Gentrification: origins, theoretical debate, global expansion and Latin American

narratives

By Lorena del Castillo

Introduction

This article is a product of the reading material explored during the Lectura Guiada
about gentrification theories. Initially, it will follow the same trajectories to reflect upon
the conceptualization and characteristics of gentrification in the Global North.
Ultimately, it will draw the differences of meaning and significance that the
gentrification debate has develop in cities located in the Global South, specifically in
the Latin American setting. In the first part, it will describe the contextual framing that
gave rise to gentrification. The second part will discuss the production and
consumption explanations. In the third part, it will explore the positive and negative
arguments of gentrification. Subsequently, the fourth part will describe the connection
with the most documented negative effect of the gentrification process: displacement
of low-income population. In the fifth part, the paper will present the contemporary
debate of gentrification as a global urban phenomenon. In this section, explanations
will connect gentrification with transnational capital flows, migration, market-oriented
urban policies and other globalization phenomena that has an impact on urban
transformations. The last part will discuss gentrification in the Latin American context
and the nuances that it has as a regional process. Finally, the paper will draw
conclusions about the contextual, political, economic and social elements of the
gentrification process.

1. The origins of gentrification

Without a doubt, gentrification has become one of the most popular topics of urban
studies. Since its birth during the 1960s and 1970s, it has attracted the attention of
national and local governments, the media, real estate companies and urban
planners that developed a solid theoretical framework based on their researches
about cities of England and the United States. Gentrification has become a topic of
general interest because it provided with a new urban theory for understanding the
configuration of the city and its social structure. Before outlining the characteristics of
the gentrification process, it is necessary to draw a concept capable to summarize
the gentrification phenomenon. The sociologist Ruth Glass, in her studies about
urban transformations in London, noticed that working-class districts were revitalized
by middle class homebuyers, landlords and professional developers, causing
property values to increase, and working class occupiers to be displaced. At the end,
the rapid urban transformation changed the whole social character of the districts
(Glass 1964, pp.22). Based on the process described by Ruth Glass, Neil Smith
defined gentrification as:

A physical, economic, social and cultural phenomenon that involves the incursion
of middle-class or higher income groups in previously working-class
neighborhoods and the replacement or displacement of many original occupants.
It involved the physical renovation of what was frequently a highly deteriorating
housing stock and its upgrading to meet the requirements of its new owners. In
the process, housing in the areas affected both, renovated and unrenovated,
undergoes a significant price appreciation. Such a process of neighborhood
transition commonly involved a degree of tenure transformation from renting to
owning (Smith 1987, pp. 463).
 By the early 1980s, the term gentrification could easily be found in different
academic papers. However, it was evident that the residential rehabilitation that Ruth
Glass described in the early 1960s was only one aspect of the gentrification process
(Lees et al. 2013, pp. 9). In less than ten years, gentrification provided with a new
enlightenment that was underway in many cities in the Global North. It was
increasingly recognized as a new problematic that presented political and policy
relevant challenges for achieving social justice in the urban environments.

2. Production and consumption explanations

Moving from the concepts to the causes of gentrification, two main opposed
theoretical perspectives appeared to explain the rationalities about the emergence of
this urban phenomenon. The first one is based on arguments about production of
gentrifying property and stresses out the importance of collective social actors such
as real estate developers and financial institutions to unleash the gentrification
process. This explanation is supported by the rent gap theory. This theory locates
gentrification within long-term shifts of investment and disinvestment in the urban
land. It holds that disinvestment produces a gap between the current rent and the
possible rent. In that sense, the devalorization of the inner city provided the basis for
subsequent profitable reinvestment. When the capital flows moved from central areas
to the suburbs, the rate of return became higher in the inner cities. In order to obtain
the largest possible rates of return, the housing market reinvested in inner cities and
capital flowed back (Smith 1979, pp. 545-546). From this perspective, gentrification,
like suburbanization before, highlights the importance of capital switching between
different sector of the economy. In that regard, gentrification has to be seen as part of
the changes in the international spatial division of labor and the emergence of global
cities with control and command functions in a new urban hierarchy dominated by
flows of finance capital (Hamnett 1991, pp. 174).

The second theoretical perspective supports the consumption side arguments and it
was adopted by political liberals who broadly celebrated the arrival of the
postindustrial city and the rehabilitation of derelict neighborhoods while stressing that
social costs should be handle by the state (Smith 1996, pp. 39). Consumption theory
is based on the premise that gentrification is a consequence of changes in the
industrial and occupational structures of advanced capitalist cities. This meant a loss
of manufacturing employment and an increase in service employment which led to an
expansion in the amount of middle-class professionals willing to occupy central areas
instead of suburban locations (Lees et al. 2013, pp. 90). In that regard, the urban
strategy seemed to be passing from an emphasis on growth to a concern on the
quality of life. This phenomenon was linked to the installation of a new liberalism
that wanted to be recognized less by its production schedules and more by its
consumptions styles. The pioneer of the consumption explanation was the
geographer David Ley. Based on his studies about the changes on Vancouver
landscapes between 1968 and 1978, he concluded that the increase of young
professionals had an impact in a sociocultural level. Accordingly, he argues that there
has been a reaffirmation of individualism as a liberal value and a growth of a more
elaborated aesthetic philosophy in most of Global North cities. These changes in the
cultural factors had an impact in the housing demand. The middle classes became
the emancipatory subjects of modern urbanism in the post-industrial cities. They
rejected suburbia but instead they prioritized cultural, ethnic and architectural
diversity of inner cities (Ley 1980, pp. 242). In other words, Ley argued that the role
of real estate industry was a secondary factor and the main changes on urban space
were triggered by the new consumption patterns of middle classes.
 However, Hamnett claims that both the rent gap thesis and the social restructuring
thesis left a blind-spot (a metaphorical elephant) in the explanation of gentrification
causes. In that regard, he defends that there are other theoretical approaches that
discuss the integration of both theories (Hamnett 1991, 175). Therefore, the
gentrification explanations must begin with a supply of potentially gentrifiable inner
city property seconded by middle classes willing to move to central locations
(Hamnett 1991, 186). In response to Hamnett, Smith claims that his explanations
attempted a wider approach. He accepted that there has been an undeniable
occupational transformation as a result of the post-industrial city but he also states
that, in Marxist terms, the characteristics of dominant classes are prevalent
(ownership and control of the means of production). In that regard, gentrification is
yet again another example of class conflicts. In addition, Smith argues that individual
gentrifiers are only one among the other agents of gentrification such as landlords,
professional developers and occupier developers. The latter is an active agent of
production as well as consumption of the gentrified built environment (Smith 1992,
pp. 112). In that regard, if one compares occupier developers with individual
gentrifiers, the later have a little role in the process of gentrification; at best they
move into a housing stock already transformed by gentrification consumption (Smith
1992, pp. 113).

3. Gentrification: Positive or negative?

Gentrification represented one of the key theoretical and ideological battlegrounds in

urban geography. This battleground had radically confronted viewpoints. While many
writers state it as a savior of the inner cities and residential abandonment (Hamnett
1991, pp.174). Other scholars foreground the question of social justice and
emphasize their concerns towards the uneven developments and displacements that
this process yields in urban transformations (Slater 2009, pp.294). In this section, I
will discuss the contrasting perspectives about the positives and negative effects of
gentrification.

There are two main arguments in favor of gentrification related to the advent of post-
industrial cities. The first one claims that gentrification is the only possible remedy for
improving derelict and decay areas with the return of middle classes from the
suburbs (Hamnett 2008). Slater replies with three counterarguments. To begin with,
middle classes are not the only agents of urban restructuring. Furthermore, there is
extensive scholarship confirming that gentrifiers not necessarily originate from the
suburbs. Finally, it shows the elitist foundation of gentrification since it confirms that
services only can be improved with the arrival of a higher-income population (Slater
2009, pp.297). The second one refers to the presence of low-income population in
inner cities. Hamnett argues that the new economic structures of post-industrial cities
are reducing low-income households and replacing them with middle class
population. Consequently, in inner cities low-income population is also decreasing
and being replaced by middle classes as well. Therefore, Hamnett sees this new
social trend as an opportunity for low-income households to sell up their house due
to the rising prices and move out (Hamnett 2003, pp. 249). In this case, Slater
responded that Hamnett exaggerates the expansion of middle classes beyond all
sensible limits. Furthermore, he argues that Hamnett trivializes the right to housing
and the suffering by working class people due to the loss of their homes in gentrifying
contexts (Slater 2009, pp. 297).

During the review of the literature, other positive arguments were found. One
illustration is the text of Vigdor, based on Bostons housing situation, he claims that
 gentrification creates job opportunities for low income households or may relocate
existing opportunities into areas that are more accessible to them. Furthermore, he
states that the increasing in land values present an opportunity for local governments
to have additional resources from tax collection. Therefore, taxes could be use to
improve services in low-income neighborhoods. Finally, he considers that the
upgrading and the social mix in gentrified neighborhoods improves the quality of life
of low-income population and brings them an opportunity for social mobility (Vigdor
2002, pp.144-145). In the same line, other scholars encourage local governments to
promote gentrification process as an strategic urban policy:

From a policy perspective, gentrification brings more investments to derelict

neighborhoods. This could potentially increase the tax base of many inner cities
and promote socio-economic integration as well (Freeman and Braconi as cited by
Slater 2009, pp. 300).

However, Slater argues that positive arguments of gentrification are based on

insufficient analysis and careless assumptions that disregard the political and moral
framing of Ruth Glass concept. In other words, gentrification is an urban
phenomenon created to question housing as a right and as a basic need. Therefore,
an apolitical interpretation of gentrification ignores the power relationships in social
class structures (Slater 2009, pp. 306). In the next section, I will address to
displacement, which is by far the most negative outcome of gentrification.

4. Displacement: the main effect of gentrification

Displacement is a phenomenon that occurs when a household needs to move out

from its residence because the conditions that affect the dwelling or its immediate
surroundings are beyond the households ability to control or prevent (Marcuse 1985,
pp. 205). One could argue that the main cause of displacement is the increase of
housing prices, however, displacement is associated to the changes of the physical
conditions of the neighborhood as well. These changes could entail public facilities,
transportation patterns and supply of goods and services (Marcuse 1985, pp. 207).

Displacement as a cause of gentrification has been at the centre of analytical and

political debates. On the one hand, there are scholars that underestimate
displacement as a major level of concern. Moreover, they claim that improved
amenities in gentrifying neighborhoods gave residents an incentive to find a way to
stay. On the other hand, other authors point out that there are no statistical data
available for measuring displacement. Slater argues that two immediate causes
explain this lack of information. Firstly, the state, in different levels, has adopted
gentrification as an urban policy. In that regard, it has little interest in collecting
information about it. Secondly, there is a methodological problem to measure
displaced households. In that sense, it is difficult to follow urban poor after been
displaced since they tend to spread to different locations (Slater 2006, pp. 748).
Displacing people involuntarily from their homes or neighborhoods should not be
seen as a minor problem regardless if is the result of government policies or private
actors. It is a major problem of social injustice and it has to be confronted with urban
policy. Based on the work of Grier and Grier, Marcuse conceptualized four types of
displacement (Marcuse 1985, pp. 206 - 207):

- Direct last resident displacement: It is triggered by physical or economic means.

- Direct chain displacement: It occurs when the rent increase produces a chain
reaction until everybody has to leave.
- Exclusionary displacement: This refers to those residents who cannot access a
house in the same neighborhood because they have been already gentrified.
 - Displacement pressure: It refers to the dispossession suffered by the low-income
population during the dramatic changes of the neighborhood. It starts when the
environment of the neighborhood becomes less familiar and less livable for low-
income households, as a consequence they decide to leave.

In conclusion, Slater argues that urban studies need to overcome the difficulties of
quantifying the amount of displacement and replacement produced by gentrification
because it is vital for elaborating critical perspectives towards the real effects of the
phenomenon (Slater 2006, pp. 749). In other words, research about displacement is
necessary to point out the logical and practical conditions of gentrification and to
demonstrate the costs of social policies and economic deregulations. Until this point,
the present work described the classic gentrification debates based on the urban
structuration of Western cities. In the next sections, this paper will focus on the
conditions that produce gentrification globally and specifically in Latin America.

5. Gentrification as a global phenomenon

The debate about the limits of the gentrification phenomena is undergoing different
paths that have broadened the concept to a new arena of discussion. Urban theories
are pointing out the necessity to critically assessing the meaning and significance of
gentrification in cities outside of the Global North because they have espoused their
global nature. In that regard, they argue that outside of the Global North, post-
colonial and not white urban contexts are increasingly confronted by global as well as
local development pressures (Lees et al. 2015, pp. 1). In the same line, Lpez
Morales claims that gentrification responds to financial international capital circuits
and migration flows, transcending national boundaries. Therefore, he proposes to
ample the gentrification concept towards a wider scope:

Gentrification is the superimposition of the dominant strata of social and market

rules, in places where other alternative social structures have preceded them for
decades. (Lpez Morales 2016, pp. 223)

Under this premise, the renovation programs of the historical centers, the pacification
policies, the mechanisms of behavioral control in public spaces and the elimination
of alternative economies from urban space are generally accompanied by
displacement of the less powerful population; hence, they could be considered as
components of gentrification as well. (Lpez Morales 2016, pp. 224)

According to Smith, there are five interrelated characteristics that evidence the new
general dimensions of gentrification. Firstly, the transformed role of the state. Smith
claims that urban policy no longer regulates the direction of urban growth so much as
to fit itself to the already established by the market. Secondly, the new role played by
global capital into local neighborhood developments all over the world. In that
sense, it is easy to point out the new influx of global capital into large mega
developments in urban centers (Smith 2002, pp. 441). Thirdly, the changing levels of
political opposition. The increasing levels of repression aimed to mitigate anti-
gentrification protests is a global characteristic to represent new regimes of urban
power. The New Yorks importation of zero tolerance techniques by police forces
around the word is a demonstration of a new spread narrative that aims to make
streets safe for gentrification. Fourthly, the outward diffusion of gentrification from the
urban centers. Smith argues that gentrification is becoming geographical dispersal
because it is migrating from the center to other urban areas. Additionally, he claims
that the pattern of diffusion is variable and is influenced by everything from
architecture and parks to the presence of water. However, above all, it is geared to
the historical patterns of capital investment and disinvestment in landscapes (Smith
 2002, pp. 442). Finally, the sectorial generalization of gentrification. The new
gentrification processes include an amalgam of corporate and state powers that have
forged gentrification in a much more ambitious level. In that regard, it has evolved
into a vehicle for transforming whole areas into new complexes that comprehend
housing with shopping, restaurants, cultural facilities and open spaces, all integrated
in complexes of recreation, consumption, production and residence (Smith 2002, pp.
443).

In short, one can say that gentrification as a global phenomenon is understood as a

process of accumulation by dispossession that focuses on the transformation of a
neighborhood and the appropriation of the highest levels of ground rent. As a
consequence, it produces urban inequalities and spatial segregation accentuated by
the new relationships between the state and private interests. Therefore, it is
politically relevant to develop research about the connections between gentrification
and globalization. As it can be observed, this new scope of gentrification is becoming
useful to analyze the injustices associated with capitalist urban transformation in a
clearer way.

6. Gentrification in Latin America

The Latin American cities are seeing processes of urban reorganization due to
developments mostly promoted by local authorities and private investments. Until
very recently, these processes have been under conceptualized and little critiqued.
However, the Latin American cities are becoming crucial for urban studies due to
their patterns of growth, self-management urbanization, state absence and powerful
influence of elites in urban structuring. In that regard, Lpez Morales argued that the
expansion of the debate into the Latin American context needs to include the analysis
of the regions characteristics such as the imbalance between central urban areas
with plenty infrastructure and extended deprived peripheries, the reproduction of
informality in all the spheres of social life, and social inequality due to preexisting
socio-economic structures (Lpez-Morales et al. 2016, pp. 1094).

Three main topics stand out from the research about gentrification in Latin America.
The first one addresses to the consequences of global investments in local
neighborhoods across the region. The second one examine the relationships
between the development of new infrastructure and displacement. The last one
illustrates how the contingences of gentrification produce different patterns of
resistance that differ from those produced in the Global North (Lpez Morales et al.
2016, pp. 1094). In that sense, there are three similar elements found in the Latin
American experiences of gentrification. The first one refers to private-public
partnerships in which local governments assume the leading role and often absorb
the costs, risks and responsibilities of the gentrification process. The second one
entails the impacts of the high levels of hybridity of Latin American economies in the
wide-ranging responses to policies interventions and, in this case, in prevent the
advancing of gentrification forces. The third one addresses to the small penetration of
gentrification in central areas in Latin American cities, in comparison with central
areas of the Global North (Betancur 2014, pp. 10).
In conclusion, Latin American gentrification has different temporalities and velocities
from gentrification occurred in the Global North. However, they both result in various
levels of dispossession that affect the less powerful populations. Conversely, the
fragile level of institutionalization in Latin American cities leaves the local population
with fewer elements to respond to those unjust practices of dispossession. Still,
research about gentrification in the Global South has demonstrated that the
inventiveness of local population has created several effective strategies to claim
their right to the city.

Conclusions

In this article we have briefly traced the paths of gentrification, from its origins in the
post-industrial cities of the Global North to the contemporary debates produced by
the urban transformations produced by globalization. These latter debates are mostly
used to describe gentrification outside the Anglo-Saxon context. Under that premise,
theories have been approached to explain the causes of gentrification and the
arguments that show its positive or negative effects. Therefore, one could say overall
that gentrification requires capital investment by different external agents such as
owners, governments, financial entities and property developers with the objective to
produce a strong surplus value on the use and appropriation of urban space. From
the outset, social groups with greater economic capital are those who benefit from
gentrification and lower-income population are who suffer from the consequences. In
that regard, scholars claim that displacement is the biggest negative impact of
gentrification due to its social dislocation and its profound emotional scars.
Conclusively, displacement shows that gentrification is contrary to the right to the city
and to the defense of human rights as a whole. Finally, in the last section of the
paper, there is a brief description of theoretical perspectives regarding gentrification
in the Latin American realities. The review of the literature suggests that urban
restructuring in Latin America follows different trajectories and assume different
forms. Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish the politics and outcomes of
gentrification in Latin America from those of the Global North and raise new
questions to create new theoretical debate in the region.
References

Betancur, J. J. (2014). Gentrification in Latin America: Overview and critical

analysis. Urban Studies Research, 2014.

Glass, R. (1964). Aspects of change. The Gentrification Debates: A Reader.

Hamnett, C. (1991). The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of
gentrification. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 173-189.

Hammett, C. (2003) Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of inner London,

1961-2001, Urban Studies 40, pp. 2401-2426.

Hamnett, C. (2008). The regeneration game. The Guardian, 11(06), 2008.

Lpez Morales, E. (2016). Acerca de una gentrificacin" planetaria", polticamente

til. Revista INVI, 31(88), 217-240.

Lpez-Morales, E., Shin, H. B., & Lees, L. (2016). Latin American gentrifications.

Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (2013). Gentrification. Routledge.

Lees, L., Shin, H. B., & Lpez-Morales, E. (Eds.). (2015). Global gentrifications:
Uneven development and displacement. Policy Press.

Ley, D. (1980). Liberal ideology and the postindustrial city. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, 70(2), 238-258.

Marcuse, P. (1985). Gentrification, abandonment, and displacement: Connections,

causes, and policy responses in New York City. Wash. UJ Urb. & Contemp. L., 28,
195.

Slater, T. (2006). The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification

research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(4), 737-757.

Slater, T. (2009). Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement. City, 13(2-3),

292-311.
Smith, N. (1979). Toward a theory of gentrification a back to the city movement by
capital, not people. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(4), 538-548.

Smith, N. (1987). Gentrification and the rent gap. Annals of the Association of
American geographers, 77(3), 462-465.

Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city.
Psychology Press.

Smith, N. (1992). Blind man's buff, or Hamnett's philosophical individualism in search

of gentrification. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17(1), 110-115.
 Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban
strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427-450.

Vigdor, J. L., Massey, D. S., & Rivlin, A. M. (2002). Does gentrification harm the
poor?[with Comments]. Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs, 133-182.