thesis for gentrification

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Urban Health
• v.97(6); 2020 Dec

Impacts of Gentrification on Health in the US: a Systematic Review of the Literature

Genee s. smith.

1 Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St., Room W-7513D, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA

2 Hopkins Center for Health Disparities Solutions, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD USA

Hannah Breakstone

3 Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD USA

Lorraine T. Dean

4 Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD USA

Roland J. Thorpe, Jr.

Gentrification in the largest 50 US cities has more than doubled since the 1990s. The process of gentrification can bring about improved neighborhood conditions, reduced rates of crime, and property value increases. At the same time, it can equally foster negative conditions associated with poorer health outcomes, such as disrupted social networks from residential displacement and increases in stress. While neighborhood environment is consistently implicated in health outcomes research, gentrification is rarely conceptualized as a public health issue. Though research on gentrification is growing, empirical studies evaluating the health impacts of gentrification in the US are poorly understood. Here we systematically review US population-based empirical studies examining relationships between gentrification and health. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Academic Search Complete) were searched using a combination of terms to identify peer-reviewed studies published on or before July 9, 2018, reporting associations between gentrification and health. Study title and abstract screenings were followed by full-text review of all studies meeting the following inclusion criteria of: ≥ 1 quantitative measure of association for a health outcome, within the context of gentrification; peer-reviewed research; located in the US; and English language. Of 8937 studies identified, 6152 underwent title and abstract screening, and 50 studies underwent full-text screening, yielding six studies for review. Gentrification exposure measures and health outcomes examined varied widely. Most studies reported little to no overall association between gentrification and health outcomes; however, gentrification was repeatedly associated with undesirable health effects among Black and economically vulnerable residents. Despite seemingly overall null associations between gentrification and health, evidence suggests that gentrification may negatively impact the health of certain populations, particularly Black and low-income individuals. Complexities inherent in operationalizing gentrification point toward the need for validated measures. Additionally, understanding how gentrification-health associations differ across health endpoints, race/ethnicities, socioeconomic status, and life course can provide insight into whether this process contributes to urban inequality and health disparities. As gentrification occurs across the US, it is important to understand how this process impacts health. While aging cities reinvest in the revitalization of communities, empirical research examining relationships between gentrification and health can help inform policy decisions.

Introduction

Gentrification can be defined as “the process in which neighborhoods with low SES experience increased investment and an influx of new residents of higher SES” [ 1 ]. Differing perspectives of policy makers, urban planners, sociologists, environmental scientists, economists, residents, and more have led to debates as to whether gentrification is ultimately of net benefit or harm. Though gentrification is associated with increased proximity to material resources, such as green space, recreational facilities and new businesses, income and education may remain a barrier to accessing these resources [ 2 ]. Changes often accompanying gentrification (i.e., limited affordable healthy housing, food insecurity from the need to pay high rent on limited income, increased stress, and changes in social networks) may negatively affect certain residents [ 3 – 7 ]. For original residents of formerly impoverished, newly gentrified neighborhoods, the combination of lingering effects from prior neighborhood conditions [ 8 ] may result in deepened inequality. Taken wholly, the benefits of gentrification, such as decreases in crime rates, are counterbalanced by other factors like the displacement of existing residents. These changes in neighborhood conditions can affect physical resources and social practices, both of which are upstream determinants of health [ 9 ]. Heightened perceptions of discrimination, differential access to resources, increased financial burdens from rising costs of living, and dismantled social networks can all affect psychological and physiological stress [ 4 ], which are risk factors for health [ 10 – 12 ]; thus, the premise that gentrification itself impacts health is both reasonable and biologically plausible [ 13 , 14 ].

Given the large body of literature documenting neighborhood environment impacts on health [ 9 ], understanding the role of gentrification on US health outcomes is an imperative. The percentage of gentrified low-income census tracts in the largest 50 US cities has more than doubled since the 1990s [ 15 ]. Exact driving forces behind gentrification are debatable, with contributing factors including market forces, government policies, and crime rates [ 1 , 16 ]. Neighborhoods that have previously undergone disinvestment are prime targets for gentrification. In the US, mechanisms such as redlining and de jure (by law) segregation led to decreased mortgage lending, lower home values, denial of services, and withdrawal of capital [ 17 , 18 ]. This means an intrinsic tie between neighborhood gentrification and racial housing discrimination. Thus, the process of gentrification converges on predominantly minority and economically disadvantaged communities.

Much of the research pointing toward a link between gentrification and health does not directly measure outcomes. Prior reviews of gentrification literature arise primarily from the social sciences perspective, leaning toward the psychosocial consequences of this process based largely on qualitative research. These reviews provide context for resident’s perceptions of how neighborhood changes may influence health outcomes but fail to capture the extent of gentrifications impact on physical health. Literature reviews that have examined the impacts of gentrification on health were not systematic in nature and included exposures such as disadvantaged neighborhoods and evictions to draw conclusions about the gentrification-health relationship [ 13 ]. Furthermore, these reviews on gentrification and health also include both US and non-US-based studies [ 19 , 20 ], making inferences on the health impacts of gentrification in the US problematic. Studies of gentrification and health outside of the US are not necessarily comparable with the US general population as the historical context, processes, and mediating factors associated with gentrification vary and may skew conclusions [ 21 ].

Renewed desires to return to city centers, nationally reported increases in gentrification, and potentially harmful effects to vulnerable residents make understanding the impacts of gentrification on health paramount. Despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention deeming gentrification a public health concern [ 7 ], little has been done to establish a consensus on the impacts of gentrification on the health and wellbeing of the US population. In this review, we synthesize findings from US population-based, peer-reviewed studies which examine associations between gentrification and health, highlighting both needs and strengths of existing research, and provide suggestions for expanding this body of work.

We completed this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement guidelines [ 22 ]. Articles were considered eligible for review if they reported quantitative measures of association for one or more health outcomes in any context of gentrification. While qualitative analyses can offer insights into how the gentrification process occurs, quantitative analyses are critical for establishing measurable, repeatable, and generalizable associations between gentrification and health. Quantitative studies are also able to investigate causal relationships between gentrification and health. Thus, we chose to focus exclusively on empirical quantitative studies for this review.

The following electronic databases were searched on July 9, 2018, to identify peer-reviewed studies reporting associations between gentrification and health: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Academic Search Complete. Due to variations in the language often used to describe the process of gentrification, we utilized a broad search strategy to obtain peer-reviewed research articles. Searches were conducted using the following title, abstract, keyword, and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms: (gentrif* or residential displacement or forced displacement or involuntary mobility or urban development) or ((relocat*) and (housing or house or neighborhood* or neighborhood* or residen* or communit*)) or ((neighborhood or neighborhood or urban) and (renewal or revitaliz* or restructur* or redevelop* or regenerat*)) and health. Truncated terms were used to capture variation in terminology. For example, gentrif* will catch the terms: gentrification, gentrified, gentrifies, gentrify, and gentrifying.

For the purposes of study selection, we included studies that included gentrification as an exposure, not an outcome. Since there is no consensus on a definition of gentrification, we include the presence of this phenomenon and exposure as defined by the original study authors. Thus, if the paper indicates that gentrification is present or assessed in any manner (i.e., within or between gentrified neighborhoods, levels of gentrification, types of gentrification, pre- or post-gentrification, etc.), the study is eligible for inclusion in this review. Unless authors explicitly referred to gentrification, general measures of neighborhood improvement, such as greening or parks, were not eligible for inclusion as these processes are not in and of themselves indicative of gentrification. Also, studies focused on populations moving to middle class neighborhoods (i.e., Moving to Opportunity Study [ 23 ]) were not included unless it was reported that residents moved specifically to a gentrified community.

Articles eligible for review reported effect estimates for at least one health outcome within the context of gentrification. Studies which focused on indicators of health (homicides, violence, etc.), but not actual health outcomes, were excluded. The process of gentrification in the US has unique features, and studies of gentrification in other countries may not be generalizable to the US context, thus we excluded non-US-based studies. Non-peer reviewed reports (including conference abstracts, dissertations, commentaries, etc.) were also excluded from the review.

Covidence web-based software [ 24 ] was used for screening and extracting data. Study title and abstract screenings were completed by GS and HB using eligibility criteria. Conflicts in study eligibility assignments were resolved by RT. Following initial screen, the full text of each potentially eligible article was independently reviewed by GS and HB, with ties resolved by RT. Data extracted from each research article at the study level include the study population, study design, gentrification exposure measure, health outcome(s), measure of association between gentrification and health outcome, and statistical significance.

Based on search criteria, we initially identified 8937 studies, of which 2785 were duplicates (Fig.  1 ). Of 6152 studies that underwent title and abstract screening, 6102 were excluded. Fifty studies underwent full-text screening. Only six studies [ 25 – 30 ] (Table ​ (Table1) 1 ) met all eligibility requirements for inclusion in this literature review.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram to identify quantitative studies of gentrification and health in the US

Characteristics of quantitative studies on associations between gentrification and health outcomes in the US

AOR , adjusted odds ratio; OR , odds ratio; RR , rate ratio; ß , coefficient estimate on linear scale; CI , confidence interval

Study Designs and Methods

The six empirical studies reviewed varied in design. Three studies were cross-sectional, two were cohort studies, and one quasi-experimental design.

The studies identified also examined several health outcomes in relation to gentrification. Many of these outcomes were not examined directly, instead proxies were relied upon for assessment. The most commonly analyzed health outcomes were self-rated health (33.3%) and mental health (33.3%). Only one study examined a specified health outcome (preterm birth). While the outcomes examined were varied, studies offered similar biological rationale for mechanisms of gentrification impacting health through multiple pathways, including psychosocial stress, access to resources and opportunity, and collective efficacy.

Study Populations and Settings

Most of the reviewed studies consisted of adult populations, including the elderly. One study focused specifically on the older adult population (age 65 and older). Another investigation examined preterm birth in infants. None of the identified studies examined health impacts of gentrification among children.

Sample size for quantitative studies on gentrification and health ranged from 548 individuals to a population of more than 100,000. Only one study population was less than 1000.

All studies included in the review centered on urban populations. Four studies were in large population centers in the Northeastern US (three in New York City, one in Philadelphia). One statewide investigation occurred in California. We identified only one national study of gentrification and health for inclusion in the review.

Gentrification Exposures

Gentrification exposure definitions were varied across the research studies, but each included some composite of the change in several neighborhood level measures from baseline to the end of the study period. The scale (the city/area/district/census tract) at which gentrification was measured varied; four research investigations used census tracts as the geographic unit of analysis [ 26 – 29 ], one used Public Use Microdata Areas [ 30 ], and one used community districts [ 25 ]. All eligible studies incorporated median household income and college education into the measure of gentrification. All but one investigation used some measure of rent to construct the gentrification variable. Other factors utilized when defining gentrification included neighborhood level poverty, housing values, age of building stock proportion, and urbanization.

Following specified criteria for gentrification eligibility, most studies categorized geographic units of analysis as undergoing gentrification or not (i.e., stable, non-gentrifying, or non-gentrifying poor). This was mostly classified using an increase in specified sociodemographic variables; one study incorporated principle components analysis into this process. A single study further classified this exposure by defining Black gentrification (gentrifying and an increase in percent Black population) and White gentrification (gentrifying and increase in percent White population but a decrease in percent Black population). Alternatively, gentrification exposure was defined in one study by utilizing z-scores to assign quintiles of gentrification exposure (very high, high, medium, low, and very low). Another study utilized an entirely different approach by measuring five neighborhood dimensions (social cohesion, stress, violence, safety, and esthetic quality) related to gentrification.

Health Outcomes

Studies exploring the impacts of self-rated health on gentrification found negligible effects on self-rated health in the general adult study population. In both studies, however, Blacks fared worse compared with Whites [ 26 , 28 ]. In a California statewide investigation, gentrification was associated with fair/poor self-rated health, while no patterns of significant associations were observed for either Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and multiple/other races. Only one study considered the differential impacts of the residents that were gentrifying these neighborhoods and observed Black gentrification was associated with worse self-rated health for Black residents. These findings are supported by research on gentrification and neighborhood/city health (published after the search date), reporting negative associations between gentrification and poor self-rated health at the neighborhood level, but significantly higher rates of poor self-rated health in census tracts with larger Black and Hispanic populations [ 31 ]. Among a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries (age 65 and older), economically vulnerable individuals in gentrifying neighborhoods reported better self-rated health compared with those in low-income neighborhoods. There were no significant associations between gentrification and self-rated for higher income adults.

Three studies examined associations between gentrification and mental health, all utilizing different health endpoints, two examining mental health symptoms via validated questionnaires, and another examining mental health-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Older adults in gentrifying neighborhoods experienced more symptoms of anxiety and depression than their counterparts in moderate-to-high income neighborhoods, regardless of individual income status. Older adults living in high-income gentrifying neighborhoods still had more anxiety and depression symptoms than older adults living in low-income neighborhoods that were not gentrifying. Depression scores (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale) decreased over time for adult residents of changing neighborhoods experiencing increases in social cohesion, while depression scores increased for adults experiencing adverse neighborhood changes, though not statistically significant. Residents displaced from gentrifying neighborhoods had higher rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations, in comparison with residents remaining in gentrifying neighborhoods, mostly attributed to mental health. Among original residents of gentrifying neighborhoods, those who moved to non-gentrifying, poor neighborhoods had a greater number of clinically classified mental health-related visits compared with those that remained in the gentrifying neighborhood, an effect which persisted 5 years after displacement. Mental health emergency department visits and hospitalizations were similar among gentrifying neighborhoods and non-gentrifying poor neighborhoods.

A study on gentrification and preterm birth [ 25 ] found no associations in the general population. However, residence in a very high gentrified neighborhood was protective for non-Hispanic Whites (compared with residence in a very low gentrified neighborhood), but adversely associated with preterm birth for Non-Hispanic Blacks.

The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize and critique empirical research studies examining relationships between gentrification and health among the US population. Subsequent sections summarize the existing gentrification-health literature, strengths and weaknesses of this research, and recommendations for future inquiry.

Summary of Findings

A chief finding from this literature review is that the quantifiable relationship between gentrification and health outcomes in the US is gravely understudied, as our search yielded only six empirical studies (all in US urban populations). The health effects examined were too varied to draw any general conclusions; however, these studies mostly revealed null associations between gentrification and health outcomes. This aligns with previous research conducted outside of the US that indicates the process of gentrification does little to improve population health [ 19 , 20 ]. Like research from abroad, this review unmasked differences in how gentrification impacts the health of different populations. Though gentrification seemingly has little to no impact on health overall, within different subpopulations (especially Blacks), there was a consistent pattern of undesirable health effects. These findings generate concerns of whether gentrification has become a potential tool for deepening urban inequality and related health disparities. As city planning, zoning ordinances, budget allocation, business development, and regulations make way for local development and revitalization, there is a need for public health research to be conducted which can inform these decision-making processes.

Measures of Gentrification

The lack of consensus on how gentrification is defined and measured reverberates throughout this review, as the authors of each paper developed different measures of gentrification. Most adapted existing gentrification measures from Freeman [ 32 ] which incorporate publicly available data and reproducible methods, but confines gentrification to urban environments—disregarding the less studied phenomenon of rural gentrification [ 33 ]. And while gentrification is not merely a yes/no phenomenon, these strategies result in eligible neighborhoods being classified as gentrified or not. Even so, variations in the individual components used to create these gentrification measures can yield vast differences in a seemingly straightforward classification [ 14 , 32 , 34 ]. Further insight into health impacts of the gentrification process (i.e., through stages, severity, mechanisms, speed, etc.) requires more complex, non-binary measures and warrants further examination in the literature.

These difficulties inherent in gentrification measurement are not unique to the public health arena. Gentrification measures vary across fields and literature with studies using metrics ranging from property values [ 35 ] to the frequency of coffee shops [ 36 ]. Though changes in the built environment are elements often used to recognize the presence of gentrification, none of the studies included in this review utilized measurements of the built environment. Incorporating local information may more accurately capture the process of gentrification [ 37 ], but would also be more labor intensive and limit reproducibility. As this area of study progresses, researchers must weigh the comparability of a simplified measure to the local relevance of a more nuanced and precise measure.

The scale at which these gentrification measures are applied also varies. Several of these investigations use census tract data as proxies for neighborhoods, which is easily available and enhances the ability to compare results across studies but may not be meaningful in practice. Such strategies also result in concerns over the and Modifiable Areal Unit Problem, where the aggregation of smaller data points into larger units alters the variance of the data and can lead to inflated effect estimates [ 38 ]. As these measurements can impact policy, it is important that they are both theoretically sound and materially relevant. Using a coherent, consistent exposure measure has its benefits in policy creation, though this is not always feasible. Thus current gentrification measurement is problematic, suffering the same difficulties inherent in any neighborhood focused research, and highlighting the need for validated measures of gentrification [ 14 ].

Methodological Considerations

The existing gentrification-health literature includes numerous study designs resulting in a variety of statistical methods and model stipulations. Because cross-sectional designs prevent drawing conclusions about the impact of gentrification on any health outcome, future literature would benefit from the use of more longitudinal studies designs in the future since these designs can detect changes over time. In instances where cross-sectional studies are employed, investigators should consider strategies such as multilevel modeling, which allow for the assessment of both individual and neighborhood-level factors [ 39 ].

All of the studies [ 25 – 30 ] relied on large sample sizes, but only one [ 27 ] actually drew upon a nationally representative sample, hindering the generalizability of results. The limited geographic regions in which this research was conducted may also impact the extent to which this research is generalizable to other areas of the nation as gentrification may operate differently across various geopolitical environments (i.e., political power wielded by demographic, economic, and geographic factions in the US). Additional studies are needed that yield findings which are generalizable to larger portions of the US population. While local gentrification and health studies may be most desirable for creating the tailored public health solutions, the impacts of larger (even nationwide) research investigations must not be discounted as national studies can provide a basis for federal policy mandates. And while gentrification occurs in both rural and urban areas [ 33 , 40 , 41 ], these studies focused solely on urban populations, bringing about additional concerns of urban-rural biases. Future research should also consider the role of geography and urbanicity in the gentrification-health association.

Most studies lacked a theoretical framework clearly outlining which factors would be confounders, mediators, or moderators of the gentrification-health relationship. Complex statistical methods can be used for mediation analysis to enhance our knowledge of the mechanisms through which gentrification affects health. For example, future studies can examine factors such as green space, food (in) security, and psychosocial stressors as pathways by which gentrification can influence biological processes in the body to impact health. Examining mediating effects of the gentrification-health association will enable research to move beyond merely describing these associations to understanding processes and potential points of intervention.

Gentrification has social, political, and economic consequences which can differ across groups of individuals; thus, examining potential modifiers are important for pointing toward populations particularly vulnerable to health impacts of gentrification. This review exposes racial disparities in the gentrification-health associations. As gentrification often descends on high minority resource deprived neighborhoods, prior inequities may persist despite neighborhood revitalization. More research is needed to disentangle the independent and joint influences of gentrification and race on health. Additional differences observed among the economically vulnerable are backed by previous research indicating poorer health status among low-income residents of gentrified neighborhoods outside the US [ 19 , 20 ]. Other factors that potentially modify the associations between gentrification and health include age, educational attainment, pre-existing health, and immigrant status. In some instances, gentrification has ultimately reinforced and upheld mechanisms of structural racism, elitism, and power dynamics so understanding how this process may impact different populations is imperative [ 42 ].

This systematic review is not without limitations. All but one [ 27 ] of these studies evaluates the health impacts of gentrification occurring in the past 20 years, narrowing the window in which any conclusions can be drawn. A lack of consistency between health outcomes examined and methods of assessing these outcomes further prevented drawing any solid conclusions on these associations. Also, due to the small number of articles identified in this review, we were unable to assess risk of bias for this literature [ 43 ].

This review undoubtedly reveals a massive gap in the literature surrounding the public health implications of gentrification, a process that is increasingly occurring throughout the US. As this area of research is in its infancy, there is much room for growth. Gentrification is easily identified though not readily operationalized; hence, the development of validated measures can greatly advance gentrification-health research. Gentrification should be examined as both a threshold and gradient. While gradient measures will provide more detailed information on how health may be impacted over the continuum of gentrification, the inclusion of threshold measures may be necessary for the implementation of public health policies impacting gentrifying neighborhoods. Future studies should examine how processes (i.e., mechanisms, speed, stages, etc.) of gentrification impact health, populations most affected, and whether this contributes to deepening health disparities. In lieu of increased reports of gentrification throughout the US, understanding how this process may promote or prevent health is essential to ensuring the well-being of our nation. Empirical research examining relationships between gentrification and health is necessary to inform policy as aging cities reinvest in the revitalization of communities.

Acknowledgements

Research was supported by grants from the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities (P60MD000214), the National Institute on Aging (1K02AG059140), the Hopkins Center for Health Disparities Solutions Pilot Project Award (U54MD000214), the National Cancer Institute grant (K01CA184288), National Institute of Mental Health (R25MH083620), and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center grant (P30CA006973).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

A new study by a Stanford sociologist has determined that the negative effects of gentrification are felt disproportionately by minority communities, whose residents have fewer options of neighborhoods they can move to compared to their white counterparts.

Stanford sociologist Jackelyn Hwang looked at the city of Philadelphia and determined that the negative effects of gentrification are felt disproportionately by minority communities, whose residents have fewer options of neighborhoods they can move to compared to their white counterparts. (Image credit: Getty Images)

“If we look at where people end up if they move, poor residents moving from historically Black gentrifying neighborhoods tend to move to poorer non-gentrifying neighborhoods within the city, while residents moving from other gentrifying neighborhoods tend to move to wealthier neighborhoods in the city and in the suburbs,” said study co-author Jackelyn Hwang , assistant professor of sociology in Stanford’s School of Humanities and Sciences .

Hwang and co-author Lei Ding of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia conducted one of the first studies to examine empirically where disadvantaged residents move as a result of gentrification and how a neighborhood’s racial context affects those moves.

Looking at the city of Philadelphia, Hwang and Ding found that financially disadvantaged residents who moved from neighborhoods that were not predominantly Black benefitted from gentrification by moving to more advantaged locations, but those moving from once predominantly Black areas did not. The research is published in the American Journal of Sociology .

“As neighborhoods gentrify, when poor people can no longer remain in their neighborhoods and move, there are fewer affordable neighborhoods,” Hwang said. “Our findings suggest that, for the Black community, there are additional constraints when they move, leading them to move to a shrinking set of affordable yet disadvantaged neighborhoods within the city.”

For the purposes of the study, an area was considered to be gentrifying if it experienced a significant increase, compared to other areas in the same city, either in median gross rent or median home value coupled with an increase in college-educated residents. In Philadelphia, there are many historically Black neighborhoods that have undergone gentrification over the last 20 years.

The issue of how gentrification affects different racial groups is particularly relevant right now in light of the increased instability people are facing due to the pandemic and incidents bringing attention to the unnecessary use of policing against people of color in the United States, Hwang said.

Fewer options

Hwang and Ding analyzed a consumer credit database of more than 50,000 adult residents with financial credit records in Philadelphia.

Recognizing that a primary cause of gentrification-related displacement is increased costs for current residents, the authors looked at individuals with low or missing credit scores who might be more vulnerable to displacement and at the same time might face limitations in housing searches if they did move.

The study found that residents in predominately non-Black gentrifying neighborhoods have a broader set of neighborhoods they moved to, while those from Black gentrifying areas were relegated to less advantaged neighborhoods and faced fewer options. These options included other largely Black neighborhoods or immigrant-populated neighborhoods, exacerbating neighborhood inequality by race and class.

“Gentrification is reconfiguring the urban landscape by shrinking residential options within cities for disadvantaged residents and expanding them for more advantaged residents,” the authors write.

Reasons for this discrepancy in Philadelphia and other major cities, Hwang said, include racially stratified housing markets and discriminatory lending practices that have long disadvantaged Black people.

The researchers found that the patterns exhibited by poorer residents moving out of largely Black gentrifying neighborhoods were similar to those of other disadvantaged residents who moved from non-gentrifying neighborhoods.

“Even if people are moving by choice, white people have more advantage when they go into the housing market,” she said.

Combatting inequities

In order to combat the likelihood of gentrification increasing socioeconomic and racial segregation within cities, the authors note the need for policies like Philadelphia’s recently implemented property tax relief program, which prohibits increases in property taxes for long-time low- and middle-income homeowners.

While the authors consider this a step in the right direction, they also would like to see more cities adopt policies that ensure residential stability for renters. Efforts to address racial discrimination in the housing market and overall racial wealth disparities also require attention, they write.

The authors note that as cities continue to transform, a sustained investment in non-gentrifying neighborhoods is needed to attract racial and socioeconomic diversity. At the same time, policies must be in place that allow disadvantaged residents to stay and that connect them to resources and opportunities.

This greater investment in non-gentrifying neighborhoods would, Hwang and Ding write, “ensure that disadvantaged movers are not limited to neighborhoods with high levels of disadvantage, high crime and low-quality schools.”

The study, titled “Unequal Displacement: Gentrification, Racial Stratification, and Residential Destinations in Philadelphia,” was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health .

Media Contacts

Joy Leighton, Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences: [email protected]

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides

Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Gentrification'

Create a spot-on reference in apa, mla, chicago, harvard, and other styles.

Consult the top 50 dissertations / theses for your research on the topic 'Gentrification.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse dissertations / theses on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

Castagnola, Michael. "Gentrification without displacement." Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/99071.

Lyons, Michal. "Gentrification in context." Thesis, London South Bank University, 1994. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.618634.

Schlueter, Sebastian. "Faith in gentrification." Doctoral thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.18452/18515.

Gafvert, Rebecca C. "Mapping the Path of Gentrification: An Analysis of Gentrification Susceptibility in Cincinnati, Ohio." University of Cincinnati / OhioLINK, 2011. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1314114199.

Mills, Caroline Ann. "Interpreting gentrification : postindustrial, postpatriarchal, postmodern?" Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1989. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/29245.

Thrash, Tunna E. 1975. "Commercial gentrification : trends and solutions." Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/46687.

Baxter, Herman Leon. "Toward a Theory of Gentrification." Miami University / OhioLINK, 2009. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=miami1240629969.

Yeom, Minkyu Yeom. "IDENTIFYING, EXPLAINING, AND RETHINKING GENTRIFICATION." Cleveland State University / OhioLINK, 2018. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=csu1534516133233548.

Tourigny, Mark Claude. "Gentrification : an intra-urban predictive model." Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1988. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/27704.

Davidson, Mark. "New build gentrification : London's riverside renaissance." Thesis, King's College London (University of London), 2006. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/new-build-gentrification--londons-riverside-renaissance(870714ae-656d-4ddf-9185-6f92891f4224).html.

Baker, Emma. "Gentrification and gender effects in North Adelaide /." Title page, contents and abstract only, 1997. http://web4.library.adelaide.edu.au/theses/09AR/09arb167.pdf.

Wheway, Craig James. "The transformation of English market towns : gentrification." Thesis, University of Leicester, 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/2381/10321.

Catherine, Pettersson. "Exploring regeneration and gentrification on Norra Grängesbergsgatan." Thesis, Malmö universitet, Institutionen för Urbana Studier (US), 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-46121.

Smith, JaLysa. "Small Business Profitability Strategies During Retail Gentrification." ScholarWorks, 2017. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3838.

Allison, Janelle. "Rethinking gentrification : looking beyond the chaotic concept : a case study of the landscape of gentrification in Spring Hill, Brisbane." Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, 1995.

Childers, Roberts Amy. "Gentrification and school choice: Where goes the neighborhood?" Digital Archive @ GSU, 2012. http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/eps_diss/88.

Camrud, Natalie. "Race, Class, and Gentrification Along the Atlanta BeltLine." Scholarship @ Claremont, 2017. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/947.

Webb, Michael David. "Urban Revitalization, Urban Regimes, and Contemporary Gentrification Processes." The Ohio State University, 2013. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1383148654.

LEE, SO YOUNG. "Understanding of Relationship between HOPE VI and Gentrification." The Ohio State University, 2017. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1483290431708558.

Ravuri, Evelyn. "Gentrification and Racial Transformation in Cincinnati, 2000-2016." University of Cincinnati / OhioLINK, 2019. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1563872625077935.

Ribeiro, Daniel de Albuquerque. "Gentrification no Parque Histórico do Pelourinho, Salvador/BA." Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal da Bahia, 2011. http://repositorio.ufba.br/ri/handle/ri/19789.

Lindemann, Sven. "Defending Communities : An Analysis of Anti-Gentrification Measures." Thesis, KTH, Urbana och regionala studier, 2019. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-254577.

Ressa, Valeria Chiara <1992&gt. "Disuguaglianze abitative e gentrification. Il caso di Torino." Master's Degree Thesis, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10579/18619.

Johns-Wolfe, Elaina. "The Geography of Gentrification: Evaluating the Role of Measurement and Spatiotemporal Context on Gentrification Patterns in the United States, 1980 to 2017." University of Cincinnati / OhioLINK, 2020. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1613744042092124.

Shaw, Kirstyn E. L. "Beyond gentrification : a new phase of inner city resettlement? /." [St. Lucia, Qld.], 2004. http://www.library.uq.edu.au/pdfserve.php?image=thesisabs/absthe18629.pdf.

Lohne, Marte. "The hidden Conflict : A study of gentrification in progress." Thesis, Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Sosialantropologisk institutt, 2011. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:no:ntnu:diva-13663.

Higley, Rebecca Claire. "'Other' processes of rural gentrification and counter-urban migration." Thesis, University of Brighton, 2008. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.499064.

Shah, Preena. "Coastal gentrification : the coastification of St Leonards-on-Sea." Thesis, Loughborough University, 2011. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/9094.

Miller, William Jordan. "A Model for Identifying Gentrification in East Nashville, Tennessee." UKnowledge, 2015. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/geography_etds/33.

Thibault, Jeff. "Eminent Domain: The Taking Of Private Property For Gentrification." Honors in the Major Thesis, University of Central Florida, 2005. http://digital.library.ucf.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ETH/id/811.

Alharbi, Hanadi Abdullah K. "Gentrification in the central zone of Medina, Saudi Arabia." Thesis, University of Leicester, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/2381/42516.

Garza, Jorge. "Gentrification, Neoliberalism and Place Displacement and Resistance in Flagstaff." Thesis, Northern Arizona University, 2019. http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/#viewpdf?dispub=13423758.

This thesis connects the lived experience of displacement to the greater paradigm of neoliberalism. The presence of neoliberalism is insidious and ubiquitous and yet even its existence is disputed in the literature. Neoliberalism is not only capitalism on steroids, bigger and in more places, but a new regime of logic that reduces human relations to profit, naturalizes competition and pushes responsibility onto the individual. Urban space in America and especially the process of gentrification, the reshaping of the built environment to facilitate profit, is a powerful space of expression of neoliberal policies in everyday life. Displacement is a violent and dehumanizing realization of the commodification of land. This research follows the lived experience of families displaced from a mobile home park in Flagstaff, Arizona. Residents received a letter of eviction a week before Thanksgiving of 2017 and the mobile home park was boarded up by July of the following year. Through in-depth interviews with the residents and participant observation in the ensuing movement to keep these families in their homes, this research compiles the lived experience of these individuals and provides an analysis of their situation. Paulo Freire argued that every person has the ability to understand and build solutions to their reality in them. This research hopes to illuminate the lived experience of neoliberalism, gentrification, and offer a powerful message of generative solidarity collaboratively distilled from the experience of the displaced residents.

Igwe, Ezinne. "Formalizing Nollywood : gentrification in the contemporary Nigerian film industry." Thesis, Birmingham City University, 2018. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.753291.

Hwang, Jackelyn. "Gentrification, Race, and Immigration in the Changing American City." Thesis, Harvard University, 2015. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:23845428.

Goworowska, Justyna. "Gentrification, displacement and the ethnic neighborhood of Greenpoint, Brooklyn /." Connect to title online (Scholars' Bank), 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/1794/7764.

Goworowska, Justyna 1981. "Gentrification, Displacement and the Ethnic Neighborhood of Greenpoint, Brooklyn." Thesis, University of Oregon, 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/1794/7764.

Cocola, Gant Agustin. "Struggling with the leisure class : tourism, gentrification and displacement." Thesis, Cardiff University, 2018. http://orca.cf.ac.uk/109288/.

Gervasi, Maria Angelica. "Geocultura delle identità urbane e gentrification. Il caso Belleville." Doctoral thesis, Università di Catania, 2014. http://hdl.handle.net/10761/1581.

Hansan, John Kent. "Gentrification in the Short North: from run down to downtown." Connect to resource, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/1811/410.

Eken, Tugce. "Gentrification In Fener Balat Neighborhoods: The Role Of Involved Actors." Master's thesis, METU, 2010. http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12612732/index.pdf.

Holmes, David C. "Stakeholders' Perceptions of Risk for Gentrification in Atlanta's Pittsburgh Neighborhood." Digital Archive @ GSU, 2011. http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/geosciences_theses/38.

Bridge, Gary. "Gentrification, class, and community : a study of Sands End, London." Thesis, University of Oxford, 1990. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.317688.

Mavrommatis, George. "Gentrification and difference : the case of Brixton and Brick Lane." Thesis, Goldsmiths College (University of London), 2003. http://research.gold.ac.uk/10737/.

Foster, Genea (Genea Chantell). "The role of environmental justice in the fight against gentrification." Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2016. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/105069.

Glatter, Jan. "Gentrification in Ostdeutschland – untersucht am Beispiel der Dresdner Äußeren Neustadt." Doctoral thesis, Saechsische Landesbibliothek- Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek Dresden, 2016. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-qucosa-205079.

Redfern, Paul. "There goes the neighbourhood : gentrification and marginality in modern life." Thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science (University of London), 1992. http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/1292/.

Yardimci, Oznur. "Promises and costs of gentrification : the case of Dikmen Valley." Thesis, Lancaster University, 2018. http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/127548/.

Berg, Max, and Sebastian Malmborg. "The development of the neighborhood Mollevången - A survey about gentrification." Thesis, Malmö högskola, Fakulteten för kultur och samhälle (KS), 2012. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-23501.

Garcia, Alicia R. "The Impact of Gentrification on the Youth of Church Hill." VCU Scholars Compass, 2016. http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/4125.

Petty, Clint C. "Gentrification in Oklahoma City: Examining Urban Revitalization in Middle America." Thesis, University of North Texas, 2011. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc84266/.

Shifting Neighborhoods

Gentrification and cultural displacement in American cities

[mashshare]

Jason Richardson , Director, Research & Evaluation, NCRC Bruce Mitchell , Ph.D., Senior Research Analyst, NCRC Juan Franco , Senior GIS Specialist, NCRC

March 19, 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Gentrification is a powerful force for economic change in our cities, but it is often accompanied by extreme and unnecessary cultural displacement. [1] While gentrification increases the value of properties in areas that suffered from prolonged disinvestment, it also results in rising rents, home and property values. As these rising costs reduce the supply of affordable housing, existing residents, who are often black or Hispanic, are displaced. This prevents them from benefiting from the economic growth and greater availability of services that come with increased investment. Gentrification presents a challenge to communities [2] that are trying to achieve economic revitalization without the disruption that comes with displacement.

This study found that from 2000 through 2013 the following occurred:

• Gentrification and displacement of long-time residents was most intense in the nation’s biggest cities, and rare in most other places.
• Gentrification was concentrated in larger cities with vibrant economies, but also appeared in smaller cities where it often impacted areas with the most amenities near central business districts.
• Displacement of black and Hispanic residents accompanied gentrification in many places and impacted at least 135,000 people in our study period. In Washington, D.C., 20,000 black residents were displaced, and in Portland, Oregon, 13 percent of the black community was displaced over the decade.
• Seven cities accounted for nearly half of the gentrification nationally: New York City, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Diego and Chicago.
• Washington, D.C., was the most gentrified city by percentage of eligible neighborhoods that experienced gentrification; New York City was the most gentrified by sheer volume. Neighborhoods were considered to be eligible to gentrify if in 2000 they were in the lower 40 percent of home values and family incomes in that metropolitan area.
• The study lends weight to what critics say is a concentration not only of wealth, but of wealth-building investment, in just a handful of the nation’s biggest metropolises, while other regions of the country languish.
• The strict tests for gentrification and displacement  in this study and the limitations of the data available likely undercounted instances of gentrification and displacement.
• Most low- to moderate-income neighborhoods did not gentrify or revitalize during the period of our study. They remained impoverished, untouched by investments and building booms that occurred in major cities, and vulnerable to future gentrification and displacement.

[optin-monster-shortcode id=”pp9hbd0oskt3h64b5asb”]

A major transformation is occurring in the most prosperous American cities. Many of the 600+ member organizations of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) have raised concerns about gentrification, displacement and transformations in their communities. We wanted to better understand where gentrification and displacement was occurring, and how to measure and monitor it. Does gentrification also mean displacement?

Using U.S. Census Bureau and economic data, NCRC found that many major American cities showed signs of gentrification and some racialized displacement between 2000 and 2013. Gentrification was centered on vibrant downtown business districts, and in about a quarter of the cases it was accompanied by racialized displacement. Displacement disproportionately impacted black and Hispanic residents who were pushed away before they could benefit from increased property values and opportunities in revitalized neighborhoods. This intensified the affordability crisis in the core of our largest cities.

Gentrification was most intense in the nation’s biggest coastal cities, yet in medium to small cities of the nation’s interior it was rare: Most of the nation’s cities and towns did not experience gentrification as measured in this study.

Neighborhoods experience gentrification when an influx of investment and changes to the built environment leads to rising home values, family incomes and educational levels of residents. Cultural displacement occurs when minority areas see a rapid decline in their numbers as affluent, white gentrifiers replace the incumbent residents.

In this study, neighborhoods were considered to be eligible to gentrify if in 2000 they were in the lower 40 percent of home values and family incomes in that metropolitan area.

Measuring gentrification and displacement is fraught with controversy, since people who are impacted by the economic and social transition of their neighborhoods feel the disruption of community ties directly. This study measured gentrification and displacement using empirical methods and data, which has its own flaws and limitations. First, while the use of U.S. census data improves the validity of the study’s findings, it also restricts the population analysis to a time period extending from 2000 to 2010, while the social and economic data were gathered under the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) program, covering the period starting in 2000 and until 2009-2013, a five-year consolidation of the social and economic data. This limits our findings to the not-too-distant past. However, neighborhoods with a more recent dynamic of gentrification and displacement could not be covered. Second, the use of census tracts, which average about 4,000 residents, as a proxy for neighborhoods could disguise neighborhood changes taking place at smaller community sizes. As a consequence of these restrictions on the time frame and scale of the study, it should not be implied that other neighborhoods have not experienced the same effects before, during or since the study period. Instead, the study is designed to identify instances of gentrification and displacement that can be measured with a high level of confidence, and avoid falsely noting gentrification where none occurred, but it cannot capture the full-lived reality of residents in gentrifying neighborhoods.

Disinvestment in low- and moderate-income communities results from a long history of discrimination in lending, housing and the exclusionary, racialized practice known as redlining [3] . A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago directly linked community disinvestment with historical redlining practices evident in the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) residential security (“redlining”) maps, completed for all major cities of the U.S. 80 years ago [4] . A 2018 study by NCRC found that three out of four neighborhoods marked “hazardous” by HOLC surveyors in the 1930s are still struggling economically, with lower incomes and higher proportions of minority residents. The economic outcomes for black and Hispanic families residing in disinvested areas are often stunted by lower incomes, fewer businesses and fewer opportunities to build wealth. This history set the stage for gentrification and displacement.

Local advocates and officials should pursue policies that encourage investment while promoting the ability of existing residents to stay and benefit from revitalization. In our 2016 paper, The Community Reinvestment Act: How CRA can promote integration and prevent displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods , we identified several ways in which local stakeholders can promote revitalization to benefit the broader community, such as partnerships between banks and community-based organizations to encourage equitable development; limited-equity co-ops and community land trusts; providing existing tenants with the right of first refusal in apartment conversions coupled with low-income and first-time buyer financing programs; inclusionary zoning regulations; and split tax rates for the incumbent residents of gentrifying neighborhoods. Additionally, HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) process provides an opportunity for community groups to engage with municipal leadership in the planning process. AFFH provides a mechanism for identifying areas that are vulnerable to, or may be in the early stages of, gentrification. Community groups can then work to develop strategies to avoid displacement of incumbent residents by attracting investment and providing affordable housing.

Large and small local banks can also play a role by supporting the development of housing and finance options that accommodate the retention of low- and moderate-income families in the community, rather than excluding them. Bank regulators should recognize pro-integrative bank finance as responsive to the needs of the community, crediting banks for these efforts in their CRA exams. Strategies like those advanced through HUD’s AFFH rule, promoting investment in inclusive and diverse neighborhoods, should be eligible for CRA consideration. It is essential that programs promoting the economic prosperity of incumbent residents of gentrifying neighborhoods be discussed on the public evaluations released subsequent to a CRA exam to document their effectiveness and encourage other banks to apply comparable investment strategies in their markets.

INTRODUCTION

Any discussion of gentrification is likely to elicit a range of responses. A conversation with an NCRC member living in an impoverished and high-crime neighborhood in Baltimore, Maryland, culminates with a plea: “When can we get some of that (gentrification) in my community?” Another NCRC member from Portland, Oregon, experiences gentrification as an erosion of community ties, as rents escalate and families are displaced. In Arlington, Virginia, a large rental community of 3,000 mostly Hispanic immigrants drawn by a robust Washington, D.C., economy is uprooted when the property is sold, bulldozed and replaced by a mix of luxury and affordable apartments, which are neither truly affordable nor plentiful for the former tenants [5] . In the rapidly gentrifying Shaw neighborhood of Washington, D.C., the Lincoln Temple United Church of Christ, a congregation that had existed since the 1860s and was a landmark of the Civil Rights struggle, is forced to dissolve in 2018 as its membership drops to just 20 congregants [6] . Gentrification is controversial because it affects people at the neighborhood level, it can disrupt the familiar and established ties of a place, creating a disorienting new locale. For people displaced as the neighborhood becomes unaffordable, this is more than just nostalgia or discomfort with the unfamiliar. Often, they must accept longer commutes and a disruption of the support structures provided by their old neighbors and family. In these cases, gentrification is understood as the terminal stage of exclusion of minority (usually black) residents from affordable housing inside the city. Public policy measures starting with “slum clearance” in the 1930s and 1940s then became “urban renewal” (Collins & Shester 2012; Hyra 2012) and construction of the highway system, which split communities in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s (Mohl 2004: Karas 2015), which then became “redevelopment” in the 1980s and 1990s. Now, the remnant of these communities face an affordability crisis as affluent, usually white gentrifiers with access to credit move in and transform the economic and social dynamics of a community.

While community perceptions of gentrification range from hope for better living conditions to anxiety and even hostility, research on gentrification is divided on whether displacement is an inevitable outcome. Some researchers assert that gentrification attendant with displacement is a complex issue and while mobility rates of low-income residents are equivalent in gentrifying and non-gentrifying areas, low-income families are unable to afford to move in and replace exited families as housing costs escalate (Ding, Hwang, and Divringi, 2015). Other researchers found that displacement was rare (Ellen and O’Regan, 2011; Freeman 2005), while others comment on its prevalence (Newman and Wyly, 2006). This divergence of opinion could be because both the scale and type of gentrification vary from place to place. The urban form, or patterns of land-use in U.S. cities, differ considerably in size and structure, and the process of gentrification can involve neighborhoods in a rapid process of change or unfold over decades in larger districts. Additionally, while the residential and commercial aspects of a community are interwoven, gentrification of residential and commercial areas involve slightly different dynamics (Meltzer 2016). Displacement also may take different forms: either racial/ethnic or by class and culture. Finally, Marcuse (1986) argues that in many cases displacement due to systematic urban disinvestment, which resulted in the abandonment of many downtown neighborhoods, often precedes gentrification. For all of these reasons, it is helpful to be clear about the type of gentrification considered, how it is being studied and over what period.

The focus of this report is residential gentrification and racial and ethnic displacement throughout urban areas of the U.S. It is a comprehensive national level analysis of gentrification and displacement in 935 metropolitan areas. The goal was to determine how widespread gentrification was in U.S. urban areas, and then identify neighborhoods where gentrification and displacement occurred simultaneously. The first step of this analysis is to find neighborhoods with indications of gentrification. Utilizing a methodology developed by Columbia University Professor Lance Freeman, the study examines increases in education levels, home values and income as the defining criteria of whether gentrification has occurred in a neighborhood (2005). We determine which neighborhoods (census tracts) show indications of gentrification over the period from 2000-2013. In tracts with indications of gentrification, a second analysis is conducted to examine whether racial/ethnic displacement occurred during the same time period. The research questions addressed by this study are: 1) How prevalent is gentrification and subsequent displacement? 2) Are there regional differences in gentrification and displacement? 3) What census variables are associated with gentrification across the nation?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The term “gentrification” was first coined in the 1960s by British sociologist Ruth Glass (1964) to describe the displacement of the working-class residents of London neighborhoods by middle-class newcomers. From its inception, gentrification has been understood as a form of neighborhood change, resulting in the displacement of incumbent residents of one social class and culture by another more affluent class, linked with an increase in property values. In the case of the United States, the segregated residential structure of American cities creates circumstances in which gentrification often occurs along racial lines. In these cases of gentrification and racial displacement, affluent white incomers often displace the incumbent minority residents.

Gentrification is a complex form of neighborhood change. At the street level, it is visible in the upgrading of the built structure of neighborhoods, as houses are refurbished and businesses established (Krase, 2012; Kreager, Lyons and Hays 2011; Papachristos et al. 2011). While the most basic understanding of gentrification involves the movement of people and investment to affect neighborhood change, it also involves broader political and economic forces. Policy decisions by governments impact both transportation and the availability of services and amenities in a community. The interplay between government and the public in decisions regarding zoning and the allocation of public resources, coupled with decisions by private developers on the investment of capital, deeply influence neighborhood desirability (Zuk et al. 2015). The forces driving neighborhood changes, like gentrification, also involve an interplay between the movement of people, public policy decisions and the availability of capital. Consequently, gentrification is a subject that requires analysis of social, political and economic circumstances.

The economic drivers of neighborhood change involve supply-side dynamics of public investments and land value within the context of the wider metropolitan economy. While working on his PhD at Johns Hopkins University, the late Neil Smith observed the gentrification of Baltimore’s Inner Harbor (1979). This stirred him to establish the drivers that lead to gentrification in terms of land rents – the depreciation and physical deterioration of older built structures, and the increase in the potential income returns from the land on which they were built. When the potential income return from land rents exceeds the perception of risk by investors, neighborhoods become likely candidates for redevelopment. While economics explain the flows of capital to gentrifying commercial and residential areas, there are broader cultural factors that have shifted perspectives on the desirability of an urban lifestyle and increased the demand for downtown locations.

Neighborhood lifestyle preferences have always had a powerful role in establishing the desirability of different urban locations. The post-war era saw a shift in both federal policy and consumer culture that had enormous impact on urban residential patterns (Cohen 2004). Economic conditions of the Depression era and production priorities during World War II hindered construction of new housing for over a decade. This contributed to an antiquated stock of urban housing, the supply of which was too small to meet demands of a growing and increasingly affluent population in the post-war era. The availability of mortgage financing through the Housing Act of 1949 sparked a construction boom. Much of the housing was built in suburbs, where developers utilizing economies of scale could find large undeveloped tracts for massive new developments. This accelerated a reconfiguration of the American urban system, as white middle-class residents suburbanized, shifting population and capital away from downtown areas (Jackson 1987). Often, this left the downtown areas of cities with high proportions of minority and low-income residents, resulting in a reduced revenue base and greater demands for city services. This shift in economic prosperity and population away from the downtown areas of cities has become widely accepted as a theory of post-war urban decline; however, urban development varied greatly across the country and should not be taken as the sole explanation of post-war urban development (Beauregard 1993). In the present era, the aging housing stock of inner-ring suburbs has become less desirable as the demands of commuting and allure of downtown amenities have shifted demand for housing closer to the central business district (CBD) of urban areas.

The question “who gentrifies?” is contingent on demographics and class. Many authors cite the role of young millennials in gentrification (Hwang & Lin 2016; Baum-Snow & Hartley 2016; Couture & Handbury 2016; Ding, Hwang & Divringi 2015). Millennials are less likely to harbor racial and ethnic animosity than previous generations (Freeman & Cai, 2015; Owens, 2012; Glaeser & Vigdor, 2012). Many downtown areas of cities have also experienced reductions in violent crime over the last two decades, which could make certain low-income neighborhoods enticing to newcomers (Ellen, Horn & Reed 2016). Increasing work hours and reduction in leisure time has also created a demand to reduce commute time and work closer to home (Edlund, Machade, & Sviatchi 2016). Public policy decisions also have impact. Several researchers cite the role of the HOPE VI program in the demolition of distressed public housing (Goetz 2013; Vale & Gray 2013). Shifts in city level spending on mixed-income developments, parks and bike share enhance downtown desirability (Buehler and Stowe, 2016; Hyra 2012; Tissot, 2011). Finally, many city leaders have acted on the advice of influential urban planners, like Edward Glaeser and Richard Florida, who popularized the idea that the amenities of the downtown areas of cities draw Gen-Xer’s and Millennials who are part of an affluent “creative class” that revitalizes neighborhoods (Clark, 2011; Florida, 2014; Glaeser & Shapiro, 2003). A combination of undervalued property and changing cultural perceptions about the desirability of urban living increases the demand for residences in downtown areas of many U.S. cities.

While gentrification implicitly involves economic transition as a more affluent class replaces the incumbent residents, many researchers also note that there are cultural and racial dimensions to this form of neighborhood change. Millennial perceptions about race have shifted from those of prior generations, so that minority neighborhoods are now seen as “cool and edgy” (Hyra 2016), but that does not necessarily mean they remain inviting or affordable for the incumbent residents. Several researchers found that neighborhoods transitioning to affluence create new social tensions that influence interactions, which can often result in micro-level segregation (Chaskin & Joseph, 2015; Tach, 2014; Hyra 2015). The new residents might shift the community’s focus of concern and the dynamics of political power, including black and white middle-class gentrifiers wielding political influence in local initiatives that sometimes oppose the expansion of affordable housing in their new neighborhoods (Boyd 2005; Hyra 2008; Pattillo 2007).

Despite many studies on the issue a crucial question remains, does gentrification also mean displacement? The economics of gentrification explicitly state that neighborhood property values increase, decreasing the supply of affordable housing available to lower-income residents who are then displaced, as the cost of living in the neighborhood increases. However, several studies indicate that the mobility rates of low-income people are equivalent in gentrifying and more stable low-income neighborhoods (Ding, Hwang & Divringi, 2015; Ellen & O’Regan, 2011; Freeman, 2005; Freeman & Braconi, 2004; McKinnish, Walsh & White, 2010). Some cite this as evidence that widespread displacement is not occurring. However, Hyra (2016) argues that this is an incorrect interpretation that merely shows that low-income rates of mobility are uniformly high across all types of neighborhoods. It’s not that displacement is not occurring in gentrifying neighborhoods, but that in general low-income people move more often. Additionally, the movement of other low-income residents back into gentrifying neighborhoods is constrained by a lack of affordable housing (Ding, Hwang & Divringi, 2015). Over time, the neighborhood experiences a net loss of low-income residents as housing costs rise, and the neighborhood becomes less and less affordable. This transition in the economic status of neighborhoods often occurs along racial lines, as incumbent low-income black and Hispanic residents move and are replaced by higher-income white gentrifiers. Freeman (2005) found a surge in white movement into black neighborhoods since 2000.

The influx of affluent white gentrifiers to formerly low-income minority neighborhoods can be viewed as a form of racial exclusion from urban areas with vibrant economies. There has been increased exclusion of incumbent black homeowners from gentrifying neighborhoods, driven by racial disparities in access to home lending. Black and Hispanic applicants for mortgages in gentrified neighborhoods were 2.32 times and 1.96 times more likely to be denied credit than non-Hispanic white applicants between 1993 and 2000 (Wyly & Hammel 2004). Neighborhood level disparities in access to mortgage credit access have a long history and have been documented in several cities by NCRC (Richardson et al. 2015 & 2016). Rothstein (2017) documents the history of redlining going back to the early part of the 20th century. A combination of local policies related to zoning, restrictive covenants, prohibition of lending in “hazardous” neighborhoods and informal segregationist practices like residential steering and social pressure prevented residents of low-income and minority neighborhoods from gaining access to credit. This pattern of disinvestment prepared the ground for gentrification and displacement in many neighborhoods (Marcuse 1986). Gentrification, which decreases the supply of affordable housing, coupled with policies of public housing demolition (Goetz 2013), have resulted in the displacement of racial minorities and low-income residents in some cities.

This study sought to quantify variations in displacement in U.S. urban areas by assessing changes at the census tract (neighborhood) level using nationwide U.S. census data normalized by the longitudinal tract database (LTDB) [7] . Normalization of the census data is necessary because tract boundaries can change over time, leading to inaccuracies. We analyzed LTDB data for socioeconomic changes during the period 2000 to 2013 for all 50 U.S. states. Population changes were assessed using decennial census data for 2000 and 2010, which was normalized by the LTDB.

Researchers have used several different methods to identify neighborhoods that seem to be experiencing gentrification and to then assess rates of residential change. The study adopted a methodology developed by Freeman (2005) and utilized by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve (Ding, Hwang & Divringi, 2015) and Governing.com (2015) to locate gentrified areas. The method involves assessing the educational level and economic status of residents, and the value of properties in the neighborhood at the beginning of the census period, then assessing changes in the next U.S. census. This includes several checks:

• Eligibility determined by tracts in the Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), which are below the 40 th percentile in both median household income and median house value. In addition, the population must be 500 residents or greater at the beginning of the period.
• Possible gentrification is determined by including all eligible tracts and then identifying tracts that were in the top 60 th percentile for increases in both median home value and the percentage of college graduates.
• Determining tract level median household income increases from 2000-2013 when adjusted for inflation is the final check.
• Census tracts meeting all of the above listed criteria were then identified as undergoing, or having undergone, gentrification.

The criteria for gentrification are all indications that the socioeconomic status of the residents of the tract shifted. We then reviewed each tract for changes in the population of the racial subgroups [8] . These changes were assessed using two criteria;

• Did the racial group’s percentage of the population decline by more than two standard deviations from the mean of all census tracts? [9]
• Did the absolute number of residents from that racial group decline by at least five percent?

If the census tract gentrified and met both of these criteria, we identified it as having experienced cultural displacement [10] (Figure 1). Cultural displacement results when the tastes, norms and desires of newcomers supplant and replace those of the incumbent residents (Zukin 2010). Since this kind of cultural transformation of neighborhoods is difficult to measure directly, the decline in minority subpopulation was used as a proxy. Population shifts were examined utilizing decennial census 2000 and 2010 population data.

National changes – Gentrification

Nationally, 90.7 percent, or 67,153 census tracts have a micropolitan or metropolitan designation, and are assigned to an urban area. Of these urban tracts, 16.7 percent or 11,196 tracts met the criteria for being eligible for gentrification in 2000, the beginning of the examination period (Figure 2). A total of 1,049 census tracts met all three of the checks for gentrification: increases in median home value, educational attainment and increases in income by 2013. This amounts to nine percent of the eligible urban census tracts across the U.S. While this seems to indicate that gentrification is rare, the selection criteria was stringent and limited to a relatively short period of time. Gentrification appears to be clustered in sections of larger and economically vibrant cities that are close to central business districts. Residents are drawn to the neighborhoods by proximity to employers, and the clustering of amenities and services associated with an urban lifestyle. Finally, displacement was indicated in 232, or 22 percent, of the gentrified tracts.

While gentrification impacted a minority of census tracts in U.S. cities, it was quite concentrated in the largest urban areas. At the national level, almost a quarter (24 percent) of all urban areas, or CBSAs, saw at least one tract gentrify between 2000 and 2013 (Table 1). CBSAs are urban areas with a population of at least 10,000 and include small micropolitan areas, analogous to towns, and larger metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), or cities. In 13 percent of towns and cities, only one tract gentrified. More moderate levels of gentrification, between two and 10 tracts, occurred in eight percent of towns and cities. Intensive gentrification, cases in which more than 10 tracts underwent gentrification between 2000 and 2013, occurred in three percent of towns and cities nationally.

We assessed the population sizes of cities in which gentrification was occurring. Gentrification was concentrated in the largest urban areas. CBSAs with a population of one million or greater contained 79 percent of gentrifying tracts. Cities with populations between 500,000 and 1 million comprised another seven percent. Cities with populations between 100,000 and 500,000 contained 10 percent of gentrifying tracts. The smallest cities and towns, under a population of 50,000, contained only four percent of the tracts that gentrified nationally (Figure 3). The map shows that while coastal cities had the largest amount of tracts undergoing gentrification, large cities in the interior like Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh also underwent extensive gentrification.

Cities with the highest rates of gentrification included New York City, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Diego and Chicago (Figure 4). These seven cities accounted for nearly half of the total gentrification nationally, or 501 tracts out of 1,049. It is surprising that Baltimore and Philadelphia metro areas are in the top 10 list, with the fourth and fifth largest number of gentrified tracts in the study, since these cities are not considered among the nation’s most economically dynamic cities. Different patterns of gentrification seem to be evident for the three largest cities (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago), compared with the next three largest (Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore).

The three largest metro areas (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago) are in the top seven for the number of neighborhoods which gentrified in Figure 4. The top tier cities in population size have many more neighborhoods, and may be more economically dynamic than second tier and third tier cities. Examining cities by the proportion of neighborhoods eligible in 2000 and which did gentrify over the next 10 years provides a more meaningful indication of the rates of gentrification in some areas (Table 5). Washington, D.C., was the city with the highest percentage of gentrifying neighborhoods, with San Diego, New York City, Atlanta, Baltimore and Portland also having both high numbers of tracts and high rates of gentrification.

Examining the maps of different cities reveals patterns of concentrated gentrification in some, but more diffuse patterns in others. Analysis of the Baltimore map (figure 5f) indicates the concentration of gentrification around the Inner Harbor that then stretches from downtown north to Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., all show concentrated gentrification around their central business districts, while the pattern of gentrification is more scattered in the largest three cities: Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City (Figures 5a-f).

National changes – Displacement

Cultural displacement was examined by calculating the reduction of black and Hispanic residents in census tracts. Nationally, 187 of the gentrified tracts showed some level of black displacement, and 45 tracts showed Hispanic displacement (Table 3). This impacted over 135,000 people nationally. While white residents increased in most tracts, there were instances in which the Asian and Hispanic residential population increased in tracts experiencing gentrification and black residential population declined.

Next, we calculated the average losses in metro areas that experienced gentrification and black or Hispanic residential population loss. In the case of black residential displacement, the average loss per tract was 593 black residents (Table 4). New Orleans experienced the most average loss, 1,075 black residents per tract, largely attributable to massive dislocation of neighborhoods caused by the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005. Black residential losses in Washington, D.C., New York City and Philadelphia were especially acute due to the high number of tracts involved and their large displacement numbers. More than 20,000 black residents of Washington, D.C., nearly 15,000 in New York City and 12,000 in Philadelphia moved out of gentrifying neighborhoods.

Tracts with indications of Hispanic displacement were much fewer than those with indications of black displacement, though the average number of displaced residents per tract was similar. In the 45 tracts with indications of Hispanic displacement, the average residential decrease was 542. Denver and Austin had the highest average decreases of Hispanic residents in gentrifying tracts with 1,054 and 1,039 respectively (Table 5).

In order to examine regional differences in black and Hispanic displacement from gentrifying tracts, we calculated the percentage of gentrifying tracts and tracts with indications of displacement. Cities with the highest levels of black displacement between 2000 and 2010 were concentrated in the South, with nine out of 16 cities with high levels of black displacement located there (Figure 6). Richmond, Charlottesville, Washington, D.C., and New Orleans had the highest percentages of black displacement at the tract level (Figure 6). While Richmond and Charlottesville had moderate levels of gentrification, at least half of the gentrifying tracts in those cities also experienced displacement.

Hispanic displacement occurred in fewer cities than black displacement, and affected 45 census tracts nationally. The city with the largest number of tracts impacted was New York City, where nine tracts had losses indicative of Hispanic displacement. Aside from New York City, Hispanic displacement was most intense in the West, with Denver, Austin, Houston and Dallas having the highest percentages followed by Los Angeles (Figure 7). However, the number of affected tracts were small: five in Denver; four in Austin, Dallas and Houston; and eight in Los Angeles. This difference in the rate of Hispanic and black displacement might be attributed to the high rate of suburbanization for the Hispanic population of those cities, since nationally, 45 percent of Hispanic residents live in areas outside the downtown core. Suburbanization rates of black residents are lower at 39 percent (Massey & Tannen, 2018). The levels of segregation from non-Hispanic whites also diverge widely for the two demographic groups. The most common indicator of segregation is the dissimilarity index, which measures the evenness of the distribution of residents between two groups. At the national level, this index is much higher for white non-Hispanic and black residential areas at .60, than it is for white non-Hispanic and Hispanic residential areas at .40. The Hispanic population also increased quite rapidly over the study period, increasing from 12.5 percent of the population in 2000 to 16.3 percent in 2010. The black percentage of the population increased less, from 12.9 percent in 2000 to 13.6 percent in 2010. The lower levels of demographic displacement of Hispanic residents could be attributable to a combination of population growth, lower segregation relative to non-Hispanic whites and/or decreased frequency of gentrification in Hispanic-majority neighborhoods, which are more likely to be located in suburbs than black-majority tracts.

Critics of gentrification sometimes argue that long-term disinvestment and depopulation of neighborhoods established the economic and social conditions for later cultural displacement (Marcuse 1986). In order to test this, we examined cities with a high number of tracts with black displacement for long-term demographic shifts between 1990 and 2010 (Table 6). The 20-year study period was chosen to capture the impact of demographic changes unfolding over a longer time frame than gentrification, especially in instances where displacement actually preceded gentrification. In most cases, a pattern of decreasing percentages of black, and increasing percentages of white, residents occurred in gentrifying tracts. This tract-level pattern of black decreases and white increases in residents was especially prevalent in Washington, D.C., San Francisco-Oakland, Atlanta, New Orleans and Richmond. Many tracts also showed that there was long-term population loss, indicating abandonment of the area or reduced residential density before or during a demographic transition. This trend was apparent in Baltimore, but especially severe in New Orleans, where the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe forced widespread neighborhood abandonment. Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., had much lower levels of population loss in gentrifying tracts. The cities of Dallas, Richmond, New York City, and especially Atlanta and San Francisco, had high rates of population growth.

There were also notable declines in the Hispanic population and increases in white population in many cities between 1990 and 2010. The exceptions to this were in Los Angeles and San Diego (Table 7), where both white and Hispanic populations declined in gentrifying neighborhoods. Linkages between tract-level population loss and demographic change were evident in Denver, Dallas, San Diego and Chicago. Areas of Hispanic displacement in Denver, Houston, Austin and Dallas are shown in figures 8 a-d. All of these cities also contained tracts experiencing black displacement.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

Past studies of gentrification and displacement have measured neighborhood change by assessing the rates of mobility of incumbent low-income residents in gentrifying areas. Generally, the results showed high but comparable rates of mobility for low-income residents in gentrifying and non-gentrifying tracts, but with low rates of low- income replacement in gentrifying tracts. Consequently, that method of analysis did not directly measure racial/ethnic displacement. This study used a different approach, examining shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of tracts in 2000 and 2010 in order to determine where gentrification and demographic changes were indicative of displacement. National rates of gentrification are low in towns and smaller cities, with 76 percent of urban areas not experiencing any gentrification under our criteria. This may be a conservative estimate due to the requirement of an absolute increase in household income. Another 13 percent experienced gentrification in only one neighborhood, while 8 percent of U.S. cities experienced moderate gentrification. However, the largest population centers experienced intensive gentrification with 3 percent of cities showing indications of gentrification in 10 or more tracts, and 79 percent of gentrifying tracts being within cities with one million or more residents. Though gentrification may be relatively rare at the national level, it can be intensive in the largest cities with dynamic economies. Coastal cities experienced the highest rates of gentrification, with seven out of the top 10 cities in total tracts gentrified being located on the East or West coast.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 created 8,000 Opportunity Zones throughout the country to lure investment to struggling neighborhoods. Although those Opportunity Zones were not defined when this study began, preliminary analysis indicates that 70 percent of gentrified neighborhoods are within or adjacent to an Opportunity Zone. However, most Opportunity Zones do not appear to have been gentrified during the study period.

Some questions to investigate in the future: Will Opportunity Zone investments concentrate mainly in booming areas, and skip many others, as we found for gentrification. Will investments flow primarily into Opportunity Zones that are already gentrified, or adjacent to gentrified neighborhoods?

This study indicates that minority displacement is indeed occurring in many cities, where it is often concentrated in areas near the central business district. Displacement of minority groups was high in gentrifying tracts, with 22 percent having indications of high levels of either black or Hispanic residential loss. While larger cities experienced higher levels of gentrification, displacement also seemed to correspond with regional location. Southern cities experienced greater intensity of black displacement, while western cities experienced greater intensity of Hispanic displacement. Additionally, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia were notable for their high levels of black displacement, while Denver and Austin had high levels of Hispanic displacement. These results indicate that gentrification is often accompanied by high levels of cultural displacement. Since the displacement portion of this study was limited to the decades before 2010, it is difficult to assess the proportion of minority neighborhoods which have indications of displacement that will lead to racial and ethnic integration, or resegregate and become white majority areas over time. It is essential to examine the economic and demographic changes which result from gentrification for their impact on equity at the neighborhood level.

Baum-Snow, N. and Hartley, D., 2016, May. Causes and Consequences of Central Neighborhood Change, 1970–2010. In  Research Symposium on Gentrification and Neighborhood Change  (pp. 57-85).

Beauregard, R.A., 2001. Federal policy and postwar urban decline: A case of government complicity?.  Housing Policy Debate ,  12 (1), pp.129-151.

Boyd, M., 2005. The downside of racial uplift: meaning of gentrification in an African American neighborhood.  City & Society ,  17 (2), pp.265-288.

Buehler, R. and Stowe, J., 2016. Bicycling in the Washington DC Region.  Capital Dilemma: Growth and Inequality in Washington, DC , pp.180-206.

Chaskin, R.J. and Joseph, M.L., 2015. Contested space: Design principles and regulatory regimes in mixed-income communities in Chicago.  The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science ,  660 (1), pp.136-154.

Cohen, L., 2004. A consumers’ republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar America.  Journal of Consumer Research ,  31 (1), pp.236-239.

Collins, W.J. and Shester, K.L., 2013. Slum clearance and urban renewal in the United States.  American Economic Journal: Applied Economics ,  5 (1), pp.239-73.

Couture, V. and Handbury, J., 2017.  Urban revival in America, 2000 to 2010  (No. w24084). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ding, L., Hwang, J. and Divringi, W., 2015. Gentrification and residential mobility in Philadelphia. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Discussion papers. October. file.  C:/Users/winifred/Downloads/discussion-paper_ gentrification-and-residential-mobility. pdf (accessed 20 November 2015) .

Edlund, L., Machado, C. and Sviatschi, M., 2017. Gentrification and Rising Returns to Skill. https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Programs/Economics/Other%20docs/GAll2017x11x13_1.pdf

Ellen, I.G. and O’Regan, K.M., 2011. How low income neighborhoods change: Entry, exit, and enhancement.  Regional Science and Urban Economics ,  41 (2), pp.89-97.

Ellen, I.G., Mertens Horn, K. and Reed, D., 2016. Has falling crime invited gentrification? NYU Furman Center. http://furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_WhitePaper_FallingCrimeGentrification_18OCT2016.pdf

Florida, R., 2014. The creative class and economic development.  Economic development quarterly ,  28 (3), pp.196-205.

Freeman, L., 2005. Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods.  Urban Affairs Review ,  40 (4), pp.463-491.

Freeman, L., 2009. Neighbourhood diversity, metropolitan segregation and gentrification: What are the links in the US?.  Urban Studies ,  46 (10), pp.2079-2101.

Freeman, L. and Braconi, F., 2004. Gentrification and displacement New York City in the 1990s.  Journal of the American Planning Association ,  70 (1), pp.39-52.

Freeman, L. and Cai, T., 2015. White entry into Black neighborhoods: advent of a new era?.  The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science ,  660 (1), pp.302-318.

Glaeser, E.L. and Shapiro, J.M., 2003. Urban growth in the 1990s: Is city living back?.  Journal of regional science ,  43 (1), pp.139-165.

Glaeser, E. and Vigdor, J., 2012. The end of the segregated century.  Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, January , pp.23-26.

Glass, R., 1964. Aspects of change.  The Gentrification Debates: A Reader , pp.19-30.

Goetz, E.G., 2013.  New Deal ruins: Race, economic justice, and public housing policy . Cornell University Press.

Hwang, J. and Lin, J., 2016. What have we learned about the causes of recent gentrification?.  Cityscape ,  18 (3), pp.9-26.

Hyra, D.S., 2008.  The new urban renewal: The economic transformation of Harlem and Bronzeville . University of Chicago Press.

Hyra, D.S., 2012. Conceptualizing the new urban renewal: Comparing the past to the present.  Urban Affairs Review ,  48 (4), pp.498-527.

Hyra, D., 2015. The back-to-the-city movement: Neighbourhood redevelopment and processes of political and cultural displacement.  Urban Studies ,  52 (10), pp.1753-1773.

Hyra, D., 2016. Commentary: Causes and consequences of gentrification and the future of equitable development policy.  Cityscape ,  18 (3), pp.169-178.

Jackson, K.T., 1987.  Crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of the United States . Oxford University Press.

Karas, D., 2015. Highway to inequity: The disparate impact of the interstate highway system on poor and minority communities in American cities.  New Visions for Public Affairs ,  7 , pp.9-21.

Kreager, D.A., Lyons, C.J. and Hays, Z.R., 2011. Urban revitalization and Seattle crime, 1982–2000.  Social Problems ,  58 (4), pp.615-639.

Massey, D.S. and Tannen, J., 2018. Suburbanization and segregation in the United States: 1970–2010.  Ethnic and Racial Studies ,  41 (9), pp.1594-1611.

Marcuse, P., 1986. The beginnings of public housing in New York.  Journal of Urban History ,  12 (4), pp.353-390.

Lee, B.A. and Wood, P.B., 1991. Is neighborhood racial succession place-specific?.  Demography ,  28 (1), pp.21-40.

Marcuse, P., (1986) Abandonment, Gentrification and Displacement: the Linkages in New York City, in Smith, N. and Williams, P. (eds) Gentrification of the City, London: Unwin Hyman.

McKinnish, T., Walsh, R. and White, T.K., 2010. Who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods?.  Journal of urban economics ,  67 (2), pp.180-193.

Meltzer, R., 2016. Gentrification and small business: Threat or opportunity?.  Cityscape ,  18 (3), pp.57-86.

Mohl, R.A., 2004. Stop the road: Freeway revolts in American cities.  Journal of Urban History ,  30 (5), pp.674-706.

Newman, K. and Wyly, E.K., 2006. Gentrification and displacement revisited.  Research Bulletin .

Owens, A., 2012. Neighborhoods on the rise: A typology of neighborhoods experiencing socioeconomic ascent.  City & Community ,  11 (4), pp.345-369.

Papachristos, A.V., Smith, C.M., Scherer, M.L. and Fugiero, M.A., 2011. More coffee, less crime? The relationship between gentrification and neighborhood crime rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005.  City & Community ,  10 (3), pp.215-240.

Pattillo, M., 2017. Black on the block. In  Racial Structure and Radical Politics in the African Diaspora  (pp. 21-52). Routledge.

Richardson, J, Mitchell, B., West, N., 2015. Home mortgage and small business lending in Baltimore and surrounding areas, NCRC https://ncrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ncrc_baltimore_lending_analysis_web.pdf

____________________________, 2016. Home mortgage lending in St. Louis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and surrounding areas, NCRC https://ncrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Home-Mortgage-Lending2.pdf

Rothstein, R., 2017.  The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America . Liveright Publishing.

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), pp.538-548.

Tach, L.M., 2014. Diversity, inequality, and microsegregation: Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in a racially and economically diverse community.  Cityscape ,  16 (3), pp.13-46.

Tissot, S., 2011. Of dogs and men: The making of spatial boundaries in a gentrifying neighborhood.  City & Community ,  10 (3), pp.265-284.

Vale, L. and Gray, A., 2013. The displacement decathlon.  Places Journal . https://placesjournal.org/article/the-displacement-decathlon/

Wyly, E.K. and Hammel, D.J., 2004. Gentrification, segregation, and discrimination in the American urban system.  Environment and Planning A ,  36 (7), pp.1215-1241.

Zuk, M., Bierbaum, A.H., Chapple, K., Gorska, K., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Ong, P. and Thomas, T., 2015, August. Gentrification, displacement and the role of public investment: a literature review. In  Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Vol. 79).

Zukin, S., 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places, New York. Oxford University Press

[1] Cultural displacement results when the tastes, norms, and desires of newcomers supplant and replace those of the incumbent residents, and can also entail the loss of historically and culturally significant institutions for a community.

[2] In this report we have used the words community, city, and metro area interchangeably.  We have also used the census tract as a proxy for neighborhood in many cases and these words should be considered synonymous for our purposes.

[3]  See NCRC report on HOLC and redlining https://ncrc.org/holc/

[4] https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/working-papers/2017/wp2017-12

[5] Arna Valley Apartments https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/10/northern-virginia-diversity-race/18079525/

[6] https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/article/21023685/after-150-years-lincoln-temple-united-church-of-christ-has-held-its-last-service

[7] https://s4.ad.brown.edu/projects/diversity/Researcher/Bridging.htm

[8] Data on the following racial and ethnic subgroups was used; non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic and Asian.  Only the decennial Census offers a low enough sampling error to be of use, limiting our study to data from the 2000 and 2010 Censuses.

[9] The change in population at the census tract level is normally distributed.

[10] Hyra, D., 2015. The back-to-the-city movement: Neighbourhood redevelopment and processes of political and cultural displacement.  Urban Studies ,  52 (10), pp.1753-1773.

Photo by Jami via Wikicommons .

• Local view: Philadelphia
• Local view: Portland, Oregon
• Local view: Richmond, Virginia
• Local view: Washington, D.C.
• Download the full report (PDF)

Start typing and press enter to search