Content uploaded by Violaine Jolivet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Violaine Jolivet on Apr 17, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rurb20
Urban Geography
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurb20
Before displacement: studentification, campus-led
gentrification and rental market transformation
in a multiethnic neighborhood (Parc-Extension,
Montréal)
Violaine Jolivet, Chloé Reiser, Yannick Baumann & Rodolphe Gonzalès
To cite this article: Violaine Jolivet, Chloé Reiser, Yannick Baumann & Rodolphe Gonzalès
(2022): Before displacement: studentification, campus-led gentrification and rental market
transformation in a multiethnic neighborhood (Parc-Extension, Montréal), Urban Geography,
DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2022.2073150
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2022.2073150
Published online: 11 May 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 615
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Before displacement: studentification, campus-led
gentrification and rental market transformation in a
multiethnic neighborhood (Parc-Extension, Montréal)
Violaine Jolivet
a
, Chloé Reiser
b
, Yannick Baumann
a
and Rodolphe Gonzalès
a
a
Département de Géographie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada;
b
Social Science Department,
Faculty of Arts, University of New Brunswick, Saint-John, Canada
ABSTRACT
This article explores a case of campus-led neighborhood change
that weaves together an analysis of gentrification, studentification
and displacement.Contributing to the understanding of
displacement pressure, this empirical study employs a temporal
perspective and an innovative mixed method that captures the
shifting state of the rental market and the perceptions of
neighborhood change as understood by immigrant and low-
income residents of Parc-Extension. We analyze how
studentification is promoted in a campus-led gentrification case
study, showing how both gentrification and studentification
participate in the rise of evictions and displacement pressures for
long term residents. By documenting the residential experience in
rental housing through semi-structured interviews and data
mining of rental listings on a popular platform in Canada (Kijiji),
we propose an empirical perspective on displacement pressure
and contribute to the development of this concept in
gentrification and studentification studies. The article begins by
reviewing the literature on gentrification-induced displacement,
displacement pressure, state-led gentrification and
studentification. This is followed by contextualizing our Montréal
case study. We then outline our mixed methodologies and
explain our data collection by web-scraping and fieldwork
modalities. Finally, we discuss our results showing how the
mechanism of displacement pressure can be linked with
studentification and new-build, campus-led gentrification.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 11 June 2021
Accepted 26 April 2022
KEYWORDS
Displacement pressure;
state-led and new-build
gentrification;
studentification; rental
market; mixed methods
Introduction
It’s late September 2019. We are surrounded by luxury condominiums under construc-
tion and what generally feels like trendy urban design. Today is the inauguration of
Université de Montréal’s new science campus, the MIL, where the four of us will work
as members of the geography department. “Rarely do we have the chance to inaugurate
a brand new neighborhood […] we can now celebrate one of the largest transformation
projects in Montréal,”claims Valérie Plante, the current mayor of Montréal. During the
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Violaine Jolivet violaine.jolivet@umontreal.ca Département de Géographie, Université de Montréal,
Campus MIL - C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada
URBAN GEOGRAPHY
https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2022.2073150
two days of festivities that follow, residents from Parc-Extension and community orga-
nizers mobilize to protest the opening of the campus, which they fear will put dispropor-
tionate pressure on the fragile community and its tight rental market in the midst of a
housing crisis. Indeed, while Montréal was until recently described as an exception
inside the Canadian context, with affordable housing, a large share of renters (70%)
and Québec’s housing legislation that provides relatively good protection for tenants
compared to other Canadian provinces, the city is experiencing an unprecedented
phenomenon of property price catch-up, submitting the rental market to predation by
investors and speculators (Gaudreau et al., 2020).
The MIL project, led by the city of Montréal through a partnership with the Université
de Montréal (UdeM) supports the re-urbanization of a brownfield. The site, whose name
stands for “Montréal Innovative Lab”and “Middle of the Island,”is located in Outre-
mont, one of the wealthiest boroughs in Montréal, and is separated by a railroad from
Parc-Extension (Figure 1), one of the poorest and more ethnically diverse neighborhoods
in Canada. Combined with the 1300 units of new condominiums and green spaces under
construction around the campus, the project has already begun to transform the adjacent
immigrant neighborhood of Parc-Extension into a coveted area, setting the stage for the
in-migration of new, predominantly white residents, especially students and creative
workers employed in the new cluster of artificial intelligence (AI) companies nearby
(PEAEMP, 2020; Sprague & Rantisi, 2019).
The MIL project thus represents a major redevelopment orientation for the city, pro-
moting sustainable urbanism and the knowledge economy (PDUES, 2013). Nevertheless,
Figure 1. The “Middle of the Island”urban campus project. Source: Authors, produced by Yannick
Baumann.
2V. JOLIVET ET AL.
it is considered to be the cause of the acceleration of gentrification in Parc-Extension,
using a land upzoning strategy and promoting centrality and infrastructure provisions
that increase the rent gap (López-Morales et al., 2019). Echoing Gray’s arguments
about Glasgow, the state interventions and the construction of the MIL campus near
Parc-Extension “de-risk development and create the conditions for potentially profitable
private investment”(Gray, 2022, p. 75). For the housing stock in the immigrant neigh-
borhood of Parc-Extension, the rapid transformation of the area also means that “it
becomes rational and logical to ‘milk’the property, extracting rent from the tenants
yet spending the absolute minimum to maintain the structure”(Slater, 2017, p. 119).
In addition to this economical perspective on gentrification, many fear that the symbolic
and social transformation of the landscape caused by the re-location of the university
science campus, the arrival of new students, and subsequent studentification will drive
up the price of rent, and lead to the displacement of established low income immigrant
families replacing them with young single persons (Smith, 2004).
Defined by Marcuse as “the dispossession suffered by poor and working-class families
during the transformation of the neighborhoods where they live”(1985, p. 207), the
notion of displacement pressure is central to our analysis, since it aims to show how
the opening of the MIL campus impacted Parc-Extension residents and increased their
feelings “of being supplanted even while remaining in place”(Atkinson, 2015, p. 376).
In this article, we attempt to respond empirically to the request formulated by several
recent studies (Easton et al., 2020; Elliott-Cooper et al., 2020) to better understand holi-
stically the implications and temporalities of displacement. We analyze the changing
state of the rental market in Parc-Extension, triggered by this state-led, large-scale uni-
versity expansion project, in order to analyze how displacement pressure is generated.
Using innovative mixed methods on a case of state/campus-led gentrification stimulating
studentification, we contribute to better define and measure displacement pressure. For
this, we address a specific time window of the gentrification process –before dis-place-
ment –which is less studied in the literature (Zhang & He, 2018) since the “relationship
between a moment of displacement and the moment of upgrading or intervention in the
built environment is not always clear or unidirectional, which in turn makes it difficult to
denounce public authorities and galvanize resistance”(González, 2016, p. 1248).
On gentrification-induced displacement and studentification: intertwined
pressures on the rental market
As remarked by Newman and Wyly (2006), the notion of displacement is at the forefront
of the debate on gentrification and, more generally, on urban transformation since the
1970s and 1980s. Indeed, “residential displacement is one of the primary dangers cited
by those concerned about the exclusionary effects of market- as well as state-driven gen-
trification. Residents may be displaced as a result of housing demolition, ownership con-
version of rental units, increased housing costs (rent, taxes), landlord harassment and
evictions”(2006, p. 27). However more recent studies (Easton et al., 2020; Elliott-
Cooper et al., 2020; Hyra, 2015) call for diversifying and actualizing the way scholars the-
orize displacements in order to understand it more globally beyond the out-migration
trend, insisting on the multiple facets through which gentrification alters the way
people dwell and belong to a place.
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 3
Before displacement: measures and definitions of a crucial concept
Methodologically, numerous studies in the Global North have attempted to quantify dis-
placement through census-based analysis (Atkinson et al., 2011; Van Criekingen, 2008;
Wyly et al., 2010) or longitudinal housing survey (Freeman, 2006; Newman & Wyly,
2006). Analyzing several variables such as change in income, race/ethnicity or mode of
tenure (Zuk et al., 2018), these studies have tried to model housing mobilities or identify
neighborhood changes. But as Easton et al. (2020) point out, the choice of variables and
the different methods used to identify gentrified or gentrifying neighborhoods are just as
debatable as the ways studies measure displacement. Studies also tend to equate displace-
ment with direct or physical displacement (Davidson & Lees, 2010; Easton et al., 2020;
Newman & Wyly, 2006; Slater, 2009). The notion has therefore remained under-theo-
rized for several years, contributing to the eviction of critical perspectives (Slater,
2006), and benefiting academics’conclusions that downplay the violent process of displa-
cement and those that treat it as an organic replacement and necessary phenomenon
(Freeman, 2006). As noted by Easton et al. (2020): “In many ways, this has allowed gov-
ernments, policy-makers and planners to pursue strategies of gentrification unchallenged
by statistical evidence”(p. 287). By using web-scraping and mixed methods, we want to
explore new ways of producing data on displacement as well as give evidence of displace-
ment pressure occurring in Parc-Extension, Montréal.
Building upon the definition Grier and Grier (1980) gave of direct displacement –
water cuts and gas cuts leading to physical displacement or rent increases leading to econ-
omic displacement –Marcuse (1985) is the first to expand the notion by theorizing the
concepts of exclusionary displacement and displacement pressure. On the one hand,
exclusionary displacement occurs when households cannot access a dwelling because it
has been gentrified through changes in conditions or prices (2016, p. 206). On the
other hand, displacement pressure refers to the many forms of dispossession suffered
by poor and working-class families during the transformation of their neighborhood –
“beyond those currently displaced”(1985, p. 207). Following this influential work,
numerous scholars have developed a large literature on gentrification-induced displace-
ment, particularly to challenge the idea of social mixing leading to a just city (Addie &
Fraser, 2019; Rose et al., 2013; Walks & August, 2008) and to give evidence of the violence
of displacement caused by gentrification and neoliberal urban policies (Kern, 2016;
Slater, 2009). Several studies have thus focused not only on residents’out-migration,
but also on the social, cultural, political and symbolic reconfiguration of gentrifying
neighborhoods in order to both complexify the discussion on displacement and to
produce case studies about the ways communities and residents experience displacement
pressure (Hyra, 2015). For instance, Zukin and Braslow (2011) showed how cultural dis-
placement can occur for long-term residents of new creative districts in New York when
new residents’culture and norms become predominant in the neighborhood, without
anyone being pushed out of their home physically. Davidson (2008) brings the notion
of “neighborhood resource displacement”to show that the displacement pressure goes
beyond changes of neighborhood social balance, but also concerns changes of the local
shops and services and the disappearance of meeting places that result in the “out-of-pla-
ceness”of existing residents (p. 2392). Indirect displacement is also compared to a
process of un-homing (Elliott-Cooper et al., 2020; Westin, 2021). Atkinson shows how
4V. JOLIVET ET AL.
evicted tenants in Melbourne and Sydney became dis-located or dis-placed by the phys-
ical and social changes in neighborhoods while still residing in them. The proposed
notions of un-homing and symbolic displacement underline that displacement can
already occurred for low-income tenants prior to moving out of the neighborhood as
“the sense of their general precariousness was fueled not only by gentrification per se,
but also by a combination of tenurial insecurity and the kinds of changes in the physical
and social environment around them which revealed a new language and structure of
place that no longer included them or their perceived reference groups”(Atkinson,
2015, p. 382).
Therefore, our focus on “before displacement”seeks to look at both rent-value and
experiences of un-homing in Parc-Extension to show how the conversion of a brownfield
into a new university district creates both indirect displacement (Davidson & Lees, 2005),
and studentification that foreshadows gentrification. Following Elliott-Cooper et al.
(2020), we agree that research about gentrification-induced displacement needs to go
beyond Marcuse’s contributions.
New build, state-led: relocating centrality –dis-locating neighborhood
Several gentrification studies after Marcuse have tended to focus on indirect displace-
ment produced by urban revitalization policies, urban renewal discourses and the role
of the state (Hackworth & Smith, 2001). Drawing on third-wave gentrification literature,
and attempting to define indirect displacement more precisely by elaborating a typology,
Davidson is one of the first scholars to expand the notions of indirect and exclusionary
displacement, and to show how a new-build project like the London River redevelopment
of an old industrial space does not directly displace inhabitants, but “it is the adjacent
attraction generated by a variety of development that creates displacement”(2008,
p. 2390). In turn, many studies show that revitalization policies often boil down to
state-supported, market-oriented urban strategies that reinvest in working-class neigh-
borhoods, re-creating centrality in formerly abandoned industrial districts and displacing
the low-income and racialized residents (Davidson & Lees, 2010; Lees, 2008; Rose et al.,
2013). As such, both large-scale projects and investment in public sector infrastructure
can play an important role in closing the rent-gap or securing private investment, and
underline how state policy interacts with the market and its principal actors (Gray,
2022; López-Morales et al., 2019; Padeiro et al., 2019).
Although the wave chronology of gentrification might not be altogether applicable to
the Global East and South (Lees et al., 2016; Wyly, 2019), several studies showed how
state intervention leads to displacement in these contexts and strengthens the reflections
on the notion of indirect displacement and state-led new-build gentrification (He, 2007;
López-Morales et al., 2019;Lukens, 2020). In their Shenzhen case study, Liu et al. (2017)
confirme the indirect displacement at stake in neighborhoods bordering redevelopment
projects led by the state, and described the price-shadowing effect (i.e. value assigned
differing from market price)faced by some sectors located near those projects. New
large-scale projects or revitalization plans have also been studied with regard to the
pressure they exert on the inhabitants of the districts concerned. For instance, in Istanbul,
Sakizlioğlu (2014) show how the municipality facilitated the eviction of most residents
inTarlabaşı not only by targeting the neighborhood for a large urban renewal project,
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 5
but also because it was able to control this specific temporality by “withholding infor-
mation, changing plans and delaying or pushing plans”(p. 218). This example highlights
how the violent process of un-homing driven by the local state scared and pushed out
residents before any demolition took place.
Campus-led gentrification
Urban campuses are a specific case of infrastructural investment, as universities have
become public or private partners of municipalities in the economic transition toward
knowledge and creative economies, and have embraced the discourses of urban inno-
vation (Addie et al., 2015). As such, they have become key players in revitalization strat-
egies (Ehlenz, 2019). The construction of new university campuses, especially in the
Canadian and Québec contexts where the financing of higher education institutions is
largely dependent on state contributions, can therefore be analyzed in the context of
state-led and new-build gentrification. Lopez-Morales and collaborators (2019) highlight
four principles of state-led gentrification (SLG) which can be applied to our case study in
order to show how the implantation of the MIL campus contributes to it: “(1) policy
instruments used by state apparatuses to encourage gentrification in places that appeared
unattractive to profit-seeking capital, (2) discursive strategies used to legitimize SLG pro-
cesses, (3) possible outcomes such as direct and exclusionary displacement, (4) locally
emerging forms of contestation and protest”(p. 2).
As Addie et al. (2015) noticed, the relocation and expansion of new-build urban cam-
puses within Canadian cities offered municipalities laudable reasons –education and
knowledge –“to increase land values and local tax bases while boosting surrounding
retailing”(2015, p. 42). As they put it: “these spatial strategies amount to no less than
deliberate physical, social and symbolic place-making in a rapidly changing metropolitan
environment. Indeed, they are targeted at both gentrifying inner city ‘bohemian’neigh-
borhoods, and new immigrant ethnoburbs and technoburbs in the outer periphery of the
urban region”(2015, p. 42). Some examples of downtown university-led gentrification in
Montréal, Vancouver or Kitchener are cited by Moos et al. (2019), but they also mention
that other outcomes of university expansion and new campus development should be
analyzed through studentification and youthification, where “studentification refers to
the influx of post-secondary students to a neighborhood, often related to increased enrol-
ment at a nearby institution, and all its attendant effects, including social, cultural, phys-
ical and economic changes to the area”(p. 1078). Even if this quantitative study about
studentification, youthification and gentrification shows how these phenomena
overlap, making the distinction between students and young gentrifiers almost redun-
dant in some cases, the next section will focus on how studentification has to be under-
stood as an additional form of displacement pressure concomitant with the state/
campus-led gentrification induced displacement.
Studentification and displacement
Studentification describes the process and consequences of students migrating into estab-
lished residential neighborhoods. Despite the variegated forms of studentification,
ranging from the appearance of condos or Purpose-Built Student Accommodation
6V. JOLIVET ET AL.
(PBSA) in or outside of campuses (Revington, 2021) to processes exclusively affecting the
private rental market with the increase in shared accommodation where students
compete with other social groups for housing (Miessner, 2021), the phenomenon
seems largely connected to forms of indirect displacement provoked by rapid urban
transformations.
The literature on studentification sheds a specific light on the displacement pressures
felt by nearby residents in our case study. Nakazawa (2017)defines studentification as
“the social, cultural, economic, and physical transformations of urban spaces resulting
from increases in and concentrations of student populations”(p. 1). Building on this
definition, Gu and Smith (2020) highlight three global features of studentification
across a range of national contexts: (1) student populations will seek accommodation
within relative walking/cycling or short-commuting distance of their place of study
and campus; (2) student populations tend to reside in off-campus shared accommo-
dation, rented from private landlords; (3) studentification accelerates urban changes
which are “exacerbated by the displacement of settled populations due to changing econ-
omic conditions in the local land and housing market, and feelings of dispossession and
loss linked to neighborhood change”(p. 207).
Studentification per se is not the same as gentrification, but what intertwines those two
processes is how they swiftly refashion the area, and both result in inflation of rents, dis-
placement of former residents, rise of new culture and lifestyle as well as the transform-
ation of the environment. Revington’s recent study on Waterloo (2021) demonstrates how
studentification is connected to the development of “generationed”housing sub-markets,
and notes that: “as students concentrate within a neighborhood, households with children,
older adults, and other residents often experience displacement pressures”(p. 2).
Since the beginning of the 2000s, these common features have favored some analysis
of the phenomena of studentification and youthification within the gentrification discus-
sion (Smith, 2004, p. 2008; Revington, 2021). Students have even been described as
“apprentice”gentrifiers in a comparative study that suggested that “the expansion of
higher education is a key component for the (re)production of a pool of gentrifiers
within the third wave of gentrification”(Smith & Holt, 2007, p. 157). In the context of
Goettingen, a medium-sized German city with a housing market similar to that of Mon-
tréal, Miessner (2021) shows how the strategies of small-scale landlords were of special
interest for understanding studentification and subsequent displacement. While we
believe that studentification affecting immigrant and racialized neighborhoods shares
common characteristics with gentrification including forms of colonialism and racism
intrinsic to urban capitalism (Addie & Fraser, 2019; Lees, 2016), it seems important
not to reduce students to yuppies or to an homogeneous, white, privileged group.
However in a city with four universities like Montréal where there are few PBSA, students
are targeted by landlords as they can pay higher rent than migrant and vulnerable
families by splitting the rent between roommates or by accepting shorter contracts,
increasing discrimination and eviction of racialized tenants.
New Urban campus next to a disadvantaged and racialized neighborhood
Although the first signs of gentrification in Parc-Extension appeared prior to the opening
of the MIL campus, the process remained a sporadic trend for more than a decade. Until
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 7
recently, gentrification was still in the early stage where the reinvestment cycle had not
yet begun (Smith, 1996). Today, Parc-Extension has become representative of the spread-
ing of gentrification from Montréal’s central districts to pericentral neighborhoods since
the 2000s (Twigge-Molecey, 2014).
Parc-Ex, a stigmatized immigrant neighborhood being rediscovered
Formerly an inner suburb of Montréal’s northern central area and characterized by a
majority of low-income immigrant workers (Leloup et al., 2016), Parc-Extension has wel-
comed many newcomers since the 1950s, making it one of the most multi-ethnic areas on
the island of Montréal and in Canada. In 2016, according to the census, immigrants make
up 61% of the neighborhood’s population, while 56.5% of households report to be part of
a visible minority.
After a long period of downgrading and marginalization in the 1980–1990s due to the
degradation of the housing stock and the influx of newcomers, public stakeholders and
real estate developers have recently begun reinvesting in the neighborhood. Coupled with
its central location (two metro stations and multiple bus lines), housing market prices
have become an argument of choice for realtors, advertising the potential profit of invest-
ments (rent-gap) in this devalued area surrounded by gentrified districts. Since the 2010s,
Parc-Extension seems on the edge of a socio-economic transition from a neighborhood
left behind to a new hotspot for developers.
The average rent price in the neighborhood is actually difficult to ascertain as the
official data published each year by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
(CMHC) does not illustrate the rapid inflation of the rental market. Indeed, the low
price of rental housing often seems to be underestimated (RCLAQ, 2020).Yet, the
impact of rental price inflation is particularly acute in this neighborhood of racialized
poor tenants, where the median annual income per household is far below that of sur-
rounding neighborhoods and more than 43% of households spend 30% or more of
their income on rent. It is also exacerbated by low vacancy rates, especially in large
multi-unit properties, and few social and community options for low-income households
available in the neighborhood (only 5.2% of the housing stock is subsidized according to
CMHC, 2019).
These new dynamics of reinvestment have already affected the social stratification of
the neighborhood. For instance, according to census data, between 2006 (when the site
was purchased by the University) and 2016 (when the construction of the campus
started), the rate of people holding a Bachelor’s degree or higher in the neighborhood
rose from 15% to 21% (compared to 31.3% in the city of Montréal in 2016); the percen-
tage of renters in Parc-Extension decreased from 82% to 74% (compared to 63% in the
city of Montréal) as new buyers were attracted to the neighborhood and often merged
duplexes; and the percentage of people born outside of Canada in the neighborhood
declined from 62% to 51% (compared to 38% of Montréal’s population in 2016).
Additionally, during the same period, the percentage of workers in the creative class
1
rose from 6.8% to 20.3% in census blocks close to the campus area and from8.8% to
15.8% in the whole neighborhood.
In this context, the MIL project, which represents a major urban development, has
sped up the dynamics of gentrification.
8V. JOLIVET ET AL.
The Middle of the Island project: placemaking in partnership between the
university and the state
The MIL campus’s imposing glass building stands out like a monolith in the landscape of
Parc Extension’s low-quality brick duplexes and triplexes.
Paradigmatic of Montréal’s post-industrial strategy to move toward a creative and
knowledge economy, the MIL project is managed by UdeM as a developer, with grants
from the city, the provincial and the federal governments which support the project
costs. The municipality contributed 174.2 M$ (CAD) for roads, parks and water and elec-
tricity networks, while 120 M$ came from provincial and federal sources for soil decon-
tamination. The project started in 2006 when the university acquired the former rail yard
from the Canadian Pacific company for 18M$. At the city level, the construction of this
350 M$ science campus and the upzoning of the surrounding areas were part of a wider
urban regeneration plan (already outlined in Montréal’s, 2004 Master Plan) in which the
requalification of the industrial corridor was described as a pan-Montréal planning
project: “it has high reuse and improvement potential, especially in light of its central
location and the ready availability of land and buildings. An eloquent example is the
[CP] railyard, which offers excellent potential for reuse as residential space”(City of
Montréal, 2004, p. 219).
Yet, as early as 2007, community organizations from Parc-Extension were already con-
cerned about the effects of the MIL campus on the neighborhood. A group composed of
approximately twenty organizations working together on planning and community devel-
opment in the neighborhood warned about the impacts of such a development: “the
project will add value to the metropolitan area and the area surrounding the yard site,
but we must consider the opportunities and potential threats that a project of this size
poses to an urban neighborhood like ours.”(RAMPE, 2007,p.2).Indeed, as a developer,
UdeM didn’t take into account the impacts of the project on rent increases in Parc-Exten-
sion, and project managers refused to engage with local communities to find a mitigation
strategy (PEAEMP, 2020). As told by a university spokesperson for the MIL project during
an interview conducted in 2019, while the first project presented by the university in 2006
promised 1,058 beds in PBSA for the 2,000 students expected on the new campus, the plan
was modified because “student housing was judged not profitable.”
Mixed methods: examination of “displacement pressure”
The originality of our mixed methods lies in the chronology of its development. Contrary
to many studies, our qualitative approach precedes and informs our data collection and
spatial analysis, and interviews were not only used to confirm or refute the results obtained
from the quantitative data we collected. Indeed, our research project started with two
qualitative data collection initiatives conducted in Parc-Extension between 2016 and
2019. One of these focused on the impacts of the MIL campus on the surrounding neigh-
borhoods and was achieved by interviewing 12 local actors such as urbanists, university
representatives, architects, activists and a local mayor (Jolivet, 2019), while the other
one focused on the housing trajectories and strategies of 27 migrant tenant families and
their perceptions of the ongoing transformations of the rental market in the neighborhood
(Reiser, 2021). While local actors often mentioned the construction of the MIL campus as
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 9
an element of major transformation that will accelerate the gentrification of Parc-Exten-
sion, few migrant residents were actually aware of the arrival and potential impact of the
campus when data collection began two years before the campus opening. However, when
the campus opened in late 2019, the housing sector in Parc-Extension was undergoing
radical changes: renovictions (renovation –evictions) and unjustified rent increases
became more and more frequent in this formerly disinvested and stigmatized neighbor-
hood (PEAEMP, 2020), and many residents began to fear possible displacement. We
therefore attempted to document the changes that interviews with community-based
tenants’rights organizations, local stakeholders or real-estate agents highlighted by exam-
ining the evolution of the rental market in this neighborhood.
In order to evaluate the pressure that the new MIL campus district is putting on local
residents, we opted for an approach based on a spatio-temporal analysis of a dataset we
collected on Montréal’s most popular classified rent listings website (Kijiji) between
2019 and 2021. We developed a web scraper specifically for this project, monitored the
“apartment for rent in Montréal”section of Kijiji’s platform and recorded the date the
listing was posted, its title, its description, its price (in CAD per month) as a proxy of
rental market prices, and its location. Between April 2019 and December 2021, we gathered
230,000 individual listings located on the entire island of Montréal. This analysis of the
Kijiji database was prompted by the increasing digitization of the housing market and
the need for criticalhousingstudies scholars to analyze it (Arribas-Bel, 2014; Boeing, 2019).
A series of post-processes was then applied to our database in order to verify its validity
as well as to infer extra information necessary to our analyses. Post-processes included the
detection of (1) duplicates and reposts, (2) the number of rooms, a commonly accepted
proxy for the size of apartments, (3) the address and (4) mentions of specificlexical
fields of interest within the descriptions of the listing. The latter made use of a word simi-
larity algorithm to find variations of words we identified as belonging to one lexical category
of interest, with terms related to the lexical field of “university”(including “Université de
Montréal,”“university,”“campus”and “student”). Every listing was then given a score
between 0 and 1 reflecting how well their descriptions matched terms within this lexical
field. Scores close to 0 meant that there was almost certainly no mention of the university,
while scores closer to 1 indicated that there was almost certainly a mention of it. After
manually checking random ads against the automated scores, we decided on a threshold
of 0.85 above which we were confident an ad fell into this lexical field.
Finally, it must be stated that the number of ads published in Parc-Extension remains
much lower than in the central districts. As Boeing (2019) observed, information on
online rental platforms tends to underrepresent certain communities. Combined with
the fact that a significant part of Parc-Extension’s rental housing market still exists
offline, this should serve as a cautionary reminder of some pitfalls of this study as well
as of most studies dealing with big data and the housing market.
Rental market and displacement pressure: a socio-spatial analysis
Daily life under displacement pressure
While most studies draw attention to the experiences of displaced households (Atkinson,
2015; Desmond et al., 2015), few studies interviewed tenants or local actors before or
10 V.JOLIVETETAL.
during the reinvestment of their neighborhood, as temporality has generally been given
little emphasis in gentrification studies (Kern, 2016). In the following section, we want to
discuss the displacement pressures or fears of displacement brought about by the sym-
bolic and socioeconomic transformations of the neighborhood triggered by the MIL
project through the immigrant families’feelings and community organizers’
representations.
When we started conducting research circa 2016, the gentrification of Parc-Extension
still seemed improbable to most people. Yet, several residents had already noticed some
transformations in the rental market. Answering a question about her perceived changes
of the housing market in 2018, Priya
2
, who has lived in Parc-Extension since her arrival
from Bangladesh in 1997, noticed the decrease in the number of offers posted on the
street, indicative of the declining vacancy rate in the neighborhood: “Yes, it has
changed a lot recently compared to what it used to be. Before, you could see everywhere
in Parc-Ex ‘for rent.’But not this year, I don’t see any more of those signs.”Selim, an
Algerian father of four children renting a two-bedroom apartment, told us about the
rent increase his landlord wants to set if he ever left: “Yes, it’s very expensive now!
Here, I pay only $550. But the owner told me he will put my apartment at $800 or
$900 when we move!”Tanvi, a single mother from India, also commented on rising
rents in 2018 and explained the implications in terms of residential strategies, with immi-
grants practising doubling-up, a strategy of cohabiting with another household to pay
less housing costs (Ghosh, 2015): “The prices have really gone up! For an apartment,
it’s…I don’t know, twice or three times more expensive! The newcomers and immi-
grants and refugees coming in, they don’t know there’s a shortage of housing. So, some-
times there are three or four families sharing the same apartment.”
But, the link between a lower vacancy rate, price inflation, and the opening of the MIL
campus or student in-migration was not always made by families at this time, which
testifies to the rapidity and the violence of the ongoing changes, but also to the lack of
public consultation throughout the project (PEAEMP, 2020). Indeed, if some immigrant
families commented on the arrival of students in the neighborhood like Ali, a resident
from Pakistan “It’s becoming another neighborhood now, since the new campus.
There are more and more students …”, some others did not even know a year before
the opening that a new campus was being built a few hundred meters from their
home. This is especially striking with Naoual, a Moroccan woman living in the southern
part of the neighborhood. When we asked her in 2018 why she thought prices had
increased so much in the neighborhood, she answered: “When you talk to landlords,
they complain “It’s the taxes, we have a lot to pay!”. But I don’t understand. Have
taxes gone up that much? It’s crazy, because they are old houses, there are no renovations
and they are increasing a lot!”Drawing on Kern’s work on rhythms of gentrification and
the temporal power (2016), it can be said that the lack of awareness and thus the exclu-
sion of residents from this new temporality of campus transformations is a barrier to rec-
ognition, belonging and representation, which “both hides and enables the slow violence
gentrification”(p. 442).
Local community organizations like the Action Committee of Parc-Extension
(CAPE), which advocates for tenants’rights, were also concerned by the changes
before the opening. They witnessed rapid changes in the nature of tenants’complaints,
evolving from complaints about housing conditions to complaints about threats of
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 11
eviction: “In the last two years, we have seen a real change in the claims made by the
tenants we receive. Before, insalubrity was our emergency in terms of mobilization
[….] this summer, we received 89 residents who were facing evictions”.They also
noticed a recent increase in discriminatory practices by landlords toward racialized
tenants and immigrants with precarious statuses that clearly reinforced the fear of (exclu-
sionary) displacement by affecting the “normal movements”of households in the
housing market (Marcuse, 1985, p. 206): “I would also argue that many low-income
racialized immigrant tenants have tremendous problems finding other decent and afford-
able housing in the neighborhood when they are evicted, because of the low vacancy rate
and also because of discrimination …There are many landlords who are now saying that
they only want to only rent to students.”These behaviors correspond to other scholars’
conclusions about class and race displacement, where gentrification processes tend to
gradually replace racialized tenants with more affluent white people (Anderson, 2021)
and students have been described as apprentice gentrifiers (Smith & Holt, 2007),
leading to physical dislocation and increasing “out of place-ness”for existing residents
(Atkinson, 2015; Davidson, 2008).
Also, as CAPE told us in 2018, they feared what Davidson (2008) called “neighbor-
hood resource displacement,”not only demographic changes, but the loss of essential
community resources for immigrant families: “While it’s one of the poorest neighbor-
hoods in Montréal, even in Canada, at the same time, it’s also a neighborhood that
has a huge mutual aid network. It’s something that deserves to be preserved and what
worries me a lot is that this social network and community will be destroyed which
will dis-locate the community.”Indeed, this increase in housing rents is also
accompanied by an increase in commercial rents, the latter having a definite impact
on the commercial offer of the district, as the mayor of the borough pointed out in
2019: “we also have the problem of the increase in commercial rent prices. It affects
businesses, grocery stores, restaurants …In the district, you have to know that Indian
restaurants have a very strong social vocation, they make meals at special prices for
the workers, the farm workers leaving very early in the morning. With the new arrivals
in the neighborhood, we risk losing this social vocation. Not only will this increase the
price of food, but it also means that the residents of the neighborhood will no longer
have the shops they are used to going to.”This fear of community resource displacement
is also shared by the residents of Parc-Ex.In the following quote, Ali emphasizes the
importance of community resources beyond housing affordability and expresses
concern about losing his access to community resources if he cannot stay: “This is
where I know. The school is next door, everywhere, there is all the stuffnearby. I
moved five times and always in the same area, in the same neighborhood. You see, it’s
not just housing. Even for food it’s cheaper. Grocery stores, community organizations,
you can find cheap food there. In other neighborhoods, there are no such initiatives!
That’s why it’s good for families here, I don’t want to go anywhere else.”
As a result, immigrant families encounter increasing difficulties to find adequate
housing in Parc-Extension and feel forced to stay in inappropriate dwellings. As
CAPE explains: “There are still a lot of people who are experiencing problems of substan-
dard housing, and the transformations in the neighborhood often put more and more
pressure on people to tolerate really difficult housing conditions in their flats, because
they feel that there are no other options.”The example of Marisol, a Guatemalan
12 V.JOLIVETETAL.
single mother of five children in a three-bedroom apartment is representative of the situ-
ation of households making concessions and accepting substandard or overcrowded
dwellings: “As I sleep on the living room couch, my daughters tell me: “Mom, we
want you to have a room!”But I tell them I’ll never find another apartment at the
same price here. I can’t leave Parc-Extension, Parc-Extension is stuck with me.”We
argue that this forced residential immobility constitutes another form of displacement
pressure as residents find themselves “stuck in place”(Sharkey, 2013). This situation is
a cause of housing insecurity and increases the risks of direct displacement over
longer distances (Desmond et al., 2015).
“Housing market displacement”un-homing in Parc-Extension
Based on these stories of “dis-place-ment”(Davidson, 2009), we decided to have a closer
look at the transformations of the rental market in Parc-Extension. With the data gath-
ered through our web scraper, we first set out to estimate the impact of the MIL campus
on Parc-Extension’s rental market.
As Figure 2 demonstrates, the distribution of rental prices on the island of Montréal
has shifted globally to higher values over the 2019–2021 period. Data from 2019 show at
least two main classes of prices for the whole island of Montréal: one around 800$/month
and another one around 1200$/month. In the three-year period of our data collection,
the class of prices around 800$/month has shifted towards 950$, and the density
around the 1200$/month class has increased. In Parc-Extension, a transformation of
the rental market is also noticeable in our data: while the data from 2019 showed only
one clear class of prices around 750$/month, data from 2021 show that not only has
this class slightly shifted to around 800$/month, but a new class of prices has quickly
emerged around 1250$/month. This points towards the emergence of a new category
of accommodations that didn’t exist in Parc-Extension until very recent years.
There are reasons to believe that this transformation of the rental market in Parc-
Extension, which, once again, our analyses don’t detect in the whole city, could be
linked to the presence of the MIL campus in the area, and to the fact that landlords
increasingly use the proximity of the campus as an argument to increase rent. For
instance, our data suggest that ads that made use of terms related to the lexical field of
“University”vary in price and in location relative to the MIL campus. While the differ-
ence between location and price per room for ads that made use of such terms and those
that didn’t is not remarkable in wealthy or gentrified neighborhoods, in Parc-Extension
the former had an average price per room of 374$ and were on average located at 720
meters from the MIL campus while the latter had an average price per room of 330$
and were on average located at 1,040 meters from the MIL campus. Although less
clearly than in Parc-Extension, the same thing seems to be happening in Petite-Patrie,
another neighborhood bordering the MIL campus. Even though this could clearly fit
Liu et al.’s(2017, p. 38) remarks that “the price-shadowing effect is closely related to
the nature of property-led redevelopment projects”. We believe it can also be attributed
to the introduction of new condo units in the vicinity of the campus. For instance, during
our study period, nine ads ranging from 2,225$ for a two-bedroom apartment to 1,500$
for a three-bedroom apartment concerned units located in a real estate development built
in 2018 right next to the campus. An ad posted in May 2019 asked for 1,850$ per month
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 13
for a “splendid condo 5
1/2
[3BR], a developing neighborhood. Near the metro station and
the University of Montréal campus. New building. Be the first to live here!”Coupled with
the new condo complexes about to hit the market in the MIL project area and on Beau-
mont Avenue –an industrial corridor –, this serves as a case in point of new-build gen-
trification (Davidson & Lees, 2005).
Moreover, a review of all the tenant complaints received by CAPE since 2017 clearly
shows the growth in punctual cases of abusive rent increases. In a context where land-
lords are seeing more and more incentives to increase rents to catch up with the rest
of the market, these trends clearly underline how the MIL project is putting pressure
on Parc-Extension residents and refashioning the area. As several authors pointed out
(Addie et al., 2015; Moos et al., 2019; Revington, 2021), higher education facilities
have an important role in the transformation of cities. Through their capacity to refa-
shion neighborhoods, university campuses act as powerful agents of placemaking that
influence the socioeconomic evolution of surrounding areas (Ehlenz, 2019) and, in the
Figure 2. Rental market distribution (density) on the island of Montréal and in Parc-Extension (2019-
2021). Source: Authors, produced by Rodolphe Gonzalès.
14 V.JOLIVETETAL.
case of the MIL project, have an impact on rent increase. Following this partial con-
clusion about campus-led gentrification we want to highlight another aspect of the trans-
formation of the rental market: the targeting of students by landlords encouraging the
studentification of Parc-Extension in connection with the opening of the MIL campus.
Students as targeted newcomers in a campus-led revitalization plan
The arrival of a new student population in the area seems to be one of the principal press-
ures faced by Parc-Extension’s tenants as Simon mentioned to us during summer 2019:
I attended the presentation of one of the new plans by the rector of UdeM, and the editor of
a student newspaper asked why there was no more student housing in the plan. The rector
replied, ‘All you have to do is to buy a condo!’Of course, student housing is not profitable,
but socially it is! And we need it, because without affordable student housing, we will be
facing a real pressure on the local housing market.
In the following section we wish to link the arrival of students with the swift recom-
modification of the area and give evidence about how the targeting of students in the area
plays on the displacement pressure experienced by local residents.
As we can see in Figure 3, which represents clusters of listing that made use of terms
related to the lexical field of “university,”the southernmost part of Parc-Extension is part
of this distinctive group of localities. As one would expect, those clusters are precisely
located around Montréal’s main university campuses. This can be explained by the
fact that about 70% of student renters in Québec were renting from private landlords
(UTILE, 2013). Contrary to Revington’s observations in Ontario (2021), studentification
in Parc-Extension and Montréal seems to be less a consequence of the rise in purpose-
built student accommodation (PBSA) near university campuses than a refashioning of
the private rental market toward student populations.
This targeting of students is also visible in the Kijiji listing’s descriptions. While still an
immigrant neighborhood in the midst of a housing crisis, it is now possible to read ads
like “live in the most vibrant area of the city. Parc-extension is a colorful and cultural up-
and-coming neighborhood in Montréal […] Additionally, the new University of Mon-
tréal campus will be located in proximity to our building,”or “located close to the
future University …. Ideal for students or young workers.”Indeed, as in many other
ads, landlords insist explicitly on proximity to the new campus or indicate a clear prefer-
ence for students or young professional tenants. This corroborates the conclusions made
by Moos et al. (2019) about the overlapping processes of gentrification, youthification
and studentification. Indeed, our analysis of ads’descriptions shows how a new branding
for Parc-Extension is emerging and how it lets the property owners select the renters they
want to attract in the neighborhood. It is also clear that targeting students is a way to
increase rent, but also to install practices of gentrifiers (Smith & Holt, 2007)ina
multi-ethnic neighborhood.
This rapid refashioning of the rental housing market toward students and young pro-
fessionals (Moos et al., 2019; Smith, 2004) is also visible through the discourse of real
estate developers. On a large site near the campus, the Montoni group demolished a
former bakery to build 104 residential units. In July 2019, the promoter organized a
public meeting to present its project to potential buyers. To the question: “Are you
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 15
planning social housing units in your new project?”the development director of the
company answered us with a cynical reinterpretation of Lefevbre’s“right to the city”
(1968): “No, no social housing units are planned. Today, the greatest needs in Parc-
Extension are for families and students who will arrive with the new campus. You
know, the right to the city belongs to everyone, it is necessary to address the needs of
all social classes, not just the most disadvantaged.”
Conclusion
A few months before the opening of the campus, we organized a field course with under-
graduate students in Parc-Extension. On the third day, a resident and local activist was
stunned by the sight of this group of predominantly white students, and a heated discus-
sion followed:
Are universities good for us or not good for us? Are they just ways of getting rich people to
put their money in real estate? Y’all gotta be asking these questions and if you go to school
there, you’re publicizing it. People that move here, they’re participating in that! This com-
munity means a lot and there’s a lot of human beings that are getting kicked out of this com-
munity, have nowhere to go, have to move and their whole lives have been changed, their
kids leave their schools, they lose all their friends. There’s a lot of things that are actually in
effect because students are coming here.
The students were quite shaken by this exchange. They thought they were denouncing
the arrival of the MIL campus with their field projects, but they were now aware of the
Figure 3. Campuses and student-oriented private rental market in Montréal. Source: Authors,
produced by Rodolphe Gonzalès.
16 V.JOLIVETETAL.
much bigger issue at stake: the programed displacement of poor and racialized families
by the arrival of young, white middle- and upper-class people.
Our article highlights the strong impact of the opening of a new university campus on
the rental market and on immigrant residential trajectories in Parc-Extension, and it
documents how the displacement pressure of such campus-led gentrification functions.
Our contribution is threefold. First, we were able to contribute empirically to the litera-
ture discussing the notion of displacement focusing on displacement pressure. By linking
the concepts of studentification and campus-led gentrification, our findings show how
both processes are woven together; both contribute to the quick recommodification of
rental housing toward students and young professionals and to displacement pressures
experienced by immigrant families. Our second contribution is methodological. In this
regard, we took seriously the temporal and spatial relationship between urban redevelop-
ment, rising housing prices and displacement pressures highlighted in the literature. By
combining quantitative and qualitative strategies, we addressed shortcomings of both
methodological approaches when analyzing gentrification-induced displacement. More
importantly, we produced our own quantitative data to avoid the implicit limits of
census-based analysis in order to confirm the fears and increasing pressures evoked by
our interviewees. Our third contribution is a practical one. In a world increasingly cen-
tered around the power of data, community organizations as well as activists are in an
ever-greater need for data and tools capable of identifying gentrifying areas and popu-
lations at risk of displacement. By contributing to critical data production with other
local organizations such as Parc-Extension Anti-Eviction Mapping Project (PEAMP)
and CAPE, we believe our tools and data will empower both activist and grassroot organ-
izations to prove how the university and the local state are responsible for the violent
wave of gentrification that is falling on the most vulnerable tenants who are losing not
only an apartment, but their sense of place.
Notes
1. The definition of the creative class is based on the one given by the city of Montréal (2013).
The job categories selected (information and cultural industries; finance and insurance; pro-
fessional, scientific and technical services; management of companies and enterprises; edu-
cational services) are based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
2. All names of survey participants have been changed to respect their anonymity and some
interviews were translated from French.
Acknowledgements
The authors are all members of CRACH - Collectif de Recherche et d’ACtion sur l’Habitat.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Violaine Jolivet http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1040-743X
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 17
References
Addie, J.-P. D., Keil, R., & Olds, K. (2015). Beyond Town and gown: Universities, territoriality and
the mobilization of New Urban structures in Canada. Territory, Politics, Governance,3(1), 27–
50.
Addie, J.-P., & Fraser, J. C. (2019). After gentrification: Social Mix, settler colonialism, and cruel
optimism in the transformation of neighbourhood space. Antipode,51(5).
Anderson, E. (2021). Black in white space: The enduring impact of color in everyday life. The
University of Chicago Press.
Arribas-Bel, D. (2014). Accidental, open and everywhere : Emerging data sources for the under-
standing of cities. Applied Geography,49,45–53.
Atkinson, R. (2015). Losing one’s place: Narratives of neighbourhood change, market injustice and
symbolic displacement. Housing, Theory and Society,32(4), 373–388.
Atkinson, R., Wulff, M., Reynolds, M., & Spinney, Angela. (2011). Gentrification and displacement:
The household impacts of neighbourhood change (No. AHURI Final Report No. 160). AHURI.
Boeing, G. (2019). Online rental housing market representation and the digital reproduction of
urban inequality. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,52(2), 449–468.
CMHC. (2019). Rental Market Report—Montréal CMA.
Davidson, M. (2008). Spoiled mixture: Where does state-led `positive’gentrification End? Urban
Studies,45(12), 2385–2405.
Davidson, M. (2009). Displacement, space/place and dwelling: Placing gentrification debate.
Ethics, Place & Environment,12(2), 219–234.
Davidson, M., & Lees, L. (2005). New-Build ‘gentrification’and London’s riverside renaissance.
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,37(7), 1165–1190.
Davidson, M., & Lees, L. (2010). New-build gentrification: Its histories, trajectories, and critical
geographies. Population, Space and Place,16(5), 395–411.
Desmond, M., Gershenson, C., & Kiviat, B. (2015). Forced relocation and residential instability
among urban renters. Social Service Review,89(2), 227–262.
Easton, S., Lees, L., Hubbard, P., & Tate, N. (2020). Measuring and mapping displacement: The
problem of quantification in the battle against gentrification. Urban Studies,57(2), 286–306.
Ehlenz, M. M. (2019). The university and its neighborhood: A study of place-making and change.
Journal of Urban Affairs,41(6), 776–794.
Elliott-Cooper, A. E., Hubbard, P., & Lees, L. (2020). Moving beyond Marcuse: Gentrification, dis-
placement and the violence of un-homing. Progress in Human Geography,44(3), 492–509.
Freeman, L. (2006). There goes the ‘hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up. Temple
University Press.
Gaudreau, L., Hébert, G., & Posca, J.. (2020). Analyse du marché de l’immobilier et de la rentabilité
du logement locatif (IRIS). https://iris-recherche.qc.ca/publications/speculation-logement.
Ghosh, S. (2015). How are Sri Lankan tamils doing in Toronto’Housing markets ? A comparative
study of refugee claimants and family class migrants. In T. Carlos & L. Wei (Eds.), The housing
and economic experiences of immigrants in U.S. And Canadian cities (pp. 98–120). University of
Toronto Press.
González, S. (2016). Looking comparatively at displacement and resistance to gentrification in
latin American cities.”.Urban Geography,37(8), 1245–1252.
Gray, N. (2022). Correcting market failure? Stalled regeneration and the state subsidy gap. City,26
(1), 74–95.
Grier, G. W., & Grier, E. S. (1980). Urban displacement: A reconnaissance, in: Back to the city: Issues
in neighborhood renovation. Pergamon Press.
Gu, H., & Smith, D. P. (2020). ‘Living offthe campus’: Urban geographies of change and studen-
tification in Beijing, China. Urban Geography,41(2), 205–224.
Hackworth, J., & Smith, N. (2001). The changing state of gentrification. Tijdschrift Voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie,92(4), 464–477.
He, S. (2007). State-sponsored gentrification under market transition the case of Shanghai. Urban
Affairs Review,43(2), 171–198.
18 V.JOLIVETETAL.
Hyra, D. (2015). The back-to-the-city movement: Neighbourhood redevelopment and processes of
political and cultural displacement. Urban Studies,52(10), 1753–1773.
Jolivet, V. (2019). En plein dans le MIL, KesKisTRAMES podcasts. https://trames.hypotheses.org/
3151.
Kern, L. (2016). Rhythms of gentrification: Eventfulness and slow violence in a happening neigh-
bourhood. Cultural Geographies,23(3), 441–457.
Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban
Studies,45(12), 2449–2470.
Lees, L. (2016). Gentrification, race, and ethnicity: Towards a global research agenda? City &
Community,15(3), 208–214.
Lees, L., Shin, H. B., & López-Morales, E. (2016). Planetary gentrification. John Wiley & Sons.
Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le droit à la ville. Economica.
Leloup, X., Rose, Damaris, & Desrochers, Florence. (2016). Les travailleurs pauvres dans la RMR de
Montréal: profil statistique et distribution spatiale. INRS. http://espace.inrs.ca/id/eprint/4834/1/
leloup-centraidecomplet-2016.pdf.
Liu, Y., Tang, S., Geertman, S., Lin, Y., & Van Oort, F. (2017). The chain effects of property-led
redevelopment in Shenzhen: Price-shadowing and indirect displacement. Cities,67,31–42.
López-Morales, E., Sanhueza Claudia, E. S., Ordenes, F., & Orozco, H. (2019). Rent Gap formation
Due to public infrastructure and Planning policies: An analysis of greater Santiago, Chile, 2008–
2011. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,51(7), 1536–1557.
Lukens, D. (2020). Configurations of gentrification and displacement: Chronic displacement as an
effect of redevelopment in Seoul, South Korea. Urban Geography,,1–21.
Marcuse, P. (1985). Gentrification, abandonment, and displacement: Connections, causes, and
policy responses in New York city. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law,28(47), 195–240.
Miessner, M. (2021). Studentification in Germany: How investors generate profits from student
tenants in Goettingen and the impacts on urban segregation. European Urban and Regional
Studies,28(2), 133–154.
Montréal City. (2004). 2004-2005 master plan implementation progress report. https://ville.
Montréal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=2762,3101713&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL.
Montréal City. (2013). Les industries créatives: Catalyseurs de richesse et de rayonnement pour les
métropoles. https://ville.Montréal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/AFFAIRES_FR/MEDIA/
DOCUMENTS/INDUSTRIESCREATIVES_ETUDECCMM.PDF.
Moos, M., Revington, N., Wilkin, T., & Andrey, J. (2019). The knowledge economy city:
Gentrification, studentification and youthification, and their connections to universities.
Urban Studies,56(6), 1075–1092.
Nakazawa, T. (2017). Expanding the scope of studentification studies: Expanding the scope of stu-
dentification studies. Geography Compass,11(1), 1–13.
Newman, K., & Wyly, E. K. (2006). The right to stay Put, revisited: Gentrification and resistance to
displacement in New York city. Urban Studies,43(1), 23–57.
Padeiro, M., Louro, A., & da Costa, N. M. (2019). Transit-oriented development and gentrification:
A systematic review. Transport Reviews,39(6), 733–754.
PDUES. (2013). Secteurs Marconi-Alexandra, Atlantic, Beaumont, De Castelnau. Montréal.
PEAMP. (2020). MIL façons de se faire évincer: The University of Montréal and gentrification in
Parc-Extension. Montréal.
RAMPE. (2007). Mémoire du Regroupement en aménagement de Parc-Extension dans le cadre de la
consultation publique sur le Plan de transport de Montréal 2007 Montréal. https://ocpm.qc.ca/
sites/ocpm.qc.ca/files/pdf/P16/9c7.pdf.
RCLALQ. (2020). La flambée des loyers: Enquête sur le prix des logements à louer au Québec.
Montréal.
Reiser, C. (2021). Se loger dans un quartier tremplin: Trajectoires et stratégies résidentielles des
familles immigrantes à Parc-Extension et Saint-Michel, Montréal. Thèse de doctorat en
géographie. https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/25905.
Revington, N. (2021). Age segregation, intergenerationality, and class monopoly rent in the
student housing submarket. Antipode,53(4), 1228–1250.
URBAN GEOGRAPHY 19
Rose, D., Germain, A., Bacqué, M.-H., Bridge, G., Fijalkow, Y., & Slater, T. (2013). Social mix’and
neighbourhood revitalization in a transatlantic perspective: Comparing local policy discourses
and expectations in Paris (France), Bristol (UK) and Montréal (Canada). International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research,37(2), 430–450.
Sakizlioğlu, B. (2014). Inserting temporality into the analysis of displacement: Living under the
threat of displacement. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,105(2), 206–220.
Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equal-
ity. The University of Chicago Press.
Slater, T. (2006). The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research,30(4), 737–757.
Slater, T. (2009). Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement. City,13(2-3), 292–311.
Slater, T. (2017). Planetary rent gaps. Antipode,49(1), 114–137.
Smith, D. P. (2004). Studentification: The gentrification factory? In R. Atkinson, & G. Bridge
(Eds.), Gentrification in a Global context. Routledge, 73-92.
Smith, D. P., & Holt, L. (2007). Studentification and ‘apprentice’gentrifiers within britain’s pro-
vincial towns and cities : Extending the meaning of gentrification. Environment and Planning
A: Economy and Space,39(1), 142–161.
Smith, N. (1996). The New Urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. Psychology Press.
Sprague, M., & Rantisi, N. M. (2019). Productive gentrification in the Mile-Ex neighbourhood of
Montréal, Canada: Exploring the role of the state in remaking urban industrial clusters. Urban
Research & Practice,12(4), 301–321.
Twigge-Molecey, A. (2014). Exploring resident experiences of indirect displacement in a neigh-
bourhood undergoing gentrification: The Case of Saint-Henri in Montréal. Canadian Journal
of Urban Research,23(1), 1–22.
UTILE. (2013). Étudier à montréal: Une vision à étoffer. Montréal.
Van Criekingen, M. (2008). Towards a geography of displacement. Moving out of Brussels’gen-
trifying neighbourhoods. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,23(3), 199–213.
Walks, A., & August, M. (2008). The factors inhibiting gentrification in areas with little Non-
market housing: Policy lessons from the Toronto experience. Urban Studies,45(12), 2594–2625.
Westin, S. (2021). Un-homing with words: Economic discourse and displacement as alienation.
Cultural Geographies,28(2), 239–254.
Wyly, E. (2019). The evolving state of gentrification. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale
Geografie,110(1), 12–25.
Wyly, E., Newman, K., Schafran, A., & Lee, E. (2010). Displacing New York. Environment and
Planning A: Economy and Space,42(11), 2602–2623.
Zhang, Z., & He, S. (2018). Gentrification-induced displacement.Handbook of Gentrification
Studies.
Zuk, M., Bierbaum, A. H., Chapple, K., Gorska, K., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2018). Gentrification,
displacement, and the role of public investment. Journal of Planning Literature,33(1), 31–44.
Zukin, S., & Braslow, L. (2011). The life cycle of New York’s creative districts: Reflections on the
unanticipated consequences of unplanned cultural zones. City, Culture and Society,2(3),
131–140.
20 V.JOLIVETETAL.
