Gentrification, Displacement, and the Role of Public Investment

Article

Gentrification, Displacement, and the Role

of Public Investment

Miriam Zuk

, Ariel H. Bierbaum

, Karen Chapple

Karolina Gorska

and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris

Abstract

Scholarly interest in the relationship between public investments and residential displacement dates back to the 1970s and the

aftermath of displacement related to urban renewal. A new wave of scholarship examines the relationship of gentrification and

displacement to public investment in transit infrastructure. Scholarship has generally conflated gentrification and displacement;

however, this review argues for a clearer analytical distinction between the two. Although the displacement discussion in the

United States began with the role of the public sector and now has returned to the same focus, it will be necessary to overcome

methodological shortcomings to arrive at more definitive conclusions about the relationship.

Keywords

gentrification, displacement, neighborhood change, transportation, d emographi c analysis, gender/race/ethnicity, real estate,

infrastructure and capital facilities

In the United States, the ever- changi ng e conomies, demo-

graphics, and physical forms of metropolitan areas have fostered

opportunity for some and hardship for others. These differential

experiences “land” in place and specifically in neighborhoods.

Scholars have devoted volumes to analyzing neighborhood

decline, subsequent revitalization, and gentrification as a result

of government, market, and individual interventions. Today,

with increasing attention to millennial and baby boomer migra-

tion to central city neighborhoods, popular and scholarly con-

versations about gentrification have returned to the fore.

The definitions and impacts of gentrification have been

debated for at least fifty years. Central to these debates are the

differential impacts on incumbent and new residents and ques-

tions of who bears the burden and who reaps the benefits of

change. Consistently, activists, residents, a nd community

groups identify displacement as a pressing concern. Anxieties

about residential, cultural, and job dis pla cemen t reflec t the

lived experiences of neighborhood change and the social mem-

ory of displacements past. These changes stem not just from

individual action and market forces but also government inter-

vention. The public sector makes investments to stimulate and

respond to renewed interest in urban living; these investments

put government at risk of becoming an agent of gentrification

and displacement. However, the extent to which public invest-

ments catalyze residential displacement is not well-defined or

quantified in the social science research.

In this article, we review the body of research on residential

displacement related to gentrification and public investment.

Public investment encompasses a wide array of direct activities

(e.g., urban redevelopment, open space revitalization, and con-

struction of infrastructure) and indirect policy actions (e.g.,

land assembly, subsidies, and zoning). In this article, we nar-

row the focus to investments in transportation infrastructure,

specifically rail transit. In recent years, public spending in

transit has grown, while other public spending has stagnated.

By tracing attempts to define and measure residential displace-

ment, we highlight significant methodological limitations

including data availabilit y and the timin g of displacement,

which potentially mask the impacts of public investments on

communities.

Given renewed public investment in the urban core, and in

particular the great popularity of transit-oriented development

as a municipal smart growth strategy, the time is ripe to review

the concepts and literature to inform policy and practice sur-

rounding gentrification, residential displacement, and the role

of public transportation investments. This literature review

brings together extensive bodies of scholarship that have

sought to examine these issues. First, we review definitions

and approaches to studying gentrification and residential dis-

placement. We argue that residential displacement is often a

key characteristic of gentrification, yet is also analytically dis-

tinct. Second, we examine the range of studies that have tried to

measure the magnitude of gentrification and residential

University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

University of Maryland, College Park, Georgia, USA

Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Los Angeles, CA, USA

University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Miriam Zuk, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Planning Literature

2018, Vol. 33(1) 31-44

ª The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0885412217716439

journals.sagepub.com/home/jpl

displacement. Then, we examine the role of public investments

in transportation infrastructure on neighborhood change. We

conclude with a series of questions to guide future research.

Defining Residential Gentrification

The first documented use of the term “gentrification” (Glass

1964) describes the influx of a “gentry” to lower-income neigh-

borhoods in L ondon during the 1950s and 1960s. Osman

(2011) documents even earlier instances of class-based move-

ment into inner-city areas, specifically the history of

“brownstoning” in Brooklyn in the 1940s. Yet, Glass’s effort

generally benchmarks the start of gentrification as a field of

study. Since her identification of the phenomenon, scholars

have attempted to define the complex process of gentrification,

studying it through a range of methodological approaches and

with little unanimity.

Depending on the time and place, gentrification has been

seen as a tool, goal, outcome, or unintended consequence of

revitalization processes in declining urban neig hborhoods,

which are defined by their physical deterioration, concentra-

tions of poverty, and racial segregation of people of color.

Scholars have sought nuanced descriptions and explanations

of gentrification, identifying the spatial, physical, demo-

graphic, and economic dimensions of this kind of neighbor-

hood change.

Gentrification is tied to historical patterns of residential

segregation; segregated neighborhoods experience the “double

insult—a ‘one-two’ knockout” of neglect and white flight in

the 1950s through 1970s followed by the forces of gentrifying

revitalization since the 1980s (Powell and Spencer 2002, 437).

Government and policy have played a key role in creating these

patterns by direct ing public and private capital in ways that

advantage some and disadvantage other neighborhoods (Rose

1984; Harvey 2001; Smith 1982). This link to neighborhood

disinvestment and subsequent decline suggests that gentrifica-

tion occurs in lower-income inner-city neighborhoods (Lees,

Slater, and Wyly 2008; Hamnett 1991; Lees 2000). However,

others also identify gentrification in middle- or higher-income

urban neighborhoods (Lees 2003), suburban neighborhoods

(Charles 2011), and rural areas (Oberg and Nelson 2010;

Phillips 2004; Ghose 2004). Regardless of specific geographic

location, gentrification occurs in places with relatively afford-

able housing stock and often results in physical renovation of

deteriorated housing and infrastructure (Hamnett 1984; Lees,

Slater, and Wyly 2008).

Smith (1996) emphasizes a nexus of actors that facilitate the

gentrification process—developers, builders, mortgage lenders,

government agencies, and real estate agents. Government—at

the local, state, and federal levels—sets the conditions for and

catalyzes gentrification processes through public subsidy and

policy. Government working in conjunction with private actors

makes up the larger political economy that aims to accumulate

capital through land use management and city development,

echoing the idea of the city as a “growth machine” (Logan and

Molotch 1987; Smith 1996).

The gentrification process also requires in-movers whom

scholars generally describe as those with higher incomes and/

or educational attainment levels than incumbent residents

(Hamnett 1991). To attract in-movers, neighborhoods need to

offer job or recreational opportunities and low or appreciating

housing prices (Lees, Slater, and Wyly 2008), stabilized nega-

tive social conditions (Ellen, Horn, and Reed 2016), and some

lifestyle or aesthetic appeal (Brown-Saracino 2009). Some gen-

trifiers express a lifestyle preference for gritty, authentically

“urban” experiences (Ley 1996; Zukin 1982) even acting as

agents to preserve some nostalgic, authentic character of a

place (Brown-Saracino 2009). Some also identify political

positions for class or racial and ethnic integration as a motiva-

tion (Brown-Saracino 2009; Ley 1996).

The motivations of gentrifiers, driven by a combination of

cultural preferences, political orientations, and economic

needs, vary. Some scholars argue that gentrification occurs in

“waves,” in which the first in -movers—often referred to as

“pioneers”—are lower-income pe op le with higher leve ls of

educational attainment, such as artists. Their housing location

choices are often driven by affordability considerations as well

as aesthetic preferences and higher tolerance or desire for

racial, ethn ic, and/or class diversity (Lees, Slater, and Wyly

2008). The driving economic needs of first- wave gentrifiers

thus are closely tied to land values, housing location, and indi-

viduals’ position within the labor market (Hamnett 2003). Sec-

ond- and third-wave gentrifiers may be higher-income

professionals, who arrive after the first wave has helped stabi-

lize and sanitize the neighborhood.

Regardless of their mot ivations, in-movers’ presence can

improve the physical environment. These physical upgrades

are a result of both individual actions and state-sponsored

investments in housing and infrastructure and improved ser-

vices and maintenance (Davidson and Lees 2005; Bridge, But-

ler, and Lees 2012; Lipman 2008; Freeman 2006 ). Cost of

living in the neighborhood increases, and this may contribute

to displacement (Hamnett 1984).

Gentrification is a particular kind of neighborhood revitali-

zation, distinct because of its possible displacement effects.

Under an alternative kind of revitalization—incumbent upgrad-

ing—the rise of neighborhood consciousness and advocacy to

improve local conditions catalyzes existing residents to make

improvements (Clay 1979). Incumbent residents stay and reap

the benefits of neighborhood improvements, whereas in gentri-

fication, they can be displaced as the social and economic

environment of neighborhoods shift, and the public sector does

not take action to protect long-term residents.

Gentrification scholarship has focused on interracial or—

ethnic dynamics of neighborhood change, particularly where

white in-movers arrive in neighborhoods with predominantly

residents of color. Recent studies on the prevalence of white in-

movement are mixed, however. Some studies find trend s of

greater white in-migration into poor, nonwhite neighborhoods

(Crowder and South 2005; McKinnish, Walsh, and Kirk White

2010), resulting in shifting racial compositions in gentrifying

neighborhoods and assumed displacement of nonwhite

32 Journal of Planning Literature 33(1)

incumbent residents. Other research, howev er, suggests few

differences by race among hou seholds moving into and out

of gentrifying and nongentrify ing n eighborh oods (Ellen and

O’Regan 2011) and that concentrations of African American

residents may actually deter gentrification (Hwang and Samp-

son 2014).

Some scholars further complicate the understanding of these

demographic shifts. Using qualitative methods, these studies

look at cases of black in-movers into predominantly low-

income black neighborhoods (Boyd 2005; Moore 2009; Pattillo

2008). These studies tie neighborhood-specific processes to

larger structural issues of residential segregation and exclusion.

They argue that black in-movers feel more comfortable relo-

cating to predominantly black neighborhoods because of a his-

tory of housing discrimination in predominantly white

neighborhoods and the suburbs. Further, black gentrifiers may

see their relocation in inner cities as a project of “racial uplift”

for their lower-income black counterparts (Boyd 2005).

Measuring and Predicting Residential Gentrification

The complexity i n defini ng and documenting gentrificati on

qualitatively has yielded similarly complicated efforts at

quantitatively measuring and predicti ng gentrification. While

researchers who use qualitative methods focus on the nuances

of how gentrification unfolds over time, most quantitative

analyses tr eat gentrificat ion as a n outcome ra ther than a pro-

cess. Despite the fact that scholars have foc used on the role of

government, policy, and public in ve stment in spurr ing gentri-

fication since the 1970s, attempts to predict gentrification

havelargelyfailedtoincorporate any measures of public-

sector action.

A number of efforts aim to assess the past and current extent

of gentrification and also to develop a set of predictive models

for where gentrifica tion may oc cur in the future. Scholars

incorporate a diversity of metrics based on what data are avail-

able. Some combine indicators to capture the multiple dimen-

sions of the phenomenon using data on income, race,

educational attainment, housing values, rent, and various

proxies for invest ment or disin vestme nt . Others use si mple

metrics of relative income growth for ease of anal ysis and

comp arison . Many studies quantify gentrification b y census

tract based on changes over time that exceed either absolute

thresholds or benchmarked changes at the metropolitan or

regional level.

In one of the earliest quantifications of neighborhood gen-

trification, Bradway Laska, Seaman, and McSeveney (1982)

look at New Orleans census tracts that were “eligible” to be

gentrified based on the reno va tion poten tial of the ho using

stock (i.e., age and median value). Analyzing property trans-

action data, they estimate the amount of neighborhood renova-

tion as a proxy for gentrification a nd conduct a regression

analysis to determine which of a set of nineteen independent

locational, social, a nd housing stock vari ables significantly

predicted renovation. Locational variables are the only proxy

for public investment (in the form of parks and public housing).

Educational attainment, owner occupancy, and high percentage

of multiunit buildings significantly predict renovation, whereas

the presence of public housing negatively predicts it.

Galster and Peacock (1986) ask whether the operational

definition of gentrification impacted the extent, location, and

causal factors associated with the phenomenon. The authors

identify a census tract’s eligibility to gentrify based on its

aggregate socioeconomic status in 1970 (i.e., income, home

value, educational attainment, and percentage of white). They

analyze socioeconomic and real estate change from 1970 to

1980 in Philadelphia, PA, for (a) proportion of black, (b) pro-

portion of college educated, (c) household inco mes, and (d)

property values. The only potential measures of public invest-

ment are proxies for proximity to parks and universities. Vary-

ing the stringency of each of the four gentrification indicators,

their sensitivity analysis indicates a wide variation in the num-

ber and location of gentrified tracts, finding that as few as 6

percent and as many as 82 percent of eligible tracts have gen-

trified during the time period. They test twelve predictive char-

acteristics on each of these definitions, finding little

relationship and wide variability.

Melchert and Naroff (1987) use block-level census data

to construct a predictive model of gentrification in Boston,

MA. In their construction of a gentrification index, the

authors rely heavily on Clay’s (1979) definition. They look

at central city locations and combine forty-one variables

that characterize the block’s amenities (e.g., parks), social

composition ( e.g., percentage of white), economic st atus

(e.g., median income), and housing conditions (e.g., per-

centage of units without plumbing). The only indicator of

public investment is open space. The authors identify four

phases of gentrification, defined by the gentrifiers and the

percentage of the housing stock gentrified. Yet, when mod-

eling the phenomen on, they cha racteri ze gentrification a s a

dichotomous variable, having either happened or not. Ulti-

mately ending up with six predictive variables, they deter-

mine that the gentry in Boston preferred: an older housing

stock; proximity to open space of si x to ten ac re s; to live

near downtown, though not too close; and neighborhoods

with depressed housing values.

Freeman (2005) defines gentrifying neighborhoods as

being: (1) central city neighborhoods, (2) initially populated

by low-income households, that had (3) experienced disinvest-

ment (i.e., mostly older housing stock), which subsequently

experienced, (4) an influx of the relatively affluent (i.e.,

increased educational attainment), and (5) an increase in pri-

vate investment (i.e., housing price appreciation). He includes

no public investment variable. Freeman finds that 31 percent of

eligible tracts in the United States gentrified in the 1990s.

Updating these data for Governing Magazine’s analysis of the

country’s fifty largest metropolitan areas, Maciag (2015) finds

that nearly 20 percent of eligible neighborhoods g entrified

since 2000. Yet, some cities had much higher rates of gentri-

fication with over 50 percent of eligible tracts in Minneapolis,

Seattle, Washington, DC, and Portland g entrifying between

2000 and 2013.

Zuk et al. 33

Finally, in his analysis of neighborhood socioeconomic

change between 1990 and 2010, Landis (2015) attempts to

come up with consistent indicators across seventy metropolitan

areas. He defines gentrifying tracts as those with low median

incomes in 1990 that grew by more than two deciles over the

time period. Using this income-only definition, he found that

21 percent of eligible tracts gentrified in the 1990s and 2000s.

Tracts with higher proportions of white residents, college-

educated residents, and pre–World War II housing were more

likely to have gentrified. Yet his predictive model only predicts

4 percent of gentrifying tracts. Despite incorporating variables

measuring public policy related to growth management, the

study does not include any measures of public investment.

Defining Residential Displacement

Displacement is a central concern of gentrification. However,

we argue that it is also a distinct phenomenon that can occur

even in the absence of gentrification.

Scholarly interest in defining, measuring, and predicting

residential displacement dates to the mid-twentieth century,

when the federal urban renewal program, local redevelopment

efforts, and interstate highway construction forcibly displaced

communities of color and low-income communities in urban

neighborhoods en masse. Following these policy efforts, urban

activists were particularly sensitive to the risks of and the role

of government in facilitating displacement (Hartman and

National Housing Law Project 1981).

However, in the 1970s, the nature of displacement was no

longer solely driven by forced removal through public action.

Instead, a growing “back to the city” trend perceived to be

largely driven by private actions an d individual preferences

(albeit with significant yet perhaps more subtle influences from

the public sector) began to dominate public concern about

neighborhood change and residential displacement (Clay

1979). Today’s landscape of downtown revitalization and

migration of both millennials and retiring baby boomers to

central cities (Ehrenhalt 2012) has renewed interest not only

in private actions and individual preferences but also in the role

that government and public investments may spur residential

displacement.

In 1978, the US Department of Housing and Urban Devel-

opment sponsored the first of a series of reports on revitaliza-

tion and displacement called “Urban Displacement: A

Reconnaissance” (Grier and Grier 1978). In this report, the

authors list twenty-five factors that might lead to the involun-

tary movement of people from their place of residence. These

factors imp ly a div erse set of actors: b uild ing ow ne rs who

initiate condominium conversion or rent increases, local gov-

ernment conducting proactive code enforcement and planning

decisions, and banks engaging in redlining practices, to name a

few. In an effort to provide a definition of displacement that

encompasses these various drivers, Grier and Grier (1978, 8)

propose the following, which numerous researchers and agen-

cies have adopted subsequently:

Displacement occurs when any household is forced to move from

its residence by conditions which affect the dwelling or immediate

surroundings, and which:

1) are beyond the household’s reasonable ability to control or

prevent;

2) occur despite the househ old’s having met all previously

imposed conditions of occupancy; and

3) make continued occupancy by that household impossible,

hazardous or unaffordable.

Although they use the term “forced” in their definition of

displacement, Grier and Grier do not equate forced with invo-

luntary displacement. In fact, they describe the fact that many

who are displaced are subject to a variety of actions or inactions

that can be explicit or implicit. They (1978, 3) conclude:

For most residents to move under such conditions is about as

“voluntary” as is swerving one’s car to avoid an accident. By the

time the landlord issues notices of eviction, or the code inspector

posts the structure as uninhabitable, few occupants may be left.

Therefore, we cannot define displacement simply in terms of legal

or administrative actions—or even draw a clear-cut line between

“voluntary” and “involuntary” movement.

Newman and Owen (1982) concur that the distinction between

voluntary and involuntary moves is false: “low-income house-

holds who experience extremely large rent increases may tech-

nically ‘choose’ to move, but the likelihood that they had any

real alternative is very small” (p. 137).

In an effort to categorize the causes of displacement,

Grier and Grier (1978) distinguish between disinvestment

displacement, reinvestment displacement, and displacement

caused by enhanced housing market competition. Disinvest-

ment displacement occurs when the value of a property does

not justify investing in its maintenance, therebyresultingin

decay and abandonment. Reinvestment displacement refers

to the case where investments in a neighborhood result in

increased rents to a point whe reitisprofitabletosellor

raise the rent forcing tenants to leave. The authors were

careful t o note that “unrelated a s they see m, these two con-

ditions of displacement may be successive stages in the

cycle of neighborhood change” (Grier and Grier 1978, 3).

For example, disinvestment displacement may make way for

new in-movers to purchase inexpensive housing, resulting i n

reinvestment and subsequent displacement. Fina lly, they

argue that enhanced housing market competition, reflecting

broad shifts in the national and regional housing market,

mayhaveanevenlargerimpactthandisinvestmentorrein-

vestment forces.

The distinctions in these three types of displacement pres-

sures (disinvestment, reinvestment, and enhanced market com-

petition) resurfaced when Marcuse (1985, 1986) analyzed

displacemen t in New York City. Marcuse argues that when

looking at the relationship between gentrification and displace-

ment, one must first consider the disinvestment of urban neigh-

borhoods and subsequent displacement, which creates “vacant”

34 Journal of Planning Literature 33(1)

land ripe for investment through gentrification. From this per-

spective, gentrification can happen long after displacement

occurs. Therefore, most gentrification -induced disp lacement

studies significantly underestimate the magnitude of the prob-

lem by only looking at “last resident displacement.” Instead, he

argues that “chains” of displacement must be considered. He

further distinguishes between displacement due to physical

reasons (e.g., water is turned off, evictions, rehabilitation, etc.)

versus those due to economic causes (e.g., rising rent). In addi-

tion, Marcuse introduces the concept of “exclusionary dis-

placement” to encompass situations when a household is not

permitted to move into a neighborhood based on conditions

that are beyond their control (e.g., price increases).

Marcuse also suggests that displacement affects many more

than those physically displaced at any moment:

When a family sees its neighborhood changing dramatically, when

all their friends are leaving, when stores are going out of business

and new stores for other clientele are taking their places (or none

are replacing them), when changes in public facilities, transporta-

tion patterns, support services, are all clearly making the area less

livable, then the pressure for displacement is already severe. (Mar-

cuse 1986, 57).

Davidson (2009) expands on this idea; for him, the overempha-

sis on spatial dislocation in displacement literature ignores the

social meaning and practices attached to the lived experiences

of neighborhoods and place. Thus, “it is impossible to draw the

conclusion of displacement purely from the identification

movement of people between locations. People can be displaced —

unable to (re)construct place—without spatial dislocati on”

(Davidson 2009, 228).

Finally, with their focus on evictions, Desmond and Shol-

lenberger (2015) remind researchers that forced displacement

is endemic to poor communities and not confined to gentrifying

neighborhoods. The authors focus o n forced displacement

through both formal evictions processed through the court sys-

tem and informal evictions, which are often “less expensive

and more efficient than forma l evictions” (Desmond and

Shollenberger 2015, 1754). In their analysis of survey data

on the reasons for people’s moves in Milwaukee, they clarify

the overly simplified dichotomy of involuntary/voluntary

moves by reclassifying some seemingly voluntary reasons as

responsive to outside forces. They define thes e responsive

moves as “motivated by housing or neighborhood conditions.

These include rent hikes, a deterioration in housing quality,

escalating violence in the neighborhood, domestic violence”

(Desmond and Shollenberger 2015, 1758). When taking into

account the magnitude and impacts of forced and responsive

displacement in poor black neighborhoods, Desmond (2012)

argues that “eviction is to women what incarceration is to men:

a typical but severely consequential occurrence contributing to

the reproduction of urban poverty” (p. 88).

Based on this review of the literature, we categorize

the various catalysts for displacement from housing units

and neighborhoods (see Table 1). We identify forced and

responsive c auses and further differentiate between direct

physical, indirect economic, and exclusionary causes.

As illustrated, the reasons for displacement may or may not

result from gentrification. While displacement may be a defin-

ing characteristic and outcome of gentrification, this categor-

ization clarifies how displacement can occur in the absence of

gentrification, and that scholarship requires advanced tools to

define and measure these analytically distinct phenomena.

Measuring Residential Displacement

Measuring resident ial displa cement is c hallenging, akin to

“measuring the invisible” as the population under question has

moved away from the place of study (Atkinson 2000). Scholars

use a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods to answer

questions across scales that address who and how many people

are displaced, what causes displacement, and what are some

consequences of displacement. These studies stem from an

interest in neighborhood investment and disinvestment by both

private and public sectors.

Newman and Owen (1982) offer perhaps one of the first

comprehensive analys es of displacement. They us e longi-

tudinal data from the panel study on income dynamics to esti-

mate the s cale, nature, and impacts of displac ement. They

categorize moves as displacement related when people move

because of t he conditions of the house or neighborhood,

eminent domain, and eviction by the landlord because of sale

or reoccupation. While they include public action as a cause for

displacement (i.e., eminent domain), they do not explicitly

Table 1. Categories of Displacement.

Forced Responsive

Direct or

physical

causes



Formal eviction



Informal eviction (e.g.,

landlord harassment)



Landlord foreclosure



Eminent domain



Natural disaster



Building condemnation



Deterioration

in housing

quality



Neighborhood

violence or

disinvestment



Removing

parking, utilities,

and so on.

Indirect or

economic

causes



Foreclosure



Condo conversion



Rent increase



Increased taxes



Loss of social

networks or

cultural

significance of a

place

Exclusionary

causes



Section 8

discrimination



Zoning policies

(restriction on density,

unit size, etc.)



NIMBY resistance to

development



Unaffordable

housing



Cultural

dissonance



Lack of social

networks

Zuk et al. 35

look at the impacts of public investment. Newman and Owens

find that the average annual rate of displacement between 1970

and 1977 was roughly 5 percent of all families that moved.

In measuring various forms of displacement in New York

City in the 1970s, Marcuse (1986 ) ex amines disinvestment-

related displacement from abandonment by looking at census

data on the loss of units. He argues that the actual loss under-

estimates the displacement from abandonment due to the spil-

lover effects from vacant property on neighborhood livability

conditions. In addition to abandonment, he quantifies displace-

ment from rehabilitation of multifamily units, the loss of single

room occupancy units, changes in rent, condominium conver-

sions, and landlord harassment. Despite potential duplication

between the various categories, he estimates a range of 40,000

to 100,000 annual displacement-related household moves in

the 19 70s, roughly 8 percent to 21 percent of the estimated

476,011 total moves in New York City in 1979.

In a series of quantitative and qualitative analyses for New

York City, Newman and Wyly classify displacement as

households that move for reasons of housing expense, land-

lord harassment, and displacement by private action (i.e.,

condo conversion). Looking at unique survey data from the

New York City Housing and Vacancy Sur ve y, they find t hat

between 6 percent and 10 percent of all moves in New York

City from 1989 to 2002 were due to displac ement. Th ey argue

that this number could be a signifi cant underestimate due to

the inabi lity of survey data to capture “doubling up,” home-

lessness, or moves out of the region.Furthermore,theyfind

that neighborhood context mattered; for instance, more than

15 percent of all renters movin g into the W illiamsburg/Green-

point neighborhood in Brookly n were displaced from their

previous homes, wherea s less than 4 percent of arrivals in the

Flatlands/Canarsie section of Brooklyn were dis plac ed. In a

subsequent analysis, Wyly et al. (2010) again look at New

York housi ng survey data, a nd when comparing their results

to local eviction data, estimate that the survey misses twelve

of the thirteen displ ac ee s. They a lso fin d that poo r hous eho lds

were nearly twice as likely to be displaced as nonpoor

households.

Finally, in their survey of renters in Milwaukee, WI, Des-

mond and Shollenberger (2015) find that more than one in eight

Milwaukee renters experienced at least one forced move (for-

mal or informal eviction, landlord foreclosure, or building con-

demnation) over a two-year time period. The rates differed by

race/ethnicity; they found that 8 percent of white renters, 15

percent of black renters, and 29 percent of Hispa nic renters

experienced forced moves. Nearly half of all forced moves

were informal evictions. Formal evictions, on the other hand,

were less common, constituting less than one-quarter of forced

moves. Out of all moves in the previous year, they find that

roughly 11 percent were due to displacement. In contrast, the

American Housing Survey (AHS) of 2009 estimates between 2

percent and 5 percent of moves were due to displacement.

Desmond and Shollenberg er argue that th e AHS undere sti-

mates displacement due to open-ended questions that do not

adequately capture informal evictions.

Together, these studies demonstrate the complexity of ade-

quately quantifying the scale of the displacement phenomenon.

Nevertheless, researchers find that roughly between 5 percent

and 10 percent of moves are due to reasons beyond a house-

hold’s control, which can vary substantially between neighbor-

hoods and socioeconomic groups.

Gentrification-induced Residential

Displacement

The vast majority of research on displacement has focused on

displacement as an outcome of neighborhood revitalization,

upgrading, and/or gentrification. Both the methods and the

definitions of gentrification and displacement in these studies

range as widely as those identified above. Here, we review this

set of studies, with an aim to understand their differences and

inability to conclusively establish the relationship between

gentrification and displacement.

Early on, researchers focus on surveying people who moved

into and out of revitalizing neighborhoods, examining neigh-

borhoods experiencing increased private and/or public invest-

ment. In a 1981 survey of current and former res idents

(National Institute for Advanced Studies 1981) of the rapidly

revitalizing Hayes Valley neighborhood of San Francisco,

researchers find that from 1975 to 1979, one out of four movers

(both out- and intramovers) from their sample were displaced.

Displacees were more likely to be African American, less edu-

cated, poor, renters, elderly, and living alone in comparison to

in-movers and residents who stay. Researchers also find that

displacees moved out for a variety of reasons including

investment-related causes (e.g., rising rent) but also

disinvestment-related reasons (e.g., poor housing quality), call-

ing into question both the direction and timing of the relation-

ships between neighborhood revitalization, disinvestment, and

displacement. In a related study, Schill, Nathan, and Persaud

(1983) surveyed out-movers from nine revitalizing neighbor-

hoods in five cities. They find that 23 percent of out-movers

from 1978 to 1980 were displaced. Overcrowding, frequency

of previous moves, unemployment, and marital status predicted

displacement. Despite the high rates of displacement, the authors

acknowledge the potential for undersampling of the most vul-

nerable and more transient households.

In London, Atkinson (2000) defines gentrification by

increases in professionalization in the city’s boroughs without

regard to private or public investment. Using synthetic

cohorts of census data, he finds clear links between the rise

in gentrification and displacement of vulnerable groups in

London. Analyzing similarly large areas for Boston, Vigdor,

Massey, and Rivlin (2002) ask whether low-status households

were more likely to exit housing units in gentrifying areas

relative t o other p arts of the Boston metropolitan a rea. Com-

bining data from the AHS with aggregate data from the cen-

sus, they ran a regression of residential stability on location in

gentrified zones (defined by demographic characteristics of

the r esidents, and not private or public investment flows).

They find that housing turnover was greater in gentrifying

36 Journal of Planning Literature 33(1)

zones; however, low educational attainment appears to pre-

dict housing stability rather than t urnover, w hen interacting

with l ocation in a gentrified zone.

Freeman and Braconi (2004) use New York City survey data

to compare exit rates of poor households in gentrifying subbor-

oughs to the exit rates of the poor in nongentrifying low-

income neighborhoods from 1991 to 1999. They find that poor

households residing in gentrifying neighborhoods were less

likely to move than poor households residing elsewhere. How-

ever, people moving into gentrifying neighborhoods were of a

higher socioeconomic status than those leaving, indicating pos-

sible exclusionary displacement. They do not analyze the

effects of public investment. Newman and Wyly (2006) argue

that the “gentrified” neighborhoods of New York in Freeman

and Braconi’s study had already seen the displacement of poor

households in earlier decades and that the nongentrifying poor

neighborhood control groups included residents of some of the

poorest areas of the city with respective high turnover rates,

creating an artificially high standard to use as a control.

Other studies have looked nationally to try to identify the

factors resulting in displacement, capitalizing on different data

sets. Freeman (2005) analyzes the panel study on income

dynamics data and compares displacement in poor gentrifying

census tracts (defined by both demographic shifts and private

investment) to poor census tracts that did not gentrify. He finds

that rental inflation was a significant predictor of mobility, and

displacement was higher in gentrifying as opposed to nongen-

trifying tracts. Although positive and statistically significant,

Freeman dismisses the relationship between gentrification and

displacement as small. The analysis does not include indepen-

dent variables measuring public investment.

McKinnish, Walsh, and Kirk White (2010) analyze the con-

fidential national census long form data from 1990 to 2000 to

understand who moves into and out of gentrifying neighbor-

hoods (defined by demographic characteristics). The authors

find that migrants into gentrifying tracts were more likely to be

higher inco me, college educated, younger and less likely to

have children and be immigrants when compared to nongen-

trifying low-income tracts. They also find statistically signifi-

cant higher exit rates of low-education black and Latino

residents from gentrifying neighborhoods.

Finally, Ellen and O’Regan (2011) use the AHS to compare

characteristics of households that moved into or out of gentri-

fying neighborhoods (defined by median household income

gains). They find that neighborhood income gains did not pre-

dict two-year household exit rates, even among vulnerable

groups. Neither McKinnish, Walsh, and Kirk White nor Ellen

and O’Regan explore the role of private or public investment in

their analyses.

Using a unique individual-level data set on credit scores,

Ding, Hwang, and Divringi (2016) largely confirm Ellen and

O’Regan’s (2011) study, finding that low-credit score residents

of gentrifying neighborhoods (defined by home values) were

no more likely to move out than similar residents of nongen-

trifying neighborhoods. They were, however, more likely to

move to lower-income neighborhoods . When differentiating

between different stages of gentrification, the authors find that

low-score residents were slightly more likely to move out of

neighborhoods that had been gentrifying for an extended period

of time (i.e., two decades or more). In addition, they find that

in-movers to the gentrifying neighborhoods were more likely to

be of higher-income levels, suggesting that exclusionary dis-

placement is occurring. T his study only captures moves by

residents with a credit score and thus may be missing displace-

ment for the lowest income residents and many renters. In a

subseq uent study of Philadelphia, Chizeck (2016) finds that

gentrifying neighborhoods lost low-cost housing at five times

the rates of nongentrifying neighborhoods.

Finally, in analyzing evictions cases in Los Angel es in

the 19 90s, Sims (2016) finds that gentrification explains

only o ne of the four “displacement ge ogra phie s,” while the

other three are nongentrifying or pregentrifying contexts

related to capital accumulation facilitated by public and

private institutions. Sims argues that abnormally high rates

and concentrations o f evictions ca n thus repre se nt restr uc-

turing housing and labor markets, and possibly even the

strategic action of landlords, rather than simply the individ-

ual behavior of tenants.

Although varied in their approaches and results, one consis-

tent finding across these studies is that in-movers to gentrifying

neighborhoods are wealthier, whiter, and of higher educational

attainment than incumbent residents, and out-movers are more

likely to be renters, poorer, and people of color than in-movers

(see Table 2). The research also consistently shows that rent

appreciation predicts displacement.

However, the studi es are not consistent in their findings

that gentrification induces displacement. Why the discre-

pancy? One possible explanation for the unexpected residen-

tial stability i s t hat the normal neighborhood turnover process

slows in neighborhoods that are gaining new amenities (along

with new r esidents); residents try harder to stay in the neigh-

borhood, even if it means paying more rent or doubling up

(Chapple 2014; Freeman 2006). Yet, these higher rent bur-

dens are unlikely to be sustainable over the long term, result-

ing in displacement in a longer-term framework than is

typically measured.

Other reasons for the inconclusive evidence on the links

between gentrification and displacement include definitional

and methodological shortcomings of the research. For

instance, quantitative analyses have systematically failed to

characterize the various stages of gentrification that a neigh-

borhood may be experiencing, choosing instead to categorize

gentrification as a static outcome. This dichotomy also leaves

out the potential for gentrification-related displacement to

precede gentrification, especially when property owners

attempt to vacate units in anticipation of rising rents and

neighborhood change. Furthermore, the vast majority of stud-

ies na rrowly defines displace ment under what Marcuse (1985)

would classify as physical or economic d isplacement but

ignores or dismisses exclusionary displacement as simply

succession and replacement. How we define the phenomenon

matters for how we interpret the results.

Zuk et al. 37

Another key limitation is the lack of a consistent and clearly

identified comparison group. While some argue for the com-

parison of poor gentrifying neighborhoods to poor

nongentrifying neighborhoods (i.e., Freeman 2005), others

believe displacement rates should be compared to more stable

neighborhoods (i.e., Newman and Wyly 2006). These

Table 2. Quantitative Studies on the Relationship between Gentrification and Displacement.

Author (Year)

Operationalization of

Displacement Operationalization of Gentrification Key Findings

National

Institute for

Advanced

Studies

(1981)

Any nonvoluntary reason for

moving except life cycle

factors (i.e., divorce)

N/A One of four of the out- and intra-neighborhood

movers were displaced. Displaced residents

were more likely to be African American, less

educated, poor, renters, elderly and living alone

in comparison to in-movers and stayers

Schill, Nathan,

and Persaud

(1983)

Displaced residents because

rent was increased, were

evicted or landlord sold the

house

N/A Twenty-three percent of out-movers from 1978

to 1980 were displaced. Crowding, frequency

of previous moves, unemployment, and marital

status predicted displacement

Atkinson

(2000)

Loss of vulnerable populations

(e.g., working class, renters,

and nonwhite)

Increases in the number of professionals

and managers in the area

Larger outflow than inflow of the working class

into gentrifying areas

Vigdor,

Massey, and

Rivlin (2002)

Any exit from a gentrifying zone

over a three- to four-year

period.

Increases in educational attainment and

owner-occupied housing values

Housing turnover was greater in gentrifying

zones. Low educational attainment predicts

housing stability rather than turnover when

interacted with location in a gentrified zone

Freeman and

Braconi

(2004)

Exit rates of poor households Growth in white populations, rent,

educational attainment, and median

income in contrast to other New

York City neighborhoods

Poor households residing in gentrifying

neighborhoods were less likely to move than

poor households residing elsewhere. People

moving into gentrifying neighborhoods were of

a higher socioeconomic status than those

leaving

Freeman

(2005)

Displaced residents for reasons

including downsizing, rent

increase, eviction, divorce, or

joining the arm forces

Disinvested (less new housing stock),

low-income, central city tracts that

experienced increased investment

(housing price appreciation) and

educational attainment

Rental inflation was a predictor of mobility, and

displacement was higher in gentrifying as

opposed to nongentrifying tracts. Poverty rates

declined and educational levels increased for in-

movers into gentrifying neighborhoods. Moves

originating in gentrifying neighborhoods were

more likely to end outside of the neighborhood

Ellen and

O’Regan

(2011)

Two-year household exit rate Neighborhoods experiencing a 5

percent gain in income relative to the

metropolitan area

Exit rates vary from 20 percent to 30 percent and do

not differ significantly between gaining and

nongaining neighborhoods. Entrance of higher-

income homeowners and exit of low-income

renters were an important source of income gains

McKinnish,

Walsh, and

Kirk White

(2010)

Exit rates of vulnerable

population groups

Low-income tracts in 1990 where the

average household income had

increased by over US$10,000 in 2000

Higher exit of low education and retention of

high-education households in gentrifying

neighborhoods. In-movers into gentrifying

tracts were more likely to be higher income,

college educated, younger when compared to

nongentrifying low-income tracts

Ding, Hwang,

and Divringi

(2016)

Exit rates of low credit score

residents

Lower household income, growth in

rent or home value, and increase in

share of college-educated residents

Low-income residents in gentrifying

neighborhoods were not disproportionately

likely to move out. When less advantaged

residents do move, they are more likely to

move to lower income neighborhoods. In-

movers to the gentrifying neighborhoods are

likely to be of higher-income levels

Sims (2016) Eviction rates Not quantified, eviction hot spot

neighborhoods were contextualized

and analyzed through literature

Gentrification explained only one of the four

displacement geographies, while the other

three were nongentrifying or pregentrifying

contexts

Note: N/A ¼ not applicable.

38 Journal of Planning Literature 33(1)

comparison groups are important because they not only provide

a context against which to evaluate results but also reveal belief

systems about our understanding of how neighborhoods should

function.

Finally, and perhaps due to the inherent difficulty of quan-

tification, we found no quantitative studies that attempt to ana-

lyze the scale of what Davidson (2009) might call “nonspatial

displacement,” namely, the loss of social meaning, cultural

practices, and social networks associated with gentrifying

neighborhoods. Notably, we also found little or no attempt to

identifytheroleofpublicinvestment in gentrificati on or

displacement.

The Role of Publicly Financed Transit

Infrastructure in Spurring Gentrification

and Residential Displacement

The vast majority of research on the drivers of gentrification

and displacement has focused on private actors a nd capital.

However, the public sector can play an important role in neigh-

borhood transformation through a number of avenues: invest-

ing in physical infrastructure, structuring land use decisions,

and incentivizing business location, to name a few.

This review does not include the impacts of all urban public

investment types, which can range from large-scale redevelop-

ment projects to smaller-scale streetscape interventions. Nor do

we look at the impacts of land use decisions (e.g., zoning) or

other government interventions (e.g., tax abatements) that can

shape the urban environment. Although important, such rela-

tionships are currently understudied and therefore lack an exist-

ing evidence base for us to review.

Instead, we review the existing literature on one type of

public investment that has received increased attention: pub-

licly financed rail transit. Just as urban renewal spurred gentri-

fication and displacement in earlier decades, new transit

investments in built-up urban neighborhoods have the potential

to shape neighborhood c hange. Studies of the relationship

between rail transit and neighborhood change take two forms.

One set of studies takes advantage of readily available data on

housing sales, housing values, new development, or renova-

tions to quantify real estate appreciation. Another group of

studies describe the relationship between transit and various

indicators of gentrifying neighborhoods.

Rail Transit and Real Estate Appreciation

Transit is a desirab le neighborhood amenity because it can

improve accessibility to jobs and other destinations. However,

disamenity effects also exist from being “too close” to transit,

including heightened noise, congestion, pollution, and traffic

(Kilpatrick et al. 2007). Largely due to data availability, most

empirical studies on the impact of transportation investments

focus on changes in property values rather than land use, house-

holds, racial transition, or cultural meaning (Landis et al.

1995). Consensus across the literature suggests that the acces-

sibility benefits of living near transit outweigh the potential

nuisance effects, and that proximity to public transit often leads

to higher home values and rents (Wardrip 2011).

Several literature reviews summarize research related to the

home price premiums that come with proximity to transit.

These premiums vary significantly. Cervero and Duncan

(2004) find that the premium for home prices ranged from 6

percent to 45 percent. Diaz (1999) sets the range between 3

percent and 40 percent. Meanwhile, Hess and Almeida (2007)

find a maximum premium of 32 percent, although noting that

some studies found no e ffect, while oth ers found ne gative

effects.

In a review of existing research on the topic, Giuliano and

Agarwal (2010, 228) argue that “the literature does not estab-

lish unambiguously whether or not rail transit investments get

capitalized in property values.” They attribute inconsistent

findings in part to differences in research methods and in the

local conditions. They note that transit systems have an appre-

ciable impact on accessibility only where road networks are

insufficient for handling travel demands (i.e., where congestion

is severe).

Overall, the i mpact of transit on home values can vary

depending on a number of mediating factors such as housing

tenure and type, the extent and reliability of the transit system,

the strength of the housing market, and the nature of the sur-

rounding development (Wardrip 2011). In an area with a strong

housing market and a reliable transit system, the price premium

may be much higher than the average. Additionally, e ffects

may v ary for different stations within a single market. For

instance, transit stations may have little or no impact on hous-

ing prices in some neighborhoods but a significant impact in

others (Wardrip 2011). Effects may also vary depending on the

type of housing (single family or multifamily; Zhong and Li

2016). Some studies have also found that t ransit expa nsion

plans may drive increases in property values before any-

thing is built (Knaap, Ding, and Hopkins 2001). Research

suggests that heavy rail systems have a greater impact on

property values than light rail systems. This is likely due to

heavy rail’s great er freque nc y, spee d, an d scope of servic e

as compared to most light rail networks (Brinckerhoff 2001;

Landis et al. 1995).

Rail Transit, Gentrification, and Displacement

Although the vast majority of the literature focuses on the

impacts of transit on real estate value, a number of scholars

are beginning to investigate the relationship between transit

investments and gentrification, with an imp lied relationship

to residential displacement. Even as these new studies are able

to identify a connection between transit investment or transit

proximity and gentrification, results conflict due to methodo-

logical flaws and the failure to examine different forms of

displacement (Rayle 2014). As Revington (2015) points out,

even as this literature has begun to connect transit with neigh-

borhood change, it often fails to operationalize gentrification

fully. Viewed according to Smith (1982), a nexus of actors is

coordinating transit investment to facilitate the movement of

Zuk et al. 39

capital and capture the profits as the value is capitalized into

land. New transit systems become ammunition for cities mar-

keting themselves in the global competition for capital. Yet,

most of the studies to date have examined only one aspect of

gentrification such as home price increases.

Much of the research relating transit investments and gen-

trification stems from efforts to aid activists and governments

to bette r understa nd, pre dict, and plan f or neighbo rhood

change. One of the earlier iterations of work predicting gentri-

fication is a presentation by researchers from the Urban Insti-

tute (Turner and Snow 2001). Analyzing data for the

Washington, DC, area, they identify the five leading indicators

as predictive of future gentrification (defined as sales prices

that are above the district’s average) of low-income areas,

including good metro access. In a Dukakis Center for Urban

and Regional Policy report, Pollack, Bluestone, and Billingham

(2011) affirm that transit can be a catalyst for neighborhood

renewal, noting that such accessibility improvements could

potentially “price out” current residents because of rising prop-

erty values and rents. They find increases in rents, household

incomes, and vehicle ownership near transit in twelve US cit-

ies. Similarly, Kahn (2007) looks at fourteen US cities with

transit systems that expanded from 1970 to 1990 and finds that

transit-adjacent census tracts experienced disproportionate

increases in property values and educational attainment. Focus-

ing on changes in median household income, Barton and Gib-

bons (2017) show that nearby subway stops are a significant

predictor for income growth but are secondary to many other

factors. Deka (2016) analyzes changes in home values, rent,

and race/ethnicity near rail transit in New Jersey, finding sig-

nificant positive impacts only on home values. A qualitative

analysis of a new transit line in suburban Vancouver finds that

the state support of densifying neighborhoods near transit

threatened the housing stability of disadvantaged residents

(Jones and Ley 2016).

Other studies adopt more complex definitions of gentrifica-

tion. In an analysis of two Swiss cities, Re´rat and Lees (2011)

look specifically at “new build gentrifiers” who live in new

developments near transit, finding that they disproportionately

value the proximity and connectivi ty in their new neighbor-

hoods. In a study for the Association of Bay Area Govern-

ments, Chapple (2009) adopted Freeman’s (2005) definition

of gentrifying neighborhoods. She shows that a number of

socioeconomic, locational, and built environmen t variables,

including proximity to rail transit, predicted gentrification.

Increasingly, researchers are not just looking at a neighbor-

hood’s proximity to transit but pinpointing the timing of the

transit investment and analyzing subsequent neighborhood

changes. Thus, using a survival analysis, Grube-Cavers and

Patterson (2015) show that proximity to rail transit is positively

and significantly related to the onset of gentrification in

Toronto and Montreal, but not Vancouver, perhaps because

gentrification i n that city was already advanced.

Over time, gentrifi cation is spreading away from down-

towns. A recent study of Los Angeles and San Francisco ana-

lyzes gentrification and displacement separately, finding that

transit proximity plays a significant role but depending on

when it is implemented and its location within the metropolitan

region (Chapple et al. 2016). This study is the first to analyze

different dimensions of displaceme nt, including the loss of

low-income residents, the loss of affordable housing, and the

exclusion of low-income in-movers, in relation to transit.

Conclusions: Toward a Research Agenda

on Gentrification, Displacement, and Public

Investment

Scholarly interest in the relationship between investment and

displacement dates back to the 1970s, in the aftermath of urban

renewal. More recently, a new wave of scholarship examines

gentrification, primarily in strong market cities, and its rela-

tionship to public investment, particularly in transit. The results

of these studies are mixed due, in part, to methodological

shortcomings.

Despite the US c ontext of growin g income seg regation,

residential and commercial gentrification is occurring in

lower-income neighborh oods, transforming the meaning of

the neighborhood. Although research ers experience sever e

data and analytic challenges in measuring the extent of

displacement, most studies agree that gentrification at a

minimum leads to exclusionary displa cement and may push

out some renters as well, while others manage to stay.

Although early research on neighborhood change tended

to undere mphasize the role of the state, more recent work

has identified an impac t of public investment in the form of

fixed-rail transit.

To better address the needs of policy makers, community

activists, and researchers alike, there is an urgent need to

improve the body of research related to public investments,

gentrification, and displacement. In some cases, this will

require new data sets and methods, whereas in other cases, it

will involve more qualitative methods and consistent measures.

Here, we outline some questions to guide future research:

(1) How do different types of public investments influence

not only neighborhood change but also residential and

commercial displacement?

(a) Does the type or quantity of investment matter?

(b) What are the displacement impacts of different

forms of public investment and action, not only

fixed-rail transit but also streetscape improve -

ments and rezoning, among others?

phases to investment and implementation?

(d) What is the impact of market rate versus subsi-

dized housing production at the neighborhood

and regional scale?

(2) How do public investments impact commercial change,

specifically related to small businesses, employment

patterns, affordability of goods and services, and change

in clientele? How does this relate to residential change?

40 Journal of Planning Literature 33(1)

(3) What are the social, economic, and health impacts of

gentrification and residential displacement?

(4) What can planners and policy makers do to mitigate

residential displacement? Which types of antidisplace-

ment strategies are most effective?

As this article highlights, drawing the analytical distinction

between gentrification and displacement is critical to advan-

cing methodological and theoretical approaches. U ntil the

methodological challenges and these additional research ques-

tions are addressed, empirical research on gentrification and

displacement will only have limited application in policy mak-

ing and urban planning efforts to stabilize neighborhoods and

prevent residential displacement.

Authors’ Note

The statements and conclusions of this article are those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect those of the California Air Resources

Board.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful for the input of Paul Ong and Trevor Thomas

in the conceptualization and review of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the

research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work

summarizes a larger literature review that appeared as a working

report, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and

funded by the California Air Resources Board as part of the project

“Developing a New Methodology for Analyzing Potential

Displacement.”

Note

1. Spending on mass transit and rail as a percentage of gross domestic

product (GDP) increased from 0.13 in 1966 to 0.40 in 2014. During

the same period, spending on highways decreased from 1.61% of

GDP to 0.96 (Congressional Budget Office 2015).

References

Atkinson, Rowland. 2000. “Measuring Gentrification and Displace-

ment in Greater London.” Urban Studies 37 (1): 149–65. doi:10.

1080/0042098002339.

Barton, Michael S., and Joseph Gibbons. 2017. “A Stop too Far: How

Does Public Transportation Concentration Influence Neighbour-

hood Median Household Income?” Urban Studies 54 (2):

538–554. doi:10.1177/0042098015593462.

Boyd, Michelle. 2005. “The Downside of Racial Uplift: Meaning of

Gentrification in an African American Neighborhood.” City &

Society 17 (2): 265–88. doi:10.1525/city.2005.17.2.265.

BradwayLaska, Shirley Seaman, M. Jerrol, and Dennis R. McSeveney.

1982. “Inner-city Reinvestment: Neig hborh ood Ch aracteristics

and Spatial Patterns over Time.” Urban Studies 19 (2): 155–65.

doi:10.1080/00420988220080281.

Gary Bridge, Tim Butler, and Loretta Lees, eds. 2012. Mixed Com-

munities: Gentrification by Stealth? Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Brinckerhoff, Parsons. 2001. The Effect of Rail Transit on Property

Values: A Summary of Studies.” Research Carried Out for Project

S 21439. Cleveland, OH: NEORail II.

Brown-Saracino, Japonica. 2009. A Neighborhood That Never

Changes: Gentrification, Social Preservation, and the Search for

Authenticity. Fieldwork Encounters and Discoveries. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Cervero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. 2004. “Neighbourhood Com-

position and Residential Land Prices: Does Exclusion Raise or

Lower Values?” Urb an Studies 41 (2): 299–315. doi:10.1080/

0042098032000165262.

Chapple, Karen. 2009. Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The

Early W arning Too lkit. Berkeley, CA: Center for Community

Innovation.

Chapple, Karen. 2014. Planning Sustainable Cities and Regions:

Towards More Equitable Development. New York: Routledge.

Chapple, Karen, Paul Waddell, D aniel G. Chatman, Miriam Zuk,

Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, and Paul Ong. 2016. Developing a

New Methodology to Analyze Displacement. Final Report for ARB

Contract #13-310.Sacramento, CA: Air Resources Board (ARB).

Charles, Suzanne Lanyi. 2011. Suburban Gentrification: Understand-

ing the Determinants of Single-family Residential Redevelopment,

a Case Study of the Inner-ring Suburbs of Chicago, IL, 2000-2010.

Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for H ousing Studies of Harvard

University.

Chizeck, Seth. 2016. “Gentrification and Changes in the Stock of

Low-cost Rental Housing in Philadelphia, 2000 to 2014.” Cascade

Focus (5): 1–15. Accessed February 6, 2017. https://www.philadel

phiafed.org/-/media/community-development/publications/casca

de-focus/gentrification-and-changes-in-the-stock-of-low-cost-ren

tal-housing/cascade-focus_5.pdf.

Clay, Phillip L. 1979. Neighborhood Renewal: Middle-class Resettle-

ment and Incumbent Upgrading in American Neighborhoods .

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Congressional Budget Office. 2015. Public Spending on Transporta-

tion and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to 2014. Accessed January 16,

2017. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49910.

Crowder, Kyle, and Scott J. South. 2005. “Race, Class, and Changing

Patterns of Migration between Poor and Nonpoor Neighborhoods.”

American Journal of Sociology 110 (6): 1715–63.

Davidson, Mark. 2009. “Displacement, Space and Dwelling: Placing

Gentrification Deba te.” Ethics, Place & Environment 12 (2):

219–34. doi:10.1080/13668790902863465.

Davidson, Mark, and Loretta Lees. 2005. “New-build ‘Gentrification’

and London’s Riverside Renaissance.” Environment and Planning

A 37 (7): 1165–90. doi:10.1068/a3739.

Deka, D. 2016. “Benchmarking Gentrification Near Commuter Rail

Stations in New Jersey.”

Urban Studies, 1–18. doi:10.1177/

0042098016664830.

Desmond, Matthew. 2012. “Eviction and the Reproduction of Urban

Poverty.” American Journal of Sociology 118 (1): 88–133. doi:10.

1086/666082.

Zuk et al. 41

Desmond, Matthew, and Tracey Shollenberger. 2015. “Forced Dis-

placement from Rental Housing: Prevalence and Neighbor hood

Consequences.” Demog raphy 52 (5): 1751–72. doi:10.1007/

s13524-015-0419-9.

Diaz, Roderick. 1999. “Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values.”

RTD FasTracks Track 3—Partnering. Accessed June 15, 2016.

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/nm/impacts_of_rail_

transif_on_property_values.pdf.

Ding, Lei, Jackelyn Hwang, and Eileen Divringi. 2016.

“Gentrification and Residential Mobility in Philadelphia.”

Regional Science and Urban Economics 61: 38–51.

Ehrenhalt, Alan. 2012. The Great Inver sion and the Future of the

American City, 1st ed. New York: Knopf.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Keren Horn, and Davin Reed. 2016. “Has Falling

Crime Invited Gentrification?” Accessed February 7, 2017. http://

furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_WhitePaper_Falling

CrimeGentrification_18OCT2016.pdf.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Katherine M. O’Regan. 2011. “How Low

Income Neighborhoods Change: Entry, Exit, and Enhancement.”

Regional Science and Urban Economics 41 (2): 89–97. doi:10.

1016/j.regsciurbeco.2010.12.005.

Freeman, Lance. 2005. “Displacement or Succession? Residential

Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods.” Urban Affairs Review

40 (4): 463–91. doi:10.1177/1078087404273341.

Freeman, Lance. 2006. There Goes the Hood: Views of Gentrification

from the Ground Up. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Freeman, Lance, and Frank Braconi. 2004. “Gentrification and

Displacement New York City in the 1990s.” Journal of the

American Planning Association 70 (1): 39–52. doi:10.1080/

01944360408976337.

Galster, George, and Stephen Peacock. 1986. “Urban Gentrification:

Evaluating Alternative Indicators.” Social Indicators Research 18

(3): 321–37. doi:10.1007/BF00286623.

Ghose, Rina. 2004. “Big Sky or Big Sprawl? Rural Gentrification and

the Changing Cultural Landscape of Missoula, Montana.” Urban

Geography 25 (6): 528–49. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.25.6.528.

Giuliano, Genevieve, and Ajay Agarwal. 2010. “Public Transit as a

Metropolitan Growth and Development Strategy.” Urban and

Regional Policy and Its Effects 3: 205–252.

Glass, Ruth Lazarus. 1964. London: Aspects of Change. London, UK:

MacGibbon & Kee.

Grier, George, and Eunice Grier. 1978. Urban Displacement: A

Reconnaissance. Bethesda, MD: Grier Partnership.

Grube-Cavers, Annelise, and Zachary Patterson. 2015. “Urban Rapid

Rail Transit and Gentrification in Canadian Urban Centres: A Sur-

vival Analysis Approach.” Urban Studies 52 (1): 178–94. doi:10.

1177/0042098014524287.

Hamnett, Chris. 1984. “Gentrification and Residential Location The-

ory: A Review and Assessment.” Geography and the Urban Envi-

ronment: Progress in Research and Applications 6:283–319.

Hamnett, Chris. 1991. “The Blind Men and the Elephant: The Expla-

nation of Gentrification.” Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers, New Series 16 (2): 173–89.

Hamnett, Chris. 2003. “Gentrification and the Middle-class Remaking

of Inner London, 1961-2001.” Urban Studies 40 (12): 2401–26.

doi:10.1080/0042098032000136138.

Hartman, Chester W., and National Housing Law Project. 1981. Dis-

placement: How to Fight It. Berkeley, CA: National Housing Law

Project.

Harvey, David. 2001. Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geogra-

phy. New York: Routledge.

Hess, Daniel Baldwin, and Tangerine Maria Almeida. 2007.

“Impact of Proximity to Light Rail Rapid Transit on Station-

area Property Values in Buffalo, New York.” Urban Studies 44

(5-6): 1041–68.

Hwang, Jackelyn, and Robert J. Sampson. 2014. “Divergent Pathways

of Gentrification: Racial Inequality and the Soci al Order of

Renewal in Chicago Neighborhoods.” American Sociological

Review 79 (4): 726–51. doi:10.1177/0003122414535774.

Jones, Craig E., and David Ley. 2016. “Transit-oriented Development

and Gentrification along Metro Vancouver’s Low-income

SkyTrain Corridor: Transit-oriented Development.” The Canadian

Geographe/Le Ge

ographe Cana dien 60 (1): 9–22. doi:10.1111/

cag.12256.

Kahn, Matthew E. 2007. “Gentrification Trends in New Transit-

oriented Communities: Evidence from 14 Cities That Expanded

and Built Rail Transit Systems.” Real Estate Economics 35 (2):

155–82.

Kilpatrick, John A., Ronald L. Throupe, John I. Carruthers, and

Andrew Krause. 2007. “The Impact of Transit Corridors on Resi-

dential Property Values.” Journal of Real Estate Research 29 (3):

303–20.

Knaap, Gerrit J., Chengr Ding, and Lewis D. Hopkins. 2001. “Do

Plans Matter? The Effects of Light Rail Plans on Land Values in

Station Areas.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 21

(1): 32–39.

Landis, John, Subhrajit Guhathakurta, William Huang, Ming Zhang,

and Bruce Fukuji. 1995. “Rail Trans it Investments, Real Estate

Values, and Land Use Change: A Comparative Analysis of Five

California Rail Transit Systems.” Accessed June 21, 2014. http://

escholarship.org/uc/item/4hh7f652.pdf.

Landis, John D. 2015. “Tracking and Explaining Neighborhood

Socioeconomic Change in U.S. Metropolitan Areas between

1990 and 2010.” Housing Policy Debate 0 (0): 1–51. doi:10.

1080/10511482.2014.993677.

Lees, Loretta. 2000. “A Reappraisal of Gentrification: Towards a

‘geography of Gentrification .’” Progress in Human Geography

24 (3): 389–408. doi:10.1191/030913200701540483.

Lees, Loretta. 2003. “Super-gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn

Heights, New York City.” Urban Studies 40 (12): 2487–509.

doi:10.1080/0042098032000136174.

Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin K Wyly. 2008. Gentrification.

New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Ley, David. 1996. The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the

Central City. Oxford Geographical and Environmental Studies.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lipman, Pauline. 2008. “Mixed-income Schools and Housing: Advan-

cing the Neoliberal Urban Agenda.” Journal of Education Policy

23 (2): 119–34.

Logan, John R., and Harvey Luskin Molotch. 1987. Urban

Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University

of California Press.

42 Journal of Planning Literature 33(1)

Maciag, Mike. 2015. “Gentrification in America Report.” Accessed

April 9, 2015. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/gentrifi

cation-in-cities-governing-report.html.

Marcuse, Peter. 1985. “Gentrification, Abandonment, and Displace-

ment: Connections, Causes, and Policy Responses in New York

City.” Urban Law Annual; Journal of Urban and Contemporary

Law 28 (1): 195–240.

Marcuse, Peter. 1986. “Abandonment, Gentrification, and Displace-

ment: The Linkages in New York City.” In Gentrification of the

City, edited by Neil Smith and Peter Williams, 153–77. New York:

Routledge.

McKinnish, Terra, Randall Walsh, and T. Kirk White. 2010. “Who

Gentrifies Low-income Neighborhoods?” Journal of Urban Eco-

nomics 67 (2): 180–93. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2009.08.003.

Melchert, David, and Joel L. Naroff. 1987. “Central City Revitaliza-

tion: A Predictive Model.” Real Estate Economics 15 (1): 664–83.

doi:10.1111/1540-6229.00409.

Moore, Kesha. 2009. “Gentrification in Black Face? The Return of the

Black Middle Class to Urban Neighborhoods.” Urban Geography

30 (2): 118–42. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.30.2.118.

National Institute for Advanced Studies. 1981. Market Ge nerated

Displacement: A Single City Case Study. Washington, DC:

National Institute for Advanced Studies.

Newman, Kathe, and Elvin K. Wyly. 2006. “The Right to Stay Put,

Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New

York City.” Urban Studies 43 (1): 23–57. doi:10.1080/

00420980500388710.

Newman, Sandra J., and Michael S. Owen. 1982. “Residential

Displacement: Extent, Nature, and Effects.” Journal of Social

Issues 38 (3): 135–48. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.

tb01775.x.

Oberg, Alexander, and Lise Nelson. 2010. “Rural Gentrification and

Linked Migration in the United States.” Journal of Rural Studies

26 (4): 343–52. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.06.003.

Osman, Suleiman. 2011. The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gen-

trification and the Search for Authenticity in Postwar New York.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Pattillo, Mary. 2008. Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and

Class in the City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Phillips, Martin. 2004. “Other Geographies of Gentrification.” Prog-

ress in Human G eography 28 (1): 5–30. doi:10.1191/

0309132504ph458oa.

Pollac k, Stephanie, Barry Bl uestone, and Chase Billingham. 2011.

“Demographic Change, Diversity and D isplacement in Newly

Transit-rich Neighborhoods.” Accessed June 21, 2014. http://trid.

trb.org/view.aspx?id¼1093110.

Powell, John A., and Marguerite L. Spencer. 2002. “Giving Them the

Old One-two: Gentrification and the K.O. of Impoverished Urban

Dwellers of Color.” Howard Law Journal 46:433.

Rayle, Lisa. 2014. “Investigating the Connection between Transit-

oriented Development and Displacement: Four Hypotheses.”

Housing Policy Debate 0 (0): 1–18. doi:10.1080/10511482.2014.

951674.

Re´rat, Patrick, and Loretta Lees. 2011. “Spatial Capital, Gentrification

and Mobility: Evidence from Swiss Core Cities.” Transactions of

the Institute of British Geographers 36 (1): 126–42. doi:10.1111/j.

1475-5661.2010.00404.x.

Revington, Nick. 2015. “Gentrification, Transit, and Land Use: Mov-

ing Beyond Neoclassical Theory: Gentrification, Transit, and Land

Use.” Geograp hy Compass 9 (3): 152–63. doi:10.1111/gec3 .

12203.

Rose, D. 1984. “Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the Uneven

Development of Marxist Urban Theory.” Environment and Plan-

ning D: Society and Space 2 (1): 47–74.

Schill, Michael H., Richard P. Nathan, and Harrichand Persaud. 1983.

Revitalizing America’s Cities: Neighborhood Reinvestme nt and

Displacement. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Sims, J. Revel. 2016. “More than Gentrification: Geographies of Capi-

talist Displacement in Los Angeles 1994–1999.” Urban Geogra-

phy 37 (1): 26–56. doi:10.1080/02723638.2015.1046698.

Smith, Neil. 1982. “Gentrification and Uneven Development.” Eco-

nomic Geography 58 (2): 139–55. doi:10.2307/143793.

Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the

Revanchist City. New York: Routledge.

Turner, M argery, and Christopher Snow. 2001. “Leading Indica-

tors of Gentrification in D.C. Neighborhoo ds.” Pre sented at

the D.C. Policy Forum at the Urban Institute, Washington,

DC, June 14, 2001.

Vigdor, Jacob L., Douglas S. Massey, and Alice M. Rivlin. 2002.

“Does Gentrificati on Harm the Poor? [with Comments].”

Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 133–82. Accessed

December 31, 2013. https://www.jstor.org/stable/

25067387?seq¼1#page_scan_tab_contents.

Wardrip, Keith. 2011. “Public Transit’s Impact on Housing Costs: A

Review of the Literature.” Accessed June 22, 2014. http://cite

seerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi¼10.1.1.233.851.

Wyly, Elvin, Kathe Newman, Alex Schafran, and Elizabeth Lee. 2010.

“Displacing New York.” Environment and Planning A 42 (11):

2602–23. doi:10.1068/a42519.

Zhong, Haotian, and Wei Li. 2016. “Rail Transit Investment and

Property Values: An Old Tale Retold.” Transport Policy. 51:

33–48.

Zukin, Sharon. 1982. Loft Living: Culture and C apital in Urban

Change. Johns Hopkins Studies in Urban Affairs. Baltimore,

MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Author Biographies

Miriam Zuk, PhD, is the director of the Center for Community

Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley. Her research

focuses on equitable urban development, affordable housing, and

environmental justice. She was previously the deputy director of

Air Quality Research for the Mexican Ministry of Environment in

Mexico City.

Ariel H. Bierbaum, PhD, is an assistant professor of urban studies

and planning in the School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation

at the University of Maryland. Dr. Bierbaum’s research explores ques-

tions about the mutually constitutive relationship between racial

inequality, urban planning, and public education.

Zuk et al. 43

Karen Chapple, PhD, is a professor of City and Regional Planning at

the University of California, Berkeley. She studies the governance,

planning, and development of regions in the United States and Latin

America, with a focus on housing and economic development. Her

recent book (Routledge, 2015) is entitled Planning Sustainable Cities

and Regions: Towards More Equitable Development.

Karolina Gorska, PhD, is a planner in the Urban Design Studio at the

Los Angeles Department of City Planning. Her research interests

focus on social and political issues in plann ing, urban design, and

historic preservation. She received her PhD in 2015 from the Univer-

sity of California, Los Angeles.

Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, PhD, is a professor at the University of

California, Los Angeles Department of Urban Planning. Her books

include Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of Form

(1998), Jobs and Economic Development in Minority Communities

(2006); Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space

(2009), Urban Design Companion (2011), and The Informal American

City: Beyond Taco Trucks and Day Labor (2014).

44 Journal of Planning Literature 33(1)