See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337200128

Gentrification An Introduction, Overview, and Application

Chapter · January 2019

CITATION READS
1 7,732

2 authors:

Minkyu Yeom Brian Mikelbank

Cleveland State University Cleveland State University
5 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS 25 PUBLICATIONS 522 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Measuring the seeds of neighborhood gentrified View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Minkyu Yeom on 12 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 3
Gentrification: An Introduction, Overview, and Application
Minkyu Yeom
Cleveland State University
Brian Mikelbank
Cleveland State University
Introduction
Gentrification is a fundamental concept of
neighborhood transformation comprised of
two necessary processes. The first is an inflow of
affluent residents and investment (also referred
to as capital) into a neighborhood. The second is
the outflow of the low-income population from
the same neighborhood.
Since sociologist Ruth Glass coined the
term” gentrification” in 1964, numerous schol-
ars and researchers have investigated gentrifica-
tion as a process of neighborhood change, and
have in various ways added nuance to the defini-
tion to fit their particular research interests and
contexts. However, Glass’ fundamental concepts
of neighborhood transformation, inflow and
outflow have not changed:
One by one, many of the working-class quarters
have been invaded by the middle class—upper and
lower… Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in
a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the
working-class occupiers are displaced, and the whole
social character of the district is changed (p. xvii).
Attention to “class”, and “social character”, as
Glass called them, has also been a constant in
gentrification research. These are often mea-
sured as the type of job a person has (for exam-
ple, a company executive vs. an entry level retail
position) or the income a person earns (for
example, high vs. low income). Gentrification
research is rooted in trying to understand the
motivations and implications of the movement
of these different groups of people in and out of
particular neighborhoods as it relates to changes
in the surrounding built environment.
Many studies have focused on the factors
that cause gentrification. Glass (1964) pointed
to the affluent residents as the key factor driving
gentrification. Ley (1978) argued that the new
middle class is the key factor, couched in the
circumstances of postindustrial economic and
occupational changes. Smith (1979) argued the
physical change (or improvement) of neighbor-
hoods by capital investment is the causal factor
of gentrification. These three authors represent
the pioneers of gentrification research. Their
perspectives laid the foundation for a rich aca-
demic literature on the topic, which in turn,
has greatly increased our understanding of
neighborhood change.
In urban areas, we see several different types
of development. For example, a new project
develops an undeveloped site, a redevelopment
occurs upon an already developed site, or indi-
vidual remodeling projects improve existing
properties. These all improve the living envi-
ronment and they also change many attributes
of our communities, one investment at a time.
Are these gentrification?
Housing and Neighborhoods • 79
 What stands out about gentrification, among
the various development and redevelopment
activities, is its effect on the low-income popu-
lation. Indeed, the critical problem of gentrifi-
cation is the displacement of the low-income
population. Despite the volumes of research on
the causes and implications of gentrification,
there exists no universal solution to address it.
Therefore, this issue is still actively researched
and debated in both the popular press and the
academic literature.
When gentrification happens in reality, dif-
ferent stakeholders will bring different perspec-
tives to the debate. Indeed, gentrification is a
battle between people pursuing their satisfac-
tion of a new living environment, those profiting
from supplying it and the low-income residents
in that area, often resulting in a victory for the
new investors and residents with displacement of
current residents. It seems that these stakehold-
ers cannot coexist in the same space given our
current economic and policy realities.
The rest of this chapter is focused on four
concepts. First, you will learn to distinguish gen-
trification from other concepts related to urban
and neighborhood transformation. Then we
provide an overview of gentrification research,
covering the critical dimensions and debates of
the field. In the second to last section, we pro-
vide an example of identifying gentrified neigh-
borhood in the Cleveland, Ohio region. Finally,
we consider the future of gentrification by pos-
ing several open ended questions for your con-
sideration and discussion.
Gentrification in Context:
Urban Development,
Redevelopment,
and Renewal
We often encounter coverage of the related top-
ics of gentrification, urban development, rede-
velopment, and renewal through various mass
and social media outlets. Even though these are
familiar terms, they are often conflated. Per-
haps this is understandable since to the casual
observer, development, redevelopment, renewal,
and gentrification seem very similar regarding
both the process and the outcome. They are all
80 • The 21st Century American City
just different words describing the same changes
to the urban landscape, right? Wrong! In reality,
there are a few key dimensions that set these pro-
cesses of urban change apart from one another.
One of these differences is the agents of
development. These are the actors that set in
motion these processes of urban change. For
example, was the location undergoing change a
target area of a city’s ongoing planning efforts?
Or, was it an opportunity identified and acted
upon by a private developer? Different develop-
ment agents will have different goals for their
involvement. Who is footing the bill for the
changes that are occurring? Is it publicly or pri-
vately financed, or is it a combination of the two?
What is the impact on the surrounding residen-
tial population? Is displacement occurring, and
if so, who is being displaced?
This section focuses on the distinguishing
characteristics of each type of urban change to
highlight the nuanced but important differences
between gentrification, urban development,
redevelopment, and renewal.
Urban development is the first improvement
upon undeveloped urban land. It is important to
note that urban development is not restricted by
location within an urbanized area, but only by
the criteria that the land is previously unde-
veloped. As a city grows over time, opportunities
for this initial development naturally occur far-
ther from a city’s core—land closer to the core
is likely already developed. Urban development
also need not occur in a central city—urbanized
areas extend beyond core city boundaries into the
surrounding inner-ring suburbs (typically
adjacent to central cities) and outer ring subur-
ban areas (see Leigh & Lee, Chapter 1). What-
ever the location of this initial development, it
is possible that these changes are occurring rela-
tive to a comprehensive urban planning effort for
the region. The closer the development is to the
core, perhaps the greater the likelihood of a
forward-looking development plan being in
place. Urban development might be undertaken
by any variety of development agents—public, pri-
vate, non-profit, or some combination.
There are several differences between gentri-
fication and urban development. The first is loca-
tional. While urban development happens upon
undeveloped urban sites, gentrification occurs
in already developed urban, suburban, and rural
areas. Also, gentrification often occurs where
deteriorated housing and commercial building
stocks are located. The low economic value of
these locations is often the key to the financial
success of a redevelopment effort. Additionally,
gentrification is initiated by the private sector,
either by individuals (as “gentrifiers”), or by the
investment in the area’s physical capital.
Another distinction is that gentrification is
unplanned. Of course, developers will have site
plans for their specific investments, but gentri-
fication is not a component of community mas-
ter plans. Privately funded changes to the urban
landscape are typically motivated by profit,
whereas a community’s plan would have many
complementary goals.
The final and critical difference is displace-
ment. Given urban development’s location, it does
not cause low-income population displacement.
Low-income household displacement is an inevi-
table gentrification circumstance. In general,
urban development refers to the first footprint
of urbanization to touch upon undeveloped
urban areas by the plan of a private developer,
government, or non-profit organization.
Urban redevelopment is to redevelop or
improve urban areas (or sites) such as deterio-
rated residential, industrial, and commercial
areas by private developers (or investors) or gov-
ernment. Urban redevelopent is often thought
of, and undertaken, at a scale and scope larger
than an individual developer would under-
take. These projects subsume not only physical
changes of target areas but also economic, cul-
tural, and political factors (Fox Gotham, 2001).
Similar to urban development, urban rede-
velopment ideally occurs within the context of an
urban plan, and with the involvement of not only
a (re)developer, but also local stakeholders, such
as residents and existing business owners in the
surrounding neighbrhood. The physical
improvements to the area will not be the only
goal of urban redevelopment, however, but will
also consider changes in socio-economics, pop-
ulation, culture and place. In fact, in terms of its
character, urban redevelopment shares all of its
characteristics with urban development, save one:
site. Urban redevelopment occurs upon land that
has been previously developed. In that
vein, redevelopment and gentrification share
the same location profile.
Working with previously developed land
introduces a host of potential complications. It
may be difficult to assemble enough land for a
successful redevelopment project from the
variety of current owners that might exist. There
may be complicated ownership issues to resolve
if the property has been abandoned by its pre-
vious owners. There may still be structures on
the location to be redeveloped, and they might
be in various states of disrepair. Environmental
concerns relating to previous industrial uses or
construction materials are also often concerns of
redevelopment projects.
Because of its similarity in location and phys-
ical improvements, the process and outcome of
urban redevelopment could be quite easily con-
fused with the process and outcome of gentrifi-
cation. Both gentrification and redevelopment
are in fact redevelopment projects. Both often
occur in/to areas with deteriorated housing,
commercial, and industrial character.
Lafer (1977) pointed out that urban rede-
velopment initiates many different images and
reactions among people. Some welcome the new
luxury apartment complexes and commercial
developments into previously decayed neigh-
borhoods. By contrast, some believe that urban
redevelopment of that form does not help the
moderate and the low-income residents of the
area. Thus, according to Smith (1996), gentrifi-
cation can be a dirty word, depending on one’s
perspective. It can be good in terms of bring-
ing investment to underserved or undervalued
areas. It can lead to new revenues for cities, it
can be profitable for developers, but it can be a
disaster for the impacted low-income residents.
This is the unavoidable tension between rede-
velopment and gentrification—the balance of
initiating or welcoming new development in
areas that desperately need it and protecting the
current residents.
Given the scale and scope of many urban
redevelopent projects, many include a public
use, or public good dimension, driven by gov-
ernment or quasi-government agencies.1 Tradi-
tionally, these projects might have constructed
facilities such as a transit line, a highway, an
airport (HUD, 2017). More recently, however,
Housing and Neighborhoods • 81
privately-led development projects have also
been considered “public goods”, which opens
the door to the government use of eminent
domain.2 While eminent domain certainly
induces displacement, two points are critical.
First, it isn’t necessarily low-income displace-
ment, and, second, displaced residents are com-
pensated (HUD, 2017). Thus, gentrification does
not happen directly through exercising eminent
domain, even though and it usually starts from a
small spot and spreads throughout the neighbor-
hood without a formalized plan.
In a global context, Ha (2015) argued that
government-led urban redevelopment should be
considered a form of gentrification because it
involves displacement, as in the case of urban
redevelopment initiatives in Korea. While poten-
tially controversial to suggest that government-
led neighborhood redevelopment projects to be
viewed as gentrification, it really hinges on the
profile of the displaced populations. Similarly,
Ascensão (2015) discusses slum gentrification
in the context of redevelopment in Lisbon, Por-
tugal, where massive displacement was driven
by the city government, landlords, and massive
capital investment. Nwanna (2015) also pointed
out that the Nigerian government is usually
involved in demolition, slum clearance, and the
eviction of the residents. The common interest
of these government-led redevelopment projects
is not for low-income residents but for residents
who can afford the expensive cost of the result-
ing redevelopment.
The details of displacement could be the
most critical point to distinguish urban redevel-
opment from gentrification. Low-income dis-
placement is a necessary consideration of the
gentrification process. However, urban redevel-
opment often causes resident displacement but
not necessarily of the same nature. First, resident
displacement in urban redevelopment is not
specified as low-income focused. Second, there
could be relocation resources/assistance for the
displaced residents. Finally, if the power of emi-
nent domain is applied to urban redevelopment,
the displaced residents would be compensated.
Of course, these types of countermeasures are
not always satisfactory to every displaced resident,
82 • The 21st Century American City
as they might only replace the economic value
of the previous residence, but not a household’s
emotional and social connections to the home
and neighborhood. However, displacement in
the gentrification process is an even worse case
scenario because there are typically no counter-
measures associated with displacement.
Before comparing the details of urban
renewal with gentrification, it is necessary to
consider briefly the history of urban renewal.
The term urban renewal is specifically related to
a particular type of urban redevelopment—it is
associated with slum clearance, blight removal,
and the building of public housing. It was criti-
cally dubbed “urban removal” (Greer, 1966),
referring to not only the physical clearance, but
also that of the impacted population, neighbor-
hoods, social capital, and communities.
Part of the Housing Act of 1937 provided
resources to demolish problematic slums and
replace them with publicly subsidized hous-
ing. The Housing Act of 1949 continued this
process of slum clearance and public housing
construction. Schwartz (2010) summarized that
these urban renewal programs have undergone
many trials and errors and under the Clinton
administration were converted from a supply-
side housing policy, such as the construction of
public housing, into a demand-side housing
policy, such as the Housing Choice Voucher Pro-
gram.3 Through the urban renewal program,
over 1.2 million units of public housing were
built (Schwartz, 2010). The total number of pub-
lic housing units in place in 1949 was 170,436,
and it continually increased until 1994, when
the number of public housing units reached
1,409,455. Since 1996, the total number of units
has slowly decreased.
Most broadly, urban renewal refers to plans
and activities to improve neighborhoods or
suburbs that are in a state of distress or decay
(Richards, 2014). Fundamentally, this involved
demolishing deteriorated housing or other facil-
ities and rebuilding public housing and reoccu-
pying them with low-income households.
Thus, through urban renewal policies, pub-
lic housing became home to a city’s poorest
residents. This created income, and often racial
segregation, whereby residents of different income
groups or of different races lived in different
neighborhoods, and public housing became stig-
matized (Greer, 1966; McCormick, Joseph, and
Chaskin, 2012; Schwartz, 2010). It is a locational
characteristic of urban renewal that it tended to
occur in areas where residents were relatively
helpless against the investment power of private
interests and governments. Urban renewal has
usually not taken place in a circumstance where
the development processes assured participation
and just treatment for all the parties involved
(Lafer, 1977). As a result, urban renewal had an
isolating effect on low-income and minority
communities, separating them spatially and eco-
nomically from the rest of the city. Urban renew-
al’s relationship to urban development became
the subject of much criticism, debate, and legis-
lative attention.
Is “gentrification” just a modern term for
urban renewal? Certainly, gentrification often
happens in deteriorated areas, and results in an
entirely redeveloped urban landscape. However,
urban renewal and gentrification are fundamen-
tally different, if not in their location, then cer-
tainly in their “target market”. The “renewal”
associated with gentrification is not for the poor.
Rather, displacement of the poor is gentrifica-
tion’s calling card. Gentrification’s changes to
the urban landscape are for the benefit of new
residents of middle- and upper income and the
developers and investors of the project. The
low-income households are the subject of
the displacement and victims of gentrification.
As it turns out, one similarity of urban renewal
and gentrification is the negative impact of such
initiatives on the original resident population.
Table 1 represents differences between gen-
trification, urban development, redevelopment,
and renewal. Urban development, redevelop-
ment, and renewal are driven by government or
private developers and their investors. Gen-
trification is only powered by private develop-
ment. Urban development, redevelopment, and
renewal all take place by a plan, whereas
gentrification does not. All but urban devel-
opment occurs on land that has previously been
developed.
Therefore, it could be concluded that gen-
trification is an unplanned consequence but
urban development, redevelopment, and urban
renewal are intentionally planned projects.
Displacement is the most critical point to
distinguish differences between gentrification
and urban development, redevelopment, and
renewal. Urban development does not cause res-
ident displacement because it occurs on unde-
veloped urban land. On the other hand, urban
redevelopment or urban renewal may cause
displacement, but it is not necessarily the low-
income class displacement. Displaced residents
could be compensated or relocated to a similar
or improved environment.
Of course, in real life it is not always so easy
to make these subtle distinctions. For example,
consider the Opportunity Corridor project,

Table 1 Differences between Gentrification and Urban Development,

Redevelopment, and Renewal
Urban Urban
Criteria Gentrification Urban Renewal
Development Redevelopment
Agent Private Government and/or Government and/or Government
Private Private

Plan No Yes Yes Yes

Budget Source Private Private/ Public Private/ Public Public

Displacement Yes No Yes or No Yes or No

Location Already Developed Undeveloped Site Already Developed Already Developed

Site Site Site

Housing and Neighborhoods • 83

currently underway on the east side of the City of
Cleveland. It is a transportation investment that
will connect University Circle, the city’s second
largest job hub, to the region’s highway system.
It sounds like a simple transportation invest-
ment that will aid the region’s economy, at least
until the details are carefully considered. The
approximately three-mile corridor will cut its way
through some of Cleveland’s most impoverished
neighborhoods. Some land has been cleared for
the project, some residents displaced. Does that
make it urban renewal? Certainly, the corridor
investment is going to alter the accessibility land-
scape of the area, making these neighborhoods
more accessible to the employment hub and the
highway. In turn, though, the project will also
funnel commuters through the reinvigorated
corridor, turning once abandoned properties
into high-traffic, high-visibility locations. That
type of exposure makes the area ripe for rede-
velopment opportunities, including those that
might spark gentrification concerns. For exam-
ple, retail development might reasonably follow
the increased activity in the corridor. With new
transportation infrastructure, new retail invest-
ment, and increased access to jobs and highways,
residential development could follow. These
could act together to increase surrounding prop-
erty values (which could be good for current
residents), but also property rents, and property
taxes, which could have a negative effect on cur-
rent residents, and could spark affordability and
displacement concerns.
These types of complicating factors are not
unusual in the context of large urban invest-
ments—they are the norm. It highlights the
importance of asking questions and understand-
ing context. Who is developing the project?
Who is paying for it? How are the interests of
current residents being represented? After the
project will there be more or less housing avail-
able, and at what price point? How might the
project impact the surrounding neighbors and
neighborhood? Seeking answers to these types
of questions about the way your city is chang-
ing will put you a step ahead of those quickly
jumping to apply labels, especially when those
labels are divisive.
84 • The 21st Century American City
The Study of
Gentrification: Ruth Glass,
1964, and Beyond
Since the term “gentrification” was introduced by
Ruth Glass in 1964, diverse perspectives of
gentrification have developed. Therefore, it is
valuable to identify the pattern of gentrification
studies and perspectives over time. Sassen (1991)
roughly sorted the flow of gentrification studies
into periods:
Gentrification was initially understood as the reha-
bilitation of decaying and low-income housing by
a middle-class outsider in central cities. In the
late 1970s a broader conceptualization of the pro-
cess began to emerge, and by the early 1980s new
scholarship had developed a far broader meaning of
gentrification, linking it with the process of spatial,
economic and social restructuring. (p. 255).
In broad terms, the mid-1960s witnessed the
emergence of the phrase and gentrification
research developed as an area of study in the
late 1960s and 1970s. The late 1970s touched
off the theoretical debate about the process of
gentrification—what were the causal factors that
initiated the process of gentrification? The 1980s
and 1990s was an era for debating the causality
of gentrification from the vantage point of the
various schools of thought that had emerged.
In the 1990s, there were also new endeavors
that combined previously distinct perspectives
of the causes of the low-income population dis-
placement. Those merged approaches have
become one of the popular research strategies
in the 21st century. Currently, gentrification
studies have expanded in the context of global-
ization, while the general debate over the causal-
ity of gentrification is still as popular a topic as
ever (see Table 2).
Scholars’ perspectives and training often
guide the direction their studies take. Just as many
scholars viewed the process of gentrification dif-
ferently, scholars often analyzed the gentrifica-
tion process by using different methodologies.
 Table 2 Flow of Gentrification Studies
Decade Flow of Gentrification Studies
The term “Gentrification” was introduced in
1960 academia by British Sociologist, Ruth Glass
in 1964
Started looking for a factor causing working
class or the low-income class displacement in
gentrified neighborhoods
1970
1980 The renaissance of diverse gentrification
studies
1990
2000 Starting discussion about global gentrifica-
tion and emerging a new factor causing the
low-income displacement
2010
Broadly, these methods could be divided into
quantitative and qualitative analyses. Barton
(2014) distinguishes differences between quali-
tative and quantitative studies within the context
of gentrification:
When identifying gentrified neighborhoods, qualita-
tive studies typically identified a single or a small
group of neighborhoods that gentrified. In contrast,
quantitative studies typically used a threshold strat-
egy where neighborhoods were identified as gentrifi-
able if they featured a particular characteristic or
characteristics at the beginning of a decade and gen-
trified if they experienced a change in the character-
istic or characteristics at a later time (p.2).
For example, Ley (1981) conducted a qualitative
study of gentrification in Vancouver, Canada. He
explained the gentrification process and neigh-
borhood changes in Vancouver, Canada rather
than using inferential statistics. Ley analyzed
how several inner-city neighborhoods changed
and what induced working-class dispersion to
Gentrification has been interpreted in a per-
spective of inequality and injustice of housing
and land market under capitalism.
Consumption and production-based
approaches
• Consumption-based approach: David
Ley (1978 & 1981) argued new middle
class (gentrifiers) cause the low-income
class displacement
• Production-based approach: Neil
Smith (1979) argued physical change
(or improvement) by capital investment
causes the low-income class displacement
The consumption and production-based ap-
proaches are often combined when analyzing
gentrified neighborhoods.
• Gentrification became a significant issue
not only in the U.S. or Europe but also
many Asian countries.
• College students, foreign labor forces,
and foreign capital are often considered
as the power to drive gentrification.
other areas. He observed and explained the
circumstances of the inner-city neighborhoods
and attitudes of neighborhood livability, and
found that the post-industrial city emerged in
Vancouver and occupational and structural
changes occurred in the inner-city communities.
While the white-collar labor force dominated
downtown office districts, blue-collar labor-
ers and other working class populations moved
to the suburbs.
Conversely, Freeman & Braconi (2004)
undertook a quantitative study of gentrification
in New York City. They employed regression
analysis to discern how neighborhood transfor-
mation is related to displacement. They found
that increases in rent increased the possibility
of a household moving, but that neighborhood
transformation was involved with slower residen-
tial turnover among these households, rather
than the drastic displacement often associated
with gentrification.
As these two studies exemplify research-
ers interested in the same process, gentrifica-
tion, can take very different approaches in their
Housing and Neighborhoods • 85
efforts, have different research questions, and
find different answers to their research ques-
tions. Although gentrification scholars see the
same phenomena and pursue the same general
goals of explaining the gentrification process,
they reach conflicting conclusions regarding the
forces driving gentrification. This could be due
to some scholars being correct or incorrect, or
due to the different perceptions through which
they understand the issues, the different meth-
ods they use to understand the process, or the
nuances in their research questions or that rea-
sons for gentrification differ between cities.
The 1980s through the 2000s can be consid-
ered the renaissance of gentrification research,
and much effort was devoted to identifying the
correlates of gentrification. Numerous schol-
ars representing various academic fields began
examining gentrification through their par-
ticular research ideologies. Income changes,
demographic changes, lifestyle, cultural choice,
personal preferences, capital, and reinvestments
were among the common subjects explored in
the gentrification literature. A few scholars have
examined students as gentrifiers. The emergence
of students as gentrifiers is relatively recent, and
student gentrifiers are frequently negatively por-
trayed, linked to noise, minor vandalism, crime,
littering, and other undesirable qualities. How-
ever, Smith & Hubbard (2014), Sage, Smith, &
Hubbard (2013), and Hubbard (2008) have
argued the roles of students in gentrification.
Interestingly, Smith (2002) named a new term,
“studentification,” to describe the specific inter-
section of students and gentrification. These sub-
jects refueled and intensified debates in the field
of gentrification studies. Which were causes of
gentrification, which were impacts? Which were
unrelated? Were the answers to these questions
the same in every city? Every neighborhood?
Were they the same over time?
Global Context
Lees, Shin, López-Morales, and Ha (2015) point
out that gentrification studies have been viewed
through an Anglo-American Gentrification Lens
(AAGL) for a long time. They note that outside
of the U.S., many cases with similar characteris-
tics have been widely studied, but not under the
86 • The 21st Century American City
guise of what it or is not gentrification. Thus,
gentrification is a global phenomenon, but this
process of redevelopment and displacement has
only recently been globally recognized and stud-
ied under the AAGL. Seoul, South Korea, is an
extreme example of how government-led rede-
velopment and displacement is now viewed as
gentrification.
Seoul has experienced massive displace-
ment over the course of 50 years. After the
Korean War (1950–1953), the central gov-
ernment started rebuilding Seoul, which had
been ruined during the war. Government-led
renewal projects continue today to redevelop
old neighborhoods (including slum and non-
slum areas) in Seoul. Therefore, there is an
argument that government-led redevelopment
can be a new form of gentrification if it causes
low-income displacement (Ha, 2015). Lisbon,
Portugal, and Nigeria have similar experiences
about government-led slum clearance and low-
income displacement.
Indeed, government-led neighborhood
redevelopment, renewal, or revitalization proj-
ects can be viewed as one of the gentrification
forms through AAGL, depending upon the
stakeholders. While conventional gentrification
discourse in the U.S. began with displacement
by private sector investment, the role of govern-
ment now is considered as one of the major fac-
tors that induce residential displacement and
drives gentrification. Even though there is much
literature regarding the role of government in
gentrification, there is not a fixed position or
posture of government regarding gentrification.
In other words, it is very welcome for a local
government and local economy because it will
attract more affluent residents, create more tax
revenue, and upgrade the quality of neighbor-
hoods in various ways. However, it seems that
a local government has no typical or necessary
reaction regarding low-income displacement. It
could mean that a local government ignores the
loss of the low-income population or has no plan
to protect them. As a result, the direct benefi-
ciaries of gentrification are a local government,
private developers, landlords, and the new afflu-
ent residents. Gentrification’s victims are only
low-income people.
In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, these
ongoing empirical debates in the gentrification
research began to form into the major theoreti-
cal debate that still characterizes discussion and
research surrounding gentrification. The debate
centers on the forces that bring about the low-
income population displacement in the gentrifi-
cationprocess. Theconsumption-basedapproach
focuses on people, while the production-based
approach focuses on investment.
The consumption-based approach of Ley
(1981) argues that changes in the industrial and
occupational structure are the keys to gentrifi-
cation (see Figure 1). In many neighborhoods
experiencing gentrification, service industries
replaced manufacturing industries. This indus-
trial transition led to changes in occupational
structure, where manual labor and working-class
jobs gave way to white-collar, professional work,
including managerial, high-skill technical, and
cultural occupations. Also, Ley asserted that occu-
pationalrestructuringtowardmorehighlyskilled,
professional activities is related to consumption
patterns regarding culture and spatial prefer-
ences. Ley labels these replacement workers as a
Figure 1 Flow of Consumption-Based Approach
new middle class and argues that they prefer to
live in cities rather than suburbs and notes they
have different cultural tendencies than the work-
ing-class workers they displaced. These are the
fundamental assertions of consumption-based
explanations of displacement.
While Ley was arguing the effects of industrial
and occupational changes in bringing about the
emergence of a new middle class, Smith (1979)
launched the production-based approach, which
strongly objected to the consumption-based
explanation of displacement and gentrification.
Smith argued that capital investment was a signif-
icant force driving gentrification (see Figure 2).
To strengthen his argument, he advanced a rent
gap thesis, representing the difference between
the current property value and potential prop-
erty value if areas became gentrified. Smith
asserted that depreciated properties create the
objective economic situations that make capital
revaluation (gentrification) a rational market
response (p.545). Smith argued that the rent
gap starts from this circumstance.
Housing and Neighborhoods • 87
Figure 2 Flow of Production-Based Approach
Both approaches have different focal points.
The consumption-based approach focuses on
the population attributes of gentrified neigh-
borhoods while the production-based approach
focuses on the economic conditions of the area
that is gentrified.
The scholars at the core of the debate have
different perspectives that shape how they
understand the gentrification of inner-city
neighborhoods. However, it seems that their
arguments intersect (see Figure 3). Ley (1981)
acknowledges that the built environment is one
of the necessary conditions of gentrification.
Similarly, even though Smith (1979) rejects the
primacy of factors such as post-industrialization
and the rise of a white-collar middle-class want-
ing to remain in the city, he does not necessarily
deny that industrial and occupational restructur-
ing plays a role.
Separate from the academic and theoreti-
cal debates, we can simply observe gentrifica-
tion where it occurs in the real world around
us. The most critical aspect of gentrification, in
reality, is not the debate of causal factors, but
the conflict between these forces of neigh-
borhood transformation (gentrifiers or capital
investment) and the vulnerable low-income
population that lives there. This battle plays out
regularly in deteriorated inner urban, suburban,
or rural neighborhoods.
Once gentrifiers or capital investment flow
into deteriorated neighborhoods, the low-
income population faces the reality of being
pushed out of their homes and communities.
This means they have to initiate a search for a
new living environment. However, it can be quite
88 • The 21st Century American City
hard to find places where they are as satisfied as
they were with their previous conditions—these
might include affordable rent, the characteris-
tics of the property, job accessibility, good school
district, accessible public services, safety, sense
of community, etc. While it might be difficult to
slow or alter the redevelopment process once it
has begun, and while cities might be anxious to
attract any reinvestment that they can, the topic
of displacement cannot be ignored.
Gentrification has different meanings to dif-
ferent people (Smith, 1996). To some, it repre-
sents a profound debate of philosophy, ideology,
or epistemology. To others it is an issue of main-
taining a secure living environment for vulnera-
ble populations. Still others view it as a process of
settling down in a newly redeveloped living envi-
ronment for the middle or upper class. Finally,
some see it as an opportunity for profit in a com-
petitive economic environment. Given these dif-
fering perspectives it is easy to see how difficult
it can be to address such a complex urban issue.
Identifying Gentrified
Neighborhoods
The displacement of low-income households is
a necessary condition of a neighborhood being
gentrified. This is accompanied by an increase
of demographic and socioeconomic indicators
such as educational attainment, younger popu-
lation, professionals, childless households, and
consumers of cultural assets. Finally, reinvest-
ment in the neighborhood is necessary. Based on
these essential requirements, a neighborhood is
considered to have been gentrified, or not.
Figure 3 Intersection of both Approaches
Despite those seemingly straightforward
guidelines, identifying gentrified neighborhoods
is the source of much debate in discussions about
gentrification. It is because many urban con-
texts might look like gentrification, so it is often
assumed they are gentrified. Outside of the aca-
demic literature, various stakeholders have pre-
sented images of neighborhood gentrification,
and these depictions have been disseminated
throughout various media outlets. According to
Beauregard (1986), our understanding of gen-
trification is affected by exaggerated informa-
tion related by parties who would benefit from
the increased economic activity associated with
gentrification. This hyperbole might emanate
from redevelopment organizations, local news-
papers, national magazines, mayors’ offices, real
estate organizations, financial institutions, his-
toric preservationists and neighborhood groups
comprised of middle-income homeowners.
To identify where gentrification actually
happens, it is therefore necessary to measure
the indicators associated with gentrification. In
other words, we need to find neighborhoods
showing loss of low-income population while at
the same time showing changes in the indicators
consistent with gentrification. The example pre-
sented here identifies gentrified neighborhoods
in the Cleveland region between 2000 and 2010.
To accomplish this, we created the Gentrification
Index (GI), which is composed of the Neigh-
borhood Transformation Index (NTI) and the
Displacement Index (DI). These indexes have
been built based on U.S. Census Tract4 data.
These census tract data are measured within the
urbanized area5 of the Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor,
OH, Metropolitan Statistical Area 6 (MSA) in
northeastern Ohio.
NTI measures changes in a variety of neigh-
borhood gentrification indicators between 2000
and 2010. They are: foreign-born population,
population aged 20–44 years old, educational
attainment (BA, MA, Ph.D., and Professional
degree), professional occupations, married cou-
ples without children, rent price, property value,
employment rate, occupations related to gentri-
fication, renter-occupied housing units, owner-
occupied housing units, and mortgage status.
Once these changes are measured, each
change is standardized so that valid comparisons
can be made between variables and time periods.
Then, the summed standardized values are classi-
fied by natural break classification7 and assigned
values ranging from -2 to 2. Census tracts with
a score of two were categorized as highly trans-
formed; census tracts with a score of 1 were cat-
egorized as somewhat positively transformed;
census tracts with a score of -1 were categorized
as somewhat negatively transformed, and cen-
sus tracts with a score of -2 were categorized as
highly negatively transformed, indicating they
had undergone severe decline in neighborhood
indicators of transformation (see Table 3).
The displacement index (DI) measures the
change in a tract’s low-income families between
2000 and 2010. While there are several ways
Housing and Neighborhoods • 89
Table 3 the Result of NTI in Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metro Area
Neighborhood Transformation Index
Unit
-2 % -1
Census Tracts 230 36.80% 288
Data Source: 2000 and 2010 NCDB Census Tract Data
Table 4 Result of DI in Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metro Area
Displacement Index
Unit
-2 % -1
Census Tracts 49 7.80% 237
Data Source: 2000 and 2010 NCDB Census Tract Data
to define low-income families, in this analy-
sis, we used an income threshold derived from
the Federal Financial Institutions Examination
Council (FFIEC).
In 2000, a family is considered low income
if they earned below 50% of MSA’s median fam-
ily income of $45,000. Therefore, low-income
families were defined as the families who earned
less than $22,500. The median family income of
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH MSA was $60,000
in 2010. With the same method as for 2000, the
numbers of low-income families were counted
for 2010. The DI measure is based on the change
in the number of these households in each Cen-
sus tract between 2000 and 2010.
Once the change is measured, it is classi-
fied similar to the NTI was. In the Displacement
Index, census tracts with a score of -2 were cat-
egorized as highly increased low-income family
population. Census tracts with a score of -1 were
categorized as somewhat increased low-income
family population. Census tracts with a score of 1
were categorized as somewhat decreased low-
income family population. Census tracts with a
score of 2 were categorized as highly decreased
low-income family population.
Table 5 provides a summary of the NTI and
the DI results is in the Gentrification Index (GI).
The GI ranges from -4 to 4. By combining the two
indices it is possible to identify neighborhoods
with different combinations of each index that
would be associated with gentrification. The dis-
tribution of scores of the GI is shown below.
90 • The 21st Century American City
Total
% 1 % 2 %
46.10% 86 13.80% 21 3.40% 625
Total
% 1 % 2 %
37.90% 268 42.90% 71 11.40% 625
Among the 625 urbanized census tracts in the
Cleveland region, 577 census tracts (92.30%) are
classified as areas that were not gentrified dur-
ing the study time frame. This means that these
neighborhoods, most of the neighborhoods of
the study area, did not reach the necessary condi-
tions of gentrification—there was not sufficient
change in the group of gentrification indicators,
and there was not substantial loss of low income
families. Thirty-eight census tracts (6.10%) are
defined as somewhat gentrified areas, reflecting
that there are signs that these neighborhoods are
undergoing the gentrification process. In other
words, the GI captured that gentrification indi-
cators gradually increased and that the presence
of low-income families gradually decreased.
Ten Census tracts (1.60%) are identified as hav-
ing gentrified during the 10 years of the study
period. Only these ten Census tracts have met
the highest criteria of gentrification conditions
reflected in the NTI and DI indexes. The great-
est increase in the gentrification indicators of
the NTI and the severe loss of the low-income
families, reflected in the DI, happened concur-
rently only in these 10 census tracts.
Two points are worth noting. First, the num-
ber of gentrified neighborhoods is small. Thus,
despite internet and popular-press coverage of
gentrification and all of the concern and contro-
versy that accompanies it, only 48 tracts (those with
a G.I. score of 2, 3, or 4) actually experienced or
are experiencing the types of changes associated
with gentrification. Second, the finding of only
 Table 5 Result of GI in Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metro Area
Displacement Index
Unit No Gentrification
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Census Tracts 23 91 113 95 221
Total 577 (92.30%)
ten gentrified neighborhoods does not mean that
there are only ten gentrified neighborhoods in the
region—it means that during the time period of 2000–
2010 only ten neighborhoods became gentrified.
Figure 4 is a map of gentrified and some-
what gentrified neighborhoods in the Cleveland
region of northeast Ohio. The 5-mile concentric
rings are centered on Cleveland’s downtown
and are displayed to show the location of gen-
trification relative to the region’s urban core.
Gentrified areas are relatively common near the
city’s center. Of the 48 gentrified or somewhat
gentrified neighborhoods shown on the map
seven of them are within the first 5-mile buf-
fer. Then, interestingly, there are no gentrified
neighborhoods between 5 and 10 miles from
downtown, although there are a few somewhat
gentrified areas. Then, the gentrified neighbor-
hoods reemerge between 15 and 30 miles from
the core. Thus, in the Cleveland region, there is
not only inner urban gentrification, but also sub-
urban gentrification. This is an interesting find-
ing, since much of the public discourse about
gentrification has been focused on urban, not
suburban contexts.
The Future of
Gentrification
Despite the rich literature aimed at either debat-
ing the process of gentrification or identifying
where gentrification has or has not occurred,
there are many lingering questions that are
raised here as starting points for further discus-
sion or thought. For example, most of the 21st
century gentrification research is based on theo-
ries of 20th century gentrification. Perhaps the
factors causing neighborhood transformation
Somewhat
Gentrified Total
Gentrified
2 3 4
34 38 9 1
625
38 (6.10%) 10 (1.60%)
and low-income population displacement have
shifted? For example, maybe the gentrifiers of
the 21st century are not the returning middle
or upper-middle class, but college students and
professionally-oriented, foreign-born profession-
als. Who will be the gentrifiers of the future?
Additionally, should it be of concern if other
people or activities or aspects of the neighbor-
hood are displaced? What if, as part of a rede-
velopment project, middle income households
are displaced? Or, what if a 150-year old build-
ing, loaded with architectural character, or a
neighborhood park are “displaced” in the pro-
cess? How might we more broadly consider the
concept of displacement? Should it be a broader
concept at all, or should society just accept dis-
placement as a necessary part of progress?
Looking forward, the nature of gentrifica-
tion’s capital investment might also be different.
Gentrification in the 20th century focused pri-
marily on privately-funded neighborhood trans-
formation. However, we often see large-sized
publicly supported redevelopment projects also.
Consider the following two examples.
In the context of South Korea, the central
government has spurred government funded
urban redevelopment. There were several thou-
sand low-income family displacements, with
minimal relocation efforts. At the same time,
rents and property values of the adjacent areas
increased, causing a second wave of displace-
ment. These types of government-led displace-
ments have continued in the 21st century in
South Korea. How do we balance a government’s
need to rebuild its cities with the concerns of its
most vulnerable city residents? This is not just a
question that applies internationally.
In the U.S., consider the case where Com-
munity Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Housing and Neighborhoods • 91
Figure 4 Gentrified Neighborhoods in Northeast Ohio
funding (from the Federal government)
improves a neighborhood. That improvement
encourages other private investment, and rent
and property values gradually increase in both
the beneficiary neighborhood and the adjacent
areas. Displacement is a genuine possibility here,
too, as a result of government funded redevelop-
ment efforts. As governments seek to encourage
reinvestment in their cities, and often fund that
reinvestment themselves, what should be gov-
ernments’ responsibility (or “compensation”?)
for displacement?
For regions with a central city or central
county that is built out—where there is little or
no room for new development on undeveloped
land—where should new investment be located?
If investment goes to the central city or county,
the investment takes the form of redevelopment.
While urban redevelopment (i.e., neighborhood
transformation) is often lauded, it goes hand
in hand with the concerns of displacement.
If investment is directed to the periphery as new
investment upon undeveloped land, it is unfavor-
ably characterized as sprawl, and the new devel-
opment often is criticized as being inaccessible
92 • The 21st Century American City
to centrally located populations. How does a
central city or county balance the need for rede-
velopment against the potential for low income
population displacement?
Finally, should gentrification be viewed dif-
ferently based on the economic vitality of the
region? Cities with an industrial history, primar-
ily in the Northeast and Midwest, are often char-
acterized as “weak-market” cities, referencing
the coupled processes of deindustrialization and
population loss. Contrast that characterization
with cities like New York or San Francisco—cities
where “weak” is rarely used to describe econo-
mies or population growth or housing markets.
Should we think about gentrification differently
in different types of cities? Is it easier to avoid in
strong or weak market cities? Is it more trouble-
some in one market context than in another?
Even though gentrification is not a “new”
urban issue, it is constantly evolving, and remains
a very relevant issue in today’s urban regions—
not just in cities, as has been demonstrated here,
but in the entire regions that surround cities.
This dynamic process should keep gentrifica-
tion a “perennial” or “constant” consideration as
cities try to balance all of the often competing
concerns that arise out of new and re-develop-
ment. At the same time, we have to be diligent in
distinguishing between situations that are gen-
trification, and situations that only satisfy parts
of the gentrification equation. Neighborhood
transformation can occur without displacing
anyone. Households moving from one place to
another are not necessarily being pressured to
relocate. Gentrification occurs when these two
phenomena line up—transformation plus dis-
placement. When that happens, we are left with
perhaps the most important open questions of
them all: Is gentrification an unavoidable process of
neighborhood transformation, or is it a predatory devel-
opment process targeted towards under-resourced popu-
lations and neighborhoods? Is it both? Is it neither?
Who determines the answers to these critical questions?
Learning Objectives
After completing this chapter, you will be
familiar with:
• The origin and definition of the process of
gentrification;
• How gentrification is similar to or different
from other terms used to describe neigh-
borhood change;
• The various ways in which gentrification has
been researched over time;
• The major debate of causality within the
gentrification literature;
• An approach to identify gentrified
neighborhoods;
• The divide between the academic study of
gentrification and the way gentrification
impacts the lives of neighborhood residents;
• Major questions facing the field of
gentrification
Endnotes
1. “Quasi-government agencies: such as airport
authorities, highway commissions, community
development agencies, and utility companies”
(Retrieved from HUD, 2017)
2. “Eminent domain is an exercise of the power
of government or quasi-government agencies
(such as airport authorities, highway commis-
sions, community development agencies, and
utility companies) to take private property for
public use. Sometimes these entities may pro-
pose to use their eminent domain authority to
take public housing property” (Retrieved from
Eminent Domain—HUD, 2017)
3. “The housing choice voucher program is the fed-
eral government’s major program for assisting
very low-income families, the elderly, and the dis-
abled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing
in the private market. Since housing assistance is
provided on behalf of the family or individual,
participants are able to find their own housing,
including single-family homes, townhouses and
apartments. The participant is free to choose
any housing that meets the requirements of the
program and is not limited to units located in
subsidized housing projects.” (Retrieved from
HUD, 2018)
4. “Census tracts generally have a population size
between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an opti-
mum size of 4,000 people. A census tract usually
covers a contiguous area; however, the spatial
size of census tracts varies widely depending on
the density of settlement. Census tract boundar-
ies are delineated with the intention of being
maintained over a long time so that statistical
comparisons can be made from census to census.
Census tracts occasionally are split due to popu-
lation growth or merged as a result of substantial
population decline” (Retrieved from US Census
Bureau, 2017).
5. Urban Area is the term for urbanized areas
(UAs) and urban clusters (UCs). UAs consist
of densely developed area that contains 50,000
or more people. UCs consist of densely devel-
oped area that has a least 2,500 people but fewer
than 50,000 people. The Census Bureau defines
urban areas once a decade after the population
totals for the decennial census are available, and
classifies all territory, population, and housing
units located within a UA or UC as urban and
all area outside of a UA or UC as rural. Urban
areas are used as the cores on which core based
statistical areas are defined (Retrieved from US
Census Bureau, 2018)
Housing and Neighborhoods • 93
 6. Standard definitions of metropolitan areas were
first issued in 1949 by the then Bureau of the
Budget (predecessor of Office of Management
and Budget or OMB), under the designation
“standard metropolitan area” (SMA). The term
was changed to “standard metropolitan statisti-
cal area” (SMSA) in 1959, and to “metropoli-
tan statistical area” (MSA) in 1983. The term
“metropolitan area” (MA) was adopted in 1990
and referred collectively to metropolitan statis-
tical areas, consolidated metropolitan statistical
areas, and primary metropolitan statistical areas
(Retrieved from US Census Bureau, 2018)
7. The Jenks natural breaks classification method,
also called the Jenks optimization method, is a
data classification method designed to deter-
mine the best arrangement of values into differ-
ent classes. This is done by seeking to minimize
each class’s average deviation from the class
mean, while maximizing each class’s deviation
from the means of the other groups (Chen et
al., 2013, p.1).
References
Ascensão, E. (2015). Slum gentrification in Lisbon,
Portugal. In L. Lees, H. B. Shin, & E. López-
Morales (Eds.), Global gentrifications (pp. 37–58).
Policy Press.
Barton, M. (2014). An exploration of the importance
of the strategy used to identify gentrification.
Urban Studies, 0042098014561723.
Beauregard, R. A. (1986). The chaos and complexity
of gentrification. Gentrification of the City, 35–55.
Chen, J., Yang, S. T., Li, H. W., Zhang, B., & Lv, J. R.
(2013). Research on Geographical Environment Unit
Division Based on the Method of Natural Breaks
(Jenks). ISPRS—International Archives of the
Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Informa-
tion Sciences, XL–4/W3, 47–50.
Eminent Domain—HUD. (2017). Retrieved Sep-
tember 21, 2017, from https://portal.hud.
gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/
public_indian_housing/centers/sac/eminent/
Fox Gotham, K. (2001). Urban redevelopment, past
and present. Critical Perspectives on Urban Redevel-
opment, 1–31.
94 • The 21st Century American City
Freeman, L., & Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification
and displacement—New York City in the 1990s.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1),
39–52.
Glass, R. (1964). London: aspects of change. University
College, London: MacGibbon & Kee.
Greer, S. (1966). URBAN RENEWAL AND AMERICAN
CITIES. Urban Renewal and American Cities: The
Dilemma of Democratic Intervention.
Ha, S.-K. (2015a). The endogenous dynamics of
urban renewal and gentrification in Seoul. Global
Gentrifications: Uneven Development and Displace-
ment, 165.
Ha, S.-K. (2015b). The endogenous dynamics of
urban renewal and gentrification in Seoul. In
L. Lees, H. B. Shin, & E. López-Morales (Eds.),
Global gentrifications (pp. 165–180). Policy Press.
Hubbard, P. (2008). Regulating the social impacts of
studentification: A Loughborough case study.
Environment and Planning A, 40(2), 323–341.
HUD. (2018). Housing choice vouchers program.
Retrieved October 13, 2018, from https://www.
hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_
program_section_8
Lafer, S. (1977). Urban redevelopment: an introductory
guide for members of citizen’s groups and redevelopment
agencies. Berkeley, Calif.: University Extension
Publications, c1977.
Ley, D. (1981). Inner city revitalization in Canada: a
Vancouver case study. Canadian Geographer,
186–204.
McCormick, N. J., Joseph, M. L., & Chaskin, R. J.
(2012). The new stigma of relocated public hous-
ing residents: Challenges to social identity in
mixed-income developments. City & Community,
11(3), 285–308.
Nwanna, C. (2015). Gentrification in Nigeria. In L.
Lees, H. B. Shin, & E. López-Morales (Eds.),
Global gentrifications (pp. 311–328). Policy Press.
Richards, R. (2014). Urban Renewal. In A. C. Michalos
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being
Research (pp. 6867–6868). Springer Netherlands.
Sage, J., Smith, D., & Hubbard, P. (2013). New-build
Studentification: A Panacea for Balanced Com-
munities? Urban Studies, 50(13), 2623–2641.
Sassen, S. (1991). The global city. Princeton University US Census Bureau. (2017). 2010 Geographic Terms
Press Princeton, NJ. and Concepts - Core Based Statistical Areas and
Related Statistical Areas. Retrieved from https://
Schwartz, A. F. (2010). Housing policy in the United www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_cbsa.html
States. Routledge.
US Census Bureau. (2018). Geography Atlas—Urban
Smith, D. P., & Hubbard, P. (2014). The segregation Areas. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from https://
of educated youth and dynamic geographies of www.census.gov/geo/reference/webatlas/uas.html
studentification. Area, 46(1), 92–100.
US Census Bureau. (2018). Metropolitan Areas - His-
Smith, N. (1979). Toward a Theory of Gentrifica- tory—U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved October 14,
tion—Back to the City Movement by Capital, Not 2018, from https://www.census.gov/history/
People. Journal of the American Planning Associa- www/programs/geography/metropolitan_areas.
tion, 45(4), 538–548. html
Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification
and the revanchist city. Psychology Press.

Housing and Neighborhoods • 95

 Review Questions
1. Describe the process of gentrification.
2. Where does gentrification happen?
3. Who are the “winners” and “losers” of gentrification?
4. Distinguish gentrification from two other forms of neighborhood transformation.
5. Explain the difference between the consumption and production based explanations of
gentrification.
6. Type the name of your city and gentrification into an internet search engine. Characterize the
types of results you find.
7. What steps might a city government take that could encourage development but discourage
gentrification?
8. What steps might a neighborhood take that could encourage development but discourage
gentrification?

96 • The 21st Century American City

View publication stats