Gentrification Displacement New Urbanism

7/26/2019 Gentrification Displacement New Urbanism

1/16

Gentrifcation, Displacement and New Urbanism:The Next Racial

Project*

by Olivia Hetzler, Veronica E. Medina, and David Overfelt University of

Missouri-Columbia

Volme !, Nmber "

#all "$$%

tt!"##$$$.ncsociolo%y.or%#sociationtoday#%ent.tm

&e 'ne$ social movements' of te ()*+s and ()+s made calls for racial

euality in te !ublic s!ere and tese movements %ained a number of

concessions from te federal %overnment tat e!anded te ri%ts of

minorities in te United /tates 0Omi and 1inant ())23. Ho$ever, 4ust as soon

as tese movements %ained le%al ri%ts for minorities tere $as an immediate

bac5las from conservative 6merica. &is conservative bac5las, be%innin% in

te early ()7+s, rearticulated te meanin%s of racism and turned $ites into

te victims of racism. 8n tis ne$ era of racism, colorblindness, an ideolo%y

de9ned by its o!!osition to '!referential treatment' and its lac5 of racial

consideration 0Omi and 1inant ())23, became te metod for removin% racefrom future !olicy discussions. :y recodin% formerly racist terminolo%y into

less o;ensive and seemin%ly race-neutral lan%ua%e, tose on te ri%t revived

old racist ideolo%ies in ne$ forms. in%? and re!roduc>in%? structures of domination based on essentialist

cate%ories of race 0Omi and 1inant ())2, !. 7(3.' &is racial !ro4ect started

out as a !ro4ect to develo! broader ri%ts for minorities in te ()*+s and ()+s

and ended u! as a conservative colorblind bac5las tat started in te ()7+s

and continues today.

&e %eneral failure of liberal !ro%rams tat ad been develo!ed to !romote

%reater racial euality created tis conservative rearticulation tat led directly

to an attac5 on te state. &is is si%ni9cant because, as Omi and 1inant

0())23 ar%ue, '&e state from its very ince!tion as been concerned $it te

!olitics of race. @or most of U./. istory, te stateAs main ob4ective in its racial

!olicy $as re!ression and eclusion 0!. B(3.' &rou% tis attac5, tose on te

ri%t !romoted lo$er levels of state intervention in all as!ects of life. &e
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/gent.htmhttp://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/gent.htm


2/16

continuous rearticulation of racial euality, cou!led $it a continuous !us for

lo$er levels of state intervention, ali%ns nearly !erfectly $it eil /mitAs

$aves of %entri9cation. one of tese !rocesses as a clear cut be%innin% and

end, but instead te $aves serve to orient te reader in time and demonstrate

te evolution of te modern racist !ro4ect a!!lied to urban develo!ment.

6ccordin% to /mit 0())3, $ave one $as s!oradic and develo!ed in te

()*+s trou% te ()7+s. &is $ave consisted of central city revitalization

driven by state investment and %rounded in a utilitarian ar%ument tat an

im!roved center city $as best for everyone in te city, ma4ority %rou! and

racial minorities ali5e. 8n tis $ave te state, $it so muc ca!ital invested in

central city im!rovement, ad a lar%e sta5e in a !ositive outcomes in bot

economic and racial euality.

8nterestin%ly, tis 9rst $ave of %entri9cation a!!ens nearly simultaneously

$it te be%innin% of te Civil


3/16

1ave tree emer%ed in te ())+s and continues to te !resent day. 8n tis

$ave, %entri9cation becomes a !art of 'e$ Urbanism' 0/mit ++3, a

develo!ment strate%y tat uses colorblind neoliberal free mar5et ideolo%ies to

4ustify its !olicies. &is sift se!arates cities and individuals from te state by

eliminatin% state subsidies for ousin% and urban develo!ment. e$ Urbanism

as t$o immediate conseuences 9rst, it forces U./. cities into an era of %lobalcity-to-city com!etition for ca!ital--te creation of te '1orld-City'

0Villanueva et al. +++3 -- and, second, it forces individuals to fend for

temselves in a 'free mar5et.' 8n tis e$ Urban contet, te city must sell

itself to te i%est bidder and develo!ment is no lon%er focused around

industry. &e city no lon%er directly en%a%es in !ysical %entri9cation, but

instead !ro!oses colorblind neoliberal develo!ment !olicies and zonin%

ordinances tat encoura%e free mar5et %entri9cation, ma5in% cities an o!en

%lobal mar5et for develo!ers and develo!ment. &is creates $at is 5no$n as

'!ro!erty-led' economic develo!ment 01olf-o$ers ++*3. 8n tis current

%eneral !olicy trend, all res!onsibilities for ineualities are sifted to te

mar5et and individuals, allo$in% !olicy ma5ers to deem!asize issues of race

$ile tey continue $it te im!licitly racist 0and still e!licitly classist3 e$

Urbanism#ne$ %entri9cation !ro4ect.

&is tird $ave of %entri9cation claims to reduce s!ra$l by brin%in% !eo!le

bac5 into te center city. Ho$ever, te reality of te situation is tat tird-

$ave %entri9cation !roduces cities tat are colonized by $ite !eo!le trou%

'mied-use zonin%,' a develo!ment trend in $ic te colonizers tar%et

nei%boroods tat ave been !reviously occu!ied by economically

disadvanta%ed !eo!le of color. Mied-use zonin% is a sli%t im!rovement from

te !ast $aves of %entri9cation !olicy tat sim!ly removed all lo$er class!eo!le from a nei%borood. Mied-use zonin% su!!osedly enforces buildin%

restrictions tat reuire te construction of multi-family d$ellin%s alon%side te

more traditional, and more e!ensive, sin%le-family units tat %entri9cation as

tended to !roduce in te !ast. 1it mied-use zonin%, a;ordable ousin% is

subsidized by te state for a!!roimately ten to t$enty years 0Columbia Daily

Tribune,October (, ++*3 after $ic te !ro!erties become available 'on te

mar5et.' /ince te !eriod for $ic subsidies are %uaranteed varies, tis

creates an environment in $ic te ne%ative and racist conseuences of

%entri9cation are s!read out over time.

1ile te !olicy strate%y as im!roved, te tar%ets of %entri9cation, lo$er-class nei%boroods !o!ulated $it minorities, remain te same today as tey

ave in te !ast. &e tar%etin% of tese races and !laces is due to te fact tat

tese areas ave urban ualities 0e.%. istorical arcitecture3 tat are desirable

to middle- and u!!er-class consumers and develo!ers o$ever, tese areas

lac5 i% aestetic uality and terefore are in need of 'revitalization and

ealin% 0/mit ())3.' 8t is, in a sense, a ty!e of social en%ineerin%, a racist

!ro4ect tat carries out %lobal urban a!arteid under te name of colorblind


4/16

neoliberal develo!ment. &is im!licit caracter allo$s for te !ersistence of

!ro!erty-led economic develo!ment in te name of te free-mar5et and eual

o!!ortunity. Considered critically, tis $ave re!resents te attem!ted

%eo%ra!ical etermination of !articular tar%et %rou!s, includin% immi%rants

and mar%inalized minority urban d$ellers tat are considered dis!osable and

not tied to te community.

6 United ations re!ort 0++*3 as recently stated tat neoliberal

develo!ment !olicy creates a situation of modern urban a!arteid, es!ecially

in te face of increasin% Iross Domestic roduct. &is e$ Urbanism focuses

its ener%ies on 'te best and i%est use 0/mit ++3' and is cou!led $it te

trend of mied-use zonin% and !ro!erty-led economic develo!ment 01olf-

o$ers ++*3. 6ltou% tere is su!!osed to be enforcement of rules tat

reuire lo$ income multi-family d$ellin%s to be in te %entrifyin% areas, 'te

best and i%est use' noneteless becomes loft a!artments, small businesses,

and service 4obs in !lace of even te li%test industry tat formerly em!loyed

te lo$ income and minority !o!ulations. /ome ar%ue tat te de!arture ofindustry and te subseuent entry of service sector em!loyment from urban

centers is a natural trend 0@reeman and :raconi ++23.

On te oter and 1olf-o$ers 0++*3 ar%ues, at least in e$ Jor5 City, tat

tis trend is encoura%ed trou% neoliberal 0and $e su%%est, colorblind3

develo!ment !olicies tat create a situation called '!ro!erty-led' economic

develo!ment in $ic !ro!erty o$ners are made te most !o$erful actors.

&ere is no reason to e!ect tis trend to be any di;erent else$ere as lon% as

neoliberal colorblindness rules te !olicy arena. 8n tis !rocess develo!ers are

encoura%ed, trou% colorblind neoliberal zonin% and ta ordinances, to create

a nei%borood full of 'te best and i%est uses.' 1en tis trend be%ins,

landlords $ill brea5 zonin% la$s $it te 0correct3 assum!tion tat tey $ill %et

s!ecial ece!tion !ermits from te !lannin% and zonin% committee.

e$ Urbanist !olicies ave %enerated more !ositive economic outcomes for

cities tan !ast %entri9cation !olicies ave ever been able to accom!lis by

focusin% on tis 'best and i%est use.' Ho$ever, te conseuences of tis

!olicy on te resident 0and freuently minority3 !o!ulations ave barely

received attention, des!ite te citiesA recei!t of re!orts from residents of

%entrifyin% communities $o $is to outline teir o$n visions for te

develo!ment of te nei%boroods in $ic tey reside. Em!loyin% tismetod im!lies tat te conseuences for locals are factored into te

develo!ment !rocess.

Unfortunately, as detailed by Davila 0++K3 and 1olf-o$ers 0++*3, tis is

better caracterized as a trend of !ayin% li! service to te local community.

1ile ta5in% develo!ment advisin% re!orts from te community is a ste!

for$ard in te urban develo!ment !rocess, it is far from a 9nal and all-


5/16

encom!assin% democratic develo!ment solution. &e bi%%est issue tus far is

tat te city as sim!ly used tese re!orts in order to 4ustify a!!lyin%

colorblind neoliberal develo!ment !olicies to a community and o;erin%

develo!ment contracts to !articularly $ealty !o$erful land o$ners and

business!eo!le. 8n tese cases, te city !lanners seem to be Li!!in% te

develo!ment !rocess around. &ey $or5 bac5$ards from te o!inion tatcolorblind neoliberal %ro$t !olicies are te e!itome of develo!ment strate%ies

to te information comin% from te community re!ort" it is a tautolo%ical

ar%ument. 8t does not matter $at te re!ort itself says or $at te

community believes is best. &e end result is for te city to ta5e control, &E

everyone $at is best, and ma5e !rescri!tions based on te o!inions of te

!lanners and develo!ers $itout ever fully 4ustifyin% te !olicy or considerin%

te destructive conseuences for !eo!le tat already live in te soon-to-be

%entrifyin% nei%borood.


6/16

ousin% $ill be !rovided, it is as not been o;ered on a one-to-one basis

0Columbia Daily Tribune, October (, ++*3. Most areas are subsidized for (* to

+ years 0(+ years in e$ Jor53 and ten sold o; to develo!ers, !ossibly

resultin% in furter dis!lacement of te !oor, but at a slo$er rate.

8n 6tlanta, Ieor%ia, $ites are te drivin% force beind %entri9cation. 1itin

ten years, bet$een ())+ and +++, te $ite !o!ulation of tree

!redominately blac5 nei%boroods doubled in a reverse trend from $at $as

seen bet$een te ()+s and ()7+s. &e !o!ulation rose from (N $ite to

(2N $ite in te ir5$ood area. 8n ()+ te $ite !o!ulation $as )7N by

()7+ te area $as )7N blac5 01illiams and 6delman ++K3. &e median sales

!rice of omes as risen 7*N in te !ast (+ years, resultin% in una;ordable

taes for te residents.

1at is a!!enin% in Harlem, e$ Jor5, di;ers in several $ays from

inte%ration of te more familiar blac5-to-$ite form as demonstrated by te

6tlanta case. @or eam!le, $en blac5s moved into $ite nei%boroods, tere$ere, in most cases, fe$ income or class di;erences bet$een te t$o %rou!s.

:ut $en middle- or u!!er-middle-class !eo!le move into lo$er-income,

minority communities, $at ta5es !lace is as muc class -- as racial --

inte%ration. 1ereas $ites may ave feared tat te arrival of blac5

nei%bors $ould !rovo5e $ite Li%t into suburbs and de!ress !ro!erty values,

:lac5 residents of %entrifyin% nei%boroods in Harlem fear risin% !ro!erty

values $ill force tem out. 8f tey do not believe tey are under te ris5 of

actual dis!lacement, tey may $orry about a loss of !olitical control and te

erosion of customs, rituals and institutions -- $at Moniue &aylor calls 'a $ay

of livin% in blac5 communities 0/cott ++(3.'

&e nei%borood of 1est &o$n, located in Cica%o, as also e!erienced a

sift in com!osition over te !ast decade. &e area $as !rimarily $ite before

a !eriod of $ite Li%t be%innin% in te ()+s, $en it $as transformed from a

!rimarily $ite area to a !redominately atino area, incor!oratin% oter racial

%rou!s as $ell. 6s 4obs ave recently sifted to $ite collar and service sector

4obs, $ites are no$ returnin% to 1est &o$n and te areaAs $ite !o!ulation

as increased from 7.2N in ())+ to K).K)N in +++. Coincidin% $it tis sift

is a decrease in te atino !o!ulation from *).+N in ())+ to 2.B*N in +++.

Durin% tis !eriod te avera%e 1est &o$n !ro!erty !rice as escalated BKN

and te median !rice as doubled. &e escalatin% !ro!erty !rices a;ect!ro!erty o$ners $o are see5in% to remain in te area and results in a forced

dislocation if te !ro!erty taes become una;ordable. @or eam!le, bet$een

())* and ()) !ro!erty taes rose ((7N in te 1est &o$n nei%borood

0atalie Voorees Center ++(3.

6 similar trend as ta5en !lace in 6nn 6rbor, Mici%an. 6nn 6rbor as

e!erienced si%ni9cant can%es in its landsca!e over te !ast fe$ decades,


7/16

siftin% from a !redominately manufacturin% economy to a 5no$led%e

economy. Dol%on 0()))3 describes tis sift as 'a celebration of te ne$

bour%eoisie' $itin te city. Develo!ment is ta5in% !lace $itin te city,

o$ever it is seen as i%ly selective as to $o $ill receive te bene9ts of tis

ne$ ty!e of !lace. 6s ne$ 4obs tar%eted to$ards te ne$ bour%eoisie ave

been establised $itin te city, te city as ad an inLu of ne$ residents.&e inLu a!!ears to coincide $it a can%e in te demo%ra!ics of te city

trou% te dis!lacement of te :lac5 $or5in% class. @or over a century te

ort-Central area of 6nn 6rbor ad been com!rised of mainly 6frican

6mericans. &ese areas ave been tar%eted by ne$comers and develo!ers for

residence !articularly for tis reason.


8/16

and beaviors 0!. )3.' 6 trend $as establised in cities $it te lar%est sare

of aQuent central city buyers coosin% %entri9ed nei%boroods in $ic te

cities $it te i%est !ercenta%e of tese !ersons $ere also cities deemed te

'meanest cities' in terms of 'uality of life' ordinance develo!ment and

enforcement 01yly and Hammel ++K3.

'ee!inA 8t Clean'

Homelessness and 6estetics in

te e$ Urbanism

&e actions related to %entri9cation ave been directly related to

dis!lacement and, at times, results in omelessness. 6reas tat are freuently

tar%eted in redevelo!ment are also areas com!rised mainly of minorities and

lo$er income residents $o are often $itout te 9nancial means to a;ord

increasin% rents and secure ne$ ousin% if forced out of teir omes. &e

treatment of lo$ income residents in %entri9ed areas is analo%ous to te

treatment of already omeless !o!ulations.


9/16

rater one of s!atial etermination. &e main concern of indi;erent !olicies

to$ard omelessness is to render te dis!laced invisible, $itout re%ard for

teir $ell-bein% and survival. olicies tar%etin% te survival beaviors of te

omeless ave been enacted nation$ide. :eaviors freuently cited are

slee!in%, urinatin% or defecatin%, and batin% in !ublic s!aces 0Mitcell ++K3.

8t is im!ortant to note tat te omeless ave no alternative !lace to !erformtese activities. &ese !olicies are related to citiesA attem!ts to create a

sanitized s!ace $it te %oal of attractin% ne$ develo!ment and tourists $o

are sielded from te realities of omelessness and !overty.

Ientri9cation !ro4ects reLect an euivalent desire to$ards aestetics,

creatin% te loo5 of an economically stable and aestetically !leasin%

community reuires riddin% te s!ace of !overty stric5en areas and !ersons.

6s $it omeless !olicies, redevelo!ment !ro4ects ave reLected a similar lac5

of !lannin%. &e interest is neiter in maintainin% nor assistin% tese

!o!ulations, but in te etermination of tese !o!ulations trou% un4ust

redevelo!ment, dis!lacement, and lac5 of re!lacement ousin%.


10/16

develo!ment in :oston, $e ar%ue tat it is %eneralizable to all %entrifyin%

cities.

&is e$ Urbanist !olicy as created a 'revancist city' in $ic te retoric

surroundin% develo!ment focuses on ealin% te %eo%ra!ical area tat as

fallen into disre!ute and disre!air due to te lac5 of attention from and te

criminal tendencies of its racialized and lo$er class inabitants 0/mit ())3.

&rou%out te istory of %entri9cation, te local media, in con4unction $it

!lannin% and develo!ment advocates and oScials, create a '%eo%ra!y of

eclusion 0/ibley ())*3' and a cancerous s!ace trou% te use of a retoric

tat demonizes te residents and o$ tey ave used teir s!atial area 0often

a nei%borood or !ublic s!aces $itin a nei%borood3. &rou% tis dual

!rocess, te !eo!le $itin a nei%borood become caracterized as

undeservin% lazy minorities $o ave already been %iven too muc !ublic

assistance 0Omi and 1inant ())23 and te s!ace tey inabit becomes

caracterized as misused and abused 0/mit ())3.

8n order for tis 'abused' s!ace to be able to o;er a !ositive contribution to

te city, te s!ace must be 'saved' by middle class altruists 0read" %entri9ers3

$o $ill 'eal' te s!ace by im!rovin% its a!!earance and increasin% rents. 8n

e$ Jor5 City, for instance, contem!orary mied-use develo!ment !lannin%

committees ave o!ened u! te !olicy develo!ment !rocess a little by %ivin%

tese 'undeservin%' !eo!le a small voice in te resident re!orts about teir

desires for community develo!ment 01olf-o$ers ++*3. 6s $e ave seen,

even $en te !lannin% boards do ta5e tese develo!ment re!orts from local

communities, tey do not ta5e tem seriously and it becomes a sim!le act of

!ayin% li! service to te community 01olf-o$ers ++*3. &e city oScials $ill

unfailin%ly do $at tey feel is best. /ince neoliberal develo!ment !olicies are,

in e;ect, colorblind, te o!inions and concerns of minority residents are

disre%arded resultin% in !olicy advanta%es for $ealty develo!ers and citizens

$o, by teir 'ealin%' ands and self ri%teous altruism, $iten %entrifyin%

nei%boroods.

'ose 8t, &en Move 8t'

or Dis!lacement

8n te !ast %entri9cation consisted of i%er income $ite residents re!lacin%

lo$er income 6frican 6mericans in te city center. &is trend is no lon%er

clearly blac5 and $ite and no$ includes a variety of etnicities as %entri9ers.

&e adverse e;ects of %entri9cation, suc as dis!lacement, still fall eavily on

te soulders of minorities as in te !ast.

Conseuences of %entri9cation are te involuntary or voluntary dis!lacement

of renters, omeo$ners and local businesses, increased real estate values,

increased ta revenue, deconcentration of !overty, can%in% cultural fabric of


11/16

te community, can%in% leadersi! and !o$er structure of community, and

an increased value !ut on te nei%borood by outsiders 0&e :roo5in%s

8nstitution ++(3. Dis!lacement occurs in varyin% forms.


12/16

!enomenon, but a !art of a lar%er !rocess tat cannot be se!arated from

sifts in !olicy and economics 06ldric ()7*3.

&ere are t$o distinct forms of dis!lacement. Direct forms of dis!lacement

are !ro!erty clearance and convertin% ousin% to ne$ use indirect forms occur

$en land !rices rise and rents are bid-u! to a level una;ordable to te

nei%boroodAs !rior residents. 6ltou% in te tird $ave of %entri9cation

redevelo!ment is ty!ically left to !rivate develo!ers and reLects lo$

%overnment involvement, te states ave assisted in tese !olicies by

su!!ortin% redevelo!ment trou% eminent domain la$s. Eminent domain, te

%overnmental !o$er to a!!ro!riate !rivate !ro!erty for !ublic use, as been

used recently to ta5e !rivate omes and businesses and re!lace tem $it

more !ro9table develo!ments, eem!lifyin% 'te best and i%est use'

!rinci!le noted by /mit 0())3. 6 central uestion in tese !ractices is" $at

is considered !ublic use tat $ould entail te condemnation of tese areas and

$o is de9nin% tisR Courts ave cited a %ro$in% ta base for te community

as te !ublic use needed in order to seize tese !ro!erties 0Mansnerus ++(3.6reas are condemned trou% te claim of bli%t and ten transferred to

!rivate redevelo!ers.

&ere ave been %ro$in% contestations to tese !ractices of usin% eminent

domain to seize !rivate !ro!erty. a$ !rofessor Marci 6. Hamilton 9led a

!etition on bealf of tenant o$ners of an oSce com!le $o lost teir buildin%

after it $as condemned as bli%ted. 6fter it $as condemned, te buildin% and

lot $ere sceduled for demolition so tat a ne$ site for te e$ Jor5 &imes

could be built. Hamilton claimed tat 'te !ur!ose of transferrin% !rivate

!ro!erty to anoter, more !o$erful and AconnectedA !rivate o$ner' $as not te

ori%inal intent of eminent domain la$ 0Dunla! ++K3. 8n res!onse, Em!ire

/tate Develo!ment dismissed te federal claim as !re!osterous. 'o case as

ever eld tat a !retetual bli%t 9ndin% is suScient to satisfy te

constitutional !ublic use reuirement,' e$ Jor5 /tate le%al oScials said in

teir brief, !re!ared by Carter, edyard T Milburn 0Dunla! ++K3.

&is case eem!li9es te lac5 of !o$er tat residents and small business

o$ners ave in resistin% te !o$er of redevelo!ment by me%a-develo!ers in

teir areas. 6ltou% cases ave been on te rise, tere as been little success

by residents in retainin% teir !rivate !ro!erty.


13/16

ca!acity to !ursue teir frustrations. 6s stated before, te losers in

%entri9cation are often minorities and te economically disadvanta%ed.

8nvestments needed to attract ne$ residents and businesses to boost te

nei%borood often result in te dis!lacement of residents trou% forced

relocation. One-to-one re!lacement is a federal %uideline left to state and local

ousin% autorities $o often fail to a!!ly restrictions on !rivate develo!ment.

6;ordable ousin% and ome o$nersi! !ro%rams and relocation assistance

are often used as miti%atin% tools for !otential dis!lacement by !rivate

develo!ers. Urban rene$al of te !ast led to direct dis!lacement but te

!rivate develo!ment of te !resent tird $ave %entri9cation results in indirect

dis!lacement of residents by conversion and increase in rents. &e dis!laced

de!end on te ousin% mar5et to 9nd ne$ ousin%, altou% some

omeo$ners voluntarily sell or move from te area. 8n order to determine

$eter 'true' dis!lacement is occurrin%, it must be determined $eter

continued occu!ancy is 9nancially !ossible. Ientri9cation, in tis li%t, creates

a vicious cycle" omelessness and !overty are im!ortant social issues tata;ect te value and function of communities but te destruction and

%entri9cation of lo$ income and minority communities contributes to

omelessness and !overty $ile simultaneously im!rovin% te aestetic and

9nancial ualities of tese areas 0oebel ())3.

6s neoliberal ideolo%ies come to dominate our !olitical arenas,

colorblindness, too, comes to dominate te $ay $e !erceive economic and

social outcomes. 8t is im!ortant to note tat colorblindness sets te bac5dro!

for redevelo!ment discussions-- no one tal5s about te r-$ord, at least not

e!licitly. e$ Urbanism does not esca!e tis critiue. 8t is evident from our

discussion tat race must ta5e a central !lace in te discussion on

dis!lacement tat results from neoliberal redevelo!ment !rocesses. &e

dis!laced are dis!ro!ortionately lo$ income racial and etnic urban minorities.

Class is not te sole variable race matters.

@ootnote

6utorsA ote" 1e ave cosen to list our names al!abetically rater tan

utilizin% te !ositions of 9rst, second, and tird autorsi! to reLect te

collaborative nature of tis !a!er and te uniue contributions eac of us ma5e

to its develo!ment. 1e $ould li5e to tan5 Dr. David . :runsma and te

students of /ociolo%y B+B7, Iraduate /eminar on Critical


14/16

6%uirre, 6dalberto, r. and onatan :roo5s. ++(. 'City


15/16

Mur!y, Dean E. ++*. 'Cut-


16/16

1olf-o$ers, aura. ++*. 'U!-Wonin% e$ Jor5 CityAs Mied-Use

ei%boroods" ro!erty-ed Economic Develo!ment and te 6natomy of a

lannin% Dilemma.' Journal o$ Plannin& 4ducation and Researc%, 2" K7)-K)K.

1yly, Elvin . and Daniel . Hammel. ())). '8slands of Decay in /eas of

Gentrification Displacement New Urbanism

Documents

Transcript of Gentrification Displacement New Urbanism