Sociation Today

Toward a Universal Operationalization of Gentrification*

by

Kristin N. Williams

North Carolina State University and
Wake Technical Community College

Introduction

One of the most persistent limitations in gentrification research is the large degree of inconsistency in the way gentrification is defined and specified both theoretically and empirically. Scholars have used an array of measures to identify urban reinvestment, ranging from single indicators like changes in property values (Covington and Taylor 1989) and number of coffee shops in an area (Papachristos et al. 2011; Smith 2012) to indices of multiple measures of community transformation (Hudspeth 2003; Ley 1986; Eckerd 2011) to subjective classifications of neighborhood upgrading (McDonald 1986; Hwang and Sampson 2014). The lack of consistency in defining gentrification hinders understanding of how this type of neighborhood change redefines community dynamics and influences various community outcomes. One way to enrich the literature is to develop a theoretically-grounded operationalization of gentrification that includes the most common indicators of urban reinvestment and is both accessible and replicable across studies. Drawing on urban sociology accounts of the gentrification process, I offer a definition of gentrification that is specific enough to detect the phenomenon and differentiate it from other types of urban renewal, yet broad enough to allow gentrification to manifest in diverse ways across space. I then use this definition as a basis for an operationalization of gentrification, paying particular attention to the conceptual and methodological concerns left largely unaddressed in the literature. These considerations include: the types of measures employed, the number of indicators best suited to capture the process, and the precise indicators that serve as markers for gentrification, as well as those that may not. I then suggest a gentrification index as a potential avenue for future research and demonstrate the multiple ways this index can be used to study urban reinvestment. I conclude with a brief summary of the proposed gentrification operationalization and its benefits for future research.

Defining Gentrification

The origination of the term 'gentrification' can be found in the work of Ruth Glass, who noted the changes taking place in London's urban core. Specifically, Glass (1964, p. xviii) offers:

One by one, many of the working-class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle classes- upper and lower. Shabby, modest mews and cottages- two rooms up and two down- have been taken over, when their leases have expired, and have become elegant, expensive residences. Larger Victorian houses, downgraded in an earlier or recent period- which were used as lodging houses or were otherwise in multiple occupation- have been upgraded once again…Once this process of 'gentrification' starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working-class occupiers are displaced and the whole social characters of the district is changed.

Since the time of Glass' seminal work, scholars have defined gentrification in a variety of ways. The diversity of descriptions has led some scholars to refer to gentrification as a 'chaotic term' (Rose 1984; Beauregard 1986) that falls into the 'I will know it when I see it' category of social phenomena (Formoso et al. 2010). A review of the literature, however, reveals several recurring qualities that define gentrification. One fundamental quality of gentrification is that it is a process of neighborhood rehabilitation rather than a particular event or instance. That is, it occurs in transitional stages over time and at varying paces (Williams 1986; Keating and Smith 1996a; Wyly and Hammel 1998).

The gentrification process is set in motion by a period of disinvestment and deterioration, during which neighborhood residents physically and economically withdraw from their community and, in turn, allow for the economic restructuring that is central for gentrification to occur (Wyly and Hammel 1999; Curran 2007). Smith's (1979; 1986) rent gap theory illuminates why disinvestment is pertinent to the process. According to the theory, an area is ripe for gentrification when the rent gap—or discrepancy between current and potential property values and rents—is sizable enough for reinvestment to be profitable. Deindustrialization and other economic shifts in the urban core have sparked residential and commercial abandonment and the depreciation of land values. When these values drop so low that investors can buy property cheaply, rehabilitate the structures, and sell or rent for a profit with little risk, inner city neighborhoods become attractive targets for reinvestment initiatives. This means that areas are particularly vulnerable to gentrification if there is a large degree of physical deterioration, crime, and disorder problems in the area as these are factors that often drive down property values (Taylor 1995; O'Sullivan 2005; Formoso et al. 2010); however, these characteristics are not necessary for devalorization to take place (Beauregard 1986) nor is depreciation sufficient for gentrification to transpire, as areas with depressed land values do not always undergo reinvestment (Harvey 1982).

    The second step in the process of gentrification is that individuals reinvest residential and commercial capital back into areas of depreciation. This reinvestment is primarily driven by middle- and upper-class people attracted to the area by reasonable housing prices, access to public transportation, valued amenities, and historical architecture (Galster and Peacock 1986; Caulfield 1994; Helms 2003; Hjorthol and Bjornskau 2005) and investors trying to cater to their consumption desires and demands (London et al. 1986; Smith and Williams 1986; Hammel and Wyly 1996; Sullivan 2007; see also Ley 1980; 1996). This is the case not only in terms of income but also with regard to age, education, and occupation, as gentrifiers tend to be young, college-educated professionals with no children (DeSena 2006; Rerat et al. 2010; Bader 2011). Thus, a second key aspect of gentrification is a type of "social upgrading" (Millard-Ball 2002).

    An important mark of gentrification related to the influx of more affluent residents is improvement to the built environment. Because middle-class newcomers raise property values and thereby expand the tax base, city leaders, planners, and investors are eager to commercialize these areas. The physicality of the community transforms into a more aesthetically pleasing version of itself, businesses carry more upscale products, and community activities begin to represent more appreciated forms of cultural capital. Specifically, researchers have documented the presence and symbolic importance of coffee shops (Deener 2007; McKinnish et al. 2010), private schools (DeSena 2006; Formoso et al. 2010), art walks (Shaw and Sullivan 2011), and dog parks (Tissot 2011), among others. These changes to the commercial environment of the neighborhood help to reform its identity and reputation (Kasinitz 1988: Atkinson 2004; Brown-Saracino 2004; Sullivan 2007). Though the extent and shape of these transformations are not uniform across time and space (Wyly and Hammel 1998), it appears that some degree of physical upgrading is a third fundamental quality of the gentrification process.

    In sum, gentrification is best defined as a class-based process of capital reinvestment through which middle-class individuals and interests stake claims to urban communities after a period of economic disinvestment and alter the physical and social milieus to suit their preferences. Paying particular attention to each component of this definition in the operationalization of gentrification can be useful in identifying the process of urban reinvestment and differentiating it from other forms of ecological change. In the following section, I examine more closely each of these defining characteristics, noting how each can be captured empirically and can be combined to provide an encompassing measure of gentrification.

Operationalizing Gentrification

Potential for Reinvestment

Although any neighborhood can experience an upturn in investment activity, not all neighborhoods can be gentrified because, by definition, the gentrification process is preceded by a period of economic disinvestment. It is imperative, then, that researchers discern gentrification from other forms of neighborhood transition by first determining whether a neighborhood experienced such decline. One way to assess the eligibility for reinvestment is to follow the precedent set by Galster and Peacock (1986), who identify areas ripe for gentrification based on their baseline economic conditions. Neighborhoods are considered prime candidates for reinvestment if—during the decade prior to reinvestment—the percentage of residents with a college education was less than the city median, the median household income was less than 80% of the city median, and the median home value was less than the city median. This approach is limited insofar as it cannot speak to extent of the decline or how long the community experienced disinvestment, but it provides a basic filter to differentiate gentrifying areas from neighborhoods that appreciated due to "incumbent upgrading," or reinvestment by those already living in the neighborhood through "sweat equity" (Clay 1983; Helms 2003).

Reinvestment

Once the eligibility for gentrification has been determined, the key to identifying the process is documenting evidence of reinvestment activity. This is a particularly tricky task for researchers because there is little consensus as to what constitutes reinvestment and how one can best capture it at the neighborhood level. Diverse definitions of gentrification have resulted in an assortment of measures. These disparate indicators, in turn, have resulted in contradictory findings regarding the pervasiveness of gentrification and its effects on communities, leaving our understanding of urban reinvestment muddled and incomplete. Working toward a more universal operationalization of gentrification can unify the literature but doing so requires addressing three primary considerations as to how to best measure reinvestment: the type of indicators that will maximize both empirical utility and researcher accessibility, the number of measures that increase the likelihood of identifying gentrification, and the specific indicators most indicative of gentrification.

a. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Measures

    The most common approach to identifying gentrification has been to quantify the degree of structural or compositional changes occurring within a neighborhood. Frequently used indicators of structural upgrading include changes in rent values (Hammel and Wyly 1996; Knotts and Haspel 2006), house and property values (Galster and Peacock 1986; Hammel and Wyly 1996; Knotts and Haspel 2006), number of housing units (Knotts and Haspel 2006); number of newly constructed homes (Nelson et al. 2010), number of issued demolition permits (Dye and McMillen 2007), and mortgage capital growth (Wyly and Hammel 1999). Research highlighting sociodemographic shifts has measured gentrification in terms of changes within the community in average family income (McKinnish et al. 2010), median household income (Galster and Peacock 1986; Hammel and Wyly 1996; Knotts and Haspel 2006; Glick 2008), percentage of college graduates (Galster and Peacock 1986; Hammel and Wyly 1996; Knotts and Haspel 2006; Glick 2008; McKinnish et al. 2010), percentage of residents in managerial or professional occupations (Hammel and Wyly 1996; Hudspeth 2003; Knotts and Haspel 2006; Eckerd 2011), proportion of home owners (Hudspeth 2003; Nelson et al. 2010), poverty rates (Hammel and Wyly 1996; Hudspeth 2003; Knotts and Haspel 2006), rates of unemployment and employment (Hammel and Wyly 1996; Atkinson 2000b), GINI coefficient (Nelson et al. 2010), and proportion of middle-aged adults (Knotts and Haspel 2006; see also Hudspeth 2003).

    Most of the aforementioned measures have come from Census data, a method criticized on several grounds. First, census-based indicators may be problematic because they do not necessarily provide insight into the actual process of gentrification; they simply note residential movement and change (Atkinson 2002). As such, they may not distinguish gentrification from other types of ecological changes that could also explain changes within those communities (Kennedy and Leonard 2001). Second, a reliance on Census data restricts the temporal parameters of gentrification as they are only available in ten-year intervals, leaving annual changes and fluctuations unexamined and undetected (see Freeman 2006).

    To address these shortcomings, some scholars have employed more subjective evaluations of urban reinvestment. For example, McDonald's (1986) seminal study of gentrification's effects on community crime levels identified gentrified neighborhoods based on his familiarity with their transitioning dynamics and on previous literature that had considered areas as gentrified. While this strategy is beneficial for capturing the intangible essence of gentrification that is not easily quantified, it is rather arbitrary and makes empirical replication particularly arduous. More recently, scholars have offered a more technologically-driven way to qualitatively identify gentrification that does not require that a researcher visit to the areas of interest. Specifically, Hwang and Sampson (2014) employ Google's Street View to locate signs of reinvestment in Chicago's urban core. Although exceptionally innovative, this approach also relies on the subjectivity of the researcher, as well as a basic familiarity with neighborhood boundaries in a given city. Further, Sampson (2012) himself notes the difficulty of seeing gentrification "on the ground." Noting the presence of disorder and vacancy alongside BMWs parked on the street and upscale housing a few blocks away, he questions, "Was I seeing gentrification in progress? Transformation momentarily stalled? Or is this area too tainted by the past, with the stain of murders in the streets and corner stores too much to overcome?" (Sampson 2012: 416).

    Both the quantitative and qualitative approaches to the study of gentrification are imperfect. However, the accessibility of Census data and its more objective nature render the quantification of reinvestment more suitable for a universal operationalization of gentrification. And, if these data are used in conjunction with a disinvestment filter (see Galster and Peacock 1986), fears that gentrification may be confused with other ecological changes can be assuaged. Of course, qualitative examinations of gentrification are crucial to understanding how reinvestment unfolds, how it progresses over time, and how it affects community outcomes, as well as providing imagery impossible with statistical scrutiny; they simply are not well suited for universal employment in identifying the process of reinvestment.

b. Number of Indicators

Another factor to consider in the operationalization of gentrification is the number of indicators necessary to most accurately identify gentrification. Although there is no magic number, relying on a sole indicator of reinvestment is disadvantageous and may result in biased estimates of the phenomenon. One reason is that the degree of change on an individual indicator that accompanies reinvestment may be dissimilar from other measures (Wyly and Hammel 1998) and, consequently, may have varying predictive powers in the classification of gentrification (Williams 1986; Keating and Smith 1996a; Slater 2004). To illustrate this point, an examination of Census data for St. Louis City reveals that employing an increase in the number of professionals living in the area as an indicator of gentrification results in the classification of two neighborhoods as gentrified. This number jumps to thirty-nine gentrifying neighborhoods when reinvestment is marked by an increase in property values, forty-nine with a growth in median income, and fifty-five with an increase in the percentage of college-educated residents.

Such inconsistency renders the reliance on a sole indicator too simplistic in scope and offers only a superficial examination of gentrification (see Baldassare 1984; Slater 2010). The need for multiple measures is reinforced by the finding that the relative strength of any measure of gentrification may be temporally sensitive in that failure to capture the indicator as precise moments in time can give the false impression that gentrification never took place in a community already being gentrified (see Hammel and Wyly 1996). Also, the use of various indicators further ensures that researchers do not confound urban reinvestment with other types of neighborhood change.

c. Specific Indicators

    It may be clear that the use of multiple measures is beneficial for capturing reinvestment, but it is less evident what specific measures are most indicative the process as reinvestment manifests in different ways, creating unique footprints of community renewal. A thorough review of the urban sociology literature, however, reveals common threads that link these diverse forms of gentrification together. Specifically, all gentrifying neighborhoods experience changes to their physical and social milieus as a middle-class gentry moves into the area and revives once dilapidated community structures. As such, any operationalization of gentrification should highlight such shifts by examining—for example—changes in the percentage of residents with a college education, the proportion of residents who are homeowners, median household income, and property values.

    Although gentrification is a multifaceted process, not all potential markers of the phenomenon are universal and, therefore, are not useful in the operationalization of reinvestment. Any measure that emphasizes a specific type of community-level cultural transformation would be included in this category. Researchers recently have begun to supplement traditional indicators of gentrification with measures that reflect changes in consumption preferences among local residents in order to capture the cultural shifts that accompany reinvestment. Papachristos and colleagues (2011) and Smith (2012) consider increases in the number of coffee shops in an area as a proxy for reinvestment because the presence of coffee establishments—particularly Starbucks—has become a hallmark of urban gentrification (see O'Sullivan 2005; Deener 2007). Cultural changes are expected as commercial development begins to align with the consumption preferences of gentrifiers, though the ways in which they manifest are likely to differ depending on demands at the region, state, city, and neighborhood levels, as well as the structural capacities of local buildings. That is, an increase in the number of coffee shops in an area may be a hallmark of gentrification in Chicago (Papachristos et al. 2011), but not elsewhere. As such, researchers should be wary when operationalizing gentrification in cultural terms.

    Another indicator that should be excluded from a composite measure of gentrification is the displacement, or physical removal, of lower-class residents (Marcuse 1986; Atkinson 2000b). Although some maintain that this is an inevitable consequence of gentrification (Millard-Ball 2002; Slater 2010)—and, hence, a defining characteristic of the process—there are areas that have been gentrified through the construction of new residential properties that have allowed a large number of middle-class people to move in without requiring their less affluent neighbors to vacate (Wyly and Hammel 1998; Brown et al. 2004a; Brown et al. 2004b; Davidson and Lees 2005; see also Hamnett 2009.) Consideration of displacement as an essential feature unnecessarily limits the definition of gentrification and hinders the opportunity to assess the extent to which gentrification leads to displacement without falling prey to tautological reasoning. To avoid tautology, displacement should be treated as a potential product of the process rather than a defining characteristic.

    Changes in a neighborhood's racial composition also should be framed and explored empirically as a possible consequence related to the gentrification process. Gentrification has meant a shift in racial dynamics for communities across the country as white gentrifiers move into predominately black neighborhoods (Marcuse 1985; LeGates and Hartman 1986), which are more likely to be economically depressed areas ripe for reinvestment activity (Oliver and Shapiro 1995; Massey 2002). Inclusion of racial and ethnic compositional change as a necessary component of gentrification, however, poses problems in the study of urban reinvestment. Although empirical research often supports the narrative of white people moving into gentrifying neighborhoods as minorities move out (Atkinson 2000a; Murdie and Teixeria 2010), predominately white, lower-class neighborhoods are not impervious to middle-class invasion (McKinnish et al. 2010; Hwang and Sampson 2014; see also Hammel and Wyly 1996; Hudspeth 2003). Likewise, black gentrifiers have been credited with neighborhood improvements in some areas, though their role may be quite narrow nationally (Boyd 2008; Hyra 2008; see also Newman and Ashton 2004; Sampson 2012). Thus, the degree of displacement among minorities should not be taken for granted. Some may consider this to be a "huge omission" (Rivlin 2002, p. 178) from the definition, but the racial and ethnic significance of gentrification can be appreciated without elevating it to inevitability.

    Excluding racial composition shifts from the operationalization of gentrification also allows researchers to explore how the racial configuration of a gentrifying neighborhood shapes how reinvestment unfolds in an area. Research has demonstrated that gentrification can be differentially consequential for white and black communities as they "occupy markedly different positions in the social and spatial order of the city" (Papachristos et al. (2011, p. 218); see also Sampson and Wilson 1995; Sampson and Bean 2006; Peterson and Krivo 2010). Because predominately black neighborhoods are more likely to be embedded in larger areas of deprivation than are white neighborhoods (Pattillo-McCoy 1999; Sampson and Bean 2006; Peterson and Krivo 2010; Sampson 2012), historically white neighborhoods that undergo gentrification may be insulated from any negative side effects associated with reinvestment. This possibility, like that of displacement, is an empirical question. Thus, the racial composition of a neighborhood should be considered to contextualize gentrification and to better understand how racial dynamics influence the relationship between gentrification and community outcomes.

Gentrification Index

One way to meet the aforementioned operationalization criteria is to combine quantitative indicators of gentrification—defined in both structural and compositional terms—into a gentrification index. To illustrate how this can be done, I have created an index of neighborhood change comprised of multiple measures supplied by the Census Bureau that underscore the compositional and physical facets of gentrification in order to document reinvestment activity occurring between 1990 and 2000. Compositional change is measured in terms of decadal differences in: population size, the percentage of the college-educated population, employment rates, the proportion of employed residents who work in managerial or professional positions, the proportion of owner-occupied dwellings, poverty rates (reverse coded), and median household income. Structural change is measured by considering the differences in median property value and median rent value between 1990 and 2000 (adjusted for inflation).

Previous index construction in the study of gentrification has consisted of summing simple change scores between two temporal points for each variable and dividing by the number of indicators included in the formula (Ley 1986; 1996; see also Eckerd 2011). This method proves to be problematic when trying to use change scores with different scales of measure (e.g., change in percentage of home owners and change in median household income) because they require standardization and the process of standardization alters the meaning of positive and negative values. Whereas a change score reflects degree and direction of neighborhood change, its standardized value, or z-score, represents the degree of change relative to the average degree of change occurring for all neighborhoods in the city. Consider, for example, the disparate meanings for the change score and the standardized change score for median income differences between 1990 and 2000. A negative change score would suggest a decrease in median income for the neighborhood over the decade; a negative z-score would suggest that the change in median income for the neighborhood was below the change for the city as a whole. It could be that a neighborhood improved on indicators of neighborhood change (positive change score) but continued to lag behind the city mean during that time (negative z-score). Standardized change scores, then, could confuse growth with decline, rendering them inaccurate measures of gentrification. This is a particularly important consideration given that neighborhoods can undergo revitalization and still remain below the city average on key indicators of wellbeing, especially during the earliest stages of transition (see McDonald 1986).

To compute standardized scores and preserve the substantive meaning of positive and negative values, z-scores for each variable were calculated for both 1990 and 2000. The z-score for each indicator in 1990 was then subtracted from its z-score in 2000 to represent a change in z-scores over time, or the degree of change measured in standard deviations from the decadal means for the city as a whole. Positive scores indicate general growth on that indicator for the neighborhood but do not necessarily reflect change larger than the city's mean. Consider a neighborhood with a median income value three standard deviations below the city mean in 1990 and one standard deviation below the city mean in 2000. Although the neighborhood experienced growth over the decade, it continued to lag behind the city's mean. Negative scores, conversely, indicate general decline. These scores are combined into an index by summing them and dividing by the number of indicators used as a measure of overall neighborhood change. Gentrifying neighborhoods, then, are those deemed "gentrifiable" in 1990 and experienced growth, or had a positive gentrification index score.

Utility of the Gentrification Index

One way to use the gentrification index is to differentiate gentrifying neighborhoods (marked by the combination of eligibility and growth) from those that have not experienced reinvestment (those not eligible or those eligible that did not experience growth) to draw conclusions about the general consequences associated with urban reinvestment. Another option is to disaggregate the non-gentrifying neighborhoods and classify them according to the changes they experienced over a decade. For example, areas that were eligible for gentrification but did not experience growth (including those that were stable), would be considered impoverished neighborhoods. Appreciating neighborhoods would be those that were not eligible for gentrification and experienced growth over the decade. Finally, neighborhoods that were not eligible for gentrification but declined or experienced no improvement would be considered depreciating neighborhoods. Drawing such distinctions can be particularly useful when comparing the effects of gentrification on community outcomes to those brought about by other types of neighborhood evolution.

A primary benefit of employing a gentrification index is that researchers are no longer confined to reducing gentrification to a single event that either has occurred or has not (see Galster and Peacock 1986; Nelson et al. 2010). By dichotomizing gentrification, such studies are limited in the ability to speak to varying degrees of reinvestment and cannot distinguish areas that are just beginning to gentrify from those that have experienced substantial compositional and physical modification. Quantifying gentrification with the reinvestment index score shifts the view of gentrification as a process that unfolds at varying paces and to different degrees over time, allowing scholars to differentiate among gentrifying neighborhoods, trace gentrification from onset to realization, and examine the effects of the process related to variable degrees of community change (see Hudspeth 2003; Knotts and Haspel 2006). Although continuous measures of gentrification have been proposed before—including counts of neighborhood coffee shops (Papachristos et al. 2011; Smith 2012) and the value of home loans received by local residents (Kreager et al. 2011), the studies fall prey to the limitations associated with employing single marker of reinvestment.

Discussion

Gentrification is a phantom concept insofar as a universal definition of the phenomenon has eluded researchers due to the diverse ways in which urban reinvestment unfolds across both time and space. This paper attempts to unify a particularly disjointed literature by advancing a comprehensive definition of gentrification: a class-based process of capital reinvestment through which middle-class individuals and interests stake claims to urban communities after a period of economic disinvestment and alter the physical and social milieus to suit their preferences. This definition can be used to set the parameters for a universal and replicable operationalization of gentrification that can be used to detect both the potential for and the realization of reinvestment in the urban core. This approach helps to avoid issues related to misidentifying gentrification and conflating it with other types of neighborhood change. Further, quantifying the progression of gentrification in terms of the degree of change brought about by reinvestment activity frees researchers from previous categorization boundaries. Distinctions can now be made not only between gentrifying and non-gentrifying communities but also among the gentrifying communities themselves. It could be that the effects related to gentrification depend on the extent of reinvestment taking place in the community. Likewise, it could be the case that there is a tipping point after which the consequences of gentrification alter. The only way to empirically explore these possibilities is to employ a continuous measure of gentrification.

Future research endeavors should also treat shifts in the community's racial composition and the displacement of incumbent residents as potential outcomes rather than innate characteristics of the gentrification process. This exclusion avoids unnecessarily restricting the definition and operationalization of gentrification, especially in light of evidence that white communities are also susceptible to gentrification (see Papachristos et al. 2011) and that black gentrifiers, or "buppies", have been influential in reshaping some urban communities (Kennedy and Leonard 2001; Freeman 2006; Hyra 2008; McKinnish et al. 2010; Bader 2011). As such, scholars should emphasize class-based compositional change and assess, independently, to what degree the influx of gentrifiers leads to the physical and social displacement of incumbents, as well as how it reshapes the racial configuration of the area. Given that gentrification may have differential effects on white and black communities (Papachristos et al. 2011), scholars could also explore to what degree the racial composition of reinvestment sites conditions the relationship between gentrification and various community outcomes.

Footnote

* This paper comes from research supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 134165.

References

Atkinson, Rowland. 2000a. "The Hidden Costs of Gentrification: Displacement in Central London." Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 15: 307-326.

Atkinson, Rowland. 2000b. "Measuring Gentrification and Displacement in Greater London." Urban Studies 37: 149-165.

Atkinson, Rowland. 2002. "Does Gentrification Help or Harm Urban Neighborhoods? An Assessment of the Evidence-Base in the Context of the New Urban Agenda." CNR Paper 5.

Atkinson, Rowland. 2004. "The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons for the Urban Renaissance?" European Journal of Housing Policy 4: 107-131.

Bader, Michael D. M. 2011. "Reassessing Residential Preferences for Redevelopment." City & Community 10: 311-337.

Baldassare, Mark. 1984. "Evidence for Neighborhood Revitalization: Manhattan." Pp. 90-102 in Gentrification, Displacement, and Neighborhood Revitalization, edited by J. Palen and B. London. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Beauregard, Robert A. 1986. "The Chaos and Complexity of Gentrification." Pp. 35-55 in Gentrification of the City, edited by N. Smith and P. Williams. Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Birch, Eugenie L. 2005. "Who Lives Downtown?" The Brookings Institution: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime." Retrieved January 27, 2012 (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/
reports/2005/
11downtownredevelopment_birch/20051115_Birch.pdf).

Boyd, Michelle. 2008. "Defensive Development: The Role of Racial Conflict in Gentrification." Urban Affairs Review 43:751-776.

Brown, Barbara, Douglas D. Perkins, and Graham Brown. 2004a. "Crime, New Housing, and Housing Incivilities in a First-Ring Suburb: Multilevel Relationship across Time." Housing Policy Debate 15: 301-347.

Brown, Graham, Barbara B. Brown, and Douglas D. Perkins. 2004b. "New Housing as Neighborhood Revitalization: Place Attachment and Confidence among Residents." Environment and Behavior 36:749-775.

Brown-Saracino, Japonica. 2004. "Social Preservationists and the Quest for Authentic Community." City & Community 3(2): 135-156.

Caulfield, Jon. 1994. City Form and Everyday Life: Toronto's Gentrification and Critical Social Practice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Clay, Phillip L. 1983. "Urban Reinvestment: Processes and Trends." Pp. 21-33 in Neighborhood Policy and Planning, ed. P. L. Clay and R.M. Hollister. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Covington, Jeanette and Ralph B. Taylor. 1989. "Gentrification and Crime: Robbery and Larceny Changes in Appreciating Baltimore Neighborhoods During the 1970s." Urban Affairs Quarterly 25: 142-172.

Curran, Winifred. 2007. " 'From the Frying Pan to the Oven' : Gentrification and the Experience of Industrial Displacement in Williamsburg, Brooklyn." Urban Studies 44: 1427-1440.

Davidson, Mark. 2008. "Spoiled Mixture: Where Does State-Led 'Positive' Gentrification End?" Urban Studies 45: 2385-2405.

Davidson, Mark and Loretta Lees. 2005. "New Build 'Gentrification' and London's Riverside Renaissance." Environment and Planning A: 37: 1165-1190.

Deener, Andrew. 2007. "Commerce as the Structure and Symbol of Neighborhood Life: Reshaping the Meaning of Community in Venice, California." City & Community 6: 291-314.

DeSena, Judith N. 2006. " 'What's a Mother to Do?': Gentrification, School Selection, and the Consequences for Community Cohesion." American Behavioral Scientist 50: 241-257.

Dye, Richard F. and Daniel P, McMillen. 2007. "Teardowns and Land Values in the Chicago Metropolitan Area." Journal of Urban Economics 61: 45-63.

Eckerd, Adam. 2011. "Cleaning Up with Cleaning Out? A Spatial Assessment of Environmental Gentrification." Urban Affairs Review 47: 31-59.

Formoso, Diana, Rachel N. Weber, and Marc S. Atkins. 2010. "Gentrification and Urban Children's Well-Being: Tipping the Scales from Problems to Promise." American Journal of Community Psychology 46: 395-412.

Freeman, Lance. 2006. There Goes the 'Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Galster, George and Stephen Peacock. 1986. "Urban Gentrification: Evaluating Alternative Indicators." Social Indicators Research 18: 321-337.

Glass, R. 1964. London: Aspects of Change. London: MacGibbon & Kee.

Glick, Jonathan. 2008. "Gentrification and the Racialized Geography of Home Equity." Urban Affairs Review 44: 280-295.

Hackworth, Jason and Neil Smith. 2001. "The Changing State of Gentrification." Journal of Social and Economic Geography 92: 464-477.

Hammel, Daniel J. and Elvin K. Wyly. 1996. "A Model for Identifying Gentrified Areas with Census Data." Urban Geography 1996: 248-268.

Hamnett, Chris. 2009. "The New Mikado? Tom Slater, Gentrification and Displacement." City 13: 476-482.

Helms, Andrew C. 2003. "Understanding Gentrification: An Empirical Analysis of the Determinants of Urban Housing Renovation." Journal of Urban Economics 54: 474-498.

Hjorthol, Randi Johanne and Torkel Bjornskau. 2005. "Gentrification in Norway: Capital, Culture, or Convenience?" European Urban and Regional Studies 12: 353-373.

Hudspeth, Nancy. 2003. "Interpreting Neighborhood Change in Chicago." Nathalie P. Voohees Center. University of Illinois at Chicago. Online.

Hwang, Jackelyn and Robert J. Sampson. 2014. "Divergent Pathways of Gentrification: Racial Inequality and the Social Order of Renewal in Chicago Neighborhoods." American Sociological Review 79: 726-751.

Hyra, Derek S. 2008. The New Urban Renewal: The Economic Transformation of Harlem and Bronzeville. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kasinitz, Philip. 1988. "The Gentrification of 'Boerum Hill': Neighborhood Change and Conflicts over Definitions." Qualitative Sociology 11: 163-182.

Keating, W. Dennis and Janet Smith. 1996a. "Neighborhoods in Transition." Pp. 24-38 in Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods, edited by Keating, Krumholz, and Star. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Keating, W. Dennis and Janet Smith. 1996b. "Past Federal Policy for Urban Neighborhoods." Pp. 50-61 in Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods, edited by Keating, Krumholz, and Star. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Kennedy, Maureen and Paul Leonard. 2001. "Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices." Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

Knotts, H. Gibbs and Moshe Haspel. 2006. "The Impact of Gentrification on Voter Turnout." Social Science Quarterly 87: 110-121.

Kreager, Derek A., Christopher J. Lyons, and Zachary R. Hays. 2011. "Urban Revitalization and Seattle Crime, 1982-2000. Social Problems 58: 615-639.

Lees, Loretta. 2000. "A Reappraisal of Gentrification: Towards a 'Geography of Gentrification'." Progress in Human Geography 24: 389-408.

LeGates, Richard T. and Chester Hartman. 1986. "The Anatomy of Displacement in The United States." Pp. 178-200 in Gentrification of the City, edited by N. Smith and P. Williams. Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Ley, David. 1980. "Liberal Ideology and the Postindustrial City." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70: 238-258.

Ley, David. 1986. "Alternative Explanations for Inner-City Gentrification: A Canadian Assessment." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76(4): 521-535.

Ley, David. 1996. The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

London, Bruce, Barett A. Lee, and S. Gregory Lipton. 1986. "The Determinants of Gentrification in the United States: A City-Level Analysis." Urban Affairs Review 21: 369-387.

Marcuse, Peter. 1985. "Gentrification, Abandonment, and Displacement: Connections, Causes, and Policy Responses in New York City." Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law 28: 195-240.

Marcuse, Peter. 1986. "Abandonment, Gentrification, and Displacement: The Linkages in New York City." Pp. 153-177 in Gentrification of the City, edited by N. Smith and P. Williams. Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Massey, Douglas S. 2002. "Comment on Vigdor's "Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?"." Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs 174-176.

McDonald, Scott C. 1986. "Does Gentrification Affect Crime Rates?" Crime and Justice 8: 163-201.

McKinnish, Terra, Randall Walsh, and T. Kirk White. 2010. "Who Gentrifies Low-Income Neighborhoods?" Journal of Urban Economics 67:180-193.

Millard-Ball, Adam. 2002. "Gentrification in a Residential Mobility Framework: Social Change, Tenure Change and Chains of Moves in Stockholm." Housing Studies 17: 833-856.

Murdie, Robert and Carlos Teixeira. 2010. "The Impact of Gentrification on Ethnic Neighborhoods in Toronto: A Case Study of Little Portugal." Urban Studies 48:61-83.

Nelson, Peter B., Alexander Oberg, Lise Nelson. 2010. "Rural Gentrification and Linked Migration in the United States." Journal of Rural Studies 26: 343-352.

Newman, Kathe and Philip Ashton. 2004. "Neoliberal Urban Policy and New Paths of Neighborhood Change in the American Inner City." Environment and Planning A 36: 1151-1172.

Oliver, Melvin L. and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1995. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge.

O'Sullivan, Arthur. 2005. "Gentrification and Crime." Journal of Urban Economics 57: 73-85.

Papachristos, Andrew V., Chris M. Smith, Mary L. Scherer, and Melissa A. Fugiero. 2011. "More Coffee, Less Crime? The Relationship between Gentrification and Neighborhood Crime Rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005." City & Community 10: 215-240.

Pattillo-McCoy, Mary. 1999. Black Picket Fences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rerat, Patrick, Ola Soderstrom, and Etienne Piguet. 2010. "New Forms of Gentrification: Issues and Debates." Population, Space, and Place 16: 335-343.

Rivlin, Alice M. 2002. "Comment on Vigdor's "Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?"." Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs 176-179.

Rose, Demaris. 1984. "Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven Development of Marxist Urban Theory." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2: 47-74.

Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sampson, Robert J. and William Julius Wilson. 1995. "Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality." Pp. 37-54 in Crime and Inequality, edited by J. Hagan and R. Peterson. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Sampson, Robert J. and Lydia Bean. 2006. "Cultural Mechanisms and Killing Fields: A Revised Theory of Community-Level Racial Inequality." Pp. 8-38 in The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America, edited by R. Peterson, L. Krivo, and J. Hagan. New York: New York University Press.

Shaw, Samuel and Daniel M. Sullivan. 2011. " 'White Night': Gentrification, Racial Exclusion, and Perceptions and Participation in the Arts. City & Community 10: 241-264.

Slater, Tom. 2004. "North American Gentrification? Revanchist and Emancipatory Perspectives Explored." Environment and Planning 36: 1191-1213.

Slater, Tom. 2010. "Still Missing Marcuse: Hamnett's Foggy Analysis in London Town." City 14: 170-179.

Smith, Chris M. 2012. "The Influence of Gentrification on Gang Homicides in Chicago Neighborhoods, 1994 to 2005." Crime & Delinquency 58: 1-23.

Smith, Neil. 1979. "Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement by Capital Not People." Journal of the American Planning Association 45: 538-548.

Smith, Neil. 1986. "Gentrification, the Frontier, and the Restructuring of Urban Space." Pp. 15-34 in Gentrification of the City, edited by N. Smith and P. Williams. Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Smith, Neil and Peter Williams. 1986. "Alternatives to Orthodoxy: Invitation to a Debate." Pp. 1-12 in Gentrification of the City, edited by N. Smith and P. Williams. Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Sullivan, Daniel M. 2007. "Reassessing Gentrification: Measuring Residents' Opinions Using Survey Data." Urban Affairs Review 42: 583-594.

Tissot, Sylvie. 2011. "Of Dogs and Men: The Making of Spatial Boundaries in a Gentrifying Neighborhood." City & Community 10: 265-284.

Williams, Peter. 1986. "A Re-Evaluation of Gentrification in Australia, Britain, and the United States." Pp. 56-77 in Gentrification of the City, edited by N. Smith and P. Williams. Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Wyly, Elvin K. and Daniel J. Hammel. 1998. "Modeling the Context and Contingency of Gentrification." Journal of Urban Affairs 20: 303-326.

Wyly, Elvin K. and Daniel J. Hammel. 1999. "Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrification." Housing Policy Debate 10: 711-771.

Wyly, Elvin K. and Daniel J. Hammel. 2004. "Gentrification, Segregation, and Discrimination in the American Urban System." Environment and Planning 36: 121-1241.

A Member of the EBSCO Publishing Group
Abstracted in Sociological Abstracts
Online Indexing and Article Search from the
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

Return to Home Page to Read More Articles

Sociation Today is optimized for the Firefox Browser

The Editorial Board of Sociation Today

Editorial Board:
Editor:
George H. Conklin,
 North Carolina
 Central University
 Emeritus

Robert Wortham,
 Associate Editor,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Board:
Rebecca Adams,
 UNC-Greensboro

Bob Davis,
 North Carolina
 Agricultural and
 Technical State
 University

Catherine Harris,
 Wake Forest
 University

Ella Keller,
 Fayetteville
 State University

Ken Land,
 Duke University

Steve McNamee,
 UNC-Wilmington

Miles Simpson,
 North Carolina
 Central University

William Smith,
 N.C. State University