Gentrification,Displacement,andtheRole ofPublicInvestment
MiriamZuk1,ArielH.Bierbaum2,KarenChapple1, KarolinaGorska3 andAnastasiaLoukaitou-Sideris4
JournalofPlanningLiterature 2018,Vol.33(1)31-44
ª TheAuthor(s)2017 Reprintsandpermission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI:10.1177/0885412217716439 journals.sagepub.com/home/jpl
Abstract
Scholarlyinterestintherelationshipbetweenpublicinvestmentsandresidentialdisplacementdatesbacktothe1970sandthe aftermathofdisplacementrelatedtourbanrenewal.Anewwaveofscholarshipexaminestherelationshipofgentrificationand displacementtopublicinvestmentintransitinfrastructure.Scholarshiphasgenerallyconflatedgentrificationanddisplacement; however,thisreviewarguesforacleareranalyticaldistinctionbetweenthetwo.Althoughthedisplacementdiscussioninthe UnitedStatesbeganwiththeroleofthepublicsectorandnowhasreturnedtothesamefocus,itwillbenecessarytoovercome methodologicalshortcomingstoarriveatmoredefinitiveconclusionsabouttherelationship.
Keywords
gentrification,displacement,neighborhoodchange,transportation,demographicanalysis,gender/race/ethnicity,realestate, infrastructureandcapitalfacilities
IntheUnitedStates,theever- changingeconomies,demographics,andphysicalformsofmetropolitanareashavefostered opportunityforsomeandhardshipforothers.Thesedifferential experiences“land”inplaceandspecificallyinneighborhoods. Scholarshavedevotedvolumes toanalyzingneighborhood decline,subsequentrevitalization,andgentrificationasaresult ofgovernment,market,andindividualinterventions.Today, withincreasingattentiontomillennialandbabyboomermigrationtocentralcityneighborhoods,popularandscholarlyconversationsaboutgentrificationhavereturnedtothefore.
Thedefinitionsandimpactsofgentrificationhavebeen debatedforatleastfiftyyears.Centraltothesedebatesarethe differentialimpactsonincumbentandnewresidentsandquestionsofwhobearstheburdenandwhoreapsthebenefitsof change.Consistently,activis ts,residents,andcommunity groupsidentifydisplacementasapressingconcern.Anxieties aboutresidential,cultural,an djobdisplacementreflectthe livedexperiencesofneighborhoodchangeandthesocialmemoryofdisplacementspast.Thesechangesstemnotjustfrom individualactionandmarketforcesbutalsogovernmentintervention.Thepublicsectormakesinvestmentstostimulateand respondtorenewedinterestinurbanliving;theseinvestments putgovernmentatriskofbecominganagentofgentrification anddisplacement.However,theextenttowhichpublicinvestmentscatalyzeresidentialdisplacementisnotwell-definedor quantifiedinthesocialscienceresearch.
Inthisarticle,wereviewthebodyofresearchonresidential displacementrelatedtogentrificationandpublicinvestment. Publicinvestmentencompassesawidearrayofdirectactivities (e.g.,urbanredevelopment,openspacerevitalization,andconstructionofinfrastructure)andindirectpolicyactions(e.g.,
landassembly,subsidies,andzoning).Inthisarticle,wenarrowthefocustoinvestmentsintransportationinfrastructure, specificallyrailtransit.Inrecentyears,publicspendingin transithasgrown,whileotherpublicspendinghasstagnated.1 Bytracingattemptstodefineandmeasureresidentialdisplacement,wehighlightsignificantmethodologicallimitations includingdataavailabilityandthetimingofdisplacement, whichpotentiallymasktheimpactsofpublicinvestmentson communities.
Givenrenewedpublicinvestmentintheurbancore,andin particularthegreatpopularityoftransit-orienteddevelopment asamunicipalsmartgrowthstrategy,thetimeisripetoreview theconceptsandliteraturetoinformpolicyandpracticesurroundinggentrification,residentialdisplacement,andtherole ofpublictransportationinvestments.Thisliteraturereview bringstogetherextensivebodiesofscholarshipthathave soughttoexaminetheseissues.First,wereviewdefinitions andapproachestostudyinggentrificationandresidentialdisplacement.Wearguethatresidentialdisplacementisoftena keycharacteristicofgentrification,yetisalsoanalyticallydistinct.Second,weexaminetherangeofstudiesthathavetriedto measurethemagnitudeofgentr ificationandresidential
1 UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CA,USA
2 UniversityofMaryland,CollegePark,Georgia,USA
3 LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning,LosAngeles,CA,USA
4 UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,CA,USA
CorrespondingAuthor: MiriamZuk,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CA,USA. Email:mzuk@berkeley.edu
displacement.Then,weexaminetheroleofpublicinvestments intransportationinfrastructureonneighborhoodchange.We concludewithaseriesofquestionstoguidefutureresearch.
DefiningResidentialGentrification
Thefirstdocumenteduseoftheterm“gentrification”(Glass 1964)describestheinfluxofa“gentry”tolower-incomeneighborhoodsinLondonduringthe1950sand1960s.Osman (2011)documentsevenearlierinstancesofclass-basedmovementintoinner-cityareas,sp ecificallythehistoryof “brownstoning”inBrooklyninthe1940s.Yet,Glass’seffort generallybenchmarksthestartofgentrificationasafieldof study.Sinceheridentificationofthephenomenon,scholars haveattemptedtodefinethecomplexprocessofgentrification, studyingitthrougharangeofmethodologicalapproachesand withlittleunanimity.
Dependingonthetimeandplace,gentrificationhasbeen seenasatool,goal,outcome,orunintendedconsequenceof revitalizationprocessesindecliningurbanneighborhoods, whicharedefinedbytheirphysicaldeterioration,concentrationsofpoverty,andracialsegregationofpeopleofcolor. Scholarshavesoughtnuanceddescriptionsandexplanations ofgentrification,identifyi ngthespatial,physical,demographic,andeconomicdimensionsofthiskindofneighborhoodchange.
Gentrificationistiedtohistoricalpatternsofresidential segregation;segregatedneighborhoodsexperiencethe“double insult—a‘one-two’knockout”ofneglectandwhiteflightin the1950sthrough1970sfollowedbytheforcesofgentrifying revitalizationsincethe1980s(PowellandSpencer2002,437). Governmentandpolicyhaveplayedakeyroleincreatingthese patternsbydirectingpublicandprivatecapitalinwaysthat advantagesomeanddisadvantageotherneighborhoods(Rose 1984;Harvey2001;Smith1982).Thislinktoneighborhood disinvestmentandsubsequentdeclinesuggeststhatgentrificationoccursinlower-incomeinner-cityneighborhoods(Lees, Slater,andWyly2008;Hamnett1991;Lees2000).However, othersalsoidentifygentrificationinmiddle-orhigher-income urbanneighborhoods(Lees2003),suburbanneighborhoods (Charles2011),andruralareas(ObergandNelson2010; Phillips2004;Ghose2004).Regardlessofspecificgeographic location,gentrificationoccursinplaceswithrelativelyaffordablehousingstockandoftenresultsinphysicalrenovationof deterioratedhousingandinfrastructure(Hamnett1984;Lees, Slater,andWyly2008).
Smith(1996)emphasizesanexusofactorsthatfacilitatethe gentrificationprocess—developers,builders,mortgagelenders, governmentagencies,andrealestateagents.Government—at thelocal,state,andfederallevels—setstheconditionsforand catalyzesgentrificationprocessesthroughpublicsubsidyand policy.Governmentworkinginconjunctionwithprivateactors makesupthelargerpoliticaleconomythataimstoaccumulate capitalthroughlandusemanagementandcitydevelopment, echoingtheideaofthecityasa“growthmachine”(Loganand Molotch1987;Smith1996).
Thegentrificationprocessalsorequiresin-moverswhom scholarsgenerallydescribeasthosewithhigherincomesand/ oreducationalattainmentleve lsthanincumbentresidents (Hamnett1991).Toattractin-movers,neighborhoodsneedto offerjoborrecreationalopportunitiesandloworappreciating housingprices(Lees,Slater,andWyly2008),stabilizednegativesocialconditions(Ellen,Horn,andReed2016),andsome lifestyleoraestheticappeal(Brown-Saracino2009).Somegentrifiersexpressalifestylepreferenceforgritty,authentically “urban”experiences(Ley1996;Zukin1982)evenactingas agentstopreservesomenostalgic,authenticcharacterofa place(Brown-Saracino2009).Somealsoidentifypolitical positionsforclassorracialandethnicintegrationasamotivation(Brown-Saracino2009;Ley1996).
Themotivationsofgentrifiers,drivenbyacombinationof culturalpreferences,politi calorientations,andeconomic needs,vary.Somescholarsarguethatgentrificationoccursin “waves,”inwhichthefirstin-movers—oftenreferredtoas “pioneers”—arelower-income peoplewithhigherlevelsof educationalattainment,suchasartists.Theirhousinglocation choicesareoftendrivenbyaffordabilityconsiderationsaswell asaestheticpreferencesandhighertoleranceordesirefor racial,ethnic,and/orclassdiversity(Lees,Slater,andWyly 2008).Thedrivingeconomicneedsoffirst-wavegentrifiers thusarecloselytiedtolandvalues,housinglocation,andindividuals’positionwithinthelabormarket(Hamnett2003).Second-andthird-wavegentrifiersmaybehigher-income professionals,whoarriveafterthefirstwavehashelpedstabilizeandsanitizetheneighborhood.
Regardlessoftheirmotivations,in-movers’presencecan improvethephysicalenvironment.Thesephysicalupgrades arearesultofbothindividualactionsandstate-sponsored investmentsinhousingandinfrastructureandimprovedservicesandmaintenance(DavidsonandLees2005;Bridge,Butler,andLees2012;Lipman2008;Freeman2006).Costof livingintheneighborhoodincreases,andthismaycontribute todisplacement(Hamnett1984).
Gentrificationisaparticularkindofneighborhoodrevitalization,distinctbecauseofitspossibledisplacementeffects. Underanalternativekindofrevitalization—incumbentupgrading—theriseofneighborhoodconsciousnessandadvocacyto improvelocalconditionscatalyzesexistingresidentstomake improvements(Clay1979).Incumbentresidentsstayandreap thebenefitsofneighborhoodimprovements,whereasingentrification,theycanbedisplacedasthesocialandeconomic environmentofneighborhoodsshift,andthepublicsectordoes nottakeactiontoprotectlong-termresidents.
Gentrificationscholarshiphasfocusedoninterracialor— ethnicdynamicsofneighborhoodchange,particularlywhere whitein-moversarriveinneighborhoodswithpredominantly residentsofcolor.Recentstudiesontheprevalenceofwhiteinmovementaremixed,however.Somestudiesfindtrendsof greaterwhitein-migrationintopoor,nonwhiteneighborhoods (CrowderandSouth2005;McKinnish,Walsh,andKirkWhite 2010),resultinginshiftingracialcompositionsingentrifying neighborhoodsandassumeddisplacementofnonwhite
incumbentresidents.Otherresearch,however,suggestsfew differencesbyraceamonghouseholdsmovingintoandout ofgentrifyingandnongentrifyingneighborhoods(Ellenand O’Regan2011)andthatconcentrationsofAfricanAmerican residentsmayactuallydetergentrification(HwangandSampson2014).
Somescholarsfurthercomplicatetheunderstandingofthese demographicshifts.Usingqualitativemethods,thesestudies lookatcasesofblackin-moversintopredominantlylowincomeblackneighborhoods(Boyd2005;Moore2009;Pattillo 2008).Thesestudiestieneighborhood-specificprocessesto largerstructuralissuesofresidentialsegregationandexclusion. Theyarguethatblackin-moversfeelmorecomfortablerelocatingtopredominantlyblackneighborhoodsbecauseofahistoryofhousingdiscriminationinpredominantlywhite neighborhoodsandthesuburbs.Further,blackgentrifiersmay seetheirrelocationininnercitiesasaprojectof“racialuplift” fortheirlower-incomeblackcounterparts(Boyd2005).
MeasuringandPredictingResidentialGentrification
Thecomplexityindefininganddocumentinggentrification qualitativelyhasyieldedsimilarlycomplicatedeffortsat quantitativelymeasuringandpre dictinggentrification.While researcherswhousequalitativemethodsfocusonthenuances ofhowgentrificationunfolds overtime,mostquantitative analysestreatgentrificationasanoutcomeratherthanaprocess.Despitethefactthatscholarshavefocusedontheroleof government,policy,andpublicinvestmentinspurringgentrificationsincethe1970s,attemptstopredictgentrification havelargelyfailedtoincorpo rateanymeasuresofpublicsectoraction.
Anumberofeffortsaimtoassessthepastandcurrentextent ofgentrificationandalsotodevelopasetofpredictivemodels forwheregentrificationmayoccurinthefuture.Scholars incorporateadiversityofmetricsbasedonwhatdataareavailable.Somecombineindicatorstocapturethemultipledimensionsofthephenomenonusingdataonincome,race, educationalattainment,housi ngvalues,rent,andvarious proxiesforinvestmentordisinvestment.Othersusesimple metricsofrelativeincomegrowthforeaseofanalysisand comparison.Manystudiesquantifygentrificationbycensus tractbasedonchangesovertimethatexceedeitherabsolute thresholdsorbenchmarkedchangesatthemetropolitanor regionallevel.
Inoneoftheearliestquantificationsofneighborhoodgentrification,BradwayLaska,Seaman,andMcSeveney(1982) lookatNewOrleanscensustractsthatwere“eligible”tobe gentrifiedbasedontherenovationpotentialofthehousing stock(i.e.,ageandmedianvalue).Analyzingpropertytransactiondata,theyestimatetheamountofneighborhoodrenovationasaproxyforgentrificationandconductaregression analysistodeterminewhichofasetofnineteenindependent locational,social,andhousings tockvariablessignificantly predictedrenovation.Locationalvariablesaretheonlyproxy forpublicinvestment(intheformofparksandpublichousing).
Educationalattainment,owneroccupancy,andhighpercentage ofmultiunitbuildingssignificantlypredictrenovation,whereas thepresenceofpublichousingnegativelypredictsit.
GalsterandPeacock(1986)askwhethertheoperational definitionofgentrificationimpactedtheextent,location,and causalfactorsassociatedwiththephenomenon.Theauthors identifyacensustract’seligibilitytogentrifybasedonits aggregatesocioeconomicstatusin1970(i.e.,income,home value,educationalattainment,andpercentageofwhite).They analyzesocioeconomicandrealestatechangefrom1970to 1980inPhiladelphia,PA,for(a)proportionofblack,(b)proportionofcollegeeducated,(c)householdincomes,and(d) propertyvalues.Theonlypotentialmeasuresofpublicinvestmentareproxiesforproximitytoparksanduniversities.Varyingthestringencyofeachofthefourgentrificationindicators, theirsensitivityanalysisindicatesawidevariationinthenumberandlocationofgentrifiedtracts,findingthatasfewas6 percentandasmanyas82percentofeligibletractshavegentrifiedduringthetimeperiod.Theytesttwelvepredictivecharacteristicsoneachofthesedefinitions,findinglittle relationshipandwidevariability.
MelchertandNaroff(1987)useblock-levelcensusdata toconstructapredictivemodel ofgentrificationinBoston, MA.Intheirconstructionofagentrificationindex,the authorsrelyheavilyonClay’s(1979)definition.Theylook atcentralcitylocationsandcombineforty-onevariables thatcharacterizetheblock’s amenities(e.g.,parks),social composition(e.g.,percentageofwhite),economicstatus (e.g.,medianincome),andh ousingconditions(e.g.,percentageofunitswithoutplumbing).Theonlyindicatorof publicinvestmentisopenspace.Theauthorsidentifyfour phasesofgentrification,definedbythegentrifiersandthe percentageofthehousingstockgentrified.Yet,whenmodelingthephenomenon,theycharacterizegentrificationasa dichotomousvariable,havingeitherhappenedornot.Ultimatelyendingupwithsixpredictivevariables,theydeterminethatthegentryinBostonpreferred:anolderhousing stock;proximitytoopenspaceofsixtotenacres;tolive neardowntown,thoughnottooclose;andneighborhoods withdepressedhousingvalues.
Freeman(2005)definesgentrifyingneighborhoodsas being:(1)centralcityneighborhoods,(2)initiallypopulated bylow-incomehouseholds,thathad(3)experienceddisinvestment(i.e.,mostlyolderhousingstock),whichsubsequently experienced,(4)aninfluxoftherelativelyaffluent(i.e., increasededucationalattainment),and(5)anincreaseinprivateinvestment(i.e.,housingpriceappreciation).Heincludes nopublicinvestmentvariable.Freemanfindsthat31percentof eligibletractsintheUnitedStatesgentrifiedinthe1990s. Updatingthesedatafor GoverningMagazine’sanalysisofthe country’sfiftylargestmetropolitanareas,Maciag(2015)finds thatnearly20percentofeligibleneighborhoodsgentrified since2000.Yet,somecitieshadmuchhigherratesofgentrificationwithover50percentofeligibletractsinMinneapolis, Seattle,Washington,DC,andPortlandgentrifyingbetween 2000and2013.
Finally,inhisanalysisofneighborhoodsocioeconomic changebetween1990and2010,Landis(2015)attemptsto comeupwithconsistentindicatorsacrossseventymetropolitan areas.Hedefinesgentrifyingtractsasthosewithlowmedian incomesin1990thatgrewbymorethantwodecilesoverthe timeperiod.Usingthisincome-onlydefinition,hefoundthat 21percentofeligibletractsgentrifiedinthe1990sand2000s. Tractswithhigherproportionsofwhiteresidents,collegeeducatedresidents,andpre–WorldWarIIhousingweremore likelytohavegentrified.Yethispredictivemodelonlypredicts 4percentofgentrifyingtracts.Despiteincorporatingvariables measuringpublicpolicyrelatedtogrowthmanagement,the studydoesnotincludeanymeasuresofpublicinvestment.
DefiningResidentialDisplacement
Displacementisacentralconcernofgentrification.However, wearguethatitisalsoadistinctphenomenonthatcanoccur evenintheabsenceofgentrification.
Scholarlyinterestindefining,measuring,andpredicting residentialdisplacementdatestothemid-twentiethcentury, whenthefederalurbanrenewalprogram,localredevelopment efforts,andinterstatehighwayconstructionforciblydisplaced communitiesofcolorandlow-incomecommunitiesinurban neighborhoodsenmasse.Followingthesepolicyefforts,urban activistswereparticularlysensitivetotherisksofandtherole ofgovernmentinfacilitatingdi splacement(Hartmanand NationalHousingLawProject1981).
However,inthe1970s,thenatureofdisplacementwasno longersolelydrivenbyforcedremovalthroughpublicaction. Instead,agrowing“backtothecity”trendperceivedtobe largelydrivenbyprivateactionsandindividualpreferences (albeitwithsignificantyetperhapsmoresubtleinfluencesfrom thepublicsector)begantodominatepublicconcernabout neighborhoodchangeandresi dentialdisplacement(Clay 1979).Today’slandscapeof downtownrevitalizationand migrationofbothmillennialsandretiringbabyboomersto centralcities(Ehrenhalt2012)hasrenewedinterestnotonly inprivateactionsandindividualpreferencesbutalsointherole thatgovernmentandpublicinvestmentsmayspurresidential displacement.
In1978,theUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentsponsoredthefirstofaseriesofreportsonrevitalizationanddisplacementcalled“UrbanDisplacement:A Reconnaissance”(GrierandGrier1978).Inthisreport,the authorslisttwenty-fivefactorsthatmightleadtotheinvoluntarymovementofpeoplefromtheirplaceofresidence.These factorsimplyadiversesetofactors:buildingownerswho initiatecondominiumconversionorrentincreases,localgovernmentconductingproactivecodeenforcementandplanning decisions,andbanksengaginginredliningpractices,tonamea few.Inanefforttoprovideadefinitionofdisplacementthat encompassesthesevariousdrivers,GrierandGrier(1978,8) proposethefollowing,whichnumerousresearchersandagencieshaveadoptedsubsequently:
Displacementoccurswhenanyhouseholdisforcedtomovefrom itsresidencebyconditionswhichaffectthedwellingorimmediate surroundings,andwhich:
1)arebeyondthehousehold’sreasonableabilitytocontrolor prevent;
2)occurdespitethehousehold’shavingmetallpreviously imposedconditionsofoccupancy;and
3)makecontinuedoccupancybythathouseholdimpossible, hazardousorunaffordable.
Althoughtheyusetheterm“forced”intheirdefinitionof displacement,GrierandGrierdonotequateforcedwithinvoluntarydisplacement.Infact,theydescribethefactthatmany whoaredisplacedaresubjecttoavarietyofactionsorinactions thatcanbeexplicitorimplicit.They(1978,3)conclude:
Formostresidentstomoveundersuchconditionsisaboutas “voluntary”asisswervingone’scartoavoidanaccident.Bythe timethelandlordissuesnoticesofeviction,orthecodeinspector poststhestructureasuninhabitable,fewoccupantsmaybeleft. Therefore,wecannotdefinedisplacementsimplyintermsoflegal oradministrativeactions—orevendrawaclear-cutlinebetween “voluntary”and“involuntary”movement.
NewmanandOwen(1982)concurthatthedistinctionbetween voluntaryandinvoluntarymovesisfalse:“low-incomehouseholdswhoexperienceextremelylargerentincreasesmaytechnically‘choose’tomove,butthelikelihoodthattheyhadany realalternativeisverysmall”(p.137).
Inanefforttocategorizethecausesofdisplacement, GrierandGrier(1978)disti nguishbetweendisinvestment displacement,reinvestmentdisplacement,anddisplacement causedbyenhancedhousingmarketcompetition.Disinvestmentdisplacementoccurswhenthevalueofapropertydoes notjustifyinvestinginitsmain tenance,thereb yresultingin decayandabandonment.Reinvestmentdisplacementrefers tothecasewhereinvestmentsinaneighborhoodresultin increasedrentstoapointwhereitisprofitabletosellor raisetherentforcingtenantstoleave.Theauthorswere carefultonotethat“unrelatedastheyseem,thesetwoconditionsofdisplacementmayb esuccessivestagesinthe cycleofneighborhoodchange”(GrierandGrier1978,3). Forexample,disinvestmentdisplacementmaymakewayfor newin-moverstopurchaseinexpensivehousing,resultingin reinvestmentandsubsequentdisplacement.Finally,they arguethatenhancedhousingmarketcompetition,reflecting broadshiftsinthenationalandregionalhousingmarket, mayhaveanevenlargerimpactthandisinvestmentorreinvestmentforces.
Thedistinctionsinthesethreetypesofdisplacementpressures(disinvestment,reinvestment,andenhancedmarketcompetition)resurfacedwhenMar cuse(1985,1986)analyzed displacementinNewYorkCity.Marcusearguesthatwhen lookingattherelationshipbetweengentrificationanddisplacement,onemustfirstconsiderthedisinvestmentofurbanneighborhoodsandsubsequentdisplacement,whichcreates“vacant”
landripeforinvestmentthroughgentrification.Fromthisperspective,gentrificationcanhappenlongafterdisplacement occurs.Therefore,mostgentrification-induceddisplacement studiessignificantlyunderestimatethemagnitudeoftheproblembyonlylookingat“lastresidentdisplacement.”Instead,he arguesthat“chains”ofdisplacementmustbeconsidered.He furtherdistinguishesbetweendisplacementduetophysical reasons(e.g.,wateristurnedoff,evictions,rehabilitation,etc.) versusthoseduetoeconomiccauses(e.g.,risingrent).Inaddition,Marcuseintroducestheconceptof“exclusionarydisplacement”toencompasssituationswhenahouseholdisnot permittedtomoveintoaneighborhoodbasedonconditions thatarebeyondtheircontrol(e.g.,priceincreases).
Marcusealsosuggeststhatdisplacementaffectsmanymore thanthosephysicallydisplacedatanymoment:
Whenafamilyseesitsneighborhoodchangingdramatically,when alltheirfriendsareleaving,whenstoresaregoingoutofbusiness andnewstoresforotherclientelearetakingtheirplaces(ornone arereplacingthem),whenchangesinpublicfacilities,transportationpatterns,supportservices,areallclearlymakingthearealess livable,thenthepressurefordisplacementisalreadysevere.(Marcuse1986,57).
Davidson(2009)expandsonthisidea;forhim,theoveremphasisonspatialdislocationindisplacementliteratureignoresthe socialmeaningandpracticesattachedtothelivedexperiences ofneighborhoodsandplace.Thus,“itisimpossibletodrawthe conclusionofdisplacementpu relyfromtheidentification movementofpeoplebetweenlocations.Peoplecanbedisplaced— unableto(re)constructplace—w ithoutspatialdislocation” (Davidson2009,228).
Finally,withtheirfocusonevictions,DesmondandShollenberger(2015)remindresearchersthatforceddisplacement isendemictopoorcommunitiesandnotconfinedtogentrifying neighborhoods.Theauthors focusonforceddisplacement throughbothformalevictionsprocessedthroughthecourtsystemandinformalevictions,whichareoften“lessexpensive andmoreefficientthanforma levictions”(Desmondand Shollenberger2015,1754).Intheiranalysisofsurveydata onthereasonsforpeople’smovesinMilwaukee,theyclarify theoverlysimplifieddichoto myofinvoluntary/voluntary movesbyreclassifyingsomeseeminglyvoluntaryreasonsas responsivetooutsideforces.Theydefinetheseresponsive movesas“motivatedbyhousingorneighborhoodconditions. Theseincluderenthikes,adeteriorationinhousingquality, escalatingviolenceintheneighborhood,domesticviolence” (DesmondandShollenberger2015,1758).Whentakinginto accountthemagnitudeandimpactsofforcedandresponsive displacementinpoorblackneighborhoods,Desmond(2012) arguesthat“evictionistowomenwhatincarcerationistomen: atypicalbutseverelyconsequentialoccurrencecontributingto thereproductionofurbanpoverty”(p.88).
Basedonthisreviewoftheliterature,wecategorize thevariouscatalystsfordisplacementfromhousingunits andneighborhoods(seeTable1).Weidentifyforcedand
Table1. CategoriesofDisplacement.
ForcedResponsive
Director physical causes
Indirector economic causes
Formaleviction
Informaleviction(e.g., landlordharassment)
Landlordforeclosure
Eminentdomain
Naturaldisaster
Buildingcondemnation
Foreclosure
Condoconversion
Exclusionary causes
Section8 discrimination
Zoningpolicies
(restrictionondensity, unitsize,etc.)
NIMBYresistanceto development
Deterioration inhousing quality Neighborhood violenceor disinvestment
Removing parking,utilities, andsoon.
Rentincrease
Increasedtaxes
Lossofsocial networksor cultural significanceofa place
Unaffordable housing
Cultural dissonance
Lackofsocial networks
responsivecausesandfurther differentiatebetweendirect physical,indirecteconomic,andexclusionarycauses.
Asillustrated,thereasonsfordisplacementmayormaynot resultfromgentrification.Whiledisplacementmaybeadefiningcharacteristicandoutcomeofgentrification,thiscategorizationclarifieshowdisplacementcanoccurintheabsenceof gentrification,andthatscholarshiprequiresadvancedtoolsto defineandmeasuretheseanalyticallydistinctphenomena.
MeasuringResidentialDisplacement
Measuringresidentialdisplacementischallenging,akinto “measuringtheinvisible”asthepopulationunderquestionhas movedawayfromtheplaceofstudy(Atkinson2000).Scholars useavarietyofqualitativeandquantitativemethodstoanswer questionsacrossscalesthataddresswhoandhowmanypeople aredisplaced,whatcausesdisplacement,andwhataresome consequencesofdisplacement.Thesestudiesstemfroman interestinneighborhoodinvestmentanddisinvestmentbyboth privateandpublicsectors.
NewmanandOwen(1982)offerperhapsoneofthefirst comprehensiveanalysesofdisplacement.Theyuselongitudinaldatafromthepanelstudyonincomedynamicstoestimatethescale,nature,andimpactsofdisplacement.They categorizemovesasdisplacementrelatedwhenpeoplemove becauseoftheconditionsofthehouseorneighborhood, eminentdomain,andevictionbythelandlordbecauseofsale orreoccupation.Whiletheyincludepublicactionasacausefor displacement(i.e.,eminentdomain),theydonotexplicitly
lookattheimpactsofpublicinvestment.NewmanandOwens findthattheaverageannualrateofdisplacementbetween1970 and1977wasroughly5percentofallfamiliesthatmoved.
InmeasuringvariousformsofdisplacementinNewYork Cityinthe1970s,Marcuse(1986)examinesdisinvestmentrelateddisplacementfromabandonmentbylookingatcensus dataonthelossofunits.Hearguesthattheactuallossunderestimatesthedisplacementfromabandonmentduetothespillovereffectsfromvacantpropertyonneighborhoodlivability conditions.Inadditiontoabandonment,hequantifiesdisplacementfromrehabilitationofmultifamilyunits,thelossofsingle roomoccupancyunits,changesinrent,condominiumconversions,andlandlordharassment.Despitepotentialduplication betweenthevariouscategories,heestimatesarangeof40,000 to100,000annualdisplacement-relatedhouseholdmovesin the1970s,roughly8percentto21percentoftheestimated 476,011totalmovesinNewYorkCityin1979.
InaseriesofquantitativeandqualitativeanalysesforNew YorkCity,NewmanandWylyclassifydisplacementas householdsthatmoveforreasonsofhousingexpense,landlordharassment,anddisplacementbyprivateaction(i.e., condoconversion).Lookingatuniquesurveydatafromthe NewYorkCityHousingandVacancySurvey,theyfindthat between6percentand10percentofallmovesinNewYork Cityfrom1989to2002wereduetodisplacement.Theyargue thatthisnumbercouldbeasignificantunderestimatedueto theinabilityofsurveydatatocapture“doublingup,”homelessness,ormovesoutofthere gion.Furthermore,theyfind thatneighborhoodcontextmattered;forinstance,morethan 15percentofallrentersmovin gintotheWilliamsburg/GreenpointneighborhoodinBrookly nweredisplacedfromtheir previoushomes,whereaslessthan4percentofarrivalsinthe Flatlands/Canarsiesectiono fBrooklynweredisplaced.Ina subsequentanalysis,Wylyetal.(2010)againlookatNew Yorkhousingsurveydata,andwhencomparingtheirresults tolocalevictiondata,estimatethatthesurveymissestwelve ofthethirteendisplacees.Theyalsofindthatpoorhouseholds werenearlytwiceaslikelytobedisplacedasnonpoor households.
Finally,intheirsurveyofrentersinMilwaukee,WI,DesmondandShollenberger(2015)findthatmorethanoneineight Milwaukeerentersexperiencedatleastoneforcedmove(formalorinformaleviction,landlordforeclosure,orbuildingcondemnation)overatwo-yeartimeperiod.Theratesdifferedby race/ethnicity;theyfoundthat8percentofwhiterenters,15 percentofblackrenters,and29percentofHispanicrenters experiencedforcedmoves.Nearlyhalfofallforcedmoves wereinformalevictions.Formalevictions,ontheotherhand, werelesscommon,constitutinglessthanone-quarterofforced moves.Outofallmovesinthepreviousyear,theyfindthat roughly11percentwereduetodisplacement.Incontrast,the AmericanHousingSurvey(AHS)of2009estimatesbetween2 percentand5percentofmoveswereduetodisplacement. DesmondandShollenbergerarguethattheAHSunderestimatesdisplacementduetoopen-endedquestionsthatdonot adequatelycaptureinformalevictions.
Together,thesestudiesdemonstratethecomplexityofadequatelyquantifyingthescaleofthedisplacementphenomenon. Nevertheless,researchersfindthatroughlybetween5percent and10percentofmovesareduetoreasonsbeyondahousehold’scontrol,whichcanvarysubstantiallybetweenneighborhoodsandsocioeconomicgroups.
Gentrification-inducedResidential Displacement
Thevastmajorityofresearchondisplacementhasfocusedon displacementasanoutcomeofneighborhoodrevitalization, upgrading,and/orgentrification.Boththemethodsandthe definitionsofgentrificationanddisplacementinthesestudies rangeaswidelyasthoseidentifiedabove.Here,wereviewthis setofstudies,withanaimtounderstandtheirdifferencesand inabilitytoconclusivelyestablishtherelationshipbetween gentrificationanddisplacement.
Earlyon,researchersfocusonsurveyingpeoplewhomoved intoandoutofrevitalizingneighborhoods,examiningneighborhoodsexperiencingincreasedprivateand/orpublicinvestment.Ina1981surveyofcurrentandformerresidents (NationalInstituteforAdvancedStudies1981)oftherapidly revitalizingHayesValleyneighborhoodofSanFrancisco, researchersfindthatfrom1975to1979,oneoutoffourmovers (bothout-andintramovers)fromtheirsampleweredisplaced. DisplaceesweremorelikelytobeAfricanAmerican,lesseducated,poor,renters,elderly,andlivingaloneincomparisonto in-moversandresidentswhostay.Researchersalsofindthat displaceesmovedoutforava rietyofreasonsincluding investment-relatedcauses (e.g.,risingrent)butalso disinvestment-relatedreasons(e.g.,poorhousingquality),callingintoquestionboththedirectionandtimingoftherelationshipsbetweenneighborhoodrevitalization,disinvestment,and displacement.Inarelatedstudy,Schill,Nathan,andPersaud (1983)surveyedout-moversfromninerevitalizingneighborhoodsinfivecities.Theyfindthat23percentofout-movers from1978to1980weredisplaced.Overcrowding,frequency ofpreviousmoves,unemployment,andmaritalstatuspredicted displacement.Despitethehighratesofdisplacement,theauthors acknowledgethepotentialforundersamplingofthemostvulnerableandmoretransienthouseholds.
InLondon,Atkinson(2000)definesgentrificationby increasesinprofessionalizationinthecity’sboroughswithout regardtoprivateorpublicinvestment.Usingsynthetic cohortsofcensusdata,hefindsclearlinksbetweentherise ingentrificationanddisplacementofvulnerablegroupsin London.AnalyzingsimilarlylargeareasforBoston,Vigdor, Massey,andRivlin(2002)askwhetherlow-statushouseholds weremorelikelytoexithousingunitsingentrifyingareas relativetootherpartsoftheBostonmetropolitanarea.CombiningdatafromtheAHSwithaggregatedatafromthecensus,theyranaregressionofresidentialstabilityonlocationin gentrifiedzones(definedbydemographiccharacteristicsof theresidents,andnotprivate orpublicinvestmentflows). Theyfindthathousingturnoverwasgreateringentrifying
zones;however,loweducationalattainmentappearstopredicthousingstabilityratherth anturnover,wheninteracting withlocationinagentrifiedzone.
FreemanandBraconi(2004)useNewYorkCitysurveydata tocompareexitratesofpoorhouseholdsingentrifyingsubboroughstotheexitratesofthepoorinnongentrifyinglowincomeneighborhoodsfrom1991to1999.Theyfindthatpoor householdsresidingingentrifyingneighborhoodswereless likelytomovethanpoorhouseholdsresidingelsewhere.However,peoplemovingintogentrifyingneighborhoodswereofa highersocioeconomicstatusthanthoseleaving,indicatingpossibleexclusionarydisplacement.Theydonotanalyzethe effectsofpublicinvestment.NewmanandWyly(2006)argue thatthe“gentrified”neighborhoodsofNewYorkinFreeman andBraconi’sstudyhadalreadyseenthedisplacementofpoor householdsinearlierdecadesandthatthenongentrifyingpoor neighborhoodcontrolgroupsincludedresidentsofsomeofthe poorestareasofthecitywithrespectivehighturnoverrates, creatinganartificiallyhighstandardtouseasacontrol.
Otherstudieshavelookednationallytotrytoidentifythe factorsresultingindisplacement,capitalizingondifferentdata sets.Freeman(2005)analyzes thepanelstudyonincome dynamicsdataandcomparesdisplacementinpoorgentrifying censustracts(definedbybothdemographicshiftsandprivate investment)topoorcensustractsthatdidnotgentrify.Hefinds thatrentalinflationwasasignificantpredictorofmobility,and displacementwashigheringentrifyingasopposedtonongentrifyingtracts.Althoughpositiveandstatisticallysignificant, Freemandismissestherelationshipbetweengentrificationand displacementassmall.Theanalysisdoesnotincludeindependentvariablesmeasuringpublicinvestment.
McKinnish,Walsh,andKirkWhite(2010)analyzetheconfidentialnationalcensuslongformdatafrom1990to2000to understandwhomovesintoandoutofgentrifyingneighborhoods(definedbydemographiccharacteristics).Theauthors findthatmigrantsintogentrifyingtractsweremorelikelytobe higherincome,collegeeducated,youngerandlesslikelyto havechildrenandbeimmigrantswhencomparedtonongentrifyinglow-incometracts.Theyalsofindstatisticallysignificanthigherexitratesoflow-educationblackandLatino residentsfromgentrifyingneighborhoods.
Finally,EllenandO’Regan(2011)usetheAHStocompare characteristicsofhouseholdsthatmovedintooroutofgentrifyingneighborhoods(definedbymedianhouseholdincome gains).Theyfindthatneighborhoodincomegainsdidnotpredicttwo-yearhouseholdexitrates,evenamongvulnerable groups.NeitherMcKinnish,Walsh,andKirkWhitenorEllen andO’Reganexploretheroleofprivateorpublicinvestmentin theiranalyses.
Usingauniqueindividual-leveldatasetoncreditscores, Ding,Hwang,andDivringi(2016)largelyconfirmEllenand O’Regan’s(2011)study,findingthatlow-creditscoreresidents ofgentrifyingneighborhoods(definedbyhomevalues)were nomorelikelytomoveoutthansimilarresidentsofnongentrifyingneighborhoods.Theywere,however,morelikelyto movetolower-incomeneighborhoods.Whendifferentiating
betweendifferentstagesofgentrification,theauthorsfindthat low-scoreresidentswereslightlymorelikelytomoveoutof neighborhoodsthathadbeengentrifyingforanextendedperiod oftime(i.e.,twodecadesormore).Inaddition,theyfindthat in-moverstothegentrifyingneighborhoodsweremorelikelyto beofhigher-incomelevels,suggestingthatexclusionarydisplacementisoccurring.Thisstudyonlycapturesmovesby residentswithacreditscoreandthusmaybemissingdisplacementforthelowestincomeresidentsandmanyrenters.Ina subsequentstudyofPhiladelphia,Chizeck(2016)findsthat gentrifyingneighborhoodslostlow-costhousingatfivetimes theratesofnongentrifyingneighborhoods.
Finally,inanalyzingevictionscasesinLosAngelesin the1990s,Sims(2016)findsthatgentrificationexplains onlyoneofthefour“displacementgeographies,”whilethe otherthreearenongentrifyingorpregentrifyingcontexts relatedtocapitalaccumulationfacilitatedbypublicand privateinstitutions.Simsarguesthatabnormallyhighrates andconcentrationsofevictionscanthusrepresentrestructuringhousingandlabormarkets,andpossiblyeventhe strategicactionoflandlords,ratherthansimplytheindividualbehavioroftenants.
Althoughvariedintheirapproachesandresults,oneconsistentfindingacrossthesestudiesisthatin-moverstogentrifying neighborhoodsarewealthier,whiter,andofhighereducational attainmentthanincumbentresidents,andout-moversaremore likelytoberenters,poorer,andpeopleofcolorthanin-movers (seeTable2).Theresearchalsoconsistentlyshowsthatrent appreciationpredictsdisplacement.
However,thestudiesarenotconsistentintheirfindings thatgentrificationinducesdisplacement.Whythediscrepancy?Onepossibleexplanationfortheunexpectedresidentialstabilityisthatthenormaln eighborhoodturnoverprocess slowsinneighborhoodsthataregainingnewamenities(along withnewresidents);residentstryhardertostayintheneighborhood,evenifitmeanspayingmorerentordoublingup (Chapple2014;Freeman2006).Yet,thesehigherrentburdensareunlikelytobesustainableoverthelongterm,resultingindisplacementinalonger-termframeworkthanis typicallymeasured.
Otherreasonsfortheinconclusiveevidenceonthelinks betweengentrificationanddisp lacementincludedefinitional andmethodologicalshortcomingsoftheresearch.For instance,quantitativeanalyseshavesystematicallyfailedto characterizethevariousstagesofgentrificationthataneighborhoodmaybeexperiencing,choosinginsteadtocategorize gentrificationasastaticoutcome.Thisdichotomyalsoleaves outthepotentialforgentrification-relateddisplacementto precedegentrification,especiallywhenpropertyowners attempttovacateunitsinanticipationofrisingrentsand neighborhoodchange.Furthermore,thevastmajorityofstudiesnarrowlydefinesdisplace mentunderwhatMarcuse(1985) wouldclassifyasphysicaloreconomicdisplacementbut ignoresordismissesexclusion arydisplacementassimply successionandreplacement.Howwedefinethephenomenon mattersforhowweinterprettheresults.
Table2. QuantitativeStudiesontheRelationshipbetweenGentrificationandDisplacement.
Author(Year)
National Institutefor Advanced Studies (1981)
Schill,Nathan, andPersaud (1983)
Atkinson (2000)
Vigdor, Massey,and Rivlin(2002)
Freemanand Braconi (2004)
Freeman (2005)
Operationalizationof DisplacementOperationalizationofGentrificationKeyFindings
Anynonvoluntaryreasonfor movingexceptlifecycle factors(i.e.,divorce)
Displacedresidentsbecause rentwasincreased,were evictedorlandlordsoldthe house
Lossofvulnerablepopulations (e.g.,workingclass,renters, andnonwhite)
Anyexitfromagentrifyingzone overathree-tofour-year period.
N/AOneoffouroftheout-andintra-neighborhood moversweredisplaced.Displacedresidents weremorelikelytobeAfricanAmerican,less educated,poor,renters,elderlyandlivingalone incomparisontoin-moversandstayers
N/ATwenty-threepercentofout-moversfrom1978 to1980weredisplaced.Crowding,frequency ofpreviousmoves,unemployment,andmarital statuspredicteddisplacement
Increasesinthenumberofprofessionals andmanagersinthearea
Increasesineducationalattainmentand owner-occupiedhousingvalues
ExitratesofpoorhouseholdsGrowthinwhitepopulations,rent, educationalattainment,andmedian incomeincontrasttootherNew YorkCityneighborhoods
Displacedresidentsforreasons includingdownsizing,rent increase,eviction,divorce,or joiningthearmforces
Disinvested(lessnewhousingstock), low-income,centralcitytractsthat experiencedincreasedinvestment (housingpriceappreciation)and educationalattainment
Largeroutflowthaninflowoftheworkingclass intogentrifyingareas
Housingturnoverwasgreateringentrifying zones.Loweducationalattainmentpredicts housingstabilityratherthanturnoverwhen interactedwithlocationinagentrifiedzone
Poorhouseholdsresidingingentrifying neighborhoodswerelesslikelytomovethan poorhouseholdsresidingelsewhere.People movingintogentrifyingneighborhoodswereof ahighersocioeconomicstatusthanthose leaving
Rentalinflationwasapredictorofmobility,and displacementwashigheringentrifyingas opposedtonongentrifyingtracts.Povertyrates declinedandeducationallevelsincreasedforinmoversintogentrifyingneighborhoods.Moves originatingingentrifyingneighborhoodswere morelikelytoendoutsideoftheneighborhood Ellenand O’Regan (2011)
McKinnish, Walsh,and KirkWhite (2010)
Ding,Hwang, andDivringi (2016)
Two-yearhouseholdexitrateNeighborhoodsexperiencinga5 percentgaininincomerelativetothe metropolitanarea
Exitratesofvulnerable populationgroups
Low-incometractsin1990wherethe averagehouseholdincomehad increasedbyoverUS$10,000in2000
Exitratesvaryfrom20percentto30percentanddo notdiffersignificantlybetweengainingand nongainingneighborhoods.Entranceofhigherincomehomeownersandexitoflow-income renterswereanimportant sourceofincomegains
Higherexitofloweducationandretentionof high-educationhouseholdsingentrifying neighborhoods.In-moversintogentrifying tractsweremorelikelytobehigherincome, collegeeducated,youngerwhencomparedto nongentrifyinglow-incometracts
Exitratesoflowcreditscore residents
Lowerhouseholdincome,growthin rentorhomevalue,andincreasein shareofcollege-educatedresidents
Sims(2016)EvictionratesNotquantified,evictionhotspot neighborhoodswerecontextualized andanalyzedthroughliterature
Note: N/A ¼ notapplicable.
Anotherkeylimitationisthelackofaconsistentandclearly identifiedcomparisongroup.Whilesomeargueforthecomparisonofpoorgentrifyingneighborhoodstopoor
Low-incomeresidentsingentrifying neighborhoodswerenotdisproportionately likelytomoveout.Whenlessadvantaged residentsdomove,theyaremorelikelyto movetolowerincomeneighborhoods.Inmoverstothegentrifyingneighborhoodsare likelytobeofhigher-incomelevels
Gentrificationexplainedonlyoneofthefour displacementgeographies,whiletheother threewerenongentrifyingorpregentrifying contexts
nongentrifyingneighborhoods(i.e.,Freeman2005),others believedisplacementratesshouldbecomparedtomorestable neighborhoods(i.e.,Newm anandWyly2006).These
comparisongroupsareimportantbecausetheynotonlyprovide acontextagainstwhichtoevaluateresultsbutalsorevealbelief systemsaboutourunderstandingofhowneighborhoodsshould function.
Finally,andperhapsduetotheinherentdifficultyofquantification,wefoundnoquantitativestudiesthatattempttoanalyzethescaleofwhatDavidson(2009)mightcall“nonspatial displacement,”namely,thelossofsocialmeaning,cultural practices,andsocialnetworksassociatedwithgentrifying neighborhoods.Notably,wealsofoundlittleornoattemptto identifytheroleofpublicinve stmentingent rificationor displacement.
TheRoleofPubliclyFinancedTransit InfrastructureinSpurringGentrification andResidentialDisplacement
Thevastmajorityofresearchonthedriversofgentrification anddisplacementhasfocusedonprivateactorsandcapital. However,thepublicsectorcanplayanimportantroleinneighborhoodtransformationthroughanumberofavenues:investinginphysicalinfrastructure,structuringlandusedecisions, andincentivizingbusinesslocation,tonameafew.
Thisreviewdoesnotincludetheimpactsofallurbanpublic investmenttypes,whichcanrangefromlarge-scaleredevelopmentprojectstosmaller-scalestreetscapeinterventions.Nordo welookattheimpactsoflandusedecisions(e.g.,zoning)or othergovernmentinterventions(e.g.,taxabatements)thatcan shapetheurbanenvironment.Althoughimportant,suchrelationshipsarecurrentlyunderstudiedandthereforelackanexistingevidencebaseforustoreview.
Instead,wereviewtheexistingliteratureononetypeof publicinvestmentthathasreceivedincreasedattention:publiclyfinancedrailtransit.Justasurbanrenewalspurredgentrificationanddisplacementinearlierdecades,newtransit investmentsinbuilt-upurbanneighborhoodshavethepotential toshapeneighborhoodchange.Studiesoftherelationship betweenrailtransitandneighborhoodchangetaketwoforms. Onesetofstudiestakesadvantageofreadilyavailabledataon housingsales,housingvalues,newdevelopment,orrenovationstoquantifyrealestateappreciation.Anothergroupof studiesdescribetherelationshipbetweentransitandvarious indicatorsofgentrifyingneighborhoods.
RailTransitandRealEstateAppreciation
Transitisadesirableneighborhoodamenitybecauseitcan improveaccessibilitytojobsandotherdestinations.However, disamenityeffectsalsoexistfrombeing“tooclose”totransit, includingheightenednoise,congestion,pollution,andtraffic (Kilpatricketal.2007).Largelyduetodataavailability,most empiricalstudiesontheimpactoftransportationinvestments focusonchangesinpropertyvaluesratherthanlanduse,households,racialtransition,orculturalmeaning(Landisetal. 1995).Consensusacrosstheliteraturesuggeststhattheaccessibilitybenefitsoflivingneartransitoutweighthepotential
nuisanceeffects,andthatproximitytopublictransitoftenleads tohigherhomevaluesandrents(Wardrip2011).
Severalliteraturereviewssummarizeresearchrelatedtothe homepricepremiumsthatcomewithproximitytotransit. Thesepremiumsvarysignificantly.CerveroandDuncan (2004)findthatthepremiumforhomepricesrangedfrom6 percentto45percent.Diaz(1999)setstherangebetween3 percentand40percent.Meanwhile,HessandAlmeida(2007) findamaximumpremiumof32percent,althoughnotingthat somestudiesfoundnoeffect,whileothersfoundnegative effects.
Inareviewofexistingresearchonthetopic,Giulianoand Agarwal(2010,228)arguethat“theliteraturedoesnotestablishunambiguouslywhetherornotrailtransitinvestmentsget capitalizedinpropertyvalues.”Theyattributeinconsistent findingsinparttodifferencesinresearchmethodsandinthe localconditions.Theynotethattransitsystemshaveanappreciableimpactonaccessibilityonlywhereroadnetworksare insufficientforhandlingtraveldemands(i.e.,wherecongestion issevere).
Overall,theimpactoftransitonhomevaluescanvary dependingonanumberofmediatingfactorssuchashousing tenureandtype,theextentandreliabilityofthetransitsystem, thestrengthofthehousingmarket,andthenatureofthesurroundingdevelopment(Wardrip2011).Inanareawithastrong housingmarketandareliabletransitsystem,thepricepremium maybemuchhigherthantheaverage.Additionally,effects mayvaryfordifferentstationswithinasinglemarket.For instance,transitstationsmayhavelittleornoimpactonhousingpricesinsomeneighborhoodsbutasignificantimpactin others(Wardrip2011).Effectsmayalsovarydependingonthe typeofhousing(singlefamilyormultifamily;ZhongandLi 2016).Somestudieshavealsofoundthattransitexpansion plansmaydriveincreasesinpropertyvaluesbeforeanythingisbuilt(Knaap,Ding,andHopkins2001).Research suggeststhatheavyrailsystemshaveagreaterimpacton propertyvaluesthanlightrailsystems.Thisislikelydueto heavyrail’sgreaterfrequency,speed,andscopeofservice ascomparedtomostlightrailnetworks(Brinckerhoff2001; Landisetal.1995).
RailTransit,Gentrification,andDisplacement
Althoughthevastmajorityoftheliteraturefocusesonthe impactsoftransitonrealestatevalue,anumberofscholars arebeginningtoinvestigatetherelationshipbetweentransit investmentsandgentrification,withanimpliedrelationship toresidentialdisplacement.Evenasthesenewstudiesareable toidentifyaconnectionbetweentransitinvestmentortransit proximityandgentrification,resultsconflictduetomethodologicalflawsandthefailureto examinedifferentformsof displacement(Rayle2014).AsRevington(2015)pointsout, evenasthisliteraturehasbeguntoconnecttransitwithneighborhoodchange,itoftenfailstooperationalizegentrification fully.ViewedaccordingtoSmith(1982),anexusofactorsis coordinatingtransitinvestmenttofacilitatethemovementof
capitalandcapturetheprofitsasthevalueiscapitalizedinto land.Newtransitsystemsbecomeammunitionforcitiesmarketingthemselvesintheglobalcompetitionforcapital.Yet, mostofthestudiestodatehaveexaminedonlyoneaspectof gentrificationsuchashomepriceincreases.
Muchoftheresearchrelatingtransitinvestmentsandgentrificationstemsfromeffortstoaidactivistsandgovernments tobetterunderstand,predict,andplanforneighborhood change.OneoftheearlieriterationsofworkpredictinggentrificationisapresentationbyresearchersfromtheUrbanInstitute(TurnerandSnow2001).Analyzingdataforthe Washington,DC,area,theyidentifythefiveleadingindicators aspredictiveoffuturegentrification(definedassalesprices thatareabovethedistrict’saverage)oflow-incomeareas, includinggoodmetroaccess.InaDukakisCenterforUrban andRegionalPolicyreport,Pollack,Bluestone,andBillingham (2011)affirmthattransitcanbeacatalystforneighborhood renewal,notingthatsuchaccessibilityimprovementscould potentially“priceout”currentresidentsbecauseofrisingpropertyvaluesandrents.Theyfindincreasesinrents,household incomes,andvehicleownershipneartransitintwelveUScities.Similarly,Kahn(2007)looksatfourteenUScitieswith transitsystemsthatexpandedfrom1970to1990andfindsthat transit-adjacentcensustractsexperienceddisproportionate increasesinpropertyvaluesandeducationalattainment.Focusingonchangesinmedianhouseholdincome,BartonandGibbons(2017)showthatnearbysubwaystopsareasignificant predictorforincomegrowthbutaresecondarytomanyother factors.Deka(2016)analyzeschangesinhomevalues,rent, andrace/ethnicitynearrailtransitinNewJersey,findingsignificantpositiveimpactsonlyonhomevalues.Aqualitative analysisofanewtransitlineinsuburbanVancouverfindsthat thestatesupportofdensifyingneighborhoodsneartransit threatenedthehousingstabilityofdisadvantagedresidents (JonesandLey2016).
Otherstudiesadoptmorecomplexdefinitionsofgentrification.InananalysisoftwoSwisscities,Re´ratandLees(2011) lookspecificallyat“newbuildgentrifiers”wholiveinnew developmentsneartransit,findingthattheydisproportionately valuetheproximityandconnectivityintheirnewneighborhoods.InastudyfortheAssociationofBayAreaGovernments,Chapple(2009)adoptedFreeman’s(2005)definition ofgentrifyingneighborhoods.Sheshowsthatanumberof socioeconomic,locational,andbuiltenvironmentvariables, includingproximitytorailtransit,predictedgentrification.
Increasingly,researchersarenotjustlookingataneighborhood’sproximitytotransitbutpinpointingthetimingofthe transitinvestmentandanalyzingsubsequentneighborhood changes.Thus,usingasurvivalanalysis,Grube-Caversand Patterson(2015)showthatproximitytorailtransitispositively andsignificantlyrelatedtot heonsetofgentrificationin TorontoandMontreal,butnotVancouver,perhapsbecause gentrificationinthatcitywasalreadyadvanced.
Overtime,gentrificationisspreadingawayfromdowntowns.ArecentstudyofLosAngelesandSanFranciscoanalyzesgentrificationanddisplacementseparately,findingthat
transitproximityplaysasigni ficantrolebutdependingon whenitisimplementedanditslocationwithinthemetropolitan region(Chappleetal.2016).Thisstudyisthefirsttoanalyze differentdimensionsofdisplacement,includingthelossof low-incomeresidents,thelossofaffordablehousing,andthe exclusionoflow-incomein-movers,inrelationtotransit.
Conclusions:TowardaResearchAgenda onGentrification,Displacement,andPublic Investment
Scholarlyinterestintherelationshipbetweeninvestmentand displacementdatesbacktothe1970s,intheaftermathofurban renewal.Morerecently,anewwaveofscholarshipexamines gentrification,primarilyinstrongmarketcities,anditsrelationshiptopublicinvestment,particularlyintransit.Theresults ofthesestudiesaremixeddue,inpart,tomethodological shortcomings.
DespitetheUScontextofgr owingincomesegregation, residentialandcommercialgen trificationisoccurringin lower-incomeneighborhoods,transformingthemeaningof theneighborhood.Althoughresearchersexperiencesevere dataandanalyticchallenges inmeasuringtheextentof displacement,moststudiesagreethatgentrificationata minimumleadstoexclusionarydisplacementandmaypush outsomerentersaswell,whileothersmanagetostay. Althoughearlyresearchon neighborhoodchangetended tounderemphasizetheroleofthestate,morerecentwork hasidentifiedanimpactofpub licinvestmentintheformof fixed-railtransit.
Tobetteraddresstheneedsofpolicymakers,community activists,andresearchersalike,thereisanurgentneedto improvethebodyofresearchrelatedtopublicinvestments, gentrification,anddisplacement.Insomecases,thiswill requirenewdatasetsandmethods,whereasinothercases,it willinvolvemorequalitativemethodsandconsistentmeasures. Here,weoutlinesomequestionstoguidefutureresearch:
(1)Howdodifferenttypesofpublicinvestmentsinfluence notonlyneighborhoodchangebutalsoresidentialand commercialdisplacement?
(a)Doesthetypeorquantityofinvestmentmatter?
(b)Whatarethedisplacementimpactsofdifferent formsofpublicinvestmentandaction,notonly fixed-railtransitbutalsostreetscapeimprovementsandrezoning,amongothers?
(c)Howdoestimingmatterfromearlyplanning phasestoinvestmentandimplementation?
(d)Whatistheimpactofmarketrateversussubsidizedhousingproductionattheneighborhood andregionalscale?
(2)Howdopublicinvestmentsimpactcommercialchange, specificallyrelatedtosmallbusinesses,employment patterns,affordabilityofgoodsandservices,andchange inclientele?Howdoesthisrelatetoresidentialchange?
(3)Whatarethesocial,economic,andhealthimpactsof gentrificationandresidentialdisplacement?
(4)Whatcanplannersandpolicymakersdotomitigate residentialdisplacement?Whichtypesofantidisplacementstrategiesaremosteffective?
Asthisarticlehighlights,drawingtheanalyticaldistinction betweengentrificationanddisplacementiscriticaltoadvancingmethodologicalandtheoreticalapproaches.Untilthe methodologicalchallengesandtheseadditionalresearchquestionsareaddressed,empiricalresearchongentrificationand displacementwillonlyhavelimitedapplicationinpolicymakingandurbanplanningeffortstostabilizeneighborhoodsand preventresidentialdisplacement.
Authors’Note
Thestatementsandconclusionsofthisarticlearethoseoftheauthors anddonotnecessarilyreflectthoseoftheCaliforniaAirResources Board.
Acknowledgment
TheauthorsaregratefulfortheinputofPaulOngandTrevorThomas intheconceptualizationandreviewofthisarticle.
DeclarationofConflictingInterests
Theauthorsdeclarednopotentialconflictsofinterestwithrespectto theresearch,authorship,and/orpublicationofthisarticle.
Funding
Theauthorsdisclosedreceiptofthefollowingfinancialsupportforthe research,authorship,and/orpublicationofthisarticle:Thiswork summarizesalargerliteraturereviewthatappearedasaworking report,publishedbytheFederalReserveBankofSanFranciscoand fundedbytheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoardaspartoftheproject “DevelopingaNewMethodologyforAnalyzingPotential Displacement.”
Note
1.Spendingonmasstransitandrailasapercentageofgrossdomestic product(GDP)increasedfrom0.13in1966to0.40in2014.During thesameperiod,spendingonhighwaysdecreasedfrom1.61% of GDPto0.96(CongressionalBudgetOffice2015).
References
Atkinson,Rowland.2000.“MeasuringGentrificationandDisplacementinGreaterLondon.” UrbanStudies 37(1):149–65.doi:10. 1080/0042098002339.
Barton,MichaelS.,andJosephGibbons.2017.“AStoptooFar:How DoesPublicTransportationConcentrationInfluenceNeighbourhoodMedianHouseholdIncome?” UrbanStudies 54(2): 538–554.doi:10.1177/0042098015593462.
Boyd,Michelle.2005.“TheDownsideofRacialUplift:Meaningof GentrificationinanAfricanAmericanNeighborhood.” City& Society 17(2):265–88.doi:10.1525/city.2005.17.2.265. BradwayLaska,ShirleySeaman,M.Jerrol,andDennisR.McSeveney. 1982.“Inner-cityReinvestment :NeighborhoodCh aracteristics
andSpatialPatternsoverTime.” UrbanStudies 19(2):155–65. doi:10.1080/00420988220080281.
GaryBridge,TimButler,andLorettaLees,eds.2012. MixedCommunities:GentrificationbyStealth? Bristol,UK:PolicyPress. Brinckerhoff,Parsons.2001. TheEffectofRailTransitonProperty Values:ASummaryofStudies.” ResearchCarriedOutforProject S21439.Cleveland,OH:NEORailII. Brown-Saracino,Japonica.2009. ANeighborhoodThatNever Changes:Gentrification,SocialPreservation,andtheSearchfor Authenticity.FieldworkEncountersandDiscoveries.Chicago,IL: UniversityofChicagoPress.
Cervero,Robert,andMichaelDuncan.2004.“NeighbourhoodCompositionandResidentialLandPrices:DoesExclusionRaiseor LowerValues?” UrbanStudies 41(2):299–315.doi:10.1080/ 0042098032000165262.
Chapple,Karen.2009. MappingSusceptibilitytoGentrification:The EarlyWarningToolkit .Berkeley,CA:CenterforCommunity Innovation.
Chapple,Karen.2014. PlanningSustainableCitiesandRegions: TowardsMoreEquitableDevelopment.NewYork:Routledge. Chapple,Karen,PaulWaddell,D anielG.Chatman,MiriamZuk, AnastasiaLoukaitou-Sideris,andPaulOng.2016. Developinga NewMethodologytoAnalyzeDisplacement.FinalReportforARB Contract#13-310.Sacramento,CA:AirResourcesBoard(ARB). Charles,SuzanneLanyi.2011. SuburbanGentrification:UnderstandingtheDeterminantsofSingle-familyResidentialRedevelopment, aCaseStudyoftheInner-ringSuburbsofChicago,IL,2000-2010 Cambridge,MA:JointCenterforHousingStudiesofHarvard University.
Chizeck,Seth.2016.“GentrificationandChangesintheStockof Low-costRentalHousinginPhiladelphia,2000to2014.” Cascade Focus (5):1–15.AccessedFebruary6,2017.https://www.philadel phiafed.org/-/media/community-development/publications/casca de-focus/gentrification-and-changes-in-the-stock-of-low-cost-ren tal-housing/cascade-focus_5.pdf.
Clay,PhillipL.1979. NeighborhoodRenewal:Middle-classResettlementandIncumbentUpgradinginAmericanNeighborhoods Lexington,MA:LexingtonBooks.
CongressionalBudgetOffice.2015. PublicSpendingonTransportationandWaterInfrastructure,1956to2014.AccessedJanuary16, 2017.https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49910.
Crowder,Kyle,andScottJ.South.2005.“Race,Class,andChanging PatternsofMigrationbetweenPoorandNonpoorNeighborhoods.” AmericanJournalofSociology 110(6):1715–63.
Davidson,Mark.2009.“Displacement,SpaceandDwelling:Placing GentrificationDebate.” Ethics,Place&Environment 12(2): 219–34.doi:10.1080/13668790902863465.
Davidson,Mark,andLorettaLees.2005.“New-build‘Gentrification’ andLondon’sRiversideRenaissance.” EnvironmentandPlanning A 37(7):1165–90.doi:10.1068/a3739.
Deka,D.2016.“BenchmarkingGentrificationNearCommuterRail StationsinNewJersey.” UrbanStudies ,1–18.doi:10.1177/ 0042098016664830.
Desmond,Matthew.2012.“EvictionandtheReproductionofUrban Poverty.” AmericanJournalofSociology 118(1):88–133.doi:10. 1086/666082.
Desmond,Matthew,andTraceyShollenberger.2015.“ForcedDisplacementfromRentalHousing:PrevalenceandNeighborhood Consequences.” Demography 52(5):1751–72.doi:10.1007/ s13524-015-0419-9.
Diaz,Roderick.1999.“ImpactsofRailTransitonPropertyValues.” RTDFasTracksTrack3—Partnering.AccessedJune15,2016. http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/nm/impacts_of_rail_ transif_on_property_values.pdf.
Ding,Lei,JackelynHwang,andEileenDivringi.2016. “GentrificationandResiden tialMobilityinPhiladelphia.” RegionalScienceandUrbanEconomics 61:38–51.
Ehrenhalt,Alan.2012. TheGreatInversionandtheFutureofthe AmericanCity,1sted.NewYork:Knopf.
Ellen,IngridGould,KerenHorn,andDavinReed.2016.“HasFalling CrimeInvitedGentrification?”AccessedFebruary7,2017.http:// furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurm anCenter_WhitePaper_Falling CrimeGentrification_18OCT2016.pdf.
Ellen,IngridGould,andKatherineM.O’Regan.2011.“HowLow IncomeNeighborhoodsChange:Entry,Exit,andEnhancement.” RegionalScienceandUrbanEconomics 41(2):89–97.doi:10. 1016/j.regsciurbeco.2010.12.005.
Freeman,Lance.2005.“DisplacementorSuccession?Residential MobilityinGentrifyingNeighborhoods.” UrbanAffairsReview 40(4):463–91.doi:10.1177/1078087404273341.
Freeman,Lance.2006. ThereGoestheHood:ViewsofGentrification fromtheGroundUp.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress. Freeman,Lance,andFrankBrac oni.2004.“Gentrificationand DisplacementNewYorkCityinthe1990s.” Journalofthe AmericanPlanningAssociation 70(1):39–52.doi:10.1080/ 01944360408976337.
Galster,George,andStephenPeacock.1986.“UrbanGentrification: EvaluatingAlternativeIndicators.” SocialIndicatorsResearch 18 (3):321–37.doi:10.1007/BF00286623.
Ghose,Rina.2004.“BigSkyorBigSprawl?RuralGentrificationand theChangingCulturalLandscapeofMissoula,Montana.” Urban Geography 25(6):528–49.doi:10.2747/0272-3638.25.6.528.
Giuliano,Genevieve,andAjayAgarwal.2010.“PublicTransitasa MetropolitanGrowthandDevelopmentStrategy.” Urbanand RegionalPolicyandItsEffects 3:205–252.
Glass,RuthLazarus.1964. London:AspectsofChange.London,UK: MacGibbon&Kee.
Grier,George,andEuniceGrier.1978. UrbanDisplacement:A Reconnaissance.Bethesda,MD:GrierPartnership. Grube-Cavers,Annelise,andZacharyPatterson.2015.“UrbanRapid RailTransitandGentrificationinCanadianUrbanCentres:ASurvivalAnalysisApproach.” UrbanStudies 52(1):178–94.doi:10. 1177/0042098014524287.
Hamnett,Chris.1984.“GentrificationandResidentialLocationTheory:AReviewandAssessment.” GeographyandtheUrbanEnvironment:ProgressinResearchandApplications 6:283–319. Hamnett,Chris.1991.“TheBlindMenandtheElephant:TheExplanationofGentrification.” TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritish Geographers,NewSeries 16(2):173–89.
Hamnett,Chris.2003.“GentrificationandtheMiddle-classRemaking ofInnerLondon,1961-2001.” UrbanStudies 40(12):2401–26. doi:10.1080/0042098032000136138.
Hartman,ChesterW.,andNationalHousingLawProject.1981. Displacement:HowtoFightIt.Berkeley,CA:NationalHousingLaw Project.
Harvey,David.2001. SpacesofCapital:TowardsaCriticalGeography.NewYork:Routledge.
Hess,DanielBaldwin,andTa ngerineMariaAlmeida.2007. “ImpactofProximitytoLightRailRapidTransitonStationareaPropertyValuesinBuffalo,NewYork.” UrbanStudies 44 (5-6):1041–68.
Hwang,Jackelyn,andRobertJ.Sampson.2014.“DivergentPathways ofGentrification:RacialIne qualityandtheSocialOrderof RenewalinChicagoNeighborhoods.” AmericanSociological Review 79(4):726–51.doi:10.1177/0003122414535774.
Jones,CraigE.,andDavidLey.2016.“Transit-orientedDevelopment andGentrificationalongMetroVancouver’sLow-income SkyTrainCorridor:Transit-orientedDevelopment.” TheCanadian Geographe/LeGe´ographeCanadien 60(1):9–22.doi:10.1111/ cag.12256.
Kahn,MatthewE.2007.“Gentrif icationTrendsinNewTransitorientedCommunities:Evidencefrom14CitiesThatExpanded andBuiltRailTransitSystems.” RealEstateEconomics 35(2): 155–82.
Kilpatrick,JohnA.,RonaldL.Throupe,JohnI.Carruthers,and AndrewKrause.2007.“TheImpactofTransitCorridorsonResidentialPropertyValues.” JournalofRealEstateResearch 29(3): 303–20.
Knaap,GerritJ.,ChengrDing,andLewisD.Hopkins.2001.“Do PlansMatter?TheEffectsofLightRailPlansonLandValuesin StationAreas.” JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch 21 (1):32–39.
Landis,John,SubhrajitGuhathakurta,WilliamHuang,MingZhang, andBruceFukuji.1995.“RailTransitInvestments,RealEstate Values,andLandUseChange:AComparativeAnalysisofFive CaliforniaRailTransitSystems.”AccessedJune21,2014.http:// escholarship.org/uc/item/4hh7f652.pdf.
Landis,JohnD.2015.“TrackingandExplainingNeighborhood SocioeconomicChangeinU.S.MetropolitanAreasbetween 1990and2010.” HousingPolicyDebate 0(0):1–51.doi:10. 1080/10511482.2014.993677.
Lees,Loretta.2000.“AReapprai salofGentrification:Towardsa ‘geographyofGentrification.’” ProgressinHumanGeography 24(3):389–408.doi:10.1191/030913200701540483.
Lees,Loretta.2003.“Super-gentrification:TheCaseofBrooklyn Heights,NewYorkCity.” UrbanStudies 40(12):2487–509. doi:10.1080/0042098032000136174.
Lees,Loretta,TomSlater,andElvinKWyly.2008. Gentrification NewYork:Routledge/Taylor&FrancisGroup. Ley,David.1996. TheNewMiddleClassandtheRemakingofthe CentralCity.OxfordGeographicalandEnvironmentalStudies Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.
Lipman,Pauline.2008.“Mixed-incomeSchoolsandHousing:AdvancingtheNeoliberalUrbanAgenda.” JournalofEducationPolicy 23(2):119–34.
Logan,JohnR.,andHarveyLuskinMolotch.1987. Urban Fortunes:ThePoliticalEconomyofPlace.Berkeley:University ofCaliforniaPress.
Maciag,Mike.2015.“GentrificationinAmericaReport.”Accessed April9,2015.http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/gentrifi cation-in-cities-governing-report.html.
Marcuse,Peter.1985.“Gentrification,Abandonment,andDisplacement:Connections,Causes,andPolicyResponsesinNewYork City.” UrbanLawAnnual;JournalofUrbanandContemporary Law 28(1):195–240.
Marcuse,Peter.1986.“Abandonment,Gentrification,andDisplacement:TheLinkagesinNewYorkCity.”In Gentrificationofthe City,editedbyNeilSmithandPeterWilliams,153–77.NewYork: Routledge.
McKinnish,Terra,RandallWalsh,andT.KirkWhite.2010.“Who GentrifiesLow-incomeNeighborhoods?” JournalofUrbanEconomics 67(2):180–93.doi:10.1016/j.jue.2009.08.003.
Melchert,David,andJoelL.Naroff.1987.“CentralCityRevitalization:APredictiveModel.” RealEstateEconomics 15(1):664–83. doi:10.1111/1540-6229.00409.
Moore,Kesha.2009.“GentrificationinBlackFace?TheReturnofthe BlackMiddleClasstoUrbanNeighborhoods.” UrbanGeography 30(2):118–42.doi:10.2747/0272-3638.30.2.118.
NationalInstituteforAdvancedStudies.1981. MarketGenerated Displacement:ASingleCityCaseStudy .Washington,DC: NationalInstituteforAdvancedStudies.
Newman,Kathe,andElvinK.Wyly.2006.“TheRighttoStayPut, Revisited:GentrificationandResistancetoDisplacementinNew YorkCity.” UrbanStudies 43(1):23–57.doi:10.1080/ 00420980500388710.
Newman,SandraJ.,andMichaelS.Owen.1982.“Residential Displacement:Extent,Nature,andEffects.” JournalofSocial Issues 38(3):135–48.doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982. tb01775.x.
Oberg,Alexander,andLiseNelson.2010.“RuralGentrificationand LinkedMigrationintheUnitedStates.” JournalofRuralStudies 26(4):343–52.doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.06.003.
Osman,Suleiman.2011. TheInventionofBrownstoneBrooklyn:GentrificationandtheSearchforAuthenticityinPostwarNewYork Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.
Pattillo,Mary.2008. BlackontheBlock:ThePoliticsofRaceand ClassintheCity.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Phillips,Martin.2004.“OtherGeographiesofGentrification.” ProgressinHumanGeography 28(1):5–30.doi:10.1191/ 0309132504ph458oa.
Pollack,Stephanie,BarryBluestone,andChaseBillingham.2011. “DemographicChange,DiversityandDisplacementinNewly Transit-richNeighborhoods.”AccessedJune21,2014.http://trid. trb.org/view.aspx?id¼1093110.
Powell,JohnA.,andMargueriteL.Spencer.2002.“GivingThemthe OldOne-two:GentrificationandtheK.O.ofImpoverishedUrban DwellersofColor.” HowardLawJournal 46:433.
Rayle,Lisa.2014.“InvestigatingtheConnectionbetweenTransitorientedDevelopmentandDisp lacement:FourHypotheses.” HousingPolicyDebate 0(0):1–18.doi:10.1080/10511482.2014. 951674.
Re´rat,Patrick,andLorettaLees.2011.“SpatialCapital,Gentrification andMobility:EvidencefromSwissCoreCities.” Transactionsof
theInstituteofBritishGeographers 36(1):126–42.doi:10.1111/j. 1475-5661.2010.00404.x.
Revington,Nick.2015.“Gentrification,Transit,andLandUse:MovingBeyondNeoclassicalTheory:Gentrification,Transit,andLand Use.” GeographyCompass 9(3):152–63.doi:10.1111/gec3. 12203.
Rose,D.1984.“RethinkingGent rification:BeyondtheUneven DevelopmentofMarxistUrbanTheory.” EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace 2(1):47–74.
Schill,MichaelH.,RichardP.Nathan,andHarrichandPersaud.1983. RevitalizingAmerica’sCities:NeighborhoodReinvestmentand Displacement.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Sims,J.Revel.2016.“MorethanGentrification:GeographiesofCapitalistDisplacementinLosAngeles1994–1999.” UrbanGeography 37(1):26–56.doi:10.1080/02723638.2015.1046698.
Smith,Neil.1982.“GentrificationandUnevenDevelopment.” EconomicGeography 58(2):139–55.doi:10.2307/143793.
Smith,Neil.1996. TheNewUrbanFrontier:Gentrificationandthe RevanchistCity.NewYork:Routledge.
Turner,Margery,andChristopherSnow.2001.“LeadingIndicatorsofGentrificationinD.C.Neighborhoods.”Presentedat theD.C.PolicyForumattheUrbanInstitute,Washington, DC,June14,2001.
Vigdor,JacobL.,DouglasS.Massey,andAliceM.Rivlin.2002. “DoesGentrificationHarmthePoor?[withComments].” Brookings-WhartonPapersonUrbanAffairs,133–82.Accessed December31,2013.https://w ww.jstor.org/stable/ 25067387?seq¼1#page_scan_tab_contents.
Wardrip,Keith.2011.“PublicTransit’sImpactonHousingCosts:A ReviewoftheLiterature.”AccessedJune22,2014.http://cite seerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi ¼10.1.1.233.851.
Wyly,Elvin,KatheNewman,AlexSchafran,andElizabethLee.2010. “DisplacingNewYork.” EnvironmentandPlanningA 42(11): 2602–23.doi:10.1068/a42519.
Zhong,Haotian,andWeiLi.2016.“RailTransitInvestmentand PropertyValues:AnOldTaleRetold.” TransportPolicy .51: 33–48.
Zukin,Sharon.1982. LoftLiving:CultureandCapitalinUrban Change.JohnsHopkinsStudiesinUrbanAffairs .Baltimore, MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
AuthorBiographies
MiriamZuk,PhD,isthedirectoroftheCenterforCommunity InnovationattheUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.Herresearch focusesonequitableurbandevelopment,affordablehousing,and environmentaljustice.Shewaspreviouslythedeputydirectorof AirQualityResearchfortheMexicanMinistryofEnvironmentin MexicoCity.
ArielH.Bierbaum,PhD,isanassistantprofessorofurbanstudies andplanningintheSchoolofArchitecture,Planning,andPreservation attheUniversityofMaryland.Dr.Bierbaum’sresearchexploresquestionsaboutthemutuallyconstituti verelationshipbetweenracial inequality,urbanplanning,andpubliceducation.
KarenChapple,PhD,isaprofessorofCityandRegionalPlanningat theUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.Shestudiesthegovernance, planning,anddevelopmentofregionsintheUnitedStatesandLatin America,withafocusonhousingandeconomicdevelopment.Her recentbook(Routledge,2015)isentitled PlanningSustainableCities andRegions:TowardsMoreEquitableDevelopment
KarolinaGorska,PhD,isaplannerintheUrbanDesignStudioatthe LosAngelesDepartmentofCityPlanning.Herresearchinterests focusonsocialandpoliticalissuesinplanning,urbandesign,and
historicpreservation.ShereceivedherPhDin2015fromtheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.
AnastasiaLoukaitou-Sideris,PhD,isaprofessorattheUniversityof California,LosAngelesDepartmentofUrbanPlanning.Herbooks include UrbanDesignDowntown:Poe ticsandPoliticsofForm (1998), JobsandEconomicDevelopmentinMinorityCommunities (2006); Sidewalks:ConflictandNegotiationoverPublicSpace (2009), UrbanDesignCompanion (2011),and TheInformalAmerican City:BeyondTacoTrucksandDayLabor (2014).