ArticlePDF Available

The Indirect Displacement Hypothesis: A Case Study in Washington, D.C.

Authors:

Abstract

Stereotypes abound about the clash between newcomers to urban neighborhoods and their longstanding residents. In a case study of Columbia Heights in the District of Columbia, the preferences and attitudes of newcomers and longstanding residents are compared. The comparison will help assess the extent to which indirect displacement pressures in the domain of retail activity might be occurring in Columbia Heights. Data from surveys conducted in 2008 by the Howard University Center for Urban Progress (HUCUP) form the empirical base of this study. A total of 217 completed surveys were received, 116 from an Internet survey and 101 one-on-one street interviews. The sample was split into thirds (according to length of time that the participant lived in the neighborhood) leading to break points at two years and eight years of residency. All respondents who lived in the neighborhood two years or less or eight years or more were kept in the final sample. The former were defined as “newcomers” and the latter were defined as “longstanding residents”. There were 77 newcomers and 74 longstanding residents in the final sample. The survey instrument inquired about respondents’ opinions about the availability and quality of stores by type, the variety of stores, and what types of stores they would like to see added to the neighborhood. Respondents were then asked their assessment of the new commercial developments and of the previously existing businesses in the corridor. Chi-square tests were used to test the hypotheses that there were differences between the two populations -- newcomers and long-standing residents -- in terms of preferences and attitudes. The findings demonstrated significant differences between the two groups in terms of their opinions about the commercial corridor, although both groups were generally pleased with the new retail developments. The analysis of these data weakly supports the hypothesis that indirect factors could heighten pressures for displacement of longstanding residents, but it is argued that the main focus of gentrification studies should continue to be on the direct economic factors affecting longstanding residents during neighborhood revitalization.
1 23
The Review of Black Political
Economy
ISSN 0034-6446
Rev Black Polit Econ
DOI 10.1007/s12114-016-9242-9
The Indirect Displacement Hypothesis: a
Case Study in Washington, D.C.
Rodney D.Green, Judy K.Mulusa,
Andre A.Byers & Clevester Parmer
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
The Indirect Displacement Hypothesis: a Case Study
in Washington, D.C.
Rodney D. Green
1
&Judy K. Mulusa
2
&
Andre A. Byers
3
&Clevester Parmer
4
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract Stereotypes abound about the clash between newcomers to urban neighbor-
hoods and their longstanding residents. In a case study of Columbia Heights in the District
of Columbia, the preferences and attitudes of newcomers and longstanding residents are
compared. The comparison will help assess the extent to which indirect displacement
pressures in the domain of retail activity might be occurring in Columbia Heights. Data
from surveys conducted in 2008 by the Howard University Center for Urban Progress
(HUCUP) form the empirical base of this study. A total of 217 completed surveys were
received, 116 from an Internet survey and 101 one-on-one street interviews. The sample
was split into thirds (according to length of time that the participant lived in the neigh-
borhood) leading to break points at two years and eight years of residency. All
respondents who lived in the neighborhood two years or less or eight years or more were kept
in the final sample. The former were defined as Bnewcomers^and the latter were defined
as Blongstanding residents^. There were 77 newcomers and 74 longstanding residents in
the final sample. The survey instrument inquired about respondentsopinions about the
availability and quality of stores by type, the variety of stores, and what types of stores they
Rev Black Polit Econ
DOI 10.1007/s12114-016-9242-9
*Rodney D. Green
rgreen@howard.edu
Judy K. Mulusa
judymulusa@yahoo.com
Andre A. Byers
abyers@dcch.org
Clevester Parmer
cparmer220@msn.com
1
Department of Economics, Howard University, Washington, DC, USA
2
Department of Business Studies, Prince Georges Community College, Largo, MD, USA
3
Department of Political Science, Howard University, Washington, DC, USA
4
Center for Urban Progress, Howard University, Washington, DC, USA
Author's personal copy
would like to see added to the neighborhood. Respondents were then asked their assess-
ment of the new commercial developments and of the previously existing businesses in the
corridor. Chi-square tests were used to test the hypotheses that there were differences
between the two populations newcomers and long-standing residents in terms of
preferences and attitudes. The findings demonstrated significant differences between the
two groups in terms of their opinions about the commercial corridor, although both groups
were generally pleased with the new retail developments. The analysis of these data
weakly supports the hypothesis that indirect factors could heighten pressures for displace-
ment of longstanding residents, but it is argued that the main focus of gentrification studies
should continue to be on the direct economic factors affecting longstanding residents
during neighborhood revitalization.
Keywords Gentrification .Neighborhood transition .Indirect displacement .
Commercial development .Washington, DC
Introduction
Stereotypes abound about preference and lifestyle clashes between newcomers to urban
neighborhoods and their longstanding residents. Images suggesting such differences
include those of young white men walking pedigreed dogs down streets populated by
unemployed black men, young white women heading towards the new Pilates studio
with yoga mats under their arms while weary middle-aged black women trudge home
from custodial jobs; meanwhile, mom-and-pop storeowners face eviction as building
owners cut deals with developers to create designer fashion retail stores, Pilates studios,
and concierge pet stores. Are such stereotypes accurate? And if so, to what extent do
they augment pressure on longstanding residents to leave their neighborhoods?
Hyra (2015), noting the work of Zukin (2010), Abramson et al. (2006), and Maly
(2005), suggests that indirect displacement can occur when the norms, behaviors and
values of newcomers prevail over the tastes and preferences of longstanding residents.
The retailscapes change accommodating the preferences of the newcomers could
create an environment that longstanding residents find to be foreign. The outcome
could be an impulse on the part of longstanding residents to leave the neighborhood,
complementing the purely economic factors that might be exerting exit pressure on
them. On the other hand, the putative conflict in preferences and values between
newcomers and longstanding residents may have been exaggerated. Perhaps differ-
ences in preferences and desires between the two groups are not so dramatic.
The outcomes for the original population of neighborhoods undergoing rapid change
depend to a great extent upon which narrative is more correct. Changing neighborhood
values could complement well-known economic pressures driving displacement of
longstanding residents in gentrifying communities. Such an indirect displacement effect
could accelerate the displacement process driven primarily by rising housing costs
(Billingham 2015;Douglas2012;Davidson2008;Slater2006).
Through a case study of Columbia Heights in the District of Columbia, the prefer-
ences of newcomers and longstanding residents are compared in order to assess the
extent to which conflicting desires and expectations for retail establishments contribute
to indirect displacement.
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
The research questions are, first, are the two groups significantly different from each
other demographically and economically? And second, do they have different subjec-
tive preferences for retail establishments accompanied by conflicting attitudes about
such neighborhood developments? These research questions lead to a set of testable
hypotheses that help assess whether gentrification brings into the community a new set
of people with interests and traditions that differ from those of longstanding residents,
contributing to the existing economic pressure for longstanding residents to be
displaced. Background on Columbia Heights and a review of relevant literature are
followed by the presentation of the data and methodology of the study. The paper
concludes with a discussion of the findings and limitations of the study.
The Columbia Heights Neighborhood
Columbia Heights, a rapidly developing neighborhood located near the District of
Columbias geographic center, is bounded by 16th Street to the West, Sherman Avenue
to the East, Spring Road to the North, and Florida Avenue to the South. The neigh-
borhood was significantly damaged following the black urban rebellion of April 1968
triggered by the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Hundreds of businesses
were either destroyed during the uprising or closed down in the rebellionsaftermath.
The neighborhood was marked for decades with many empty buildings, vacant land,
and depressed economic conditions.
The opening of the Columbia Heights Metro transit station in 1999 improved
accessibility to and from this neighborhood, encouraging revitalization. The 2005
restoration of the Tivoli Theater (an officially designated national historic landmark)
and the opening of DC USA, the Districts largest retail complex, helped transform this
community into a busy pedestrian-friendly community with over 24,000 people getting
on and off the Metro daily (WDCEP 2015). DC-USA is a 546,000 square foot shopping
complex located on 14th street NW between Park Road and Irving Street and includes
such major retailers as Target, Best Buy, Marshalls, Washington Sports Club, and Bed
Bath and Beyond. The Tivoli Theater, located at the corner of 14th Street and Park Road,
houses a Giant Food Store (53,000 square feet), the 250-seat Gala Hispanic Theater, sit-
down restaurants, 28,000 square feet of office space, and 40 condominium units known
as Tivoli Towns of which 20% were set aside for low and moderate income households.
New condominiums, apartments, restaurant, bars, and retail outlets have meshed
with older row houses and small businesses. Between 1990 and 2015, 3200 multifamily
housing units and 1330 single family units were constructed or renovated. The crime
rate dropped significantly by 2010, but rose to 17.11 for every 100,000 people in
Columbia Heights in 2016, approximately the same rate as that of the District of
Columbia as a whole but much higher than the national average (Columbia Heights/
Washington D.C. Crime-Areavibes 2016).
The late Robert Moore, the charismatic leader of the Development Corporation of
Columbia Heights (DCCH, the neighborhoods premiere community development
corporation), contended that there was no displacement of low income residents by
2010 because the 2500 affordable housing units were all still intact; he said that no unit
of affordable housing was lost during the revitalization process (Moore 2010). Despite
this optimistic reading of the process of neighborhood revitalization, changes in the
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
population structure from 2000 to 2014 are striking, with a dramatic increase in the
white population, a sizable increase in the Asian population, and substantial declines in
the African American and Latino populations (see Table 1).
The then-DCCH Director of Business Development, Andre Byers, noted in 2010 that
previous DCCH surveys of small retailers who were in place before the revitalization
process began showed that they had not been priced out of business by the new large
retailers, in part because the longstanding small retailers sold different types of goods from
them. The surveys suggested that small retailers who had responded to the changing
demographics of the local market by offering customers new product types continued to
thrive. Some others who had not been able to adjust their product types in a timely manner
closed down. The other reason for closures of small retailers was the rapid increase in real
estate prices that occurred in anticipation of the launch of DC-USA. This escalation in real
estate values also hindered new retailers from coming into the area. The opening of the
Tivoli, which was completed much earlier than the DC-USA, caused anumberofclosures
for small retailers who were faced with high build-out costs at a time when the business
traffic levels had not yet increased in the neighborhood. A survey conducted 6 months
after the opening of DC USA showed that the number of businesses that had an increase in
profits were almost double the number of those small businesses that recorded a reduction
in profits. Commercial revitalization led to an increase in economic activity, with Giant
Food generating a turnover of $35 million and Target, $85 million (Byers 2010).
Gentrification Studies
Gentrification has prompted a wide range of research investigations beginning with a
debate over the simple definition of the term. Others have asked about causes of this
Tab l e 1 Population, shares and changes in Columbia Heights, all and by race/ethnicity, 2000, 2010, and 2014
2000 2010 2014
Level Share Level Share Level Share
Black Non-Hispanic 10,703 0.52 7665 0.35 8192 0.34
White Non-Hispanic 1526 0.07 6518 0.30 8373 0.35
Hispanic/Latina/o 7224 0.35 6068 0.28 5940 0.25
Asian 637 0.03 793 0.04 919 0.04
All 20,623 21,618 23,884
20002010 20102014 20002014
Change % Change Change % Change Change % Change
Black Non-Hispanic 3038 28.4% 527 6.9% 2511 23.5%
White Non-Hispanic 4992 327.1% 1855 28.5% 6847 448.7%
Hispanic/Latina/o 1156 16.0% 128 2.1% 1284 17.8%
Asian 156 24.5% 126 15.9% 282 44.3%
All 995 4.8% 2266 10.5% 3261 15.8%
Sources: Federal Census of Population, 2000, PL002; 2010, P2; American Community Survey, 2014 estimate,
DP05, aggregating census tracts 28.1, 28.2, 29, 30, 36 and 37
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
process, with some writers emphasizing the role of developers seeking to benefit from
closing the Brent gap^. Others have attributed this form of neighborhood transition to
the demand structure of prospective gentrifiers, while still others have focused on
government policy as the facilitating intermediary making gentrification happen. Often
these studies implicitly suggest that the long-standing residents lack voice, allowing
developers, gentrifiers, and political elites to have their way with the neighborhood.
The third type of study examines the effects of the gentrification process on the original
residents and on the structure and preferences of a gentrified community.
The Concept of Gentrification
The concept of gentrification is controversial and ambiguous. The term originated in
Great Britain and was first used by urban geographer Ruth Glass in 1964 to describe
Bthe influx of middle class people to cities and neighborhoods, displacing the lower
class worker residents^(Atkinson and Wulff 2009). Kennedy and Leonard (2001),
reflecting on the U.S. experience, agreed, but also noted gentrification was simulta-
neously the displacement of low income black households by higher income white
households, at times in the neighborhoods that had experienced Bwhite flight^and/or
urban renewal in the 1950s1960s. Hamnett (1991), on the other hand, defined
gentrification more broadly as including physical, economic, social and cultural
phenomena that displaced original residents. Smith (1996) summarized these views
by suggesting that gentrification is
a process by which poor and working class neighborhoods in the inner city are
refurbished by an influx of private capital and middle class homebuyers and
rentersa dramatic yet unprecedented reversal of what most 20th century urban
theories had been predicting as the face of the central and inner city
Gentrification was initially seen as a fragmented process but more recent
researchers view it as a large scale, systematic, and often deliberate urban devel-
opment policy. Gentrification-inducing initiatives include recreation, retail, em-
ployment, and social and cultural aspects of the economy in addition to changes in
the residential housing market. Gentrification involves social, economic and
cultural shifts that change the kinds of shops, facilities and public spaces in a
neighborhood; it is not simply a Bbrief moment of housing turnover^(Billingham
2015; Douglas 2012;Davidson2008; Slater 2006).
Lees (2008) deepened the discussion of gentrifications complexity by addressing
the outcome of Bsocial mixing^, which occurs for an extended period of time (and
perhaps permanently) as neighborhood transition occurs. She noted that federal policy
(such as the HOPE VI program) is based on a theory that an influx of higher income
households and new higher-order businesses can be a spatial fix for poor tax bases and
concentrations of poverty in Americas inner cities. She argues that there is only weak
evidence supporting this view. In fact, there is evidence that such programs do not lead
to an inclusive urban renaissance. Davidson (2008) argues that the Bunder-
conceptualization^of various aspects of displacement obscures the ways in which
gentrification can cause displacement.
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
Causes of Gentrification
There are two principal schools of thought explaining why gentrification takes place: a
production or supply side theory and a consumption or demand side theory (Hamnett
1991;Newman2004; Newman and Ashton 2004). Production side theory (associated
with Smith (1996,2010)) is based on the rent gap theory, a form of rent-seeking
behavior. This theory suggests that, when developers perceive that the inequality
between the price of land at its current use and the potential price it could attain under
aBhighest best use^is large enough, they move forward on redevelopment of an inner
city neighborhood. By renovating or redeveloping buildings, they are able to profitably
realize the underlying increasing value of the land. Profits from such redevelopment
close the rent gap, ushering in higher rents, lease costs, and mortgages. These higher
costs then lead to displacement of longstanding residents. For Smith, the land and
property markets and their financing are primary factors in gentrification.
Hamnet (2003), Ley (2010) and Rose (1984) disagree with Smithsemphasison
capital flows and argue, from the consumption-side theory, that the Bnew middle class^
cultural values and residential preferences of gentrifiers are primary in understanding
the gentrification process. Hamnet (1984) argues that the tradeoff between accessibility
and space (related to the disutility of commuting); demographic changes (the baby
boom); new household patterns that can be readily absorbed by new suburban building;
and occupational change lead to the emergence of a new social class for which
gentrification is a material and cultural expression.
Other writers have attempted to define and measure the sources of gentrification with
modeling that suggests impersonal market forces at work (Kolko 2007), while others
argued that government policy unrelated to neighborhood transformation (such as Atlantas
hosting of the Olympics in 1997 and Washington, D.C.s development of Metrorail) might
drive the process (Kennedy and Leonard 2001). Wyly and Hammel (1999) suggested that
transformations in national urban policy, especially the new regime of housing finance and
an emergent consensus on low income housing assistance, reflected and reinforced a
resurgence of private market gentrification of American cities. It flows from their analysis
that federal and local policies may have affected the perceived Brent gap^by developers
and thus led to a more rapid mobilization of private capital into previously shunned
markets. Similar work was done by Nessbit (2005)andGlemmer(2000).
Effects of Gentrification
Gentrification is most often associated in the literature with displacement of
longstanding residents due to economic changes that such residents cannot afford, such
as higher rents or higher property taxes. More complex concepts of gentrification
suggest that there is an indirect displacement effect due to, in part, broadly defined
cultural shifts in the neighborhood (Hyra 2013,2015). There remains an issue about
whether in fact traditional residents are displaced quickly and in large numbers.
Vigdor and Sanford (2002) and Freeman and Braconi (2004) noted the limits of
succession studies and surveys to determine the actual extent of displacement. The latter
concluded that gentrification does not cause the displacement of low income households,
but affirmed that the low income households are affected indirectly as the pool of low rent
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
houses is reduced by the arrival of middle income earners. Slater (2006) harshly rejected
their analysis as too narrowly constructed to be credible, while McKinnish et al. (2010)
found gentrification to often be associated with disproportionate in-migration of college
graduates, particularly white college graduates; however they noted that out-migration
data gave no evidence of a disproportionate exit of low-education or minority households.
Several researchers have considered the question of whether the outcome of gentrifi-
cation might be the happy coexistence of the new middle class with the existing low-
income community members in a new mixed-income setting, a central question in the
present study. Davidson (2008) criticizes what he describes as the singular conceptuali-
zation of gentrification, stating that looking only at direct displacement without regard for
the effect of indirect displacement limits the understanding of how the transition process
takes place in gentrifying neighborhoods; for him, the political, social and cultural
neighborhood changes can induce displacement as well. Lees (2008) questioned whether
social mixing is positive. She critiques policies on social mixing (such as those associated
with HOPE VI) and suggests that social mixing policies are not likely to lead to an
inclusive urban renaissance. Davidson (2008) noted that the success of social mixing
policy may transform the socioeconomic status of deprived neighborhoods, leading them
to gentrify further and displace low income earners. He also notes the importance of
indirect displacement. Its three facets include indirect economic displacement; community
transformations, or cultural shifts, in which gentrifiers reorganize their neighborhoods
social welfare provision such that neighborhood resources are displaced; and the increas-
ing feeling of Bout of placeness^of existing residents. Social mixing is not stable, but, as
in some periods of apparent racial integration in the 1970s, it may simply be a transitional
phase ending, in the present case, with displacement of the original low income residents.
Displacement is more complex and subtle than a simple Beconomic transition^view
might suggest (Billingham 2015;Hyra2015;Davidson2002,2008; Slater 2006;Zukin
1987,2010). There is evidence from this literature that the profiles of gentrified
neighborhoods change substantially. Some current residents leave, but they may not
leave simply due to economic pressure on housing costs or evictions due to developers
efforts to rehabilitate buildings marketed to a higher economic class of residents. A clash
of preferences might also push them away from their homes. The longstanding residents
could be replaced or supplemented by new household types with higher social status in
terms of income and credentials, bringing complex changes in the areascharacter.The
consumption theory emphasizes the consumer preferences for neighborhoods that are
gentrified. The new middle class moving into the area may have different consumption
patterns and these differences could lead to the development ofnew businesses that cater
to their needs while the older businesses dwindle as they can no longer compete. As
gentrifiers seek distinctiveness through consumption, the retailscape of the gentrified
neighborhoods provides clues about their consumption patterns and lifestyles. It is
against this background that this study seeks to analyze the attitudes and perceptions
of residents both old and new in a neighborhood that is undergoing revitalization.
Methodology of the Study
Data from surveys conducted in 2008 by the Howard University Center for Urban
Progress (HUCUP) on behalf of DCCH form the empirical base of this study. DCCH
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
sought HUCUPs assistance as part of its effort to assess the changing marketplace in
its service area.
In the survey, Columbia Heights residents were asked their opinions about
existing businesses in the corridor, the new businesses, and the corridor as a
whole. To ensure that there were substantial responses from both longstanding
residents and newcomers, the survey was conducted in two ways: via an internet
survey sent to members of five listservs identified by DCCH as Columbia
Heights-based groups, and via one-on-one street surveys administered by a
multi-racial team of community residents. The expectation was that the Internet
respondents would be disproportionately newcomers and the street respondents
would be disproportionately longstanding residents.
All responses were included in a single sample, which was then split into thirds
according to years of residence in the neighborhood. The middle third of respon-
dents was then eliminated from the ensuing statistical analysis to reasonably
ensure that the two remaining thirds included only newcomers and longstanding
residents respectively.
Instrumentation
An interview schedule for the street survey was developed in collaboration with DCCH
and pilot tested with a small group of residents. Responses on the pilot test were used to
revise the instrument. The final instrument included four sections. The first section
sought demographic information including race, age, gender, number of years living in
the neighborhood, and whether respondents were employed in the neighborhood. The
second section asked respondents their opinion about the availability and quality of
stores by type. Respondents were asked to identify whether they perceived certain types
of stores to be available locally in the neighborhood. Whenever a store was perceived to
be available, respondents were then asked to assess the quality of the store according to
a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented Bpoor^quality and 5 represented
Bexcellent^quality. Respondents were then asked to assess the variety of stores in
the neighborhood according to a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented Bvery
unsatisfied^and5representedBvery satisfied^. This section also asked respondents
in an open-ended question what types of stores they would like to see added to the
neighborhood; answers to the open-ended question were aggregated post-survey and
evaluated quantitatively. In the third section, respondents were asked to assess eight
selected attributes of the new commercial developments according to a 5-point Likert
scale, where 1 represented Bpoor^quality and 5 represented Bexcellent^quality. In the
fourth section, respondents were asked to assess the same eight attributes of previously
existing businesses in the corridor. This interview schedule was used for all of the 101
street-level one-on-one interviews.
The interview schedule was converted into an on-line survey instrument using
SurveyMonkey Professional software to gather the same data from 116 members of
five (5) Columbia Heights listservs provided by DCCH.
Both the street interviews and the internet surveys were conducted during August
and September 2008. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. Data were entered
into an SPSS Version 15.0 database for analysis.
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
The Sample
A total of 217 completed surveys were obtained in a non-randomized process yielding a
convenience sample. Of the 116 Internet respondents, 72% were whites who had lived
in Columbia Heights less than 4 years and who rarely reported holding a job in the area.
Of the 101 persons in the one-on-one street interviews, 72% were African Americans
who had lived in the area for more than 16 years and the majority of whom were
employed in the area.
The two sets of survey data were merged. The split into thirds according to
years of residency resulted in break points at 2 years and 8 years of residency.
Accordingly, all participants who lived in the neighborhood 2 years or less or
8 years or more were kept in the final sample. The former were defined as
Bnewcomers^and the latter were defined as Blongstanding residents^. There were
77 newcomers and 74 longstanding residents in this final sample. The newest
long-term resident therefore arrived in the neighborhood just after the new
Metrorail station opened and before any significant transformation of the neigh-
borhood had occurred, whereas the newcomer with the longest residency arrived
just as the new mall was opening. The two parts of the sample roughly correspond
to those who had lived in the neighborhood well before revitalization occurred and
those who moved to the neighborhood after revitalization was well under way.
Since there was no randomization of the selection of members of the sample, the
findings could only legitimately be considered reflective of opinions of the
participants themselves.
Hypotheses
The ten hypotheses to be tested in this study relate to demographic differences,
preference differences, and attitude differences between newcomers and longstanding
residents. Specifically, the hypotheses are:
Demographics
1. The newcomers group includes a greater percentage of white households than does
the longstanding residents group.
2. Newcomers are younger than longstanding residents.
3. The newcomers group includes a greater percentage of people holding employment
outside the neighborhood than does the longstanding residents group.
Preferences and Attitudes
4. Newcomers consider more types of stores to be less available than do longstanding
residents.
5. Newcomers consider current types of stores to be of poorer quality than do
longstanding residents.
6. Newcomers like the new stores more than do longstanding residents.
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
7. Longstanding residents like the previously existing businesses in the commercial
corridor more than do newcomers.
8. Newcomers like the attributes of new stores more than they do the attributes of the
old stores, and longstanding residents like the attributes of the old stores more than
they do those of the new stores.
9. Newcomers and longstanding residents are equally satisfied with the variety of
stores in the neighborhood.
10. Newcomers want new types of retail outlets more than do longstanding residents.
Support for these hypotheses would suggest that there may be indirect pressures
leading to the displacement of longstanding residents.
Chi-square tests were used to test the hypotheses that there were differences between
the two populationsnewcomers and longstanding residentsin terms of demo-
graphics, preferences, and attitudes. Comparisons of preferences for old versus new
stores within the two categories were also conducted for tests of Hypothesis 8. Given
the limitations of the dataset, it was deemed inappropriate to use multivariate analysis.
Findings
Hypothesis 1: The newcomers group includes a greater percentage of white
households than does the longstanding residents group.
Hypothesis 1 was supported by the test. Whites constituted the majority (70%,
see Table 2) of the newcomers while African Americans constituted the majority
(69.7%) of the long standing residents, suggesting the racialization of the two
categories. The chi-square test (χ
2
= 42.664, p= 0.000) of this comparison
supports this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: Newcomers are younger than longstanding residents.
Hypothesis 2 was supported by the test. Newcomers were younger than
longstanding residents
(χ
2
= 21.848, p=0.000,seeTable3). It is particularly notable that the shares of
each of the populations in the Bmiddle age^category were similar between
newcomers and longstanding residents, but 24% of the longstanding residents
Tab l e 2 Race/ethnicity distribution of respondents who are newcomers and longstanding residents
Race/Ethnicity Newcomers = 1, Longstanding residents = 0 Total
01
Black/African American Non-Hispanic 69.7% 20% 44.2%
White Non-Hispanic 21.1% 70% 46.2%
Hispanic 5.3% 3.8% 4.5%
Asian 2.6% 3.8% 3.2%
Other 1.3% 2.5% 1.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
χ
2
= 42.664, p=0.000
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
fell into the senior category while only 3.8% of the newcomers were in this age
category. Almost half of the newcomers fell into the Byoung^category while less
than a fifth of the longstanding residents fell into this age category.
Hypothesis 3: Newcomers include a greater percentage of people holding employ-
ment outside the neighborhood than do longstanding residents.
Hypothesis 3 was supported by the test. There is a significant difference
between the population groups, with longstanding residents more frequently being
employed locally than newcomers (χ
2
=7.442,p=0.006,see Table4).
Hypothesis 4: Newcomers consider more types of stores to be less available than
do longstanding residents.
Hypothesis 4 was generally supported by the statistical tests, but not uniformly.
There were no differences between the estimates of newcomers and longstanding
residents with regard to the availability of convenience stores, drug stores, hair
salons/barber shops, restaurants, and coffee shops. However, more longstanding
residents felt that clothing stores (χ
2
=7.299,p= 0.007), banks (χ
2
=7.053,p=
0.008) and sporting goods stores (χ
2
=5.885, p= 0.015) were available in the
neighborhood than did the newcomers. On the other hand, newcomers believed
that nail salons (χ
2
=4.725,p=0.03)andbars(χ
2
= 11.661, p=0.001)weremore
available than did longstanding residents. See Table 5.
Hypothesis 5: Newcomers consider stores to be of poorer quality than do
longstanding residents.
Hypothesis 5 was generally supported by the tests. Newcomer ratings of the
quality of stores were generally lower than those of longstanding residents (see
Table 6). Many newcomer ratings were significantly different from those of the
Tab l e 3 Age category distribution of respondents who are newcomers and longstanding residents
Age category Newcomers = 1, Longstanding residents = 0 Total
01
Young (under 30) 18.7% 47.5% 33.5%
Middle (3059) 57.3% 48.8% 52.9%
Senior (60 and above) 24% 3.8% 13.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
χ2 = 21.848, p=0.000
Tab l e 4 Holding employment in the neighborhood: distribution for newcomers and longstanding residents
Do you work in the neighborhood? Newcomers = 1, Longstanding residents = 0 Total
01
No 73.7% 86.3% 80.1%
Yes 26.3% 13.8% 19.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
χ
2
=7.442,p=0.006
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
longstanding residents. Newcomers rated grocery stores (χ
2
= 15.148, p=0.004),
drug stores (χ
2
=10.554,p= 0.032), clothing stores (χ
2
= 22.104, p= 0.000), shoe
stores (χ
2
=13.943,p= 0.007), hair salons/barber shops (χ
2
= 20.212, p=0.000),
and banks (χ
2
= 16.991, p= 0.002) as lower quality than did the longstanding
residents. The only retail firms that newcomers rated more highly than did
longstanding residents were coffee houses (χ
2
= 14.989, p=0.005). There was
no statistical difference between the two groups in their quality ratings for ethnic
food stores, convenience stores, sporting goods stores, nail salons and restaurants.
Hypothesis 6: Newcomers like the new stores more than do longstanding residents.
Hypothesis 6 was not generally supported by the tests. Respondents were asked
to rate several characteristics of the new stores associated with the recent revital-
ization of the business corridor. These included the attractiveness of the new stores,
their cleanliness, their pricing, the friendliness of the employees, the quality of
their goods and services, the attractiveness of the insides of the stores, safety in the
stores and parking availability on Likert scales of 1 to 5. There were no differences
between the two groups in their ratings for the attractiveness of the new stores or
their cleanliness, pricing, safety, and parking availability. However, longstanding
residents rated friendliness of employees (χ
2
=13.17, p= .010) and the
attractiveness of the insides of the stores (χ
2
=17.08,p= 0.002) higher than did
newcomers. Newcomers rated quality of their goods and services (χ
2
= 11.868
p= 0.018) higher than did longstanding residents. See Table 7.
Hypothesis 7: Longstanding residents like the previously existing businesses in the
commercial corridor more than do newcomers.
Hypothesis 7 was weakly supported by the tests. Longstanding residents rated
attractiveness of the existing stores (χ
2
=9.787,p= 0.044) and their pricing (χ
2
=
11.676, p= 0.02) more favorably than did newcomers. There were no ratings
differences between the two groups for cleanliness, friendliness of employees,
quality of goods and services, attractiveness of the insides of the store, safety, and
parking availability (see Table 8).
Tab l e 5 Availability of stores: newcomers versus longstanding residents
Types of stores Newcomers
%Available
Longstanding
residents
%Available
Newcomers
% Not Available
Longstanding
residents
% Not Available
χ2(pvalue)
Convenience stores 94.9 97.4 5.1 2.6 0.616 (.433)
Drug stores 96.2 97.4 3.8 2.6 0 .181 (.671)
Clothing stores 85.0 97.4 15.0 2.6 7.299 (0.007)
Shoe stores 81.3 88.2 18.8 11.8 1.429 (.232)
Hair salons/Barber shops 76.3 84.2 23.7 15.8 1.495 (.221)
Nail salons 53.8 35.8 46.3 64.2 4.725 (0.030)
Banks 91.1 100 8.9 0 7.053 (.008)
Bars 93.8 73.7 6.3 26.3 11.661 (.001)
Restaurants 98.8 100 1.3 0 0 .956 (.328)
Coffee houses 97.5 97.4 2.5 2.6 0 .003 (.959)
Sporting goods stores 70.9 86.8 29.1 13.2 5.885 (.015)
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
Hypothesis 8: (a) Newcomers like the attributes of new stores more than they do
the attributes of the old stores, and (b) longstanding residents like the attributes of
the old stores more than they do those of the new stores.
Hypothesis 8(a) is supported by the tests. Hypothesis 8(b) is contradicted by the
tests.
The newcomers provided a much higher rating on almost all of the attributes of the
new stores compared to the old (see Table 9). For example, the attractiveness of the
insides of the new stores received an average score of 3.96 on a scale from 1 to 5
whereas the average rating for the old stores by this population group was 2.64. The
difference was significant (χ
2
= 69.968, p= 0.000). Similar results held for
attractiveness of the new store, cleanliness of the business, quality of goods and
services, parking, and safety. The only two attributes for which there were no
significant differences in ratings were the friendliness of employees and pricing.
Longstanding residents made similar distinctions between the attributes of the old and
new stores (see Table 10), contrary to Hypothesis 8(b). For example, the attractiveness of
Tab l e 6 Quality of stores: newcomers and longstanding residents
Newcomer=1 Poor Fair Average Above
average
Excellent Average
score
χ2(p-value)
Grocery stores 0 0 6.6 27.6 27.6 38.2 3.97 15.148 (.004)
1 5.0 10.0 26.3 43.8 15.0 3.54
Ethnic food stores 0 10.3 14.7 30.9 35.3 8.8 3.18 5.343 (.254)
1 5.4 14.3 50.0 25.0 5.4 3.11
Convenience
store
0 9.5 17.6 31.1 24.3 17.6 3.23 2.687 (.611)
1 8.0 25.3 34.7 21.3 10.7 3.01
Drug stores 0 1.4 13.7 24.7 24.7 35.6 3.79 10.554 (.032)
1 5.4 13.5 39.2 27.0 14.9 3.32
Clothing stores 0 3.9 14.5 36.8 18.4 26.3 3.49 22.104 (.000)
1 18.6 35.7 22.9 12.9 10.0 2.6
Sporting goods
stores
0 7.8 14.1 50.0 12.5 15.6 3.14 5.187 (.269)
1 10.9 20.0 52.7 12.7 3.6 2.78
Shoe stores 0 8.8 14.7 39.7 17.6 19.1 3.24 13.943 (.007)
1 19.7 34.4 29.5 6.6 9.8 2.52
Hair salons/
Barber shops
0 6.7 21.7 21.7 28.3 21.7 3.37 20.212 (.000)
1 20.4 31.5 35.2 11.1 1.9 2.43
Nail salons 0 4.2 25.0 58.3 4.2 8.3 2.88 7.995 (.092)
1 23.5 35.3 38.2 2.9 0 2.21
Banks 0 1.3 5.3 17.3 30.7 45.3 4.13 16.991 (.002)
1 4.3 7.2 40.6 30.4 17.4 3.49
Restaurants 0 1.3 7.9 36.8 30.3 23.7 3.67 5.531 (.237)
1 1.3 6.5 29.9 48.1 14.3 3.68
Coffee houses 0 0 10.8 41.9 27.0 20.36 3.57 14.989 (.005)
1 1.4 4.1 20.3 52.7 21.6 3.89
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
Tab l e 8 Attributes of existing (old) stores
Store attributes Newcomer=1 Poor Fair Average Above
average
Excellent Average
score
χ
2
(p-value)
Attractiveness of
the old stores
0 14.5 17.1 42.1 19.7 6.6 4.18 9.787 (.044)
1 9.1 36.4 41.6 10.4 2.6 3.97
Cleanliness of the
businesses
0 13.2 21.1 39.5 19.7 6.6 4.2 3.849 (.427)
1 13.2 26.3 46.1 9.2 5.3 3.99
Pricing 0 10.5 5.3 46.1 22.4 15.8 3.25 11.676 (.02)
1 2.6 16.9 46.8 27.3 6.5 3.18
Friendliness of
employees
0 3.9 13.2 34.2 28.9 19.7 3.96 1.352 (.853)
1 2.6 10.4 29.9 36.4 20.8 3.45
Quality of goods
and services
0 3.9 21.1 44.7 23.7 6.6 4.0 1.116 (.892)
1 4.0 16.0 42.7 29.3 8.0 3.77
Attractiveness of
the inside of
the stores
0 13.2 21.1 46.1 13.2 6.6 4.16 9.143 (.058)
1 6.5 42.9 35.1 11.7 3.9 3.95
Safety 0 17.1 27.6 35.5 14.5 5.3 3.01 4.597 (.331)
1 7.9 32.9 44.7 11.8 2.6 3.41
Parking 0 24.3 24.3 33.8 12.2 5.4 3.0 4.697 (.32)
1 15.9 21.7 47.8 13.0 1.4 3.38
Tab l e 7 Attributes of new stores
Store attributes Newcomer = 1 Poor Fair Average Above
average
Excellent Average
score
χ
2
(p-value)
Attractiveness of
the new stores
0 1.3 5.3 10.5 39.5 43.4 4.18 4.337 (.362)
1 2.5 3.8 16.5 48.1 29.1 3.97
Cleanliness of the
businesses
0 0 2.6 17.1 38.2 42.1 4.2 3.544 (.471)
1 1.3 3.8 19.2 46.2 29.5 3.99
Pricing 0 6.6 17.1 36.8 23.7 15.8 3.25 9.237 (.055)
1 2.6 6.5 40.3 40.3 10.4 3.49
Friendliness of
employees
0 0 6.6 26.3 31.6 35.5 3.96 13.170 (.010)
1 3.9 11.7 32.5 39.0 13.0 3.45
Quality of goods
and service s
0 1.3 6.6 19.7 35.5 36.8 4.00 11.868 (.018)
1 1.3 2.6 29.5 51.3 15.4 3.77
Attractiveness of the
inside of the store
0 1.3 5.3 13.2 36.8 43.4 4.16 17.08 (.002)
1 0 0 25.6 53.8 20.5 3.95
Safety 0 10.5 17.1 40.8 23.7 7.9 3.01 8.704 (.069)
1 1.3 11.5 47.4 24.4 15.4 3.41
Parking 0 17.6 16.2 28.4 24.3 13.5 3.00 4.344 (.362)
1 8.7 10.1 34.8 27.5 18.8 3.38
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
the insides of the new stores received an average score of 4.16, whereas the comparable
average rating for the old stores by this population group was 2.79. The difference was
Tab l e 9 Percentage distribution of ratings of old and new stores by newcomers
Quality Old/
New
Poor Fair Average Above
average
Excellent Average
score
χ
2
(p-value)
Attractiveness of stores Old 9.0 35.9 42.3 20.3 2.6 2.62 69.944 (.000)
New 2.6 3.8 15.4 48.7 29.5 3.99
Attractiveness of the
inside of the stores
Old 6.4 42.3 35.9 11.5 3.8 2.64 69.968 (.000)
New 0 0 24.7 54.5 20.8 3.96
Friendliness of
employees
Old 2.6 11.5 29.5 35.9 20.5 3.6 1.77 (.778)
New 3.9 10.5 32.9 39.5 13.2 3.47
Cleanliness of the
businesses
Old 13.0 26.0 46.8 9.1 5.2 2.68 62.537 (.000)
New 1.3 3.9 18.2 46.8 29.9 4.00
Quality of goods
and services
Old 3.9 15.8 43.4 28.9 7.9 3.21 17.563 (.002)
New 1.3 2.6 28.6 51.9 15.6 3.78
Parking Old 15.7 21.4 48.6 12.9 1.4 2.63 20.335 (.000)
New 8.8 10.3 33.8 27.9 19.1 3.38
Safety Old 7.8 32.5 45.5 11.7 2.6 2.69 21.829 (.000)
New 1.3 11.7 46.8 24.7 15.6 3.42
Pricing Old 2.6 16.7 47.4 26.9 6.4 3.18 6.877 (.143)
New 2.6 6.6 39..5 40.8 10.5 3.5
Table 10 Percentage distribution of ratings of new and old stores by longstanding residents
Quality Old/
New
Poor Fair Average Above
average
Excellent Average
score
χ
2
(p-value)
Attractiveness of stores Old 14.5 17.1 42.1 19.7 6.6 2.87 53.13 (.000)
New 1.3 5.3 10.5 39.5 43.4 4.18
Attractiveness of the
inside of the stores
Old 13.2 21.1 46.1 13.2 6.6 2.79 57.61 (.000)
New 1.3 5.3 13.2 36.8 43.4 4.16
Friendliness of employees Old 3.9 13.2 34.2 28.9 19.7 3.47 8.96 (.062)
New 0 6.6 26.3 31.6 35.5 3.96
Cleanliness of
the business
Old 14.5 21.1 39.5 18.4 6.6 2.82 53.545 (.000)
New 0 2.6 17.1 38.2 42.1 4.2
Quality of goods
and services
Old 3.9 21.1 44.7 23.7 6.6 3.08 31.96 (.000)
New 1.3 6.6 19.7 35.5 36.8 4.00
Parking Old 24.3 24.3 33.8 12.2 5.4 2.5 7.926 (.094)
New 17.6 16.2 28.4 24.3 13.5 3.00
Safety Old 17.1 27.6 35.5 14.5 5.3 2.63 5.438 (.245)
New 10.5 17.1 40.8 23.7 7.9 3.01
Pricing Old 10.5 5.3 46.1 22.4 15.8 3.28 6.263 (.18)
New 6.6 17.1 36.8 23.7 15.8 3.25
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
significant (χ
2
= 57.61, p= .000). Similar results held for attractiveness of the new store,
cleanliness of the business, and quality of goods and services.
There were no significant differences in the ratings given by longstanding residents to
the friendliness of employees, parking, safety, and pricing for the old and new stores.
Hypothesis 9: Newcomers and longstanding residents are equally satisfied with the
variety of stores in the neighborhood.
Hypothesis 9 is not supported by the tests. There is a significant difference
between the two groups in terms of their satisfaction with the variety of stores
(χ
2
= 14.569, p= .012, see Table 11). The newcomersaverage rating is slightly
below satisfied (2.91) while the longstanding residentsrating is slightly above
satisfied (3.03). Similarly, 46.3% of newcomers were satisfied with the variety of
stores while 52.6% of the long standing residents provided similar ratings.
Hypothesis 10: Newcomers want new types of retail outlets more than do
longstanding residents.
Hypothesis 10 is not supported by the tests. Participants were asked, as a
follow up, to rate the level of their desire to see certain types of stores expand
their presence in the community. The majority of the longstanding residents
desired several new types of stores and desired them more frequently than did
the newcomers (see Table 12). The types of stores in this category included clothing
stores (64.5%, χ
2
= 24.618, p= .000), bookstores (75%, χ
2
= 16.937, p= .000), toy
stores (53.9%, χ
2
= 28.339, p= .000), movie houses 73.7%, χ
2
= 35.083, p= .000)
and arts/entertainment venues (51.3%, χ
2
= 18.262, p= .000).
A minority of each group wanted certain types of new stores. In these cases,
longstanding residents still desired such stores more frequently than did newcomers.
These types of stores included grocery stores (38.2%, χ
2
= 13.684, p= .000), drug
stores (39.2%, χ
2
= 20.039, p= .000), hair salons/barber shops (43.4%, χ
2
=12.44,
p= .000), sporting goods stores (48.7%, χ
2
= 30.694, p= .000) and check cashing
services (18.4%, χ
2
= 16.937, p= .000).
There were no significant differences between the two groups in their desire for
restaurants, coffee houses, shoe stores, ethnic food stores, pubs/bars and banks. While
the desire for these types of stores was generally low, about half of both groups
indicated a desire for more restaurants (47.4%, 51.3%) and slightly under one-third
wanted more ethnic food stores (32.9%, 21.3%).
Table 11 Percent satisfied with the variety of stores in the neighborhood
Rating Newcomers Longstanding residents
Very unsatisfied 3.8 2.6
Unsatisfied 27.5 25.0
Satisfied 46.3 52.6
Well satisfied 20.0 6.6
Very satisfied 1.3 13.2
Doesnt matter 1.3 0
Average rating 2.91 3.03
χ
2
= 14.569, p=0.012
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
Discussion of the Findings
Different Populations
Newcomers differ from longstanding residents in several dimensions consistent with
the conventional wisdom about gentrification. The newcomers tend to be white, young,
Table 12 Desire for new stores
Store type Newcomers = 1, Longstanding residents = 0 Yes No χ
2
(p-value)
Grocery stores 0 38.2 61.8 13.684 (.000)
1 12.5 87.5
Drug stores 0 32.9 67.1 20.039 (.000)
1 5.0 95.0
Clothing stores 0 64.5 35.5 24.619 (.000)
1 25.0 75.0
Restaurants 0 47.4 52.6 .235 (.628)
1 51.3 48.8
Coffee shops 0 18.4 81.6 0 .003 (.958)
1 18.8 81.3
Bookstores 0 75.0 25.0 16.937 (.000)
1 42.5 57.5
Toy stores 0 53.9 46.1 28.339 (.000)
1 13.8 86.3
Shoe stores 0 0.0 100.0 2.906 (.088)
1 3.8 96.3
Hair salons/Barber shops 0 43.4 56.6 12.44 (.000)
1 17.5 82.5
Sporting goods stores 0 48.7 51.3 30.694 (.000)
1 8.8 91.3
Ethnic food stores 0 32.9 67.1 2.686 (.101)
1 21.3 78.8
Pubs/Bars 0 20.0 80.0 0 .054 (.816)
1 21.5 78.5
Movie houses 0 73.7 26.3 35.083 (.000)
1 26.3 73.8
Arts/Entertainment venues 0 51.3 48.7 18.262 (.000)
1 18.8 81.3
Art/Craft shops 0 0.0 100.0 0 .956 (.328)
1 1.3 98.8
Banks/Financial services 0 5.3 94.7 0 .006 (.941)
1 5.0 95.0
Check cashing 0 18.4 81.6 6.878 (.009)
1 5.0 95.0
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
and with employment outside of the neighborhood. The longstanding residents tend to black,
older, and less frequently employed outside the neighborhood.
1
Newcomers are likely employed
throughout the metropolitan area and chose to live in Columbia Heights because of the potential
and actual attractiveness of the new commercial developments combined with the excellent
access to the city afforded by the opening of the Metro subway station in the community.
The decision to eliminate the middle third of the original sample based on length of
residency in the neighborhood may have biased the three tests of this hypothesis in
favor of significance. In terms of the age difference between the populations, tenure of
8 years or more in any neighborhood is likely positively correlated with age and tenure
of 2 years or less is most likely negatively correlated with age. Nevertheless, based on
these three metrics it is reasonable to conclude that quite different population groups are
now occupying the same geographic and retail space. The characteristics of these
groups conform in broad strokes to the stylized characterization of gentrification, with
young white individuals with limited connection to the community compete with older
black residents who have both residential and possible employment ties to the tradi-
tional, older commercial activities of the neighborhood.
Availability of Types of Stores
The opinions of the two groups as to whether various types of stores were currently
available at the time of the survey did not differ greatly. However, more longstanding
residents believed that clothing stores were available than did newcomers. This differ-
ence of opinion suggests that the types of clothing stores that actually existed in the
neighborhood were more in line with the preferences of longstanding residents than
with those of the newcomers, who may have been looking for a different style of
clothing that was not yet available in the neighborhood.
Longstanding residents felt that banks and sporting goods stores were available
more often than did newcomers, suggesting that longstanding residents were satisfied
with the available banking options, whereas the newcomers felt a more competitive and
diverse array of banking institutions would be needed to be considered Bavailable^.
Similarly, newcomers may typically have been looking for a broader selection of
sporting goods such as branded running shoes.
The newcomers felt that nail salons and bars were more available than did
longstanding residents, which might reflect their greater patronage of those types of
establishments compared to the longstanding residents, who may have therefore been
less aware of their existence in the neighborhood.
Quality of Stores
While the two groups differed only a bit with regard to the availability of types of stores,
they differed substantially about the quality of stores. Newcomers rated almost all types
1
Data on joblessness among the two populations were not gathered, but it is likely that, if there were a
difference, joblessness would be greater among the longstanding residents, reflecting the respective racial
characteristics of the two groups. Black and white unemployment rates in Washington, DC are 12.7% and
2.3% respectively (Wilson 2016). If joblessness is greater among longstanding residents than among new-
comers, the closer employment attachment to the neighborhood by the longstanding residents would be
accentuated.
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
of stores as lower quality than did the longstanding residents. The sole exception was the
formers relative rating of coffee houses. Stores that are central to day-to-day life
grocery stores, drug stores, clothing stores, shoe stores, hair salons/barber shops, and
bankswere all perceived as lower quality by newcomers. Since longstanding residents
felt that these were better quality than did their newcomer neighbors, it seems reasonable
to conclude that clashing tastes and preferences for basic goods and services were at
work.
Attributes of Old and New Stores
To the extent that the newcomers conformed to the stylized image of gentri-
fiers, it was expected that they would be relatively dissatisfied with existing
businesses and more appreciative of the new businesses that might conform to
their vision of a modern commercial corridor. Similarly, while longstanding
residents may also have had critical assessments of existing businesses and
might also like the new retail businesses in the community, they are likely to
feel less strongly about this than do the newcomers.
However, a more nuanced picture emerges from the mixed outcomes of the
survey results. There was no significant difference in the groupsrating of the
cleanliness, safety, and parking availability of the old and new stores. The
longstanding residents rated the pricing in the old stores more highly than did
the newcomers, suggesting that the latter valued the goods and services provided
by that store at a much lower level than did the longstanding residents, while there
were no differences in the ratings given by the two groups for pricing in the new
stores. Perhaps the longstanding residents were happier or more comfortable than
their counterparts with the price structure in their more traditional shopping
venues. The longstanding residents similarly rated the attractiveness of the old
stores higher than did the newcomers. However, longstanding residents also rated
the friendliness of employees in the new stores, the quality of the goods and
services, and the attractiveness of the insides of those stores higher than did
newcomers, suggesting that the longstanding residents found much to appreciate
in the new stores as well. It may also be that the newcomers had higher expec-
tations for good service and shopping amenities than did the longstanding resi-
dents, leading to the formersrelatively lower ratings. But it could also be the case
that longstanding residents had well-established personal relationships with the
stores and their owners, managers, and employees which the newcomers had not
yet developed.
Each of the two population groups rated the new stores higher than the old stores on
most of the key attributes, suggesting that both groups are deriving satisfaction from the
presence of the new stores. For longstanding residents, there were significant differ-
ences in their ratings for old and new stores only in four attributes (i.e., attractiveness of
stores, cleanliness, quality of goods and services and attractiveness of inside). New-
comers gave higher ratings almost across the board to new versus old stores. Only
pricing and friendliness of employees showed no difference in newcomer ratings. This
finding is consistent with our expectations with regard to the newcomers, but it runs
counter to some of our expectations about longstanding residents. It seems that they,
too, are very favorable about the new enterprises in the community.
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
Satisfaction with the Variety of Stores and Desire for New Types of Stores
The longstanding residents are more satisfied with the variety of stores than are the
newcomers, suggesting that newcomers may have a greater impulse for further change
in the neighborhood than the longstanding residents. While a trajectory cannot be
established from a single point in time, there may well be increasing divergence in
the desired character of the neighborhood over time, consistent with the argument that
indirect pressures for displacement continue even after the initial economic displace-
ment pressures have led to a Bnew normal^in the neighborhood. The differences, while
significant, are not that great. Caution in drawing conclusions from this statistic is
warranted.
In fact, turning to the desires of the two population groups for specific types of new
stores, there appears to be a remarkably strong impulse among the longstanding
residents for community revitalization in the form of new types of establishments. This
impulse appears stronger in this group than among the newcomers. The frequently
expressed desire for more bookstores, clothing stores, toy stores, movie houses, and
arts/entertainment venues by longstanding residentsan expressed desire that
exceeded the frequency of such desires by newcomersis the reverse of what one
might expect from stylized stories of gentrification. It could be that the newcomers,
with greater mobility and perhaps greater knowledge of the region, do not feel as
strongly that such establishments should be brought to Columbia Heights since they
were readily accessible to them elsewhere in the region. Nevertheless, the desire for a
more diverse and revitalized community in the form of newer more diverse businesses
in the community clearly reflects the aspirations of longstanding residents. Significant-
ly, none of the categories of possible new types of businesses were preferred more by
the newcomers than by the longstanding residents.
Limitations of the Study
There are several caveats that must be associated with this modest study.
First, the study only examines the opinions expressed by the two population groups
with regard to the business corridor and does not consider economic variables such as
the income of the households and neighborhood or the revenues generated there or their
trends. Thus, the findings are limited to understanding the differences as reflected in
this limited range of preferences and attitudes and can identify only a small set of
potential sources of the indirect displacement process described by Davidson (2008)
and Hyra (2015).
Second, the sample is a convenience sample. The findings and conclusions can
legitimately be applied only to the relatively small number of people who participated
in the survey process, making the findings only suggestive, not definitive.
Third, one could also challenge the legitimacy of assuming that the responses gained
from face-to-face interviews are perfectly comparable to the responses gained from an
Internet-based version of the interview schedule. People responding face-to-face may
tend to be less critical than those who respond via the internet. Tests were conducted to
see if newcomers (longstanding residents) from the face-to-face part of the sample
responded differently from the newcomers (longstanding residents) from the Internet-
based part of the sample. For a few of the items, non-significant differences within each
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
group were detected, but there were not wholesale differences in either internal
comparison.
Fourth, the ad hoc statistical procedure used to define the two population groups,
while having face validity, lacks a firm basis in prior gentrification research.
Fifth, the fact that the evidence yields conflicting findings renders the conclusions
open to alternative interpretations about indirect displacement in neighborhoods in
transition.
Conclusion
The findings show that the characteristics of newcomers and longstanding residents are
quite different from each other, suggesting that neighborhood change is underway in
Columbia Heights. The 449% increase in the white population from 2000 to 2014,
accompanied by double digit percentage declines in the African American and Latino
population, underscore this outcome.
Newcomers generally appreciate the new stores and consider them to be superior to
the old stores, and they are less satisfied with the existing variety of stores than are
longstanding residents. This finding supports one aspect of gentrification theory, i.e.,
the consumption theory, which contends that when people with different consumption
preferences move into a neighborhood, the demand pattern in the neighborhood may
change. Such a process in turn can create pressures for indirect displacement, where the
neighborhood, as reflected in the new general preference structure, leads to a new
business environment and makes life in the neighborhood seem increasingly foreign to
the longstanding residents.
The findings also demonstrate, however, that there is a great deal of support for the
new stores among the longstanding residents. In fact, their desire for even more types of
stores exceeds that of the newcomers, reducing the likely impact of preference differ-
ences on resident behavior, at least on the level of expressed opinions and desires with
regard to the business corridor. The findings of this study therefore only weakly support
the proposition that indirect displacement could accelerate the process of neighborhood
turnover. There are many other dimensions of neighborhood character and culture
(unexamined in this study) that could lead to indirect displacement. Nevertheless, it
seems reasonable that attention should instead remain focused on economic pressures
associated with neighborhood revitalization, from escalating rents and rising property
taxes to deliberate evictions of residents through developer-initiated rehabilitation of
large residential structures that may induce longstanding residents to move out of a
community they have long inhabited.
References
Atkinson R, Wulff M. Gentrification and displacement: a review of approaches and findings in the literature.
AHURI Positioning Paper No. 115, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited,
Melbourne. 2009. https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/position-papers/115.
Abramson D, Manzo L, Hou J. From ethnic enclaves to multi-ethnic translocal community: contested
identities and urban design in Seattles Chinatown-International District. J Architect Plan Res.
2006;23(4):34160.
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
Billingham C. The broadening conception of gentrification: recent development and avenues for future inquiry
in the sociological study of urban change. Mich Sociol Rev. 2015;29:75102.
Byers A. Interview of Andre Byers, Manager, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
Development, District of Columbia, with Judy Mulusa. 2010.
Columbia Heights/Washington D.C. Crime-Areavibes. http://www.areavibes.com/washington-
dc/columbia+heights/crime/.Retrieved17Aug2016.
Davidson M. Spoiled mixture: where does state-led positivegentrification end? Urban Stud. 2008;45:12.
Davidson M. The two faces of gentrification: can zoning help? Am Plan Assoc News. 2002.
Douglas G. The edge of the island: cultural ideology and neighbourhood identity at the gentrification frontier.
Urban Stud. 2012;49:16.
Freeman L, Braconi F. Gentrification and displacement in New York City in the 1990s. J Am Plan Assoc.
2004;70:1.
Glemmer G. Quantitative and spatial analysis techniques for analyzing gentrification patterns, case study of
Portland Oregon, Independent Research Project. 2000.
Hamnett C. Gentrification and residential location theory: a review and assessment. In: Hebert D, Johnson R,
editors. Geography and the urban environment vol. 6: progress in research and applications. New York:
John Wiley Publishers; 1984.
Hamnett C. The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of gentrification. Trans Inst Br Geogr. New
Series. 1991; 16:2.
Hamnett C. Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of inner London, 19612001. Urban Stud. 2003;40:12.
Hyra D. Mixed income housing: where have we been and where do we go from here? Cityscape. 2013;15:2.
Hyra D. The back-to-the-city movement: neighborhood redevelopment and processers of political and cultural
displacement. Urban Stud. 2015;52:10.
Kennedy M, Leonard P. Dealing with neighborhood change: a primer on gentrification and policy choices.
Discussion Paper, Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. 2001.
Kolko J. The determinants of gentrification. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California; 2007.
Lees L. Gentrification and social mixing: towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Stud. 2008;45:12.
Ley D. Reply: the rent gap revisited. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2010;77(3):46568.
Maly M. Beyond segregation: multiracial and multiethnic neighborhoods in the United States. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press; 2005.
McKinnish T, Walsh R, White K. Who gentrifies low income neighborhoods? J Urban Econ. 2010;67:2.
Moore R. Interview with Robert Moore, CEO, Development Corporation of Columbia Heights, by Judy
Mulusa. 2010.
Nesbitt A. A model of gentrification: monitoring commercial change in selected neighborhoods of St.
Petersburg Florida using the Analytical Hierarchy Process. MA thesis, University of Florida. 2005.
Newman K. Newark, decline and avoidance, renaissance and desire: from disinvestment to reinvestment. Ann
Am Acad Polit Soc Sci. 2004;594:1.
Newman K, Ashton P. Neoliberal urban policy and new paths of neighborhood change in the American inner
city. Environ Plan A. 2004;36:7.
Rose D. Rethinking gentrification: beyond the uneven development of Marxist urban theory. Environ Plan D.
1984;2:1.
Slater T. The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2006; 30.
Smith N. Gentrification and the rent gap. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2010;77(3):46265.
Smith N. The new urban frontier: gentrification and the Revanchist City. London: Routledge; 1996.
Vigdor J, Sanford T. Does gentrification harm the poor? Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 2002.
Washington, DC Economic Partnership (WDCEP). DC neighborhood profiles. Washington, DC: Washington
DC Economic Partnership. 2015.
Wilson V. State unemployment rates by race and ethnicity at the start of 2016 show a plodding recovery, with
some states continuing to lag behind. Washington, D.C. Economic Policy Institute. 2016. http://www.epi.
org/publication/state-unemployment-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity-at-the-start-of-2016-show-a-plodding-
recovery-with-some-states-continuing-to-lag-behind. Retrieved 2 Oct 2016.
Wyly E, Hammel D. Islands of renewal: housing policy and the resurgence of gentrification. Hous Policy
Debate. 1999;10:4.
Zukin S. Gentrification, culture and capital in the urban core. Annu Rev Sociol. 1987; 13.
Zukin S. The naked city: the death and life of authentic urban places. New York: Oxford University Press;
2010.
Rev Black Polit Econ
Author's personal copy
... Our review of the literature revealed that there is a dearth of research on gentrification in DC from the perspective of the existing neighborhood residents who have experienced it. To our knowledge, there are only four qualitative peer-reviewed studies out of sociology [4][5][6] and public policy [7] disciplines and one quantitative study out of the political economy discipline [27] that provides this perspective. ...
... Finally, Green et al. [27] conducted surveys and one-onone street interviews with both newcomers and longstanding residents of Columbia Heights to assess the extent to which their conflicting desires and expectations for retail establishments may contribute to the indirect displacement of longtime residents. This examination was predicated on the assumption that gentrification-induced displacement should not only include direct displacement as a result of economic pressure and/or hardship but also indirect displacement as a result of political, social, and/or cultural neighborhood changes [27,29]. ...
... Finally, Green et al. [27] conducted surveys and one-onone street interviews with both newcomers and longstanding residents of Columbia Heights to assess the extent to which their conflicting desires and expectations for retail establishments may contribute to the indirect displacement of longtime residents. This examination was predicated on the assumption that gentrification-induced displacement should not only include direct displacement as a result of economic pressure and/or hardship but also indirect displacement as a result of political, social, and/or cultural neighborhood changes [27,29]. The authors found that the newcomers-who were majority White and also younger, on average, than the longstanding residents-provided a much higher rating on almost all of the attributes of the new (vs. ...
Article
Gentrification-the process by which middle-class individuals (often White) move into lower-income neighborhoods (often Black), consequently displacing existing residents and changing the neighborhood's social character-is a relatively new and rapid phenomenon in Washington, DC. From 2000 to 2010, DC had the second fastest rate of gentrification in the USA. Gentrification is a major and disproportionate source of disadvantage for low-income Black DC residents. In light of the relative dearth of psychological research focused on gentrification, this study sought to answer the following research questions: What are Black men's experiences with gentrification in DC and how are Black men psychosocially affected by the gentrification of their neighborhoods? Data used in this study were obtained in Fall 2013 via nine semi-structured focus groups from nine DC neighborhood clusters. Participants were 83 self-identified Black men between the ages of 18 and 48 (M = 29.96, SD = 6.90) who reported predominantly low socioeconomic status. Black men's experiences with gentrification in DC included experiencing changing demographics and spaces, being discriminated against by police, blaming the Black community for gentrification and displacement and recognizing the positives of gentrification. Gentrification had negative psychosocial effects on participants, including race-based social exclusion, restricted mobility, reduced social cohesion and sense of community belonging, loss of control, and internalized blame. It is imperative that psychologists and other health professionals recognize and further explore the psychosocial and health consequences of gentrification on longtime Black residents and promote solutions to reduce the stress associated with this understudied driver of racial/ethnic health inequities.
... Therefore, even when residents remain in gentrifying areas, they may not enjoy the same activities or ways of being. Gentrification-induced displacement strains social networks, disrupts intergenerational relationships, and fundamentally changes orientations and psychological attachments to both people and places (Atkinson, 2000;Chronopoulos, 2016;Crewe, 2017;Green et al., 2017;Helmuth, 2019;Hyra, 2017;Prince, 2005;Shaw & Hagesmans, 2015;Shinault & Seltzer, 2019;Tuttle, 2020). In fact, research indicates that long-term neighborhood residents experience isolation, social exclusion, and a breakdown of neighborhood social cohesion during gentrification (Gibbons & Barton, 2016;Huynh & Maroko, 2014;Scott, 2019;Versey, 2018;Versey et al., 2019;Weil, 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Gentrification yields a variety of effects, yet the mechanisms linking gentrification to health are unclear. Although quantitative research has helped to identify some patterns, the processes whereby neighborhood dynamics impact health are layered and span multiple levels of health—individual, family, and community. According to research describing large-scale drivers of health, inequality (e.g., income and social) is a significant risk factor for worse health, morbidity, and mortality. Drawing from an inequality-health framework, this paper explores how inequality created by gentrification (e.g., segregated pockets of wealth alongside relative deprivation) harms health and well-being. The current study presents findings from lower-income African American women across 20 U.S. cities, and examines pathways by which gentrification increases inequality and stress for residents living in gentrifying areas. Results indicate that gentrification contributes to both direct (e.g., material scarcity) and indirect (e.g., displacement, distrust, lack of belonging) pathways that impact health, supporting mediation via four major pathways. Implications for further research, theorization, and policy are discussed.
... Scholars suggest that a second consequence of gentrification is indirect displacement [31][32][33][34]. While less documented, indirect displacement may have a significant impact on older residents [35,36]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Neighborhoods within age-friendly cities and communities are an important factor in shaping the everyday lives of older adults. Yet, less is known about how neighborhoods experiencing change influence the ability to age in place. One type of rapid neighborhood change occurring across major cities nationally and globally is gentrification, a process whereby the culture of an existing neighborhood changes through the influx of more affluent residents and businesses. Few studies have considered the impact of gentrification on older adults, who are among the most vulnerable to economic and social pressures that often accompany gentrification. The current study explores one consequence of gentrification, indirect displacement. While gentrification-induced displacement can refer to the physical (e.g., direct) displacement of residents moving out of a neighborhood due to rising housing costs, it also references the replacement of the unique character and social identity of a neighborhood (e.g., indirect displacement). We examine perceptions of the latter, characterized by perceived cultural shifts and housing concerns among adults aging in place in a gentrifying neighborhood in New York City. The implications of indirect displacement for displacement risk and aging precarity are discussed as potential threats to aging in place in age-friendly cities.
... Literature on urban planning policy and the demographics of displacement in Washington, DC tend to highlight neighborhoods in the city's northwest quadrant as a case study [5][6][7]. This paper turns the focus on the lesser-studied SW quadrant and situates current public debate over renewal in the SW and its relationship to displacement within both the local historical continuum and globally-recognized paradigms, such as "the right to the city". ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper examines two periods of renewal in Washington, DC, USA’s southwest quadrant and their relationship with displacement. The paper situates this discussion within both the local historical continuum and globally-recognized paradigms, such as “the right to the city”. This article primarily serves as an overview of urban planning consequences in Southwest Washington DC based on extant academic literature and policy briefs. Compared with the abrupt physical displacement in the 1950s and 1960s precipitated by a large-scale federally funded urban raze and rebuild project, urban planning in present-day DC includes mechanisms for public engagement and provisions for housing security. However, countervailing economic incentives and rapid demographic changes have introduced anxieties about involuntary mobility that the literature suggests may be born out of forced or responsive displacement. Two potential case studies in the area warrant future study to understand present-day mobilities in the context of the economic and socio-cultural factors shaping the actions of present and prospective residents and decision-makers.
Article
Full-text available
While the United States housing cost burden has reached historically high levels for all households in recent years, female-headed households with children tend to bear a significant portion this burden. This study uses data from the 2015 and 2019 American Housing Survey to explore the disparities in housing cost burdens among female-headed households. In general, the results from the fixed effect model reveal that housing assistance significantly decreases the female-headed household's housing cost burden, while renting tends to increase the female householders’ housing burden compared to owning. The fixed effect parameters suggest that single Black mothers experienced a high housing cost burden in 2015 and 2019, more than any other category of Black female-headed households for both years. Likewise, single Hispanic mothers also face large housing cost burdens, which increased from 2015 to 2019. This finding should guide inquiries into the impact of changes in federal policies on the immigrant status on the rising housing cost burden of the Hispanic female cohort. The study's findings suggest an increase in public housing and rental assistance programs that benefit single black mothers with children and other vulnerable households.
Article
After several decades of Whites fleeing large metropolitan areas, they are now increasingly gentrifying urban neighborhoods and communities. This analysis uses data from the 2000 decennial census and the 2012 and 2017 American Community Survey to assess the growing presence of Whites in U.S. cities. The analysis examines the extent to which Whites have experienced an increase in their percentage share of the populations of 212 majority non-White communities with 50,000 or more inhabitants over two time periods (2000 to 2008–2012 and 2008–2012 to 2013–2017). The results show that 39 communities have experienced an expanding relative presence of Whites in one or both periods. Whites generally are growing at a faster pace than Blacks and Latinos in these communities and there are large socioeconomic gaps favoring Whites. The article concludes with a discussion of the policy implications of the findings.
Article
This article explores the connections between oral traditions, belief, and material culture in the context of gentrification and historic preservation policy in African American communities, using Decatur, Georgia, as a case study. The Decatur example illustrates how history and historic preservation are produced in North American communities of color, framed by the communities within the contemporary legend known as “The Plan.” The Plan offers people living in gentrifying communities a means to make sense of the unexplainable: the loss of familiar people, buildings, ways of life, and history to gentrification.
Article
Full-text available
This paper explores how multicultural politics and the geography of immigration present challenges for the consideration of place identity in community planning and design in older "ethnic" neighborhoods. Seattle's historic Chinatown-International District (C-1D), a prime example of an urban space shaped by changing multi-ethnic immigration patterns, provides the case through which these issues are examined. Through this case study, the authors find that successful planning in multi-ethnic communities explicitly recognizes their various cultural identities, accounts for differences between resident and non-resident stakeholders, and focuses design attention on accentuating community "cores" rather than on defining boundaries of territories. This allows for multiple cultural identities to be acknowledged and represented without any one group's history or identity being undermined or sacrificed. Copyright © 2006, Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Article
Full-text available
While certain US cities are still depopulating, others have experienced a reversal of aggregate out-migration patterns. Some scholars, politicians and real estate boosters celebrate this urban population influx, as it will likely increase property values and municipal tax bases; however, we know little about the social costs associated with the back-to-the-city movement. This study investigates the consequences of the back-to-the-city movement through a four-year (2009-2012) ethnographic case study of the revitalisation of Washington, DC’s Shaw/U Street neighbourhood. The redevelopment of this African-American neighbourhood is associated with the city’s 5.2 percent population increase, which occurred between 2000 and 2010. While affordable housing efforts help to keep a portion of long-term, low-income residents in place, political and cultural displacement is occurring as upper-income newcomers flock into this neighbourhood. This article contributes to the urban literature by highlighting that population influx, and associated neighbourhood revitalisation, can have important social implications.
Book
As cities have gentrified, educated urbanites have come to prize what they regard as "authentic" urban life: aging buildings, art galleries, small boutiques, upscale food markets, neighborhood old-timers, funky ethnic restaurants, and old, family-owned shops. These signify a place's authenticity, in contrast to the bland standardization of the suburbs and exurbs. But as Sharon Zukin shows in Naked City, the rapid and pervasive demand for authenticity--evident in escalating real estate prices, expensive stores, and closely monitored urban streetscapes--has helped drive out the very people who first lent a neighborhood its authentic aura: immigrants, the working class, and artists. Zukin traces this economic and social evolution in six archetypal New York areas--Williamsburg, Harlem, the East Village, Union Square, Red Hook, and the city's community gardens--and travels to both the city's first IKEA store and the World Trade Center site. She shows that for followers of Jane Jacobs, this transformation is a perversion of what was supposed to happen. Indeed, Naked City is a sobering update of Jacobs' legendary 1961 book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Like Jacobs, Zukin looks at what gives neighborhoods a sense of place, but argues that over time, the emphasis on neighborhood distinctiveness has become a tool of economic elites to drive up real estate values and effectively force out the neighborhood "characters" that Jacobs so evocatively idealized.
Article
Naked City is a continuation of Prof. Sharon Zukin's earlier books (Loft Living and Cultures of Cities) and updates her views on how people use culture and capital in New York. Its focus is on a conflict between city dwellers' desire for authentic origins and new beginnings, which many contemporary megalopolises meet. City dwellers wish to defend their own moral rights to redefine their places for living given upscale constructions, rapid growth, and the ethics of standardization. The author shows how in the frameworks of this conflict they construct the perceived authenticity of common and uncommon urban places. Each book chapter tells about various urban spaces, uncovering different dimensions of authenticity in order to catch and explain fundamental changes in New York that emerged in the 1960s under the mixed influences of private investors, government, media, and consumer tastes. The Journal of Economic Sociology published "Introduction. The City That Lost Its Soul," where the author explains the general idea of the book. She discusses the reasons for the emergence and history of the social movement for authenticity, having combated both the government and private investors since the 1960s. Prof. Zukin also traces the transformation of the concept of authenticity from a property of a person, to a property of a thing, to a property of a life experience and power.
Article
Gentrification, the conversion of socially marginal and working-class areas of the central city to middle-class residential use, reflects a movement, that began in the 1960s, of private-market investment capital into downtown districts of major urban centers. Related to a shift in corporate investment and a corresponding expansion of the urban service economy, gentrification was seen more immediately in architectural restoration of deteriorating housing and the clustering of new cultural amenities in the urban core.Research on gentrification initially concentrated on documenting its extent, tracing it as a process of neighborhood change, and speculating on its consequences for reversing trends of suburbanization and inner-city decline. But a cumulation of 10 years of research findings suggests, instead, that it results in a geographical reshuffling, among neighborhoods and metropolitan areas, of professional, managerial, and technical employees who work in corporate, government, and business services.Having verified the extent of the phenomenon, empirical research on gentrification has reached a stalemate. Theoretically interesting problems concern the use of historic preservation to constitute a new urban middle class, gentrification and displacement, the economic rationality of the gentrifier's behavior, and the economic restructuring of the central city in which gentrification plays a part.Broadening the analytic framework beyond demographic factors and neoclassical land use theory is problematic because of serious conceptual and methodological disagreements among neo-Marxist, neo-Weberian, and mainstream analysts. Yet efforts to understand gentrification benefit from the use of economic paradigms by considering such issues as production, consumption, and social reproduction of the urban middle class, as well as the factors that create a supply of gentrifiable housing and demand for it on the part of potential gentrifiers.An emerging synthesis in the field integrates economic and cultural analysis. The mutual validation and valorization of urban art and real estate markets indicates the importance of the cultural constitution of the higher social strata in an advanced service economy. It also underlines how space and time are used in the social and material constitution of an urban middle class.
Article
Article
This paper critically reviews the major theories of gentrification which have emerged over the last 10 years and the debate which has surrounded them. It argues that the reason why the gentrification debate has attracted so much interest, and has been so hard fought, is that it is one of key theoretical battlegrounds of contemporary human geography which highlights the arguments between structure and agency, production and consumption, capital and culture, and supply and demand. It also argues that each of the two major explanations which have been advanced to account for gentrification (the rent gap and the production of gentrifiers) are partial explanations, each of which is necessary but not sufficient. Finally, it argues that an integrated explanation for gentrification must involve both explanation of the production of devalued areas and housing and the production of gentrifiers and their specific consumption and reproduction patterns.