (2011) affirm that globalisation leads to the commercialisation of residential areas. However, gentrification is not only applicable to the restructuring of housing properties, but it includes offices and retail services. Thus, even business establishment has evolved into the process of gentrification. The capitalist view desires to boost the competition in the city, so it aims for development. The commercialisation of gentrification begins with the improvement of the building’s structure. The retail service and offices are also redeveloped to maintain a competitive advantage. This scenario belongs to the third wave form of gentrification. In sum, the traditional gentrification refers to the process of displacing ordinary working class individuals and allowing invasion of middle-class group. The description has changed and evolved, which created a debate on the trends of gentrification process. Gentrification is correlated with revitalisation, renaissance, and residentialisation. Moreover, displacement is named as professionalism. The alteration of this concept is due to the negative impact of gentrification to the working class. Furthermore, sociology explains that the new label signifies the scholar’s knowledge and their understanding on the concept. It is given that individuals have different interpretations, which result to arguments. Second, gentrification has different forms. It involves state-led gentrification, super-gentrification, new build gentrification, reurbanisation, and the hip factor. Despite the association, these forms might have distinctive characteristic from the traditional gentrification. Start-led gentrification is aimed at redeveloping and restructuring the physical environment of residential area. The development process is applied to achieve the Keynesian concept on capitalism and entrepreneurship. It has a positive impact on the economic aspect of society, but the most affected are the less fortunate people who will be homeless. Moreover, super-gentrification denotes the extreme changes in the social geography. The working class is replaced by professional workers with high salary, which can afford the expensive housing rent and other services. This is driven by Marxism principle or the capitalist view. New build gentrification receives criticism on its process. The argument focuses on the displacement method of individuals since new build characterises developing a barren land. Displacement occurs indirectly or directly under different circumstances. Furthermore, re-urbanisation is a broad concept because it caters to the housing demography. The demographic factors are influenced by changes in the social. Lastly, the hip factor refers to the commercialisation of retail services, residential, and office areas. References Anheier, H. & Isar, Y.R., 2011. Heritage, memory and identity. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Atkinson, R., 2004. The evidence on the impact of gentrification: new lessons for the urban renaissance. European Journal of Housing Policy, 4 (1), pp.107-131. Bridge, G. & Watson, S. eds., 2010. The Blackwell city reader. 2nd ed. UK: Blackwell Publishing. Butler, T. & Lees, L., 2006. Super-gentrification in Barnsbury, London: globalization and gentrifying global elites at the neighborhood level. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, pp.467-487. Clarke, D.B. Doel, M.A. & Housiaux, K.M.L., 2003. The consumption reader. New York: Routledge. Criekingen, M.V., 2010. ‘Gentrifying the re-urbanisation debate’, not vice versa: the uneven socio-spatial implications of changing transitions to adulthood in Brussels. Population, Space and Place, 16 (5), pp.381-394. Davidson, M., 2008. Spoiled mixture: where does state-led ‘positive’ gentrification end? Urban Studies, 45 (12), pp.2385-2405. Davidson, M. & Lees, L., 2005. New build ‘gentrification’ and London’s riverside renaissance. Environment and Planning, 37, pp.1165-1190. Davidson, M. & Lees, L., 2010. New-build gentrification: its histories, trajectories, and critical geographies. Population, Space, and Place, 16 (5), pp.395-411. Ejik, G.V., 2010. Unequal networks: spatial segregation, relationships and inequality in the city. Netherlands: IOS Press. Goworowska, J., 2008. Gentrification, displacement and the ethnic neighborhood of Greenpoint, Brroklyn. USA: University of Oregon. Haase, A. Steinfuhrer, A. & Kabisch, S., 2003. Understanding hypotheses and key indicators of reurbanisation with reference to demographic change. Europe: Center for Environmental Research. Haase, A. et al., 2010. Emergent spaces of reurbanisation: exploring the demographic dimension of inner-city residential change in a European setting. Population, Space and Place, 16, pp.443-463. Hammel, D.J., 1999. Re-establishing the rent gap: an alternative view of capitalised land rent. Urban Studies, 36 (8), pp.1283-1293. He, S., 2007. State-sponsored gentrification under market transition: the case of Shanghai. Urban Affairs Review, 43 (2), pp.171-198. Lees, L., 2003. Super-gentrification: the case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City. Urban Studies, 40 (12), pp.2487-2509. Ley, D., 2003. Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification. Urban Studies, 40 (12), pp.2527-2544. Lutzeler, R., 2008. Population increase and “new-build gentrification” in Central Tokyo. Erdkunde, 62 (4), pp.287-299. Palen, J.J. & London, B., 1984. Gentrification, displacement, and neighborhood revitalization. USA: University of New York Press. Parker, S., 2004. Urban theory and the urban experience: encountering the city. New York: Routledge. Porter, L. & Shaw, K., 2009. Whose urban renaissance?: an international comparison of urban regeneration strategies. New York: Routledge. Rerat, P. Soderstrom, O. & Piguet, E., 2009. New forms of gentrification: issues and debates. Population, Space and Place, 16 (5), pp.335-343. Shaw, K., 2008. Gentrification: what it is, why it is, and what can be done about it. Geography Compass, 2 (5), pp.1697-1728. Slater, T., 2006. The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research. International Journal and Regional Research, 30 (4), pp.737-757. Smith, N., 2002. New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode, 34 (3), pp.427-450. Tallon, A., 2010. Urban regeneration in the UK. New York: Rouledge. Walks, A.R. & Maaranen, R., 2008. The timing, patterning, & forms of gentrification & neighborhood upgrading in Montreal, Toronto, & Vancouver. Canada: Center for the Urban and Community Studies. Read More