Talk:Gentrification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Gentrification, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs of Before-and-after image(s) of any building or area that underwent gentrification be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Numerous examples get tiresome and repetitive

The article now has nine examples (totalling 807 words) of cities where artist-led gentrification has taken place, even though the processes are almost identical in every single city, and *all* are written as anecdote. Over a thousand words are spilled on the two "examples", neither of which is particularly instructive. ALL of these would, IMO, be better placed in the Wikipedia entries about those specific neighborhoods, which, after all, is where people will go to find out about their neighborhood's history; if people want to make sure that their neighborhood is known far and wide as an example of gentrification, then this article can include a very brief set of links to those neighborhoods' articles. Paytonc 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. People like to throw in their own cities as "me-too"s. I've been watching this page grow example by example for a while. A pruning is in order. I would say leave an example or two as illustration, and get rid of the rest. DarwinPeacock 04:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Double-plus agreed. Such articles should link back and forth rather than having to be long, self-contained blobs of information. Eyedubya (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gay men?

(section was restored, so I've removed discussion of its prior removal. Paytonc 21:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Regarding the same section, why is it specifically devoted by title to only homosexual males when most of the description relevant to the article can be applied to either sex, and around half of it is. Perhaps it would be better renamed to simply 'gay wave' or something? If males indeed make up the vast majority of the gentrification force pertaining to homosexuals, maybe it could be mentioned directly and briefly explained. Perhaps even the segments exclusivley related to males could be condensed into one paragraph?--72.73.242.52 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

actually, the literature referred to in the section does indicate that gentrification is more closely linked to gay men than lesbians. I'm not aware of any particular research proving why, but many have speculated that gay men have higher incomes and "stronger 'herding' tendencies," to put it slightly crudely. Paytonc 21:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
IIRC there's been a fair amout of research about this. I'd have to go looking to find articles, which I can't do at this second, but what I remember reading in some journal article a year or two ago is that while gay men tend to cling together in neighbourhoods, lesbians tend more to live much more discreetly. (I should also note that, obviously, not ALL gay men live in 'gay villages'; what's more is that there has historically been lots of dispute within the community about whether such spaces are actually positive developments or not. But that's a whole different can of worms!) --Edisk 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've come across this too, the first wave of gentrifyers can often be gay men and women according to what I read. But we need sources people! Bjrobinson 11:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's news to me! In Milwaukee's Brewers' Hill, the first wave was young working-class couples (mostly but not all hetero), who put a lot of sweat equity into their houses. Some, but by no means all, of the second wave (buying from the first wave) were gay males, but not noticably so. I think it extremely unwise to broadly generalize like this. --Orange Mike 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As an overview, is it really crucial that such an elaborate discourse on sexuality be involved? As an urban planning student I think that the article would be much improved if it included explanations of issues concerning gentrification and affordable housing or homelessness or a million other things really. I also don't really understand why it was so important to note that gentrification brings greater tolerance for sexual minorities to neighborhoods. That seems like a stretch to me. Can you really say a neighborhood has become more tolerant just because most of the original residents have moved out and been replaced with gay men and women?

[edit] North East London

"Gentrification is intertwined with change; not only do the buildings, themselves, undergo renovation and beautification, but so too do the people, as such neighbourhoods often see an influx of highly educated, highly skilled, and highly paid residents moving in."

Is it really appropriate to suggest, as this sentence does, that "highly educated, highly skilled and highly paid" people are more beautiful than the previous residents?

Haha! Kent Wang 04:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the continuing, and likely accelerated gentrification of north east London with the newly awarded 2012 Olympics? Many news articles are saying the games will allow London to "renovate the third poorest borough in England". By renovate, it's pretty accepted they mean drive out the poor people and replace them with middle class people and then say "look, we renovated a poor area. Aren't we clever." Meanwhile, all the displaced people will have moved to Lambeth or something. AnonymousCoward

That's just silly left-wing prejudice that disregards the facts. The Olympic sites are on derelict railway and industrial land. The social housing will remain, and indeed the quantity of it will increase. There will also be some middle class people where there were very few, which is a good thing. Bhoeble 23:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leftwing bias?

Anyone else think this article needs a "right of center" view on it? I'm not a righty, but it would help to balance it out a bit. --TheDoober 05:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Is it really appropriate to suggest, as this sentence does, that "highly educated, highly skilled and highly paid" people are more beautiful than the previous residents?"

If you read carefully, the statement in question decribes the attractiveness of the buildings, not their residents.

TheDoober

"...not only do the buildings, themselves, undergo renovation and beautification, but so too do the people,"


I'm sorry, TheDoober, but the 'so too do the people' makes it explicitly clear that 'beautification' is describing the people as well as the buildings.

--CC ¡ that's because poor people are ugly


Long before Ruth Glass coined "gentrification," the French referred to "embourgeoisement." I'll find a reference. paytonc

I thought the first section had a somewhat rightwing bias. It completely skirted the issue of developers and landlords, who are the main beneficiaries of gentrificaiton, and very eager to push for gentrification. It also avoided the very real politics required to get City Hall to go along with the plans. 66.245.214.161 21:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, good people could never benefit from gentrification. When an economically disadvantaged individual buys a home in a cheap high crime area only because they had no other choice, and then tough luck, the value of their investment increases ten fold, that's bad.

And when a poor rentor in the city is forced to move 20 miles away from their job and take up a car payment which they can hardly afford just to get to work and keep a roof over their family's head this benefits Jesus's country. Fuck all property owners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.255.6 (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I couldn't even get past the section titled Globalization. Talk about long winded unreadable irrelevant nonsense.

Yeah and those good economically disadvantaged people are usually forced to sell their house as they can't afford the rising property tax. If they're lucky they'll have enough to pay off their current mortgage and just enough left over to put a down payment on another house in a crappy neighborhood. WOW, good for them aren't they lucky! Are you really so dense or are you just being daft?
Please sign your comments and refrain from ad hominem against other contributors. --Rocketfairy 15:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just want to point out that when one buys a house for $70,000 in a bad neighborhood and sells it for $350,000 after it has been gentrified, one has far more left over from the sale ($280,000 + equity built up) to move to a non-crappy neighborhood even paying high property taxes for a few years prior to the sale. Uris 20:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a heavy use of the terms of "bourgeoisie". This makes it difficult to assess the NPOV of this article as the word has such left-wing tones to it. There is heavy use of Marxist (as defined by the article) theories without a counterbalance, or if there is, it is not described as such, and no setting out as if it were, with contrasting views. Wee Jimmy 23:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I admit to using "bourgeois" in the article. Unfortunately, I can't think of any other good way to signify something that means something more complicated than "middle class" in English. "Middle class" is utterly meaningless in the USA, since everyone considers themselves such; a technical definition of "bourgeois" (owner of capital, either of physical capital or human capital) does clearly get there. BTW, I may talk like a Marxist sometimes but certainly see both sides of gentrification very clearly. Paytonc 08:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a moderate liberal when it come to most things but I just don't understand the negativity to this idea of "gentrification." In the 2 cities I have lived in. San Antonio, and Austin Texas if you watch the local news every once in a while there will be a story on how community leaders in an impoverished area of town are begging for developers to build nice things, like clothing and book stores and more upscale restaurants near their neighborhoods. But this article make it sounds like the worst thing that could ever happen to a crappy rundown neighborhood is people investing in it and making it better(building such venues as stated before). These things then raise property values in the neighborhood. Effectively making the owners more wealthy without a similar jump in income, which with property taxes could drive them out of their home, but this naturally means at a profit. So they should simply move a few blocks/miles away and they can enjoy the low cost of living they are used to and have access to the amenities that they have lacked fro sometimes decades. So while it seems that there could be some things that are bad about having a neighborhood increase in value, it can't be worse then the alternative of having people living in slums in that area. There also seems to be some very racist attitudes here, namely that white people are bad for moving into a neighborhood where black people live. As if they are coming in with guns and kicking blacks out of their homes. Anyway almost every single NYC related article (to where I am moving soon and wished to do some research) linked to this word and I wanted to figure out what the heck it meant. --Dave1g 23:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentrification benefits:
  • Owners who sell (financially)
  • Cities that suddenly have a tax base again
  • Public Schools (potentially) since these are funded off property taxes
  • Businesses in the area
  • Urbanists who want to see cities at their prime
  • Tourists
  • Economy in the area
Gentrification hurts:
  • Renters
  • Owners not wanting to move
  • Families/people with small (or negative) disposible incomes (i.e. those living at or below poverty line)

"Good" and "bad" are normative statements and the overall effect to all people affected is not so simple as either of these. It moves poverty around. Excellent example: Philadelphia and Camden. Those who could no longer afford to live in Philadelphia moved to Camden, now known for its high crime rate. --Loodog 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Thank you Loodog for posting that. It would be nice if such a simplified table were in the actual article, it really clears things up. It makes me wonder though if there would be a way to allow people to stay if they wish to, even if they cant afford the taxes. For instance instead of receiving taxes now the taxing entity could contract with the owner to apply the taxes accrued in the present(due to higher property values) to the sale of the home when it is eventually sold? Perhaps with some sort of fancy financing or a clause that forces the house to be sold at the latest at the death of the owner. I realize that wouldn't help the children(often grown and moved out by this point), but aren't typically the people who don't want to move the types that have lived there for a large portion of their lives and therefore have a lot of sentimental value in the home thus the reason they don't want to move. This being the case they must be at least middle aged in 20-50 years the house will be sold at some amazing profit, at which point the taxing entity could collect its back due taxes. Also what about relocation services to help the owner find a suitable place for their income while easing the transition and hopefully improving the quality of home they live in at the same time. Investment services to help manage the money from the profit of the sale to create an additional permanent (fixed?) income for the previous owner Such as tax free US/State/Municipal bonds. Of course none of these ideas help the renters, I will leave that problem to some one else I guess. Also I like the idea of the multipurpose rezoning part of the article. Forcing developers to provide housing units at a variety of income levels to have more diverse residents. --Dave1g 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you figure out a way for allow people to stay, you're essentially intentionally undervaluing your city's realty, which 1) deprives you of funds you could otherwise get and 2) potentially creates shortages in the market, raising prices further in the area. Rent-controls are an example of this: anyone currently renting in an area can continue to rent for the same price, by law. This is still in effect in parts of Manhattan, and also were briefly instituted in Boston. Some people blame Boston's current high cost of living on this. Everything's a mixed bag. The problem is economics and consumer preferences have no regard for what might be called "demographic justice". If people suddenly have the desire to live in an area, and they're willing and able to pay more than the current occupants (maybe not even aware of this), you get straight supply and demand.
I've heard of so-called inclusionary zoning, where you tell a developer that for every x units he builds, he has to make y low-income units. My guess is the low-income units are either less appealing (i.e. smaller and less shine), or the city must be subsidizing them. Personally, I'm a fan of this, as mixing low-income households with high-income households really benefits everyone (especially the kids).--Loodog 03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scare quotes

From the "Hipsters and Artists as part of the Gentrification Process" section:

In the case of cities like New York City, groups of "pioneers" (usually artists) moved out to areas such as Park Slope or Williamsburg (in Brooklyn) or Hoboken, New Jersey, which were once "run-down, inner-city neighborhoods," because Manhattan had become prohibitively expensive to live in. These areas become desirable to yuppies and other hipsters because of their "bohemian flair", thus beginning gentrification and increasing property values and rents. This forces the very people who helped to make these places "unique" and "different" to move out to adjacent areas (such as Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn or Jersey City, New Jersey), where the process continues.

The number of scare quotes here is ridiculous. I'm guessing "run-down, inner-city neighborhoods," "bohemian flair," "unique," and "different," aren't actually real quotes, and if they are, they need to be cited. They're not slang terms that need to be explained, either. These are scare quotes, and as such, are used to indicate that the writer is disaproving, or at least is going out of her way to disclaim her use of these terms. It's got a very clear POV. --Ben.c 18:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

-- Also, they don't really bring the issue of racism and classism up. They just dance around the issue. 66.245.214.161 22:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

--For the whole scare quotes number, I don't think they're actually using quotes, but that they meant to slight the term they were using.

--I'd like to point out that artists and writers, while certainly not "working class," are still a low-income group; it is my feeling that the only reason they are the forerunners of gentrification is because the upper middle class and yuppies that are actually causing the gentrification are presently attracted to art and artists. If that fashion were to pass (to return, for instance, to the 80s trends, where opulence and insular lifestyles were favored), artists would not be relevant to the discussion. --autrui

[edit] Needs more non-U.S. content

This needs more non-U.S. content. For one thing, the comments about displacing the existing population need to be heavily qualified in a UK context as in most gentrified districts in the UK large amounts of social housing remain. It's the average income people who get squeezed out here, not the poor. Bhoeble 23:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


--I, as a only moderately-worldly US person, was under the impression that gentrification implied a kind of "Europeanization" of the American city. In my reading and experience (limited, of course) it seems that European cities are built with the wealthiest areas closest to the center of the city, and the suburbs are where the poor neighboorhoods are. This obviously has its exceptions, but in the cases of Paris and Berlin, this seems to have been the case for much longer than it has in the U.S. Is this an ancient city-building difference, or did gentrification in Europe simply predate U.S. gentrification? autrui

Ayeum. Tough to say. American cities are supposed to have undergone "white flight" between the 50s and the 80s, only to regain trust as being safe, healthy, stimulating places to live in the late 90s through today. Now that people are moving away from the suburbs and frequently to the former "inner-city". Does that help?Yeago 18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for that? Last I checked, for "the big cities" outmigration to the suburbs (for native born) exceeded inmigration to cities, with the notable exceptions of foreign-born and 20-35 year-olds. Paytonc 06:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for that? =)Yeago 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Go read the opening lines of white flight for starts. Its not a very controversial picture of American housing.Yeago 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
See pages 13, 21, and 25 of this [[1]] report: not only large central cities, but their counties and metro areas are continuing to experience high levels of domestic outmigration. Also, most American cities are vastly larger in area than their European counterparts. Paytonc 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Instant Gentrification"

This paragraph needs some clean-up. It uses an example of "New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina" before any such thing has happened there, which makes it a bad example, and one that i think needs to be removed. Futhermore, it doesn't seem that this would be gentrification at all, as no one currently lives there (it's under water at the time being). It'll be rebuilding. Can the author point to another example to illustrate this point? Is this different from city development in blighted areas (where eminent domain has classically been allowed)? In general, this paragraph is not terribly informative, and needs some serious work.

[edit] Sorry, I'm new here...

I hope I haven't violated protocol by editing the entry as I saw fit-- I realized afterward that discussion first would have been appropriate. I like the entry overall-- it is one of the only rhetoric-free (more or less) definitions of the term I've ever seen anywhere. I think my additions about race shouldn't be too controversial...

--jrg

That's fine. Your edits may wind up being changed, but what you said wasn't wrong and was in good faith, so as far as I'm concerned it's welcome. It may get changed, but that's how things improve. Thanks. —BenFrantzDale

[edit] Hipsters, musicians, artists and bohemians as part of the gentrification process

I changed this to "Trendsetters..." but an anonymous user has changed it back. Aside from being ridiculously long, what is this heading saying? What exactly is a "hipster" or "bohemian" in the context of modern New York City or any other city? This is not encyclopedic language and hasn't been current since 1959 except in an ironic or derogatory sense. Further, the section uses "hippify" and "yuppie" both of which are also outdated slang. Last, why are gay whites singled out for their influence in a separate section? How are they not also hip and artistic? --Tysto 16:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, there has been African-American gentrification in New York's Harlem neighborhood, as young African-American "trendsetter" types from similar middle class backgrounds as their white counterparts have moved to that area, which in many cases their parents or grandparents had fled in the 1960s. I am not sure about the social impact of this.

I think the better question is - how *are* gay whites "hip" and "artistic"? Last time I checked, being gay was more about sexuality than about whether you frequent the "cool" clubs and read artsy magazines. There has been extensive research about gays (particularly gay white men, but gay men of colour and lesbians have also participated - there is just not as much research about those groups) and their effect on gentrification. The article already cites Castells, who pioneered research in this field.
I would also like to see more about African American gentrification in Harlem. I don't know if there's been any research out there about the effect of this on displacement, etc. Darkcore 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Young white people have no monopoly on gentrification, although the process in the USA is often intertwined with their presence. Middle-aged or older people (as with suburban "mansionization" described below, or the development of Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities in small cities like Winter Park, Fla.), people of color (like wealthy African Americans in Kenwood, Chicago), immigrants (like Chinese immigrants in San Gabriel, Calif. or Colombian immigrants in Kendall, Fla.), and other non-hip, non-trendy groups can instigate gentrification ("neighborhood succession associated with upward shift in socioeconomic status"). Paytonc 03:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC) This section is poorly written compared to the preceding "reasons" section, and doesn't do anything to improve on the discussion of young service workers there. If it offered a theory (say, that young metropolitan service workers with high cultural capital but little physical capital ["hipsters" in slang parlance] often seek locations convenient to CBDs, displacing residents with less overall capital; they, in turn are displaced by those with more physical capital), then it'd be potentially useful. Otherwise, I'd combine the hipster & gay sections into one section on "urban pioneers" (the word is so often used in the mainstream media that I find no reason to avoid its use here) belonging to various substrata of the bourgeoisie and their role in creating a social milieu acceptable to the bourgeoisie. One theory I've seen divides the bourgeois newcomers into three groups based on their acceptance of urban risks like crime or low-achievement schools: the "risk-oblivious" go first, followed by "risk-aware," and finally the "risk-averse." Paytonc 06:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, "hipster" and "yuppie" are commonly used to denote a specific group of people (at least here in New York City) so I don't really understand how that is "outdated slang." While I agree that the heading is long (and the section needs to be rewritten), artists and musicians (and not "trendsetters" whatever that vague term is supposed to mean) have long been considered pioneers in gentrification because of their need for a lot of space and their limited income. Later, other young people come in (students, professionals just out of school), attracted by the arts culture and the diversity of the community, as well as low rents. Before long, the hipsters and yuppies move in, which consequently attracts retail and other services to cater to the changing demographic.
Trendsetters is too vague and meaningless as a term - there are a number of different actors involved in gentrification and it is not necessarily about "trendiness." Darkcore 05:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it should be retitled to "The Role of Marginal White Workers in Reconstructing Space". Basically, it's the marginal white workers who are doing this "pioneering". (That word is pretty appropriate. White pioneers helped kill the Indians so the other whites could settle the land.) They create the "safe space" and the appearance of white power in a "gentrifying" community. They do things like use the police to harrass the older residents, so they feel unwelcome. They "illegalize" marginal people of color and poor people.
This, of course, ignores the role of developers, politicians, and tax credits. The entire process is prefigured by a general policy that is determined to push poor people out of the city, and rewards developers for doing so.
I think trendiness plays a huge part. Is it not the newly trendy parts of town that the gentrification issue brings to question? Certainly, lower income worker communities are being contested, but many of the darlings of the gentrification issue--think Williamsburg--are trendy.
Oh, and howzabout "trend setting hipsters" to end the dispute. =)Yeago 23:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Where I'm from hipsters and gay men are merely subsets of a very diverse group that we call urban pioneers. Many of them are not hip and not gay. There are different reasons for being an urban pioneer, but I suspect that their biggest unifying characteristic is that they are all real estate speculators.

-Another way to look at who "trendsets" is not that they are of a particular life style (hippie, gay, artistic, whatever) but that they are single. They can afford to take a chance and move into a riskier neighborhood because they probably don't have children to worry about.

Okay, folks, enough talk; I took action and introduced "urban pioneers," although always encased in "scare quotes." I detest the term, but couldn't think of a more neutral one. --Paytonc 02:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Urban pioneer is an excellent term. It is common language, and everyone knows what it means. There is nothing offensive about it, and it wouldn't matter if there was.

It's sure offensive to those who live there, and remember what happened to the native inhabitants when the pioneers moved in! It implies a "civilization" versus "savages" mindset. --Orange Mike 13:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
everyone knows what it means What the hell is an urban pioneer?--Loodog 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
New people moving into a depressed neighborhood, buying up the houses and fixing them up; in other words, the frontline of the gentrification process. The underlying metaphor is of the pioneers of 17th-19th century white folks moving into the wilderness and building a new civilization where before were only the scattered primitive huts of the natives; see why the folks already living in neighborhoods where the "urban pioneers" move in find the term offensive? --Orange Mike 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rent Control paragraph

I re-worded the paragraph to be shorter and less biased against rent control. The original paragraph made it sound like rent control causes the dramatic rise in prices, and didn't cite any proof of this. In the two cases mentioned, I think rent control (causing the nubmer of units off the market) didn't have as much an effect on increases in prices than the overall desirability of the areas. I don't think the paragraph is entirely relevant to the issue and should be considered for deletion. 66.245.214.161 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The institution of rent control in West Hollywood, California had nothing to do with gentrification ; it was not an issue in the area east of Fairfax Avenue at the time (i.e. that part closer to Hollywood than to Beverly Hills). The city incorporated in order for rent control to be instituted in the 1980s. Gentrification would not come to eastern West Hollywood until the 1990s. In my opinion, the entire paragraph about rent control being an anti-gentrification tool should be deleted entirely, as gentrification came over a decade after rent control. My friend stan, 17:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(OP here) Now that I think about it, Santa Monica got rent control in the 1970s, partly due to rising land prices, but it wasn't gentrification as it's discussed in the article. Here's a little info: History_of_Santa_Monica,_California. It sounds like it was mostly population increases along the coast causing rising prices. SaMo just had the people who would demand rent control.

I, too, think it's not quite relevant. I at least moved it down to the appropriate "responses" section (it was completely out of place up at the top) and added some language about Boston's repeal of rent control. Paytonc 23:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Renewal

The first section isn't very good. The language isn't tight enough, and it dances around key points.

Describing the suburbs as "Meant primarily to discourage undesirable elements" is absurd if by "undesirable elements" you mean people. Suburbs resulted from changes in transportation and industry, tax policy, population growth, inexpensive housing, etc..

Gentrification is the popular term that describes the process by which working class residents are displaced by wealtheir residents, within a city. Gentrification is often marked by significant cultural differences between the incoming groups and the existing groups, highlighting the difference.

If a specific rental market becomes desirable, building owners attempt to raise rents. They may seek out ways to legally evict existing residents, to rent units at a greater profit to new tenants. Houses and entire streets become "targeted" for renovation. As the influx of new, wealthier residents increases, larger, more expensive real estate development projects begin to make visible, rapid changes to the neighborhood.

A neighborhood homeowners association may form, and become a political force to reshape the neighborhood to their liking. They may seek out a specific designation for their area, to define a clear border between their more expensive neighborhood, and the old neighborhood to which they used to belong. In more extreme cases, the new neighborhood may contract with a private police force to further increase the contrast.

The focus on "hipsters" or "artists" is very "Eurocentric", approaching the entire issue from the perspective of the middle class people who are "moving in". Terms like "pioneers" remind me of the westward expansion, and are offensive. If the artists are the pioneers, then what are the existing residents? Savage Indians? Once the Indians are pushed out, will the "pioneers" say "there was NOBODY here before; there was NO CULTURE" or some other such nonsense?

Also, the essay completely misses the phenomenon of "mansionization" which is somewhat like gentrification, except it's happening in suburban housing tracts that were developed in the 1950s and later. Gentrification is related to postwar suburbanization, because many of the "gentrifiers" are moving from suburbs into the city.

Key issues that are missed include the following:

- Gentrification and Real Estate Prices - 
- Gentrification and the Police - 
- Gentrification and Developers -
- Gentrification and Redevelopment -
- Gentrification and Retail Choice -
- Gentrification and Zoning -
- Gentrification and Public Housing -
- Gentrification and Homeless people -
- Gentrification and Racism -

66.245.214.161 07:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) What about -What keeps Gentrification going?


We must ask ourselves the questions that might lead to real positive change... not simply perpetuate gentrification with a colorful diguise! What can we, the community, do to improve our city, without enevitably gentrifying it? If I improve my city... yuppies will move in, working people will realize the value in thier house is increasing, they'll fix it and then sell it. They'll probly sell it to someone who can afford it, who doesn't work nearby. More crap will be built to accomodate these new people, then the process begins to ecalate into gentrification, yes? Please how do I improve my community and keep out high prices without the authorities calling me a communist?69.160.244.117 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Joey5683

Here is your answer. What you call high prices are actually normal prices. A low price, non-gentrified area sells at a discount because of various urban ills such as violent crime. Remove the ills, and the temporary discount disappears. Rents and taxes will rise. A low income individual who wants to stay should look for ways to make more money. You have to value the positive changes as much as the general public or you're done. (unsigned).
Wow, you're a genius. COMMAND ME.Yeago 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This article and all the discussion behind it is hilarious. Is readability a complete non-issue with wikipedians? How about just deleting every other word?

[edit] Inaccuracies and Omissions

The gentrification entry contains some troubling inaccuracies as well as omissions; I will provide an example of each.

The following statement:

"Whereas Smith and other Marxists often take an approach that vilifies this new middle class as a homogenized, self-centered group who often act without concern for the consequences of their actions or the results of their strive [sic] to gentrify inner-city environs..."

is an egregious if common misinterpretation of Marxian theory in general and Neil Smith's work specifically. It implies that Smith and other Marxists locate the motor force for gentrification in the purported moral failings ("self-centeredness") or cultural characteristics ("homogenization") of the middle class consumers of gentrified housing. This is simply not the case. Smith, like other Marxists, provides a structural critique of gentrification that exposes the political economic forces compelling a variety of actors in the gentrification process (landlords, tenants, banks, the state) to act in particular ways, not a moral critique which attributes gentrification to greed. Capitalists (including developers), to take one example, do not seek to maximize profit because they are "evil" or "heartless" or "selfish" -- as with any other group of people, individual capitalists run the gamut from the generous to the self-serving -- but because they MUST maximize profit in order to remain competitive, and therefore remain capitalists. Smith does not blame the consumers of gentrified housing for the fact of gentrification; nor does he blame gentrification on anyone's moral failings. Quite simply, the question of whether middle class housing consumers are "self-centered" or "homogenous" (what does this even mean?) does not figure into Smith's analysis. While he writes passionately of the brutality often entailed in gentrification-induced displacement, it is a mistake to confuse that passion (and compassion) with explanation. I would recommend that this sentence be removed from the entry. It is not so much a "bias" (although that may be at play here as well, given the favor with which the author of this paragraph looks upon Ley) as an outright inaccuracy, and should not be presented to Wiki readers as a correct interpretation of either Smith's work or Marxist theory in general.

An important omission should also be corrected: gentrification is no longer thought to be restricted to cities. A burgeoning literature on rural gentrification is growing not only in the academy, but in the popular media is well. Scholars in Britain have largely taken the lead in this regard (the work of Martin Phillips is one of many examples), but the phenomenon is an increasing topic of interest in the United States as well. This entry would therefore benefit greatly from a brief discussion of rural gentrification. I would be happy to append a paragraph or two summarizing the salient problems, theories and findings regarding gentrification in the rural arena if the other participants are amenable.

Falada 00:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


I agree (as the author of the Smith part). Thanks for pointing that out and I concur that it should be removed.

User: Scottwhitlock 3 April 2006


I do not beieve that this "urban renewal" takes place in Harlem or in Brooklyn.

[edit] "urban pioneer"

I attempted a reorganization of the article's middle section (hipsters, gay men, a bunch of case studies): bringing the two sections under one umbrella, addressing other groups implicated in the process of gentrification, to provide a theoretical basis for the process (elaborating upon the rather good first section), and to group the various case studies in a clearer manner. This attempted to address the concerns of several under the "scare quotes," "hipsters [etc].", "case studies," and "urban renewal" sections above. However, this was all summarily removed over an objection to the neologism "urban pioneer," which I did not invent (in fact, it comes from Neil Smith) and included a lengthy disclaimer about. I believe, and apparently others as well, that it provides a fair (if politically loaded, which the disclaimer attempted to address) framework for discussing how different subgroups of the bourgeoisie infiltrate neighborhoods over the process of gentrification. I'm going to re-write the middle section and remove two of the three current references to "urban pioneers," leaving one.

Yeago, did you find anything else about my edits objectionable or merely the one phrase? If so, why remove everything? Paytonc 07:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Editonomics.
Before, you extended its use beyond its original context. Its good the article mentions it, however. Until reality comes up with an agreed upon term, we can't either =). Keep up the good work.Yeago 13:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The second version is better. Paytonc 07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "(...) often including members of minority groups"

(As of 02/Aug/2006.) This is a USA-only concern and may have to do with the correlation between poverty and minority status, especially African Americans in the Northern half of the USA. Elsewhere, gentrification does not necessarily play along these lines, and it can actually boost minority figures, eg ethnic Chinese in South-East Asia, or ethnic Germans and Japanese in Southern Brazil.

I'd rephrase or delete. elpincha 12:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


"Minority group" is a clumsy term but valid in the sense neighborhoods inhabited by marginalized groups are often subject to declines in property value that go beyond a simple association between minority status and poverty. Jonathan Glick 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikification of Influx in intro

As per my last edit: the term influx I have wikified as immigration. Maybe some better ideas to what should it point to? For now I will remove it. --Biblbroks's talk 08:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bourgeoisification?

The article on "Gentry" mentions the following: "In American society, gentry is sometimes taken to refer loosely to a highly educated professional upper-middle class, though this is inaccurate sociological terminology as this group usually lacks the aristocratic roots and values of true gentry. This inaccurate sense of the term is what is often perjoratively referred to in the use of the term gentrification, a term that would more accurately be called bourgeoisification."

If this is correct (see Talk page of that entry) I feel this term should be mentioned. 195.24.29.51 13:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who removed "bourgoisification", since that term more generally refers not only to the upscaling of neighborhoods, but upscaling of people and social classes. For example, you could speak of the "bourgoisification of skilled workers", but not of the "gentrification of skilled workers". "Gentrification" in popular useage always refers specifically to the gentrification of neighborhoods and localities. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but the idea that the term "gentrification" is inaccurate in a US context because the US has no "gentry" is making a kind of etymological fallacy. The most frequently used term for the upscaling of a neighborhood is "gentrification", therefore, that should be the title of this article. Peter G Werner 15:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The term "gentrification" is a British import (read the article already). Just because "gentry" didn't make it over the pond doesn't mean that its descendant can't stand on its own two legs. Paytonc 16:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the entire point of the gentry is that they stand on the backs of the peasantry, of course; but that's just an uppity peasant who can't resist a straight line speaking. --Orange Mike 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC) (in Brewers Hill)
What I mean is that the two pages don't match. If gentrification is acceptable, that quote from the Gentry page is not.85.227.226.235 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent and current regentrification across the country

Take a look at the downtown of almost every major city in the United States today. All are undergoing massive reinvestment, particularly in the form of upscale condos and large commercial ventures, especially so in cities that had experienced decline from post-war suburbanization. Look at Providence, Minneapolis, Detroit, Baltimore, Des Moines, or Los Angeles. This definitely warrants some sort of mention in the article. I was thinking along the lines of "Recent Regentrification in the United States.--Loodog 22:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


"Regentrification" is not an accepted term, but a blend of "revitalization" and "gentrication". The investment described here is already addressed in the "theory" section of this articleJonathan Glick 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Jonathan Glick

Isn't that an interesting point though. Too frequently, when people talk about gentrification, they take the socio-economic demographic of a neighborhood in the 60's-70's as the "base" to measure change from. In reality, most if not all urban neighborhoods are constantly changing. Many gentrifying neighborhoods were originally built for the middle and upper-middle classes (both black and white). So it would be a more accurate statement to say that many of these neighborhoods are "regentrifying." At the very least this article ought to reflect the idea that there is rarely a pure "base" demographic for any neighborhood. There are likely very, very few neighborhoods in US cities that have been demographicaly static prior to gentrification. --68.48.127.224 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image at top of page

Isn't that from a video game? Like one from of the Grand Theft series?

[edit] Minority Sexualities

There is a statement in the text that says, "increased tolerance of minority sexualities". What the heck is a "minority sexuality"? Are we making terms up as we go? CsikosLo 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That what I thought when I first read it. And the documentary cited as a referance for the artical, showed that they weren't really that tolerant of a differant group moving in and changing things, specifically the homosexuals. :::: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dream Focus (talk • contribs) 05:14, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Remove NPOV tag?

The article still needs a lot of work, but it no longer appears to only represent one viewpoint. The original tagger did not leave an explanation on the discussion page, but looking back through history the opening of the article was in a much worse state when it was tagged. DarwinPeacock 11:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is still very ideologically biased. "does anyone else think ..." much further down this page. Eyedubya (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More examples of Gentrification

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/06/05/olympics.evictions.ap/index.html

Great article that addresses major events (e.g. Olympics, World Cup, Miss Universe, etc...) causing gentrification across the globe. Beijingrob 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great article

I don't see why it is claimed that "The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia". The latter warning sounds a bit prudish.

190.161.124.33 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That means inappropriate, as not in an encyclopedic style: too informal, too much like a magazine narrative, that kind of thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physically deteriorated neighborhoods

I disagree with the idea that gentrification applies only to "physically deteriorated neighborhoods". In Australia at least, the term generally applies to average suburbia which, for whatever reason, experiences an influx of yuppies. Ryanwiki (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I've never encountered gentrification striking "average suburbia"; the bargains aren't there, as a rule. Not all places hit by gentrification are decaying slums, of course; but there is generally an element of the declassé (and therefore cheap) about the neighborhoods which suffer from it. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Only in terms of physical appearance - not necessarily in terms of actual property prices. However, definitions of gentrification vary to the extent that a more over-arching description refers to any area where a lower SES class is replaced by a higer one - so this may include formerly non-residential neighbourhoods that are redeveloped as residential ones, meaning that a productive land use (industry or commerce) is replaced with consumption by home-owners in white collar sectors. Eyedubya (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

There's a new page called Migration of the disadvantaged that I think may duplicate information in this article. Could someone who knows about these things take a look? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Worldwide view

The article does not represent a worldwide view, as another aspect of this cycle relates to bedroom communities, known as dormotory communities in the UK. I have been working on an artical to illistrate this on another page as part of an issue there, that prehaps I shall include here. Drachenfyre (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you do, please run a spellcheck first. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Middle class displacement

"The opposite side of the cycle is neighborhood deterioration, which also results in "displacement," in this case of the existing, usually middle-class residents, by lower-income residents, as housing values decline."

Though not necessarily inaccurate, this statement in the first paragraph seems poorly written and clumsily opinionated. Is this better?-->

The opposite of gentrification is neighborhood decay, when lack of sufficient individual, local or government investment allows for housing stock to deteriorate. Existing residents are "displaced" by increasingly lower-income residents as housing values decline.

--Knulclunk (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Gentrification in San Francisco: Mission Yuppie Eradication Project

During the dot-com boom of the late 1990's and the attendent rapid gentrification of San Francisco's Mission District, an effort called the Mission Yuppie Eradication Project drew the attention of both the news media and the San Francisco Police Department:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/06/07/MN91476.DTL

http://search.sfweekly.com/1998-12-16/news/dog-bites/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_19990718/ai_n13939949

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/06/04/NEWS15342.dtl

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CEED71E3EF930A25751C0A9669C8B63

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/990628/archive_001317.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/aug/09/duncancampbell

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/28/internet/

http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/solnit_hollow_city.shtml

http://www.suck.com/daily/99/07/07/nc_index4.html

Marre des start-up! L'enragé de San Francisco. Kevin Keating veut ... Libération - quotidien deuxième édition - 28-04-2000 - 722 mots RICHARD Emmanuelle

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/myep_criticism.html

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/cw_posters4.html

(Miasnikov (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)MiasnikovMiasnikov (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC))


[edit] "Anyone else think this article needs a "right of center" view on it?" -- More right-wing bias needed?

The article as it stands, at least at the beginning, is a panegyric to the glories of mass displacement of wage earners and poor people by real estate speculation, and a song of homage to various canards of market "libertarian" dogma.

For example,

"urban gentrification, is a term applied to that part of the urban housing cycle in which physically deteriorated neighborhoods attract an influx of investment and undergo physical renovation and an increase in property market values. In many cases, the lower-income residents who occupied the neighborhood prior to its renovation can no longer afford properties there. [1][2]

Proponents of gentrification focus on the benefits of urban renewal, such as renewed investment in physically deteriorating locales, improved access to lending capital for low-income mortgage seekers as their property values increase, increased rates of lending to minority and first-time home purchasers to invest in the now-appreciating area and improved physical conditions for renters.[3] Gentrification has been linked to reductions in crime rates, increased property values, increased revenue to local governments from property taxes, increased tolerance of sexual minorities,[4] and renewed community activism.[citation needed] The opposite of gentrification is neighborhood decay and an increasing concentration of poverty, when lack of sufficient individual, local or government investment allows for housing stock to deteriorate."


This is complete hogwash. The first market ideological canard here is to define all neighborhoods targeted by real estate speculation as "physically deteriorated." It may be true in some cases but it isn't by any means some kind of general across-the-board rule, the way it is presented here. It wasn't true of San Francisco's Mission District, for example; the speculators sold luxury condos to the yups there in part because the Mission has some of the nicest weather in the city -- along with all those cool hipster bars and colorful "ethnic" eateries.

Our adventure in commodity ideology goes on to editorialize: "Gentrification has been linked to reductions in crime rates, increased property values, increased revenue to local governments from property taxes, increased tolerance of sexual minorities,[4] and renewed community activism." (sic!)

Presumably the "renewed community activism" refered to here in a mystified right-wing way is the upheaval sometimes generated among the hoi polloi when the gentry arrive to embourgeosify the neighborhood, rake in the bucks and kick the proles out of their homes. Where does our market "libertarian" thinker think that all those homeless people in the richest country in the world come from, anyway? Industrial-scale homelessness in the United States is to some degree a function of gentrification.

The not-so-hidden assumptions at work in wikipedia's gentrification entry is that human beings are first, foremost and solely hyper-atomized economic animals in a relentless sociopathic war of all against all, and not social animals capable of cooperating to satisfy one anothers basic material needs. And that human needs, in this case for housing, are of no importance compared with the profit hunger of an exploitative private sector elite.

Gentrification, like the words exploitation and inequality, is the word for a vicious and ugly phenomenon fundamental to market society. This wikipedia article deserves some sarcastic credit for having the balls-out arrogance to herald mass dispossession of working people and low income people for profit as something positive.

(Miasnikov (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)MiasnikovMiasnikov (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Miasnikov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miasnikov (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What negative impacts of gentrification do you view as overlooked?--Knulclunk (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the article plays both sides. If you feel the article has an improper bias, feel free to bring in new sources that you think would balance it.--Loodog (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been watching this article for a while and I'd agree with those who think it is a bit ideologically POV. The lead does it, by using the term 'the housing cycle' without linking it to anything that can explain this singularly market-liberal economic view of housing provision. There are many modes of housing provision, there is no single 'housing cycle', but in a few short sentences, all other forms of 'housing cycle' are occluded, and gentrification is naturalised. I'd strongly support a major revision to the lead section to set the context for revisions to the rest of the article that better meet the requirements of NPOV etc. Eyedubya (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the sentence from the lead that states the [opposite of/alternative to] gentrification is decay.--Loodog (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to 'urban housing cycle' that makes it clear that there are many modes of urban development and housing provision? If not, the revisions to the lead will require more than merely removing the other side of this rather simplistic binary. Eyedubya (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed rest of "urban cycle" language, along with unnecessary "deteriorating neighborhoods". A neighborhood does not have to be deteriorating to be gentrified. This places the actions on the investment and the impact on the existing residents; the two major concepts of gentrification. Both are dealt with NPOV now, at least in the introduction. Thoughts? --Knulclunk (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just done a bit of copy-editing on it to shift it further in the direction it needs to go for NPOV. Eyedubya (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Good job. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC) , IWW I.U. 660 (lives in a neighborhood where his annual property tax bill has just caught up with the original price of the house due to gentrification)


The opening is now much better than it was. The previous opening could have been a good example for a wikipedia entry on "reification" instead of gentrification; market relations were presented as some sort of dynamic living organism autonomous from and superior to human beings and their needs.

Miasnikov (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)miasnikovMiasnikov (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about this. Not all cases of rising housing costs are properly called "gentrification." If you are a wealthy, educated, racially privileged person with a lovely home in a wealthy area, and your neighborhood becomes a particularly fashionable and extremely wealthy area, so that your income is now below average on your street, you really can't claim that you're a victim of gentrification.
Gentrification must have an element of class change: the working class leaves because wealthier people ("the gentry") outbid them for housing on an open market. Mere changes in price (e.g., due to inflation) are not enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
gentrification.--Loodog (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The definition supports my position: if you are an affluent person in an affluent neighborhood, then the addition of even more affluent people is not gentrification -- even if the newer residents are wealthier than you and are willing to pay a higher price than you to live in that neighborhood. Gentrification is about the influx of relatively wealthy people into a place that did not already have (very many) (relatively) wealthy people in it. Larry Ellison can't cry about gentrification if Warren Buffett and and Bill Gates move next door, even if the average market price of the nearby properties goes up as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with posts above that gentrification is very much, as the name implies, a phenomenon of class conflict and class struggle over social space where working people and low-income people are driven out by what's accurately called in French "embourgeosification." Miasnikov (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) miasnikov Miasnikov (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)