Zukim. Gentrificação , cultura e capital no centro urbano

7/29/2019 Zukim. Gentrificao , cultura e capital no centro urbano

1/20

Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core

Author(s): Sharon ZukinSource: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13 (1987), pp. 129-147Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083243 .

Accessed: 22/08/2011 13:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnual Review of

Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2083243?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2083243?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs


2/20

Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1987. 13:129-47Copyright C 1987 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

GENTRIFICATION:CULTUREANDCAPITALIN THE URBAN CORESharon ZukinDepartment f Sociology, BrooklynCollege, City Universityof New York, Brooklyn,New York 11210, andCity UniversityGraduateCenter,New York, New York 10036

AbstractGentrification, he conversionof socially marginalandworking-classareasofthe central city to middle-class residentialuse, reflects a movement, thatbegan in the 1960s, of private-market nvestment capital into downtowndistrictsof majorurbancenters. Relatedto a shift in corporate nvestmentanda correspondingexpansionof the urbanserviceeconomy, gentrificationwasseen more immediatelyin architectural estorationof deterioratinghousingand the clusteringof new cultural amenities in the urban core.Researchon gentrification nitiallyconcentrated n documenting ts extent,tracing it as a process of neighborhood change, and speculating on itsconsequencesfor reversingtrends of suburbanization nd inner-citydecline.But a cumulationof 10 years of researchfindings suggests, instead, that itresultsin a geographicalreshuffling, among neighborhoodsandmetropolitanareas, of professional, managerial, and technical employees who work incorporate, government, and business services.Having verified the extent of the phenomenon, empirical research ongentrificationhas reached a stalemate. Theoretically interesting problemsconcern the use of historic preservationto constitute a new urbanmiddleclass, gentrification and displacement, the economic rationality of thegentrifier's behavior, and the economic restructuring f the centralcity inwhich gentrificationplays a part.Broadening he analyticframeworkbeyond demographic actors and neo-classical land use theory is problematicbecause of serious conceptualandmethodologicaldisagreementsamong neo-Marxist,neo-Weberian,and main-

1290360-0572/87/0815-0129$02.00


3/20

130 ZUKINstream analysts. Yet efforts to understand entrificationbenefit fromthe useof economic paradigmsby consideringsuch issues as production,consump-tion, and social reproduction f the urbanmiddle class, as well as the factorsthat create a supply of gentrifiablehousing anddemandfor it on the part ofpotential gentrifiers.An emerging synthesis in the field integrates economic and cultural an-alysis. The mutual validation and valorizationof urban art and real estatemarketsindicates the importanceof the cultural constitutionof the highersocial stratain an advancedservice economy. It also underlineshow spaceand time are used in the social and materialconstitutionof an urbanmiddleclass.

INTRODUCTIONDuring the 1970s, throughoutNorth America and Western Europe, newresidential patternsin many old cities appeared o contradict he long-termdecline of their inner core. These patternsemerged in a wave of capitalreinvestment in deteriorating housing that was concentratednear centralbusiness districts(CBDs). Althoughsome of the rehabilitationwas publiclysubsidized,most was financedby theprivatemarket,and a significantportionwas carriedout by do-it-yourselfor "sweatequity" part-timeworkers. Theprogenitorsof this urban"renaissance"-as magazines and newspapers erm-ed it-had white-collar obs. In manycases, too, theyhadmarkedlynontradi-tional households and styles of life. Togetherwith a surge in service-sectoremployment and correspondingcultural and commercial amenities, theirpresence as a newly minted urban"gentry"gave the downtown a differentform.Much of the initial sociological researchon gentrificationconcentratedondocumentingits extent, tracingit as a process of neighborhoodchange, andspeculatingon its consequencesin terms of both displacementof an existingpopulationand reversalof trends toward suburbanization nd urbandecline.This general approachwas especially characteristicof sociologists in theUnited States, who were still strongly influenced by positivism and theempiricaltradition.

Gradually, however, the work of Marxist and left-Weberian urbansociologists and geographers broadened the study of gentrification byemphasizing an underlying dynamic of economic restructuring.The mostrelevant processes, in this view, were a regional and metropolitande-industrializationand a concentrationof professionaland technicaljobs andcultural markets in the urbancore. Consequently, gentrificationwas sub-sumed under the rubricsof productionand consumptionratherthan of de-mographicstructureor individual choice.


4/20

GENTRIFICATION 131Although empiricalresearchon gentrificationhas repeatedly verified theextent of the phenomenon, the effort to establish a broader analyticframework s problematic. Disagreementon an underlyingstructuredeepensthe methodologicalschisms dividing neo-Marxist, neo-Weberian,and main-stream sociologists. Nevertheless, further research on gentrification mayovercomethese issues by investigatingurbanmorphology-the shape the citytakes-in terms of economic and cultural analysis. Both large and smallinvestors are constrainedby the availabilityof capitaland thehousing supply.Yet since the 1960s, the expansionof culturalpatronageamong middle classsocial strata has shown that investment in culture may augment limitedmeans. Therefore, the accumulationstrategiesof large investors in central-city real estate are supportedby smaller investors' patternsof cultural andsocial reproduction.

THE EMPIRICALSTALEMATEFromthe moment anEnglish sociologist invented the term"gentrification"odescribe the residentialmovement of middle-class people into low-incomeareasof London(Glass 1964), the word evoked more thana simple changeofscene. It suggesteda symbolic new attachment o old buildingsanda height-ened sensibility to space and time. It also indicated a radical break withsuburbia,a movementawayfromchild-centeredhouseholdstowardthe socialdiversity and aestheticpromiscuityof city life. In the public view, at least,gentrifiers were different from other middle-class people. Their collectiveresidentialchoices, the amenitiesthatclusteredaround hem, and theirgener-ally high educationalandoccupationalstatus were structured y-and in turnexpressed-a distinctive habitus, a class culture and milieu in Bourdieu's(1984) sense. Thus, gentrificationmay be described as a process of spatialand social differentiation.Earlyresearch denied that most gentrifiersmoved "back to the city" fromsuburbanhousing (Laska& Spain 1980). Recent workconfirmsthattheytendto come from other urban neighborhoods and large metropolitan areas(McDonald 1983, LeGates & Hartman1986).Yet thereis muchdisagreementaboutthe sourcesof these shifts, as well astheir empiricalreferent. While some of the literature ocuses on gentrifiers,other studies examine propertythat is gentrified.In both cases, "supply-side" nterpretationstress the economic and socialfactors that produce an attractivehousing supply in the central city formiddle-class individuals, and "demand-side" nterpretationsaffirm a con-sumerpreference,for demographicor culturalreasons, for the buildingsandareas that become gentrified. Otherproblemsare introducedby consideringhousing tenure-specifically, the different interestsof homeownersandrent-ers-when gentrificationby both groups causes propertyvalues to rise.


5/20

132 ZUKINMoreover, case studiesthatinclude the local politicalcontext of gentrifica-tion document the contributionsof financial andpolitical elites who seem, atfirst, not to be directly involved. Conflict over zoning laws, historic districtdesignations, and property ax assessments indicates how importantmay bethe state's role in defining the economic and social value of an urban area.Strategicshifts in governmentpolicy from 1970 to 1975 supportedgentrifica-tion at the very time that rising inflationrates, fuel costs, and constructionprices made rehabilitationn the centercity aneconomically viable alternativefor both homeowners and real estate developers.At that time, local and nationalgovernments n boththe United States andWestern Europe shifted from supportingthe demolition required by urbanrenewal to giving incentive grantsfor housing improvement.This facilitatedthe small-scale building rehabilitationon which gentrificationdepends. Andthough gentrificationremainspredominantlya privately financed action, astrong expressionof local governmentsupporthas generallybeen a precondi-tion for the participationof lending institutions.Little wonder, then, that Britishgeographers all gentrificationa "chaotic"concept (Rose 1984, afterSayer 1982)orthatthis observationhas becomethecri de coeur of some thoughtfulwriters(e.g. Smith & Williams 1986).For severalyears, a large portionof every articleon gentrificationhas beendevoted to a literaturereview. Althoughthis may suggest a welcome qualityof introspection,it more likely indicates a worrisome stasis in the field.

Descriptive OverviewBy all accounts, a small wave of private-marketcapital reinvestmentindeterioratingcentral-cityhousing began in the 1960s. Both early and recentstudies correctly associate it with the "vitality"of an urban core (Frieden1964, Bradburyet al 1982). But this investment shows a high degree ofselectivity. There are importantregional variationsin its strength, and anintra-urbanconcentration occurs in areas of "historic"significance (Black1975). Moreover, highly visible reinvestmentand rehabilitationby upper-income residents take place alongside continuing deteriorationof inner-cityhousing, disinvestment n the CBD, andsuburbanizationf mostnew housingconstructionfor the privatemarket(Clay 1979).In no way but proximitydoes gentrificationcounteract he economic andracialpolarizationof most urbanpopulations.Inbig cities as differentas NewYork and SanFrancisco,it fails to raise medianfamily income or to reverse asecular decrease in the number of high-status census areas; nor doesgentrification always spreadbeyond a street or neighborhoodto an entirecensus tract(Lipton 1977, Baldassare1984, Marcuse1986). At least initially,housing reinvestmentmay be concentrated n "pockets"or at the edges ofdeclining districts (Schaeffer & Smith 1986, Marcuse 1986). In fact, theeffects of gentrificationat the "extrememicro-level" show muchdivergence:


6/20

GENTRIFICATION 133Whatappearsas ethnic, racial, andeconomic integrationat the neighborhoodlevel may be disaggregated nto traditionallysegregated enclaves within thecensus tract, the block, and individual buildings (LeGates & Hartman1986:195).The gentrifiers'choice of neighborhooddoes not implytheirsocial integra-tion with existing neighborsof a differentrace, ethnicity,andsocioeconomicstatus. In street encounters, they approacheach other warily until familiaritywith neighborhoodroutine ensurespoliteness(Anderson 1985). New middle-class residentsoften expect crime to be as prevalentas "backgroundnoise"(McDonald 1983:292, Anderson1985). For theirpart, existingresidentsmayresent the superimpositionof an alien culture-with different consumptionpatternsand an acceleratedpace of change-on their community.'While residents' associations sometimes mobilize to fight "developers"(Chernoff 1980, Weiler 1980), they reallyconfront he whole set of economicand social processes that underlie"development" Zukin 1982). This makesfor an uneven social contest. In general, communitymobilization cannot dobattle with "the abstract ogic of the privatemarket";and in particular,"theinstitutionalizedprocedures or responding o gentrificationareweaker, morefragmented,andmorecostly to engagein" thanthose thatrespond o coherentpublic policies (Henig 1982:353-54).Moreover, people who live in a gentrifying neighborhoodhave differentinterests. Pre-gentrificationresidents, as already partly noted, are likely tohave consumptionpatternsof a lower social class, constitutea differentethnicand racial community, and an older age group (Spain 1980, Henig 1984,LeGates & Hartman1986). Whentheymobilizeto defend a neighborhood"asit is," they exclude the "improvements"dentified with gentrification.Chiefamong these improvements, in the gentrifiers' view, is the restoration ofhistoric architecturaldetail. Yet if existing residentsjoin gentrifiers n asso-ciations thatsupport he "historic" ommunity, they may be aidinga processthat causes propertyvalues to rise and leads to their own displacement.Existing homeowners, however, may have reason to do so. In economicterms, they forsakesentiment,or attachment o the community,for exchangevalues (Logan & Molotch 1987).Among gentrifiers, renters have significantly lower incomes thanhomeowners (DeGiovanni & Paulson 1984). Thus, a cleavage developsbetween these groups when neighborhoodassociationspursue improvementstrategiesthatcauserentsto rise. Moreover, gentrifierswho buy and maintainmultifamily dwellings aretorn between a landlord's nterest n getting higher

1Anearly view of the implicit and explicit conflicts in this sort of neighborhoodmprovementis Lyford's (1966) study of Manhattan's Upper West Side. As various factors, includingcommunityresistance to dislocation andresulting nvestoruncertainty,prolongedthe process of"revitalization" nd reduced the public sector'srole, urbanrenewalin the areawas succeededbygentrification.


7/20

134 ZUKINrents and a resident's desire to keep the neighborhoodunpretentious,afford-able, and somewhat socially diverse (McDonald 1983).Community organizationsmay mediate residents' conflicting interests inunexpectedways. In a gentrifiedareanear downtownBrooklyn, for example,the gentrifiers'associationpursueda strategyof historicpreservation-to theextent of creating a "historic"neighborhoodname-that permittedthem todefine andappropriatehe area(Kasinitz1984). Gradually, heir PuertoRicanneighbors responded by mobilizing on the basis of ethnicity. Another situa-tion emerged in Philadelphia,when gentrifiers oined existing white ethnicresidents in excluding blacks from the neighborhood(Cybriwsky 1978).2Whencommunityorganizationsmposesocial and culturalhomogeneityona gentrifying neighborhood, they act as a "vanguardof the bourgeoisie"(Logan & Molotch 1987). They seem to be able to carry out their aimsregardless of local government involvement or the degree to which theyfabricatethe area's historic past (Cybriwskyet al 1986).While studies of gentrificationagree on many of these key points, theyindicate four contentious-and suggestive-areas of analysis: the use ofhistoric preservation n constitutinga new urbanelite, gentrification'scon-tributionto homelessness and displacement,the economic rationalityof thegentrifier's role, and the relation between gentrification and economictransformation.Historic PreservationIt is temptingto associatecontemporary entrifiers,as partof a new middleclass, with the appropriation f Victorianstyle (Jager 1986). Certainlytheindustrial bourgeoisie of the late nineteenth century bequeathed a majorportion of the buildings now gentrified in North American, British, andAustralian ities. Butgentrifiers' astes are conditionedby the availabilityandaffordabilityof older buildings. Their aesthetic tastes may be diverted byeithernew construction n an oldermode, like the currentvogue in London ofnew neo-Georgianhouses (Wright1985a), or newer, perhapsEdwardian,oldbuilding styles (Williams 1984:212). Similarly, gentrification applies to ataste for restoredbrownstone, red brick, or gingerbreadhouses as well asmanufacturingofts that are convertedto residential use (Zukin 1982).3

2Nevertheless, such strategies do not inevitably result in gentrification. In the Brooklyncommunity described by Krase (1982), white middle-class gentrifiers mobilized for historicpreservation,yet by the time the study was published, the neighborhoodwas known again as ablack ghetto. Also see Williams (1985).3McDonald (1983), however, claims that gentrifiers' choices may be specific to certainneighborhoods.In Boston-a city where older central-cityhousing is in short supply-his surveyof new SouthEndresidentsfound that39%had looked for housing only in that area. Yet again,the largenumberof multifamilydwellings in the South End thatgentrifiersuse forrental ncomesuggests an economic choice.


8/20

GENTRIFICATION 135More significant than the impression of architecturalhomogeneity is theemphasis on culturein constructingnew middle-classconsumptionpatterns.By means of historic preservation, he new middleclasses parlay a relativelymodest investmentof time and money into a quasi-bourgeoishabitus (Wil-liams, 1986). They are able to enjoy a solid building stock, often in-dividualized to specific spatial requirements-notably, space that supportsworking at home. They also participate n the creation n theirneighborhoodof "a critical mass of pleasant amenity" (Logan & Molotch 1987), whereshoppingandhousing provideserioussocial andculturalexperiences (Beau-regard 1986).There is some question, however, about whether historic preservationreally confers or affirmsmore "distinction" hanthe modernstyle of most newconstruction.In contrast o widespreadassumptions,gentrifiershavethe sameincome level and educationalbackgroundas othermiddle-class people wholive downtownin either new or rehabilitated partment uildings (Ford 1978).In the same ways they also resemble the middle-class residents of affluent,older suburbs(McDonald 1983).4A quest for historicdistricts mplies more, of course. It confronts he planeof modernitywiththe rich and variedtemporalityof thepast-but whichpast,andwhose? "Inthis new perspective [a gentrifiedarea] s not so much a literalplace as a culturaloscillation between the prosaicreality of the contemporaryinner city and an imaginative reconstructionof the area's past" (Wright1985b:228-29).

Gentrificationand DisplacementIn a subtleway, the ideology of historicpreservationacilitatesthe removalofa pre-gentrificationpopulation, especially those residents whose moderniza-tion of their homes is incongruous with the spirit of authenticityin thegentrifiers'own restoration.But the pragmaticwedge of theirdisplacement srising rents and higher sale prices for homes in gentrifying neighborhoods.All studies of gentrificationconfirm that a fairly homogeneous group ofin-movers reducesresidentialdensityandreplacesanexisting population.Theout-movers, however, are a relatively heterogeneousgroup (LeGates& Hart-man 1986). They can be characterized s economicallyvulnerable houghnotalways disadvantaged.At least through he early 1970s, white-collarworkerswere affected by gentrificationmore than blue-collarworkers, with whitesdisplaced more frequently than members of other races. After 1973,revitalization in several major US cities accelerated the displacement ofblacks by whites in certain neighborhoods (Gale 1984:24). In somewhat

4McDonald's (1983) survey, however, shows a larger standarddeviation in gentrifiers'household income, especially among single-person households.


9/20

136 ZUKINsmallercities, also, upper-incomehouseholds showed greaterwillingness tomove into lower-class areas and racial ghettos (Henig 1984:178).Yet to some degree, race andclass may still be a barrier o gentrification.Whites and most middle-class blacks have not gentrifiedlower-class blackareas, such as Harlem and Newark, despite a building stock and a coststructureequivalent to other areas' (Schaeffer & Smith 1986, Beauregard1986:39).It is generally agreed that gentrifyingneighborhoodsproducehigher taxyields. For this reason, among others, gentrificationelicits the approvaloflocal political leaders, who correspondinglymoderatetheir supportfor dis-placees.In reality, the relationbetween gentrificationand propertytaxes is morecomplex. Increasesin assessed propertyvalues in gentrifyingareasmay notbe significantly greaterthan in other neighborhoods; hey also lag behindincreases in marketvalues (DeGiovanni 1984). Nevertheless, once assess-ments have been raised to reflect some rehabilitationactivity, the assessedvalue of unimprovedproperties n the neighborhoodalso rises. So gentrifierscarrytheir less affluentneighborswith them on a rising tide of property axassessments.A more severe blow against an existing population is effected by theremoval of low-price rental housing from the city's building stock (Gale1984, Marcuse 1986). Single-room-occupancyhotels, where tenantspay bythe nightor week, area vivid victim (Kasinitz1983), but the generalproblemis one of housing ratherthan householddislocation (Gale 1984:164). As arule, low-incomeresidentsaredisplacedfartherromtheCBD. Andno matterwhere they move, displaceesusually pay a higherrent(Kain& Apgar 1985,LeGates & Hartman1986).Efforts have been madeto qualifythese starkchanges. An examinationofone year's tenantout-movers rom"revitalizing" reasin five US cities foundthe costs of displacementto be outweighed by "benefits"(Schill & Nathan1983). Similarly, a simulationof displacementin several revitalizinglow-income neighborhoods n Chicago speculatedthatmany low-income tenantsregularlymove out of their neighborhoodwith or without gentrification;atany rate, Kain & Apgar(1985) consider thatthe benefits to the areaand theresidents who continue to live there-in improvementsto capital stock-exceed the costs of displacement.It is more worrisome to consider that spatial differentials-that is, con-ditions in specific neighborhoods-do not have much effect on rates ofdisplacement(Lee & Lodge 1984). If displacement n the face of mountingrents is an importantnational trend, then the whole structureof housingmarketsand their fit with social needs should be revised.These findings suggest that the gentrifiers'aesthetic hallmark-their in-


10/20

GENTRIFICATION 137vestment in rehabilitation-has less of an impact on other people than doestheir propertyinvestment. This calls into question the relative weights of"sentimentandsymbolism" pace Firey 1945) and economicrationality n thegentrifiers' role.Economic RationalityThroughoutNorth AmericaandWesternEurope, gentrificationhas occurredtogether with a shift toward new homeownershipandcondominiumconver-sion in traditionallyow-rent areas of the central city. Generallythese formsof housing reinvestment-rehabilitation, on the one hand, and homeowner-ship, on the other-have to clear historicalbarriersposedby tenants'propertyrights and the taxation and creditsystems (Gale 1984, Williams 1984, Ham-nett & Randolph1986). Once they do, however, they open up an avenue ofspeculationfor both gentrifiersand real estate developers.The small scale of gentrifiable propertyand the cost of rehabilitation,relative to new construction,do not attract arge-scale investors. Neverthe-less, the low cost of entryinto this market,at least in its early years, propelssignificantnumbersof professional,managerial,andtechnicalemployeesintobecoming part-timedevelopersand landlords Zukin1982, McDonald1983).Muchemphasishas been placedon the apparentack of interest n specula-tion on the part of early, "risk-oblivious"gentrifiersor "urbanpioneers"(Berry 1985:78-79). Yet they are hardly insensible to the rationalityof ahousing investment.Indeed, economic contingenciesmay "encourage themto take] defensive actions to protect [themselves] againstthe vagariesof thehousing marketand, at the same time, to avoid the ravagesof the effects ofinflation on [their] salary" (Beauregard1986:45). Early gentrifiersfind theniche they can afford in urbanhousing markets.Although respondentsoften fail to cite economic reasons for their involve-ment in gentrification(Berry 1985), some surveys have confirmedthe im-portanceto themof both investmentpotentialandhousing prices (McDonald1983, Gale 1980:100, 1984:16). Despite this general effect, however, thedecision to buy property n a gentrifiableareamay reflect different materialpriorities.Some gentrifiersmaybe most influencedby therentgap, i.e. thedifferencebetween ground-rentevels at variouslocationsin a metropolitanarea(Smith1979). The devalorizationof capital (the decreasein the economic value ofproperty)in the inner city offers them a fairly low-cost opportunity o getinvolved in its restructuring.This is especially importantwhen a central-citylocation alreadyoffers some advantages. Althoughthe rentgap introducesamechanistic and somewhat circularargument, t does accordwith real loca-tional choices. Whatmust be remembereds thatthe increasesin investment


11/20

138 ZUKINand propertyvalues associated with gentrification epresentonly one partof arange of possible outcomes in the inner city (Beauregard1986).Low-income gentrifiers may have other motives for making a housinginvestment n gentrification.In their case, a marginal nvestmentmay ensurethe conditionsthey requirefor their social reproduction Rose 1984). Resi-dence in a gentrifiedarea may be especially important o single mothers,whotry to stabilize their position in urbanhousing marketsand to locate nearsupport services by buying a low-cost, inner-city apartment.5Similarly,unemployed and informally employed workers, particularly n the creativeandperformingarts,may tryto cluster n inner-cityneighborhoodsn order omaintain access to information,training, and marketsfor their work.Thus, the economic rationalityof gentrification s subjectto finely tunedvariations. Different forms of capital have a differentrelation to space andtime, and the division of labor within white-collarsectorsof the work forceshapesboth a dispersaland a concentrationof middle-classresidence (Smith1986). Thenew middleclasses' insertion nto themetropolis akes place at themicro-level of both the suburband the gentrifiedneighborhood.The overlayof these insertionson urban, regional, national,and international cales callsour attention o spatialswitcheseven as they arebeing produced or a varietyof economic and social reasons (Smith 1984, Massey 1984).Economic RestructuringA major ocus of economic shiftssince the 1960shas been the recentralizationof corporate nvestment n selectedmetropolitan ores (Fainstein& Fainstein1982, Smith 1986). This process involves new uses of space and new spatialforms, as the city is restructuredo suit corporateneeds. While office towerssprout n underutilizedor devalorizeddowntowndistricts,a new hierarchyofurban neighborhoods reflects different corporateuses. Headquartersand"back offices" no longer share space; each stratum of white-collar workgeneratesin its proximitythe amenitiesthatsuit its status, salarylevels, andoffice rents. Manufacturingactivity and blue-collar residence are displacedbeyond the heart of the city (Zukin 1982).Gentrificationas a white-collarresidentialstyle reflects the agglomerationof large companies-or mainly theirprofessional,managerial,and technicalstaffs and related business services-in the downtown area. Whether thecrucial factoris the numberof corporateheadquartersn a metropolitanarea(Palmer& Roussel 1986) or the presenceof just a few key corporate mploy-ers (Gale 1984:155), this capitalpresencedrawsnew investors andconsum-ers. The city's populationmay still be polarizedbetweenrich andpoor, with

5Using a broader sample, however, a 1978 survey by the US Departmentof Housing andUrban Development found that women may be satisfied by suburban ervices (Fava 1985).


12/20

GENTRIFICATION 139the poor providingpersonaland domesticservices for the rich andworkinginthe remaining abor-intensivemanufacturingectors(Portes& Walton 1981,Sassen-Koob1984). But high-statusgentrification,as well as otherrelativelyaffluentresidentialstyles, reflects the expansion of high-income personnelincorporationsand governmentand producers'services.6In any city, gentrificationcorrelatesgrosso modo with "administrativeactivity"(Lipton1977) and new office constructionn the CBD (Berry1985).Yet many analyses of gentrificationpersist in stressingnoneconomicfac-tors. One such factor-social solidarity-is indicated by the residentialclusteringof visible, highly singularsocial groups,suchas gay householders,who constitute a plurality of residents in some gentrifying neighborhoods(McDonald1983, Castells 1983:ch.14). Nevertheless,the creationby gays ofnew spatialcommunities n gentrifiableareas-in contrast o the olderspatialdivision between special entertainmentdistricts and residence submerged nheterosexualsociety-may be relatedto the participationof gay men in anexpandingservice economy (Fitzgerald1986).Most mainstreamanalystsstill consider economic restructuringecondaryto demographic,i.e. generational,life-style and life-cycle factors that havecreatedconsumerdemandfor new residentialstyles. In this view, gentrifica-tion is the markof the zeitgeist borneby the baby-boomgeneration.In thespirit of synthesis, however, a recent examinationof gentrificationempha-sizes both economic restructuringand demographicfactors, without givingpriorityto either (Londonet al 1986).7Proponentsof demographic xplanationsof gentrificationarenot persuadedthateconomic restructuringonstitutesa necessaryanda sufficient cause. Infact, if values had not changedto acceptsmallerfamilies, two-earnerhouse-holds, andsingle parents,most of thegentrifyingpopulationwould lack eitherthe meansor the motivation orcity living. Yet gentrifiers'residentialchoicesareultimatelyconditionedby material actors. These includethe expansionofmiddle-class social strata because of an increase in white-collarjobs, es-pecially in regional, national, and internationalbusiness services; a secularwithdrawalof investment capital from urban manufacturing,thus freeingindustrial ites for redevelopment;anda recentralization f corporateactivityin selected CBDs and suburban owns.Nevertheless, the struggleto reconcileeconomic anddemographicanalysis

6Like gentrification, he expansionof jobs inproducers' ervices hasno effect on metropolitanmedian income; neither reduces metropolitan ncome inequality (Nelson & Lorence 1985).7Using quantitativeanalysisand survey methods,this studyoffers a smorgasbord f findings.Gentrifications correlatedpositively with the size of thebaby-boomcohortand theproportion fprofessional to otherjobs. It is correlatednegatively with young childrenand the percentageofthe labor force employed in manufacturing.Historical preservation, culture, and corporatepresence are also important London et al 1986).


13/20

140 ZUKINraises the question, whetherthe concept of gentrification s really significant,andif so, on which level of analysis. Withoutconceptual agreement,empiri-cal studies of gentrificationhave reached a stalemate.METHODOLOGICALSCHISMSConceptualdivergenceis reflected in seriousdisagreementson methodology.A preference or materialismon the one handoropositivism n the other leadsto dichotomous views of gentrification.It is described in terms of eitherstructuralcausality or individualchoice (i.e. structurevs agency), culturalstyle or economic necessity (choice vs need), or consequences that carrygreateror lesser costs (displacementvs revitalization).The broadestanalysesof gentrification hence, those with the most interest-ing theoretical implications)are influencedin some way by economic para-digms. Two of these refine the Marxist emphasis on production by alsoconsidering social reproductionand consumption.A third reformulates heneoclassical model based on supply and demand.ProductionlReproductionFrom the outset, the Marxist epistemological critiqueof gentrificationhastargeted positivism in generaland neoclassical land-usetheoryin particular."Positivistapproacheso gentrification,"n thisview, "haveremainedad hoc,full of exceptions, and frequently contradictory o other people's positivistexplanations" Rose 1984). Lackinguncontestable riteria oreitheroutcomesor causes, the conceptof gentrification,as mainstreamanalystsuse it, suffersfromdisorganization.Moreover,as DamarisRose insists, what we observe asthe unified phenomenon of gentrification may really result from severalcauses (1984).Rose also takes issue with the dominantMarxistapproach.Accepting itsemphasison structural auses and economic necessity, she nonethelesscriti-cizes its tendencyto stressa single causalfactor:the productionof gentrifieddwellings as commodities. Besides the rentgap, the falling rate of profit, orcorporate nvestment,all else is relegated o a residualcategory,"ascratchonthe surface of underlying capital."In place of a single resource-maximizing trategy hathistoricallyresultsingentrification,Rose credits a numberof differentstrategies.And in lieu ofproduction,Rose stresses the importanceof social reproduction.Thus, sheaccords a centralrole in gentrificationprocesses to marginallyemployedbuthighly educated ndividualswho seek a central-cityandlow-cost residenceforsocial or ecological reasons.Moreover, by consideringsocial reproduction sa separate factor, Rose avoids conflating reproductionand consumption,asboth positivists and Marxists tend to do.


14/20

GENTRIFICATION 141Production/ConsumptionRose's critiquehas influencedother Marxists o the extentthat they now seekto give full weight to consumption, though not necessarily to "reproduction"(Smith & Williams 1986). Meanwhile, they continue to study processes ofproductionand devalorization: he first, in orderto identifypotentialgentrifi-ers, and the second, in order to understandhow certain housing becomesgentrifiable.A major focus of Marxist analysis is the social location of gentrifiers.Because most of them are in the new middle classes, with professional,technical, or managerial obs, they areidentified with corporatereinvestmentin the CBD and the growth of local, regional, and national services. Thissituationhas two related effects. On the one hand, whethergentrification sconsideredan investmentfor capitalaccumulationor an investment n socialreproduction, t helps promotecapital's long wave of expansion. On the otherhand, ideological support or gentrificationhelps legitimizecorporateexpan-sion throughout he central city.As Neil Smith (1986) points out, the ideology of gentrification oftendescribes it as a process of spatial expansion-notably, as settlementon anurban"frontier."But the changes in the use of downtown space that resultfrom corporateinvestmentreally illustratecapital expansion. In our time,capital expansion has no new territory eft to explore, so it redevelops, orinternally redifferentiates,urban space. Just as the frontier thesis in UShistory legitimized an economic push through"uncivilized"lands, so theurbanfrontier thesis legitimizes the corporatereclamationof the inner cityfrom racial ghettos and marginalbusiness uses.Yet no structural rocesscandisregardnstitutional onstraints.Downtownreinvestmentmust take account of urban real estate markets, forms anddegrees of government ntervention,and local politics and social forces. Inthe United States, social support or gentrificationalso reflects a responsetoracialconflict and fiscal crisis (Williams 1986). In thatsense, too, gentrifica-tion is compatiblewitha broadmovementawayfromcollective consumption.In fact, much US urbanredevelopmentduringthe two decades followingWorld War II could be called "demand-ledurbanization"Harvey 1985b).Althoughthis differsfroma processthatmightbe "consumption ed," it callsattentionto shifting patternsof consumption, their basis in the public orprivate sector, and their materialrepresentationn urbanforms.Economic restructuringchanges the basis of consumptionfor differentsocial classes and also shapes their social and spatialdifferentiation. Con-sequently, in contrast to the ghettoizationof large areas of the centralcity,gentrificationrepresentsa filtering up of housing. Conversely, in contrasttocorporateredevelopmentof the CBD, gentrificationof downtownneighbor-


15/20

142 ZUKINhoods representsa filtering down of investmentopportunity(Smith, forth-coming).SupplylDemandIn an attempt o infuse some of these distinctions nto theneoclassicalmodel,Brian J. L. Berryhas devised a new supply-side interpretation f gentrifica-tion (Berry 1985). In Berry'sview, thenecessarybut not sufficient conditionsfor gentrificationare the "contagiousabandonment"f large inner-cityareasand a dynamic suburbanhousing marketin new construction.Further,thecatalystof gentrification s significant corporateredevelopmentof the CBD,especially office construction hat locates professionaland white-collarjobsdowntown. "To turn the supply-side argument around, the nation's key'command and control' centers provide a sufficient demand-sidetriggerforgentrification,providedthat thenecessary supply-sidehousingmarketcharac-teristics also are present"(p. 95).Berry's "new" interpretationadopts several of the neo-Marxist and neo-Weberian key assumptions:corporatecentralization n a small number ofurbancores (cf Cohen 1981), widespreaddevalorizationandunderutilizationof inner-city property, a resulting rent gap between the inner city and theperiphery,and new consumptionpatterns hatfollow the expansionof white-collar jobs. While this corrects Berry's earliertendency to see housing intermsof rationalchoice (cf Gale 1984:158), it offers a descriptiverather hanan analytic model.Berry's model does highlightthe historicalcontingencyof gentrification,apointon which most Marxistanalysesalso agree. Moreover,it emphasizesthesimultaneityof continuedgrowthin the suburbs,andboth abandonment ndredevelopmentof the innercore. Berry's"islandsof renewal n seas of decay"are the metaphoricalequivalentof the Marxists'"polarizationof urbanpop-ulations."SYNTHESIS: CULTURE AND CAPITALBy upsetting expectationsabout unrelieveddeteriorationof the centralcity,gentrificationwas initially received as a revelation. But recent analysis bysociologists and geographersemphasizesseveralconstraints.The areatrans-formed in gentrification's penumbra is limited by strategies for capitalaccumulationon the partof dominantsocial and economic institutions,andthe relatedstrategiesof "consumption ectors"(Saunders 1984) that supportthe internal redifferentiationof urbanspace.The emphasis on capital investment calls into question gentrifiers'identificationwith, andmobilizationfor, historicpreservation.Clearly, they


16/20

GENTRIFICATION 143share with others in society a generalized appreciationof the material andaesthetic qualities that old buildingsand old neighborhoodsevoke. Further,their supportof historic preservationand contemporaryurban restorationsrecalls the patriciansponsorshipof artand architecturen US cities in the latenineteenthcentury, as well as urbanprofessionals' advocacy of "CityBeauti-ful" programsfor rebuildingcities at that time (Boyer 1983). But affluentgentrifiers'culturalappropriations o not lack economic rationality.Culturalvalidation helps valorize their housinginvestment, and activism on behalf ofhistoric propertyeases the transition, or some of them, into semiprofessionaland part-time real estate development.

Indeed, political mobilization for the legal status of a historic landmarkdesignation typically unifies people with different aesthetic and materialinterests. While historic preservationenables some of them to satisfy civicpride, others profit by producing goods and services for a "preservationist"mode of consumption.Yet culturalconsumptionalso offers other dividends. Culturallyvalidatedneighborhoodsautomaticallyprovide new middle classes with the collectiveidentity and social credentialsfor which they strive (cf Logan & Molotch1987). Moreover, the ideology of gentrification legitimizes their socialreproduction,often despite the claims of an existing population. This isespecially importantwhen appealsare made to public opinion andmunicipalauthorities to decide between the claims of different residential and com-mercial groups.With some paradoxical results, supportfor gentrificationalso channelssupport to producersof culturalgoods and services who seek housing incentral-cityareas. In the short run, proximityto marketsfor their serviceseases theirinsertion into the urbaneconomy. In the long run, however, theircontribution o the downtown's culturalcapital may raise housing prices sohigh that they no longer can afford to live there.In general, the presence of cultural markets both validates and valorizesbusiness investment n major corporatecities. While the culturalconstitutionof new urbanmiddle classes has ironicallybeen termedan "ArtisticMode ofProduction" Zukin 1982), a study by the NationalEndowmentfor the Artsfound that cities with the highestpercentageof artists n the labor force alsohad the highest rates of downtowngentrificationand condominiumconver-sion (Gale 1984:155).Gentrification hus appearsas a multidimensionalculturalpracticethat isrootedon bothsides of the methodologicalschisms thatwe have reviewed. Asa form of homeownership,gentrifieddwellingsare both a meansof accumula-tion and a means of social reproductionorpartof thehighlyeducatedmiddleclass. Moreover,as a reference to specific building types in the center of the


17/20

144 ZUKINcity, gentrificationconnotes both a mode of high-statusculturalconsumptionand the colonization of an expandingterrainby economic institutionsassoci-ated with the service sector.In the long run, economic institutions establish the conditions to whichgentrifiers respond. Seculartrends of disinvestment n urbanmanufacturingdestroy the viability of industrialareas and blue-collarneighborhoods. Therecent resurgence of investment in American cities by major lending in-stitutionsreflects, on the one hand, theirreductionof foreign loans and, onthe other, their participation n an expandingservice economy. The officeconstruction hatthey finance eventually providesjobs for potential gentrifi-ers, but it is not matchedby aninterest n buildingnew housing most of thesepeople can afford.To some extent, also, gentrifiers' ocationalpreferencesreflect theirwith-drawal from a transportationnddistributionnfrastructurehatthey perceiveas being archaic.Manyof thempreferwalkingorbicyclingto workinsteadofmaking a long journey to the city by car or train. Similarly, they abandonsuburbanshopping centers for the smaller scale of shops and the range ofgoods and services available in the city.Propertyvalues rise in middle-class residentialareas, reflecting increasedcompetitionfor a milieu that unifies proximityto professional, managerial,and "creative" obs; opportunities or specialized high-statusconsumption;and the combinationof populationdensity and individualizedfacilities thatcan support ndependent,quasi-bourgeois ocial reproductionby people whoare not really rich. Thus, gentrifiersare caught between the expansion ofmiddle-classstyles of life and a marketsituation hatmakesit harder o realizesuch lifestyles without compromise.Microlevel studiesof gentrifiedneighborhoods annot address hese issues.But there are at least three alternateways to frame a study of gentrificationthat would integrateculturaland economic analysis. First, the synergy be-tween gentrificationand deindustrializationuggests a comparativestudyofhousingand labor markets n metropolitanareas.Second, the long-termplansof local financial, political, and social elites-including their investmentprojectsand their own residentialquarters-focus attentionon "downtown"interests,whetherthey momentarily upporturbanrenewal, gentrification,ornew private-market onstruction cf Ballain et al 1982, Fainsteinet al 1986,Hartman1984). Andthird,the morphologyof urbanareas-both theirchang-ing form and the way this form insertsitself into the city as a whole-showshow the spatialand built environmentconcretizes, transmits,and transformsthe city's constituent social interests (cf Zunz 1970, Harvey 1985a, Pred1985).These proposals may shocktraditionalurbansociologists, as well as thosewhose readingin the field ended with the Chicago School. To them it may


18/20

GENTRIFICATION 145seem as though urbansociology has been engulfed by politicaleconomy, andthe study of cities subordinatedo economic processes and socialclass (Zukin1980).In fact, a numberof sociologists have recently refocused the discipline'sattention on economic institutions (Zukin & DiMaggio 1986). Moreover,thereis a growingmovement n sociology to incorporatehe analysisof spaceandtime (Giddens1985). These interestsshould infuse morerigorinto urbansociologists' efforts to describe the "post-industrialcity," which, like"gentrification," eally refersto existing patternsof social, spatial, and eco-nomic restructuring f the centralcity.LiteratureCitedAnderson, E. 1985. Race and neighborhoodtransition.See Peterson 1985, pp. 99-128Baldassare,M. 1984. Evidence for neighbor-hood revitalization:Manhattan.See Palen&London 1984, pp. 90-102Ballain, R., Bobroff, J. Courant,G., Darris,G. et al 1982. Evolutiondes QuartiersAn-ciens. Paris: Plan Construction,Bilan Th-matiqueBeauregard,R. A. 1986. The chaos andcom-plexity of gentrification.See Smith & Wil-liams 1986, pp. 35-55Berry, B. J. L. 1985. Islands of renewal inseas of decay. See Peterson 1985, pp. 69-96Black, T. J. 1975. Private-markethousingrenovation n centralcities: An UrbanLandInstitute Survey. Urb. Land 34 (Novem-ber):3-9Bourdieu,P. 1984. Distinction:A Social Cri-tique of the Judgementof Taste, tr. R. Nice.

Cambridge,Mass: HarvardUniv. PressBoyer, M. C. 1983. Dreaming the RationalCity: TheMyth of American CityPlanning.Cambridge,Mass: MIT PressBradbury,K. L., Downs, A., Small, K. A.1982. Urban Decline and the Future ofAmerican Cities. Washington,DC: Brook-ingsCastells, M. 1983. The City and the Grass-roots. Berkeley, Calif: Univ. Calif. PressChernoff, M. 1980. Social displacement n arenovatingneighborhood'scommercialdis-trict:Atlanta.See Laska & Spain 1980, pp.204-19Clay, P. L. 1979. Neighborhood Renewal.Lexington, Mass: LexingtonCohen, R. B. 1981. The new internationaldivisionof labor,multinational orporationsand urban hierarchy.In UrbanizationandUrban Planning in Capitalist Society, ed.M. Dear, A. J. Scott, pp. 287-315. Lon-don/New York: MethuenCybriwsky, R. A. 1978. Social aspects of

neighborhood change. Ann. Assoc. Am.Geogr. 68:17-33Cybriwsky, R. A., Ley, D., Western, J. 1986.The political and social constructionof re-vitalized neighborhoods:Society Hill, Phi-ladelphia, and False Creek, Vancouver.SeeSmith & Williams 1986, pp. 92-120DeGiovanni, F. 1984. An examination ofselected consequences of revitalizationinsix U.S. cities. See Palen & London 1984,pp. 67-89DeGiovanni, F., Paulson, N. 1984. Housingdiversity in revitalizing neighborhoods.Urb. Aff. Q. 20(2):211-32Fainstein, N. I., Fainstein, S. S. 1982.Restructuring he American city: A com-parative perspective. In Urban PolicyUnder Capitalism, ed. N. I. Fainstein,S. S. Fainstein, pp. 161-89. Vol. 22, SageUrb. Aff. Ann. Rev. Beverly Hills, Calif:Sage

Fainstein, S. S., Fainstein, N. I., Hill, R. C.,Judd, D. R., Smith, M. P. 1986.Restructuringthe City. New York: Long-man. Rev. ed.Fava, S. F. 1985. Residential preferencesinthe suburbanera: A new look? Soc. Forc.18(2):109-17Firey, W. 1945. Sentimentand symbolismasecological variables. Am. Sociol. Rev.10(2):140-48Fitzgerald, F. 1986. A reporterat large (SanFrancisco-Pt. I). TheNew Yorker,July 21,pp. 34-70Ford, K. 1978. Housing Policy and the UrbanMiddle Class. New Brunswick, NJ: Cent.Urb. Policy Res.Frieden, B. 1964. The Future of Old Neigh-borhoods. Cambridge,Mass: MIT PressGale, D. E. 1980. Neighborhoodresettlement:Washington, D.C. See Laska & Spain,1980, pp. 95-115Gale, D. E. 1984. NeighborhoodRevitaliza-tion and the Postindustrial City: A Multi-


19/20

146 ZUKINnational Perspective. Lexington, Mass:LexingtonGiddens, A. 1985. Time, space and regionali-sation. See Gregory & Urry1985, pp. 265-95Glass, R. 1964. Introduction. In London:Aspects of Change, ed. Centre for UrbanStudies, pp. xiii-xlii. London: MacGibbonand Kee.Gregory, D., Urry, J. 1985. Social Relationsand Spatial Structures.New York: St. Mar-tin'sHamnett, C., Randolph, B. 1986. Tenurialtransformation nd the flat break-upmarketin London: The British condo experience.See Smith & Williams 1986, pp. 121-52Hartman,C. 1984. The Transformation f SanFrancisco. Totowa, NJ: Rowman &AllanheldHarvey, D. 1985a. Consciousness and theUrban Experience. Baltimore:Johns Hop-kins Univ. PressHarvey, D. 1985b. The Urbanizationof Capi-tal. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniv. PressHenig, J. R. 1982. Neighborhoodresponse togentrification:Conditions of mobilization.Urb. Aff. Q. 17(3):343-58Henig, J. R. 1984. Gentrificationand dis-placementof the elderly: An empiricalan-alysis. See Palen & London 1984, pp. 170-84Jager, M. 1986. Class definition and the es-thetics of gentrification:Victoriana n Mel-bourne. See Smith & Williams 1986, pp.78-91Kain, J. F., Apgar, W. C. Jr. 1985. Housingand NeighborhoodDynamics:A SimulationStudy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ.PressKasinitz, P. 1983. Gentrificationand home-lessness: The single room occupant and theinner city revival. Urb. Soc. Change Rev.17(1):9-14Kasinitz, P. 1984. Neighborhoodchange andconflicts over definitions: The "gentrifica-tion" of "BoerumHill." Presentedat 54thAnn. Meet. East. Sociol. Assoc., BostonKrase, J. 1982. Self and Community n theCity. Washington,DC: Univ. PressLaska, S. B., Spain, D. 1980. Back to theCity: Issues in NeighborhoodRenovation.New York: PergamonLee, B. A., Lodge, D. C. 1984. Spatialdiffer-entials in residential displacement. Urb.Stud. 21(3):219-32LeGates, R. T., Hartman,C. 1986. The an-atomy of displacement n the UnitedStates.See Smith & Williams 1986, pp. 178-200Lipton, S. G. 1977. Evidence of central-cityrevival. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 43(April):136-47Logan, J., Molotch, H. 1987. Urban For-

tunes. Berkeley, Calif: Univ. Calif. Press.In pressLondon, B., Lee, B. A., Lipton, S. G. 1986.The determinants of gentrification in theUnited States: A city-level analysis. Urb.Aff. Q. 21(3):369-87Lyford,J. P. 1966. TheAirtightCage:A Studyof New York'sWestSide. New York:Harper& RowMarcuse, P. 1986. Abandonment,gentrifica-tion, and displacement: The linkages inNew York City. See Smith & Williams1986, pp. 153-77Massey, D. 1984. SpatialDivisions of Labor:Social Structures and the Geography ofProduction. New York: MethuenMcDonald, S. C. 1983. Human and marketdynamics in the gentrificationof a Bostonneighborhood. PhD thesis. HarvardUniv.,Cambridge,Mass.Nelson, J. I., Lorence, J. 1985. Employmentin service activitiesandinequality n metro-politan areas. Urb. Aff. Q. 21(1):106-25Palen, J. J., London,B. 1984. Gentrification,Displacement and Neighborhood Revitali-zation. Albany, NY: State Univ. NY PressPalmer, D., Roussel, A. 1986. Corporateheadquarterpresence and business serviceactivity in U.S. central cities. Presented at81st Ann. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., NewYorkPeterson,P. E. 1985. TheNew UrbanReality.Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.Portes, A., Walton, J. 1981. Labor, Class,and the InternationalSystem. New York:AcademicPred,A. 1985. The social becomes thespatial,the spatialbecomes the social: Enclosures,social change and the becomingof places inthe Swedish provinceof Skane. See Greg-ory & Urry 1985, pp. 337-65Rose, D. 1984. Rethinkinggentrification:Be-yond the uneven development of marxisturbantheory. Soc. Space 1:47-74Sassen-Koob,S. 1984. The new labordemandin globalcities. In Cities in Transformation:Class, Capital, and the State, ed. M. P.Smith, pp. 139-71. Vol. 26, Sage Urb. Aff.Ann. Rev. Beverly Hills, Calif: SageSaunders,P. 1984. Beyond housing classes:The sociological significance of privateproperty rights in means of consumption.Int. J. Urb. Reg. Res. 8(2):202-27Sayer, A. 1982. Explanation in economicgeography: Abstractionversus generaliza-tion. Progr. Hum. Geog. 6 (March):68-88Schaeffer, R., Smith,N. 1986. The gentrifica-tion of Harlem? Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.76:347-65Schill, M. H., Nathan,R. P. 1983. Revitaliz-ing America's Cities: Neighborhood,Rein-


20/20

GENTRIFICATION 147vestmentand Displacement. Albany, NY:State Univ. NY PressSmith, N. 1979. Gentrificationand capital:Theory, practice and ideology in SocietyHill. Antipode 11(3):24-35Smith, N. 1984. Uneven Development. Ox-ford: Basil BlackwellSmith, N. 1987. Of yuppies and housing:Gentrification,social restructuring,and theurban dream. Soc. Space. In pressSmith, N. 1986. Gentrification,the frontier,and the restructuringof urban space. SeeSmith & Williams 1986, pp. 15-34Smith, N., Williams, P. 1986. Gentrificationof the City. Boston: Allen & Unwin

Spain, D. 1980. Indicatorsof urbanrevitaliza-tion: Racial and socioeconomic changes incentral-city housing. See Laska & Spain1980, pp. 27-41Weiler, C. 1980. The neighborhood'srole inoptimizing reinvestment:Philadelphia.SeeLaska & Spain 1980, pp. 220-35Williams, B. 1985. Owning places and buyingtime: Class, culture, and stalled gentrifica-tion. Urb. Life 14(3):251-73

Williams, P. 1984. Gentrification n BritainandEurope.See Palen& London 1984, pp.205-34Williams, P. 1986. Class constitution hroughspatial reconstruction?A re-evaluationofgentrification n Australia, Britain, and theUnited States. See Smith & Williams 1986,pp. 56-77Wright,P. 1985a. Idealhomes: A return o theclassical past. New Socialist, October, pp.'16-21Wright,P. 1985b. On Living in an Old Coun-try: The National Past in ContemporaryBritain. London: VersoZukin, S. 1980. A decade of the new urban

sociology. Theory Soc. 9(4):575-601Zukin, S. 1982. Loft Living: Culture andCapital in UrbanChange. Baltimore:JohnsHopkins Univ. PressZukin, S., DiMaggio, P. 1986. StructuresofCapital: The Social Organization of Eco-nomic Institutions. Submitted for publica-tionZunz, 0. 1970. Etude d'un processusd'urbanisation:Le quartierdu Gros-Cailloua Paris. Annales, E.S.C. 25:1024-65

Documents

Zukim. Gentrificação , cultura e capital no centro urbano