Browse by title
Edited by Joanne Dolley and Caryl Bosman
Edited by Joanne Dolley and Caryl Bosman
Cody Hochstenbach and Willem Boterman
In this chapter, it is shown how multiple age groups are involved in different forms of gentrification. It is argued that it is necessary to consider age, life course, and generation in order to understand the increasingly widespread scale at which gentrification and displacement operate. The chapter zooms in on three different age groups in broader gentrification processes: (1) young people, (2) families, and (3) ageing groups. It specifically focuses on the crucial role of life-course transitions, and the cumulative experiences and residential trajectories of particular generations. It also considers the political economy of life course and shows how as gentrification has become mainstream it becomes an ever more likely outcome of the negotiation of various life-course transitions. Developers recognise this and jump on those niche markets for profitable speculative housing development, and lure those households deemed desirable.
The intention in this chapter is not to champion or prescribe certain models or practices as ideal types or as cure-alls for gentrification, but instead to explore current progressive community-based alternatives to housing provision and land ownership and stewardship as methods to challenge local scale gentrification processes and encourage community self-determination. Through the study of community land trusts and ecovillages in cities, the chapter demonstrates how individuals and communities, largely at the neighbourhood scale, can engage in alternative practices of everyday urban living and how these may act as aspirational spaces for community-based empowerment and for shaping new urban futures. While not all urban community land trusts and ecovillages identify their rationales and mandates as resisting gentrification, the work of these organizations inherently challenges dominant relations of production and consumption through the de-commodification of housing and land and by acting as collective, participatory spaces for cultivating social and environmental justice and change in everyday life.
Hyun Bang Shin and Ernesto López-Morales
In this chapter, it is argued that gentrification narrowly understood in a fossilised way, e.g., gentrification equated with its classic form in 1960s London, is not a useful barometer through which to evaluate the experiences of gentrification beyond the Anglo-American examples that have dominated the literature to date. Comparative gentrification studies in recent years have taught us the importance of de-centring the production of knowledge, incorporating emergent contextual discussions from elsewhere, and adhering to relational perspectives in order to understand how gentrification interacts with other local processes and discourses. The chapter asserts that the de-centring of gentrification studies requires researchers to pay more careful attention to the historicity of urbanisation and urban contestation. It also requires researchers to accept that gentrification may look completely different in places and societies researchers do not yet know about or yet work in/on.
Freek de Haan
This chapter argues for a relational approach to looking at the chaotic problem of gentrification. It rejects attempts to generalise gentrification, to link local and global, and earlier work on complementarity in gentrification theorizing; rather, it makes the case for a more earthly gentrification embedded in relational approaches such as assemblage, actor-network and intra-action theory, which it is hoped might open up new epistemic and methodological avenues for research on gentrification. Different from traditional approaches to gentrification, these radically relational theories are not predicated on the ‘internal relations’ of parts, wholes, scales and their contradictory dialectics but on ‘relations of exteriority’, which have a life of their own, reducible to neither parts nor wholes. It suggests an epistemological strategy of ‘counter-actualization’ and applies it to some very familiar themes of gentrification.
As gentrification studies entered the C21st some authors proclaimed that gentrification had gone global and was now a generalised urban phenomenon. More recently a small number of urban geographers have become interested in investigating this claim using ideas from the supposedly ‘new’ comparative urbanism literature that has arisen in geography and beyond. Focusing on the relevance of this ‘new’ comparative urbanism for researching gentrification around the world, this chapter argues that the comparative urbanism literature is fashionable right now for a number of reasons, that it has good potential for a truly global gentrification studies, but that there is much theoretical, conceptual and especially methodological progress that needs to be made. There are also other issues to attend to, for in gentrification studies it is important to consider and resist the neglect and marginalization of those people being socially cleansed; that is, displaced from cities worldwide, not simply the neglect and marginalization of cities in the Global South in (northern) urban theory.