This chapter argues that immigration has all but been ignored in gentrification studies. The chapter proposes a fivefold typology of immigrant-gentrification relationships based on global cases: (1) immigrants as barriers to gentrification; (2) immigrants living side-by-side with gentrification, essentially a bubble model; (3) immigrants displaced by gentrification; (4) immigrants avoid gentrified areas a priori; and (5) immigrants are themselves gentrifiers, enclave-style. The fivefold typology holds value as a heuristic tool, building on stage models of gentrification. The potentially globe-spanning agent – the immigrant –moves us beyond merely considering gentrification as a globally mobile policy strategy, anchored in global cities and articulated by cosmopolitan subjects to considering the extralocal and the ‘elsewhere’. The chapter presents a case study of Koreatown in Los Angeles.
This chapter shows that the process of ‘new-build gentrification’ has proliferated over the globe during the past two decades. It shows that new-build gentrification takes radically different forms across place and time and produces a variety of neighbourhood class-based transformations. The process is traced through its defining features but it is argued that there are many aspects of this still-emerging process that we know too little about: a detailed account of the forms and evolution of new-build gentrification within and across contexts is yet to be written; existing work on comparative perspectives has failed to develop persuasive typologies of new-build gentrification; and we know too little about the varied forms and combinations of displacement associated with new-build gentrification. There is also a growing need to examine how new-build gentrification became a part of the broader urbanization process under neoliberal capitalism.
This chapter looks at ‘environmental gentrification’, also called ecological gentrification or green gentrification, and how it leads to the marginalization, exclusion, or displacement of vulnerable residents and community members as a result of sustainability planning or urban greening efforts. A mainstream perception is that sustainability and greening initiatives provide benefits to all residents across the city, and further, that they will address environmental justice concerns by benefitting those who have suffered the greatest environmental burdens. This chapter argues otherwise and shows how these initiatives tend to raise property values and attract wealthier and whiter residents. Low-income residents, homeless residents, tenants in informal housing, and people of colour have found themselves excluded from the benefits of these new environmental amenities and vulnerable to unintended, yet negative, consequences, such as residential, commercial, or industrial displacement. The chapter also looks at how communities and residents are addressing this dilemma in urban greening and sustainability.
The relationship between non-normative sexualities and urban development is the focus of this chapter. The vast majority of the literature on sexuality in cities has focused on the Global North, especially Anglo-American cities in North America, Europe, and Australia, but it is evident that this is a more planetary issue. The chapter thinks through the diversity of same-sex attraction across the globe by reviewing and updating discussions in gentrification studies and beyond. Non-normative sexualities as both the pioneers of and victims of gentrification, including the demise of the gayborhood, are central debates. The chapter concludes that the complex ways in which capital and sexual orientation interact remain incompletely understood and that further research is needed on the relationship between non-normative sexualities and gentrification.
This chapter considers how property and planning law in England facilitates gentrification but importantly can also be used to resist and counter gentrification. Asking legal questions is crucial to understanding how gentrification happens wherever it is taking place. It is often the same legal mechanisms – leases, licences, planning permissions – as well as key legal absences – rent regulation, security of tenure or compulsory financial contributions to communities – that facilitate gentrification. Western concepts of property and land use have travelled extraordinarily well. As comparative gentrification studies illustrate, there are different ways of doing property and regeneration (including ethical landlordism, rent controls, security of tenure, state-led construction of affordable housing, community public spaces, social retail ventures, to name just a few) and we need to identify and publicise these. We need a ‘more contoured knowledge’ of cities and this applies to legal knowledge as well. The chapter argues that we can – and should – look for legal concepts that act as alternatives to the standard Western incidents of property and planning practices to inform calls for change.
This chapter argues that class struggles need rent gap theory. Rent gap theory helps open up questions of resistance and nudges the conversation in the direction of what cities might look like without the structural and institutional forces producing gentrification. From the research that is available, and still emerging, it seems to be the case that rent gap theory has a lot to teach us about gentrification in the Global South, and is far from ‘less than adequate in much of the world’. The research evidence on planetary gentrification points to the growing importance of secondary circuits of accumulation and the planetary shift to rentier extraction and what might be termed the robbery of value, rather than the production of value. Asset pursuit and asset stripping, via land grabbing and evictions, is a hallmark of contemporary urbanization and shows little sign of retreating on a planetary scale. It is argued that it is not ‘seeing like a capitalist’ to consider rent gap theory in radically different contexts, nor is it an act of intellectual imperialism to do so, as long as one theory does not shut out the possibility of developing new theories which may teach us even more.
Sandra Annunziata and Clara Rivas-Alonso
This chapter offers a detailed and critical review of literatures on resistance to gentrification. It looks at the strategies that have been enacted, both visible or overt and invisible or covert, opening up the tricky question of what counts (and what does not) as resistance to gentrification. In so doing it highlights the much less considered value of invisible practices of resistance: the non-politicised, covert, unintentional, informal, and deliberately invisible practices of everyday life that draw on different perceptions of time and survival, the negotiation of ambiguity and mobilization of invisibility. The chapter discusses what resistance is and what we might mean by resistance specifically in the field of gentrification studies. Is anti-gentrification resistance about the creation of alternatives or simply a series of oppositional, defensive practices? How can we evaluate if resistance has been successful? The chapter concludes that the visibility of resistance and counter collective knowledge production central in anti-gentrification practices might not be that useful after all in spaces where informality, ambiguity and invisibility have become some of the best strategies through which to resist the assault of displacement.
This chapter argues for increased attention to be paid to retail gentrification, or what some call ‘boutiquification’, defined here as involving the up-scaling of shops and related businesses, and the concomitant displacement of the local stores and services on which working class residents rely. Drawing mainly on UK and US examples, and foregrounding questions of fashion, style and taste, the chapter stresses the role retail change has in changing the ‘atmosphere’ of a neighbourhood, instigating displacement pressures that weigh most heavily on the poorest and most vulnerable, ultimately encouraging the colonisation of inner city districts by middle class, consumer values. While the majority of studies focus on shops as spaces fulfilling residents’ economic needs, i.e. providing affordable foodstuffs, in this chapter the role that shops play in working class and ethnic communities as spaces of sociality and generosity is also considered.
This chapter argues that it is time to reconsider the gender–gentrification nexus. Gentrification is a product of, and invariably involves changes in gender relations and the production of gender inequalities. Despite the expanding literature on gentrification, our knowledge on its relation to gender constitution remains limited. The chapter critically reviews the literature on gender and gentrification from the early 1980s up to today. The literature moved on usefully from considering simply the role of women in gentrification to understanding gentrification as part of gender constitution; that is, from a categorical understanding of gender to conceptualizing gender as a set of social relations that are fundamentally structured by power relations in society. Pinpointing the gaps in our knowledge regarding the nexus of gender and gentrification, the chapter calls for a comparative and intersectional approach in investigating gendered geographies of gentrification. It concludes by underlining the need for feminist engagement with knowledge production about gentrification, as well as feminist praxis to contest gendered inequalities and dispossessions involved in gendered geographies of gentrification.