Talk:Gentrification/Archive 2

Numerous examples get tiresome and repetitive
The article now has nine examples (totalling 807 words) of cities where artist-led gentrification has taken place, even though the processes are almost identical in every single city, and *all* are written as anecdote. Over a thousand words are spilled on the two "examples", neither of which is particularly instructive. ALL of these would, IMO, be better placed in the Wikipedia entries about those specific neighborhoods, which, after all, is where people will go to find out about their neighborhood's history; if people want to make sure that their neighborhood is known far and wide as an example of gentrification, then this article can include a very brief set of links to those neighborhoods' articles. Paytonc 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer that only examples with non-web citations be kept. Consolidating the examples under Case Studies was a good move, but it seems like examples keep cropping up elsewhere in the text. I've excised a number of uncited, "me-too" examples which add no geographic diversity and, in some cases, actually contraindicate the text (notably under "Gentrifier Types"). Paytonc (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. People like to throw in their own cities as "me-too"s.  I've been watching this page grow example by example for a while.  A pruning is in order.  I would say leave an example or two as illustration, and get rid of the rest. DarwinPeacock 04:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Double-plus agreed. Such articles should link back and forth rather than having to be long, self-contained blobs of information. Eyedubya (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Numerous examples should be included on the gentrification page, so that ease of access to the information is at a higher point than without them. It would be tedious to instead search through every city of every state looking for examples. It would be of great benefit if either all cities gentrified were stated without examples or if all cities gentrified were stated with a few examples on the gentrification page. Wikipedia, above all else, is about ease of access to information that would otherwise be tedious and time consuming to collect and distribute. 19:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rent Control paragraph
I re-worded the paragraph to be shorter and less biased against rent control. The original paragraph made it sound like rent control causes the dramatic rise in prices, and didn't cite any proof of this. In the two cases mentioned, I think rent control (causing the nubmer of units off the market) didn't have as much an effect on increases in prices than the overall desirability of the areas. I don't think the paragraph is entirely relevant to the issue and should be considered for deletion. 66.245.214.161 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The institution of rent control in West Hollywood, California had nothing to do with gentrification ; it was not an issue in the area east of Fairfax Avenue at the time (i.e. that part closer to Hollywood than to Beverly Hills). The city incorporated in order for rent control to be instituted in the 1980s. Gentrification would not come to eastern West Hollywood until the 1990s. In my opinion, the entire paragraph about rent control being an anti-gentrification tool should be deleted entirely, as gentrification came over a decade after rent control. My friend stan, 17:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(OP here) Now that I think about it, Santa Monica got rent control in the 1970s, partly due to rising land prices, but it wasn't gentrification as it's discussed in the article. Here's a little info: History_of_Santa_Monica,_California. It sounds like it was mostly population increases along the coast causing rising prices. SaMo just had the people who would demand rent control.

I, too, think it's not quite relevant. I at least moved it down to the appropriate "responses" section (it was completely out of place up at the top) and added some language about Boston's repeal of rent control. Paytonc 23:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * reworked the section for better organization and NPOV, mostly. removed the white flight bit, which didn't make much sense here (or elsewhere), and pared the NYC talk as it has its own article. Changed my Mass. statement, which was NPOV and unsourced. Paytonc (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"(...) often including members of minority groups"
(As of 02/Aug/2006.) This is a USA-only concern and may have to do with the correlation between poverty and minority status, especially African Americans in the Northern half of the USA. Elsewhere, gentrification does not necessarily play along these lines, and it can actually boost minority figures, eg ethnic Chinese in South-East Asia, or ethnic Germans and Japanese in Southern Brazil.

Even in North America, this is not necessarily true. For instance, upper-class immigrant Chinese groups have displaced other lower-class groups in Richmond, British Columbia, and Scarborough, Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.40.240 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rephrase or delete. elpincha 12:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Minority group" is a clumsy term but valid in the sense neighborhoods inhabited by marginalized groups are often subject to declines in property value that go beyond a simple association between minority status and poverty. Jonathan Glick 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikification of Influx in intro
As per my last edit: the term influx I have wikified as immigration. Maybe some better ideas to what should it point to? For now I will remove it. --Biblbroks 's talk 08:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

bourgeoisification?
The article on "Gentry" mentions the following: "In American society, gentry is sometimes taken to refer loosely to a highly educated professional upper-middle class, though this is inaccurate sociological terminology as this group usually lacks the aristocratic roots and values of true gentry. This inaccurate sense of the term is what is often perjoratively referred to in the use of the term gentrification, a term that would more accurately be called bourgeoisification."

If this is correct (see Talk page of that entry) I feel this term should be mentioned. 195.24.29.51 13:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was the one who removed "bourgoisification", since that term more generally refers not only to the upscaling of neighborhoods, but upscaling of people and social classes. For example, you could speak of the "bourgoisification of skilled workers", but not of the "gentrification of skilled workers". "Gentrification" in popular useage always refers specifically to the gentrification of neighborhoods and localities. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but the idea that the term "gentrification" is inaccurate in a US context because the US has no "gentry" is making a kind of etymological fallacy. The most frequently used term for the upscaling of a neighborhood is "gentrification", therefore, that should be the title of this article. Peter G Werner 15:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "gentrification" is a British import (read the article already). Just because "gentry" didn't make it over the pond doesn't mean that its descendant can't stand on its own two legs. Paytonc 16:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the entire point of the gentry is that they stand on the backs of the peasantry, of course; but that's just an uppity peasant who can't resist a straight line speaking. -- Orange Mike 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC) (in Brewers Hill)


 * What I mean is that the two pages don't match. If gentrification is acceptable, that quote from the Gentry page is not.85.227.226.235 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent and current regentrification across the country
Take a look at the downtown of almost every major city in the United States today. All are undergoing massive reinvestment, particularly in the form of upscale condos and large commercial ventures, especially so in cities that had experienced decline from post-war suburbanization. Look at Providence, Minneapolis, Detroit, Baltimore, Des Moines, or Los Angeles. This definitely warrants some sort of mention in the article. I was thinking along the lines of "Recent Regentrification in the United States.--Loodog 22:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Regentrification" is not an accepted term, but a blend of "revitalization" and "gentrication". The investment described here is already addressed in the "theory" section of this articleJonathan Glick 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Jonathan Glick

Isn't that an interesting point though. Too frequently, when people talk about gentrification, they take the socio-economic demographic of a neighborhood in the 60's-70's as the "base" to measure change from. In reality, most if not all urban neighborhoods are constantly changing. Many gentrifying neighborhoods were originally built for the middle and upper-middle classes (both black and white). So it would be a more accurate statement to say that many of these neighborhoods are "regentrifying." At the very least this article ought to reflect the idea that there is rarely a pure "base" demographic for any neighborhood. There are likely very, very few neighborhoods in US cities that have been demographicaly static prior to gentrification. --68.48.127.224 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

One example is Footscray, near Melbourne (Footscray is a suburb 5 km west of Melbourne, Australia. Its local government area is the City of Maribyrnong. At the 2011 Census, Footscray had a population of 13,203). It was alleged that Gentrification increase property prices over last 5 years.

Image at top of page
Isn't that from a video game? Like one from of the Grand Theft series?

Minority Sexualities
There is a statement in the text that says, "increased tolerance of minority sexualities". What the heck is a "minority sexuality"? Are we making terms up as we go? CsikosLo 17:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That what I thought when I first read it. And the documentary cited as a referance for the artical, showed that they weren't really that tolerant of a differant group moving in and changing things, specifically the homosexuals. ::::  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dream Focus (talk • contribs).

Remove NPOV tag?
The article still needs a lot of work, but it no longer appears to only represent one viewpoint. The original tagger did not leave an explanation on the discussion page, but looking back through history the opening of the article was in a much worse state when it was tagged. DarwinPeacock 11:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is still very ideologically biased. "does anyone else think ..." much further down this page. Eyedubya (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More examples of Gentrification
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/06/05/olympics.evictions.ap/index.html

Great article that addresses major events (e.g. Olympics, World Cup, Miss Universe, etc...) causing gentrification across the globe. Beijingrob 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that article went off to the great fileserver in the sky.


 * Getting a more global perspective would be excellent. I've seen other articles about government-enforced gentrification in Beijing and other prosperous cities in China. And how does gentrification play out in Moscow and other Russian cities or driven by new oil wealth in Baku, Ajerbaijian? In Hyderabad -- India's Silicon Valley?  Is there gentrification in old urban neighborhoods in Kathmandu? or Lhasa? How about the Middle East?  Venezuela?  South Korea?  Thailand?  Taiwan? Lagos, Nigeria?  LADave (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Great article
I don't see why it is claimed that "The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia". The latter warning sounds a bit prudish.

190.161.124.33 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That means inappropriate, as not in an encyclopedic style: too informal, too much like a magazine narrative, that kind of thing. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  02:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Physically deteriorated neighborhoods
I disagree with the idea that gentrification applies only to "physically deteriorated neighborhoods". In Australia at least, the term generally applies to average suburbia which, for whatever reason, experiences an influx of yuppies. Ryanwiki (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? I've never encountered gentrification striking "average suburbia"; the bargains aren't there, as a rule. Not all places hit by gentrification are decaying slums, of course; but there is generally an element of the declassé (and therefore cheap) about the neighborhoods which suffer from it. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I have. That's the most common form of gentrification in Western Canada; neighbourhoods that were once working-class or middle-class suddenly becoming upper-middle-class (or even upper-class) because they're closer to the downtown financial/employment district. This is partly because the cities with the most gentrification going on don't have inner-city slums at all (Calgary is a prime example, but Edmonton and even Regina come to mind); the slums are in the suburbs, usually in neighbourhoods that are inconveniently located for downtown workers (hence the low wages, poverty, etc.). Another reason is that many of these cities don't have a lot of pre-1945 housing to gentrify: what's being gentrified are the Levittown-style tract houses built during the baby boom. --NellieBly (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All Western Canadian cities have -- or had, before gentrification -- slums in their cores, or very close to them. Calgary, for example, has to this day an inner-city slum: Victoria Park. And the poor, run-down Inglewood/Ramsey area -- which was commonly, and rightly, thought of as a slum -- was thoroughly gentrified and became one of THE hip (and expensive) 'hoods to live by the late 90s. Before that it was Kensignton. Western Canadian cities' experiences of gentrification aren't fundamentally different from others', except that being smaller and newer they tend to lack the same kind of large inner-city neighborhoods found in many eastern cities. --70.81.230.148 (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Only in terms of physical appearance - not necessarily in terms of actual property prices. However, definitions of gentrification vary to the extent that a more over-arching description refers to any area where a lower SES class is replaced by a higer one - so this may include formerly non-residential neighbourhoods that are redeveloped as residential ones, meaning that a productive land use (industry or commerce) is replaced with consumption by home-owners in white collar sectors. Eyedubya (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge-in proposal-renewed June 2008
There's a new page called Migration of the disadvantaged that I think may duplicate information in this article. Could someone who knows about these things take a look? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just waking up this old thread again. I think these are the same things, just going under the Finnish name in the other article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the content would be useful in our article, the thing is the topic of outward migration I don't think is solely on gentrification. Gent refers to a physical displacement, outward migration could be caused by lack of jobs and raised real estate everywhere. Merge content but not the pages .:davumaya:. 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view
The article does not represent a worldwide view, as another aspect of this cycle relates to bedroom communities, known as dormotory communities in the UK. I have been working on an artical to illistrate this on another page as part of an issue there, that prehaps I shall include here. Drachenfyre (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do, please run a spellcheck first. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Middle class displacement
"The opposite side of the cycle is neighborhood deterioration, which also results in "displacement," in this case of the existing, usually middle-class residents, by lower-income residents, as housing values decline."

Though not necessarily inaccurate, this statement in the first paragraph seems poorly written and clumsily opinionated. Is this better?-->

The opposite of gentrification is neighborhood decay, when lack of sufficient individual, local or government investment allows for housing stock to deteriorate. Existing residents are "displaced" by increasingly lower-income residents as housing values decline.

--Knulclunk (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentrification in San Francisco: Mission Yuppie Eradication Project
During the dot-com boom of the late 1990's and the attendent rapid gentrification of San Francisco's Mission District, an effort called the Mission Yuppie Eradication Project drew the attention of both the news media and the San Francisco Police Department:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/06/07/MN91476.DTL

http://search.sfweekly.com/1998-12-16/news/dog-bites/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_19990718/ai_n13939949

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/06/04/NEWS15342.dtl

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CEED71E3EF930A25751C0A9669C8B63

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/990628/archive_001317.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/aug/09/duncancampbell

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/28/internet/

http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/solnit_hollow_city.shtml

http://www.suck.com/daily/99/07/07/nc_index4.html

Marre des start-up! L'enragé de San Francisco. Kevin Keating veut ... Libération - quotidien deuxième édition - 28-04-2000 - 722 mots RICHARD Emmanuelle

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/myep_criticism.html

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/cw_posters4.html

(Miasnikov (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)MiasnikovMiasnikov (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Thank you for these sources, they'll be useful for the text or as another case study. .:davumaya:. 16:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone else think this article needs a "right of center" view on it?" -- More right-wing bias needed?
The article as it stands, at least at the beginning, is a panegyric to the glories of mass displacement of wage earners and poor people by real estate speculation, and a song of homage to various canards of market "libertarian" dogma.

For example,

"urban gentrification, is a term applied to that part of the urban housing cycle in which physically deteriorated neighborhoods attract an influx of investment and undergo physical renovation and an increase in property market values. In many cases, the lower-income residents who occupied the neighborhood prior to its renovation can no longer afford properties there. [1][2]

Proponents of gentrification focus on the benefits of urban renewal, such as renewed investment in physically deteriorating locales, improved access to lending capital for low-income mortgage seekers as their property values increase, increased rates of lending to minority and first-time home purchasers to invest in the now-appreciating area and improved physical conditions for renters.[3] Gentrification has been linked to reductions in crime rates, increased property values, increased revenue to local governments from property taxes, increased tolerance of sexual minorities,[4] and renewed community activism.[citation needed] The opposite of gentrification is neighborhood decay and an increasing concentration of poverty, when lack of sufficient individual, local or government investment allows for housing stock to deteriorate."

This is complete hogwash. The first market ideological canard here is to define all neighborhoods targeted by real estate speculation as "physically deteriorated." It may be true in some cases but it isn't by any means some kind of general across-the-board rule, the way it is presented here. It wasn't true of San Francisco's Mission District, for example; the speculators sold luxury condos to the yups there in part because the Mission has some of the nicest weather in the city -- along with all those cool hipster bars and colorful "ethnic" eateries.

Our adventure in commodity ideology goes on to editorialize: "Gentrification has been linked to reductions in crime rates, increased property values, increased revenue to local governments from property taxes, increased tolerance of sexual minorities,[4] and renewed community activism." (sic!)

Presumably the "renewed community activism" refered to here in a mystified right-wing way is the upheaval sometimes generated among the hoi polloi when the gentry arrive to embourgeosify the neighborhood, rake in the bucks and kick the proles out of their homes. Where does our market "libertarian" thinker think that all those homeless people in the richest country in the world come from, anyway? Industrial-scale homelessness in the United States is to some degree a function of gentrification.

The not-so-hidden assumptions at work in wikipedia's gentrification entry is that human beings are first, foremost and solely hyper-atomized economic animals in a relentless sociopathic war of all against all, and not social animals capable of cooperating to satisfy one anothers basic material needs. And that human needs, in this case for housing, are of no importance compared with the profit hunger of an exploitative private sector elite.

Gentrification, like the words exploitation and inequality, is the word for a vicious and ugly phenomenon fundamental to market society. This wikipedia article deserves some sarcastic credit for having the balls-out arrogance to herald mass dispossession of working people and low income people for profit as something positive.

(Miasnikov (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)MiasnikovMiasnikov (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Miasnikov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miasnikov (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What negative impacts of gentrification do you view as overlooked?--Knulclunk (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article plays both sides. If you feel the article has an improper bias, feel free to bring in new sources that you think would balance it.--Loodog (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been watching this article for a while and I'd agree with those who think it is a bit ideologically POV. The lead does it, by using the term 'the housing cycle' without linking it to anything that can explain this singularly market-liberal economic view of housing provision. There are many modes of housing provision, there is no single 'housing cycle', but in a few short sentences, all other forms of 'housing cycle' are occluded, and gentrification is naturalised. I'd strongly support a major revision to the lead section to set the context for revisions to the rest of the article that better meet the requirements of NPOV etc. Eyedubya (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence from the lead that states the [opposite of/alternative to] gentrification is decay.--Loodog (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to 'urban housing cycle' that makes it clear that there are many modes of urban development and housing provision? If not, the revisions to the lead will require more than merely removing the other side of this rather simplistic binary. Eyedubya (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed rest of "urban cycle" language, along with unnecessary "deteriorating neighborhoods". A neighborhood does not have to be deteriorating to be gentrified. This places the actions on the investment and the impact on the existing residents; the two major concepts of gentrification. Both are dealt with NPOV now, at least in the introduction. Thoughts? --Knulclunk (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just done a bit of copy-editing on it to shift it further in the direction it needs to go for NPOV. Eyedubya (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC), IWW I.U. 660 (lives in a neighborhood where his annual property tax bill has just caught up with the original price of the house due to gentrification)

The opening is now much better than it was. The previous opening could have been a good example for a wikipedia entry on "reification" instead of gentrification; market relations were presented as some sort of dynamic living organism autonomous from and superior to human beings and their needs.

Miasnikov (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)miasnikovMiasnikov (talk) 05:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunno about this. Not all cases of rising housing costs are properly called "gentrification."  If you are a wealthy, educated, racially privileged person with a lovely home in a wealthy area, and your neighborhood becomes a particularly fashionable and extremely wealthy area, so that your income is now below average on your street, you really can't claim that you're a victim of gentrification.
 * Gentrification must have an element of class change: the working class leaves because wealthier people ("the gentry") outbid them for housing on an open market.  Mere changes in price (e.g., due to inflation) are not enough.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * gentrification.--Loodog (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The definition supports my position: if you are an affluent person in an affluent neighborhood, then the addition of even more affluent people is not gentrification -- even if the newer residents are wealthier than you and are willing to pay a higher price than you to live in that neighborhood.  Gentrification is about the influx of relatively wealthy people into a place that did not already have (very many) (relatively) wealthy people in it.  Larry Ellison can't cry about gentrification if Warren Buffett and and Bill Gates move next door, even if the average market price of the nearby properties goes up as a result.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with posts above that gentrification is very much, as the name implies, a phenomenon of class conflict and class struggle over social space where working people and low-income people are driven out by what's accurately called in French "embourgeosification." Miasnikov (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) miasnikov Miasnikov (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like lots of things have been discussed and the article has evolved well. I just want to note, I'm not quite sure how politics (left vs right) enters into this article topic. Gentrification is not a public policy. 2) I also agree with Consensus that gentrification must be of significant displacement of a lower class by an upper class in an existing urbanized environment. For example a farmer sells his land and overnight the town becomes suburbia. That's really land development or urbanization, not necessarily gentrification even though the new residents likely have "taken over" the town. However to clarify on WhatamIDoing's point, a neighborhood could be regarded as gentrifying even if no class displacement is happening because a significant wealthier population is moving in. The real estate market might or might not be affected because it's not always apparent than an area is hip to live in. The truest form of gentrification is an urbanized area that has a significant and long history of a lower class and income that overtime changes to the point where a majority of this class can no longer live there. .:davumaya:. 20:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gentrification is political because decisions made (or shirked) by local and regional governments affect the rate of gentrification. Rent control, for example, can reduce the likelihood of rents rising above the rates that an established resident can afford.  Rising property values and wealthier residents bring in more tax dollars.  Significant changes in the class of people living in an area also bring significant changes in voting patterns.  A long-term local politician might not be favored by a wealthier group of voters.  Even thought it's caused by economics (in the sense of the relative value that we place on different things, and our relative resources for paying for what we most want), gentrification has a significant political component.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It can have a political slant to it even if policies aren't involved. The traditional "left" viewpoint here would be the disadvantaged people forced from their homes by callous economic trends, the little guy getting shafted by powerful people again, vanquishing the character and traditional culture of a neighborhood.  The "right" viewpoint is along the lines of "What? The land is being used in a less than optimal manner and there are people willing to pay much more for it than current residents.  This makes the neighborhood more usable and spurs economic activity and revenue in the area.--Loodog (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I see what you mean. Well we can avoid placing political labels by simply detailing the effects of gentrification each as separate points rather than competing points. That will ensure that we don't end up with anonymous IPs trying to edit out one perspective over the other. We may have to do our own straw poll or mini-RfC (as I call them) eventually if we run into obstacles. .:davumaya:. 19:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Darien St
Quote:
 * The average rent increased 488%—from $85 to $500 a month. Homes previously sold for $5,000 were sold in 1981 for $35,000. 

Any inflation figures? 118.90.35.237 (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are asking for inflation figures to be added? .:davumaya:. 14:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah probably, if it will add to understanding the article, but I was thinking more something along the lines of "(1981 dollars)" etc. Just wondering if the "$5,000" and "$35,000" are measured using the same dollars, even though I get that the sentence wants to emphasize that the rent went up rather than what the rent was. Sorry for being a nitpicker... 118.90.35.237 (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup, explanations July 2008
Okay after a few weeks of dealing with this article, I've come to realize a few things about it that should be noted here as we go on editing it.

Structure
 * The article is structured as such: Lead, Causes (of), Roles (of groups), How its controlled (gen.), How its promoted (gen.), Case Studies
 * This structure is actually very good, it means we can talk about gentrification without directly having a pro or con section hanging over our heads (I removed the "Effects of Gen..." and incorporated those paragraphs in other sections.)
 * Each section also allows us to talk about a specific part of gentrification so that we don't have to generalize.

References
 * This has become contentious, even I missed examining the SocyBerty source which I had added. This topic is too "controversial" which in WP terms means that it is prone to knee-jerk reverts and slams. As such, we cannot simply rely on a full References list. We need to provide in-line citations to every assertion in the text and overtime we will phase out the Ref list (please note by new WP MoS policy, the previous in-line citation "reflist" is now being called the Notes list, don't get confused.)

Tone/Neutral
 * I removed the tone flag, the tone is fine its not really written out of place, I think the flagger did not understand what that flag meant. However neutrality is indeed a little whacked out. We need to comb through and revise any statement with the words "opponents, critics, proponents, positive, negative, etc." There is always a way to rephrase a sentence to "state the facts" as opposed to "who said what."

Case Studies
 * Been talked about before, y'know where do we draw the line, how many case studies do we add? For now, my thought is to have at least five case studies and each representing either another country or a really really unique example of gentrification. Also each case study needs to be trimmed down. I think the Darien St study is well-written but it can be summarized in two paragraphs or less.

Global context
 * This will be our greatest challenge. It will mean asking more British users to help assist (I mean hell the source of the word comes from a British sociologist). Particularly I've wanted to include more citations from France because that is where it is a very polar opposite to America (there the poor live in suburbs and gentrification is outside the major cities). Also other countries might not exactly see gentrification as we do, it might not even take on the same connotation. In China's major cities they are razing blocks of shantytowns overnight and the semi-socialist/communist system means those people are wildly compensated or relocated back into the new buildings (which also happen overnight). Gentri happens WAY faster in developing parts of the world that it is considered normal.

Those thoughts for now. .:davumaya:. 15:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me at the MoS changes? Because we're Round in Circles on that very issue at WP:LAYOUT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * References
 * WHAAAAAT, its still not resolved? Last I saw Notes was the preferred and someone over at my wikiproject is stating to convert everything to Notes. Oh I don't care, we can use Notes or Refs it all means the same to me until they make up their minds. .:davumaya:. 06:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Two questions
Overall I have no problems with the recent changes in this article. However, I do have two questions:

The lead talks about a "decline in racial diversity". Is this really a decline in diversity, or is this displacement of minority groups? To explain by example: a neighborhood that is 100% African-American has zero diversity because everyone is "the same". Adding a bunch of white people to this neighborhood would increase diversity. Is the 'decline in voter turnout' the rate or the absolute number of voters? It seems to me that if you replace a large household with a single person, that the number of potentially eligible voters will necessarily decline.
 * 1. Increase vs. decrease:
 * 2. Voter turnout:

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're technically right that diversity is increasing. I believe the original intent of this statement is that white people are blotting out racial diversity by becoming the majority where they are not. There's also a bit of assumption that racial diversity means anything but white. We should change it. As well, considering how the "gentry" in America is becoming less race and more an income class group, this would make sense.


 * I don't really like the source for this section. I would assume its the rate of voter turnout and the assumption that bougeoies don't like to vote. I don't think gentri necessarily takes down the number of adults as we see in new condos and conversions but there is definitely a lag time before that happens. .:davumaya:. 06:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The addition of Race X to a neighborhood that is entirely Race Y never "blots out racial diversity" -- quite the opposite, in fact. I'll fix the wording.
 * The article asserts smaller household sizes in gentrified area, but perhaps the effect is largely the loss of kids. At any rate, the source ought to have specified whether the figures were calculated as an absolute number or as a rate of eligible voters, and we should specify that critical detail here.  (Also, areas with high turnover for any reason often see declining numbers of voters [by both counts], because you often have to register to vote a month before the election.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Diversity can be seen as essentially anything that is not the majority. The majority of Americans are Caucasian, who make up 72% of the total American population (http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf). Diversity then becomes a function of the majority vs. the amount of non-majority. If the numbers were more equal (in terms of population), then the speil about "diversity increasing" would be correct. So if the majority (i.e. the Caucasian population) increases in an area, there is in fact a loss of diversity, because the diversity is being relegated to another part of the city/state/nation. Caucasian people who identify solely as such can never be apart of the variable diversity unless their numbers decrease, or if their numbers are matched by at least two other groups that are non-Caucasian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a strange definition of diversity, which could allow all forms of actions to increase diversity that would otherwise be deemed racist. --64.149.42.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

CBD?
The abbreviation CBD appears twice in the article, but no where does it say what that stands for. I looked it up on google and couldn't find it. Could someone who knows give a definition with (CBD) following it, like "Creative Business Development (CBD)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.30.28 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It means "central business district" as in the Downtown where all the big business takes place. I'll make sure its clarified. It's not a familiar acronym to people outside of metropolitan areas. .:davumaya:. 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline in proportion of racial minorities?
I think it should be pointed out that this statement if somewhat US-centric. Gentrification actually doesn't imply a "decline in the proportion of racial minorities", this only happens in the US because most of the racial minorities have lesser incomes. For example, in Vancouver, Canada (where I am from), it is unlikely that gentrification of an area would lead to a decline in the population of some racial minorities, being that many of the wealthiest areas of Vancouver are already predominantly populated with racial minorities. For example, "New Japantown" in downtown Vancouver is a very wealthy part of the downtown.

I'm not necessarily for deletion of this sentence, but I just wanted to open up a debate and see if anyone sees my point of view as well (then we can talk deletion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.59.86 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Overall, I agree. It might be better to say "decline in the proportion of disadvantaged racial minorities".  Changing racial demographics is a major complaint in the US and it has significant political impacts, but something the "decline" of racial minorities means that an African-American moves out, and an Asian-American moves in.  Also, historically, gentrification is responsible for diluting traditionally "ethnic" neighborhoods, as a (Polish, Italian, Czech, Chinese, etc.) immigrant moves out, and anyone else moves in.  (That was back when we called this de-ghetto-ing process "progress".)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just went and read the reference for this claim, and I don't think it contains any of the information required to back up the claim. In fact, I think it is an entirely inappropriate reference:  It's more or less a narrative written by a minister who moved to a poor suburb of Atlanta, wherein he details his personal experience with gentrification in his neighbourhood.  He also gives instructions on how to use gentrification for the advancement of one's ministry.   I think this sentence and reference should be removed? 24.81.13.14 (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will agree that such a reference is not really sufficient, but I suspect that good, scholarly references exist. Why not tag it with  instead of removing it?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cities most affected by gentrification
This new section seems unsourced and completely arbitrary. Are only modern US cities affected? I know that from personal, original experience, downtown Baltimore went through a VERY controversial wave of gentrification with the construction of the Inner Harbor/Harborplace 1978-1980. Should I just toss that onto the pile? I recommend deleting the section. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but perhaps we'll wait another half a day and see if there are any other views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, this section looks to be completely and utterly useless -- it will eventually grow to include everywhere, which means that it might as well include nowhere. I fought to prune the "examples" back (possibly even to delete it and link to narratives elsewhere); this list doesn't even provide any context or information to the user. VERY highly recommend deletion. Paytonc (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's completely sourced now, with an HTML note to not add an example without a source.--Loodog (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate editorializing comment axed
This comment about San Francisco's Mission Yuppie Eradication Project:

"In addition to being unpopular, these tactics ultimately failed due to the inability to recruit more than a small minority of the population as participants."

Belongs in a discussion about the Mission Yuppie Eradication Project and not in a breif mention of this as part of a quick reference to sabotage and vandalizism as tool in opposition to gentrification.

The author of the brief comment was obviously not in San Francisco's Mission District during the time in question, or they would not be able to honestly make a statement of this sort.

Miasnikov (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC) miasnikov Miasnikov (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gobbledegook sentence
The following sentence was at the end of the introduction:

Because gentrification originated as a US socio-economic phenomenon, its proponents claim it reduces local property crime, and its opponents claim it merely displaces crime to the city’s other poor neighborhoods, comprehending urban gentrification—as reported in urban geography and urban sociology—is fundamental to understanding the market-driven social class relations of US society.

This sentence is mainly objectionable because it is meaningless, not because of its content. It looks like something from a buzzword generator.

"Because gentrification originated as a US socio-economic phenomenon," What? Gentrification has occurred since well before the US was a twinkle in history's eye. Even the word is not of US origin.

"Because gentrification originated as a US socio-economic phenomenon, its proponents claim it reduces local property crime, and its opponents claim it merely displaces crime to the city’s other poor neighborhoods" What does this mean? Where is the connection? Or is the meaning of this bit "Because gentrification originated as a US socio-economic phenomenon, AND BECAUSE its proponents claim it reduces local property crime, and its opponents claim it merely displaces crime to the city’s other poor neighborhoods, THEN ..."?

Let's break it up:
 * 1) Because gentrification originated as a US socio-economic phenomenon, AND BECAUSE its proponents claim it reduces local property crime, and its opponents claim it merely displaces crime to the city’s other poor neighborhoods,
 * 2) comprehending urban gentrification ... is fundamental to understanding the market-driven social class relations of US society

Looking at part 2, I think that the class relations in US society can be understood without reference to gentrification; while gentrification might have some small relevance, it's hardly fundamental.

And how does part 2 follow from part 1? If there is a connection it needs to be spelt out. Why does people thinking it reduces or relocates crime make it necessary to understand gentrification if we're to understand the US class system?

If this sentence does indeed quote the references accurately, the article would be better served by quoted text from the reference.

So the issues are: 1. The sentence doesn't make sense if read carefully. 2. Anything said here is totally US-centric, and should certainly not be in the introduction; maybe the case studies should be subdivided first by country then by city, and this text (translated from gibberish into English) placed in the US country section. 3. It is such a mess that it needs to be quoted verbatim if the references actually say anything like the text in the article.

Although the subject matter is superficially different, this sentence is a worthy addition to Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.

I'm willing to be told where I've gone wrong, but so far I continue to think that this sentence is gobbledegook of the highest order.

I've gone into some detail here not because this sentence is of any great importance, but to criticise the tendency to string buzzwords together without careful thought, and think that the result looks profound and has meaning.

Pol098 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives from the American Sociological Association, Columbia university professor, Brookings Institution, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Regarding, gentrification, here are some suggestions for the Wikipedia article:
 * American Sociological Association (ASA) publishes a newsletter entitled, Footnotes, which describes the unique gentrification case of Atlanta.
 * Lance Freeman, Assistant Professor in Urban Planning at Columbia University, discusses a book and interview on NPR, regarding the gentrification's effects on two predominantly black neighborhoods in New York, Manhattan's Harlem and Brooklyn's Clinton Hill.
 * Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard of Brookings Institution definition of gentrification, and how revitalization and reinvestment are important factors.
 * The Centers of Disease Control (CDC) mentions the negative consequences of gentrification on "special populations," in their article entitled, The Health Effects of Gentrification.

First, the American Sociological Association discusses why Atlanta may be a unique case of gentrification, since it discusses how "Atlanta has no geographic boundaries to slow its sprawl." Moreover, Lesley Williams Reid, a sociology professor at Georgia State University and Robert M. Adelman, a sociology professor (now at University at Albany, SUNY) state that "[c]onsequently, Atlanta’s 20 counties and four million people are spread across 6,000 square miles. With this size has come staggering commutes. Atlantans, on average, spend more time traveling to and from work than almost all other metropolitan residents in the United States, surpassed only by residents in New York City and Washington, DC." It seems to suggest that gentrification is a result of lengthy commutes. Article may be found at the following link: http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/apr03/indexthree.html.

Secondly, an academic view of the transformation of two New York communities though gentrification would be useful. Professor Lance Freeman of Columbia University, author of There Goes the Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up, is wide read in academic circles that discuss urban gentrification, and how it impacts minorities, specifically, African-Americans. He was featured on NPR, to discuss how gentrification affected "two predominantly black neighborhoods in New York, Manhattan's Harlem and Brooklyn's Clinton Hill." You may find the exchange between Professor Freeman and NPR at the following link: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=5569466.

Thirdly, let's define what gentrification is, and what it is not. For example, Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard of Brookings Institution define gentrification as "the process by which higher income households displace lower income residents of a neighborhood, changing the essential character and flavor of that neighborhood.  Under such terms, the Brookings reports states revitalization (the process of enhancing the physical, commercial and social components of neighborhoods and the future prospects of its residents through private sector and/or public sector efforts) and reinvestment (the flow of capital into a neighborhood primarily to upgrade physical components of the neighborhood, although reinvestment can also be made in human capacity) are key concepts to understand when discussing gentrification.

Regarding what gentrification is NOT, Kennedy and Leonard's report state that

“gentrification has three specific conditions which all must be met: displacement of original residents, physical upgrading of the neighborhood, particularly of housing stock; and change in neighborhood character. Thus gentrification does not automatically occur when higher income residents move into a lower income neighborhood, for example, at a scale too small to displace existing residents, or in the context of vacant land or buildings. Nor does economic development activity –revitalization – necessarily imply gentrification. Tenants can leave their units for a range of reasons, so departures in a revitalizing neighborhood do not necessarily mean gentrification is occurring.” The PDF version of the report may be found at http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/gentrification/gentrification.pdf.

Lastly, there should be a section that briefly discusses the health effects of gentrification on a population. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) state that "[w]here people live, work, and play has an impact on their health." In addition, CDC state that "special populations," which they include as "the poor, women, children, the elderly, and members of racial/ethnic minority groups," may feel the negative effects of gentrificiation, such as "include limited access to or availability of the following: affordable healthy housing healthy food choices transportation choices quality schools bicycle and walking paths, exercise facilities, etc. social networks."

The CDC website states that: "Studies indicate that vulnerable populations typically have shorter life expectancy; higher cancer rates; more birth defects; greater infant mortality; and higher incidence of asthma, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. In addition, increasing evidence shows that these populations have an unequal share of residential exposure to hazardous substances such as lead paint." You may find the link to this article at http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm.

I point to these examples because more diverse perspectives may be needed to strengthen the validity of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.157.43 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An inaccurate definition of gentrification in the opening sentence of the article
"Gentrification and urban gentrification denote the socio-cultural changes in an area resulting from wealthier people buying housing property in a less prosperous community.[1]"

The process of gentrification isn't limited to buying property. It often starts with bourgeois-types moving into rental property and, in various ways, helping drive up the cost of rental housing.

Also, the phrase "less prosperous community" may indeed contain some limited truths, but these limited truths are a foot in the door for a number of underlying assumptions weighted heavily in favor of the gentrification process.

Miasnikov

Pop culture
Any objections to removing the unsourced and dubious 'Popular culture' section? -- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 18:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the 'Racial Segregation' template really belong here?
This article has a template prominently placed at the top of the article identifying it as part of a series on racial segregation. But does it belong there? Gentrification isn't inherently anything to do with race - it can be, but that's more a matter of 'white flight'. Gentrification is simply where a neighbourhood gradually becomes older, wealthier, safer, more family-friendly and more 'higher class' generally - not necessarily through any kind of segregation, racial or otherwise. I think the 'racial segregation' template is misleadingly suggesting a connection which generally isn't present. Robofish (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no one objected, so I've removed the template. Robofish (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Racial segregation can be caused by a variety of factors. All of these lie under the Socioeconomic umbrella constraints faced by the poor. Unfortunately, the minorities of America still disproportionately face significant constraints with respect to 'class mobility' and overall socioeconomic upward movement. The tactics of racial segregation have not changed in the end result they are designed to produce. The tactics are the same as they were in the 1950's. Those of the majority who crave something different from the homogenous look to places inhabited by the minority. These initial "scouts" invariably bring with them the rest of their cadre, and invariably shift the already fragile environment to another homogenous neighborhood. Those lower on the socioeconomic scale (minorities are almost always in this class) are forced to leave. The property taxes become to high, the cost of food becomes to high, etc. They are forced to leave not because of the explicit racial segregation, but instead are forced because of the implicit (or covert) form.

Those who crave to experience "diversity" by moving into a neighborhood, ironically enough, wind up spurring that diversity out of the neighborhood. In addition, they lead to further hyperconcentrations of poor within specific low income neighborhoods or to a migration to another state/country all together. The template should be added back (but probably won't be). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiniteSight (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC) (FiniteSight (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC))


 * I disagree with the "Racial Segregation" template at the very top of the page. Gentrification has so much more to do with it than race.  Also, in the template itself, there is no mention of gentrification.  At any rate, this isn't an international problem: for example in most of Europe, gentrification occurs mostly in areas inhabited by the poor.  Racial segregation is not as predominant as in the US.  The template doesn't reflect a global view.  ConorBrady.ie  (caint)  19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on their clear factual inaccuracies, I have changed the opening lines of the article
I have changed the opening lines of the enrty of gentrification, from:

"Gentrification and urban gentrification denote the socio-cultural changes in an area resulting from wealthier people buying housing property in a less prosperous community.

To

"Gentrification and urban gentrification are terms refering to the socio-cultural displacement that results when wealthier people acquire property in low income and working class communities.[1] Consequent to gentrification, the average income increases and average family size decreases in the community, which sometimes results in the eviction of lower-income residents because of increased rents, house prices, and property taxes..."

1. Gentiryfiers don't always buy property outright. They often help drive up rents by moving into rental property.

2. Gentrification isn't just a question of housing but of other neighborhood-wide social class transformations as well; posh restaurants, bars, boutiques and cafes opening in a formerly working class and/or low-imcome neighborhood often play an opening role in the gentrification of a neighborhood. Retail enterprises often lure bourgeois types to an area that was for various reason previously unappealing or otherwise off-limits to them.

Like all exercises in market ideology, the previous opening to the entry makes the process of gentrification appear to be as organic as the weather, or at least as organic as the world's weather used to be prior to global warming. Obviously human choice plays a significant role in the tranformation of formerly working class neighborhoods into bourgeois neighborhoods.

Also the phrase "informal economic eviction" is a mass of weasel words and I changed this to the more clear and accurate single word "eviction." Miasnikov

Some examples of egregious bourgeois class bias in the wikipedia entry on gentrification
In notes above we find: "Gentrification..." defined in terms of a neighborhood becoming "...more family-friendly..."?!

Exactly whose families are we talking about here? Large numbers of working class families victimized in this process will clearly beg to differ.

And for the second half of the opening paragraph we find:

"...In addition, new businesses, catering to a more affluent base of consumers, tend to move into formerly blighted areas, further increasing the appeal to more affluent migrants and decreasing the accessibility to less wealthy natives."

"Blighted" by what, dark-skinned people and lower rents? The colonial implications of the use of the word "native" here are at least ironically appropriate.

Miasnikov

Tightened weak prose in section on 'Direct Action and Sabotage.'
The section on the role played by direct action and sabotage is being repeatedly plagued by insertions of gratuitous bad writing. I tightened up the wording without changing the meaning here. (Feb. 20, 2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miasnikov (talk • contribs) 05:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The section on 'Direct Action and Sabotage' is being repeatedly vandalized
The section on 'Direct Action and Sabotage' is being repeatedly vandalized. First, by bad writing. And now, the entire paragraph referring to San Francisco during the late 1990's dot-com boom and the 'Mission Yuppie Eradication Project' has been cut.

San Francisco's Mission Yuppie Eradication Project drew more sustained public attention to the role of direct action in resistance to gentrification than the hyper-obscure Welsh nationalist anti-gentrification phenomenon referred to here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miasnikov (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gentrification results in existing residents being more likely to *stay*
According to one study, contrary to popular belief, gentrification results in existing residents being more likely to stay, lured by improved quality of life and cultural offerings, even as rents take up an increasing portion of their paycheck. Include in article here?

New sections and more depth
I'm working on the gentrification page as a class project, and I was hoping for some critiques about some of the ideas I have to help reorganize and expand the page. This page currently has a large 'Causes' section, but I think it would be beneficial to have another heading titled 'Effects' with the subheadings residential, social, and economic. I think this would provide a more designated place to expand on the actual consequences of the gentrification process, for they are kind of danced around in the current format. I also think the 'demographic shifts' section could perhaps be moved to the Effects section, for I think it would fit in better as an effect rather than a cause of gentrification. Another subsection could be added under 'Gentrifier types' to include a section on women. I've read from a few sources that mention women specifically as part of the gentrifier movement, and I think it would be beneficial to include some of these ideas. I think it would also help embellish the page to change the 'Promotion' section to a 'Support and criticism' section, where the different opinions on the effects of gentrification could be discussed. It is a controversial topic and including some of this debate would expand the breadth of the article. Lastly, I plan to expand on both the Boston and Washington D.C. examples with further research because I think they deserve more than just a few lines to do them justice.

I would really appreciate any questions, comments, or contributions you have!--
 * Hi Lggernon, many thanks for your work on this article! I accumulated some comments while doing a little editing at the top of the article. (I don't which parts were contributed by which users.):
 * Is "deconcentrating poverty" a term of art? It sounds like a weird euphemism. Although I can't argue that an actual "deconcentration"—in the sense of integrating people across class lines—could be a positive social change, I don't see that this is the actual result of gentrification.
 * Any word on ancient gentrification beyond "Western civilization"?
 * Any further information on the Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary & Philosophical Society reference? The snippet view on Google seems to show a fairly contemporary type usage of the word, which is very interesting. I have deleted this reference. It is clear that a mistake has been made somewhere as the referenced book was published in 1997. It is possible that earlier references to gentrification do exist in Memoirs and Proceedings of the Manchester Literary & Philosophical Society but until there is good evidence the claim does not belong on Wikipedia.
 * More broadly I'm a little unsure about the way the causes section is split—into "Production" and "Consumption" sides, and then with another list. The organization of the section is a little confusing and I feel that maybe it could be grouped by subsection according to cause, rather than by categories of academic theory. There are redundancies across the different paragraphs on "causes" and these could be consolidated, with multiple different authors coming in to support each theory.
 * About that chart: I'm not sure it really fits encyclopedic voice to divide effects into "positive" and "negative"—these are secondary value judgments. If we do want to keep the chart, it should be in a separate section about "debates over the value of gentrification", or something like that. (This could easily be a spruced up version of the existing "Support and Criticism" section—something we should do anyway, since this is also not an optimal framing.) We should keep the "Effects" section strictly business ;-)
 * Thanks again to for Lggernon for all your hard work on this article, especially your contributions in the "examples" section. peace – groupuscule (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting the "global view" perspective
As an American, I know what gentrification looks like in America. In this country it is deeply entangled with "racial segregation". It's actually really stunning how frequently the same patterns have been repeated in different American cities: poor African American neighborhoods without strong political representation are sacrificed to create space for the wealthy. This perspective is directly linked to race, which directly affects how neighborhoods are perceived and classified as "bad" and therefore subject to intervention. However, I'll acknowledge knowing next to nothing about gentrification in other countries. Where is this term in common use? Are there places where gentrification is actually unrelated to racial segregation? Also, welcome to User:Lggernon! groupuscule (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)