Elite Placemaking
How Housing and Neighborhoods Reinforce Class Status
Krista E. Paulsen and Jenny Stuber
for #V. ugly housing/housing aesthetics
Differens Magazine, summer 24
Introduction
Affluent places are distinguished not only by who lives there and who does not, but by their distinct aesthetics and the policies and practices that support these. As we detail in this essay, elite placemaking became widespread with the grand estates and rural retreats of elite classes in Europe and the US and gathered strength with the emergence of suburbs and other enclaves beyond city centers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This practice of remove and restriction continues today and has taken new forms in rural areas that were once sites of agricultural or extractive production. Elite placemaking has also taken new forms within cities, as urban and gentrifying neighborhoods afford prestige once primarily associated with bucolic retreats. Again, the entrenchment of elites within these places brings with it visual signs of their power and preferences and generates patterns of exclusion. While the ability of elite groups to make and remake places reflects their economic, social and political power, we conclude by considering challenges to the exercise of power from both within elite groups and beyond.
Understanding Place and Affluence
Before exploring the intersection of the concepts central to this essay—place and affluence—we wish to define our terms. First, our conceptualization of place attends to not only geographic locations and their physical forms—what many would refer to as space—but to the meanings and uses that are layered upon these. In doing so we follow the work of scholars such as Yi Fu Tuan, Thomas Gieryn, and Tim Cresswell, who stress that space becomes place as sites are used and invested with value, meaning, and memory.[i] These activities are key to practices of placemaking, through which spaces are made useful and meaningful. For Thomas Gieryn, placemaking reflects the work of both “upstream forces,” including the political and economic contexts driving place creation, as well as the actions of everyday people (residents, visitors, etc.) and “place professionals” like planners and developers. In this review essay, we emphasize the actions of affluent residents, sometimes in coordination with place professionals, and attend primarily to research focusing on municipalities, communities, and neighborhoods, although elite control of place has also been explored in schools, hotels, apartment buildings, and country clubs.[ii]
Our working definition of affluence reflects the varied statuses that make up social class. Wealth and income matter, but so do other markers of privilege such as homeownership, and education, as well as social and cultural capital. We understand affluence as a relative term: we include here discussions of the super-rich, sometimes called high-net and ultra-high net worth individuals (HNWI and UHNWI) but also people whose status and resources are high in relation to others in their communities or regions. Conceptualizing affluence as relative is well illustrated in discussions of gentrification. For instance, geographer Eric Clark suggests that we recognize gentrification not by applying rigid economic criteria, but as a general process of displacement that involves “a population of land-users such that the new users are of a higher socioeconomic status than the previous users.”[iii] Similarly, sociologists Michaela Benson and Emma Jackson see gentrification as a “classed and classifying process that (re)produces inequalities and injustice,” regardless of whether newcomers are middle-class or extremely wealthy.[iv] Through gentrification and other placemaking practices, relatively affluent residents have the power to exercise their vision. Because class is such a multi-valent term, this area of research is incredibly rich, highlighting diverse processes and consequences, depending on whether the focus is on the material or symbolic (social and cultural capital) components of class.
Suburban, Exurban, and Rural Places as Elite Retreats
A fundamental strategy of elite placemaking is the retreat from urban diversity. Many early US and UK suburbs were places where affluent residents could balance proximity to urban commercial and social opportunities with natural surroundings and opportunities to announce status through conspicuous consumption.[v] Affluent enclaves had emerged within early industrial cities, but the physical distance between rich and poor was relatively short, with residents of diverse backgrounds sharing public spaces such as streets, sidewalks and parks.[vi] In addition to distancing themselves from undesirable people, affluent folks also sought to distance themselves from the polluting elements of industrial cities, which at the time were insufficiently zoned or regulated. Taking inspiration from European villas and manor houses, US industrial and mercantile capitalists built dwellings that demonstrated and solidified their status—not only homes, but lavish estates with features like tennis courts, swimming pools, elaborate gardens, and even hunting reserves.[vii] Gates, too, became early markers of status and exclusivity, such as Tuxedo Park, New York, which dates to 1885 and is regarded as the earliest US gated community.[viii]
The physical remove of suburbs, and policies that effectively controlled the price of dwellings and lots, has facilitated new levels of exclusivity and homogeneity within elite enclaves. In the US, the homogeneity of elite suburbs was long supported through restrictive covenants and zoning codes. Restrictive covenants, attached to individual properties and entire developments, prescribed how properties could be used and by whom, typically excluding members of racial/ethnic and religious minorities from owning or renting within covered areas.[ix] Some also included aesthetic or economic regulations, such as minimum construction and landscaping budgets or architectural standards. Zoning codes and practices now referred to as exclusionary zoning increased housing prices through requirements like large minimum lot sizes, generous setbacks from the street and neighboring properties, and prohibitions on multi-family dwellings (duplexes, apartments, etc.).[x] These practices not only ensure that affluent suburbs and neighborhoods are expensive, they also create an aesthetic associated with opulence and affluence: large amounts of green space, homes set far from the street, architectural harmony (while still avoiding the cookie-cutter duplication common in middle-class suburbs), and so on.
Elite enclaves have also been established and signified by gating, which serves as a boundary-making tool that facilitates both physical and social demarcation of membership in a place.11 Gated communities can serve the economic interests of homeowners and developers, as well as the state. Especially in highly unequal societies, gated communities facilitate the exclusion of undesirables, usually the lower classes. The most obvious manifestations of this are fortified walls, armed security guards, and other features designed to protect against those who might do violence to affluent residents.[xi] In their efforts to exclude undesirable elements, communities may struggle to find ways to appropriately allow access to service workers.[xii] In Dubai, for example, affluent residents see themselves as cosmopolitan and eager to consume diversity; diversity, however, is defined in limited ways, which allows residents to cut themselves off residentially and socially from low-skill service workers, primarily from South Asia.14 Gated and master-planned communities also enclose residents within, enhancing connections among them. During the 19th century, gates closed around affluent enclaves in London during the social season, encouraging social closure among elites through courtship and business dealings.[xiii] In China and India, gated master planned communities are seen as a tool to facilitate the emergence of new type of “personhood”—an interconnected class of elites who embrace cosmopolitan values like professionalism and modernity.[xiv]
Whether gated or not, elite communities are often inaccessible to non-residents due to the privatization of space. This occurs at different scales. At one end are essentially self-contained cities (sometimes called “mega projects”), such as Mumbai’s Hiranandani Gardens, whose gates surround some 3000 residences in addition to commercial, retail, and entertainment areas.17 More common are residential condominiums and subdivisions where public spaces such as streets or swimming pools are for the exclusive use of residents and their guests.[xv] Privatization introduces new forms of governance that amplify the power of residents and property owners and allow for the hoarding resources that would otherwise be shared among a larger and more diverse community. Within these communities, homeowners’ associations (HOAs) have the power to levy and allocate fees, often for initiatives that enhance property values (landscaping, lighting, private security, etc.) or that make life more enjoyable for residents (community celebrations, recreational facilities, and so on). HOAs can also use covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&Rs) to dictate how residents use private space, such as yards and gardens, and even dictate political speech such as signs or flags.[xvi] Such rules not only assure visual harmony within the neighborhood, they can facilitate social harmony as well by reducing conflict.[xvii]
Increasingly, with the expansion of a global perspective, researchers have focused on gating and the proliferation of master planned communities through a structurallens, where the impetus to build comes from state-sponsored efforts.[xviii] In these cases, development is stimulated less by private developers and consumer preferences, and more but the state, which acts as the primary growth coalition leader. Such developments have been most visible with the opening of global markets and the expansion of neoliberal agendas in countries like China and India, where political actors are able to harness housing developments in their efforts to enrich and legitimize the state.22 To appeal to potential consumers, developers use European aesthetics to signal emerging “modern” values. China’s “Thames Town,” for example, is dotted with Anglican-style churches and Tudor-style pubs.[xix] In “packaged suburbias” like La Cité Jardin, Rancho Santa Fe, and Manhattan Garden, foreign place names, western architectural motifs, and an invented discourse of community are used as status symbols where “imagined and hybrid ‘western’ forms are invented and adopted to exploit the common social mentality that treats the western style as equivalent to a modern and high-quality environment.”24
Sometimes these efforts to incorporate Western values and signifiers are lost in translation. Although some builders in China have sought to incorporate traditional feng shui design principles, some developments across the global south have failed to capture local aesthetics or ways of building community.[xx] Demand for some residences has been less than anticipated, due to this disconnect.[xxi] Additionally or consequently, building social capital and enhancing western personhood may prove illusive, as many of the communities promote an atomized way of life.[xxii] This research highlights the importance of a global perspective, as it shows that elite placemaking emerges in diverse forms, not simply with different aesthetic signifiers, but with different kinds of partnerships among residents, the state, and capital.
Moving beyond elite suburban enclaves, research also reveals how elites transform rural spaces. Although some make their primary residences in rural areas, key players in this context are typically second homeowners, whose money, cultural preferences, and organizational savvy can remake landscapes and communities in powerful ways. Although newcomers to these rural spaces promise to draw jobs and spur economic recovery, social and political displacement for long-term residents appear to be collateral costs.[xxiii] In place of agricultural uses and long-dead mining and forestry industries, labor markets are infused with relatively low-paid service jobs, many of which are seasonal. Through development deals meant to bolster the finances of struggling rural communities, untamed community recreation spots become manicured amenity destinations, privatized and cut off from the general public’s access.[xxiv] As with urban gentrification, rural gentrification involves a clash of cultures, as newcomers and longer-term residents hold different views on the values of history, progress, and authenticity.[xxv] “Old-timers” are pushed out and left behind, as their moral claims to strong work ethics and family values are marginalized; meanwhile, their relationship to the land is also challenged, as newcomers favor low-impact activities like hiking and landscape preservation over activities they see as less refined, like hunting and snowmobiling.[xxvi]
With high net-worth individuals seeking to expand their rural footprints, whether by building large homes on large lots or taking over ranching endeavors, they often espouse the goal of environmental preservation. Two tools they may use in this endeavor are conservation easements and land trusts, which protect rural spaces from residential density and commercial development. Justin Farrell’s notion of “connoisseur conservation” echoes Thorsten Veblen’s notions of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous waste: with $100 million (USD) family compounds and “gilded cabins” dotting remote areas of the American West, resource demands (snowmelt, water use, vehicle traffic from service staff, use of private jets) are typically greater than they would be if the land was used for more productive purposes, whether sustainable agriculture or greater residential density.[xxvii] Despite their virtuous rhetoric of environmental stewardship, these conservation efforts drive up land costs and effectively privatize wilderness spaces for elite recreation, philanthropy, and investment.[xxviii] These dynamics of the American West resemble those of the rural super-rich of Europe—often gentlemen farmers and estate owners— who, sociologist Sam Hillyard says, “want to ‘control the view’, as well as own it, to have privacy and seclusion, and they will buy thousands of extra hectares to get it.” Moreover, he says, “There will be no need or obligation for these new owners to take any notice of the local way-of-life because the super-elites exist in an economic and social world apart.”34
For those who can afford these elite enclaves, places of residence offer status and security. But missing from these communities are the workers who make possible this level of opulence as well as many other facets of everyday life: the landscapers, housekeepers, shop clerks, teachers, firefighters, and so on, who are members of a functioning community. The desire to benefit from working-class labor while excluding working-class people becomes particularly apparent in conflicts over public space. In affluent communities in the US, such as the Hamptons and Bedford, in New York State, wealthy residents have complained when day laborers, who are often Latino immigrants, gather to seek jobs or play soccer in public parks.[xxix] Housing for working- and middle-class residents presents another challenge. The few affordable units that are available are often overcrowded and poorly maintained, and long commutes extend the workers’ days and sap their income.[xxx] While some affluent places have established social housing programs that serve lower-income residents—Aspen, Colorado, is one example—many efforts to create affordable and “workforce” housing are met with resistance by affluent residents, restrict tenants to those in prioritized occupations, or have waiting lists that put housing out of reach.[xxxi] As we note in concluding remarks, efforts to break down exclusionary practices are becoming more common, but challenges remain.
Back to the City: Gentrification and Supergentrification
Gentrification’s ascent in the late twentieth century has remade many urban neighborhoods, which now rival suburbs and exurbs in attracting elite groups. Put simply, gentrification is the “upscaling” of poor or working-class areas, often neighborhoods home to racial or ethnic minorities, such that they become attractive to wealthier and whiter populations.[xxxii] Gentrification may occur incrementally, led by individual households seeking housing that is affordable and close to urban opportunities and amenities, or may reflect organized efforts by developers and governments seeing to remake areas perceived as undervalued, and which allow a profit to be made by closing the “rent gap.”[xxxiii]
The attraction of gentrifying areas for elites reflects changes in how culture and consumption signal status. Whereas elites once shunned cities’ diversity, they now embrace cultural omnivorousness and the perceived authenticity of urban ethnic spaces.[xxxiv] Some gentrifiers explicitly embrace qualities of neighborhoods that prior generations sought to escape through suburban living: older or repurposed housing stock, social diversity, multicultural consumption, and hip or “gritty” neighborhood characters become part of the appeal of gentrifying areas.[xxxv] Scholars have interpreted the taste for such elements of city life as a reaction against the perceived homogeneity of suburbs, a reflection of media’s presentation of urban lifestyles’ distinct aesthetic, or the effects of developers’ work to glamorize and promote recolonized spaces.[xxxvi] Regardless of the origin, an appreciation of diversity or even decay distinguishes the appeal of gentrifying neighborhoods from urban enclaves that have always been affluent, such as Boston’s Beacon Hill or London’s West End.[xxxvii]
Gentrification involves not only the replacement of an area’s populations, but also changes to the built environment. Historic preservation is often associated with gentrification and has been fostered by state-led grants to rehabilitate specific districts; however, evidence for the association of historic designations with demographic transitions is mixed.[xxxviii] In some areas, gentrifiers engage in restoration strategies that reflect preferred moments in the histories of transforming neighborhoods. For instance, Michaela Benson and Emma Jackson describe how gentrifiers in Peckham (London) actively work to restore the Victorian architecture that recalls, for them, a favored moment in the area’s past.[xxxix] In other gentrifying areas, transformations involve the radical revisioning or even replacement of exiting dwellings. One variant is the socalled mansionization of older neighborhoods that occurs as smaller homes are torn down and replaced by larger and more opulent structures.46 Radical remodels are another variant, involving the building of mega-basements and modern additions (often attached to signature Georgian architecture) transforming London’s affluent districts.47
In addition to architectural remaking, gentrifying places are also remade narratively, through descriptions and stories.48 Like preservation efforts, the stories told about places may reflect carefully selected qualities of an area. For instance, in transitional neighborhoods, middleclass white residents might convince others that a place is indeed appropriate for people like them by talking about the positive ways in which a neighborhood has changed, noting the charm of a district’s more middle-class blocks, and so on.49 Narratives comparing one’s own place to others are often used to draw symbolic boundaries that demarcate not only the places themselves, but the groups inhabiting them, affirming that social location, moral standing, and physical location align.50 Importantly, these narratives are not merely words: they can become harnessed in the development of policies governing land use, and, through their deployment in land use planning processes, become encoded in the built environment.51 As an example, in his research on transformation of high streets in the UK, Phil Hubbard observes that more affluent residents were able to transform retail areas by advocating against uses that meet the needs of poor and working-class residents in favor of uses more typical of “leisured consumption.”[xl]
Analyses of gentrified places should not overlook the transformation of retail and commercial areas. Changes in what is offered, and the aesthetics of shops, restaurants, and other commercial spaces not only make life more or less practical for different demographics, they also signal to broader publics just who a place is “for.” Retail gentrification, also referred to as “boutiquing”,[xli] occurs as shops begin orienting their wares to more affluent consumers. Typical offerings include local, organic, or “authentic” and “craft” foods, new or vintage housewares reflecting modern or otherwise unique designs, and upmarket clothing and artisan works. Once new retailers move in, gentrifiers, whether residents or visiting shoppers, cement an area’s transformation by patronizing new businesses and avoiding others.[xlii]
Longtime residents of gentrifying areas recognize the role of upscale retailers in both marking and facilitating gentrification. For instance, in the US, arrival of the high-end and health-conscious store Whole Foods is viewed as an indicator of gentrification’s progress, and has been resisted by immigrant and minority residents concerned about its role in displacing affordable food options, accelerating housing cost increases, and foreshadowing displacement.55 Other types of retailers, too, reflect a shift to consumers who are not only more affluent, but whiter. Scholars examining transitions of Black and mixed neighborhoods in the US and UK have observed that shops catering to white consumers come to replace those that served the prior population, or that gentrifiers carefully avoid retail areas perceived as not for them.[xliii]
Tourism development often accelerates patterns of gentrification by remaking “authentic” neighborhoods as places oriented to visitors, and retail gentrification is a key facet of tourism gentrification.[xliv] In cities that serve as global tourism destinations, neighborhoods once home to working- and middle-class residents are becoming attractive tourist destinations in part because their authenticity offers an alternative to sanitized and mass-produced tourist spaces. Districts in Amsterdam, Paris, Barcelona, and other destinations increasingly see apartments converted in to short-term rentals (STRs), available for rent on platforms like Airbnb.[xlv] In fact, STRs tend to proliferate in gentrifying areas around the globe, and their presence compounds escalating rents.[xlvi] While the purported appeal of STRs is the ability to experience authentic neighborhoods and connect with locals, businesses that once served locals are gradually replaced by shops, bars and restaurants more oriented toward tourists.[xlvii] Cafes and restaurants that have long served locals may gradually become frequented by tourists and transnational gentrifiers; longer-term residents may come to actively avoid these places, finding both the clientele and the goods on offer—like brunch—to be unappealing.[xlviii]
As global inequality intensifies, once gentrified areas are becoming sites of supergentrification: the process by which already “prosperous and solidly upper-middle-class neighbourhoods” are transformed into “much more exclusive and expensive enclaves.”[xlix]
Geographer Loretta Lees, who first developed this concept, explains its emergence through the “intense investment and conspicuous consumption by a new generation of super-rich ‘financifiers’ fed by fortunes from the global finance and corporate service industries.”[l] The expansion of neoliberal policies and market deregulation can invite this type of accumulation and resulting placemaking projects.[li]
The local impacts of supergentrification are multifaceted. First, it intensifies inflation of land values and rents, creating places where only the most affluent, or those who purchased dwellings prior to their arrival, can afford to live.[lii] In many supergentrified places, residences may be only one of many owned by a household or may be purchased primarily as investments. The result of this overconsumption and underutilization of space is what Rowland Atkinson refers to as necrotecture, “a kind of socially dead space in which human habitation and social attachment are almost absent even after sale.”66 Supergentrifiers and part-year residents are also observed to be less civically engaged than the gentrifiers who preceded them.[liii] Impacts of supergentrification further extend to the retail and services found within residential districts. Again, the implications of this align with those of gentrification, but with greater intensity. In the affluent ski town of Aspen, Colorado, retail supergentrification is seen as mid-market chains like Gap and Banana Republic give way to boutiques such as Louis Vuitton and Dolce and Gabbana.[liv]
Both gentrification and supergentrification reshape who lives in a neighborhood, who feels a sense of belonging there, and who has power. One of the primary critiques of gentrification is that is leads to displacement of poor and vulnerable populations who find themselves priced out just as places obtain the kinds of amenities that were lacking during years of disinvestment (retail and services, upgraded infrastructure, parks, etc.). But the research on displacement is more complex and nuanced. For instance, while qualitative studies of gentrifying areas highlight the often traumatic ways in which poor and minority households—particularly renters—are pushed out, larger scale quantitative studies tell a slightly different story. As neighborhoods gentrify, long-term households moving for whatever reason (life changes, etc.) are often unable to find new housing that meets their needs and their budgets and are replaced by whiter or wealthier households.[lv] Neighborhood demographic change thus emerges through replacement as well as displacement; with this displacement taking multiple forms.
Long-term residents may be displaced directly, as when tenants are forced to move. But even if they remain stably housed in gentrifying areas, tenured residents may develop a “sense of subordination, discomfort and unease with trying to stay-put while the visible and sensed changes of the physical and social fabric of the neighbourhood and its symbolic order shift[s] dramatically.”[lvi] This symbolic displacement emerges as longtime residents becoming psychically unsettled due to changes in the visual landscape and built environment, local demographics, patterns of neighboring, and other key elements of their neighborhoods.[lvii] Access to public spaces can both reflect and reproduce feelings of belonging or displacement. For example, observing uses of public space in gentrifying San Francisco, sociologist Ryan Centner details how “dot-commers” assert their right to use parks for day-drinking and other forms of revelry at the expense of Latino families.[lviii] In other cities, sidewalks, street corners, and other public spaces become sites of conflict over different definitions of public order held by gentrifiers and longtime residents.[lix]
Through all these modalities of remaking places—transformations of the built environment, use of narratives, and the development and implementation of policies, uses of public space—affluent groups exercise power in places where other groups once dominated both politically and culturally.[lx] As discussed above, elites have effectively deployed land-use policies and planning processes to preserve their places or to mold places to their needs. In processes of gentrification, scholars observe alignment between the desires of affluent residents (or would-be residents) and governments keen to increase property values and tax bases. Public-private partnerships are often deployed to remake urban areas as elite destinations.[lxi] Elite-government alignments manifest not only in policies governing land use, but in fiscal policy as well. For example, low taxation attracts global elites, whether investors or residents. Absent financial revenues, municipalities may cut services to the point of becoming what Rowland Atkinson and colleagues refer to as the minimum city—a place comfortable for elites, but where the needs of others go wanting.[lxii] They critique the move toward a “butler class” of politicians and professionals aiming to serve the social, cultural and economic needs of the affluent. Other scholars caution of movement toward a plutocratic city wherein elites have effectively captured political institutions, mobilizing them against redistributive initiatives such as mansion taxes, tech taxes, or other proposals to extract money from high net worth individuals.[lxiii]
Additional Nuances and Complications
Our review details two primary ways that elites remake places: retreating from the city and excluding residents who lack the means to do so; and identifying and transforming urban contexts that facilitate the more cosmopolitan and omnivorous lifestyles associated with elite consumption today. These practices have persisted so long (elite retreat since the mid-nineteenth century) and continue with such ferocity (as evidenced by the proliferation of gentrification around the world),[lxiv] that it might appear elites have unchecked power to remake places wherever and however they like. New research calls this into question, however, illuminating intersections between social class and race/ethnicity and revealing how elite exercises of power can be countered by social and cultural resources.
Although suburban development has long been controlled by economically privileged white residents, recent demographic changes highlight the racial and ethnic diversification of these spaces. Suburban places that were once almost exclusively white are becoming more diverse, home to both racial-ethnic minorities and new immigrants of color.[lxv] Geographer Wei Li describes the how global changes in immigration patterns led to the emergence of ethnoburbs, places that reflect qualities of both ethnic enclaves and conventional suburbs.80 These recent waves of suburbanization are no longer tantamount to assimilation. Minoritized groups are gaining social, political, and aesthetic power—and their assertions of ethnic identity can generate conflict with longer-term white residents.[lxvi] Communities in Southern California, for example, have pushed back against mansionization and other design styles favored by middle-class Asian Americans, issuing stringent development codes designed to reinforce Anglo and Spanish architectural forms (adobe, and stucco exteriors, tiled roofs).[lxvii] As Black Americans move to predominantly white suburbs, they may face challenges of belonging and identity. They may respond by engaging in strategic assimilation, where they seek to integrate into their predominantly white, upper-middle-class residential enclaves while maintaining involvement in mixed class, predominantly Black social spaces.[lxviii] Finally, conflict can also emerge among different classes within the same racial group. Discussing Black gentrifiers in Chicago’s North Kenwood neighborhood, sociologist Mary Pattillo observes that while conflicts initially arose around changes to the neighborhood, gentrifiers and longtime residents are politically aligned in hoping their neighborhoods will remain majority Black places.[lxix] As racial and ethnic minorities become more prevalent in once-white suburbs, and as gentrifiers become more diverse (also see Huante on “gente-fication” [lxx]), new patterns are emerging in how power and privilege are exercised, and toward what ends. This research suggests, however, that even racial composition of these areas changes, forms of social class power persist.
Second, as understandings of gentrification and associated displacement become more widespread, some affluent newcomers (including white gentrifiers) express a desire to “get gentrification ‘right’” or to preserve the qualities of neighborhoods that initially attracted them.[lxxi] For many gentrifiers, the diversity, edginess, and even “grit” of urban neighborhoods is part of the attraction.[lxxii] In A Neighborhood that Never Changes, sociologist Japonica Brown-Saracino documents the efforts of what she calls social preservationists, gentrifiers who engaged in work such as advocating for affordable housing, patronizing longtime businesses, and creating cultural recognition for previous populations, seeking to preserve the character of their neighborhoods even if doing so limited the appreciation of their property values. Other gentrifiers may express desires to affirm diversity, but limit their actions to consumption practices as opposed to political coalition building or social integration, or work to ensure that diversity remains, but is managed in ways that suit the preferences of affluent residents.[lxxiii]
A final complication emerges from the successful pushback against efforts to create and preserve exclusivity, whether in cities or suburbs. As broader publics come to recognize how power is exercised in placemaking practices, and concern emerges over the implications of elite placemaking for non-elites’ rights to the city, social movements are engaging in successful opposition. We see this in the actions of native Hawai’ians to prevent a luxury resort project by utilizing narratives regarding indigenous culture as well as state-level historic preservation laws, and in Philadelphia, where working-class residents of Fishtown utilized their social capital to bring a casino development to the area against the wishes of more deep-pocketed residents.[lxxiv] Across the US, activists, place professionals, and legislators are working to dismantle legacies of exclusionary zoning by eliminating single-family zoning or working toward inclusionary zoning (also called inclusionary housing).[lxxv] Even in elite areas, the challenge of recruiting and retaining necessary workforces is fostering actions toward inclusion of diverse class groups.[lxxvi]
In calling attention to these types of challenges we do not mean to suggest a halt in the placemaking efforts of affluent people and the place professionals who serve their interests. Accounts of successful pushback against elite placemaking are noteworthy in part because they are relatively uncommon, and practices such as gating, exclusionary zoning and building codes, and gentrification remain pervasive. But cracks have emerged in established patterns, and even if these appear to be “one-off” cases, they raise important questions about how social and cultural resources can be used to check economic power. Even when successful, these challenges raise additional questions about belonging and control. For instance, even if residential inclusion can be achieved through various housing policies, social inclusion may remain elusive if lowerincome residents cannot afford to eat or shop in their neighborhood.[lxxvii] Additionally, researchers should explore how relatively affluent middle-class residents respond to their own displacement due to supergentrification and tourism gentrification. Depending on the economic and symbolic capital of these residents, they may have the ability to remake outlying areas to better suit their needs, infusing them with new forms of vitality. Such investigations would highlight both continuity and novelty in research on gentrification, showing how economic and social power is relative, and that ecological succession and displacement may be more enduring processes than integration and diversification.
Endnotes
[i] Tuan, Space and Place; Gieryn, “A Space for Place in Sociology”; Cresswell, Place.
[ii] Jack, The Privileged Poor; Khan, Privilege; Sherman, Class Acts; Bearman, Doormen; Ceron-Anaya, Privilege at Play; Inglis, Narrow Fairways.
[iii] Clark, “The Order and Simplicity of GentrificaHon: A PoliHcal Challenge,” 258.
[iv] Benson and Jackson, “From Class to Gentrification and Back Again,” 63.
[v] Baxandall and Ewen, Picture Windows; Jackson, Crabgrass Fron?er; Hayden, Building Suburbia; Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class.
[vi] Zorbaugh, The Gold Coast and the Slum; Firey, Land Use in Central Boston; Wilkins, “A Study of the Dominance of the Super-Wealthy in London’s West End during the Nineteenth Century”; Abu-Lughod, From Urban Village to East Village.
[vii] Baxandall and Ewen, Picture Windows.
[viii] Blakely and Snyder, Fortress America.
[ix] Jackson, Crabgrass Fron?er; Brooks and Rose, Saving the Neighborhood.
[x] Hayden, Building Suburbia; Rudel et al., “From Middle to Upper Class Sprawl?”; Sies, “Paradise Retained.” 11 Blakely and Snyder, Fortress America; Low, Behind the Gates.
[xi] Bandauko, Arku, and Nyantakyi-Frimpong, “A SystemaHc Review of Gated CommuniHes and the Challenge of Urban TransformaHon in African CiHes”; Frias and Udelsmann Rodrigues, “Private Condominiums in Luanda”; Kuppinger, “Exclusive Greenery.”
[xii] Ceron-Anaya, Privilege at Play; Dolgon, The End of the Hamptons; Duncan and Duncan, Landscapes of Privilege. 14 Centner and Pereira Neto, “Peril, Privilege, and Queer Comforts”; Pagès-El Karoui, “Cosmopolitan Dubai: ConsumpHon and SegregaHon in a Global City.”
[xiii] Wilkins, “A Study of the Dominance of the Super-Wealthy in London’s West End during the Nineteenth Century.”
[xiv] Patel, “NegoHaHng IdenHHes in the Designs for New Luxury Condominiums in Neo-Liberal India”; Searle, “ConstrucHng PresHge and ElaboraHng the ‘Professional’”; Wu, “Gated and Packaged Suburbia.” 17 Falzon, “Paragons of Lifestyle.”
[xv] Caldeira, City of Walls; Nelson, Private Neighborhoods and the Transforma?on of Local Government.
[xvi] Lehavi, Private Communi?es and Urban Governance; Nelson, Private Neighborhoods and the Transforma?on of Local Government; Baumgartner, The Moral Order of a Suburb.
[xvii] Baumgartner, The Moral Order of a Suburb.
[xviii] Douglass, Wissink, and van Kempen, “Enclave Urbanism In China”; Herbert and Murray, “Building from Scratch”; Moser and Côté-Roy, “New CiHes”; Moser, Swain, and Alkhabbaz, “King Abdullah Economic City.” 22 Shatkin, Ci?es for Profit; Wu, “Gated and Packaged Suburbia.”
[xix] Shen and Wu, “The Development of Master-Planned CommuniHes in Chinese Suburbs.” 24 Wu, “Gated and Packaged Suburbia,” 385.
[xx] Pow, Gated Communi?es in China.
[xxi] Kuppinger, “Exclusive Greenery”; Shen and Wu, “The Development of Master-Planned CommuniHes in Chinese Suburbs.”
[xxii] Zhu, Breitung, and Li, “The Changing Meaning of Neighbourhood Afachment in Chinese Commodity Housing Estates.”
[xxiii] Sherman, Dividing Paradise; SHman, Privileging Place.
[xxiv] Pilgeram, Pushed Out.
[xxv] Quammen, True West.
[xxvi] Farrell, Billionaire Wilderness; Sherman, Dividing Paradise.
[xxvii] Farrell, Billionaire Wilderness.
[xxviii] Duncan and Duncan, Landscapes of Privilege; Farrell, Billionaire Wilderness; Epstein, Haggerty, and Gosnell, “With, Not for, Money”; Stewart et al., “Keepers of the Land.” 34 Hillyard, “‘My Toothbrush Isn’t Foaming,’” NP.
[xxix] Dolgon, The End of the Hamptons; Duncan and Duncan, Landscapes of Privilege; Farrell, Billionaire Wilderness.
[xxx] Dolgon, The End of the Hamptons; Stuber, Aspen and the American Dream; Park and Pellow, The Slums of Aspen.
[xxxi] Duncan and Duncan, Landscapes of Privilege; Stuber, Aspen and the American Dream.
[xxxii] Brown-Saracino, The Gentrifica?on Debates; Carpenter and Lees, “GentrificaHon in New York, London and Paris”; Glass, London; Lees and Phillips, Handbook of Gentrifica?on Studies; Smith, The New Urban Fron?er.
[xxxiii] Smith, “GentrificaHon and the Rent Gap.”
[xxxiv] Peterson, “Understanding Audience SegmentaHon”; Zukin, “Changing Landscapes of Power”; Ocejo, Masters of CraL.
[xxxv] Burnef, “Commodifying Poverty”; Butler, “Thinking Global but AcHng Local”; Carpenter and Lees, “GentrificaHon in New York, London and Paris”; Lloyd, Neo-Bohemia; Mele, Selling the Lower East Side; Ocejo, “The Early Gentrifier”; Tissot, “Loving Diversity/Controlling Diversity”; Zukin, Naked City.
[xxxvi] Butler and Robson, London Calling; Zukin, “Changing Landscapes of Power”; Atkinson, “Padding the Bunker.”
[xxxvii] Firey, Land Use in Central Boston; Wilkins, “A Study of the Dominance of the Super-Wealthy in London’s West End during the Nineteenth Century.”
[xxxviii] Lees, Slater, and Wyly, Gentrifica?on; Coulson and Leichenko, “Historic Preservation and Neighbourhood Change”; Grevstad-Nordbrock and Vojnovic, “Heritage-Fueled GentrificaHon”; McCabe and Ellen, “Does Preservation Accelerate Neighborhood Change?”
[xxxix] Benson and Jackson, “Place-Making and Place Maintenance.”
[xl] Hubbard, The BaOle for the High Street, 7.
[xli] Zukin et al., “New Retail Capital and Neighborhood Change.”
[xlii] Anguelovski, “AlternaHve Food Provision Conflicts in CiHes”; Anguelovski, “Healthy Food Stores, Greenlining and Food GentrificaHon”; Gonzalez and Waley, “TradiHonal Retail Markets”; Ocejo, Upscaling Downtown; Zukin, “Consuming AuthenHcity”; Deener, Venice; Ocejo, Masters of CraL; Zukin and Kosta, “Bourdieu Off-Broadway.” 55 Anguelovski, “AlternaHve Food Provision Conflicts in CiHes”; Busà, The Crea?ve Destruc?on of New York City.
[xliii] Hyra, Race, Class, and Poli?cs in the Cappuccino City; Jackson and Benson, “Neither ‘Deepest, Darkest Peckham’ nor ‘Run-of-the-Mill’ East Dulwich”; Deener, Venice.
[xliv] Gotham, “Tourism GentrificaHon.”
[xlv] Pinkster and Boterman, “When the Spell Is Broken”; Gravari-Barbas, “Super-GentrificaHon and Hyper-TourismificaHon in Le Marais, Paris”; Cocola-Gant, “Place-Based Displacement.”
[xlvi] Cocola-Gant and Lopez-Gay, “TransnaHonal GentrificaHon, Tourism and the FormaHon of ‘Foreign Only’ Enclaves in Barcelona”; Grisdale, “Displacement by DisrupHon”; Navarrete Escobedo, “Foreigners as Gentrifiers and Tourists in a Mexican Historic District”; Rabiei-Dastjerdi, McArdle, and Hynes, “Which Came First, the GentrificaHon or the
Airbnb?”; Roelofsen, “Exploring the Socio-SpaHal InequaliHes of Airbnb in Sofia, Bulgaria.”
[xlvii] Stewart, “AuthenHcity for Rent?”; Stors and Baltes, “ConstrucHng Urban Tourism Space Digitally”; Törnberg, “Plasorm Placemaking and the Digital Urban Culture of AirbnbificaHon”; Gravari-Barbas, “Super-GentrificaHon and Hyper-TourismificaHon in Le Marais, Paris”; Mermet, “GentrificaHon-Induced Displacement Made Visible”; Pinkster and Boterman, “When the Spell Is Broken”; Törnberg, “Plasorm Placemaking and the Digital Urban Culture of AirbnbificaHon.”
[xlviii] Cocola-Gant and Lopez-Gay, “TransnaHonal GentrificaHon, Tourism and the FormaHon of ‘Foreign Only’ Enclaves in Barcelona.”
[xlix] Lees, “Super-GentrificaHon,” 2487.
[l] Lees, 2487; also see Smith, “New Globalism, New Urbanism.”
[li] Hackworth, The Neoliberal City; Aalbers, “IntroducHon To The Forum.”
[lii] Webber and Burrows, “Life in an Alpha Territory”; Burrows and Knowles, “The ‘HAVES’ and the ‘HAVE YACHTS’: Socio- SpaHal Struggles in London between the ‘Merely Wealthy’ and the ‘Super- Rich.’” 66 Atkinson, “Necrotecture,” 3.
[liii] Burrows and Knowles, “The ‘HAVES’ and the ‘HAVE YACHTS’: Socio- SpaHal Struggles in London between the ‘Merely Wealthy’ and the ‘Super- Rich’”; Butler and Lees, “Super-GentrificaHon in Barnsbury, London”; Lees, “Super-GentrificaHon.”
[liv] Stuber, Aspen and the American Dream; Stuber and Paulsen, “Understanding Social Class in Place.”
[lv] Brown-Saracino, “ExplicaHng Divided Approaches to GentrificaHon and Growing Income Inequality”; Loder and Stuart, “Displacement Frames.”
[lvi] Atkinson, “Losing One’s Place,” 382.
[lvii] Atkinson, “Losing One’s Place”; Davidson, “Displacement, Space and Dwelling.”
[lviii] Centner, “Places of Privileged ConsumpHon PracHces.”
[lix] Beck, “Policing GentrificaHon”; Freeman, There Goes the Hood; Paullo, Black on the Block.
[lx] Hyra, Race, Class, and Poli?cs in the Cappuccino City.
[lxi] Busà, The Crea?ve Destruc?on of New York City; Greenberg, Branding New York; Hackworth, The Neoliberal City.
[lxii] Atkinson et al., “Minimum City?”
[lxiii] Busà, The Crea?ve Destruc?on of New York City; Freeland, Plutocrats.
[lxiv] Lees, Shin, and López-Morales, Planetary Gentrifica?on.
[lxv] Lacy, “The New Sociology of Suburbs.” 80 Li, Ethnoburb.
[lxvi] Lung-Amam, Trespassers?
[lxvii] Ding and Loukaitou-Sideris, “Racism by Design?”
[lxviii] Lacy, “Black Spaces, Black Places.”
[lxix] Paullo, Black on the Block; also see Moore, “GentrificaHon in Black Face?”
[lxx] Huante, “A Lighter Shade of Brown?”
[lxxi] Ocejo, “From Apple to Orange,” 418; Brown-Saracino, A Neighborhood That Never Changes.
[lxxii] Alkon, Cadji, and Moore, “SubverHng the New NarraHve”; Davison, Dovey, and Woodcock, “‘Keeping Dalston Different’”; Tissot, “Loving Diversity/Controlling Diversity”; Zukin, “Changing Landscapes of Power.”
[lxxiii] Butler, “Thinking Global but AcHng Local”; Lees, “GentrificaHon and Social Mixing”; Mele, Selling the Lower East Side; Summers, Black in Place; Tissot, “Loving Diversity/Controlling Diversity.”
[lxxiv] Darrah-Okike, “DisrupHng the Growth Machine”; Balzarini and Shlay, “GentrificaHon and the Right to the City.”
[lxxv] Anacker, “Inclusionary Zoning and Inclusionary Housing in the United States”; Dawkins, Jeon, and Knaap, “CreaHng and Preserving Affordable Homeownership OpportuniHes”; Kuhlmann, “Upzoning and Single-Family Housing Prices.”
[lxxvi] Lazarovic, Paton, and Bornstein, “Approaches to Workforce Housing in London and Chicago”; Eastland, “Palm Beach Seeks $95 Million Bond to Help House Service Workers.”
[lxxvii] Paulsen and Stuber, “Undoing ResidenHal SegregaHon.”
References
Aalbers, Manuel B. “Introduction To The Forum: From Third To Fifth-Wave Gentrification.” Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie 110, no. 1 (2019): 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12332.
Abu-Lughod, Janet L. From Urban Village to East Village : The Battle for New York’s Lower East Side. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994.
https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130282269108395648.
Alkon, Alison Hope, Yahya Josh Cadji, and Frances Moore. “Subverting the New Narrative: Food, Gentrification and Resistance in Oakland, California.” Agriculture and Human Values 36, no. 4 (December 1, 2019): 793–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-01909954-x.
Anacker, Katrin B. “Inclusionary Zoning and Inclusionary Housing in the United States: Measuring Inputs and Outcomes.” Research Handbook on Community Development, April 20, 2020.
https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781788118460/9781788118460.00018.xml. Anguelovski, Isabelle. “Alternative Food Provision Conflicts in Cities: Contesting Food Privilege, Injustice, and Whiteness in Jamaica Plain, Boston.” Geoforum 58 (January 1, 2015): 184–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.014.
———. “Healthy Food Stores, Greenlining and Food Gentrification: Contesting New Forms of
Privilege, Displacement and Locally Unwanted Land Uses in Racially Mixed Neighborhoods.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39, no. 6 (2015): 1209–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12299.
Atkinson, Rowland. “Losing One’s Place: Narratives of Neighbourhood Change, Market Injustice and Symbolic Displacement.” Housing, Theory and Society 32, no. 4 (October 2, 2015): 373–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2015.1053980.
———. “Necrotecture: Lifeless Dwellings and London’s Super-Rich.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 43, no. 1 (2019): 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/14682427.12707.
———. “Padding the Bunker: Strategies of Middle-Class Disaffiliation and Colonisation in the City.” Urban Studies 43, no. 4 (April 1, 2006): 819–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600597806.
Atkinson, Rowland, Roger Burrows, Luna Glucksberg, Hang Kei Ho, Caroline Knowles, and David Rhodes. “Minimum City? The Deeper Impacts of the ‘Super-Rich’ on Urban Life.”
In Cities and the Super-Rich: Real Estate, Elite Practices and Urban Political Economies, edited by Ray Forrest, Sin Yee Koh, and Bart Wissink, 253–71. The Contemporary City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54834-4_13.
Baldwin, Sophie, Elizabeth Holroyd, and Roger Burrows. “Luxified Troglodytism? Mapping the Subterranean Geographies of Plutocratic London.” Arq : Architectural Research Quarterly 23, no. 3 (September 2019): 267–82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1359135519000356.
Balzarini, John E., and Anne B. Shlay. “Gentrification and the Right to the City: Community Conflict and Casinos.” Journal of Urban Affairs 38, no. 4 (October 1, 2016): 503–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12226.
Bandauko, Elmond, Godwin Arku, and Hanson Nyantakyi-Frimpong. “A Systematic Review of
Gated Communities and the Challenge of Urban Transformation in African Cities.”
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 37, no. 1 (March 1, 2022): 339–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09840-1.
Baumgartner, M. P. The Moral Order of a Suburb. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Baxandall, Rosalyn Fraad, and Elizabeth Ewen. Picture Windows: How The Suburbs Happened. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
Bearman, Peter. Doormen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Beck, Brenden. “Policing Gentrification: Stops and Low–Level Arrests during Demographic Change and Real Estate Reinvestment.” City & Community 19, no. 1 (March 1, 2020): 245–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12473.
Benson, Michaela, and Emma Jackson. “From Class to Gentrification and Back Again.” In Handbook of Gentrification Studies, 63–80. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781785361739/9781785361739.00014.xml.
———. “Place-Making and Place Maintenance: Performativity, Place and Belonging among the Middle Classes.” Sociology 47, no. 4 (August 1, 2013): 793–809.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038512454350.
Blakely, Edward J., and Mary Gail Snyder. Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997.
Boterman, Willem R., Dorien Manting, and Sako Musterd. “Understanding the Social Geographies of Urban Regions through the Socio-Economic and Cultural Dimension of Class.” Population, Space and Place 24, no. 5 (2018): e2130.
https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2130.
Brooks, Richard R. W., and Carol M. Rose. Saving the Neighborhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Brown-Saracino, Japonica. A Neighborhood That Never Changes: Gentrification, Social Preservation, and the Search for Authenticity. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
———. “Explicating Divided Approaches to Gentrification and Growing Income Inequality.” Annual Review of Sociology 43 (2017): 515–39. https://doiorg.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053427.
———. The Gentrification Debates: A Reader. Routledge, 2013.
Burnett, Katherine. “Commodifying Poverty: Gentrification and Consumption in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.” Urban Geography 35, no. 2 (February 17, 2014): 157–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.867669.
Burrows, Roger, and Caroline Knowles. “The ‘HAVES’ and the ‘HAVE YACHTS’: Socio- Spatial Struggles in London between the ‘Merely Wealthy’ and the ‘Super- Rich.’” Cultural Politics 15, no. 1 (March 1, 2019): 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1215/174321977289528.
Busà, Alessandro. The Creative Destruction of New York City: Engineering the City for the Elite.
Illustrated edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Butler, Tim. “Thinking Global but Acting Local: The Middle Classes in the City.” Sociological Research Online 7, no. 3 (August 1, 2002): 50–68. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.740.
Butler, Tim, and Loretta Lees. “Super-Gentrification in Barnsbury, London: Globalization and
Gentrifying Global Elites at the Neighbourhood Level.” Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 31, no. 4 (December 1, 2006): 467–87.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00220.x.
Butler, Tim, and Garry Robson. London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Remaking of Inner London. First Edition edition. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2003.
Caldeira, Teresa P. R. City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in São Paulo. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000.
Carpenter, Juliet, and Loretta Lees. “Gentrification in New York, London and Paris: An International Comparison.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 19, no. 2 (1995): 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1995.tb00505.x.
Centner, Ryan. “Places of Privileged Consumption Practices: Spatial Capital, the Dot-Com Habitus, and San Francisco’s Internet Boom.” City & Community 7, no. 3 (2008): 193– 223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2008.00258.x.
Centner, Ryan, and Manoel Pereira Neto. “Peril, Privilege, and Queer Comforts: The Nocturnal Performative Geographies of Expatriate Gay Men in Dubai.” Geoforum 127 (December 1, 2021): 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.09.007.
Ceron-Anaya, Hugo. Privilege at Play: Class, Race, Gender, and Golf in Mexico. Oxford University Press, 2019.
Charles, Suzanne Lanyi. “A Typology of Mansionization in the Inner-Ring Suburbs of Chicago, Illinois, 2000–2015.” Housing Policy Debate 28, no. 6 (November 2, 2018): 832–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2018.1469528.
Clark, Eric. “The Order and Simplicity of Gentrification: A Political Challenge.” In Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism, 261–69. Routledge, 2005. http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/620935.
Cocola-Gant, Agustín. “Place-Based Displacement: Touristification and Neighborhood Change.” Geoforum 138 (January 1, 2023): 103665.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.103665.
Cocola-Gant, Agustin, and Antonio Lopez-Gay. “Transnational Gentrification, Tourism and the Formation of ‘Foreign Only’ Enclaves in Barcelona.” Urban Studies 57, no. 15 (November 1, 2020): 3025–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020916111.
Coulson, N. Edward, and Robin M. Leichenko. “Historic Preservation and Neighbourhood Change.” Urban Studies (Routledge) 41, no. 8 (July 2004): 1587–1600.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000227028.
Cresswell, Tim. Place: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
Darrah-Okike, Jennifer. “Disrupting the Growth Machine: Evidence from Hawai‘i.” Urban Affairs Review 55, no. 2 (March 1, 2019): 428–61.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417704973.
Davidson, Mark. “Displacement, Space and Dwelling: Placing Gentrification Debate.” Ethics, Place & Environment 12, no. 2 (June 1, 2009): 219–34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13668790902863465.
———. “Spoiled Mixture: Where Does State-Led `Positive’ Gentrification End?” Urban Studies 45, no. 12 (November 1, 2008): 2385–2405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098008097105.
Davison, Gethin, Kim Dovey, and Ian Woodcock. “‘Keeping Dalston Different’: Defending Place-Identity in East London.” Planning Theory & Practice 13, no. 1 (March 1, 2012): 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.649909.
Dawkins, Casey, Jae Sik Jeon, and Gerrit-Jan Knaap. “Creating and Preserving Affordable
Homeownership Opportunities: Does Inclusionary Zoning Make Sense?” Journal of
Planning Education and Research 37, no. 4 (December 1, 2017): 444–56.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16659763.
Deener, Andrew. Venice: A Contested Bohemia in Los Angeles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.
Ding, Hao, and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. “Racism by Design?” Journal of the American Planning Association 0, no. 0 (June 29, 2022): 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2022.2058065.
Dolgon, Corey. The End of the Hamptons: Scenes from the Class Struggle in America’s Paradise. New York, NY: NYU Press, 2005.
Douglass, Mike, Bart Wissink, and Ronald van Kempen. “Enclave Urbanism In China: Consequences and Interpretations.” Urban Geography 33, no. 2 (February 1, 2012): 167– 82. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.2.167.
Duncan, James S., and Nancy G. Duncan. Landscapes of Privilege. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Durkin, Catherine. “The Exclusionary Effect of Mansionization: Area Variances Undermine Efforts to Achieve Housing Affordability Comment.” Catholic University Law Review 55, no. 2 (2006 2005): 439–72.
Eastland, Maggie. “Palm Beach Seeks $95 Million Bond to Help House Service Workers.” Bloomberg.Com, June 17, 2024. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-0617/palm-beach-seeks-95-million-bond-to-stop-exodus-of-garbage-men.
Elwood, Sarah, Victoria Lawson, and Samuel Nowak. “Middle-Class Poverty Politics: Making Place, Making People.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105, no. 1 (January 2, 2015): 123–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.968945.
Epstein, Kathleen, Julia H. Haggerty, and Hannah Gosnell. “With, Not for, Money: Ranch Management Trajectories of the Super-Rich in Greater Yellowstone.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 112, no. 2 (February 7, 2022): 432–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2021.1930512.
Falzon, Mark-Anthony. “Paragons of Lifestyle: Gated Communities and the Politics of Space in Bombay.” City & Society 16, no. 2 (2004): 145–67.
https://doi.org/10.1525/city.2004.16.2.145.
Farrell, Justin. Billionaire Wilderness: The Ultra-Wealthy and the Remaking of the American West. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020.
Firey, Walter. Land Use in Central Boston. Reprint 2013 ed. edition. Harvard University Press, 1947.
Freeland, Chrystia. Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else. Penguin, 2012.
Freeman, Lance. There Goes the Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Temple University Press, 2011.
Frias, Sónia, and Cristina Udelsmann Rodrigues. “Private Condominiums in Luanda: More than Just the Safety of Walls, a New Way of Living.” Social Dynamics 44, no. 2 (May 4, 2018): 341–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2018.1487750.
Gieryn, Thomas F. “A Space for Place in Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 26, no. 1 (2000): 463–96. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.463.
Glass, Ruth. London: Aspects of Change. London: Centre for Urban Studies and MacGibbon and Kee, 1964.
Gonzalez, Sara, and Paul Waley. “Traditional Retail Markets: The New Gentrification Frontier?” Antipode 45, no. 4 (2013): 965–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01040.x.
Gotham, Kevin Fox. “Tourism Gentrification: The Case of New Orleans’ Vieux Carre (French Quarter).” Urban Studies 42, no. 7 (June 1, 2005): 1099–1121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500120881.
Gravari-Barbas, Maria. “Super-Gentrification and Hyper-Tourismification in Le Marais, Paris.” In Tourism and Gentrification in Contemporary Metropolises: International Perspectives, 313–42. London and New York: Routledge, 2017.
Greenberg, Miriam. Branding New York: How a City in Crisis Was Sold to the World. Routledge, 2009.
Grevstad-Nordbrock, Ted, and Igor Vojnovic. “Heritage-Fueled Gentrification: A Cautionary Tale from Chicago.” Journal of Cultural Heritage 38 (July 1, 2019): 261–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.08.004.
Grisdale, Sean. “Displacement by Disruption: Short-Term Rentals and the Political Economy of ‘Belonging Anywhere’ in Toronto.” Urban Geography 42, no. 5 (July 17, 2019): 654–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1642714.
Hackworth, Jason. The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2007.
Hayden, Dolores. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000. Vintage Books, 2004.
Herbert, Claire W., and Martin J. Murray. “Building from Scratch: New Cities, Privatized Urbanism and the Spatial Restructuring of Johannesburg after Apartheid.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39, no. 3 (2015): 471–94.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12180.
Hillyard, S. “‘My Toothbrush Isn’t Foaming’: The Changing Status of the Rural Upper Class.” Discover Society, no. 3 (December 3, 2013). https://durhamrepository.worktribe.com/output/1458234.
Huante, Alfredo. “A Lighter Shade of Brown? Racial Formation and Gentrification in Latino Los Angeles.” Social Problems 68, no. 1 (January 18, 2021): 63–79.
https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz047.
Hubbard, Phil. The Battle for the High Street: Retail Gentrification, Class and Disgust. Springer, 2017.
Hyra, Derek S. Race, Class, and Politics in the Cappuccino City. University of Chicago Press, 2017.
Inglis, Patrick. Narrow Fairways: Getting By & Falling Behind in the New India. Oxford University Press, 2019.
Jack, Anthony Abraham. The Privileged Poor: How Elite Colleges Are Failing Disadvantaged Students. The Privileged Poor. Harvard University Press, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674239647.
Jackson, Emma, and Michaela Benson. “Neither ‘Deepest, Darkest Peckham’ nor ‘Run-of-theMill’ East Dulwich: The Middle Classes and Their ‘Others’ in an Inner-London Neighbourhood.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38, no. 4 (2014): 1195–1210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12129.
Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. 1st edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Khan, Shamus Rahman. Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School.
Princeton University Press, 2021.
Kuhlmann, Daniel. “Upzoning and Single-Family Housing Prices.” Journal of the American Planning Association 0, no. 0 (February 16, 2021): 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1852101.
Kuppinger, Petra. “Exclusive Greenery: New Gated Communities in Cairo.” City & Society 16, no. 2 (2004): 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1525/city.2004.16.2.35.
Lacy, Karyn. “The New Sociology of Suburbs: A Research Agenda for Analysis of Emerging Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology 42, no. Volume 42, 2016 (July 30, 2016): 369–84. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145657.
Lacy, Karyn R. “Black Spaces, Black Places: Strategic Assimilation and Identity Construction in Middle-Class Suburbia.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27, no. 6 (November 1, 2004): 908– 30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141987042000268521.
Lazarovic, Rebecca, David Paton, and Lisa Bornstein. “Approaches to Workforce Housing in London and Chicago: From Targeted Sectors to Income-Based Eligibility.” Housing Studies 31, no. 6 (August 17, 2016): 651–71.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2015.1121214.
Lees, Loretta. “Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance?” Urban Studies 45, no. 12 (November 1, 2008): 2449–70.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098008097099.
———. “Super-Gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City.” Urban Studies 40, no. 12 (November 1, 2003): 2487–2509.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000136174.
Lees, Loretta, and Martin Phillips. Handbook of Gentrification Studies. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
Lees, Loretta, Hyun Bang Shin, and Ernesto López-Morales. Planetary Gentrification. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. Gentrification. 1st edition. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007.
Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. 1st edition. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 1992.
Lehavi, Amnon, ed. Private Communities and Urban Governance: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. 1st ed. 2016 edition. New York, NY: Springer, 2016.
Li, Wei. Ethnoburb: The New Ethnic Community in Urban America. University of Hawaii Press, 2008.
Lloyd, Richard. Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Postindustrial City. Routledge, 2010.
Loder, Kimya, and Forrest Stuart. “Displacement Frames: How Residents Perceive, Explain and Respond to Un-Homing in Black San Francisco.” Urban Studies, November 28, 2022, 00420980221131231. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980221131231.
Low, Setha. Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. 1st edition. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Lung-Amam, Willow. “That ‘Monster House’ Is My Home: The Social and Cultural Politics of Design Reviews and Regulations.” Journal of Urban Design 18, no. 2 (May 1, 2013):
220–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.772880.
———. Trespassers?: Asian Americans and the Battle for Suburbia. Univ of California Press, 2017.
Matthews, Peter, Glen Bramley, and Annette Hastings. “Homo Economicus in a Big Society:
Understanding Middle-Class Activism and NIMBYism towards New Housing
Developments.” Housing, Theory and Society 32, no. 1 (January 2, 2015): 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2014.947173.
Matthews, Peter, and Annette Hastings. “Middle-Class Political Activism and Middle-Class Advantage in Relation to Public Services: A Realist Synthesis of the Evidence Base.” Social Policy & Administration 47, no. 1 (2013): 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14679515.2012.00866.x.
McCabe, Brian J., and Ingrid Gould Ellen. “Does Preservation Accelerate Neighborhood Change? Examining the Impact of Historic Preservation in New York City.” Journal of the American Planning Association 82, no. 2 (Spring 2016): 134–46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2015.1126195.
Mele, Christopher. Selling the Lower East Side: Culture, Real Estate, and Resistance in New York City. U of Minnesota Press, 2000.
Mermet, Anne-Cécile. “Gentrification-Induced Displacement Made Visible: Shop Displacement and Tourism Gentrification in Reykjavík.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 0, no. 0 (2024): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2024.2334222.
Moore, Kesha S. “Gentrification in Black Face?: The Return of the Black Middle Class to Urban Neighborhoods.” Urban Geography 30, no. 2 (February 1, 2009): 118–42.
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.30.2.118.
Moser, Sarah, and Laurence Côté-Roy. “New Cities: Power, Profit, and Prestige.” Geography Compass 15, no. 1 (2021): e12549. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12549.
Moser, Sarah, Marian Swain, and Mohammed H. Alkhabbaz. “King Abdullah Economic City:
Engineering Saudi Arabia’s Post-Oil Future.” Cities 45 (June 1, 2015): 71–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.03.001.
Navarrete Escobedo, David. “Foreigners as Gentrifiers and Tourists in a Mexican Historic District.” Urban Studies 57, no. 15 (November 1, 2020): 3151–68.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019896532.
Nelson, Robert Henry. Private Neighborhoods and the Transformation of Local Government. The Urban Insitute, 2005.
Ocejo, Richard E. “From Apple to Orange: Narratives of Small City Migration and Settlement among the Urban Middle Class.” Sociological Perspectives 62, no. 3 (June 1, 2019):
402–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121418819470.
———. Masters of Craft: Old Jobs in the New Urban Economy. Masters of Craft. Princeton University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400884865.
———. “The Early Gentrifier: Weaving a Nostalgia Narrative on the Lower East Side.” City & Community 10, no. 3 (September 1, 2011): 285–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15406040.2011.01372.x.
———. Upscaling Downtown: From Bowery Saloons to Cocktail Bars in New York City. Princeton University Press, 2017.
Pagès-El Karoui, Delphine. “Cosmopolitan Dubai: Consumption and Segregation in a Global City.” In Migration, Urbanity and Cosmopolitanism in a Globalized World. IMISCOE Research Series. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67365-9.
Park, Lisa Sun-Hee, and David Pellow. The Slums of Aspen: Immigrants Vs. the Environment in America’s Eden. NYU Press, 2013.
Patel, Dhara. “Negotiating Identities in the Designs for New Luxury Condominiums in NeoLiberal India.” The International Journal of Design in Society 9 (December 1, 2015): 15– 29. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-1328/CGP/v09i04/38569.
Pattillo, Mary. Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City. University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Paulsen, Krista E., and Jenny Stuber. “Undoing Residential Segregation: Is Housing Access Enough?” Sociology Lens Insights (blog), June 29, 2022.
Peterson, Richard A. “Understanding Audience Segmentation: From Elite and Mass to Omnivore and Univore.” Poetics 21, no. 4 (August 1, 1992): 243–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304422X(92)90008-Q.
Pilgeram, Ryanne. Pushed Out: Contested Development and Rural Gentrification in the US West. University of Washington Press, 2021.
Pinkster, Fenne M, and Willem R Boterman. “When the Spell Is Broken: Gentrification, Urban Tourism and Privileged Discontent in the Amsterdam Canal District.” Cultural Geographies 24, no. 3 (July 1, 2017): 457–72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474017706176.
Pow, Choon-Piew. Gated Communities in China: Class, Privilege and the Moral Politics of the Good Life. London: Routledge, 2009. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876206.
Quammen, Betsy Gaines. True West: Myth and Mending on the Far Side of America. Torrey House Press, 2023.
Rabiei-Dastjerdi, Hamidreza, Gavin McArdle, and William Hynes. “Which Came First, the Gentrification or the Airbnb? Identifying Spatial Patterns of Neighbourhood Change Using Airbnb Data.” Habitat International 125 (July 1, 2022): 102582.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102582.
Roelofsen, Maartje. “Exploring the Socio-Spatial Inequalities of Airbnb in Sofia, Bulgaria.” Erdkunde 72, no. 4 (2018): 313–28.
Rudel, Thomas K., Karen O’Neill, Paul Gottlieb, Melanie McDermott, and Colleen Hatfield.
“From Middle to Upper Class Sprawl? Land Use Controls and Changing Patterns of Real Estate Development in Northern New Jersey.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101, no. 3 (April 25, 2011): 609–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.560062.
Savage, Mike, Gaynor Bagnall, and Brian J. Longhurst. Globalization and Belonging. SAGE, 2004.
Searle, Llerena Guiu. “Constructing Prestige and Elaborating the ‘Professional’: Elite Residential Complexes in the National Capital Region, India.” Contributions to Indian Sociology 47, no. 2 (June 1, 2013): 271–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0069966713482998.
Shatkin, Gavin. Cities for Profit: The Real Estate Turn in Asia’s Urban Politics. Cornell University Press, 2017.
Shen, Jie, and Fulong Wu. “The Development of Master-Planned Communities in Chinese Suburbs: A Case Study of Shanghai’s Thames Town.” Urban Geography 33, no. 2 (February 1, 2012): 183–203. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.2.183.
Sherman, Jennifer. Dividing Paradise: Rural Inequality and the Diminishing American Dream. Univ of California Press, 2021.
Sherman, Rachel. Class Acts: Service and Inequality in Luxury Hotels. University of California Press, 2007.
Sies, Mary Corbin. “Paradise Retained: An Analysis of Persistence in Planned, Exclusive Suburbs, 1880–1980.” Planning Perspectives 12, no. 2 (January 1, 1997): 165–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/026654397364717.
Smith, Neil. “Gentrification and the Rent Gap.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77, no. 3 (September 1, 1987): 462–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678306.1987.tb00171.x.
———. “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy.” Antipode 34, no. 3 (2002): 427–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00249.
———. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. Routledge, 2005.
Stewart, Remy. “Authenticity for Rent? Airbnb Hosts and the Commodification of Urban Displacement.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, no. CSCW2 (November 11, 2022): 493:1-493:28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555594.
Stewart, Robert, Frank Bechhofer, David McCrone, and Richard Kiely. “Keepers of the Land: Ideology and Identities in the Scottish Rural Elite.” Identities 8, no. 3 (September 1, 2001): 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2001.9962697.
Stiman, Meaghan. Privileging Place: How Second Homeowners Transform Communities and Themselves. Princeton University Press, 2024.
Stors, Natalie, and Sebastian Baltes. “Constructing Urban Tourism Space Digitally: A Study of Airbnb Listings in Two Berlin Neighborhoods.” Proceedings of the ACM on HumanComputer Interaction 2, no. CSCW (November 1, 2018): 166:1-166:29.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3274435.
Stuber, Jenny. Aspen and the American Dream: How One Town Manages Inequality in the Era of Supergentrification. Berkeley, CA: Univ of California Press, 2021.
Stuber, Jenny, and Krista E Paulsen. “Understanding Social Class in Place: Responding to Supergentrification in Aspen, Colorado.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, April 5, 2022, 0308518X221090247.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X221090247.
Summers, Brandi Thompson. Black in Place: The Spatial Aesthetics of Race in a Post-Chocolate City. UNC Press Books, 2019.
Szold, Terry S. “Mansionization and Its Discontents: Planners and the Challenge of Regulating Monster Homes.” Journal of the American Planning Association 71, no. 2 (June 30, 2005): 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976692.
Tissot, Sylvie. “Loving Diversity/Controlling Diversity: Exploring the Ambivalent Mobilization of Upper-Middle-Class Gentrifiers, South End, Boston.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38, no. 4 (July 2014): 1181–94.
Törnberg, Petter. “Platform Placemaking and the Digital Urban Culture of Airbnbification.” Urban Transformations 4, no. 1 (March 21, 2022): 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-02200032-w.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. U of Minnesota Press, 1977.
Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Edited by Martha Banta. Reissue edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Watt, Paul. “Living in an Oasis: Middle-Class Disaffiliation and Selective Belonging in an English Suburb.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 41, no. 12 (December 1, 2009): 2874–92. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41120.
Webber, Richard, and Roger Burrows. “Life in an Alpha Territory: Discontinuity and Conflict in an Elite London ‘Village.’” Urban Studies 53, no. 15 (November 1, 2016): 3139–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015612983.
Wilkins, Kathryn. “A Study of the Dominance of the Super-Wealthy in London’s West End during the Nineteenth Century.” In Geographies of the Super-Rich, 110–22. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2013.
https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9780857935687/9780857935687.00014.xml.
Wu, Fulong. “Gated and Packaged Suburbia: Packaging and Branding Chinese Suburban Residential Development.” Cities 27, no. 5 (October 1, 2010): 385–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.06.003.
Zhu, Yushu, Werner Breitung, and Si-ming Li. “The Changing Meaning of Neighbourhood Attachment in Chinese Commodity Housing Estates: Evidence from Guangzhou.” Urban Studies 49, no. 11 (November 1, 2012): 2439–57.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011427188.
Zorbaugh, Harvey Warren. The Gold Coast and the Slum: A Sociological Study of Chicago’s Near North Side. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929.
Zukin, Sharon. “Changing Landscapes of Power: Opulence and the Urge for Authenticity.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33, no. 2 (2009): 543–53.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00867.x.
———. “Consuming Authenticity.” Cultural Studies 22, no. 5 (September 1, 2008): 724–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380802245985.
———. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Zukin, Sharon, and Ervin Kosta. “Bourdieu Off‐Broadway: Managing Distinction on a Shopping Block in the East Village.” City & Community 3, no. 2 (June 1, 2004): 101–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1535-6841.2004.00071.x.
Zukin, Sharon, Valerie Trujillo, Peter Frase, Danielle Jackson, Tim Recuber, and Abraham Walker. “New Retail Capital and Neighborhood Change: Boutiques and Gentrification in New York City.” City & Community 8, no. 1 (March 1, 2009): 47–64.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2009.01269.x.
Charles, “A Typology of MansionizaHon in the Inner-Ring Suburbs of Chicago, Illinois, 2000–2015”; Durkin, “The Exclusionary Effect of MansionizaHon”; Szold, “MansionizaHon and Its Discontents”; Lung-Amam, “That ‘Monster House’ Is My Home.”
Baldwin, Holroyd, and Burrows, “Luxified TroglodyHsm?”; Burrows and Knowles, “The ‘HAVES’ and the ‘HAVE YACHTS’: Socio- SpaHal Struggles in London between the ‘Merely Wealthy’ and the ‘Super- Rich’”; Webber and Burrows, “Life in an Alpha Territory.”
Tuan, Space and Place; Lefebvre, The Produc?on of Space.
Benson and Jackson, “Place-Making and Place Maintenance.”
Benson and Jackson; Elwood, Lawson, and Nowak, “Middle-Class Poverty PoliHcs”; Jackson and Benson, “Neither
‘Deepest, Darkest Peckham’ nor ‘Run-of-the-Mill’ East Dulwich”; Savage, Bagnall, and Longhurst, Globaliza?on and
Belonging; Waf, “Living in an Oasis”; also see Boterman, ManHng, and Musterd, “Understanding the Social
Geographies of Urban Regions through the Socio-Economic and Cultural Dimension of Class.”
Stuber, Aspen and the American Dream; Waf, “Living in an Oasis”; Davidson, “Spoiled Mixture”; Hubbard, The
BaOle for the High Street; Mafhews, Bramley, and HasHngs, “Homo Economicus in a Big Society”; Mafhews and
HasHngs, “Middle-Class PoliHcal AcHvism and Middle-Class Advantage in RelaHon to Public Services.”
differensmagazine.com 