- The gathering together of people sharing common culture, life-style and consumer goods and services.
- Economic re-ordering of property values through increased private ownership and a decline in rental and social housing.
(Warde, 1993)
The remainder of the paper will look at these features together describing the process, the causes and how the city once again transforms itself.
Gentrification is based on a notion of invasion and succession. However, it does not have to involve a sort of violent displacement of the urban poor. For example it is estimated that 2 million, mostly white working-class residents being annually displaced in the 1970s was due to ‘market’ related gentrification. It is often a gradual and almost invisible process as the social class of the neighbourhood changes. (Parker, 2004)
The process is generally thought to be a class phenomenon with the upgrading of the class composition. However, compared with the process of suburbanisation that is prevalent amongst middle classes and high income earners, it is not a popular choice with middle classes. The trend only appeals to a small minority of middle classes, sometimes referred to as the ‘new middle class’ (Smith, 1987). Largely, the process appeals to young professionals from the financial, IT and artistic professions. Who are seeking low cost accommodation close to their employment, as well as the knowledge, cultural and entertainment amenities that the inner city and CBD offer.
It may due to the employment characteristics of the new middle classes and young professionals. However, it may also be attributed to the change gender relations within middle class households (Warde, 1993). For example, increased female participation in professional and managerial employment. Due to increased academic opportunities, leading to higher numbers of young, single women, residing in dual income households with the postponement of marriage and child rearing. Some analysts view gentrification as a result of a decline in the traditional household structure and the result of the women’s movement. (Warde, 1993)
However, what appears to be at first cultural, ethnic, racial and economic integration at the neighbourhood level later falls into segregated enclaves restricted to certain streets and even individual buildings. The choice of neighbourhood does not necessarily imply social integration with existing neighbours. For example in street encounters, the differing social groups will approach each other cautiously until familiarity and routine forces politeness. (Zukin ,1987). Gentrifier’s expect high crime and anti social behaviour as an anticipated side effect in the neighbourhood and amongst the host residents.
Zukin (1987) also notes that the existing residents may resent the superimposition of an alien culture, higher levels of consumption and an accelerated pace of change in their community. Sometimes existing residents may mobilize to defend the community to retain the status quo; however, it is usually an uneven contest fighting the “abstract logic of the private market”. Although there are strategies to gentrify an area, there are no institutionalised procedures to tackle gentrification. The defence often leads to a fragmented, weaker and costly approach. Additionally if they defend the status quo, they ultimately pass up the chance to revitalise their neighbourhood. Yet if they join gentrifer’s to support the historic community, they aid the process that will lead to higher property values and rent, causing their own displacement. (Zukin, 1987)
The displacement of the host population is typically due to higher rents and property values. Caused by the demand created by the new middle classes and the lack of supply of the desired housing. The out movers are a fairly heterogeneous group characterised, as being economically vulnerable but not always disadvantaged. However, in the 1970s gentrification affected white residents more so than other races. After 1973, regeneration in several US cities accelerated the displacement of blacks and whites in certain neighbourhoods. In some smaller cities, upper income households showed greater willingness to move into lower class areas and racial ghettos. However, race and class may still be a barrier to gentrification. For example whites and most middle class black people have not been interested in moving into areas such as Harlem and Newark despite a building stock and cost structure equivalent to other areas being gentrified. (Zukin, 1987)
Community organisations may mediate resident’s conflicts in unexpected ways. For example in an area of Brooklyn, the gentrifier’s association pursued a strategy of historical preservation by creating a “historic” neighbourhood name that led to the appropriation of the area. However, their Puerto Rican neighbours responded by mobilizing on the basis of their ethnicity. This led to social segregation of people and the neighbourhood (Zukin, 1987).
Gentrifiers seeking accommodation of historic and architectural value have also been inadvertently been helped by some government policies. The renovation and renewal of older housing was encouraged by UK governments in the late 1970s as a response to housing shortages and the ultimate failure of the tower block movement. Such areas were termed General Improvement Areas, which had structurally sound older housing where after improvements to the properties and surrounding environment could provide adequate housing for the next 30years. This was seen as a scheme, which prevents the decline and deterioration of older housing, as a way of retaining local communities and a less costly solution to large scale clearance and redevelopment. (Chapman, 1996)
However, there were a number of loop holes, for instance landlords were exploiting the grant scheme and using the public funds to improve their properties and re-letting them at significantly higher rents or selling the property for owner-occupation at considerable profit. In some fashionable parts of London such as Islington, the social character of the neighbourhood was changing noticeably, as more affluent newcomers purchased the improved homes that locals could no longer afford. Ironically a policy that had been introduced to protect and improve the quality of life of local communities was having the opposite effect. (Chapman, 1996)
Although, the process does lead to the regeneration of parts of the inner city, renovation of property is restricted to small enclaves and beneficial to small segment of the population. Gentrified areas typically are characterised by housing stocks of an older and higher architectural quality. Surrounded by high environmental quality, tree lined streets and urban parks in close proximity.
Once an area begins to gentrify the consumer shops and services gradually move in to take over the business locations of shops and services associated with a lower income group. Gentrifier’s typically display homogenous patterns of culture and life style. High disposable incomes attract the interest of business ready to provide for a new market. For example, antique shops, book shops, delicatessens, wine bars etc will spring up additionally more cultural activities and services are noticed such as yoga classes, book clubs, small theatres and art galleries such as the Trueman gallery in Brick Lane. However, it may not increase the economic or social wealth of the whole city (Warde, 1993)
To some gentrification is the key to inner city decline curtailing the flight of middle classes to the suburbs. Others regard the process as a threat to inner city working class areas. (Hamnet, 1991) The process has been stigmatised and carries a number of negative features. Primarily, the displacement of indigenous, poorer groups who become more marginalized as they relocate to other parts of the city. Low income residents are usually displaced further away from the CBD and no matter where they move usually, pay a higher rent. However, it should be noted that low income residents continually move out of their neighbourhood with or without the process of gentrification, (Zukin, 1987) usually looking for better homes and prospects. However, higher income residents do not usually replace them. Such areas were traditionally seen as areas of continual in and out migration for newly arriving immigrants and those starting out on their own for the first time.
Conclusion
Gentrification has been used to describe one small but significant process amongst others that takes place in a developed city and helps to define what a city is. It can be noted that the process stems from a number of causes and such as employment, social class and economic power all of which aids the process.
It is encouraged by higher income and social classes and discouraged by lower income and social groups. Gentrification is a form of segregation, leading to inequalities and social divisions. The process is also an example of how the formation of an urban space is so closely related to the development of social groups themselves. (Warde, 1993)
The process displays the power structure and struggles which are present in all cities. Hamnett (1991) describes the process as “key battle ground between liberal humanists who stress the role of choice, culture consumption and consumer demand and Marxists who stress the role of capital, class production and supply”.
Ultimately it is the attitudes, beliefs, cultural, political, social and economic strength of the people who determine the form and functions of what a city is. The manifestation of these attributes can be seen in the process of gentrification. It is a typical example of how the city form is in continual transition, dependent on the current political, economic and social climate.
Reference:
Bridge, G. (1993) Working paper 109; Gentrification, Class and Residence: A reappraisal, Bristol: SAUS.
Chapman, D. (1996) ‘Creating Neighbourhoods and Places’ E & FN Spoon
Hamnet, C. (1991) ‘The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of gentrification’ Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. N.S 16: 173-189
Mumford, L. (1937) ‘What is A City’, in LeGates, R, at al. (ed) The City Reader . London and New York: Routledge
Parker, S. (2004) Urban Theory and the Urban Experience, encountering the city’ Routledge
Smith, N. (Sep., 1987) ‘Gentrification and the Rent Gap’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 462-465
Warde, A & Savage, M (1993) ‘Urban Sociology, Capitalism and Modernity’ Macmillan
Zukin, S. (1987) ‘Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13, pp. 129-147