Gentrification

Turning the Improbable
Into the Exceptional!
Page 2 of 150

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
Since its founding in 2003, The Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective
provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities
we serve. We are currently engaged in community and faith-based collaborative initiatives,
having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices
everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic
framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP).
The stated objectives are:
1. Community Mobilization;
2. Social Intervention;
3. Provision of Opportunities;
4. Organizational Change and Development;
5. Suppression [of illegal activities].
Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and
intervention strategies must be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and
Collaborative. The Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in
implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described
throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and
internationally.
www.TheAdvocacy.Foundation
ISBN: ......... ../2017
......... Printed in the USA
Advocacy Foundation Publishers
Philadlephia, PA
(878) 222-0450 | Voice | Data | SMS
Page 3 of 150

Page 4 of 150

Dedication
______
Every publication in our many series’ is dedicated to everyone, absolutely everyone, who by
virtue of their calling and by Divine inspiration, direction and guidance, is on the battlefield dayafter-day
striving to follow God’s will and purpose for their lives. And this is with particular affinity
for those Spiritual warriors who are being transformed into excellence through daily academic,
professional, familial, and other challenges.
We pray that you will bear in mind:
Matthew 19:26 (NIV)
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible,
but with God all things are possible." (Emphasis added)
To all of us who daily look past our circumstances, and naysayers, to what the Lord says we will
accomplish:
Blessings!!
- The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Page 5 of 150

Page 6 of 150

The Transformative Justice Project
Eradicating Juvenile Delinquency Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Approach
The way we accomplish all this is a follows:
The Juvenile Justice system is incredibly overloaded, and
Solutions-Based programs are woefully underfunded. Our
precious children, therefore, particularly young people of
color, often get the “swift” version of justice whenever they
come into contact with the law.
Decisions to build prison facilities are often based on
elementary school test results, and our country incarcerates
more of its young than any other nation on earth. So we at
The Foundation labor to pull our young people out of the
“school to prison” pipeline, and we then coordinate the efforts
of the legal, psychological, governmental and educational
professionals needed to bring an end to delinquency.
We also educate families, police, local businesses, elected
officials, clergy, and schools and other stakeholders about
transforming whole communities, and we labor to change
their thinking about the causes of delinquency with the goal
of helping them embrace the idea of restoration for the young
people in our care who demonstrate repentance for their
mistakes.
1. We vigorously advocate for charges reductions, wherever possible, in the adjudicatory (court)
process, with the ultimate goal of expungement or pardon, in order to maximize the chances for
our clients to graduate high school and progress into college, military service or the workforce
without the stigma of a criminal record;
2. We then enroll each young person into an Evidence-Based, Data-Driven Restorative Justice
program designed to facilitate their rehabilitation and subsequent reintegration back into the
community;
3. While those projects are operating, we conduct a wide variety of ComeUnity-ReEngineering
seminars and workshops on topics ranging from Juvenile Justice to Parental Rights, to Domestic
issues to Police friendly contacts, to CBO and FBO accountability and compliance;
4. Throughout the process, we encourage and maintain frequent personal contact between all
parties;
5 Throughout the process we conduct a continuum of events and fundraisers designed to facilitate
collaboration among professionals and community stakeholders; and finally
Page 7 of 150

6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publications, like our e-Advocate series Newsletter and our e-Advocate
Quarterly electronic Magazine to all regular donors in order to facilitate a lifelong learning process
on the ever-evolving developments in the Justice system.
And in addition to the help we provide for our young clients and their families, we also facilitate
Community Engagement through the Restorative Justice process, thereby balancing the interesrs
of local businesses, schools, clergy, elected officials, police, and all interested stakeholders. Through
these efforts, relationships are rebuilt & strengthened, local businesses and communities are enhanced &
protected from victimization, young careers are developed, and our precious young people are kept out
of the prison pipeline.
This is a massive undertaking, and we need all the help and financial support you can give! We plan to
help 75 young persons per quarter-year (aggregating to a total of 250 per year) in each jurisdiction we
serve) at an average cost of under $2,500 per client, per year.*
Thank you in advance for your support!
* FYI:
1. The national average cost to taxpayers for minimum-security youth incarceration, is around
$43,000.00 per child, per year.
2. The average annual cost to taxpayers for maximun-security youth incarceration is well over
$148,000.00 per child, per year.
- (US News and World Report, December 9, 2014);
3. In every jurisdiction in the nation, the Plea Bargain rate is above 99%.
The Judicial system engages in a tri-partite balancing task in every single one of these matters, seeking
to balance Rehabilitative Justice with Community Protection and Judicial Economy, and, although
the practitioners work very hard to achieve positive outcomes, the scales are nowhere near balanced
where people of color are involved.
We must reverse this trend, which is right now working very much against the best interests of our young.
Our young people do not belong behind bars.
- Jack Johnson
1 In addition to supporting our world-class programming and support services, all regular donors receive our Quarterly e-Newsletter
(The e-Advocate), as well as The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine.
Page 8 of 150

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
…a collection of works on
Gentrification
“Turning the Improbable Into the Exceptional”
Atlanta
Philadelphia
______
John C Johnson III
Founder & CEO
(878) 222-0450
Voice | Data | SMS
www.TheAdvocacy.Foundation
Page 9 of 150

Page 10 of 150

Biblical Authority
______
1 Thessalonians 5:14 (NIV)
14 And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive,
encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone.
Matthew 18:20
20
For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Romans 12:9-21
Love in Action
9
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one
another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but
keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in
affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice
hospitality.
14
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who
rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be
proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of
everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with
everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it
is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Page 11 of 150

Hebrews 10:24-25
24
And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good
deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but
encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
1 Peter 2:9-10
9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special
possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into
his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of
God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
1 Peter 4:8-11
8
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. 9 Offer
hospitality to one another without grumbling. 10 Each of you should use whatever gift
you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various
forms. 11 If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of
God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all
things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for
ever and ever. Amen.
1 Corinthians 12:25-27
25
so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal
concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is
honored, every part rejoices with it.
27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
Acts 2:44-47
44
All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property
and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet
together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with
glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the
Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Page 12 of 150

Table of Contents
…a compilation of works on
Gentrification
Biblical Authority
I. Introduction: Gentrification……………………………………….. 15
II. Development-Induced Displacement……………………………. 51
III. Forced Displacement……….……………………………………. 55
IV. White Flight………………………………………………………… 63
V. Black Flight………………………………………………………… 77
VI. Ethnic Succession…………….………………………………….. 83
VII. Urban Decay………………………………................................. 89
VIII. Urban Renewal…………………………………………………… 97
IX. Urban Planning………………………………………………….. 111
X. References……………………………………………………..... 115
______
Attachments
A. Gentrification and Socioeconomic Impacts of Neighborhood
Integration and Diversification in Atlanta GA
B. Revitalization Without Gentrification
C. In The Face of Gentrification - Case Studies on Local Efforts
to Mitigate Displacement
D. Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification
Copyright © 2018 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Page 13 of 150

Page 14 of 150

I. Introduction
Gentrification
Gentrification is a process of renovation of deteriorated urban neighborhoods by
means of the influx of more affluent residents. This is a common and controversial topic
in politics and in urban planning. Gentrification can improve the quality of a
neighborhood, while also potentially forcing relocation of current, established residents
and businesses, causing them to move from a gentrified area, seeking lower cost
housing and stores.
Gentrification often shifts a neighborhood’s racial/ethnic composition and average
household income by developing new, more expensive housing, businesses and
improved resources. Conversations about gentrification have evolved, as many in the
social-scientific community have questioned the negative connotations associated with
the word gentrification. One example is that gentrification can lead to community
displacement for lower-income families in gentrifying neighborhoods, as property values
and rental costs rise; however, every neighborhood faces unique challenges, and
reasons for displacement vary.
The gentrification process is typically the result of increasing attraction to an area by
people with higher incomes spilling over from neighboring cities or towns. Further steps
are increased investments in a community and the related infrastructure by real estate
development businesses, local government, or community activists and
Page 15 of 150

esulting economic development, increased attraction of business, and
lower crime rates. In addition to these potential benefits, gentrification can lead
to population migration and displacement. However, some view the fear of
displacement, which is dominating the debate about gentrification, as hindering
discussion about genuine progressive approaches to distribute the benefits of urban
redevelopment strategies.
Origin and Etymology
The term gentrification has come to refer to a multi-faceted phenomenon that can be
defined in different ways. Historians say that gentrification took place in ancient
Rome and in Roman Britain, where large villas were replacing small shops by the 3rd
century, AD. [11] The word gentrification derives from gentry—which comes from the Old
French word genterise, "of gentle birth" (14th century) and "people of gentle birth" (16th
century). In England, Landed gentry denoted the social class, consisting
of gentlemen. British sociologist Ruth Glass coined the term "gentrification" in 1964 to
describe the influx of middle-class people displacing lower-class worker residents in
urban neighborhoods; her example was London, and its working-class districts such
as Islington:
One by one, many of the working class neighbourhoods of London have been invaded
by the middle-classes—upper and lower. Shabby, modest mews and cottages—two
rooms up and two down—have been taken over, when their leases have expired, and
have become elegant, expensive residences ... Once this process of 'gentrification'
starts in a district it goes on rapidly, until all or most of the original working-class
occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed.
In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report Health Effects of
Gentrification defines the real estate concept of gentrification as "the transformation of
neighborhoods from low value to high value. This change has the potential to cause
displacement of long-time residents and businesses ... when long-time or original
neighborhood residents move from a gentrified area because of higher
rents, mortgages, and property taxes. Gentrification is a housing, economic, and health
issue that affects a community's history and culture and reduces social capital. It often
shifts a neighborhood's characteristics, e.g., racial-ethnic composition and household
income, by adding new stores and resources in previously run-down neighborhoods."
In the Brookings Institution report Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on
Gentrification and Policy Choices (2001), Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard say that
"the term 'gentrification' is both imprecise and quite politically charged", suggesting its
redefinition as "the process by which higher income households displace lower income
residents of a neighborhood, changing the essential character and flavour of that
neighborhood", so distinguishing it from the different socio-economic process of
"neighborhood (or urban) revitalization", although the terms are sometimes used
interchangeably.
Page 16 of 150

German geographers have a more distanced view on gentrification. Actual gentrification
is seen as a mere symbolic issue happening in a low amount of places and blocks, the
symbolic value and visibility in public discourse being higher than actual migration
trends. E.g. Gerhard Hard assumes that urban flight is still more important than inner
city gentrification. Volkskunde scholar Barbara Lang introduced the term 'symbolic
gentrification' with regard to the Mythos Kreuzberg in Berlin. Lang assumes that
complaints about gentrification often come from those who have been responsible for
the process in their youth. When former students and bohemians started raising families
and earning money in better paid jobs, they become the yuppies they claim to
dislike. Especially Berlin is a showcase of intense debates about symbols of
gentrification, while the actual processes are much slower than in other cities. The city's
Prenzlauer Berg district is, however, a poster child of the capital's gentrification, as this
area in particular has experienced a rapid transformation over the last two decades.
This leads to mixed feelings amidst the local population. The neologism Bionade-
Biedermeier was coined about Prenzlauer Berg. It describes the post-gentrifed milieu of
the former quartier of the alternative scene, where alleged leftist alternative accessoires
went into the mainstream. The 2013 Schwabenhass controversy in Berlin put the blame
of gentrification in Prenzlauer Berg on well-to-do southern German immigrants and
allowed for inner German ethnic slurs, which in case of foreign immigration would have
been totally unacceptable.
American economists describe gentrification as a natural cycle: the well-to-do prefer to
live in the newest housing stock. Each decade of a city's growth, a new ring of new
Page 17 of 150

housing is built. When the housing at the center has reached the end of its useful life
and is therefore cheap, the well-to-do gentrify the neighborhood. The push outward from
the city center continues as the housing in each ring reaches the end of its economic
life. They observe that gentrification has three interpretations: (a) "great, the value of my
house is going up, (b) coffee is more expensive, now that we have a Starbucks, and (c)
my neighbors and I can no longer afford to live here (community displacement)
London and Palen
Causes
There are several approaches that attempt to explain the roots and the reasons behind
the spread of gentrification. Bruce London and J. John Palen (1984) compiled a list of
five explanations: (1) demographic-ecological, (2) sociocultural, (3) political-economical,
(4) community networks, and (5) social movements.
Demographic-Ecological
The first theory, demographic-ecological, attempts to explain gentrification through the
analysis of demographics: population, social organization, environment, and technology.
This theory frequently refers to the growing number of people between the ages of 25
and 35 in the 1970s, or the baby boom generation. Because the number of people that
sought housing increased, the demand for housing increased also. The supply could not
keep up with the demand; therefore cities were "recycled" to meet such demands
(London and Palen, 1984). The baby boomers in pursuit of housing were very different,
demographically, from their house-hunting predecessors. They married at an older age
and had fewer children. Their children were born later. Women, both single and married,
were entering the labor force at higher rates which led to an increase of dual wageearner
households. These households were typically composed of young, more affluent
couples without children. Because these couples were child-free and were not
concerned with the conditions of schools and playgrounds, they elected to live in
the inner city in close proximity to their jobs. These more affluent people usually had
white-collar, not blue-collar jobs. Since these white-collar workers wanted to live closer
to work, a neighborhood with more white-collar jobs was more likely to be invaded; the
relationship between administrative activity and invasion was positively correlated
(London and Palen, 1984).
Sociocultural
The second theory proposed by London and Palen is based on a sociocultural
explanation of gentrification. This theory argues that values, sentiments, attitudes,
ideas, beliefs, and choices should be used to explain and predict human behavior, not
demographics, or "structural units of analysis" (i.e., characteristics of populations)
(London and Palen, 1984). This analysis focuses on the changing attitudes, lifestyles,
and values of the middle- and upper-middle-class of the 1970s. They were becoming
more pro-urban than before, opting not to live in rural or even suburban areas anymore.
Page 18 of 150

These new pro-urban values were becoming more salient, and more and more people
began moving into the cities. London and Palen refer to the first people to invade the
cities as "urban pioneers". These urban pioneers demonstrated that the inner-city was
an "appropriate" and "viable" place to live, resulting in what is called "inner city chic"
(London and Palen, 1984). The opposing side of this argument is that dominant, or
recurring, American values determine where people decide to live, not the changing
values previously cited. This means that people choose to live in a gentrified area to
restore it, not to alter it, because restoration is a "new way to realize old values"
(London and Palen, 1984).
Political-Economic
The third theoretical
explanation of gentrification is
political-economic and is
divided into two approaches:
traditional and Marxist. The
traditional approach argues
that economic and political
factors have led to the invasion
of the inner-city, hence the
name political-economic. The
changing political and legal
climate of the 1950s and 1960s
(new civil rights legislation,
anti-discrimination laws in housing and employment, and desegregation) had an
"unanticipated" role in the gentrification of neighborhoods. A decrease in prejudice led
to more blacks moving to the suburbs and whites no longer rejected the idea of moving
to the city. The decreasing availability of suburban land and inflation in suburban
housing costs also inspired the invasion of the cities. The Marxist approach denies the
notion that the political and economic influences on gentrification are invisible, but are
intentional. This theory claims that "powerful interest groups follow a policy of neglect of
the inner city until such time as they become aware that policy changes could yield
tremendous profits" (London and Palen, 1984). Once the inner city becomes a source of
revenue, the powerless residents are displaced with little or no regard from the
powerful.
Community Networks
The community-network approach is the fourth proposed by London and Palen. This
views the community as an "interactive social group". Two perspectives are noted:
community lost and community saved. The community lost perspective argues that the
role of the neighborhood is becoming more limited due to technological advances in
transportation and communication. This means that the small-scale, local community is
being replaced with more large-scale, political and social organizations (Greer, 1962).
Page 19 of 150

The opposing side, the community saved side, argues that community activity increases
when neighborhoods are gentrified because these neighborhoods are being revitalized.
Social Movements
The fifth and final approach is social movements. This theoretical approach is focused
on the analysis of ideologically based movements, usually in terms of leader-follower
relationships. Those who support gentrification are encouraged by leaders (successful
urban pioneers, political-economic elites, land developers, lending institutions, and even
the Federal government in some instances) to revive the inner-city. Those who are in
opposition are the people who currently reside in the deteriorated areas. They develop
countermovements in order to gain the power necessary to defend themselves against
the movements of the elite. An excellent example was the turned around gang in
Chicago who fought for years against the Richard J. Daley machine: the Young
Lords led by Jose Cha Cha Jimenez. They occupied neighborhood institutions and led
massive demonstration to make people aware. These countermovements can be
unsuccessful, though. The people who support reviving neighborhoods are also
members, and their voices are the ones that the gentrifiers tend to hear (London and
Palen, 1984).
As an Economic Process
Two discrete, sociological theories explain and justify gentrification as an economic
process (production-side theory) and as a social process (consumption-side theory) that
occurs when the suburban gentry tire of the automobile-dependent urban sprawl style of
life; thus, professionals, empty nest aged parents, and recent university graduates
perceive the attractiveness of the city center—earlier abandoned during white flight—
especially if the poor community possesses a transport hub and its architecture sustains
the pedestrian traffic that allows the proper human relations impeded by (sub)urban
sprawl.
Furthermore, proximity to urban amenities such as transit stops has been shown to
drive up home prices over time. A survey of Northwest Chicago conducted between
1975 and 1991 showed that homes located directly in the vicinity Red Line and Brown
Line stops of the "L" rail transit system saw a huge price jump during these years,
compared to only modest increases for area outside the zone. Between 1985 and 1991
in particular, homes near transit stops nearly doubled in value.
Professor Smith and Marxist sociologists explain gentrification as a structural economic
process; Humanistic Geographer, David Ley explains gentrification as a natural
outgrowth of increased professional employment in the central business district (CBD),
and the creative sub-class's predilection for city living. "Liberal Ideology and the Post-
Industrial City" (1980) describes and deconstructs the TEAM committee's effort to
rendering Vancouver, BC, Canada, a "livable city". The investigators Rose, Beauregard,
Mullins, Moore et al., who base themselves upon Ley's ideas, posit that "gentrifiers and
their social and cultural characteristics [are] of crucial importance for an understanding
Page 20 of 150

of gentrification"—theoretical work Chris Hamnett criticized as insufficiently
comprehensive, for not incorporating the "supply of dwellings and the role of developers
[and] speculators in the process".
Production-Side Theory
The production-side theory of urban gentrification derives from the work of human
geographer Neil Smith, explaining gentrification as an economic process consequent to
the fluctuating relationships among capital investments and the production
of urban space. He asserts that restructuring of urban space is the visual component of
a larger social, economic, and spatial restructuring of the contemporary capitalist
economy. Smith summarizes the causes of gentrification into five main processes:
suburbanization and the emergence of rent gap, deindustrialization, spatial
centralization and decentralization of capital, falling profit and cyclical movement of
capital, and changes in demographics and consumption patterns.
Suburbanization and Rent Gap
Suburban development derives from outward expansion of cities, often driven by sought
profit and the availability of cheap land. This change in consumption causes a fall in
inner city land prices, often resulting in poor upkeep and a neglect of repair for these
Page 21 of 150

properties by owners and landlords. The depressed land is then devalued, causing rent
to be significantly cheaper than the potential rent that could be derived from the "best
use" of the land while taking advantage of its central location. From this derives
the Rent-gap Theorydescribing the disparity between "the actual capitalized ground rent
(land price) of a plot of land given its present use, and the potential ground rent that
might be gleaned under a 'higher and better' use."
The rent gap is fundamental to explaining gentrification as an economic process. When
the gap is sufficiently wide, real estate developers, landlords, and other people with
vested interests in the development of land perceive the potential profit to be derived
from re-investing in inner-city properties and redeveloping them for new tenants. Thus,
the development of a rent gap creates the opportunity for urban restructuring and
gentrification.
De-Industrialization
The de-industrialization of cities in developed nations reduces the number of bluecollar
jobs available to the urban working class as well as middle-wage jobs with the
opportunity for advancement, creating lost investment capital needed to physically
maintain the houses and buildings of the city. Abandoned industrial areas create
availability for land for the rent gap process.
Spatial Centralization and Decentralization of Capital
De-industrialization is often integral to the growth of a divided white collar employment,
providing professional and management jobs that follow the spatial decentralization of
the expanding world economy. However, somewhat counter-intuitively, globalization
also is accompanied by spatial centralization of urban centers, mainly from the growth
of the inner city as a base for headquarter and executive decision-making centers. This
concentration can be attributed to the need for rapid decisions and information flow,
which makes it favorable to have executive centers in close proximity to each other.
Thus, the expanding effect of suburbanization as well as agglomeration to city centers
can coexist. These simultaneous processes can translate to gentrification activities
when professionals have a high demand to live near their executive workplaces in order
to reduce decision-making time.
Falling Profit and The Cyclical Movement of Capital
This section of Smith's theory attempts to describe the timing of the process of
gentrification. At the end of a period of expansion for the economy, such as a boom in
postwar suburbs, accumulation of capital leads to a falling rate of profit. It is then
favorable to seek investment outside the industrial sphere to hold off onset of
an economic crisis. By this time, the period of expansion has inevitably led to the
creation of rent gap, providing opportunity for capital reinvestment in this surrounding
environment.
Page 22 of 150

Changes In Demographic and
Consumption Patterns
Smith emphasizes that
demographic and life-style changes
are more of an exhibition of
the form of gentrification, rather than
real factors behind gentrification.
The aging baby-boomer population,
greater participation of women in
the workforce, and the changes in
marriage and childrearing norms
explain the appearance that
gentrification takes, or as Smith
says, "why we have proliferating
quiche bars rather than Howard
Johnson's".
Consumption-Side Theory
In contrast to the production-side
argument, the consumptionside
theory of urban gentrification
posits that the "socio-cultural
characteristics and motives" of the
gentrifiers are most important to
understanding the gentrification of the post-industrial city. The changes in the structure
of advanced capitalist cities with the shift from industrial to service-based economy were
coupled with the expanding of a new middle class—one with a larger purchasing power
than ever before. As such, human geographer David Ley posits a rehabilitated postindustrial
city influenced by a this "new middle class". The consumption theory contends
that it is the demographics and consumption patterns of this "new middle class" that is
responsible for gentrification.
The economic and cultural changes of the world in the 1960s have been attributed to
these consumption changes. The antiauthoritarian protest movements of the young in
the U.S., especially on college campuses, brought a new disdain for the
"standardization of look-alike suburbs," as well as fueled a movement toward
empowering freedom and establishing authenticity. In the postindustrial economy, the
expansion of middle class jobs in inner cities came at the same time as many of the
ideals of this movement. The process of gentrification stemmed as the new middle
class, often with politically progressive ideals, was employed in the city and recognized
not only the convenient commute of a city residence, but also the appeal towards the
urban lifestyle as a means of opposing the "deception of the suburbanite".
Page 23 of 150

This new middle class was characterized by professionals with life pursuits expanded
from traditional economistic focus. Gentrification provided a means for the 'stylization of
life' and an expression of realized profit and social rank. Similarly, Michael Jager
contended that the consumption pattern of the new middle class explains gentrification
because of the new appeal of embracing the historical past as well as urban lifestyle
and culture. The need of the middle class to express individualism from both the upper
and lower classes was expressed through consumption, and specifically through the
consumption of a house as an aesthetic object. Consumers' desire for "local" products
and services has been used to explain the effects of businesses such as craft breweries
on neighborhood gentrification.
"This permanent tension on two fronts is evident in the architecture of gentrification: in
the external restorations of the Victoriana, the middle classes express their candidature
for the dominant classes; in its internal renovation work this class signifies its distance
from the lower orders." p. 154
Gentrification, according to consumption theory, fulfills the desire for a space with social
meaning for the middle class as well as the belief that it can only be found in older
places because of a dissatisfaction with contemporary urbanism.
Economic Globalization
Gentrification is integral to the new economy of centralized, high-level services work—
the "new urban economic core of banking and service activities that come to replace the
older, typically manufacturing-oriented, core" that displaces middle-class retail
businesses so they might be "replaced by upmarket boutiques and restaurants catering
to new high-income urban élites". In the context of globalization, the city's importance is
determined by its ability to function as a discrete socio-economic entity, given the lesser
import of national borders, resulting in de-industrialized global cities and economic
restructuring.
To wit, the American urban theorist John Friedman's seven-part theory posits a
bifurcated service industry in world cities, composed of "a high percentage of
professionals specialized in control functions and ... a vast army of low-skilled workers
engaged in ... personal services ... [that] cater to the privileged classes, for whose sake
the world city primarily exists". The final three hypotheses detail (i) the increased
immigration of low-skill laborers needed to support the privileged classes, (ii) the class
and caste conflict consequent to the city's inability to support the poor people who are
the service class, and (iii) the world city as a function of social class struggle—matters
expanded by Saskia Sassen et al. The world city's inherent socio-economic inequality
illustrates the causes of gentrification, reported in "Where Did They Go? The Decline of
Middle-Income Neighborhoods in Metropolitan America" (2006)
demonstrating geographical segregation by income in US cities, wherein middle-income
(middle class) neighborhoods decline, while poor neighborhoods and rich
neighborhoods remain stable.
Page 24 of 150

Effects
As rent-gap theory would predict, one of the most visible changes the gentrification
process brings is to the infrastructure of a neighborhood. Typically, areas to be
gentrified are deteriorated and old, though structurally sound, and often have some
obscure amenity such as a historical significance that attracts the potential
gentrifiers. Gentry purchase and restore these houses, mostly for single-family homes.
Another phenomenon is "loft conversion," which rehabilitates mixed-use areas, often
abandoned industrial buildings or run-down apartment buildings to housing for the
incoming gentrifiers. While this upgrade of housing value is the superficial keynote to
the gentrification process, there is a greater number of less-visible shifts the gentry
bring with them into their new neighborhoods in the community.
Gentrification has been substantially advocated by local governments, often in the form
of 'urban restructuring' policies. Goals of these policies include dispersing lowincome
residents out of the inner city and into the suburbs as well as redeveloping the
city to foster mobility between both the central city and suburbia as residential
options. The strain on public resources that often accompanies concentrated poverty is
relaxed by the gentrification process, a benefit of changed social makeup that is
favorable for the local state. Rehabilitation movements have been largely successful at
restoring the plentiful supply of old and deteriorated housing that is readily available in
inner cities. This rehabilitation can be seen as a superior alternative to expansion, for
Page 25 of 150

the location of the central city offers an intact infrastructure that should be taken
advantage of: streets, public transportation, and other urban facilities. Furthermore, the
changed perception of the central city that is encouraged by gentrification can be
healthy for resource-deprived communities who have previously been largely ignored.
A change of residence that is forced upon people who lack resources to cope has social
costs. Measures protecting these marginal groups from gentrification may reduce those.
There is also the argument that gentrification reduces the social capital of the area it
affects. Communities have strong ties to the history and culture of their neighborhood,
and causing its dispersal can have detrimental costs. The Center for Disease Control
and Prevention has a webpage discussing adverse effects gentrification has on health,
and provides a list of policies that would inhibit gentrification in order to prevent these
impacts.
Positive
Higher incentive for property owners to
increase/improve housing
Reduction in crime
Stabilization of declining areas
Increased property values
Increased consumer purchasing power
at local businesses
Reduced vacancy rates
Increased local fiscal revenues
Encouragement and increased viability
of further development
Reduced strain on local infrastructure
and services
Increased social mix
Rehabilitation of property both with and
without state sponsorship
Negative
Displacement through rent/price increases
Loss of affordable housing
Commercial/industrial displacement
Unsustainable property prices
Displacement and housing demand pressures
on surrounding poor areas
Community resentment and conflict
Homelessness
Secondary psychological costs of
displacement
Increased cost and charges to local services
Loss of social diversity (from socially disparate
to rich ghettos)
Under occupancy and population loss to
gentrified area
Source: Loretta Lees, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly, Gentrification Reader, p. 196. © 2008 Routledge.;
Rowland Atkinson and Gary Bridge, eds., Gentrification in a Global Context: the New Urban Colonialism,
p. 5. © 2005 Routledge.
Displacement
Displacement of lower income families as a result of gentrification has been a major
issue for decades. However, research has shown that oftentimes the opposite is true.
Low-income families in gentrifying neighborhoods are less likely to be displaced than in
non-gentrifying neighborhoods. A common theory has been that as affluent people
move into a poorer neighborhood, housing prices increase as a result, causing poorer
people to move out of the neighborhood. Although there is evidence showing
gentrification may modestly raise real estate prices, numerous studies show that in
many circumstances, other benefits from gentrification such as lower crime and an
improved local economy outweigh the increased housing costs—displacement tends to
decrease in gentrifying areas such as these as a result.
Page 26 of 150

A study from 2016 found that nearly 10,000 Hispanic families have had to move out
of Pilsen in Chicago, Illinois, originally an Eastern European neighborhood which had
become predominantly Mexican by the 1970s. This has come as a result of more
wealthier people moving into the area. Chicago itself has been going through a process
of gentrification and displacement quite rapidly in the past decade. When young often
wealthier white people move into areas historically of color it can cause the ethnic
groups common to the area to leave because of rent hikes.
Social Changes
Many of the social effects of gentrification have been based on extensive theories about
how socioeconomic status of an individual's neighborhood will shape one's behavior
and future. These studies have prompted "social mix policies" to be widely adopted by
governments to promote the process and its positive effects, such as lessening the
strain on public resources that are associated with de-concentrating poverty. However,
more specific research has shown that gentrification does not necessarily correlate with
"social mixing," and that the effects of the new composition of a gentrified neighborhood
can both weaken as well as strengthen community cohesion.
Housing confers social status, and the changing norms that accompany gentrification
translate to a changing social hierarchy. The process of gentrification mixes people of
Page 27 of 150

different socioeconomic strata, thereby congregating a variety of expectations and
social norms. The change gentrification brings in class distinction also has been shown
to contribute to residential polarization by income, education, household composition,
and race. It conveys a social rise that brings new standards in consumption, particularly
in the form of excess and superfluity, to the area that were not held by the pre-existing
residents. These differing norms can lead to conflict, which potentially serves to divide
changing communities. Often this comes at a larger social cost to the original residents
of the gentrified area whose displacement is met with little concern from the gentry or
the government. Clashes that result in increased police surveillance, for example, would
more adversely affect young minorities who are also more likely to be the original
residents of the area.
There is also evidence to support that gentrification can strengthen and stabilize when
there is a consensus about a community's objectives. Gentrifiers with an organized
presence in deteriorated neighborhoods can demand and receive better resources. A
characteristic example is a combined community effort to win historic district designation
for the neighborhood, a phenomenon that is often linked to gentrification activity. Gentry
can exert a peer influence on neighbors to take action against crime, which can lead to
even more price increases in changing neighborhoods when crime rates drop and
optimism for the area's future climbs.
Economic Shifts
The economic changes that occur as a community goes through gentrification are often
favorable for local governments. Affluent gentrifiers expand the local tax base as well as
support local shops and businesses, a large part of why the process is frequently
alluded to in urban policies. The decrease in vacancy rates and increase in property
value that accompany the process can work to stabilize a previously struggling
community, restoring interest in inner-city life as a residential option alongside the
suburbs. These changes can create positive feedback as well, encouraging other forms
of development of the area that promote general economic growth.
Home ownership is a significant variable when it comes to economic impacts of
gentrification. People who own their homes are much more able to gain financial
benefits of gentrification than those who rent their houses and can be displaced without
much compensation.
Economic pressure and market price changes relate to the speed of gentrification.
English-speaking countries have a higher amount of property owners and a higher
mobility. German speaking countries provide a higher share of rented property and have
a much stronger role of municipalities, cooperatives, guilds and unions offering lowprice-housing.
The effect is a lower speed of gentrification and a broader social
mix. Gerhard Hard sees gentrification as a typical 1970s term with more visibility in
public discourse than actual migration.
Measurement
Page 28 of 150

Whether gentrification has occurred in a census tract in an urban area in the United
States during a particular 10-year period between censuses can be determined by a
method used in a study by Governing: If the census tract in a central city had 500 or
more residents and at the time of the baseline census had median household income
and median home value in the bottom 40th percentile and at the time of the next 10-
year census the tract's educational attainment (percentage of residents over age 25 with
a bachelor's degree) was in the top 33rd percentile; the median home value, adjusted
for inflation, had increased; and the percentage of increase in home values in the tract
was in the top 33rd percentile when compared to the increase in other census tracts in
the urban area then it was considered to have been gentrified. The method measures
the rate of gentrification, not the degree of gentrification; thus, San Francisco, which has
a history of gentrification dating to the 1970s, show a decreasing rate between 1990
and 2010.
San Francisco
Gentrifier Types
Just as critical to the gentrification process as creating a favorable environment is the
availability of the 'gentry,' or those who will be first-stage gentrifiers. The typical
gentrifiers are affluent and have professional-level, service industry jobs, many of which
involve self-employment. Therefore, they are willing and able to take the investment risk
in the housing market. Often they are single people or young couples without children
who lack demand for good schools. Gentrifiers are likely searching for inexpensive
housing close to the workplace and often already reside in the inner city, sometimes for
Page 29 of 150

educational reasons, and do not want to make the move to suburbia. For this
demographic, gentrification is not so much the result of a return to the inner city but is
more of a positive action to remain there.
The stereotypical gentrifiers also have shared consumer preferences and favor a largely
consumerist culture. This fuels the rapid expansion of trendy restaurant, shopping, and
entertainment spheres that often accompany the gentrification process. Holcomb and
Beauregard described these groups as those who are "attracted by low prices and
toleration of an unconventional lifestyle".
An interesting find from research on those who participate and initiate the gentrification
process, the "marginal gentrifiers" as referred to by Tim Butler, is that they become
marginalized by the expansion of the process. Research has also shown subgroups of
gentrifiers that fall outside of these stereotypes. Two important ones are white women,
typically single mothers, as well as white gay people who are typically men.
Women
Women increasingly obtaining higher education as well as higher paying jobs has
increased their participation in the labor force, translating to an expansion of women
who have greater opportunities to invest. Smith suggests this group "represents a
reservoir of potential gentrifiers". The increasing number of highly educated women play
into this theory, given that residence in the inner city can give women access to the
well-paying jobs and networking, something that is becoming increasingly common.
There are also theories that suggest the inner-city lifestyle is important for women with
children where the father does not care equally for the child, because of the proximity to
professional childcare. This attracts single parents, specifically single mothers, to the
inner-city as opposed to suburban areas where resources are more geographically
spread out. This is often deemed as "marginal gentrification," for the city can offer an
easier solution to combining paid and unpaid labor. Inner city concentration increases
the efficiency of commodities parents need by minimizing time constraints among
multiple jobs, childcare, and markets.
Artists
Phillip Clay's two-stage model of gentrification places artists as prototypical stage one or
"marginal" gentrifiers. The National Endowment for the Arts did a study that linked the
proportion of employed artists to the rate of inner city gentrification across a number of
U.S. cities. Artists will typically accept the risks of rehabilitating deteriorated property, as
well as have the time, skill, and ability to carry out these extensive renovations. David
Ley states that the artist's critique of everyday life and search for meaning and renewal
are what make them early recruits for gentrification.
The identity that residence in the inner city provides is important for the gentrifier, and
this is particularly so in the artists' case. Their cultural emancipation from the bourgeois
Page 30 of 150

makes the central city an appealing alternative that distances them from the conformity
and mundaneness attributed to suburban life. They are quintessential city people, and
the city is often a functional choice as well, for city life has advantages that include
connections to customers and a closer proximity to a downtown art scene, all of which
are more likely to be limited in a suburban setting. Ley's research cites a quote from a
Vancouver printmaker talking about the importance of inner city life to an artist, that it
has, "energy, intensity, hard to specify but hard to do without" (1996).
Ironically, these
attributes that
make artists
characteristic
marginal
gentrifiers form
the same
foundations for
their isolation
as the
gentrification
process
matures. The
later stages of
the process
generate an
influx of more
affluent,
"yuppie" residents. As the bohemian character of the community grows, it appeals "not
only to committed participants, but also to sporadic consumers," and the rising property
values that accompany this migration often lead to the eventual pushing out of the
artists that began the movement in the first place. Sharon Zukin's study of SoHo
in Manhattan, NYC was one of the most famous cases of this phenomenon. Throughout
the 1960s and 1970s, Manhattan lofts in SoHo were converted en masse into housing
for artists and hippies, and then their sub-culture's followers.
Gay Community
Manuel Castells has researched the role of gay communities, especially in San
Francisco, as early gentrifiers. The film Quinceañera depicts a similar situation in Los
Angeles. Flag Wars (Linda Goode Bryant) shows tensions as of 2003 between
white LGBT-newcomers and a black middle-class neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio.
Control
To counter the gentrification of their mixed-populace communities, there are cases
where residents formally organized themselves to develop the necessary socio-political
strategies required to retain local affordable housing. The gentrification of a mixedincome
community raises housing affordability to the fore of the community's
Page 31 of 150

politics. There are cities, municipalities, and counties which have countered
gentrification with inclusionary zoning(inclusionary housing) ordinances requiring the
apportionment of some new housing for the community's original low- and moderateincome
residents. Inclusionary zoning is a new social concept in English speaking
countries; there are few reports qualifying its effective or ineffective limitation of
gentrification in the English literature. The basis of inclusionary zoning is partial
replacement as opposed to displacement of the embedded communities. In Los
Angeles, California, inclusionary zoning apparently accelerated gentrification, as older,
unprofitable buildings were razed and replaced with mostly high-rent housing, and a
small percentage of affordable housing; the net result was less affordable
housing. German (speaking) municipalities have a strong legal role in zoning and on the
real estate market in general and a long tradition of integrating social aspects in
planning schemes and building regulations. The German approach uses en (milieu
conservation municipal law), e.g. in Munichs Lehel district in use since the 1960s. The
concepts of socially aware renovation and zoning of Bologna's old city in 1974 was used
as role model in the Charta of Bologna, and recognized by the Council of Europe.
Direct Action and Sabotage
Other Methods
When wealthy people move into low-income working-class neighborhoods, the resulting
class conflict sometimes involves vandalism and arson targeting the property of the
gentrifiers. During the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, the gentrification of San
Francisco's predominantly working class Mission District led some long-term
neighborhood residents to create what they called the "Mission Yuppie Eradication
Project. This group allegedly destroyed property and called for property destruction as
part of a strategy to oppose gentrification. Their activities drew hostile responses from
the San Francisco Police Department, real estate interests, and "work-within-thesystem"
housing activists.
Meibion Glyndŵr (Welsh: Sons of Glyndŵr), also known as the Valley Commandos, was
a Welsh nationalist movement violently opposed to the loss of Welsh
culture and language. They were formed in response to the housing crisis precipitated
by large numbers of second homes being bought by the English which had increased
house prices beyond the means of many locals. The group were responsible for setting
fire to English-owned holiday homes in Wales from 1979 to the mid-1990s. In the first
wave of attacks, eight holiday homes were destroyed in a month, and in 1980, Welsh
Police carried out a series of raids in Operation Tân. Within the next ten years, some
220 properties were damaged by the campaign. Since the mid-1990s the group has
been inactive and Welsh nationalist violence has ceased. In 1989 there was a
movement that protested an influx of Swabians to Berlin who were deemed as
gentrification drivers. Berlin saw the Schwabenhass and 2013 Spätzlerstreit
controversies, which identified gentrification with newcomers from the German south.
Zoning Ordinances
Page 32 of 150

Zoning ordinances and other urban planning tools can be used to recognize and
support local business and industries. This can include requiring developers to continue
with a current commercial tenant or offering development incentives for keeping existing
businesses, as well as creating and maintaining industrial zones. Designing zoning to
allow new housing near to a commercial corridor but not on top of it increases foot traffic
to local businesses without redeveloping them. Businesses can become more stable by
securing long-term commercial leases.
Although developers may recognize value in responding to living patterns, extensive
zoning policies often prevent affordable homes from being constructed within urban
development. Due to urban density restrictions, rezoning for residential development
within urban living areas is difficult, which forces the builder and the market into urban
sprawl and propagates the energy inefficiencies that come with distance from urban
centers. In a recent example of restrictive urban zoning requirements, Arcadia
Development Co. was prevented from rezoning a parcel for residential development in
an urban setting within the city of Morgan Hill, California. With limitations established in
the interest of public welfare, a density restriction was applied solely to Arcadia
Development Co.'s parcel of development, excluding any planned residential expansion.
Community Land Trusts
Because land speculation tends to raise property values, removing real estate (houses,
buildings, land) from the open market stabilizes property values, and thereby prevents
the economic eviction of the community's poorer residents. The most common,
formal legal mechanism for such stability in English speaking countries is
the community land trust; moreover, many inclusionary zoning ordinances formally
place the "inclusionary" housing units in a land trust. German municipalities and other
Page 33 of 150

cooperative actors have and maintain strong roles on the real estate markets in their
realm.
Rent Control
In jurisdictions where local or national government has these powers, there may be rent
control regulations. Rent control restricts the rent that can be charged, so that
incumbent tenants are not forced out by rising rents. If applicable to private landlords, it
is a disincentive to speculating with property values, reduces the incidence of dwellings
left empty, and limits availability of housing for new residents. If the law does not restrict
the rent charged for dwellings that come onto the rental market (formerly owneroccupied
or new build), rents in an area can still increase. The cities of
southwestern Santa Monica and eastern West Hollywood in California, United States
gentrified despite—or perhaps, because of—rent control.
Occasionally, a housing black market develops, wherein landlords withdraw houses and
apartments from the market, making them available only upon payment of
additional key money, fees, or bribes—thus undermining the rent control law. Many
such laws allow "vacancy decontrol", releasing a dwelling from rent control upon the
tenant's leaving—resulting in steady losses of rent-controlled housing, ultimately
rendering rent control laws ineffective in communities with a high rate of resident
turnover. In other cases social housingowned by local authorities may be sold to
tenants and then sold on. Vacancy decontrol encourages landlords to find ways of
shortening their residents' tenure, most aggressively through landlord harassment. To
strengthen the rent control laws of New York City, housing advocates active in rent
control in New York are attempting to repeal the vacancy decontrol clauses of rent
control laws. The state of Massachusetts abolished rent control in 1994; afterwards,
rents rose, accelerating the pace of Boston's gentrification; however, the laws protected
few apartments, and confounding factors, such as a strong economy, had already been
raising housing and rental prices.
Inner London, England
Examples
Gentrification is not a new phenomenon in Britain; in ancient Rome the shop-free forum
was developed during the Roman Republican period, and in 2nd- and 3rd-century cities
in Roman Britain there is evidence of small shops being replaced by large villas.
King's College London academic Loretta Lees reported that much of Inner London was
undergoing "super-gentrification", where "a new group of super-wealthy professionals,
working in the City of London [i.e. the financial industry], is slowly imposing its mark on
this Inner London housing market, in a way that differentiates it, and them, from
traditional gentrifiers, and from the traditional urban upper classes ... Supergentrification
is quite different from the classical version of gentrification. It's of a higher
Page 34 of 150

economic order; you need a much higher salary and bonuses to live in Barnsbury"
(some two miles north of central London).
Barnsbury was built around 1820, as a middle-class suburb, but after the Second World
War (1939–1945), people moved to the suburbs. The upper and middle classes were
fleeing from the working class residents of London; the modern railway allowed it. At the
war's end, the great housing demand rendered Barnsbury the place of cheap housing,
where most people shared accommodation. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, people
moving into the area had to finance house renovations with their money, because banks
rarely financed loans for Barnsbury. Moreover, the rehabilitating spark was The 1959
Housing Purchase and Housing Act, investing £100 million to rehabilitating old
properties and infrastructure. As a result, the principal population influx occurred
between 1961 and 1975; the UK Census reports that "between the years of 1961 and
1981, owner-occupation increased from 7 to 19 per cent, furnished rentals declined
from 14 to 7 per cent, and unfurnished rentals declined from 61 to 6 per cent"; another
example of urban gentrification is the super-gentrification, in the 1990s, of the
neighboring working-class London Borough of Islington, where Prime minister Tony
Blair moved upon his election in 1997.
United States
From a market standpoint, there are two main requirements that are met by the U.S.
cities that undergo substantial effects of gentrification. These are: an excess supply of
deteriorated housing in central areas, as well as a considerable growth in the availability
of professional jobs located in central business districts. These conditions have been
met in the U.S. largely as a result of suburbanization and other postindustrial
phenomena.
Page 35 of 150

Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. industry has created a surplus of housing units as
construction of new homes has far surpassed the rate of national household growth.
However, the market forces that are dictated by an excess supply cannot fully explain
the geographical specificity of gentrification in the U.S., for there are many large cities
that meet this requirement and have not exhibited gentrification. The missing link is
another factor that can be explained by particular, necessary demand forces. In U.S.
cities in the time period from 1970 to 1978, growth of the central business district at
around 20% did not dictate conditions for gentrification, while growth at or above 33%
yielded appreciably larger gentrification activity. Succinctly, central business district
growth will activate gentrification in the presence of a surplus in the inner city housing
market.
In the U.S., these conditions were generated by the economic transition from
manufacturing to post-industrial service economies. The post-World War II economy
experienced a service revolution, which created white-collar jobs and larger
opportunities for women in the work force, as well as an expansion in the importance of
centralized administrative and cooperate activities. This increased the demand for inner
city residences, which were readily available cheaply after much of the movement
towards central city abandonment of the 1950s. The coupling of these movements is
what became the trigger for the expansive gentrification of U.S. cities,
including Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C.
Measurement of the rate of gentrification during the period from 1990 to 2010 in 50 U.S.
cities showed an increase in the rate of gentrification from 9% in the decade of the
1990s to 20% in the decade from 2000 to 2010 with 8% of the urban neighborhoods in
the 50 cities being affected.
Cities with a rate of gentrification of ≈40% or more in the decade from 2000 to 2010
included:
Portland, Oregon 58.1%
Washington, D.C. 51.9%
Minneapolis 50.6%
Seattle 50%
Atlanta 46.2%
Virginia Beach 46.2%
Denver 42.1%
Austin 39.7%
Cities with a rate of less than 10% in the decade from 2000 to 2010 included:
Memphis 8.8%
Tucson 8.3%
Tulsa 7%
Cleveland 6.7%
Detroit 2.8%
Page 36 of 150

Las Vegas 2%
El Paso 0%
Arlington, Texas 0%
Atlanta
Gentrification in Atlanta has been taking place in its inner-city neighborhoods since the
1970s. Many of Atlanta's neighborhoods experienced the urban flight that affected other
major American cities in the 20th century, causing the decline of once upper and uppermiddle-class
east side neighborhoods. In the 1970s, after neighborhood opposition
blocked two freeways from being built through the east side, its neighborhoods such
as Inman Park and Virginia-Highland became the starting point for the city's
gentrification wave, first becoming affordable neighborhoods attracting young people,
and by 2000 having become relatively affluent areas attracting people from
across Metro Atlantato their upscale shops and restaurants. In the 1990s and 2000s,
gentrification expanded into other parts of Atlanta, spreading throughout the
historic streetcar suburbs east of Downtown and Midtown, mostly areas that had long
had black majorities such as the Old Fourth
Ward, Kirkwood, Reynoldstown and Edgewood. On the western side of the city, onceindustrial
West Midtown became a vibrant neighborhood full of residential lofts and a
nexus of the arts, restaurants, and home furnishings. Gentrification by young African
Americans was also taking place in the 1990s in southwest Atlanta
neighborhoods. The BeltLine trail construction is expected to bring further gentrification
in the neighborhoods alongside which it runs. Concerns about displacement of existing
working-class black residents by increasing numbers of more affluent whites moving in
Page 37 of 150

are expressed by author Nathan McCall in his novel Them, in The Atlanta Progressive
News, and in the documentary The Atlanta Way.
Boston
The city of Boston has seen several neighborhoods undergo significant periods of urban
renewal, specifically during the 1960s to the 1980s. Called "turbo-gentrification" by
sociologist Alan Wolfe, particular areas of study of the process have been done in South
End, Bay Village, and West Cambridge. In Boston's North End, the removal of the
noisy Central Artery elevated highway attracted younger, more affluent new residents,
in place of the traditional Italian immigrant culture.
South End
In the early 1960s, Boston's South End had a great many characteristics of a
neighborhood that is prime for gentrification. The available housing was architecturally
sound and unique row houses in a location with high accessibility to urban transport
services, while surrounded by small squares and parks. A majority of the area had also
been designated a National Historic District.
South End became deteriorated by the 1960s. Many of the row houses had been
converted to cheap apartments, and the neighborhood was plagued by dominant,
visible poverty. The majority of the residents were working-class individuals and families
with a significant need for public housing and other social services. The situation was
recognized by local governments as unfavorable, and in 1960 became the target of
an urban renewal effort of the city.
The construction of the Prudential Tower complex that was finished in 1964 along the
northwest border of South End was a spark for this urban-renewal effort and the
gentrification process for the area that surrounded it. The complex increased job
availability in the area, and the cheap housing stock of South End began to attract a
new wave of residents. The next 15 years saw an influx of predominantly affluent,
young professionals who purchased and renovated houses in South End. Unfortunately,
tension characterized the relationship between these new residents and the previous
residents of the neighborhood. Clashes in the vision for the area's future was the main
source of conflict. The previous, poorer residents, contended that "renewal" should
focus on bettering the plight of South End's poor, while new, middle-class residents
heavily favored private market investment opportunities and shunned efforts such as
subsidized housing with the belief that they would flood the market and raise personal
security concerns.
Bay Village
The late 1940s was a transition for the area from primarily families with children as
residents to a population dominated by both retired residents and transient renters. The
2–3 story brick row houses were largely converted to low-cost lodging houses, and the
Page 38 of 150

neighborhood came to be described as "blighted" and "down at heel". This deterioration
was largely blamed on the transient population.
The year 1957 began the upgrading of what was to become Bay Village, and these
changes were mainly attributed to new artists and gay men moving to the area. These
"marginal" gentrifiers made significant efforts towards superficial beautification as well
as rehabilitation of their new homes, setting the stage for realtors to promote the rising
value of the area.
Of the homebuyers in Bay Village from 1957 to 1975, 92% had careers as white-collar
professionals. 42% of these homebuyers were 25–34 years old. The majority of them
were highly educated and moving from a previous residence in the city, suggesting ties
to an urban-based educational institution. The reasons new homebuyers gave for their
choice of residence in Bay Village was largely attributed to its proximity to downtown, as
well as an appreciation for city life over that of suburbia (Pattison 1977).
West Cambridge
The development and gentrification of West Cambridge began in 1960 as the resident
population began to shift away from the traditional majority of working class Irish
immigrants. The period of 1960–1975 had large shifts in homebuyer demographics
comparable to that experienced by Bay Village. Professional occupations were
overrepresented in homebuyers during this 15-year period, as well as the age group of
25–34 years old. Residents reported a visible lack of social ties between new
homebuyers and the original residents. However, displacement was not cited as a
problem because the primary reason of housing sale remained the death of the solesurviving
member of the household or the death of a spouse.
Page 39 of 150

Researcher Timothy Pattison divided the gentrification process of West Cambridge into
two main stages. Stage one began with various architects and architectural students
who were attracted to the affordability of the neighborhood. The renovations efforts
these "marginal" gentrifiers undertook seemed to spark a new interest in the area,
perhaps as word of the cheap land spread to the wider student community.
The Peabody Schools also served as an enticing factor for the new gentrifiers for both
stages of new homebuyers. Stage two of the process brought more architects to the
area as well as non-architect professionals, often employed at a university institution.
The buyers in stage two cited Peabody schools and the socioeconomic mix of the
neighborhood as primary reasons for their residential choice, as well as a desire to
avoid job commutes and a disenchantment with the suburban life.
Chicago
Chicago's gentrification rate was reported to be 16.8% in 2015. But researchers have
claimed that it has had a significant on specific urban neighborhoods and led to
destabilization of black and Latino communities and their shared cultural identity.
Philadelphia: Darien Street
Gentrification Amid Urban Decline: Strategies for America's Older Cities, by Michael
Lang, reports the process and impact (social, economic, cultural) of gentrification. In
particular, it focuses on the section of Darien Street (a north-south street running
intermittently from South to North Philadelphia) which is essentially an alley in the
populous Bella Vista neighborhood. That part of Darien Street was a "back street",
because it does not connect to any of the city's main arteries and was unpaved for most
of its existence.
In its early days, this area of Darien Street housed only Italian families; however, after
the Second World War (1939–1945), when the municipal government spoke of building
a cross-town highway, the families moved out. Most of the houses date from 1885 (built
for the artisans and craftsmen who worked and lived in the area), but, when the Italian
Americans moved out, the community's low-rent houses went to poor African American
families. Moreover, by the early 1970s, blighted Darien Street was at its lowest point as
a community, because the houses held little property value, many were abandoned,
having broken heaters and collapsed roofs, et cetera. Furthermore, the houses were
very small — approximately 15 feet (4.6 m) wide and 15 feet (4.6 m) deep, each had
three one-room stories (locally known, and still currently advertised as a "Trinity" style
house) and the largest yard was 8 feet (2.4 m) deep. Despite the decay, Darien Street
remained charmed with European echoes, each house was architecturally different,
contributing to the street's community character; children were safe, there was no car
traffic. The closeness of the houses generated a closely knit community located just to
the south of Center City, an inexpensive residential neighborhood a short distance from
Page 40 of 150

the city-life amenities of Philadelphia; the city government did not hesitate
to rehabilitate it.
The gentrification began in 1977; the first house rehabilitated was a corner property that
a school teacher re-modeled and occupied. The next years featured (mostly) white
middle-class men moving into the abandoned houses; the first displacement of original
Darien Street residents occurred in 1979. Two years later, five of seven families had
been economically evicted with inflated housing prices; the two remaining families were
renters, expecting eventual displacement. In five years, from 1977 to 1982, the
gentrification of Darien Street reduced the original population from seven black
households and one white household, to two black households and eleven white
households. The average rent increased 488 per cent — from $85 to $500 a month; by
1981, a house bought for $5,000 sold for $35,000. Of the five black households
displaced, three found better houses within two blocks of their original residence, one
family left Pennsylvania, and one family moved into a public housing apartment building
five blocks from Darien Street. The benefits of the Darien Street gentrification included
increased property tax revenues and better-quality housing. The principal detriment was
residential displacement via higher priced housing.
Washington, D.C.
Gentrification in Washington, D.C. is one of the most studied examples of the process,
as well as one of the most extreme. The process in the U Street Corridor and other
downtown areas has recently become a major issue, and the resulting changes have
Page 41 of 150

led to African-Americans dropping from a majority to a minority of the population, as
they move out and middle-class whites and Asians have moved in.
Washington is one of the top three cities with the most pronounced capital flow into its
"core" neighborhoods, a measurement that has been used to detect areas experiencing
gentrification. Researcher Franklin James found that, of these core areas, Capitol
Hill was significantly revitalized during the decade of 1960–1970, and by the end of the
decade this revitalization had extended outward in a ring around this core
area. [34] Dennis Gale studied these "Revitalization Areas," which include the Dupont
Circle, Adams Morgan, and Capitol Hill neighborhoods, and as compared to the rest of
the city found that these areas were experiencing a faster rate of depopulation in the
1970s than the surrounding areas. U.S. census data show that in the Revitalization
Areas, the percentage of the population with four or more years of college education
rose from 24% in 1970 to 47% in 1980, as opposed to an increase of 21% to 24% for
the remaining areas of Washington. Additionally, Gale's data show that in 1970, 73% of
the residents living in the Revitalization Areas had been residents since 1965; however,
in 1975, only 66% of the residents living there had been residents of the area in 1970 as
well.
The gentrification during this time period resulted in a significant problem of
displacement for marginalized city residents in the 1970s. A decrease in the stock of
affordable housing for needy households as well as nonsubsidized housing for lowincome
workers has had a burdensome effect on individuals and families.
As a result of gentrification, however, Washington's safety has improved drastically. In
the early 1990s, the city had an average of 500 homicides a year; by 2012, the rate had
dropped by more than 80% to about 100 before again seeing a 54% spike in 2015 over
2014. Many of the city's poorer residents were pushed out to adjacent Prince George's
County, Maryland and further south to Charles County, Maryland. Prince George's
County saw a huge spark of violent crimes in 2008 and 2009, but the rate has
decreased since then.
San Francisco
A major driver of gentrification in Bay Area cities such as San Francisco has been
attributed with the Dot-Com Boom in the 1990s, creating a strong demand for skilled
tech workers from local startups and nearby Silicon Valley businesses leading to rising
standards of living. Private shuttle buses operated by companies such as Google have
driven up rents in areas near their stops, leading to some protests. As a result, a large
influx of new workers in the internet and technology sector began contributing to the
gentrification of historically poor immigrant neighborhoods such as the Mission
District. During this time San Francisco began a transformation, eventually culminating
in it becoming the most expensive city in which to live in the United States.
From 1990 to 2010, 18,000 African Americans left San Francisco, while the White,
Asian, and Hispanic populations saw growth in the city. From 2010 to 2014, the number
Page 42 of 150

of households making $100,000 grew while households making less than $100,000
declined. According to the American Community Survey, during this same period an
average of 60,000 people both migrated to San Francisco and migrated out. The people
who left the city were more likely to be nonwhite, have lower education levels, and have
lower incomes than their counterparts who moved into the city. In addition, there was a
net annual migration of 7,500 people age 35 or under, and net out migration of over
5,000 for people 36 or over.
Canada
As of 2011, gentrification in Canada has proceeded quickly in older and denser cities
such as Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver, but has barely begun in places such
as Calgary, Edmonton, or Winnipeg, where suburban expansion is still the primary type
of growth. Since Canada did not experience the same degree of "white flight" as in the
U.S. during the 1960s and 70s, the term "gentrification" in Canada is not synonymous
with predominantly-white people moving into the neighborhoods of people of color, as it
is in the United States. In fact in Toronto and Vancouver recent Asian immigrants and
foreign buyers are also major purchasers of downtown housing, contributing to a major
housing price spike in those cities in 2011.
In Quebec City. The Saint Roch district in the city's lower town was previously
predominantly working class and had gone through a period of decline. However, since
the early to mid 2000's, the area has seen the derelict buildings turned into condos and
the opening of bars, restaurants and cafes, attracting young professionals into the area,
but kicking out the residents from many generations back. Several software developers
and gaming companies, such as Ubisoft and Benox have also opened offices there.
Page 43 of 150

France
In Paris, most poor neighborhoods in the east have seen rising prices and the arrival of
many wealthy residents. However, the process is mitigated by social housing and most
cities tend to favor a "social mix"; that is, having both low and high-income residents in
the same neighborhoods. But in practice, social housing does not cater to the poorest
segment of the population; most residents of social dwellings are from the low-end of
the middle class. As a result, a lot of poor people have been forced to go first to the
close suburbs (1970 to 2000) and then more and more to remote "periurban areas"
where public transport is almost nonexistent. The close suburbs (Saint-Ouen, Saint
Denis, Aubervilliers, ...) are now in the early stages of gentrification although still poor. A
lot of high-profile companies offering well-paid jobs have moved near Saint-Denis and
new real-estate programs are underway to provide living areas close to the new jobs.
On the other side, the eviction of the poorest people to periurban areas since 2000 has
been analyzed as the main cause for the rising political far-right national front. When the
poor lived in the close suburbs, their problems were very visible to the wealthy
population. But the periurban population and its problem is mainly "invisible" from recent
presidential campaign promises. These people have labelled themselves "les
invisibles". Many of them fled both rising costs in Paris and nearby suburbs with an
insecure and ugly environment to live in small houses in the countryside but close to the
city. But they did not factor in the huge financial and human cost of having up to four
hours of transportation every day. Since then, a lot has been invested in the close
suburbs (with new public transports set to open and urban renewal programs) they fled,
but almost nobody cares of these "invisible" plots of land. Since the close suburbs are
now mostly inhabited by immigrants, these people have a strong resentment against
immigration: They feel everything is done for new immigrants but nothing for the native
French population.
This has been first documented in the book Plaidoyer pour une gauche populaire by
think-tank Terra-Nova which had a major influence on all contestants in the presidential
election (and at least, Sarkozy, François Hollande, and Marine Le Pen). This electorate
voted overwhelmingly in favor of Marine Le Pen and Sarkozy while the city centers and
close suburbs voted overwhelmingly for François Hollande.
Most major metropolises in France follow the same pattern with a belt of periurban
development about 30 to 80 kilometers of the center where a lot of poor people moved
in and are now trapped by rising fuel costs. These communities have been disrupted by
the arrival of new people and already suffered of high unemployment due to the
dwindling numbers of industrial jobs.
In smaller cities, the suburbs are still the principal place where people live and the
center is more and more akin to a commercial estate where a lot of commercial
activities take place but where few people live.
Cape Town, South Africa
Page 44 of 150

The Bo-Kaap pocket of Cape Town nestles against the slopes of Signal Hill. It has
traditionally been occupied by members of South Africa's minority, mainly Muslim, Cape
Malay community. These descendants of artisans and political captives, brought to the
Cape as early as the 18th century as slaves and indentured workers, were housed in
small barrack-like abodes on what used to be the outskirts of town. As the city limits
increased, property in the Bo-Kaap became very sought after, not only for its location
but also for its picturesque cobble-streets and narrow avenues. Increasingly, this closeknit
community is "facing a slow dissolution of its distinctive character as wealthy
outsiders move into the suburb to snap up homes in the City Bowl at cut-rate
prices". Inter-community conflict has also arisen as some residents object to the sale of
buildings and the resultant eviction of long-term residents.
Italy
In Italy, similarly to other countries around the world, the phenomenon of gentrification is
proceeding in the largest cities, such as Milan, Turin, Genoa and Rome.
In Milan, gentrification is changing the look of some semi-central neighborhoods, just
outside the inner ring road (called Cerchia dei Bastioni), particularly of former working
class and industrial areas. One of the most well known cases is the neighborhood
of Isola. Despite its position, this area has been for a long time considered as a suburb
Page 45 of 150

since it has been an isolated part of the city, due to the physical barriers such as the
railways and the Naviglio Martesana. In the 1950s, a new business district was built not
far from this area, but Isola remained a distant and low-class area. In the 2000s
vigorous efforts to make Isola as a symbolic place of the Milan of the future were carried
out and, with this aim, the Porta Garibaldi-Isola districts became attractors for stylists
and artists. Moreover, in the second half of the same decade, a massive urban
rebranding project, known as Progetto Porta Nuova, started and the neighborhood of
Isola, despite the compliances residents have had, has been one of the regenerated
areas, with the Bosco Verticale and the new Giardini di Porta Nuova.
Another semi-central district that has undergone this phenomenon in Milan is Zona
Tortona. Former industrial area situated behind Porta Genova station, Zona Tortona is
nowadays the mecca of Italian design and annually hosts some of the most important
events of the Fuorisalone during which more than 150 expositors, such as Superstudio,
take part. In Zona Tortona, some of important landmarks, related to culture, design and
arts, are located such as Fondazione Pomodoro, the Armani/Silos, Spazio
A and MUDEC.
Going towards the outskirts of the city, other gentrified areas of Milan are Lambrate-
Ventura (where others events of the Fuorisalone are hosted), Bicocca and Bovisa (in
which universities have contributed to the gentrification of the areas), Sesto San
Giovanni, Via Sammartini, and the so-called NoLo district (which means Nord di Loreto).
Poland
In Poland, gentrification is proceeding mostly in the big cities
like Warsaw, Łódź, Cracow, Silesian Metropolis, Poznań, Wrocław. The reason of this is
both de-industrialisation and poor condition of residential areas.
The biggest European ongoing gentrification process has been occurring in Łódź from
the beginning of 2010s. Huge unemployment (24% in 1990s) caused by the downfall of
the garment industry created both economic and social problems. Moreover, vast
majority of industrial and housing facilities had been constructed in the late 19th century
and the renovation was neglected after WWII. Łódź authorities rebuilt the industrial
district into the New City Center. This included re-purposing buildings including the
former electrical power and heating station into the Łódź Fabryczna railway station and
the EC1 Science Museum.
There are other significant gentrifications in Poland, such as:
Cracow – the Jewish district Kazimierz, gentrification financed mostly by private
investors.
Poznań – build up Law Department of Adam Mickiewicz University in the post
military facility.
Page 46 of 150

Wrocław – Nadodrze and Nowe Żerniki districts; residential area drown upon
the modernism concepts.
Wałbrzych, Julia coal mine – adaptation post-industrial buildings to art and
cultural facilities.
Warsaw, Praga Północ district.
Nowadays the Polish government has started National Revitalization Plan which
ensures financial support to municipal gentrification programs.
Movement for Justice in El Barrio
Anti-Gentrification Protests
The Movement for Justice in El Barrio is an immigrant-led, organized group of tenants
who resist against gentrification in East Harlem, New York. This movement has 954
members and 95 building communities. On 8 April 2006, the MJB gathered people to
protest in the New York City Hall against an investment bank in the United Kingdom that
Page 47 of 150

purchased 47 buildings and 1,137 homes in East Harlem. News of these protests
reached England, Scotland, France and Spain. MJB made a call to action that
everyone, internationally, should fight against gentrification. This movement gained
international traction and also became known as the International Campaign Against
Gentrification in El Barrio.
Cereal Killer Cafe Protest
On 26 September 2015, a cereal cafe in East London called Cereal Killer Cafe was
attacked by a large group of anti-gentrification protestors. These protestors carried with
them a pig's head and torches, stating that they were tired of unaffordable luxury flats
going into their neighbourhoods. These protestors were alleged to primarily be "middleclass
academics," who were upset by the lack of community and culture that they once
saw in East London. People targeted Cereal Killer Cafe during their protest because of
an alleged article in which one of the brothers with ownership of the cafe had said
marking up prices was necessary as a business in the area. After the attack on the cafe,
users on Twitter were upset that protestors had targeted a small business as the focus
of their demonstration, as opposed to a larger one.
San Francisco Tech Bus Protests
The San Francisco tech bus protests occurred in late 2013 in the San Francisco Bay
Area in the United States, protesting against tech shuttle buses that take employees to
and from their homes in the Bay Area to workplaces in Silicon Valley. Protestors said
the buses were symbolic of the gentrification occurring in the city, rising rent prices, and
the displacement of small businesses. This protest gained global attention and also
inspired anti-gentrification movements in East London.
ink! Coffee Protest (Denver, Colorado)
On November 22, 2017, ink! Coffee, a small coffee shop, placed a manufactured
metal Sandwich board sign on the sidewalk outside one of their Denver locations in the
historic Five Points, Denver neighborhood. The sign said “Happily gentrifying the
neighborhood since 2014” on one side and "Nothing says gentrification like being able
to order a cortado” on the other side.
Ink's ad ignited outrage and garnered national attention when a picture of the sign was
shared on social media by a prominent Denver writer, Ru Johnson. The picture of the
sign quickly went viral accumulating critical comments and negative reviews. Ink!
responded to the social media outrage with a public apology followed by a lengthier
apology from its founder, Keith Herbert. Ink's public apology deemed the sign a bad joke
causing even more outrage on social media. The ad design was created by a Five
Points, Denver firm named Cultivator Advertising & Design. The advertising firm
responded to the public's dismay by issuing an ill-received social media apology, "An
Open Letter to Our Neighbors".
Page 48 of 150

The night following the debut of ink's controversial ad campaign their Five Points,
Denver location was vandalized. A window was broken and the words "WHITE
COFFEE" among others were spray-painted onto the front of the building. Protest
organizers gathered at the coffee shop daily following the controversy. The coffee shop
was closed for business the entire holiday weekend following the scandal.
At least 200 people attended a protest and boycott event on November 25, 2017
outside of ink!'s Five Points location. News of the controversy was covered by media
outlets worldwide.
Page 49 of 150

Page 50 of 150

II. Development-Induced
Displacement
Development-Induced Displacement and resettlement (DIDR) occurs
when people are forced from their homes and/or land as a result of development. This
subset of forced migration has been historically associated with the construction of
dams for hydroelectric powerand irrigation but is also the result of various development
projects such as mining, agriculture, the creation of military installations, airports,
industrial plants, weapon testing grounds, railways, road developments, urbanization,
conservation projects, and forestry. Development-induced displacement is a social
problem affecting multiple levels of human organization, from tribal and village
communities to well-developed urban areas. Development is widely viewed as an
inevitable step towards modernization and economic growth in developing countries;
however, for those who are displaced, the end result is most often loss of livelihood and
impoverishment.
Classification of development-induced displaced persons
(DIDPs), refugees and internally displaced persons rests on fundamental differences in
the type of assistance provided to each category. Refugees and internally displaced
persons typically need international protection and assistance as a result of fleeing
violence and persecution. Development-induced displaced persons require the
Page 51 of 150

estoration of their capacity to generate income and protection from the state. While
people displaced as a result of development have similar experiences to refugees (as
defined by the UNHCR) in terms of economic and social loss, they are not protected by
international law.
Types of Displacement
"Primary" or "direct" displacement occurs when people are moved from their traditional
lands to make way for a development project or when people move towards a project to
meet a new labor demand. Primary displacement is usually predictable and can
therefore be mitigated through planning.
"Secondary" or "indirect" displacement is a result of environmental, geographical and
socio-political consequences of the development project that take place over time and
distance from the initial project. This type of displacement is less predictable and difficult
to control. One example of secondary displacement is if a community is forced to move
because of pollution of their water supply by a mining project.
Some examples of development-induced displacement are:
Three Gorges Dam in China – A hydroelectric dam on China's Yangtze River
constructed between 1994 and 2006, which displaced over 1.4 million people
through primary and secondary displacement.
Sardar Sarovar Dam in India – The largest dam in the Narmada Valley Project,
which displaced over 40,000 people. The dam was the subject of protest by
environment groups and tribal groups during the 1980s and 1990s.
Ahafo Mine in Ghana – An open-pit mine which displaced approximately 10,000
people in 2005 and 2006. Most of the displaced were subsistence farmers, but
the mining company, Newmont, denied them compensation for loss of land.
Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in India – Between 1999 and 2003, 24 villages were
displaced to reintroduce the Asiatic Lion to the area. Resettlement and
enforcement of forest boundaries disrupted social and economic ties between the
displaced and the host community.
Effects
It has been estimated that fifteen million people each year are forced to leave their
homes as a result of public and private development projects and that number
continues to increase as countries move from developing to developed nations.
Compensation and rehabilitation policies designed to mitigate effects of displacement
are often unsuccessful. This is largely due to corruption of street level bureaucrats,
underestimation of the value of resources, failure of planners to recognize the intricacies
Page 52 of 150

of the existing social and economic systems of the displaced and lack of involvement of
displaced persons in the planning process. Communities and individuals are most often
only compensated monetarily, without proper mechanisms for addressing their
grievances or political support to improve their livelihoods. When land is used as
compensation, it is often inadequate in terms of size, location and natural
resources. Land tenure laws may also prevent resettlement policy from being
effective. Poor and indigenous people are mostly affected by displacement as they have
few political and monetary resources.
Michael Cernea's impoverishment and reconstruction model (IRR) sets forth eight
potential risks of displacement:
1. Landlessness
2. Joblessness
3. Homelessness
4. Marginalization
5. Food insecurity
6. Increased morbidity and mortality
7. Loss of access to common property
8. Social Disarticulation
The consensus among researchers is that impoverishment due to loss of capacity to
generate income is the most apparent effect of DIDR. Additionally, displacement severs
social ties which are often crucial for survival in indigenous communities. Loss of
connection to historical, religious, symbolic or spatial locations resulting from forced
migration diminishes cultural identity. Development-induced displaced persons, like
Page 53 of 150

efugees and internally displaced persons, experience psychological stress as well as
feelings of helplessness and distrust towards their government and humanitarian
groups. While the state is charged with protecting them as equal citizens, they are
considered "others" and left to bear the cost for those who will benefit.
Women are disproportionately affected by DIDR as the loss of land used by women to
generate economic worth further marginalizes their socio-economic standing as they
become more dependent on their husbands.
Policy and Mitigation
The work of sociologists and anthropologists studying displaced populations gradually
led to a body of theoretical and conceptual knowledge. Development planners were
eventually forced to rely on the work of social scientists in order to devise resettlement
plans. Cernea explains that, assisted by dissent from NGOs and displaced persons
themselves, a "ripple effect" of early policies led to expansion of resettlement policy
which continues to broaden over time.
Resettlement policy may be adopted by the state, regional associations, private
development companies, NGOs, large financial institutions and the United Nations.
Regardless of the source of the policy, local-level participation during all stages of the
planning process is crucial to mitigating negative outcomes. Policies adopted by large
financial institutions (mainly the World Bank and OECD), NGOs (The Brookings
Institution) and the World Commission on Dams provide guidelines for resettlement of
those displaced by development. Implementation of these policies is often lacking and,
with no political mandate, the guidelines are usually ineffective. State involvement is
dependent on political will but the precarious position of the state as "player and
referee" leaves the displaced with little protection.
In 1998, the United Nations was presented with the Guiding Principals on Internal
Displacement, a set of guidelines proposed by group of legal scholars identifying rights
and protections for internally displaced people. These guidelines specifically name the
state as the protector of the rights of its citizens against the effects of developmentinduced
displacement. Should the state fail to protect the rights of DIDRs,
the Guidelines state that the international community must respond. In 2002, the United
Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs established an IDP Unit to
investigate instances of DIDR. There is currently no enforceable international law
governing DIDR.
Page 54 of 150

III. Forced Displacement
Forced Displacement or forced immigration is the coerced movement of a
person or people away from their home or home region and it often connotes violent
coercion. Someone who has experienced forced displacement is a "forced
immigrant", a "displaced person" (DP), rarely also a "displacee", or if it is within the
same country, an internally displaced person (IDP). In some cases the forced immigrant
can also become a refugee, as that term has a specific legal definition. A specific form
of forced displacement is population transfer, which is a coherent policy to move
unwanted groups, for example, as an attempt at ethnic cleansing. Another form
is deportation.
Forced displacement has accompanied persecution, as well as war, throughout human
history but has only become a topic of serious study and discussion relatively recently.
This increased attention is the result of greater ease of travel, allowing displaced people
to flee to nations far removed from their homes, the creation of an international legal
structure of human rights, and the realizations that the destabilizing effects of forced
immigration, especially in parts of Africa, the Middle East, south and central Asia, ripple
out well beyond the immediate region.
Page 55 of 150

Definition
The concept of forced displacement envelopes demographic movements like flight,
evacuation, displacement, and resettlement. The International Organization for
Migration defines a forced migrant as any person who migrates to "escape persecution,
conflict, repression, natural and human-made disasters, ecological degradation, or other
situations that endanger their lives, freedom or livelihood".
The International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM) defines it as "a
general term that refers to the movements of refugees and internally displaced people
(those displaced by conflicts) as well as people displaced by natural or environmental
disasters, chemical or nuclear disasters, famine, or development projects."
According to Alden Speare, "in the strictest sense migration can be considered to be
involuntary only when a person is physically transported from a country and has no
opportunity to escape from those transporting him." Movement under threat, even the
immediate threat to life, contains a voluntary element, as long as there is an option to
escape to another part of the country, go into hiding or to remain and hope to avoid
persecution." However this thought has been questioned, especially by Marxians, who
argue that in most cases migrants have little or no choice.
Causes
Causes for forced displacement can include:
Natural disaster: Occurrence of a disaster - such as floods, tsunamis, landslides,
earthquakes or volcanoes - leads to temporary or permanent displacement of
population from that area. In such a scenario, migration becomes more of a
survival strategy, as natural disasters often cause the loss of money, homes, and
jobs. For example, Hurricane Katrina resulted in displacement of almost the
entire population of New Orleans, leaving the community and government with
several economic and social challenges.
Environmental problems: The term environmental refugee has been in use
recently representing people who are forced to leave their traditional habitat
because of environmental factors which negatively impact his or her livelihood, or
even environmental disruption i.e. biological, physical or chemical change in
ecosystem. Migration can also occur as a result of slow-onset climate change,
such as desertification or sea-level rise, of deforestation or land degradation.
Man-made disasters can also cause forced migration: examples are industrial
accidents and especially accidents that involve radioactivity, such as
in Chernobyl or Fukushima. An elaboration of such migrants is given by Essam
El-Hinnawi:
Page 56 of 150

1. Migrants who are able to return to their original habitat once the disruption is
over, as in the case of the Bhopal disaster.
2. Migrants who remain permanently displaced.
3. Migrants who seek better living conditions due to deterioration of
environmental conditions in their present habitat, such as soil fertility. In the
middle of the 19th century, for example, Ireland experienced a famine never
before seen in the country’s history.
War, civil war, political repression or religious conflicts: Some migrants are
impelled to cross national borders by war or persecution, due to political, social,
ethnic, religious reasons. These immigrants may be considered refugees if they
apply for asylum in the receiving country.
Development-induced displacement: Such displacement or population transfer is
the forcing of communities and individuals out of their homes, often also their
homelands, for the purposes of economic development. It has been historically
associated with the construction of dams for hydroelectric
power and irrigation purposes but also appears due to many other activities, such
as mining and transport (roads, ports, airports). The best-known recent example
of such development-induced displacement may be that resulting from the
construction of the Three Gorges Dam in China. This type of forced migration
Page 57 of 150

disproportionately affects low income earners and ethnic minorities. According to
estimates, between 90 and 100 million people were forced to leave their homes
due to development projects in the 1990s.
Human trafficking and human smuggling: Migrants displaced through deception
or coercion with purpose of their exploitation fall under this category. The data on
such forced migration are limited since the activities involved are clandestine in
nature. While migration of this nature is well covered for male migrants (working
in agriculture, construction etc.), same cannot be said for their female
counterparts as the market situation for them might be unscrupulous (sex work or
domestic service). The International Labour Organization considers trafficking an
offence against labor protection and denies them the opportunity of utilizing their
resources for their country. ILO’s Multilateral Framework includes principle no. 11
that recommends, "Governments should formulate and implement, in
consultation with the social partners, measures to prevent abusive practices,
migrant smuggling and people trafficking; they should also work towards
preventing irregular labor migration.
Slavery: History's greatest forced migration was the Middle Passage of
the Atlantic slave trade during the 15th through the 19th centuries. Of the 20
million Africans captured for the trade, half died in their forced march to the
African coast, and another ten to twenty percent died on slave ships carrying
them from Africa to the Americas.
Ethnic cleansing: The systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups
from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, with the intent of making it
ethnically homogeneous.
Conditions
In the majority of cases forced migration across borders takes place without the
required documentation. It may even involve human smugglers and traffickers.
Displaced people often place their lives at risk, are obliged to travel in inhumane
conditions and may be exposed to exploitation and abuse. And on top of that the states
where they seek protection may regard them as a threat to their security.
Overview and Distinctions Between the Terms
The term 'Refugee Studies' denotes an academic discipline or field of study
which covers the study of refugees, often their experiences in seeking
refuge. There are several categories of individuals who are included in this study,
with labels that include: 'Refugee’; ‘expellees’; ‘exile’; ‘displaced person’;
‘internally displaced person (IDP)’; ‘economic refugees’; ‘humanitarian refugee’;
‘stateless person’; ‘tsunami refugee’; ‘development refugee’; ‘environmental
refugee’; ‘government assisted refugee (GAR)’ etc.
Page 58 of 150

The term displaced person (DP) was first widely used during World War II and
the resulting refugee outflows from Eastern Europe, when it was used to
specifically refer to one removed from his or her native country as
a refugee, prisoner or a slave laborer. Most of the victims of war, political
refugees and DPs of the immediate post-Second World War period were
Ukrainians, Poles, other Slavs, as well as citizens of the Baltic states -
Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians, who refused to return to Soviet-dominated
eastern Europe. A.J. Jaffe claimed that the term was originally coined by Eugene
M. Kulischer. The meaning has significantly broadened in the past half-century.
If the displaced person has crossed an international border and falls under one of
the relevant international legal instruments, they may become a refugee. The
term "refugee" is also commonly used as a synonym for displaced person,
causing confusion between the general descriptive class of anyone who has left
their home and the subgroup of legally defined refugees who enjoy specified
international legal protection. However, forced migrants may not apply for asylum
in the country they fled to, so they may not be classed as asylum seekers or - if
application would be successful - refugees. The terms refugee and asylum
seeker always have a legal framework or system as context. If forced migrants
do not access this legal system or it does not exist in the country they have fled
to, they cannot be categorised as such.
Forced migrants are always either IDPs or displaced people, as both of these
terms do not require a legal framework and the fact that they left their homes is
sufficient. The distinction between the terms displaced person and forced migrant
Page 59 of 150

is minor, however, the term displaced person has an important historic context
(e.g. World War II).
A displaced person who crosses an international border without permission from
the country they are entering, and without applying for asylum, may be
considered an illegal immigrant.
A displaced person who left his or her home because of political persecution or
violence, but did not cross an international border, is commonly considered to be
the less well-defined category of internally displaced person (IDP), and is subject
to more tenuous international protection. Bogumil Terminski distinguishes two
general categories of internal displacement: displacement of risk (mostly conflictinduced
displacement, deportations and disaster-induced displacement) and
displacement of adaptation (associated with voluntary resettlement,
development-induced displacement and environmentally-induced displacement).
If the displaced person was forced out their home because of economically
driven projects like that of the Three Gorges Dam in China and
various Indian dams, it is called development-induced displacement. People are
also often displaced due to natural or man-made disasters. Displacement can
also occur as a result of slow-onset climate change, such
as desertification or sea-level rise. A person who is displaced due to
environmental factors which negatively impact his or her livelihood is generally
known as an environmental migrant. Such displacement can be cross-border in
nature but is frequently internal. No specific international legal instrument applies
to such individuals. Foreign nations often offer disaster relief to mitigate the
effects of such disaster displacement.
Displaced person generally refers to one who is forced to migrate for reasons
other than economic conditions, such as war or persecution. A migrant who fled
because of economic hardship is an economic migrant.
Criminal Prosecution
Forced displacement has been subjected to several trials before local and international
courts. One of the requirements that need to be met for an offence as a war crime is
that the victim is a "protected person" under international humanitarian law. The
expression "protected person" originally referred only to the categories of individuals
explicitly protected under one of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, but was later
accepted as defining a civilian or police force who do not participate directly in a
conflict. Following the end of World War II, the Krupp trial was held with a specific
charge to the forced displacement of civilian populations for the purpose of forced
labour. The US Military Tribunal concluded that " [t]here is no international law that
permits the deportation or the use of civilians against their will for other than on
reasonable requisitions for the need of the army, either within the area of the army or
after deportation to rear areas or to the homeland of the occupying power". At
Page 60 of 150

the Nuremberg trials, Hans Frank, chief jurist in occupied Poland, was found guilty,
among others for forced displacement of the civilian population.
In Article 49, the Fourth Geneva Convention, adopted on 12 August 1949, specifically
forbids forced displacement:
“ Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected people from occupied
territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not,
are prohibited, regardless of their motive. ”
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines forced displacement as a
crime within the jurisdiction of the court:
“ "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the people
concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present,
without grounds permitted under international law. ”
Several people were tried and convicted by the ICTY for connection to forced
displacement during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s. On 11 April 2018, the Appeals
Chamber sentenced Vojislav Šešelj 10 years in prison under Counts 1, 10, and 11 of
the indictment for instigating deportation, persecution (forcible displacement), and other
Page 61 of 150

inhumane acts (forcible transfer) as crimes against humanity due to his speech in
Hrtkovci on 6 May 1992, in which he called for the expulsion of Croats from
Vojvodina. Other convictions for forced displacement included ex-Bosnian Serb
politician Momčilo Krajišnik, ex-Croatian Serb leader Milan Martić, former Bosnian
Croat paramilitary commander Mladen Naletilić, and Bosnian Serb politician Radoslav
Brđanin.
Page 62 of 150

IV. White Flight
White Flight is a term that originated in the United States, starting in the 1950s and
1960s, and applied to the large-scale migration of people of various European
ancestries from racially mixed urban regions to more racially
homogeneous suburban or exurban regions. The term has more recently been applied
to other migrations by whites, from older, inner suburbs to rural areas, as well as from
the US Northeast and Midwest to the milder climate in
the Southeast and Southwest. [1][2][3] The term has also been used for large-scale postcolonial
emigration of whites from Africa, or parts of that continent, driven by levels of
violent crime and anti-colonial state policies.
Migration of middle-class white populations was observed during the Civil Rights
Movement in the 1950s and 1960s out of cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas
City and Oakland, although racial segregation of public schools had ended there long
before the US Supreme Court's decision Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. In the
1970s, attempts to achieve effective desegregation by means of forced busing in some
areas led to more families' moving out of former areas. More generally, some historians
suggest that white flight occurred in response to population pressures, both from the
large migration of blacks from the rural South to northern cities in the Great
Migration and the waves of new immigrants from southern and eastern
Europe. However, some historians have challenged the phrase "white flight" as a
misnomer whose use should be reconsidered. In her study of West
Side in Chicago during the post-war era, historian Amanda Seligman argues that the
phrase misleadingly suggests that whites immediately departed when blacks moved into
the neighborhood, when in fact, many whites defended their space with violence,
Page 63 of 150

intimidation, or legal tactics. Leah Boustan, Professor of Economics at Princeton,
attributes white flight both to racism and economic reasons.
The business practices of redlining, mortgage discrimination, and racially restrictive
covenants contributed to the overcrowding and physical deterioration of areas where
minorities chose to congregate. Such conditions are considered to have contributed to
the emigration of other populations. The limited facilities for banking and insurance, due
to a perceived lack of profitability, and other social services, and extra fees meant to
hedge against perceived profit issues increased their cost to residents in predominantly
non-white suburbs and city neighborhoods. According to the environmental geographer
Laura Pulido, the historical processes of suburbanization and urban decentralization
contribute to contemporary environmental racism.
United States
In the United States during the 1940s, for the first time a powerful interaction between
segregation laws and race differences in terms of socioeconomic status enabled white
families to abandon inner cities in favor of suburban living. The result was severe urban
decaythat, by the 1960s, resulted in crumbling "ghettos". Prior to national data available
in the 1950 US census, a migration pattern of disproportionate numbers of whites
moving from cities to suburban communities was easily dismissed as merely anecdotal.
Because American urban populations were still substantially growing, a relative
decrease in one racial or ethnic component eluded scientific proof to the satisfaction of
policy makers. In essence, data on urban population change had not been separated
into what are now familiarly identified its "components." The first data set potentially
capable of proving "white flight" was the 1950 census. But original processing of this
data, on older-style tabulation machines by the US Census Bureau, failed to attain any
approved level of statistical proof. It was rigorous reprocessing of the same raw data on
a UNIVAC I, led by Donald J. Bogue of the Scripps Foundation and Emerson Seim of
the University of Chicago, that scientifically established the reality of white flight.
It was not simply a more powerful calculating instrument that placed the reality of white
flight beyond a high hurdle of proof seemingly required for policy makers to consider
taking action. Also instrumental were new statistical methods developed by Emerson
Seim for disentangling deceptive counter-effects that had resulted when numerous
cities reacted to departures of a wealthier tax base by annexation. In other words,
central cities had been bringing back their new suburbs, such that families that had
departed from inner cities were not even being counted as having moved from the
cities.
During the later 20th century, industrial restructuring led to major losses of jobs, leaving
formerly middle-class working populations suffering poverty, with some unable to move
away and seek employment elsewhere. Real estate prices often fall in areas of
economic erosion, allowing persons with lower income to establish homes in such
areas. Since the 1960s and changed immigration laws, the United States has received
immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, Asia, and Africa. Immigration has
Page 64 of 150

changed the demographics of both cities and suburbs, and the US has become a
largely suburban nation, with the suburbs becoming more diverse. In addition, Latinos,
the fastest growing minority group in the US, began to migrate away from traditional
entry cities and to cities in the Southwest, such as Phoenix and Tucson. In 2006, the
increased number of Latinos had made whites a minority group in some western cities.
Legal exclusion
Catalysts
In the 1930s, states outside the South (where racial segregation was legal) practiced
unofficial segregation via exclusionary covenants in title deeds and real estate
neighborhood redlining – explicit, legally sanctioned racial discrimination in real property
ownership and lending practices. Blacks were effectively barred from pursuing
homeownership, even when they were able to afford it. Suburban expansion was
reserved for middle-class and working-class white people, facilitated by their increased
wages incurred by the war effort and by subsequent federally guaranteed mortgages
(VA, FHA, HOLC) available only to whites to buy new houses, such as those created by
the Federal Housing Administration.
Roads
After World War II, aided by the construction of the Interstate Highway System,
many White Americans began leaving industrial cities for new housing in suburbs. The
roads served to transport suburbanites to their city jobs, facilitating the development of
suburbs, and shifting the tax base away from the city. This may have exacerbated urban
Page 65 of 150

decay. In some cases, such as in the Southern United States, local governments used
highway road constructions to deliberately divide and isolate black neighborhoods from
goods and services, often within industrial corridors. In Birmingham, Alabama, the local
government used the highway system to perpetuate the racial residence-boundaries the
city established with a 1926 racial zoning law. Constructing interstate highways through
majority-black neighborhoods eventually reduced the populations to the poorest
proportion of people financially unable to leave their destroyed community.
Blockbusting
The real estate business practice of "blockbusting" was a for-profit catalyst for white
flight and a means to control non-white migration. By subterfuge, real estate agents
would facilitate black people buying a house in a white neighborhood, either by buying
the house themselves, or via a white proxy buyer, and then re-selling it to the black
family. The remaining white inhabitants (alarmed by real estate agents and the local
newsmedia), fearing devalued residential property, would quickly sell, usually at a loss.
Losses happened when they sold en masse, and would sell the properties to the
incoming black families, profiting from price arbitrage and the sales commissions from
both the blacks and the whites. By such tactics, the racial composition of a
neighborhood population often changed completely in a few years.
Association with Urban Decay
Urban decay is the sociological process whereby a city, or part of a city, falls into
disrepair and decrepitude. Its characteristics are depopulation, economic restructuring,
abandoned buildings, high local unemployment (and thus poverty), fragmented families,
political disenfranchisement, crime, and a desolate, inhospitable city landscape. White
flight contributed to the draining of cities' tax bases when middle-class people left.
Abandoned properties attracted criminals and street gangs, contributing to crime.
In the 1970s and 1980s, urban decay was associated with Western cities, especially in
North America and parts of Europe. In that time, major structural changes in global
economies, transportation, and government policy created the economic, then social,
conditions resulting in urban decay.
White flight in North America started to reverse in the 1990s, when the rich suburbanites
returned to cities, gentrifying the decayed urban neighborhoods.
Government-Aided White Flight
New municipalities were established beyond the abandoned city's jurisdiction to avoid
the legacy costs of maintaining city infrastructures; instead new governments spent
taxes to establish suburban infrastructures. The federal government contributed to white
flight and the early decay of non-white city neighborhoods by withholding maintenance
capital mortgages, thus making it difficult for the communities to either retain or attract
middle-class residents.
Page 66 of 150

The new suburban communities limited the emigration of poor and non-white residents
from the city by restrictive zoning; thus, few lower-middle-class people could afford a
house in the suburbs. Many all-white suburbs were eventually annexed to the cities their
residents had left. For instance, Milwaukee, Wisconsin partially annexed towns such
as Granville; the (then) mayor, Frank P. Zeidler, complained about the socially
destructive "Iron Ring" of new municipalities incorporated in the post–World War II
decade. Analogously, semi-rural communities, such as Oak Creek, South Milwaukee,
and Franklin, formally incorporated as discrete entities to escape urban annexation.
Wisconsin state law had allowed Milwaukee's annexation of such rural and suburban
regions that did not qualify for discrete incorporation per the legal incorporation
standards.
Desegregation
of Schools
In some areas,
the post–World
War II racial
desegregation of
the public
schools catalyzed
white flight. In
1954, the US
Supreme Court
case Brown v.
Board of
Education (1954)
ordered the de
jure termination
of the "separate,
but equal" legal
racism
established with
the Plessy v.
Ferguson (1896)
case in the 19th
century. It
declared that
segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. Many southern jurisdictions
mounted massive resistance to the policy. In some cases, white parents withdrew their
children from public schools and established private religious schools instead. These
schools, termed segregation academies, sprung up in the American South between the
late 1950s and mid-1970s and allowed parents to prevent their children from being
enrolled in racially mixed schools.
Page 67 of 150

Upon desegregation in 1957 in Baltimore, Maryland, the Clifton Park Junior High School
had 2,023 white students and 34 black students; ten years later, it had twelve white
students and 2,037 black students. In northwest Baltimore, Garrison Junior High
School's student body declined from 2,504 whites and twelve blacks to 297 whites and
1,263 blacks in that period. At the same time, the city's working class population
declined because of the loss of industrial jobs as heavy industry restructured.
In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), the Supreme Court
ordered the desegregation busing of poor black students to suburban white schools,
and suburban white students to the city to try to integrate student populations.
In Milliken v. Bradley(1974), the dissenting Justice William Douglas observed, "The
inner core of Detroit is now rather solidly black; and the blacks, we know, in many
instances are likely to be poorer." Likewise, in 1977, the Federal decision in Penick v.
The Columbus Board of Education(1977) accelerated white flight from Columbus, Ohio.
Although the racial desegregation of schools affected only public school districts, the
most vehement opponents of racial desegregation have sometimes been whites whose
children attended private schools.
A secondary, non-geographic consequence of school desegregation and busing was
"cultural" white flight: withdrawing white children from the mixed-race public school
system and sending them to private schools unaffected by US federal integration laws.
In 1970, when the United States District Court for the Central District of
California ordered the Pasadena Unified School District desegregated, the proportion of
white students (54%) reflected the school district's proportion of whites (53%). Once the
federally ordered school desegregation began, whites who could afford private schools
withdrew their children from the racially diverse Pasadena public school system. By
2004, Pasadena had 63 private schools educating some 33% of schoolchildren, while
white students made up only 16% of the public school populace. The Pasadena Unified
School District superintendent characterized public schools as "like the bogey-man" to
whites. He implemented policies to attract white parents to the racially diverse
Pasadena public school district.
Checkerboard and Tipping Models
In studies in the 1980s and 1990s, blacks said they were willing to live in neighborhoods
with 50/50 ethnic composition. Whites were also willing to live in integrated
neighborhoods, but preferred proportions of more whites. Despite this willingness to live
in integrated neighborhoods, the majority still live in largely segregated neighborhoods,
which have continued to form.
In 1969, Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling published "Models of
Segregation", a paper in which he demonstrated through a "checkerboard model" and
mathematical analysis, that even when every agent prefers to live in a mixed-race
neighborhood, almost complete segregation of neighborhoods emerges as individual
decisions accumulate. In his "tipping model", he showed that members of an ethnic
group do not move out of a neighborhood as long as the proportion of other ethnic
Page 68 of 150

groups is relatively low, but if a critical level of other ethnicities is exceeded, the original
residents may make rapid decisions and take action to leave. This tipping point is
viewed as simply the end-result of domino effect originating when the threshold of the
majority ethnicity members with the highest sensitivity to sameness is exceeded. If
these people leave and are either not replaced or replaced by other ethnicities, then this
in turn raises the level of mixing of neighbors, exceeding the departure threshold for
additional people.
South Africa
Africa
About 800,000 out of an earlier total population of 5.2 million whites have left South
Africa since 1995, according to a report from 2009. (Apartheid, a system of segregation
of whites, blacks, and people of other races, had ended in 1994.) The country has
suffered a high rate of violent crime, a primary stated reason for emigration. Other
causes include attacks against white farmers, concern about being excluded
by affirmative action programs, rolling blackouts in electrical supplies, and worries about
corruption and autocratic political tendencies among new leaders. Since many of those
who leave are highly educated, there are shortages of skilled personnel in the
government, teaching, and other professional areas. Some observers fear the long-term
consequences, as South Africa's labor policies make it difficult to attract skilled
immigrants. The migration of whites in South Africa was facilitated by the creation of
immigration routes into European countries for people with European ancestry. For
instance, the British government introduced the notion of patriality to ensure white
people of British ancestry from Africa could settle in the UK. In the global economy,
Page 69 of 150

some professionals and skilled people have been attracted to work in the US and
European nations.
Zimbabwe (Rhodesia)
Until 1980, the former British dependency of Rhodesia held a well-publicised image as
being one of two nations in sub-Saharan Africa where a white minority of European
descent and culture held political, economic, and social control over a preponderantly
black African majority. Nevertheless, unlike white South Africans, a significant
percentage of white Rhodesians represented recent immigrants. Initially, about threefourths
of resident whites were of British origin, with those from England and Wales
predominating. After World War II there was a substantial influx of the British diaspora,
including former colonials from India, Pakistan, and other British possessions in Africa.
Also represented were working-class Englishmen responding to economic
opportunities. In 1969 only 41% of Rhodesia's white community were natural born
citizens, or 93,600 people. The remainder were naturalised British and South African
citizens or expatriates, with many holding dual citizenship.
During the Rhodesian Bush War, almost the entire white male population between
eighteen and fifty-eight was affected by various military commitments, and individuals
spent up to five or six months of the year on combat duty away from their normal
occupations in the civil service, commerce, industry, or agriculture. These long periods
of service in the field led to an increased emigration of men of military age. In November
1963, state media cited the chief reasons for emigration as uncertainty about the future,
economic decline due to embargo and war, and the heavy commitments of national
service, which was described as "the overriding factor causing people to leave". Of the
male emigrants in 1976 about half fell into the 15 to 39 age bracket. Between 1960 and
1976 160,182 whites immigrated, while 157,724 departed. This dynamic turnover rate
led to depressions in the property market, a slump in the construction industry, and a
decline in retail sales. The number of white Rhodesians peaked in 1975 at 278,000 and
rapidly declined as the bush war intensified. In 1976 around 14,000 whites left the
country, marking the first year since Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of
Independence in 1965 that more whites had left the country than arrived, with most
leaving for South Africa. This became known as the 'chicken run', the earliest use of
which was recorded the following year, often by Rhodesians who remained to
contemptuously describe those who had left. Other phrases such as 'taking the gap' or
'gapping it' were also used. As the outward flow increased, the phrase 'owl run' also
came into use as leaving the country was deemed by many to be a wise
choice. Disfavour with the biracial Zimbabwe Rhodesia administration in 1979 also
contributed to a mass exodus.
The establishment of the new Republic of Zimbabwe in 1980 sounded the death knell
for white political power and ushered in a new era of black majority rule. White
emigration peaked between 1980 and 1982 at 53,000 persons, with the breakdown of
law and order, an increase in crime in the rural areas, and the provocative attitude of
Zimbabwean officials being cited as the main causes. Political conditions typically had a
Page 70 of 150

greater impact on the
decision to migrate among
white than black
professionals. Between
1982 and 2000 Zimbabwe
registered a net loss of
100,000 whites, or an
average of 5,000
departures per year. A
second wave of white
emigration was sparked by
President Robert Mugabe's
violent land
reform programme after
2000. Popular destinations
included South Africa
and Australia, which
emigrants perceived to be
geographically, culturally,
or sociopolitically similar to
their home country.
From a strictly economic
point of view, the departure
figures were not as
significant as the loss of the
skills of those leaving. A
disproportionate number of
white Zimbabwean
emigrants were well
educated and highly skilled.
Among those living in the
United States, for example,
53.7% had a bachelor's degree, while only 2% had not completed secondary
school. Most (52.4%) had occupied technical or supervisory positions of critical
importance to the modern sector of the economy. Inasmuch as black workers did not
begin making large inroads into apprenticeships and other training programs until the
1970s, few were in a position to replace their white colleagues in the 1980s.
Denmark
Europe
A study of school choice in Copenhagen found that an immigrant proportion of below
35% in the local schools did not affect parental choice of schools. If the percentage of
immigrant children rose above this level, native Danes are far more likely to choose
Page 71 of 150

other schools. Immigrants who speak Danish at home also opt out. Other immigrants,
often more recent ones, stay with local schools.
Ireland
A 2007 government report stated that immigration in Dublin has caused "dramatic"
white flight from elementary schools in a studied area (Dublin 15). 27% of residents
were foreign-born immigrants. The report stated that Dublin was risking creating
immigrant-dominated banlieues, on the outskirts of a city, similar to such areas in
France. The immigrants in the area included Eastern Europeans (such as those
from Poland), Asians, and Africans (mainly from Nigeria).
Norway
White flight in Norway has increased in the 1970s with the immigration of non-
Scandinavians from (in numerical order, starting with the largest):
Poland, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Vietnam, Iran, Turkey, Bosnia
and
Herzegovina, Russia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, the
former Yugoslavia, Thailand, Afghanistan, and Lithuania. By June 2009, more than 40%
of Oslo schools had an immigrant majority, with some schools having a 97% immigrant
share. Schools in Oslo are increasingly divided by ethnicity. For instance, in
the Groruddalen (Grorud valley), four boroughs which currently has a population of
around 165,000, the ethnic Norwegian population decreased by 1,500 in 2008, while the
immigrant population increased by 1,600. In thirteen years, a total of 18,000 ethnic
Norwegians have moved from the borough.
In January 2010, a news feature from Dagsrevyen on the public Norwegian
Broadcasting Corporation said, "Oslo has become a racially divided city. In some city
districts the racial segregation starts already in kindergarten." Reporters said, "In the
last years the brown schools have become browner, and the white schools whiter," a
statement which caused some minor controversy.
Sweden
After World War II, immigration into Sweden occurred in three phases. The first was a
direct result of the war, with refugees from concentration camps and surrounding
countries in Scandinavia and Northern Europe. The second, prior to 1970, involved
immigrant workers, mainly from Finland, Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia. In the most
recent phase, from the 1970s onwards, refugees immigrated from the Middle East,
Africa, and Latin America, joined later by their relatives.
A study which mapped patterns of segregation and congregation of incoming population
groups found that, if a majority group is reluctant to accept a minority influx, they may
leave the district, avoid the district, or use tactics to keep the minority out. The minority
group in turn react by either dispersing or congregating, avoiding certain districts in turn.
Detailed analysis of data from the 1990s onwards indicates that the concentration of
Page 72 of 150

immigrants in certain city districts, such as Husby in Stockholm
and Rosengård in Malmö, is in part due to immigration influx, but primarily due to white
flight.
According to researcher Emma Neuman at Linnaeus University, the white flight
phenomenon commences when the fraction of non-European immigrants reaches 3-4%
but European immigration show no such effect. High income earners and the highly
educated move out first, so the ethnic segregation also leads to class segregation.
In a study performed at Örebro University, mothers of young children were interviewed
to study attitudes on swedishness, multiculturalism and segregation. It concluded that
while many expressed values as ethnic diversity being an enriching factor, but when in
practice it came to choosing schools or choosing district to move to, ensuring the
children had an access to a school with robust Swedish majority as they didn't want
their children to grow up in a school as a minority and wanted them to be in a good
Swedish language learning environment.
Page 73 of 150

United Kingdom
For centuries, London was the destination for refugees and immigrants from continental
Europe. Although all the immigrants were European, neighborhoods showed ethnic
succession over time, as older residents (in some cases, ethnic British) moved out and
new immigrants moved in, an early case of white flight (though the majority of London's
population was still ethnic British).
In the 2001 census, the London boroughs of Newham and Brent were found to be the
first areas to have non-white majorities. The 2011 census found that, for the first time,
less than 50% of London's population were white British, and that in some areas of
London white British people make up less than 20% of the population.
A 2005 report stated that white migration within the UK is mainly from areas of high
ethnic minority population to those with predominantly white populations. White British
families have moved out of London as many immigrants have settled in the capital. The
report's writers expressed concern about British social cohesion and stated that different
ethnic groups were living "parallel lives"; they were concerned that lack of contact
between the groups could result in fear more readily exploited by extremists. The
London School of Economics in a study found similar results.
Researcher Ludi Simpson says that the growth of ethnic minorities in Britain is due
mostly to natural population growth (births outnumber deaths) rather than immigration.
Both white and non-white Britons who can do so economically are equally likely to leave
mixed-race inner-city areas. In his opinion, these trends indicate counter
urbanisation rather than white flight.
Australia
Oceania
In Sydney, the suburbs that attracted migrants were in the Greater Western
Sydney region, away from the Sydney CBD, such
as Fairfield, Cabramatta, Merrylands, Auburn, Bankstown and Liverpool, among others.
Those areas popular with Middle Eastern and Asian migrants experienced a degree of
white flight, with a concentration of Anglo-Celtic people in certain areas, such
as Penrith in far-western Sydney, the Sutherland Shire and the Gosford–Wyong area of
the Central Coast, north of Sydney. These suburbs remain predominantly Anglo-
Australian.
According to the New South Wales Secondary Principals Council and the University of
Western Sydney, public schools in that state have experienced white flight to private
and Catholic schools wherever there is a large presence of Aboriginal and Middle
Eastern students.
Page 74 of 150

New Zealand
White flight has been observed in low socioeconomic decile schools in New Zealand.
Data from the Ministry of Education found that 60,000 New Zealand European students
attended low-decile schools (situated in the poorest areas) in 2000, and had fallen to
half that number in 2010. The same data also found that highdecile
schools (which are in the wealthiest areas) had a
corresponding increase in New Zealand European students. The
Ministry claimed demographic changes were behind the shifts,
but teacher and principal associations have attributed white flight
to racial and class stigmas of low-decile schools, which
commonly have majority Maori and Pacific Islander rolls.
In one specific case, white flight has significantly affected Sunset Junior High School in
a suburb of the city of Rotorua, with the total number of students reduced from 700 to
70 in the early 1980s. All but one of the 70 students are Maori. The area has a
concentration of poor, low-skilled people, with struggling families, and many single
mothers. Related to the social problems of the families, student educational
achievement is low on the standard reading test.
Page 75 of 150

Page 76 of 150

V. Black Flight
Black Flight is a term applied to the out-migration of African Americans from
predominantly black or mixed inner-city areas in the United States to suburbs and
outlying edge cities of newer home construction. While more attention has been paid to
this since the 1990s, the movement of blacks to the suburbs has been underway for
some time, with nine million people having migrated from 1960 to 2000. Their goals
have been similar to those of the white middle class, whose out-migration was called
white flight: newer housing, better schools for their children, and attractive
environments. From 1990 to 2000, the percentage of African Americans who lived in the
suburbs increased to a total of 39 percent, rising 5 percent in that decade. Most who
moved to the suburbs after World War II were middle class.
Early years of residential change accelerated in the late 1960s after passage of civil
rights legislation ended segregation, and African Americans could exercise more
choices in housing and jobs. Since the 1950s, there began a period of major
restructuring of industries and loss of hundreds of thousands of industrial jobs in
northeast and Midwest cities. Since the late 20th century, these events led to reduced
density in formerly black neighborhoods in cities such as Chicago, Detroit, and
Philadelphia, which have also had absolute population decreases, losing white
population as well. Since the 2000 census, the number and proportion of black
population has decreased in several major cities, including New York, Los Angeles,
Atlanta, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis and Washington, DC.
More importantly, in addition to moving to suburbs, since 1965 African Americans have
been returning to the South in a New Great Migration, especially since 1990 to the
states of Georgia, Texas, and Maryland, whose economies have expanded. In many
cases, they are following the movement of jobs to the suburbs and the South. Because
more African Americans are attaining college degrees, they are better able to find and
obtain better-paying jobs and move to the suburbs. Most African-American migrants
leaving the northern regions have gone to the "New South" states, where economies
and jobs have grown from knowledge industries, services and technology.
Page 77 of 150

Achieving higher education has contributed to an increase in overall affluence within the
African-American community, with increasing median income, both in absolute terms
and in relation to that of European Americans. According to a 2007 study, average
African-American family income has increased, but the gap with white families has
increased slightly.
History
In his After the Fact (1995) study, the anthropologist Clifford Geertz documented
changes in a city in Morocco. As poor rural migrants moved into the center city during
urbanization, the older, more established and wealthier populations moved to the
outskirts. This pattern of class and education succession has been seen in United
States cities, where poor immigrants and migrants have occupied older areas of
affordable housing, but when economically established, they move to better areas, often
in the suburbs. In recent decades, such ethnic succession seen first in center cities has
been taking place in the suburbs, too.
Since the 1960s, many middle-class African-Americans have been moving to the
suburbs for newer housing and good schools, just as European Americans had done
before them. From 1960 to 2000, the number of African Americans who moved to
suburbs was nine million, a number considerably higher than the Great Migration of
African-Americans from the rural South to the North during the first half of the century.
As C. Hocker writes,
The fact is African Americans desire the same things all Americans want for their
families: employment opportunities with well-paying positions that can keep up with -or
stay ahead of- the cost of living; the chance to own affordable homes in safe
neighborhoods; quality options for educating our children; and the social and cultural
amenities that make it all worthwhile. Right now, the South, more than any other region
of the country, is living up to that promise.
In the last 25 years, for example, the population of Prince George's County, Maryland,
where suburban housing was developed near Washington, DC, became majority
African American. By 2006 it was the wealthiest majority-black county in the nation.
Similar to White Americans, African Americans continue to move to more distant areas.
Charles County, Maryland has become the next destination for middle-class black
migrants from Washington and other areas; by 2002, the students in the school system
were majority black. Charles County has the fastest-growing black population of any
large county in the nation except the Atlanta suburbs. Randallstown near Baltimore has
also become a majority-black suburb. Other major majority-black suburbs include
Bessemer, AL; Miami Gardens, FL; Pine Hills, FL; College Park, GA; East Point, GA;
Harvey, IL; Maywood, IL; Inkster, MI; Oak Park, MI; Southfield, MI; East Orange, NJ;
Irvington, NJ; Orange, NJ; Plainfield, NJ; Willingboro, NJ; Hempstead, NY; Mount
Vernon, NY; Forest Park, OH; Darby, PA; Rankin, PA; Wilkinsburg, PA; Yeadon, PA;
Desoto, TX; Glenn Heights, TX; Lancaster, TX; Missouri City, TX and others.
Page 78 of 150

In 1950 few northern cities yet had majority or near majority percentages of blacks, nor
did southern ones: Washington, DC was 35 percent African American and Baltimore
was 40 percent. From 1950 to 1970, the black population increased dramatically in
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Newark, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Kansas City,
Cincinnati and Indianapolis. By 1960 75 percent of blacks lived in urban environments,
while whites had been moving to suburbs in large numbers following WWII. Black flight
has altered the hyper-urban density that had resulted from the Second Great Migration
to cities (1940–70), with hyper-segregation in inner-city areas, such as in Chicago, St.
Louis, and East St. Louis.
Job losses in former industrial cities have often pushed population out, as people
migrate to other areas to find new work. In the 1950s and 1960s, numerous blacks from
Chicago began to move to suburbs south of the city to improve their housing. Industry
job losses hit those towns, too, and many people have left the area altogether. Chicago
lost population from 1970 to 1990, with some increases as of the 2000 census, and
decreases again from 2000-2005. Since 2000, nearly 55,000 blacks have left Chicago,
although one million still live in the city. The migrants caused losses in businesses,
churches, and other African-American community institutions. The concentration of
poverty and deterioration of inner-city public schools in many cities also contributes to
pushing black parents to move their families to suburban areas, with traditionally better
funded schools. Detroit and Philadelphia are two other major industrial cities that have
suffered dramatic population losses since the mid-20th century due to the loss of
industrial jobs.
Page 79 of 150

Reviews of the 2000 census showed that African Americans have also left New York,
but continued in-migration of young whites and immigrants has appeared to stabilize the
white proportion of residents. Joseph J. Salvo, director of the New York Department of
City Planning's population division, noted the diversity within the white population, as
older European Americans are replaced by new immigrants, including the many
Hispanics who identify as white. Similarly, black out-migration from Boston since 2000
resulted in the city's becoming majority white again by 2006. In 1970 at the peak of
African-American expansion in Washington, DC, blacks comprised 70% of the capital's
population. The percentage of black population has decreased significantly - to 55.6% in
2007, down nearly 8% since 2000, and much more since the 1970s.
California cities, a destination for black migrants from 1940 to 1970, have changed as
well. The state has lost black migrants for the first time in three decades. San Francisco
has had the largest decrease in black population, 23 percent from 1990 to 2000, but
Oakland, Los Angeles and San Diego also have had losses. In Los Angeles, the
percentage of population that is black has dropped by half to 9.9% since 1970, a
proportion that also reflects recent increased Hispanic and Asian immigration.
The large inner-city area of South Los Angeles offers an example of change caused by
ethnic succession, where new immigrants replace former residents who move away or
where an older generation is replaced by young people with children. This also often
occurs because African Americans have emulated the white flight of their European
American counterparts and move to the outer sections of the Greater Los Angeles
areas to escape the ever-increasing Hispanic population. In 1985 African Americans
made up 72% of the population of the area. By 2006 the black proportion of the
population had decreased to just 24%. The Latino population had risen from 21% in
1985 to 69% in 2006, as one population replaced another. From 2004-2005, Latino
demand for housing caused prices to rise more than 40 percent in Watts and South
Central Los Angeles.
With the reverse movement of the New Great Migration, the South has been the gaining
region for black migrants coming from all three other census regions, especially from
1995 to 2000. The chief gaining states have been Georgia, Texas, North Carolina,
Florida, Maryland, Virginia and Tennessee. In the same period, Georgia, Texas and
Maryland attracted the most black college graduates. Houston and Dallas center cities
have lost black population as the middle class has moved to the suburbs. In a change
from previous settlement patterns, new regional migrants settle directly in the suburbs,
the areas of largest residential growth and often the location of jobs as well. In addition
to Atlanta, the top metropolitan areas attracting African Americans include Orlando,
Jacksonville and Tallahassee, Florida; and Charlotte, North Carolina.
Gentrification
In some cases, longtime black renters have been priced out of inner city neighborhoods
because of rising rents caused by gentrification. Owners who want to move to smaller
Page 80 of 150

housing cannot afford it. In other cases, rising home values increase property tax
assessments to a level which longtime homeowners cannot afford.
Inner-City Home Value Appreciation
In other instances, longtime black homeowners in central city areas have "cashed out"
at retirement age and profited from increasing home values. These longtime residents
have relocated to more affordable condominiums in outlying suburban areas, or in other
regions altogether.
Economic Disparities
The economic disparities between some classes of European Americans and African
Americans have diminished. Black Americans today have a median income level much
higher than they did in the 1990 census and as compared to the 2000 census, after
inflation is considered. African Americans occupy a higher percentage of high-paying
jobs within the USA than they used to. This has led to a rapidly increasing black middle
class. Many of America's suburbs are becoming diversified with black and white
residents coexisting in affluent neighborhoods. With the economic division within similar
classes declining between races, African-American movement to the suburbs has
resulted in some suburbs becoming more diverse. Other times middle and upper-middle
class blacks have chosen to settle in chiefly African-American communities, so their
children can grow up in a strong community of their own.
Page 81 of 150

The extent to which increased economic prosperity among African Americans has led to
integration among whites and blacks is debatable. Some scholars suggest that the
narrowing economic divide is helping the USA to become an increasingly "color-blind"
society, but others note the de facto segregation in many residential areas and
continuing social discrimination.
Other Uses
The term "black flight" has also been used to describe African-American parents in
some cities moving their children from public schools to charter schools or suburban
schools featuring open enrollment. This has taken place in a variety of places, including
the Twin Cities and the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. Other issues in the city proper of
Dallas include an increase in immigration of Latinos. In the 1980s and 1990s, the school
district had a majority of black students. Today it has a preponderance of Latino
students, in a kind of ethnic succession that reflects residential changes in the city.
Latinos constitute 68 percent of students, while blacks are 26 percent, and whites are 5
percent. In addition, 87 percent of the Latino students qualify as "economically
disadvantaged," and many are just learning English. Middle-class blacks are moving to
suburbs in a repetition of earlier migration of middle-class whites. The issues of schools
and residential patterns are strongly related to economic class, as well as parents'
preferring that their children go to schools with native speakers of English.
Page 82 of 150

VI. Ethnic Succession
Ethnic Succession Theory is a theory in sociology stating that ethnic and
racial groups entering a new area may settle in older neighborhoods or urban areas
until achieving economic parity with certain economic classes. The concept of
succession is well established in "both ecological and economic models of urban
residential change." As the newer group becomes economically successful, it moves to
a better residential area. With continued immigration, a new ethnic group will settle in
the older neighborhood in a similar starting situation. This pattern will continue, creating
a succession of groups moving through the neighborhood (and city) over time. Ethnic
succession has taken place in most major United States cities, but is most well known in
New York City, where this process has been observed since the 19th century.
Explanations
Immigration and Environment
Because of the United States' continued attraction for immigrants, its cities have been
sources of study for scholars of urban development and ethnic succession. Ethnic
groups often settle together in urban neighborhoods as part of a "chain of immigration"
to a new country, or migration to a new region, to keep personal networks, languages,
foods, religions and cultures alive. They may be viewed by the dominant racial or
cultural group as undesirable neighbors because of prejudice against a new culture's
dominating a neighborhood. People with entry-level skills and/or limited language skills
often have settled in older areas, where they can afford the housing and entry-level
Page 83 of 150

jobs. Over time, the incoming group members find work, and members are able to
establish themselves economically. The group rises in status with its economic
achievements. The first, more established group tends to move out in the face of new
arrivals, as it tends to have the economic resources to do so. The neighborhood takes
on new demographics.
Since the late twentieth century, more people in the United States live in suburbs than in
center cities. Ethnic succession has also been observed taking place in suburbs, with
newer groups settling in older suburbs, and more established groups' moving to newer
developments. Many well-educated Indian and Nigerian immigrants, who could afford
good housing, have settled immediately in better suburbs rather than in cities.
Segregation
Segregation has played a major part in the limitations on socioeconomic ascension of
an ethnic group, whether by self-selection in settlement together or pressure to be
confined by a majority group. In some cases, immigrants have been limited to small
areas of rundown housing which they could afford. After reaching economic parity, highincome
earners of a traditional low-status group may still not achieve integration in the
majority culture. Some suburbs of cities have come to be dominated by different ethnic
and cultural groups.
Often economic class is a factor equally important as race. Mary Pattillo-McCoy
provides an example from her studies of South Chicago in the 1990s. Although middleclass
blacks moved out of their original neighborhoods, they settled in predominantly
black neighborhoods, not venturing too far from their first, lower-class neighborhood.
She studied Groveland, a middle-class enclave between poorer black areas and white
suburbs. Although gaining the middle class, she found some African Americans were
underemployed because of persistent discrimination. Living closer to lower-income
neighborhoods put them and their children at risk of higher crime, poverty-related drugs
and dysfunction, and problems in public schools.
East End of London
Historical Examples
The East End of London has seen a succession of poor migrants from rural areas, as
well as immigrant populations, who for centuries arrived as refugees from warfare on
the Continent. For instance, in the 17th and 18th century, the area had many French
Huguenot (Protestant) refugees, who managed the silk-weaving industry. At its peak in
the mid-18th century, 12,000 silk weavers were employed in the Spitalfields area. In
1742 they built a church, La Neuve Eglise. Later it became used as a Methodist chapel
to serve mostly poor East Enders from around England. Although in the 17th century,
the East End also had Sephardic Jewish immigrants, it was not until the concentration
of 19th-century Ashkenazi Jewish immigration from eastern Europe, that the Methodist
chapel was adapted as the Machzikei HaDath, or Spitalfields Great Synagogue; it was
Page 84 of 150

consecrated in 1898. By the 1870s, thousands of unskilled Jewish immigrants were
garment workers in sweatshops. Descendants of Jewish immigrants became educated,
took better jobs, and gradually moved on to other parts of London and its suburbs, and
new immigrants settled in the area. Since 1976, the synagogue was converted to the
Jamme Masjid mosque, which serves the local ethnic Bangladeshi population, who are
Muslim.
U.S. Cities
Most major American cities
have historically had forms of
ethnic succession, from the
earliest years of colonial
settlement, to recent times with
newer immigrants altering city
demographics. What is
generally known are the
successions as a result of the
waves of immigration from
eastern and southern Europe of
the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, and the
Great Migration of African
Americans from the South to
the North. Since changes to
immigration laws in the 1960s,
there have been new ethnic
successions with the arrival of
immigrants from Mexico,
Central and South America;
Africa and Asia. In addition,
industrial restructuring and
major economic changes
upended the economies of
cities throughout the Rust Belt, with implications for ethnic succession. In addition, there
has been increased population movement to the South and Southwest over recent
decades, causing shifts in population and voting patterns across the country.
St Louis, Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit
Ethnic succession has been studied in these four cities of the Midwest, which had
dramatic growth in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, fueled by
industrialization, commodity resources, shipping traffic, and the automobile industry.
From World War I through the 1930s, many African Americans moved to northern and
midwestern cities in the first wave of the Great Migration. In addition, each of these
cities received in total millions of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. Both
Page 85 of 150

the new immigrants and blacks competed with contemporary working class groups for
housing and jobs. In Chicago, for example, ethnic Irish had become well established
since the immigration of the mid-nineteenth century, and its members violently defended
the physical boundaries of its neighborhoods, and its control of local working-class jobs.
Similar issues prevailed in St. Louis, but the major nineteenth-century immigration had
been by Germans. In both cases, the earlier ethnic groups resisted and tried to
dominate the later ones, leading to outbreaks of violence in some cases. Tensions
fueled by labor competition and post-World War I social tensions caused race riots, with
ethnic whites, especially of Irish descent, attacking blacks during the summer of 1919 in
Chicago. East St. Louis had a similar riot in 1917 that erupted after a strike.
White Flight
In the United States, ethnic succession has been seen both among Europeans groups
and between European-American and other ethnic groups. By the late nineteenth
century, some cities were served by commuter railroads and trolley public
transportation, which made longer commutes to work easier. The wealthiest people
were the first to move out to new suburban developments. Such new transportation
systems stimulated residential real estate development in train and trolley suburbs, and
people who could afford to move out of the inner cities started to do so.
At the same time, major northern and midwestern cities were being crowded by two
major groups: immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, and African Americans
from the rural South. With federally subsidized highway construction after World War II,
residential suburban development was stimulated and working middle-class white
people began to leave the cities - often the children of immigrants. They were replaced,
or sometimes moved away from competing for housing, by newer groups of both
migrants and immigrants.
People described the suburban migration as "white flight", because newer populations
happened to be ethnic groups of color. Today's suburbs are more diverse, as ethnic
groups of color have also moved to the suburbs when they could afford to. Other ethnic
groups have occupied older, lower quality housing in the cities. Some cities also
maintain residential areas of high-value housing, occupied by upper classes of various
ethnic groups.
Los Angeles
During the early 1990s, numerous Hispanic immigrants, primarily from Mexico,
increased their rate of settlement in South Central Los Angeles. It had historically been
mostly African American from the Great Migration beginning in the early 1940s. In 1980
Los Angeles was 28% Hispanic, 48% non-Hispanic white, and 17% black. By 1990 it
was 40% Hispanic, 37% non-Hispanic white, and 13% black. This extremely rapid
change in racial dynamics resulted in much social tension and some outbreaks of
violence between groups. Such violence occurred in Watts.
Page 86 of 150

Current Research
Immigrant Enterprises
Ethnic succession has been seen in the immigrant-dominated garment industry in New
York since the turn of the 20th century. Ethnicity among entrepreneurs and workers
continues to be an important determinant in maintaining the industry in New York
against global competition. Bernard Wong's 1987 study of Chinese-owned factories
noted that common ethnicity allowed the mobilization of capital and labor, and reduced
management/labor conflict.
Margaret Chin's book, Sewing Women (1998, 2005), examines how immigration,
ethnicity and gender dynamics affect the contemporary garment industry. Also, Chin
stresses the effect of unionization. She examines how ethnicity succession offers
economic opportunities for immigrants, while limiting options for rising social mobility.
The garment industry has long been immigrant-dominated, specifically in New York
City. From Jewish immigrants in the early 1900s, to later 20th-century domination by
Chinese owners and workers, to Hispanic workers under Korean owners today, the
industry has been dominated by low skill, cheap labor, and poor working conditions.
These conditions are typical of many jobs taken by immigrants without language skills in
the larger cultures.
Chin contrasts aspects of the industry and employer-employee relations of Chineseowned
garment factories in Chinatown and Korean-owned factories outside the Korean
enclave. She concludes that within the ethnic enclave, workers are more limited to low
wages by familial and community relations. By contrast, Hispanics working for Korean
owners may gain higher market wages, but be limited from advancing to supervisory
positions by belonging to a different ethnicity than owners.
Page 87 of 150

New York City Planning
The researcher Ronald J.O. Flores, along with A.P. Lobo and J.J. Salvo of the New
York City Department of Planning, have noticed since 1970 increasing succession
among various Hispanic nationalities in residential neighborhoods in New York. Since
about 1970, Hispanic ethnic groups have predominated among immigrants entering
inner-city neighborhoods of New York City, succeeding whites of European ancestries.
Puerto Ricans and Dominicans tended to settle in their own ethnic neighborhoods,
perhaps because of a concentration of numbers. Immigrants from a variety of South
American nations have integrated more in multi-ethnic neighborhoods. In the 21st
century, numerous national groups of South American Hispanic ethnicity have begun to
succeed the Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in some areas, creating the first Hispanic
succession in the city.
Page 88 of 150

VII. Urban Decay
Urban Decay (also known as
urban rot and urban blight) is the
process by which a previously
functioning city, or part of a city, falls
into disrepair and decrepitude. It may
feature
deindustrialization,
depopulation or de-urbanization,
restructuring, abandoned buildings
and infrastructure, high local
unemployment, fragmented families,
political disenfranchisement, crime,
and a desolate cityscape, known as
greyfield or urban prairie.
Since the 1970s and 1980s, urban
decay has been associated with
Western cities, especially in North
America and parts of Europe (mostly
the United Kingdom and France).
Since then, major structural changes
in global economies, transportation,
and government policy created the
economic and then the social
conditions resulting in urban decay.
The effects counter the development of most of Europe and North America; on other
continents, urban decay is manifested in the peripheral slums at the outskirts of a
metropolis, while the city center and the inner city retain high real estate values and
sustain a steadily increasing populace.
In contrast, North American and British cities often experience population flights to the
suburbs and exurb commuter towns; often in the form of white flight. Another
characteristic of urban decay is blight—the visual, psychological, and physical effects of
living among empty lots, buildings and condemned houses. Such desolate properties
are socially dangerous to the community because they attract criminals and street
gangs, contributing to the volume of crime.
Urban decay has no single cause; it results from combinations of inter-related socioeconomic
conditions—including the city's urban planning decisions, tight rent control,
the poverty of the local populace, the construction of freeway roads and rail road lines
that bypass—or run through—the area, depopulation by suburbanization of peripheral
lands, real estate neighborhood redlining, and immigration restrictions.
Page 89 of 150

History
During the Industrial Revolution, from the late eighteenth century to the early nineteenth
century, rural people moved from the country to the cities for employment in
manufacturing industry, thus causing the urban population boom. However, subsequent
economic change left many cities economically vulnerable. Studies such as the Urban
Task Force (DETR 1999), the Urban White Paper (DETR 2000), and a study of Scottish
cities (2003) posit that areas suffering industrial decline—high unemployment, poverty,
and a decaying physical environment (sometimes including contaminated land and
obsolete infrastructure)—prove "highly resistant to improvement".
Changes in means of transport, from the public to the private—specifically, the private
motor car—eliminated some of the cities' public transport service advantages, e.g.,
fixed-route buses and trains. In particular, at the end of World War II, many political
decisions favored suburban development and encouraged suburbanization, by drawing
city taxes from the cities to build new infrastructure for towns.
The manufacturing sector has been a base for the prosperity of major cities. When the
industries have relocated outside of cities, some have experienced population loss with
associated urban decay, and even riots. Cut backs on police and fire services may
result, while lobbying for government funded housing may increase. Increased city
taxes encourage residents to move out.
Rent Control
Rent controls are often enacted due to public pressure and complaint regarding the cost
of living. Proponents of rent controls argue that rent controls combat inflation, stabilize
the economic characteristics of a city's population, prevent rent gouging, and improve
the quality of housing. It has been documented that rent control distorts the supply and
demand relationship in housing markets which contributes to the rapid deterioration of
the community and to urban blight and does not provide the supposed benefits its
proponents promise. Rent control contributes to urban blight by reducing new
construction and investment in housing and de-incentivizing maintenance. If a landlord's
costs to perform maintenance consume too large a proportion of revenue from rent, the
landlord will feel pressure to drastically reduce or eliminate maintenance entirely. This
effect has been observed in New York City as 29% of rent-controlled buildings were
categorized as either deteriorated or dilapidated in contrast with 8% of non-rentcontrolled
housing.
United States
Countries
Historically in the United States, the white middle class gradually left the cities for
suburban areas because of higher crime rates and perceived danger caused by African-
Page 90 of 150

American migration north toward cities after World War I (the Great Migration)—the socalled
"white flight" phenomenon.
Some historians differentiate between the first Great Migration (1910–1930), numbering
about 1.6 million Black migrants who left mostly Southern rural areas to migrate to
northern and midwestern industrial cities, and, after a lull during the Great Depression, a
Second Great Migration (1940–1970), in which 5 million or more African-Americans
moved, including many to California and various western cities.
Between 1910 and 1970, Blacks moved from 14 states of the South, especially
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas to the other three cultural (and censusdesignated)
regions of the United States. More townspeople with urban skills moved
during the second migration. By the end of the Second Great Migration, African
Americans had become an urbanized population. More than 80 percent lived in cities. A
majority of 53 percent remained in the South, while 40 percent lived in the North and 7
percent in the West.
From the 1930s until 1977, African-Americans seeking borrowed capital for housing and
businesses were discriminated against via the federal-government–legislated
Page 91 of 150

discriminatory lending practices for the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) via
redlining. In 1977, the US Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act,
designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the
needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderateincome
neighborhoods.
Later urban centers were drained further through the advent of mass car ownership, the
marketing of suburbia as a location to move to, and the building of the Interstate
Highway System. In North America this shift manifested itself in strip malls, suburban
retail and employment centers, and very low-density housing estates. Large areas of
many northern cities in the United States experienced population decreases and a
degradation of urban areas.
Inner-city property values declined and economically disadvantaged populations moved
in. In the U.S., the new inner-city poor were often African-Americans that migrated from
the South in the 1920s and 1930s. As they moved into traditional white neighborhoods,
ethnic frictions served to accelerate flight to the suburbs.
United Kingdom
Britain experienced severe urban decay in the 1970s and 1980s exemplified by The
Specials' 1981 hit single "Ghost Town". Major cities like Glasgow, the towns of the
South Wales valleys, and some of the major industrial cities like Manchester, Liverpool,
Newcastle, and East London, all experienced population decreases, with large areas of
19th-century housing experiencing market price collapse. Some seaside resort towns
have also experienced urban decay towards the end of the 20th century, due to the
popularity of Package holidays to the continent.
France
Large French cities are often surrounded by areas of urban decay. While city centers
tend to be occupied mainly by upper-class residents, cities are often surrounded by
public housing developments, with many tenants being of North African origin (from
former French colonies Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia), and recent immigrants.
From the 50s to the 70s, publicly funded housing projects resulted in large areas of mid
to high-rise buildings. These modern "grands ensembles" were welcomed at the time,
as they replaced shanty towns and raised living standards, but these areas were heavily
affected by economic depression in the 80s.
The banlieues of large cities like Lyon, especially the northern Parisian banlieues, are
severely criticized and forgotten by the country's territorial spatial planning
administration. They have been ostracised ever since the French Commune
government of 1871, considered as "lawless" or "outside the law", even "outside the
Republic", as opposed to "deep France" or "authentic France", which is associated with
the countryside.
Page 92 of 150

In November 2005, the French suburbs were the scene of severe riots sparked by the
accidental electrocution of two teenagers in the northern suburbs of Paris, and fueled in
part by the substandard living conditions in these areas. Many deprived suburbs of
French cities were suddenly the scenes of clashes between youngsters and the police,
with violence and numerous car burnings resulting in huge media coverage.
Today the situation remains generally unchanged; however, there is a level of disparity.
Some areas are experiencing increased drug trafficking, while some northern suburbs
of Paris and areas like Vaulx-en-Velin are undergoing refurbishment and redevelopment.
Some previously mono-industrial towns in France are experiencing increasing crime,
decay, and decreasing population. The issue remains a divisive issue in French public
politics.
Italy
In Italy, one of the most well-known case of urban decay is represented by the Vele di
Scampia, a large public housing estate built between 1962 and 1975 in the Scampia
neighbourhood of Naples. The idea behind the project was to provide a huge urban
housing project, where hundreds of families could socialise and create a community.
Page 93 of 150

The design included a public transportation rail station, and a large park area between
the two buildings. The planners wanted to create a small city model with large parks,
playing fields, and other facilities.
However, various events led to tremendous urban decay inside this project and in the
surrounding areas. It all started with the 1980 earthquake in Irpinia, which led many
families, left homeless, to squat the flats inside the Vele. This has caused a melting of
different cultures together and, as often the case, crime and abusiveness has grown
rapidly. Things were made worse by the total lack of police presence, resulting in a
deep bundling of the Camorra inside the area, which now controls drug trafficking,
illegal street racing, gangs, and fencing operations.
Policy responses to urban decay
The main responses to urban decay have been through positive public intervention and
policy, through a plethora of initiatives, funding streams, and agencies, using the
principles of New Urbanism (or through Urban Renaissance, its UK/European
equivalent). Gentrification has also had a significant effect, and remains the primary
means of a natural remedy.
United States
In the United States, early government policies included "urban renewal" and building of
large-scale housing projects for the poor. Urban renewal demolished entire
neighborhoods in many inner cities; in many ways, it was a cause of urban decay rather
than a remedy. These government efforts are now thought by many to have been
misguided.
For multiple reasons, some cities have rebounded from these policy mistakes.
Meanwhile, some of the inner suburbs built in the 1950s and 60s are beginning the
process of decay, as those who are living in the inner city are pushed out due to
gentrification.
Europe
In Western Europe, where undeveloped land is scarce and urban areas are generally
recognised as the drivers of the new information and service economies, urban renewal
has become an industry in itself, with hundreds of agencies and charities set up to
tackle the issue. European cities have the benefit of historical organic development
patterns already concurrent to the New Urbanist model, and although derelict, most
cities have attractive historical quarters and buildings ripe for redevelopment.
In the inner-city estates and suburban cités, the solution is often more drastic, with
1960s and 70s state housing projects being totally demolished and rebuilt in a more
traditional European urban style, with a mix of housing types, sizes, prices, and tenures,
as well as a mix of other uses such as retail or commercial. One of the best examples of
Page 94 of 150

this is in Hulme, Manchester, which was cleared of 19th-century housing in the 1950s to
make way for a large estate of high-rise flats. During the 1990s, it was cleared again to
make way for new development built along new urbanist lines.
Page 95 of 150

Page 96 of 150

VIII. Urban Renewal
Urban Renewal (also called urban regeneration in the United Kingdom, urban
renewal or urban redevelopment in the United States) is a program of land
redevelopment in cities, often where there is urban decay. However, in more recent
cases this term has been replaced with more vague ones, like "blight," an elastic term
that has been used and abused to justify the taking and destruction of habitable and
badly needed low-cost urban housing, and its replacement with privately-owned, private
profit-making commercial structures. Modern attempts at renewal began in the late 19th
century in developed nations, and experienced an intense phase in the late 1940s
under the rubric of reconstruction. The process has had a major impact on many urban
landscapes, and has played an important role in the history and demographics of cities
around the world.
Urban renewal is a process whereby privately owned properties within a designated
renewal area are purchased or taken by eminent domain by a municipal redevelopment
authority, razed and then reconveyed to selected developers who devote them to other
uses. Until 1970, the displaced owners and tenants received only the constitutionallymandated
"just compensation" specified in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. This measure of compensation covered only the fair market value of the
taken property, and omitted compensation for a variety of incidental losses like, for
example, moving expenses, loss of favorable financing and notably, business losses,
such as loss of business goodwill. In the 1970s the federal government and state
governments enacted the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act which provides for limited
compensation of some of these losses. However the Act denies the displaced land
Page 97 of 150

owners the right to sue to enforce its provisions, so it is deemed an act of legislative
grace rather than a constitutional right. Historically, urban redevelopment has been
controversial because of such practices as taking private property by eminent domain
for "public use" and then turning it over to redevelopers free of charge or for less than
the acquisition cost (known as "land write-down"). Thus, in the controversial Connecticut
case of Kelo v. City of New London (2005) the plan called for a redeveloper to lease the
subject 90-acre waterfront property for $1 per year.
This process is also carried out in rural areas, referred to as village renewal, though it
may not be exactly the same in practice.
In some cases, renewal may result in urban sprawl and less congestion when areas of
cities receive freeways and expressways.
Urban renewal has been seen by proponents as an economic engine and a reform
mechanism, and by critics as a mechanism for control. It may enhance existing
communities. On the other hand, some redevelopment projects have been failures,
including the Kelo case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the taking by a 5 to 4
vote, but where nothing was built on the taken property.
Many cities link the revitalization of the central business district and gentrification of
residential neighborhoods to earlier urban renewal programs. Over time, urban renewal
evolved into a policy based less on destruction and more on renovation and investment,
and today is an integral part of many local governments, often combined with small and
big business incentives.
Pros and Cons
Urban renewal sometimes lives up to the hopes of its original proponents – it has been
assessed by politicians, urban planners, civic leaders, and residents – it has played an
undeniably important if controversial role. But at other times urban redevelopment
projects have failed in several American cities, having wasted large amounts of public
funds to no purpose.
Replenished housing stock might be an improvement in quality; it may increase density
and reduce sprawl; it might have economic benefits and improve the global economic
competitiveness of a city's center. It may, in some instances, improve cultural and social
amenity, and it may also improve opportunities for safety and surveillance.
Developments such as London Docklands increased tax revenues for government. In
late 1964, the British commentator Neil Wates expressed the opinion that urban renewal
in the United States had 'demonstrated the tremendous advantages which flow from an
urban renewal program,' such as remedying the 'personal problems' of the poor,
creation or renovation of housing stock, educational and cultural 'opportunities'. In the
United States successful urban redevelopment projects tend to revitalize downtown
areas, but have not been successful in revitalizing cities as a whole. The process has
often resulted in the displacement of low-income city inhabitants when their dwellings
were taken and demolished. Eventually, urban redevelopment became an engine of
Page 98 of 150

construction of shopping malls,
automobile factories and
dealerships, "large box"
department stores (like Target,
Costco and Best Buy). Thus, in
Washington, DC, the famous (or
notorious)
Southwest
Washington renewal project (see
Berman v. Parker) displaced
thousands of largely African-
American families, but provided
them with no replacement
housing because at the time
(1954) the law did not provide for
any. Also, the version of the
project that was approved by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Berman,
provided for low-cost
replacement housing, one-third
of which was to rent for
$17/room/month, but after the
court's decision, that provision in
the local law was repealed.
Replacement housing –
particularly in the form of highrise
housing for low-income
tenants – have not been
successful. These projects are
difficult to police, leading to an
increase in crime, and such
structures might in themselves be dehumanising. Public housing projects like Cabrini-
Green in Chicago and Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis became so bad that they had to be
demolished.
History
The concept of urban renewal as a method for social reform emerged in England as a
reaction to the increasingly cramped and unsanitary conditions of the urban poor in the
rapidly industrializing cities of the 19th century. The agenda that emerged was a
progressive doctrine that assumed better housing conditions would reform its residents
morally and economically.
Another style of reform – imposed by the state for reasons of aesthetics and efficiency –
could be said to have begun in 1853, with the recruitment of Baron Haussmann by
Louis Napoleon for the redevelopment of Paris.
Page 99 of 150

By Country
Argentina
In Buenos Aires, Argentina, Puerto Madero is a known example of an urban renewal
project. In the 1990s, the Argentine government decided to build a new residential and
commercial district to replace city's old port and docks. More than 50 skyscrapers have
been built in the last 20 years. Puerto Madero is now Buenos Aires' most expensive and
exclusive neighborhood.
Brazil
In Rio de Janeiro, the Porto Maravilha (pt) is a large-scale urban waterfront revitalization
project, which covers a centrally located five million square meter area. The project
aims to redevelop the port area, increasing the city center attractiveness as a whole and
enhancing the city's competitiveness in the global economy. The urban renovation
involves 700 km of public networks for water supply, sanitation, drainage, electricity, gas
and telecom; 5 km of tunnels; 70 km of roads; 650 km² of sidewalks; 17 km of bike path;
15.000 trees; and 3 plants for sanitation treatment.
Singapore
The history of Singapore's urban renewal goes back to the time period surrounding the
Second World War. Before the war, Singapore's housing environment had already been
a problem. The tension of both infrastructure and housing conditions were worsened by
the rapidly increasing number of the Singapore population in the 1930s. As a
consequence of the war and the lack of economic development, between the 1940s to
the 1950s, the previous evil of housing conditions continued to happen. As much as
240,000 squatters were placed in the Singapore during the 1950s. It was caused by the
movement of migrants, especially from peninsular Malaysia and the baby boom. In mid
1959, overcrowded slums were inhabited by a big number of squatter populations,
whereas these areas lacked the existence of service facilities such as sanitation.
Since the establishment of the Republic of Singapore, urban renewal has been included
in the part of the national improvement policy that was urgently put in action. Before
that, the 1958 master plan had already been designed to solve the city problems.
However, due to the lack of urban planning experts caused by the deficiency of
professional staff, criticism came from many urban practitioners. The professional team
recommended by the United Nations then was asked by the government to cope with
the urban renewal matters and its redevelopment plan in 1961. Based on the UN
assistance report, two pilot developments were initiated in the end of 1964 by the
government. These redevelopments then led to the success of Singapore's urban
renewal because the government could provide sufficient amount of public housing and
business areas.
Page 100 of 150

The most recent project is Paya Lebar Quarter. This will be a centrally located
international mixed-use development and a key catalyst to the URA masterplan to
regenerate Paya Lebar. Paya Lebar Quarter offers 3 grade A office towers with close to
1 million square feet of office space and amenities, a standalone mid-to-mid plus retail
mall with over 340,000 square feet of shopping, dining and entertainment options and 3
residential towers comprising 429 apartments, positioned within a public space. [7] Paya
Lebar Quarter is developed by Lendlease, an international developer with a strong track
record in urban regeneration projects around the world,
In the establishment of urban renewal programmes, some difficulties were experienced
by the PAP government. The obstacles came from the resistance of people who used to
live in the slums and squatters. It was reported by Singapore newspapers that those
people were reluctant to be replaced. This became the major problems of 1960s
redevelopment schemes. Affordable land value also became one of its reasons.
Another problem was that the government had to purchase the private land owned by
the middle and upper society to make the land vacant and be used for redevelopment.
United Kingdom
South Korea
From the 1850s onwards, the terrible conditions of the urban poor in the slums of
London began to attract the attention of social reformers and philanthropists, who began
a movement for social housing. The first area to be targeted was the notorious slum
called the Devil's Acre near Westminster. This new movement was largely funded by
George Peabody and the Peabody Trust and had a lasting impact on the urban
character of Westminster.
Page 101 of 150

Slum clearance began with the Rochester Buildings, on the corner of Old Pye Street
and Perkin's Rent, which were built in 1862 by the merchant William Gibbs. They are
one of the earliest large-scale philanthropic housing developments in London. The
Rochester Buildings were sold to the Peabody Trust in 1877 and later become known
as Blocks A to D of the Old Perkin's Rents Estate. Angela Burdett-Coutts, 1st Baroness
Burdett-Coutts funded an experimental social housing estate, among the first of its kind,
on the corner of Columbia Road and Old Pye Street (now demolished). In 1869 the
Peabody Trust built one of its first housing estates at Brewer's Green, between Victoria
Street and St. James's Park. What remained of the Devil's Acre on the other side of
Victoria Street was cleared and further Peabody estates were built after the Cross Act of
1875.
In 1882, the Peabody Trust built the Abbey Orchard Estate on former marshland at the
corner of Old Pye Street and Abbey Orchard Street. Like many of the social housing
estates, the Abbey Orchard Estate was built following the square plan concept. Blocks
of flats were built around a courtyard, creating a semi-private space within the estate
functioning as recreation area. The courtyards were meant to create a community
atmosphere and the blocks of flats were designed to allow sunlight into the courtyards.
The blocks of flats were built using high-quality brickwork and included architectural
features such as lettering, glazing, fixtures and fittings. The estates built in the area at
the time were considered model dwellings and included shared laundry and sanitary
facilities, innovative at the time, and fireplaces in some bedrooms. The design was
subsequently repeated in numerous other housing estates in London.
State intervention was first achieved with the passage of the Public Health Act of 1875
through Parliament. The Act focused on combating filthy urban living conditions that
were the cause of disease outbreaks. It required all new residential construction to
include running water and an internal drainage system and also prohibited the
construction of shoddy housing by building contractors.
The London County Council was created in 1889 as the municipal authority in the
County of London and in 1890 the Old Nichol in the East End of London was declared a
slum and the Council authorized its clearance and the rebuilding of an area of some 15-
acre (61,000 m 2 ), including the Nichol and Snow estates, and a small piece on the
Shoreditch side of Boundary Street, formally Cock Lane. The slum clearance began in
1891 and included 730 houses inhabited by 5,719 people. The LCC architects designed
21 and Rowland Plumbe two of 23 blocks containing between 10 and 85 tenements
each. A total of 1,069 tenements, mostly two or three-roomed, were planned to
accommodate 5,524 persons. The project was hailed as setting "new aesthetic
standards for housing the working classes" and included a new laundry, 188 shops, and
77 workshops. Churches and schools were preserved. Building for the project began in
1893 and it was opened by the Prince of Wales in 1900. Other such schemes in the
1880s, where newly cleared sites were sold on to developers, included Whitechapel,
Wild Street, Whitecross Street and Clerkenwell.
Page 102 of 150

Currently there are two main Urban Regeneration projects going on in London, Elephant
Park at Elephant and Castle and at Stratford. These are both being done by Lendlease,
a multinational company focusing on redeveloping neglected city areas.
Interwar Period
The 1917 Tudor Walters Committee Report into the provision of housing and post-war
reconstruction in the United Kingdom, was commissioned by Parliament as a response
to the shocking lack of fitness amongst many recruits during the War; this was attributed
to poor living conditions, a belief summed up in a housing poster of the period "you
cannot expect to get an A1 population out of C3 homes".
The report's recommendations, coupled with a chronic housing shortage after the First
World War led to a government-led program of house building with the slogan 'Homes
for Heroes'. Christopher Addison, the Minister for Housing at the time was responsible
for the drafting of the Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919 which introduced the new
concept of the state being involved in the building of new houses. This marked the start
of a long 20th century tradition of state-owned housing, which would much later evolve
into council estates.
Page 103 of 150

With the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, increased house building and
government expenditure was used to pull the country out of recession. The Housing Act
of 1930 gave local councils wide-ranging powers to demolish properties unfit for human
habitation or that posed a danger to health, and obligated them to rehouse those people
who were relocated due to the large scale slum clearance programs. Cities with a large
proportion of Victorian terraced housing - housing that was no longer deemed of
sufficient standard for modern living requirements - underwent the greatest changes.
Over 5,000 homes (25,000 residents) in the city of Bristol were designated as
redevelopment areas in 1933 and slated for demolition. Although efforts were made to
house the victims of the demolitions in the same area as before, in practice this was too
difficult to fully implement and many people were rehoused in other areas, even
different cities. In an effort to rehouse the poorest people affected by redevelopment,
the rent for housing was set at an artificially low level, although this policy also only
achieved mixed success.
The Josefov neighborhood, or Old Jewish Quarter, in Prague was leveled and rebuilt in
an effort at urban renewal between 1890 and 1913.
Other programs, such as that in Castleford in the United Kingdom and known as The
Castleford Project seek to establish a process of urban renewal which enables local
citizens to have greater control and ownership of the direction of their community and
the way in which it overcomes market failure. This supports important themes in urban
renewal today, such as participation, sustainability and trust – and government acting as
advocate and 'enabler', rather than an instrument of command and control.
During the 1990s the concept of culture-led regeneration gained ground. Examples
most often cited as successes include Temple Bar in Dublin where tourism was
attracted to a bohemian 'cultural quarter', Barcelona where the 1992 Olympics provided
a catalyst for infrastructure improvements and the redevelopment of the water front
area, and Bilbao where the building of a new art museum was the focus for a new
business district around the city's derelict dock area. The approach has become very
popular in the UK due to the availability of lottery funding for capital projects and the
vibrancy of the cultural and creative sectors. However, the arrival of Tate Modern in the
London borough of Southwark may be heralded as a catalyst to economic revival in its
surrounding neighborhood.
In post-apartheid South Africa major grassroots social movements such as the Western
Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign and Abahlali base Mjondolo emerged to contest 'urban
renewal' programs that forcibly relocated the poor out of the cities.
The politics of urban renewal which frequently relies on the state's dominance in the
discourse of removing the character and infrastructure of older city cores, with that
which is required by existing market based constituents has to be examined further.
Professor Kenneth Paul Tan of the National University of Singapore has this to say
"Singapore’s self-image of having achieved success against all odds puts tremendous
pressure on its government and people to maintain and exceed this success. The push
for progress and development destroys many things in its path, often indiscriminately,
Page 104 of 150

sometimes unwittingly. To cope psychically with such losses, Singapore’s culture of
comfort and affluence has been attained through the self-mastery of repressive
techniques. Desiring economic progress, upward mobility, affluent and convenient
lifestyles and a ‘world-class’ city."
"Singaporeans have had to repress the loss of their sense of place and community,
family ties, passion and compassion, Asian customs and values, openness to the rest of
the world and even the discipline, hard work and thrift associated with earlier capitalist–
industrial attitudes. But no repressive efforts can be complete, consistent and fully
successful, even in dominant hegemony. Therefore, the ‘now’ is always a complex and
fractured world of disjunctive values, attitudes and ideals. The supernatural intrusions
featured in these five films should tell us something about the impossibility of a coherent
world of ideology and experience."
United States
Large scale urban renewal projects in the US started in the interwar period. Prototype
urban renewal projects include the design and construction of Central Park in New York
and the 1909 Plan for Chicago by Daniel Burnham. Similarly, the efforts of Jacob Riis in
advocating for the demolition of degraded areas of New York in the late 19th century
was also formative. The redevelopment of large sections of New York City and New
Page 105 of 150

York State by Robert Moses between the 1930s and the 1970s was a notable and
prominent example of urban redevelopment. Moses directed the construction of new
bridges, highways, housing projects, and public parks.
Other cities across the USA began to create redevelopment programs in the late 1930s
and 1940s. These early projects were generally focused on slum clearance and were
implemented by local public housing authorities, which were responsible both for
clearing slums and for building new affordable housing. In 1944, the GI Bill (officially the
Serviceman's Readjustment Act) guaranteed Veterans Administration (VA) mortgages
to veterans under favorable terms, which fueled suburbanization after the end of World
War II, as places like Levittown, New York, Warren, Michigan and the San Fernando
Valley of Los Angeles were transformed from farmland into cities occupied by tens of
thousands of families in a few years.
The Housing Act of 1949 kick-started the "urban renewal" program that would reshape
American cities. The Act provided federal funding to cities to cover the cost of acquiring
areas of cities perceived to be "slums". Those sites were then given to private
developers to construct new housing. The phrase used at the time was "urban
redevelopment". "Urban renewal" was a phrase popularized with the passage of the
Housing Act of 1954, which made these projects more enticing to developers by, among
other things, providing FHA-backed mortgages.
Under the powerful influence of multimillionaire R.K. Mellon, Pittsburgh became the first
major city to undertake a modern urban-renewal program in May 1950. Pittsburgh was
infamous around the world as one of the dirtiest and most economically depressed
cities, and seemed ripe for urban renewal. A large section of downtown at the heart of
the city was demolished, converted to parks, office buildings, and a sports arena and
renamed the Golden Triangle in what was universally recognized as a major success.
Other neighborhoods were also subjected to urban renewal, but with mixed results.
Some areas did improve, while other areas, such as East Liberty and the Hill District,
declined following ambitious projects that shifted traffic patterns, blocked streets to
vehicular traffic, isolated or divided neighborhoods with highways, and removed large
numbers of ethnic and minority residents. An entire neighborhood was destroyed (to be
replaced by the Civic Arena), displacing 8000 residents (most of whom were poor and
black).
Because of the ways in which it targeted the most disadvantaged sector of the
American population, novelist James Baldwin famously dubbed Urban Renewal "Negro
Removal" in the 1960s.
The term "urban renewal" was not introduced in the USA until the Housing Act was
again amended in 1954. That was also the year in which the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld the general validity of urban redevelopment statutes in the landmark case,
Berman v. Parker. See Amy Lavine, Italic textUrban Renewal and the Story of Berman
v. ParkerItalic text 42 The Urban Lawyer 423 (2010).
Page 106 of 150

In 1956, the Federal-Aid Highway Act gave state and federal government complete
control over new highways, and often they were routed directly through vibrant urban
neighborhoods—isolating or destroying many—since the focus of the program was to
bring traffic in and out of the central cores of cities as expeditiously as possible and nine
out of every ten dollars spent came from the federal government. This resulted in a
serious degradation of the tax bases of many cities, isolated entire neighborhoods, and
meant that existing commercial districts were bypassed by the majority of commuters.
Segregation continued to increase as communities were displaced and many African
Americans and Latinos were forced to move into public housing while some whites
moved to the suburbs.
In Boston, one of the country's oldest cities, almost a third of the old city was
demolished—including the historic West End—to make way for a new highway, lowand
moderate-income high-rises (which eventually became luxury housing), and new
government and commercial buildings. This came to be seen as a tragedy by many
residents and urban planners, and one of the centerpieces of the redevelopment—
Government Center—is still considered an example of the excesses of urban renewal.
Reaction
In 1961, Jane Jacobs published The Death and Life of Great American Cities, one of
the first—and strongest—critiques of contemporary large-scale urban renewal.
Page 107 of 150

However, it would still be a few years before organized movements began to oppose
urban renewal. The Rondout neighborhood in Kingston, New York (on the Hudson
River) was essentially destroyed by a federally funded urban renewal program in the
1960s, with more than 400 old buildings demolished, most of them historic brick
structures built in the 19th century. Similarly ill-conceived urban renewal programs
gutted the historic centers of other towns and cities across America in the 1950s and
1960s (for example the West End neighborhood in Boston, the downtown area of
Norfolk, Virginia and the historic waterfront areas of the towns of Narragansett and
Newport in Rhode Island).
By the 1970s many major cities developed opposition to the sweeping urban-renewal
plans for their cities. In Boston, community activists halted construction of the proposed
Southwest Expressway but only after a three-mile long stretch of land had been cleared.
In San Francisco, Joseph Alioto was the first mayor to publicly repudiate the policy of
urban renewal, and with the backing of community groups, forced the state to end
construction of highways through the heart of the city. Atlanta lost over 60,000 people
between 1960 and 1970 because of urban renewal and expressway construction, but a
downtown building boom turned the city into the showcase of the New South in the
1970s and 1980s. In the early 1970s in Toronto Jacobs was heavily involved in a group
which halted the construction of the Spadina Expressway and altered transport policy in
that city.
Some of the policies around urban renewal began to change under President Lyndon
Johnson and the War on Poverty, and in 1968, the Housing and Urban Development
Act and The New Communities Act of 1968 guaranteed private financing for private
entrepreneurs to plan and develop new communities. Subsequently, the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 established the Community Development Block
Grant program (CDBG) which began in earnest the focus on redevelopment of existing
neighborhoods and properties, rather than demolition of substandard housing and
economically depressed areas.
Currently, a mix of renovation, selective demolition, commercial development, and tax
incentives is most often used to revitalize urban neighborhoods. An example of an
entire eradication of a community is Africville in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Gentrification is
still controversial, and often results in familiar patterns of poorer residents being priced
out of urban areas into suburbs or more depressed areas of cities. Some programs,
such as that administered by Fresh Ministries and Operation New Hope in Jacksonville,
Florida, Hill Community Development Corporation (Hill CDC) in Pittsburgh's historic Hill
District attempt to develop communities, while at the same time combining highly
favorable loan programs with financial literacy education so that poorer residents may
still be able to afford their restored neighborhoods.
An example of urban renewal gone wrong in the United States is in downtown Niagara
Falls, New York. Most of the original downtown was demolished in the 1960s, and many
replacement projects including the Rainbow Centre Factory Outlet, Niagara Falls
Convention and Civic Center, the Native American Cultural Center, the Hooker
Page 108 of 150

Chemical (later the Occidental Petroleum) Headquarters building, the Wintergarden, the
Fallsville Splash Park, a large parking ramp, an enclosed pedestrian walkway, the Falls
Street Faire & Falls Street Station entertainment complexes, sections of the Robert
Moses State Parkway, and the Mayor E. Dent Lackey Plaza closed within twenty to
thirty years of their construction. In several American cities, some demolished blocks
were never replaced.
Ultimately, the former tourist district of the city along Falls Street was destroyed. It went
against the principles of several urban philosophers, such as Jane Jacobs, who claimed
that mixed-use districts were needed (which the new downtown was not) and arteries
needed to be kept open. Smaller buildings also should be built or kept. In Niagara Falls,
however, the convention center blocked traffic into the city, located in the center of Falls
Street (the main artery), and the Wintergarden also blocked traffic from the convention
center to the Niagara Falls. The Rainbow Centre interrupted the street grid, taking up
three blocks, and parking ramps isolated the city from the core, leading to the
degradation of nearby neighborhoods. Tourists were forced to walk around the Rainbow
Center, the Wintergarden, and the Quality Inn (all of which were adjacent), in total five
blocks, discouraging small business in the city.
Page 109 of 150

Page 110 of 150

IX. Urban Planning
Urban Planning is a technical and political process concerned with the
development and design of land use in an urban environment, including air, water, and
the infrastructure passing into and out of urban areas, such as transportation,
communications, and distribution networks. Urban planning deals with physical layout of
human settlements. The primary concern is the public welfare, which includes
considerations of efficiency, sanitation, protection and use of the environment, as well
as effects on social and economic activities. Urban planning is considered an
interdisciplinary field that includes social, engineering and design sciences. It is closely
related to the field of urban design and some urban planners provide designs for
streets, parks, buildings and other urban areas. Urban planning is also referred to as
urban and regional planning, regional planning, town planning, city planning,
rural planning, urban development or some combination in various areas worldwide.
Urban planning guides orderly development in urban, suburban and rural areas.
Although predominantly concerned with the planning of settlements and communities,
urban planning is also responsible for the planning and development of water use and
resources, rural and agricultural land, parks and conserving areas of natural
environmental significance. Practitioners of urban planning are concerned with research
and analysis, strategic thinking, architecture, urban design, public consultation, policy
recommendations, implementation and management. Enforcement methodologies
include governmental zoning, planning permissions, and building codes, as well as
private easements and restrictive covenants.
Page 111 of 150

Urban planners work with the cognate fields of architecture, landscape architecture, civil
engineering, and public administration to achieve strategic, policy and sustainability
goals. Early urban planners were often members of these cognate fields. Today urban
planning is a separate, independent professional discipline. The discipline is the broader
category that includes different sub-fields such as land-use planning, zoning, economic
development, environmental planning, and transportation planning.
History
There is evidence of urban planning and designed communities dating back to the
Mesopotamian, Indus Valley, Minoan, and Egyptian civilizations in the third millennium
BCE. Archeologists studying the ruins of cities in these areas find paved streets that
were laid out at right angles in a grid pattern. The idea of a planned out urban area
evolved as different civilizations adopted it. Beginning in the 8th century BCE, Greek
city states were primarily centered on orthogonal (or grid-like) plans. The ancient
Romans, inspired by the Greeks, also used orthogonal plans for their cities. City
planning in the Roman world was developed for military defense and public
convenience. The spread of the Roman Empire subsequently spread the ideas of urban
planning. As the Roman Empire declined, these ideas slowly disappeared. However,
many cities in Europe still held onto the planned Roman city center. Cities in Europe
from the 9th to 14th centuries, often grew organically and sometimes chaotically. But in
the following centuries some newly created towns were built according to preconceived
plans, and many others were enlarged with newly planned extensions. From the 15th
century on, much more is recorded of urban design and the people that were involved.
In this period, theoretical treatises on architecture and urban planning start to appear in
which theoretical questions are addressed and designs of towns and cities are
described and depicted. During the Enlightenment period, several European rulers
ambitiously attempted to redesign capital cities. During the Second French Republic,
Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann, under the direction of Napoleon III, redesigned the
city of Paris into a more modern capital, with long, straight, wide boulevards.
Planning and architecture went through a paradigm shift at the turn of the 20th century.
The industrialized cities of the 19th century grew at a tremendous rate. The pace and
style of this industrial construction was largely dictated by the concerns of private
business. The evils of urban life for the working poor were becoming increasingly
evident as a matter for public concern. The laissez-faire style of government
management of the economy, in fashion for most of the Victorian era, was starting to
give way to a New Liberalism that championed intervention on the part of the poor and
disadvantaged. Around 1900, theorists began developing urban planning models to
mitigate the consequences of the industrial age, by providing citizens, especially factory
workers, with healthier environments.
At the beginning of the 20th century, urban planning began to be recognized as a
profession. The Town and Country Planning Association was founded in 1899 and the
first academic course in Great Britain on urban planning was offered by the University of
Liverpool in 1909. In the 1920s, the ideas of modernism and uniformity began to surface
Page 112 of 150

in urban planning, and lasted until the 1970s. Many planners started to believe that the
ideas of modernism in urban planning led to higher crime rates and social problems.
Urban planners now focus more on individualism and diversity in urban centers.
Theories
Planning theory is the body of scientific concepts, definitions, behavioral relationships,
and assumptions that define the body of knowledge of urban planning. There are eight
procedural theories of planning that remain the principal theories of planning procedure
today: the rational-comprehensive approach, the incremental approach, the transactive
approach, the communicative approach, the advocacy approach, the equity approach,
the radical approach, and the humanist or phenomenological approach.
Technical Aspects
Technical aspects of urban planning
involve the applying scientific, technical
processes, considerations and features
that are involved in planning for land
use, urban design, natural resources,
transportation, and infrastructure. Urban
planning includes techniques such as:
predicting population growth, zoning,
geographic mapping and analysis,
analyzing park space, surveying the
water supply, identifying transportation
patterns, recognizing food supply
demands, allocating healthcare and
social services, and analyzing the
impact of land use.
In order to predict how cities will
develop and estimate the effects of their
interventions, planners use various
models. These models can be used to
indicate relationships and patterns in
demographic, geographic, and
economic data. They might deal with
short-term issues such as how people move through cities, or long-term issues such as
land use and growth.
Building codes and other regulations dovetail with urban planning by governing how
cities are constructed and used from the individual level.
Urban Planners
Page 113 of 150

An urban planner is a professional who works in the field of urban planning for the
purpose of optimizing the effectiveness of a community's land use and infrastructure.
They formulate plans for the development and management of urban and suburban
areas, typically analyzing land use compatibility as well as economic, environmental and
social trends. In developing any plan for a community (whether commercial, residential,
agricultural, natural or recreational), urban planners must consider a wide array of
issues including sustainability, existing and potential pollution, transport including
potential congestion, crime, land values, economic development, social equity, zoning
codes, and other legislation.
The importance of the urban planner is increasing in the 21st century, as modern
society begins to face issues of increased population growth, climate change and
unsustainable development. An urban planner could be considered a green collar
professional. [16]
Some researchers suggest that urban planners around the world work in different
"planning cultures", adapted to their local cities and cultures. However, professionals
have identified skills, abilities and basic knowledge sets that are common to urban
planners across national and regional boundaries.
Page 114 of 150

X. References
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development-induced_displacement
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_displacement
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_flight
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_succession_theory
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_decay
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_renewal
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_planning
10. https://www.nssa.us/journals/2010-35-1/pdf/35-1%2001%20Aka.pdf
11.
http://www.kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/reports/2004/07_2004_Gentrification%20and%20Rev
italization.pdf
12. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/50791/411294-In-the-Face-of-
Gentrification.PDF
13.
https://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/mapping_susceptibility_to_g
entrification.pdf?width=1200&height=800&iframe=true
Page 115 of 150

Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 116 of 150

Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 117 of 150

Page 118 of 150

Attachment A
Gentrification and Socioeconomic Impacts of
Neighborhood Integration and Diversification in
Atlanta GA
Page 119 of 150

Gentrification and Socioeconomic Impacts of Neighborhood Integration and
Diversification in Atlanta, Georgia
Ebenezer O. Aka, Jr.
Morehouse College
Introduction
Gentrification can be defined as the upward change in land use to middle and upper income residential
(Keating, 2003). In the simplest form it can be explained as the upgrading of devalued or deteriorated
urban property by the middle class or affluent people. It can also be thought of as “reversed
neighborhood” (Freeman, 2008). Gentrification is a common issue in urbanized nations around the
world. The presences of gentrification begin to become common in the United States around the mid
1970s. There are many factors that feed into the existence of gentrification. And there are numerous
social and economic consequences of gentrification. Often times referred to as a double-edged sword,
gentrification sets off a chain of both positive and negative effects. It is seemingly impossible to
completely eradicate the negative effects of gentrification. However, it is possible to minimize the
negative effects that gentrification presents. The question is, can gentrification lead to a long-term stable
or greater volatility due to conflicts arising from the socioeconomic differences between whites, blacks,
and other minorities in Atlanta.
Purpose of Study
This paper focuses on the socioeconomic effects of gentrification in five Atlanta neighborhoods. The
five neighborhoods are in an area of Atlanta known as Intown-South. The neighborhoods include
Summerhill, Grant Park, East Atlanta, Edgewood, and East Lake (see Map 1, Map 2, Map 3, Map 4, Map
5, and Map 6). These neighborhoods span eastward from Atlanta’s Interstate 75/85 Connector. Each
neighborhood is in close proximity to downtown Atlanta and is easily accessible to interstates 75/85 and
or 20. These neighborhoods exist in different City Council Districts and different Neighborhood Planning
Units. Each of these neighborhoods shares similar socioeconomic characteristics. These neighborhoods
were chosen based on recent inter-metropolitan migration trends in Atlanta. Each of these areas has been
or is becoming of immense popularity with persons moving into Atlanta’s in-town neighborhoods.
Methodology of the Study
Using the aforementioned neighborhoods as a point of reference, this paper seeks to provide
recommendations on ways to minimize the negative effects of gentrification in Atlanta. In order to
provide recommendations, we will analyze the political, economic, and social factors that feed into
gentrification- using secondary research components as a catalyst. To determine the occurrence of
gentrification and its effects, there will be a longitudinal analysis on variables of race, age, educational
attainment, income, housing values and rent cost.
Theoretical Framework for the Study of Gentrification
As stated in the introduction, gentrification may simply be defined as the upgrading of devalued urban
property. But as one elects to go deeper into understanding gentrification, it broadens to encompass much
more. Gentrification is not easily explained in a few sentences. We can begin to understand gentrification
more thoroughly by dispelling one major inaccuracy associated with it. That inaccuracy being that
gentrification is brought on only by wealthy individuals moving from suburbs or exurbs into blighted

areas of the central city. Bruce London and John Palen, two sociology professors, believe that this
misconception is brought on by the root word of gentrification – gentry means upper or ruling class.
While it is true that gentrification is the result of higher income groups moving into central city
neighborhoods, these persons are often time only marginally middle class and often times relocate from
other areas of the city proper (Keating, 2003). They also use their own labor to increase the value of the
homes they purchase. “Newcomers are attracted to revitalizing areas because house prices are moderate
compared” ( London and Palen, 1984, p.7).
Despite the inaccuracy associated with only wealthy persons moving into the central city from the
suburbs and exurbs, it is true that an influx of higher-income groups into an area increase property values
and thus induces gentrification. This is true because higher-income helps fix up dilapidated houses, and
because businesses follow consumers who have purchasing power. And as businesses invest in depressed
areas, the residential and commercial property values increase. This increase in area property values is the
double-edged sword that people refer to when they are speaking of gentrification. “Some observers see in
this process the coming end of the urban crisis; others stress the increasing impoverishment of the
displaced” (London and Palen, 1984, p. 14).
From higher property values, there are great economic benefits for the local neighborhood as well as
the municipality, county and state. However, these economic benefits flow from taxation- this means that
citizens pay an increased price in the cost of living for improving an area. As property values rise, so do
property taxes. And as conspicuous consumption increases in new found popular enclaves, so do sales tax
revenues. In Atlanta, 50% of property taxes go to the Atlanta Board of Education; the remaining portion
is divided between the City of Atlanta, Fulton County, and the State of Georgia. The property taxes and
sales taxes that are divided up amongst the city, county and state, serve as general revenue. They are used
to provide services such as police protection, sanitation, and highway maintenance. So as property taxes
and sales tax revenues increase, the education provided in local public schools improves, the provision of
public services becomes greater, and the overall quality of life is improved.
Despite all of the positive effects that result from gentrification, there are negative effects that result as
well. Displacement is probably the most notorious of all. “Displacement most frequently, refers to the
forced involuntary dislocation of needy households (i.e., the poor, black, ethnic minorities, and the aged)”
(London and Palen, 1984, p.12). As property taxes begin to rise, many long-term homeowners are
unable to keep up with increasing property tax rates. In the process, commercial and residential landlords
often increase rent to continue earning a profit on their investment property. Landlords also increase rent
prices because they know renovations to the surrounding area will increase the attractiveness of their
property. Those seeking conspicuous consumption will be willing to pay a higher price for the services
and amenities that the property provides. Displaced residence often times find it difficult to find sufficient
housing at a price relative to what they were paying before being displaced. In many gentrified areas it
may be quite normal to see high-priced condominiums and fancy boutiques replace older dwellings, and
“mom and pop” corner stores. Eventually, a neighborhoods entire demographic profile changes. The
indigenous sociological community is destroyed and replaced by another. What is perhaps the one of the
most disheartening effects of gentrification is that people who once owned gracious homes in the
gentrified area- which may have needed a little maintenance- can often time not even conceive of buying
back into the area once it had been totally restructured.
Georgia Institute of Technology Professor, Larry Keating, suggest that Gentrification in Atlanta has
six key characteristics. In Keating’s paper, “Resurgent Gentrification: Politics and Policy in Atlanta,”
Keating refers to Atlanta’s current trends in gentrification as being more extensive, less dependent on
unique architecture, state sponsored, having reversed racial tension, greater volatility, and affecting racial
composition of the electorate. Gentrification is referred to as being more extensive because more housing
units are being affected as more neighborhoods experience gentrification. It is because past occurrences
of gentrification in Atlanta were based on historical preservation efforts that Keating adds that current
gentrification is less dependant on unique architecture. People are moving into in-town neighborhoods
because of its close proximity to the central business district and other amenities. Racial transition is a
characteristic of gentrification in Atlanta because many persons moving into predominately black in-town

neighborhoods are white. The social and economic differences between blacks and whites create conflict.
The conflict that arises is what accounts for the greater volatility. It is because public subsidies are being
drastically reduced, that Keating sites gentrification as being state-sponsored. Also, the black population
of Atlanta has declined from 67 percent in 1990, to 61.1 percent in 2000, while the white population has
increased form 31 percent to 34 percent. These small shifts can shift political power by changing the
racial composition of the electorate (Toon, 2003).
Political, Economic, and Social Factors of Gentrification
Political Factors
The political factors that feed into gentrification stem from the policies and actions of governing
authorities. One major political factor includes a decrease in the amount of federal funds given to
municipalities throughout the United States. During the 1980s, the Regan administration drastically
reduced the amount of money given to cities to sponsor redistributive activities such as affordable
housing-the availability of affordable housing greatly affects gentrification and displacement. As cities
face increasing difficulty in the equitable distribution of scarce resources, policy makers must often times
choose between opportunities for economic development or redistributing resources to provide affordable
housing. “City policy makers establish economic development and affordable housing policies in their
communities. They also help determine the level of local resources to devote to each policy” (Baslo,
2000, p.318). Both economic and social policy areas bare great affects on the well being of
municipalities. Economic development initiatives work to improve the city’s fiscal problems and
employment woes. Policies aimed at housing concerns ensure that there is a sufficient supply of adequate
and affordable housing. In the face of inter-jurisdictional competition, policy makers will often times
direct their attention to economic development issues – diverting attention away from redistributive
affordable housing initiatives. Public choice argues that policy makers will likely be more sensitive to the
desire of constituents that demand greater public services.
Predictions about the policy choice of local officials are based on an extension of
public choice theory. The mobility of residence and their desire for favorable serviceto-tax
ratio motivates local decision makers to adopt developmental rather that
redistributive policies. The potential for residence to move out of a jurisdiction results
in local policies that provide the best benefit to cost to the above average income
resident…This rational, economic decision criterion across cities leads to intercity
competition as local decision makers seek to attract and retain residence (Baslo, 2000,
p.17).
Some government sponsored programs and initiatives may be inadvertently linked to gentrification.
As development initiatives, the City of Atlanta has sponsored tax abatement programs. The development
initiatives have been instrumental in helping to attract new businesses and residence to the city and
increasing the city’s tax base. But the increased attractiveness of the city has also added to the rise in the
cost of housing-having an adverse affect on the affordable housing market.
The Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) Program is one of Atlanta’s most noted tax abatement programs. It
was designed to relieve distressed areas of the city by offering tax incentives for private development and
investment. “During the first five years of UEZ designation, property owners are eligible for 100 percent
tax abatements. During the sixth and seventh years of designation, the tax abatement is reduced by 80
percent, followed by 60 percent during the eight year, and 40 percent during the ninth year, and 20
percent during the tenth year. Housing and Residential/ Commercial UEZs have played a significant role
in helping to increase property values. The following chart shows the impact that Housing and
Residential/Commercial UEZs have had on housing prices in three Atlanta neighborhoods. The figures
are based on census tract data collected before UEZ designation, and after the expiration of UEZ
designation (see Figure 1). In these three areas, UEZ designation has been beneficial. There have been
423 new or rehabilitated units, and the median home values and rent prices have increased significantly.
The Affordable Provisions Compliance requires that twenty percent of the dwellings be reserved as
affordable housing units. Unfortunately, the city’s method for determining who is eligible for affordable
housing is ineffective. “Housing is affordable in the City of Atlanta if it is accessible to individuals and

families who qualify as Extremely Low Income Families or Very Low Income Families according to
HUD definitions of Area Median Income” (City of Atlanta Task Force, 2001). Because Atlanta bases its
definition of affordable housing on the Area Median Income, extremely low income, and very low
income households that live within the city limits are at a disadvantage. “…the median household income
in the city of Atlanta for 2000 was approximately $35,000.00. The median household income for the
metro Atlanta area was $63,000.00” (City of Atlanta, Comprehensive Development Plan, 2000).
In addition to present day political factors linked to gentrification, historical political actions have has
a bearing on the phenomenon as well. Housing subsidized after World War II helped to systematically
move white citizens, as well as investment capital, out of the inner cities, and into the suburbs. “The FHA
was a major source of home financing from its inception in 1930s through the 1950s, when it financed 60
percent of all home purchases, virtually all of which were in suburban communities” (Squires, 1996).
Years later, anti discrimination laws - such as the 1968 Federal Fair Housing Act and the 1974 Fair Credit
Opportunity Act – made it possible for the black middle class to move out of the inner cities, and into the
suburbs with their white counterparts. The mass exodus of the white middle-class, followed by the mass
exodus of the black middle-class, lead to poverty concentration in central city neighborhoods. Poverty
concentration in turn lead to the deterioration of inner-city neighborhoods.
Economic Factors
The economic factors of gentrification appear to be inherently linked to politics. In studying how
economic forces have contributed to gentrification, there is a strong emphasis placed on intentional
neglect of inner-city neighborhoods by powerful land-based interest groups. “This implication is that
powerful interest groups follow a policy of neglect of inner-city neighborhoods until such time as they
become aware that policy change could yield tremendous profits. Then policies change accordingly, with
little regard for the powerless inner-city residences who will be displaced from their homes” (London and
Palen, 1984). Stakeholders in the local real estate market have massive earning potential in distressed
areas. Neil Smith’s rent gap theory substantiates this ideology. The rent gap is the difference in property
values in depressed areas before renovations and after renovations. When the rent gap is large enough,
investment money is pumped into dilapidated areas. According to Smith, the government amplifies this
effect through various zoning, financing, and fiscal practices” (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001).
Another economic factor, which contributes to gentrification, is the imbalance between job growth and
the housing supply. As the number of jobs in a city grows greater, the demand for housing grows greater.
As the demand for housing grows greater, the cost of housing grows greater – this is a simple example of
supply and demand. A survey, conducted by social scientist Sybil McWilliams, showed that one of the
top reasons people move into Atlanta’s inner-city neighborhoods, is to be close to their place of
employment. Other reasons include closeness to downtown and the low cost of housing (McConnell,
1980).
Social Factor
In studying the social motives that fuel gentrification, one is seeking to find out what are the noneconomic
and non-political forces, which inspire higher income groups to move into inner-city
neighborhoods. The search for cultural diversity is recognized as on of the key factors that inspires and
increases the migration of upper-income groups to inner-city neighborhoods. Irvin Allen, a sociology
professor at the University of Connecticut, claims that the heterogeneous city sponsors cultural
advantages for both single persons and families with children. The higher-income, highly-educated adults
that are moving into inner-city neighborhoods are able to emerge themselves in pro-urbanism – gaining
acceptance of alternative lifestyles, different ethnic and racial groups, and taking responsibility for social
injustices. Children raised in diverse ethnic and cultural environments have a greater understanding and
tolerance of cultures that do not reflect their own (London and Palen, 1984). The complex social
environment of the central city serves as an impetus for urban migration. Also, persons who gentrify are
noted in many instances as being on a quest for individualism. With self expressionism being an
important part of American culture, many find the heterogeneous central city to be a welcoming place.
Low-income and minority groups have been vulnerable to the effects of gentrification primarily
because they lack the knowledge necessary to recognize the phenomenon in its wake, and they lack the

unity needed to confront it. The breakdown in community ties is a driving force in the political and
economic ignorance of inner-city residence. It disables residence from coming together and rectifying
issues within their own community. Breakdown of community ties results from the poverty and crime that
plagues the inner-city neighborhood. “This type of neighborhood has low voter turn out and weak
community organizations. There is little connection between residence that live in fear of crimes such as
muggings, rapes, drug-related violence, and burglary” (Grotidiner, 1994).
Gentrification in the City of Atlanta
To effectively gauge the occurrence and impact of gentrification in Atlanta’s Summerhill, Grant Park,
East Atlanta, East Lake, and Edgewood neighborhoods, there are six variables that will be analyzed. The
variables include, race, age, educational attainment, income, housing values, and rent prices. Many
experts believe that these six variables are the essential indicators of gentrification. Variables on each
neighborhood are based on U.S. Census Bureau census tract information. There are census tract maps for
each neighborhood located at the end of the paper.
The change in the racial composition of a neighborhood is a major indicator of gentrification. Only
black and white residents are used in this paper because in each of the five neighborhoods, blacks and
whites totals at minimum 90% of the population. From 1990 to 2000 four of the five neighborhoods have
seen dramatic shifts in the number of black and white residence. Four of the five neighborhoods have
experienced a dramatic decrease in the number of black residence. The total number of black residence
decreased from 23,435 in 1990 to 16,019 in 2000. In ten years the black population dropped by 7,416 – a
32% decrease (see Table 1). The only neighborhood to increase its black population was Summerhill.
Population Change in the Five Neighborhoods
While the black population declined in four of the neighborhoods, the white population increased in
all five neighborhoods. The total white population increased from 2,331 in 1990 to 3,092 in 2000- a 34%
increase. Although the white population is relatively small compared to the black population, the percent
changes show that the white population is growing. With a 208% change and an 1160% change taking
place in Summerhill and Edgewood respectively, these two neighborhoods had astonishing growth. The
following are graphical representations of black and white population changes from 1990 to 2000 (see
Figure 2).
The senior citizen population is recognized in this paper as a person 65 years or older. It is
important to recognize the change in the senior citizen population because they are one of the
primary groups affected by gentrification. Many senior citizens live on a fixed income –
receiving monthly social security and retirement checks as their only source of income. Unlike
the working population, they are unable to get overtime pay or yearly salary increases. As the
cost of living rises in their neighborhoods, many cannot keep up. In each of these five
neighborhoods, the senior citizen population has decreased. From 1990 to 2000, the number of
senior citizen residence has decreased from 2,944 to 1,845. With a decrease of 16%, Edgewood
suffered the smallest loss of senior citizens, while East Lake suffered the largest loss of the
senior citizen population with 57%Educational AttainmentHigher levels of educational
attainment are indicative of gentrification as well. Each of the five neighborhoods in this paper
has had an increase in the number of residents holding degrees in excess of a high school
diploma. The following pie charts are a ten-year comparison on educational attainment in the
combined five neighborhoods (see Table 2). In 1990 55% of the persons 25 years and over did
not have least a high school diploma in these five neighborhoods. In 2000, the percentage of
persons without at least a high school diploma dropped by 17%. The percentage of persons
holding only a high school diploma remained the same at 29%. There was a small 1% increase in
the number of persons holding an Associate Degree. The percentage of Bachelor Degrees present
among neighborhood residents more than doubled – jumping form 9% in 1990, to 19% in 2000.
Only 3% of residents held graduate and/or professional degrees in 1990, while 9% of residents
held graduate and/or professional degrees in 2000 (see Figure 3)

Income
Just as the levels of educational attainment have increased in each of the five neighborhoods, so have
the yearly income amounts per individual. In 1990 the combined median
income for the five neighborhoods was $84,821. In 2000 the combined median income for the five
neighborhoods was $157,849. – a total increase of 86%. In each individual neighborhood, there was no
one instance where the median income decreased. The smallest increase in the median income per
individual occurred in Grant Park. The median income in this neighborhood was $24,560 in 1990 and
$39,167 in 2000. East Lake had the largest increase in median income per individual. The income jumped
from a measly $13,494 in 1990, to $36,887 in 2000 (see Table 3).
Housing Cost
The change in the cost of housing has been significant in each of these five neighborhoods. In 1990,
the median home value for the combined five neighborhoods was $48,200. In 2000, the median home
value for the combined neighborhoods was $116,700. With an increase of $43,500, Edgewood had the
smallest change in median home values, while Grant Park had the largest change in median home values
with a $126,400 increase. Just as the median home values increased significantly, so did the median
gross rent prices. In 1990, the median gross rent price for the combined five neighborhoods was $374. In
2000, the median gross rent price for the combined five neighborhoods was $530 (see Figure 4).
Effects of Gentrification
Analyzing each variable independently makes the presence of gentrification evident. When all of the
variables are analyzed together, there is a greater understanding of how the neighborhood is being
restructured. Each neighborhood is seeing an influx of white residents, while loosing segments of the
black and senior citizen populations. There are a greater number of more educated individuals inhabiting
the neighborhoods – bringing with them higher incomes. Just as the income of neighborhood residents
has increased, so has the cost of housing and rental prices. This economic and social restructuring which
is occurring in each of the neighborhoods brings with it lower crime rates, higher tax revenues, ascetics,
poverty de-concentration, social motivation, and overall civic improvement. Unfortunately, the problem
in neighborhood restructuring boils down to a matter of displacement and racial discord. We can account
for the higher-educated individuals, with higher salaries that are moving into these five neighborhoods,
but what is happening to the elderly, and those with little education and small yearly incomes. The only
trace of these people is in a negative percent change. Racial discord can be seen as a spillover from the
white flight era. Some black residents blame the state of inner-city urban America on the past actions of
whites. They see the influx of middle-income whites back into the central city, not as a source of good,
but as a “take over.”
Policy Recommendations and Suggestions
Recommendations and suggestions focus on how to minimize the negative effects of gentrification,
how to create and preserve a stable community, and how to promote the idea that gentrification is not
marketed for the whites only but for everybody.
• There must be political and legal will to make the above statement to happen [may be
pressed by, say, community development corporations (CDCs), etc.].
• Make housing available for low income people to avoid the high volatility of those
individuals.
• Strengthening and preserving affordable housing more social housing through
community development block grant (CDBG) money.
• Bring resources into the neighborhoods e.g., good schools, good services, etc.
• The assurance that most public subsidies reach the low income families, especially in
education, skill development, job training, and job opportunities. Added here also are
some of the recommendations formulated by the City of Atlanta GentrificationTask
Force (2001) which include:

• Provide counseling to low income homeowners on the short term and long term
consequences of neighborhood gentrification. It is advised that gentrification
counseling should be coupled with loan counseling.
• Adopt a one-for-one replacement housing policy providing that for each unit of
affordable housing owned by the Atlanta Housing Authority (AHA) that is subject to
demolition, one new unit of affordable hosing will be created and owned by the
Atlanta Housing Authority.
• Adopt as City policy a definition of Affordable Housing as being housing units that
are accessible to individuals and families at or below 50% of Area Median Income.
• Provide that utilization of housing enterprise zone tax abatement subsidies
incorporates an obligation for the development of at least 33% of Affordable Housing
Units.
• Increase the basic homestead exemption for owner-occupied elderly and low-income
residents.
• Modify the existing zoning ordinance to create presumptions in favor of rezoning
applications and zoning variances that contain an Affordable Housing component.
• Increase federal resources to cities.
Each of these recommendations correlates to the political, economic, and/or social factors of
gentrification discussed in this paper.
Conclusion
Gentrification is unquestionably a double-edged sword. The benefits of gentrification make it
a welcomed occurrence. The detriments of gentrification make it a dreaded phenomenon.
Results in Atlanta show: an influx of white residents, decrease in black and senior citizen
populations, more educated individuals with their higher incomes, and higher housing and rental
prices in the five studied neighborhoods of Summerhill, Grant Park, East Atlanta, Edgewood,
and East Lake. Government officials, civic leaders, neighborhood organization, real estate
investors, homeowners and renters must collaborate to minimize the negative effects of
gentrification. The low-income and minority groups which are most affected by gentrification
must not only become cognizant of political and economic decisions that impact their lives, they
must speak out against injustices which will have adverse effects on their well being. In short,
there is no cure for gentrification, only treatment.
References
Baslo, Victoria (2000). “City Spending on Economic Development versus Affordable Housing: Does
Inner-City Competition or Local Politics Drive Decisions.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 22, pp. 317-322.
City of Atlanta, Bureau of Planning, Comprehensive Development Plan (2000).
City of Atlanta, Gentrification Task Force (2001). A City for All.
Freeman, Lance (2008). Still Separate and Unequal: The State of Fair Housing in America. Presented by
The National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Panel 4: “A Vision of Fair Housing
for the Future,” October 17, 2008. Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA 30314.
Grotidiner, Mark (1994). The New Urban Sociology. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill).
Keating, Larry (2003). “Gentrification: Policy, Politics, and Policies.” Political Science Seminar Series.
Department of Political Science, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA, Thursday, January 30, 2003. Dr.
Larry Keating is a Professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. He was the Chairman of
The tlanta Gentrification Task Force.
Keating, Larry (2003). “Resurgent Gentrification: Politics and Policy in Atlanta.” Paper presented at the
American Sociological Association’s annual meeting held August 16-19 in Atlanta.
Kennedy, Maureen and Paul Leonard (2001). “Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer in
Gentrification and Policy Choices,”___ A Discussion for The Brookings Institute Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy.

London, Bruce and John Palen (1984). Gentrification, Displacement and Neighborhood Revitalization.
(Albany, N.Y: State University Press of New York).
McConnell, Dennis (1980). Urban Atlanta, Redefining the Role of the City. (Atlanta, GA: Business
Publishing Division, Georgia State University).
Squires, Gregory (1996). Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods. (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of
Kansas).
Toon, John (2003). “Tales of the City: Current Gentrification in Atlanta Contrast Sharply to Previous
Waves of Urban Restoration.” Georgia Institute of technology Research News, September 4, 2003.
Map 1: Atlanta Census Tracts
Source: Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)

Map 2: Summerhill (Census Tract 490)
Map 3: Grant Park (Census Tract 50)
East Atlanta (Census Tract 209

Map 4: East Atlanta (Census Tract 209)
Map 5: Edgewood (Census Tract 205)

Map 6: East Lake (Census Tract 202.02)
Figure 1: Median Home Values and Median Gross Rent in Atlanta Urban Enterprise Zones
Median Home Values
Median Gross Rent
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
McGill
Place
Peeples
Street
Four
Oaks
Before Uez
Designation
Af ter UEZ
Designation
1000
800
600
400
200
0
McGill
Place
Peeples
Street
Four Oaks
Before UEZ
Designation
After UEZ
Designation

Figure 2: Population Change in the Five Atlanta Neighborhoods: 1990-2000
10 Year Change in Black
Population
10 Year Change in White
Population
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Summerhill
Grant Park
East Atlanta
East Lake
Edgewood
1990
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Summerhill
Grant Park
East Atlanta
East Lake
Edgewood
Figure 3: Educational Attainments in the Five Atlanta Neighborhoods: 1990 and 2000.
1990
2000
3%
1990
2000
4%
9%
NON HS GRAD
HS GRAD
19%
9% NON HS GRAD
38%
HS GRAD
29%
55%
ASSOCIATE
BACHELOR'S
GRAD OR
PROF
5%
29%
ASSOCIATE
B.A. OR B.S.
GRAD OR
PROF
Figure 4: Median Home and Rental Values in the Five Atlanta Neighborhoods in 1990 and 2000
Median Home and Rent Values
Home Values
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
Summerhill East Lake East Atlanta Grant Park Edgew ood
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Rent Prices
1990 Home Values 2000 Home Values
1990 Rent Prices 2000 Rent Prices

Table 1: Racial Composition in the Five Atlanta Neighborhoods in 1990 and 2000
Neighborhood Census Tract
Black
Population
Percent
Change
White
Population
Percent
Change
1990 2000 1990 2000
Summerhill 49 2479 4112 65.87% 49 151 208%
Grant Park 50 1927 1511 -21.59% 1089 1255 15%
East Atlanta 209 6532 5202 -20.36% 821 1072 31%
East Lake 208.02 9118 2296 -75% 352 362 3%
Edgewood 205 3379 2858 -15% 20 252 1160%
Total 23435 16019 -32% 2331 3092 34%
Table 2: Senior Citizens (65 years+) in the Five Atlanta Neighborhoods in 1990 and 2000
Neighborhood Census Tract 1990 2000 Percent Change
Summerhill 49 235 159 -32%
Grant Park 50 328 219 -33%
East Atlanta 209 763 559 -27%
East Lake 208.02 1101 473 -57%
Edgewood 205 517 435 -16%
Total 2944 1845 -37%
Table 3: Median Incomes in the Five Atlanta Neighborhoods: 1990-2000
Neighborhood 1990 2000 Percent change
Summerhill $11,223 $19,018 69%
Grant Park $24,811 $39,167 58%
East Atlanta $20,560 $34,630 68%
East Lake $13,494 $36,887 173%
Edgewood $14,663 $28,147 92%
Total $84,821 $157,849 86%

Page 120 of 150

Attachment B
Revitalization Without Gentrification
Page 121 of 150

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
Jason Reece, Kirwan Institute
Technical Memorandum on Gentrification Issues
July 28, 2004
Revitalization without Gentrification:
Gentrification is a controversial and divisive issue that has been extensively debated.
From our research and the work of others, we feel two critical issues must be addressed
in the gentrification debate.
1. Defining gentrification
2. Achieving revitalization without gentrification
Defining gentrification-
Without defining gentrification, it becomes impossible to determine if gentrification is
occurring within a neighborhood. Viewpoints on what gentrification is may vary
significantly, and based on these misconstrued definitions identifying the impacts of
gentrification becomes difficult. The term is often mistakenly intermixed with urban
revitalization or is used to describe any physical investment within a neighborhood.
These definitions are flawed and miss an important distinction. Gentrification is not
simply reinvestment into the neighborhood, gentrification is a process that extensively
dislocates traditional low income residents (usually residents of color) and extensively
changes the social fabric of the neighborhood.
Research by the Brookings Institute provides the best working definition of
gentrification: i
Gentrification: the process by which higher income households displace significant
numbers of lower income residents of a neighborhood, thus changing the essential
character and flavor of the neighborhood. Based on this definition, three specific
conditions must be met: displacement of original residents, physical upgrading of most of
the housing stock and change in neighborhood character.
This working definition produced by the Brookings Institute continues to address what
gentrification does not entail. Gentrification is not occurring if higher income residents
move into a neighborhood at a scale that is too small to displace existing residents, or
redevelopment is targeted toward abandoned or vacant structures or lots. Also, the
existence of economic development activity (revitalization) does not automatically
provide for gentrification. ii Gentrification is the process of permanently changing a
distressed community into an exclusive upper income community and does not simply
equate with community reinvestment.
By using this narrow definition it is easier to understand the negative impacts of
gentrification and easier to distinguish revitalization from gentrification. Gentrification
(by this definition) is not a healthy phenomenon for a community. The displacement
caused by gentrification falls most heavily on disenfranchised low income resident.
1

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
Gentrification also does little to deconcentrate poverty, instead shifting the low income
population into neighboring communities, further concentrating poverty in nearby areas. iii
Gentrification:
Widespread displacement of traditional low income residents by
affluent households.
Residents unable to accrue wealth, remain highly susceptible to
displacement.
Existing social networks, neighborhood services and local
businesses disrupted in the community.
Community transitions to an exclusive community, inaccessible
to low income households.
Revitalization:
Mixed income housing development, displacement avoided.
Wealth building strategies for existing residents implemented,
residents stabilized from displacement pressure.
Social networks, neighborhood services and businesses
reinforced in the community. Additional new business and
services expand options for all residents.
Community transitions to a mixed income, mixed wealth and
diverse community.
Table 1: Contrasting gentrification with revitalization
Revitalization instead of gentrification-
Neighborhood improvement (or revitalization) is not synonymous with gentrification.
Neighborhood reinvestment can occur and improve the quality of life for existing
residents without the widespread displacement associated with gentrification. Several
urban/social policy research institutions have been pushing for a new model of
development that does not gentrify the community. These new development models have
been labeled as “equitable development” iv or “community revitalization”. All of these
new models of development share certain characteristics.
The distressed community transitions into a mixed income, mixed wealth and
diverse community.
The social networks and services utilized by traditional residents are maintained
and improved.
Existing neighborhood businesses are supported while additional viable
businesses are created in the community.
Neighborhood improvement not only focuses on improving the physical
environment but focuses on creating wealth and opening opportunities (such as
employment) to existing residents.
PolicyLink has further refined its model of equitable development. Detailed information
of the policies to promote equitable development can be found in Appendix A.
Monitoring/Diagnostic Tools:
One of the recommendations widely supported for addressing gentrification pressure is
neighborhood monitoring and assessment. Establishing a diagnostic system for
monitoring investment and property ownership enables intervention before gentrification
occurs. Conversely, this system enables a community to analyze if reinvestment in the
community poses little threat of gentrification, thus resources can be targeted toward
2

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
other neighborhood concerns. The critical aspect of monitoring neighborhood change is
to address potential problems before they occur, case studies have shown too many
communities have organized to mitigate gentrification after significant displacement has
altered the neighborhood. As addressed by the Brookings Institute:
“Perhaps the most important task for neighborhood residents, local and regional government officials and
other stakeholders is to identify gentrification pressures early, and to understand how gentrification
dynamics are to unfold.” Brookings Institute. Dealing with Neighborhood Change. Page 30.
Understand Context of the Neighborhood/Region-
Before establishing a monitoring system for a neighborhood, it is also important to assess
the neighborhood in the context of the surrounding city and region. Research by director
powell (and supported by research from the Brookings Institute) has found that
gentrification pressure is directly tied to the regional housing market.
The degree of gentrification stress is higher for “rich” or high market cities (San
Francisco, New York, Portland) and much less a phenomenon in weak market cities
(Cleveland, Detroit). Also, the strategies to mitigate gentrification will vary within these
cities. For example, inclusionary zoning may be a better strategy in a hot market city,
while strategies to avoid displacement and build assets (for existing residents) may be
more appropriate for a weak market city. (Many of these issues are addressed in the
presentation prepared for the Community Development Partnership Network that I
submitted to you earlier).
Another consideration is assessment of what attributes may lead to gentrification in a
neighborhood. Research by PolicyLink of California has identified several characteristics
that gentrifying neighborhoods share.
The neighborhood contains a high proportion of renters (population most sensitive
to displacement pressure).
Easy access to job centers and regional amenities.
Comparatively low housing values in the context of the regional and local market,
particularly for housing stock with architectural merit.
Methods of Monitoring-
The tools to monitor for gentrification depend on the housing market and size of the area
of concern. Diagnostic systems may be city wide (measuring all neighborhoods) such as
systems found in Philadelphia and Providence RI. The Providence, RI monitoring system
analyzes the property sales and abandonment to identify areas of potential land
speculation.
At the neighborhood level, diagnostic systems can be more proactive, specific and
accurate. Neighborhood organizations can track change in the community to understand
if gentrification is occurring. Indicators to consider monitoring include:
1. Property appreciation rates, how fast are they growing, compare rates with the
region, the city or other urban neighborhoods.
3

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
2. Analyze the rental market in the community. Determine if rents are changing and
how they compare the change in rents in the region, the city or other urban
neighborhoods
3. Are critical neighborhood social services under pressure to relocate?
4. Determine if any displacement is occurring in the neighborhood. Are other local
(neighborhood) housing opportunities available to displaced residents?
5. Are traditional residents able to maintain properties, monitor if code violations are
threatening to cause displacement.
Mitigation Strategies in Place-
Neighborhood monitoring also requires planning for mitigating gentrification if it
disrupts the neighborhood. Researching and identifying mitigation strategies beforehand
can speed up any response to gentrification in the neighborhood. A wide range of
mitigation policies exist to address gentrification. These vary from extensive inclusionary
housing ordinances to localized programs to provide financing for local businesses or
funding for code compliance for existing residents. Appendix B provides a brief
summary of a selected number of potential mitigation strategies. More information can be
provided for specific strategies at a later date, if this would be helpful to your efforts.
Addressing Land Speculation:
Land speculation is a problem in inner city neighborhoods across the nation. We are
currently assisting a community advocacy organization in Detroit address vacancy and
speculation problems by advocating for a city wide land bank program. Options for
dealing with land speculation are somewhat limited, but two primary recommendations
would be helpful in dealing with speculative property owners.
First, strict code enforcement is the best policy for addressing land speculation. Second,
aligning other redevelopment tools against abandoned properties can also prove effective.
Land bank programs can be used to acquire properties for community use. Community
groups can work proactively with the city to enforce codes and utilize eminent domain to
address vacant properties. Finally, any incentive programs to revitalize the neighborhood
should attach requirements to assure properties will be redeveloped in a timely manner.
Also, incentives should not be given to potential property owners that have a history of
speculation in the community or city at large.
Potential Housing Policies:
Based on the concerns you addressed in our conversation several policies may be useful
to pursue in the neighborhood planning process for Weinland Park.
Code Enforcement/Building Rehabilitation Policies – strategies to improve quality of
housing for existing residents
Examples: Local code enforcement monitoring, aligning community
organizations with the city to address blight and code violations, maintain local
database of code violations.
4

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
Asset Building Strategies – a neighborhood revitalization strategy that improves the
quality of life for existing residents and buffers residents from future gentrification
pressure.
Examples: Limited equity housing cooperatives, strategies to promote
homeownership for existing residents (financing availability, down payment
assistance), also could include business assistance for existing businesses and
service providers in community.
Investment Strategies – encourage income diversity in the neighborhood and public
investment
Examples: Align public subsidies with neighborhood planning goals, use of
incentives to increase homeownership and introduction of market rate housing
Other (Addressing Gentrification Concerns)
Establish Early Warning System – monitor for Gentrification and identify
appropriate tools to mitigate gentrification if problems occur
5

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
Appendix A: Principles identified to promote a model of equitable
development
Source: PolicyLink, Equitable Development tool kit. http://www.policylink.com
To create a context for equitable development while preventing displacement of
residents:
Understand the economic, political, and social forces at work
Assess, map, and analyze the potential for displacement
Support resident participation in land use planning that envisions community-wide
economic improvement
Stabilize current residents
Build public awareness of the issues and proposed solutions among key players
Advocate mixed-income development at every turn and across jurisdictions
Expand the range of housing not susceptible to the commercial market through
permanent affordability mechanisms
Promote diverse homeownership opportunities for current residents
Target income and asset strategies to stabilize current residents
Utilize equity criteria to guide new investment
Anchor culturally-rooted commercial, nonprofit and arts organizations
Tie housing production to commercial growth
Plan for newcomers to promote a diverse community mix and ensure affordability
Strengthen regional cooperation in community and economic development planning
Craft policies to engage local, regional, state and federal governments in addressing
gentrification pressures
6

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
Appendix B: Equitable Development Strategies to promote
revitalization while avoiding gentrification.
Source: PolicyLink, Equitable Development tool kit. http://www.policylink.com
Brownfields
This tool covers strategies used to encourage redevelopment of brownfields (abandoned, idled,
or underutilized commercial or industrial sites). Brownfield redevelopment is complicated by
the real and perceived dangers of environmental contamination. Infill development is the use
of vacant land within built urban areas. Reclaiming brownfields and the use of infill
development offers new land use options in gentrifying areas.
Minority Contracting
Ensures that healthy local businesses owned by people of color are a basic component of
strong, sustainable communities. These businesses generate job opportunities for residents,
and keep money circulating within the neighborhood. This tool reviews major approaches for
achieving parity for minority-owned businesses.
Real Estate Transfer Taxes
This innovative tool reviews techniques through which tax regulations can limit two
destabilizing practices in low- and moderate-income communities: delinquency, when property
taxes are not paid on blighted property; and speculation, when land is acquired with the intent
of 'flipping' its ownership strictly for profitability as the housing market inflates.
Local Hiring Strategies
An array of strategies that connect economically marginalized communities to regional job
opportunities. For example, linkage programs can require that a percentage of jobs created by
a commercial development go to local residents. Other programs link urban core and innerring
suburban residents to employment opportunities around the region. Building such
economic opportunity helps residents remain in their communities.
Affordable Housing Development 101
Increasing and preserving affordable housing stock is critical to community stability. There are
a range of practices that are aimed at both existing housing and new development. The focus
is typically protecting low-income residents most at risk of displacement from gentrification.
Often strategies expand to include a spectrum of housing choices from rental to ownership in a
range of income classes.
Expiring Use: Retention of Subsidized Housing
Protects "expiring use" subsidized housing from losing its affordability-designation and
reverting to the private market. This tool clarifies ways to protect affordable housing originally
supported by HUD, with a special focus on regions with extreme housing shortages, and not
coincidentally, considerable amounts of gentrification.
7

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
Commercial Linkage Strategies
A range of programs and fees that tie economic development to the construction of affordable
housing. Most require developers of new commercial properties to pay fees to support
affordable housing construction. Linkage programs support smart growth, mitigate rising
housing costs caused by economic development, and provide a dedicated source of revenue
for affordable housing.
Commercial Stabilization
This tool reviews effective techniques employed by community-based organizations to
preserve cultural organizations and longstanding commercial enterprises that define the
historic character of communities. These institutions are frequently the most vulnerable to
displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods.
Community Mapping
This tool identifies key information needed to assess the considerable public and private forces
driving gentrification. The tool reviews effective community mapping and indicator projects;
identifies key data sources to guide community interventions; and shows the role of mapping
in community education and organizing.
Community Development Financial Institutions
Existing and emerging resident-owned financial institutions serve to build assets for lowincome/low-wealth
residents and provide them with a stronger voice in running an institution
dedicated to neighborhood development and revitalization.
Cooperative Ownership Models
Businesses, based on democratic principles, owned and run by various stakeholders such as
employees, producers, consumers, or others. Co-op models targeted to low- income/lowwealth
residents can offer potential financial benefits, business skills, and experience in
running a democratically controlled enterprise.
Just Cause Eviction Controls
These laws give special protections to the elderly, disabled and catastrophically ill, and ensure
that landlords can only evict with proper cause, such as failure to pay rent or property
destruction. They protect renters against being unfairly evicted by landlords who want to
capitalize on the explosive rental and housing markets.
Code Enforcement
Prevents and abates violations on private property such as vacant, poorly maintained, and
dangerous buildings, illegal dumping, weeded lots, graffiti, junk motor vehicles and more.
8

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
Code enforcement can be an important way to protect existing residents or to accelerate
gentrification. This tool will provide strategies to ensure resident protection.
Infill Incentives
Density bonuses allow developers to create higher density projects, increasing affordability
measures. Infill incentives reward innovative housing efforts to expand homeownership
through unused or abandoned lots in urban core neighborhoods. Used properly, these
programs can produce new housing units, reduce blight, preserve open space, reduce traffic,
and encourage retail development that serves the needs of existing residents.
Developer Exactions
Requires new commercial developments to contribute fees to the development of affordable
housing, community services and infrastructure. Creative nonprofit organizations are utilizing
exactions as an anti-gentrification tool to finance services such as day care, cultural centers,
job training, below market rate housing, and ride sharing.
Living Wage Provisions
Ordinances that ensure the employees of public contractors, private contractors receiving
public sector funding, and public employees are paid wages at pace with regional cost of living
measures. Higher wages achieved through living wage ordinances assist low-income residents
in remaining in their communities, lead to greater stability in the workforce and increase the
municipal tax base.
Rent Controls
A review of legal and programmatic protections for renters to slow the pace in markets with
rapidly escalating rental prices. The effectiveness and implications of rent control has been
heavily debated for as long as such ordinances have existed. This tool reviews their potential
application in gentrifying contexts, as well as the compeimentary techniques necessary to
make this a useful strategy.
CDC's with Resident Shareholders
An emerging tool that offers low-income/low-wealth residents the opportunity to own equity in
real estate projects spearheaded by community development corporations (CDCs). Owning
CDC project stock provides residents with financial benefits and voice in the neighborhood
development process. This tool directs profits from development back into the community,
ensuring benefit for existing residents.
Community Reinvestment Act
Congressional mandate that financial and depository institutions, such as commercial banks,
help meet credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods. To utilize the Act as an anti-displacement tool requires
9

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
diligent monitoring to ensure investment occurs, as well as strategic planning to direct
investment to benefit residents.
Inclusionary Zoning
Land use regulation mandating a percentage (usually 15-20%) of the housing units in any
project above a given size be affordable to people of low and moderate incomes. The
developer can build the housing or contribute to a fund to develop it elsewhere. This tool has
particular relevance in gentrifying communities, where high-income and luxury apartment
developments can quickly overrun the existing low- and moderate-income housing stock.
Housing Trust Funds
Public funds, established by legislation, ordinance or resolution, to receive specific revenues
dedicated to affordable housing development. The key characteristic of a housing trust fund is
that it receives on-going revenues from dedicated sources such as commercial development
taxes, fees on loan repayments, and transfer taxes. These funds can stabilize communities
facing gentrification pressures.
Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives
A partnership wherein residents collectively own and control their housing. The limited equity
component limits the return on resale, insuring that housing remains affordable to future
residents. Limited equity co-ops promote democratic participation through resident control and
ownership.
Community Land Trusts
A model where nonprofit organizations acquire and hold land for community benefit, making
the land available to individuals through long-term land leases. Residents own the homes
located on the land. This alternative property ownership model insures long term community
benefits such as permanent affordability, while creating homeownership and equity
opportunities for individual residents.
i Excerpted from “Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices”
written by Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard (April 2001). A Discussion paper prepared by the
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and Policy Link.
ii Excerpted from “Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices”
written by Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard (April 2001). A Discussion paper prepared by the
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and Policy Link.
iii For more information about the impacts of gentrification please review “Giving Them the Old “One-
Two”: Gentrification and the K.O. of Impoverished Urban Dwellers of Color”. By john a. powell and
Marguerite L. Spencer. Forthcoming journal article. (2004)
10

Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race & Ethnicity
The Ohio State University
http://www.kirwaninstitute.org
iv For extensive information on equitable development tools and gentrification mitigation tools visit the
equitable development toolbox website provided by PolicyLink at: http://www.policylink.org/EDTK/
11

Page 122 of 150

Attachment C
In The Face of Gentrification - Case Studies on
Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Page 123 of 150

IN THE FACE OF GENTRIFICATION:
Case Studies of Local Efforts to
Mitigate Displacement
Diane K. Levy
Jennifer Comey
Sandra Padilla

In the Face of Gentrification:
Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Copyright © 2006
Diane K. Levy
Jennifer Comey
Sandra Padilla
The Urban Institute
Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics
worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and
should not be attributed to the Urban Institute or to its trustees or funders.

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Fannie Mae Foundation for funding and helping give shape to this
study. In particular, Sohini Sarkhar, formerly with the Foundation, helped move the study along
from start to completion. Anonymous reviewers provided by the Fannie Mae Foundation offered
us excellent comments on the draft report, which we took to heart in our revisions. The study
itself, of course, was dependent upon the willingness of people in each of the six study sites to
meet with us and share their experiences and expertise on neighborhood change and affordable
housing. We extend a special thanks to each of them for making this study possible. Their
names and affiliations can be found in the list of resources. We are grateful for the help of
Urban Institute colleagues. Jessica Cigna and Kathryn Pettit provided us access to HMDA and
Census data specific to our study sites, as well as advice on developing the methodology for
site selection. We greatly appreciate the work of Diane Hendricks with production of the report,
which would not have happened without Marge Turner’s support for publication. Scott Forrey
and Fiona Blackshaw helped clean up dangling modifiers and misplaced commas, and Maida
Tryon launched the report on our website. As with all reports and publications, any errors and
omissions remain the responsibility of the authors.

In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
Gentrification and Revitalization 1
The Need for Affordable Housing 2
Study Methodology and Housing Strategies 4
Findings 8
Organization of the Report 9
CASE STUDIES 10
Early Stages of Neighborhood Revitalization/Gentrification 11
St. Petersburg, FL - Bartlett Park 12
Sacramento, CA - Oak Park 22
Middle Stages of Neighborhood Revitalization/Gentrification 32
Atlanta, GA - Reynoldstown 33
Los Angeles, CA - Figueroa Corridor 43
Late Stages of Neighborhood Gentrification 52
Seattle, WA - Central Area 53
Chicago, IL - Uptown 66
CONCLUSION 76
Displacement Mitigation Strategies 76
Cross-Cutting Lessons 79
Wrapping Up 82

In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
REFERENCES 83
ENDNOTES 86
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2

Introduction 1
1
section
INTRODUCTION
C
oncern, and anger, over gentrification has grown in communities across the country as
housing rental and sales prices have soared. Housing markets strengthened during the
1990s along with the national economy, and have remained strong even while the
economy began to slow down in the spring of 2000, one of the few sectors to do so. Decreases
in affordable housing units have accompanied the higher prices in many places, and there are
numerous reports of resident displacement from neighborhoods long ignored that now attract
higher-income households.
Increased housing prices themselves are
not a problem per se. It is when costs
increase in predominantly lower-income
neighborhoods where residents’ incomes do
not keep pace that displacement can occur.
As housing prices increase, lower-income
households are at risk of being pushed out
or prevented from moving into certain
geographic areas because of the prohibitive
costs and limited household earnings. It is
this geographic component, along with
restricted economic opportunities, that
makes gentrification-related displacement a
problem.
Balancing the revitalization of
neighborhoods while reducing the risk of
displacement of low-income families poses
a challenge for city officials and housing
practitioners. In this study, we present
strategies used by nonprofit organizations,
for-profit developers, and city agencies to
ensure low- to-moderate-income residents
can live in revitalizing and gentrifying
neighborhoods. We present strategies used
in the following neighborhoods in 2003:
Bartlett Park (St. Petersburg, Florida), Oak
Park (Sacramento, California),
Reynoldstown (Atlanta, Georgia), Figueroa
Corridor (Los Angeles, California), Central
Area (Seattle, Washington), and Uptown
(Chicago, Illinois).
The types of strategies used to prevent
displacement are influenced by a number of
factors, including intensity of the housing
market, local political climate and local
organizational capacity. Through the case
studies, we consider the impact of timing on
strategy selection and implementation to
untangle whether certain approaches work
better in different housing-market contexts.
Gentrification and Revitalization
For the purposes of this study, we define
gentrification as the process whereby
higher-income households move into lowincome
neighborhoods, escalating the
area’s property values to the point that
displacement occurs. In addition to changes
in economic class, gentrification often
involves a change in a neighborhood’s

2 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
racial and ethnic composition, which can
further alter an area’s characteristics,
potentially leading to community tension.
Gentrification also involves investment in
previously neglected neighborhoods. Those
entities seeking to minimize displacement
associated with gentrification face the
challenge of encouraging neighborhood
investment without negatively affecting
residents who have weathered years of
neighborhood disinvestment.
We characterize the neighborhoods in this
study as being in an early, middle, or later
stage of gentrification in order to examine
the usefulness of strategies within the
context of the local housing market, and to
acknowledge the balance needed between
encouraging revitalization and managing
gentrification. Though there are no exact
thresholds for identifying different stages of
gentrification, the concept of stage is
important in regard to housing strategy
selection and success. Neighborhoods
showing signs of revitalization with the
possibility of future gentrification—evidence
of housing improvements and increased
housing prices in an area proximate to other
gentrifying neighborhoods—are
characterized as the early stage. Mid-stage
neighborhoods are those in which prices
have risen sharply, yet affordable housing
remains available along with some
developable land parcels. Communities at
the later stage of gentrification are those
where the housing prices have skyrocketed,
there is little affordable housing or few
developable parcels, and the demand for
profitable, market-rate housing
overshadows the needs of lower-income
households.
The Need for Affordable Housing
Though it is difficult to find data on
displacement, evidence of changes in the
housing market and the effect on
households is strong. Inflation-adjusted
home prices rose faster in 2001 than any
time since the late 1970s, and 2002 almost
matched that pace (Joint Center for Housing
Studies 2003). Roughly 40 percent of the
nation’s renter households spend 30
percent or more of their income on housing,
while 20 percent spend at least half their
income on housing. The picture is especially
dire for low-income households: almost half
(46 percent) spent 50 percent or more on
their housing in 2001 (Joint Center for
Housing Studies 2002).

Introduction 3
Defining Gentrification
There is no agreed-upon definition of gentrification, although the aspect of higher-income households
moving into lower-income neighborhoods is included in most versions. Urban geographer Ruth Glass first
coined the term gentrification to describe London neighborhoods in the 1960s. She defined it as the
process of middle- and upper-class households moving into distressed working-class neighborhoods,
upgrading the derelict housing stock, and eventually displacing the working-class residents, thereby
changing the social character of the neighborhood (Glass 1964).
Contemporary definitions reflect Glass’s description of class change. For instance, some observers
describe gentrification as the rehabilitation of working-class or derelict housing into housing for middleclass
residents, or as the process of higher-income households moving into neighborhoods that have
suffered from systematic outmigration, disinvestment, or neglect (Atkinson 2002, Wyly and Hammel
1999). Gentrification also has been described as the middle- and upper-class remake of the central city—
not just a residential phenomenon, but one that affects commercial and retail areas as well (Smith 1996).
Other observers include a racial component in their definition of gentrification—new, higher-income
residents are white and the incumbent, lower-income residents are racial or ethnic minorities. This change
can lead to tensions along racial or ethnic lines in the gentrified neighborhood (Kennedy and Leonard
2001).
Not all definitions of gentrification include the displacement of the incumbent, lower-income residents.
Some observers argue that displacement is not a necessary outcome of gentrification if original residents
cannot afford to move elsewhere or are attached to the neighborhood, or if higher-income households are
able to occupy vacant properties or move into newly constructed developments (Vigdor 2002).
Freeman and Braconi (2002) define different types of displacement that can occur due to gentrification.
“Direct displacement” occurs when a demographic or ethnic group succeeds another due specifically to a
process or program. Direct displacement was typical in the federal urban renewal programs during the
1950s and 1960s. “Secondary displacement” is the type of displacement most often of concern today:
low-income households relocate due to new development or gentrification in their neighborhood once
they can no longer afford to remain due to higher rents, appreciated taxes, tenant harassment, or the
withholding of services. Others refer to secondary displacement as “involuntary displacement” because
low-income households prefer to stay but cannot afford to (Kennedy and Leonard 2001). Marcuse (1986)
describes a third type of displacement, “exclusionary displacement,” where changes in a gentrified
neighborhood prevent future low-income households from locating there.
Rising housing costs increase the pressure
on existing affordable housing stock. Newly
constructed housing in strong markets tends
to target relatively higher-income
households as the size and amenities of
new homes increase. The conversion of
rental properties into condominiums also
increases the supply of upper-end housing

4 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
at the expense of potentially more
affordable rental units. Compounding the
affordable housing problem for very low
income families is the increasing role of the
private market in federally subsidized
housing. Under the federal HOPE VI
program, the number of public housing units
has decreased, placing more low-income
households into the subsidized and private
market, thereby increasing demand for
lower cost units. Another factor is the loss of
Section 8 housing as term requirements
expire and development owners opt out of
the program.
Altogether, these factors (and doubtless
others) have led to an increased need for
affordable housing units. The number of
such units has declined over the past 30
years from a surplus of 4 million units in
1973 to nearly 3 million in 1983 (National
Housing Task Force 1988). The Millennial
Housing Commission reported that housing
affordable to households with low to
moderate incomes continued to disappear
between 1985 and 1999 “at an alarming
pace” (Millennial Housing Commission
2002).
Income stagnation among poorer
households complicates the dwindling
number of affordable housing units. The
lowest 20 percent of the nation’s
households have experienced virtually no
economic gain since 1975; any slight gains
have been negated during economic
downturns (Joint Center for Housing Studies
2002). Evidence of the financial difficulties
faced by lower-income households is that
the national median housing wage is
$13.87—a wage earner would need to earn
this wage to afford rent on a two-bedroom
unit. This wage level is more than twice the
federal minimum wage (FMR) of $5.15 an
hour. On average, there must be more than
two full-time, minimum-wage workers in a
household to afford a two-bedroom home at
the FMR (National Low-Income Housing
Coalition 2002).
Low- and moderate-income households
face a number of challenges threatening
their housing options: robust housing
markets, stagnating wages, and the
gentrification of their neighborhoods. This
report highlights strategies used to help lowincome
families weather these challenges
and remain in their neighborhoods.
Study Methodology and Housing
Strategies
Methodology
We selected the six neighborhoods for this
study based on analysis of Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, U.S. Census
data, and telephone interviews with local
stakeholders. HMDA and Census data
provided information on city-level change as
indicated by the number of home sales, loan
amounts, and demographic changes. We
focused on cities that surpassed the
national average in home mortgage

Introduction 5
indicators (see Table 1 for the home
mortgage indicators for the six selected
cities). Through telephone interviews with
stakeholders, we confirmed whether
gentrification was occurring in the city, in
which neighborhoods, and how far along it
had progressed. We also asked about the
types of displacement-mitigation strategies
being implemented and their success, and
the political and organizational climate of
the city in regards to affordable housing
efforts. The telephone conversations helped
us select specific neighborhoods based
upon the following criteria: whether the
neighborhood was experiencing some level
of gentrification, whether any type of
affordable housing or asset building
strategies were in effect, and how
successful those strategies were perceived
to be. (See appendix 1 for an expanded
discussion of the site selection
methodology.)
Table 1: Home Mortgage Indicators for Case Study Cities
Selected Cities
% change in
real median
mortgage loan
% change in
housing
originations per
1,000 units
% change in
median
income of
buyer
Difference in
share of loans
to whites
1996–2001 1996–2001 1996–2001 1996–2001
Atlanta, GA 19.4 45.9 11.5 -0.3
Chicago, IL 26.8 30.4 19.9 4.2
Los Angeles, CA 15.2 50.4 19.6 4.9
Sacramento, CA 15.4 128.4 16.0 -3.6
Seattle, WA 33.2 39.4 24.3 0.0
St. Petersburg, FL 20.9 37.0 7.2 -1.3
National average 14.2 28.9 10.3 -2.8
Sources: 1996 and 2001 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data.

6 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
During visits to the selected neighborhoods
in the spring and summer of 2003, we
interviewed a variety of stakeholders who
were involved in and affected by the
strategy implementation. Each city applies a
variety of strategies to provide affordable
housing and address neighborhood change.
However, we selected the strategies for this
report based upon those prioritized by
respondents and our sense of what might
prove most useful for other practitioners.
Respondents included staff in city
departments who create or implement
affordable housing programs, nonprofit and
for-profit developers who build or rehab
affordable housing, nonprofit organizations
that advocate for affordable housing,
elected city officials who represent the
targeted neighborhood, and local business
owners.
Housing Strategies
Throughout this report, we refer to
affordable housing strategies. We group
strategies into three categories: housing
production, housing retention, and asset
building. (See Keeping the Neighborhood
Affordable: A Handbook of Housing
Strategies for Gentrifying Neighborhood for
a full explanation of strategies that fall into
each of the three categories.)
Strategies to Produce Affordable
Housing
Municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and
for-profit developers can mitigate
displacement of low- and moderate-income
households by building new affordable
units. Three tools or strategies encourage
the development of affordable housing—
Housing Trust Funds, inclusionary zoning
ordinances, and the federal Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit. Additionally, a split-rate
tax structure and tax-increment financing
can support housing production, although
their primary functions are not the
development of affordable housing per se.
Developing affordable housing has its
challenges. First, there must be available
space or land in gentrifying areas.
Neighborhoods seemingly without space
need to use creative tactics to free up land
for development, such as altering zoning
regulations or converting vacant properties
into developable parcels. Another challenge
is that new developments often leave out
very low income households.
Homeownership is not feasible for the very
poor due to financial insecurity or poor
credit ratings, and many unsubsidized rental
developments target slightly higher income
groups so that the projects will be financially
feasible.
Another challenge is attracting affordable
development after the cost of land
increases. The conundrum of many of the
strategies described in this report is that it
often takes foresight and political will to
create incentives or pass regulations to
build affordable housing before the need
becomes pressing and costs soar. Once a

Introduction 7
housing market accelerates and the need
for affordable housing becomes more
apparent, production becomes more difficult
due to the higher housing costs and more
profitable development alternatives.
A final challenge for the development of
affordable rental or homeownership units is
the term of affordability. Most units built for
low- and moderate-income households are
required to remain affordable only for a set
period of time. Once affordability
requirements sunset on a project, the need
for additional affordable housing will return.
It should be noted that producing affordable
housing in gentrifying areas will not
necessarily permit low-income households
to remain in their current units. What
housing development can do, however, is
provide affordable alternatives to
involuntarily displaced households,
potentially even within the same
neighborhood, by building affordable
housing stock for current and future lowand
moderate-income residents.
Strategies to Retain Affordable
Housing
Strategies to retain affordable housing help
maintain existing affordable units, thereby
preventing resident displacement and
ensuring the future availability of such
housing. Retention strategies target privatemarket
and publicly subsidized rental
housing, as well as privately owned
housing. The strategies include code
enforcement; rent control; preservation of
federally subsidized affordable housing,
such as Section 236 and project-based
Section 8; and tax relief and assistance.
The diverse strategies share a number of
implementation concerns. Effective
community organizing is necessary across
the strategies. Whether they involve the
enforcement of existing laws or lobbying
property owners or government officials,
most of the retention strategies will not
succeed in reducing displacement if the
people affected by the possible housing loss
are not organized and motivated to act on
their own behalf.
The strategies also involve city, state, or
federal regulations in some way. Where
laws related to the strategies already exist,
the focus of action will be on
implementation. Where the laws do not
exist, efforts might focus on lobbying
legislators on the need for supportive laws.
Either way, the retention strategies require
knowledge of related laws and of how the
laws tend to be implemented locally. For
this reason, it is helpful for tenant groups
and community-based organizations to work
together closely.
Strategies to Build Resident
Assets
Asset-building strategies aim to help lowincome
individuals accumulate wealth.
These strategies have increased in
popularity due to the strength of the housing
and financial markets, in addition to
changes in welfare policy that have allowed
for increased asset limits. Previously,

8 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
welfare policy required aid recipients to
spend down any financial resources in order
to qualify for welfare (Sherraden 1991).
Policymakers from across the political
spectrum have shown support for assetbuilding
programs because they are
designed to aid low- and moderate-income
individuals move to economic selfsufficiency
(Weber and Smith 2001).
There are six primary asset-building
strategies: individual development accounts
(IDAs), homeownership education and
counseling, limited equity housing co-ops
(LEHCs), community land trusts (CLTs),
location efficient mortgages (LEMs), and the
Section 8 homeownership program.
Although the strategies differ in program
implementation and structure, they all seek
to increase the assets of low-income
households that are vulnerable to
neighborhood economic cycles. The
strategies focus both on place (affordable
housing and land use) and people (job
training and postsecondary education), and
thus have the potential to increase resident
stability and to promote equitable
development in gentrifying communities.
The majority of these programs require
coordination among many key players such
as nonprofits, community members,
participants, financial institutions, and
government agencies.
Findings
There are a number of strategy-based
findings that we draw from the case studies.
Though the sites differ from one another in
many ways, together they suggest lessons
that can inform most efforts to mitigate
gentrification-related displacement.
Housing production. Each site, regardless of
housing market strength, engaged in the
production of affordable housing units. The
particular strategy, or the way in which a
strategy is implemented, differs from site to
site, but as a category of strategies,
production appears to be key. This is due in
part to the challenges of retaining affordable
housing, such as acquiring properties that
are occupied or extending participation in
subsidy programs, such as Section 8. It is
also related to the need to increase the
number of affordable units (or at least
maintain parity). Timing affects
implementation in terms of land availability,
and land and development costs. The
stronger the housing market, the more
constrained options will be and more likely
that mixed financing will be necessary to
complete new housing.
Housing retention. Strategies to retain
existing affordable housing stock were also
implemented in most of the study sites.
Efforts usually target individual properties of
incumbent residents in neighborhoods with
weaker housing markets so that their homes
do not fall into disrepair. In stronger

Introduction 9
markets, retention strategies can shift to a
focus on purchasing larger affordable
properties, such as property-based Section
8 buildings, to prevent owners from
converting housing to market-rate stock.
Asset building. Efforts to increase the
assets of low-income households play a
complementary role to other strategies, but
in themselves the strategies are unlikely to
have a neighborhood-level impact on
displacement mitigation. IDA and
homeownership programs can benefit
individual participants, however. While
programs can be implemented in any
housing market context, program outcomes
will be affected by housing market strength.
High housing costs in strong markets will
limit the ability of program participants to
purchase a home or use liquid assets for
other house-related purposes.
Organization of the Report
We present the six case studies in order of
housing market strength and reported
gentrification. We start with neighborhoods
showing signs of revitalization on through
neighborhoods with increasingly strong
gentrification pressures. In the final chapter,
we discuss findings on relationships
between stage of gentrification and strategy
selection and implementation. We also
discuss related crosscutting findings.
Appendix 1 includes a thorough discussion
of our site selection methodology. A
companion piece, Keeping the
Neighborhood Affordable: A Handbook of
Housing Strategies for Gentrifying
Neighborhoods, provides a detailed
literature review of strategies used to
produce and retain affordable housing, and
to increase low-income families’ assets to
afford increased housing costs.

10 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
2
section
CASE STUDIES
T
hrough six case studies we present a variety of strategies used to address affordable
housing needs in neighborhoods at different stages of gentrification. We have ordered
the case studies from neighborhoods in the earliest stages of revitalization/gentrification
to those in advanced stages of gentrification. In each case study, we highlight one or two
strategies, providing a detailed account of why a strategy was chosen, how it was implemented,
strategy outcomes, and implementation challenges. We also include brief descriptions of
additional strategies used in each community to address affordable housing needs. The
following chart presents an overview of the cities, neighborhoods, and housing strategies.
Table 2: Affordable Housing Strategy Overview by City (2003)
Site
Stage:
revitalization/
gentrification
Key strategies
Additional
strategies
Neighborhood
organization
Bartlett Park
St. Petersburg, FL
Oak Park
Sacramento, CA
Reynoldstown
Atlanta, GA
Figueroa Corridor
Los Angeles, CA
Central Area
Seattle, WA
Uptown
Chicago, IL
Early
Early
Middle
(early)
Middle
(late)
Late
(early)
Late
Housing
rehabilitation
Infill development
Vacant property
redevelopment
Housing
rehabilitation
Affordable
housing
production
Housing Trust
Fund
Infill development
Housing levy
Voluntary
inclusionary
zoning
Zoning changes
Economic
development
Housing Trust
Fund
Homebuyer
programs
IDA Program
Community
building
Code
enforcement
Rent stabilization
Land trust
Home repair
Regulation
reviews
Employment
Nonprofit
retention
strategies
Tax assistance
Active
organizations
Active
organizations
Active
organizations
Active
organizations
Active residents
Active
organization
Moderate resident
involvement
Active
organizations
Active residents

Case Studies 11
Early Stages of Neighborhood Revitalization/Gentrification
When a lower-income neighborhood begins to experience revitalization after years or decades
of being overlooked by developers and the city, focus tends to stay on ways to increase
investment rather than on preserving or increasing affordable housing. Affordable housing is
one asset such neighborhoods tend to have in abundance. It is difficult to raise issues of future
affordable housing needs when the issue is not pressing. Waiting until there is a problem,
however, can lead to its own set of difficulties. Bartlett Park in St. Petersburg, FL, and Oak Park
in Sacramento, CA, offer interesting case studies of how to think about, and what to do, in a
neighborhood that is not showing signs of gentrification but might in the future. These
neighborhoods raise questions of how soon attention should be paid to affordable housing
needs in an area still affordable though changing, and whether strategies can be employed that
promote both revitalization and neighborhood stability and affordability.

12 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
ST. PETERSBURG, FL
BARTLETT PARK
Key strategies: housing rehabilitation and infill development
Other strategies: zoning changes, economic development
City and Neighborhood
St. Petersburg, located on the peninsula
between the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay
in Pinellas County, is the fourth largest city
in Florida, with a population of
approximately 240,000 (Census CD
Neighborhood Change Database) (see
Table 3 at the end of the case study). With
new construction and rehabilitation of
existing structures occurring in a number of
areas of the city, most people agree that St.
Petersburg is revitalizing. Downtown is
pointed to with pride because of the
changes that continue to occur there,
including a number of new restaurants,
galleries, condominiums, and town houses.
Geography is an important factor in the
city’s development. St. Petersburg is
bordered by water on three sides, and the
fourth side to the north is considered built
out. Without room to expand, the city has
experienced considerable revitalization in
older neighborhoods since the mid-1990s. A
number of residential neighborhoods have
rehabilitated the housing stock and
experienced increases in property values.
Vacancy rates dropped between 1990 and
2000, with the greatest change occurring in
the rental market. Homeowner units
predominate in the city, where well over half
of occupied units are owner-occupied
(Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database).
The city is divided into two sectors: north
and south of Central Avenue. Two factors
helped draw attention to neighborhoodbased
needs in St. Petersburg’s poorer
southern sector. In the 1993 election, the
incumbent mayor ran on a platform that
included strong neighborhood support in
response to the frustration of residents from
lower-income neighborhoods with the city’s
focus on downtown revitalization. After
winning the election, the mayor established
a Neighborhood Partnership office and
pledged to implement neighborhood plans,
which focused on improvements such as
sidewalk repair, lighting and landscaping,
neighborhood signage, and increased police
presence, within a six-month timeframe.
Funding was made available to
neighborhood groups through competitive
grants.
Second, in the fall of 1996, riots occurred
after police shot an African American
motorist in the area that later would be
named Midtown. Following the unrest the
mayor convened community leaders to
address the needs in the so-called

St. Petersburg, FL 13
“Challenge Area.” This area included most
of the low-income areas of the city. One of
the goals identified was that of community
renewal through focusing on housing and
homeownership, and the reduction of
vacant and boarded units. The initial focus
for action was on developing solid
infrastructure and working on beautification
to attract investors. After assuming office in
2001, current mayor Baker changed the
area’s name to “Midtown.”
The focus neighborhood for this case
study—Bartlett Park—is located in Midtown.
For decades Bartlett Park was the seasonal
home to “winter snowbirds” and, on a more
permanent basis, predominantly white,
lower-middle income households. Today,
most of the neighborhood’s 4,000 residents
are lower-income African Americans. The
racial and ethnic makeup of the
neighborhood has held fairly steady since
1990. African Americans continue to make
up almost all of the neighborhood’s
population, while the percentage of white
residents declined slightly from 9 to 7
percent (Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database). Midtown, the broader area in
which Bartlett Park is situated, has long
been considered the poor part of town.
Although Midtown’s unemployment rate
dropped between 1990 and 2001 from 11 to
7 percent, the rate was still higher than the
city’s overall rate of three percent (RMPK
Group, Inc. 2002). Both Bartlett Park and
Midtown lost population during the 1990s by
9 and 16 percent, respectively (Census CD
Neighborhood Change Database).
Bartlett Park is bordered to the north and
east by a hospital complex and the
University of South Florida, both of which
continue to expand. The marina and Dali
Museum are points of attraction to the east
as well. A new shopping center is planned
south of Bartlett Park, and the city is taking
proposals for a 16-acre industrial parcel
located to the northwest of Midtown.
Tropicana Field, home to the Tampa Bay
Devil Rays, is located north of the
neighborhood. In addition to the institutional
and commercial development nearby, the
area is bounded by neighborhoods that
have already experienced improvements in
housing stock and increases in house
values. Areas to the west are already
showing signs of property value increases,
and an upscale town house development is
under construction on the northern border.
Bartlett Park was one of the first
neighborhoods in the early 1990s to
develop a neighborhood plan that was
approved by the city. The city provided a
grant for $100,000 of infrastructure
improvements. Whether due to
neighborhood efforts, proximity to nearby
revitalizing neighborhoods and St.
Petersburg attractions, or the overall
economy, Bartlett Park’s housing market is
showing signs of change. The average
housing value of owner-occupied units
increased 4 percent, lower than the citywide
increase of 9 percent during the last decade
(Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database). According to one respondent,
Bartlett Park has had one of the highest

14 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
rates of property value increase in the city
during the last few years, however. The
area is beginning to attract younger
residents and older white households, and
new housing is being marketed to slightly
higher-income households than would have
been the case in the past. Census data
indicate a dramatic 43 percent increase in
the average household income between
1990 and 2000 compared to the citywide
increase of a much smaller 9 percent.
Another indication of change is fewer
residents are paying a large proportion of
their incomes on rent—Bartlett Park had an
11 percent decrease in the percent of
renters who pay more than 35 percent of
their income toward rent, a greater drop
than the 4 percent decrease citywide
(Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database).
Some people talk about Bartlett Park in
terms of it being “squeezed” or pushed by
the surrounding changes. In addition to the
external factors, there are pressures
affecting change from within the area and
neighborhood, not least of which is that
Bartlett Park is viewed as one of the better
neighborhoods within Midtown in terms of
housing conditions and poverty rate, making
it more attractive to developers and
potential residents. Renovations to existing
houses also have drawn attention to the
neighborhood’s bungalows.
The availability of lots for development has
started to attract private developers to
Bartlett Park and Midtown in general. The
increased competition has already led to
increases in land prices. Vacant lots that
used to sell for $3,000 are selling for
between $7,000 and $10,000. As land costs
increase, the cost of new construction and
home sales has followed, reducing nonprofit
developers’ ability to provide new housing.
Another factor affecting prices is that more
owners are holding onto properties for
investment purposes because of the
University and hospital’s demand for land.
Stage of Gentrification
There is consensus among respondents
that Bartlett Park and other areas of
Midtown are beginning to revitalize.
According to city staff, 10 years ago the
county devalued Midtown properties up to
30 percent because there had been too few
real estate transactions on which to base
valuations. Since then, values have more or
less regained the lost ground. While much
of the housing stock, small wood-frame
houses built between the 1920s and 1950s,
is still considered dilapidated, it is showing
signs of coming back. The majority of
houses have been converted to rental units
over time (65 percent rental compared with
30–35 percent for the city). Midtown still has
vacant lots and boarded houses, so as
other parts of the city are built out and
housing prices rise in neighboring areas,
attention is turning to Midtown and Bartlett
Park, and property values are beginning to

St. Petersburg, FL 15
increase. With the available land and the
loss in population, there is room to grow.
When asked when the time might come that
the area would face an affordable housing
problem, most people estimated five years.
Even though there was some agreement on
the timeframe, there were differences of
opinion on whether affordable housing
should be on the neighborhood’s and the
city’s agenda at this point in time, well
before a supply problem exists.
The response to that concern might well
depend upon whether a future decrease in
affordable housing would be considered a
problem. Some respondents talked about
the inevitability of a future problem with
affordable housing and displacement
because of the changes occurring in the
surrounding areas that are “closing in on”
Bartlett Park in particular. One person
pointed out that if the economy and wages
do not improve but land prices continue to
increase, incumbent residents’ ability to
afford housing will decline. The problem is
not yet visible, but it does exist. Once it
becomes visible, it will be too late by some
people’s estimation. Given increasing costs
and geography, there will be fewer housing
and neighborhood options for lower-income
households. Not everyone shares this
perspective, however. Other respondents
believe that change in Bartlett Park will
occur more slowly than it has in other
neighborhoods. And, given the affordable
housing stock available in adjacent Midtown
neighborhoods, residents from Bartlett Park
will be able to find housing as prices
increase.
Key Strategies—Housing Rehabilitation
and Infill Development
Housing practitioners use owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation and infill development
to address housing needs and catalyze
revitalization in Bartlett Park. These
strategies aid in revitalizing the area as well
as work against future displacement through
maintaining and increasing the affordable
housing stock. Both strategies are used
across the city, though there is greater
focus on the neighborhoods in Midtown due
to the condition of the area’s housing stock
and the history of disinvestment. The
following sections describe how these two
strategies operate and the challenges
practitioners face in implementing them.
Housing Rehabilitation
The primary objective of housing
rehabilitation is to retain incumbent
residents while improving the housing stock.
Through repairing roofs, updating plumbing
and electrical systems of owner-occupied
houses, long-time residents, especially
elderly residents, will be able to remain in
their homes for a longer period of time.
Their presence can help prevent a decline
in the area’s homeownership rate and can
provide stability to Midtown neighborhoods.
There are both nonprofit and city programs
engaged in housing rehabilitation efforts.

16 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Funding for owner-occupied rehabilitation
comes from city, state, federal, and private
sources such as the city’s Working to
Improve our Neighborhoods (WIN) program,
State Housing Initiatives Partnership
Program (SHIP), the federal Community
Development Block Grant program, and
federal HOME funds. Nonprofit
organizations convinced the city to direct
more of its owner-occupied rehabilitation
funds to the Midtown area.
WIN funds are often used for roof repair,
plumbing, and electrical work. The city
increased the project-funding cap per
project in order to complete significant
rehabilitation on a unit in the face of cost
increases. The cap has been raised from
$40,000 to approximately $60,000.
Rehabilitation funds are disbursed either as
loans or as forgiven loans. The city ended
the practice of offering rehab funds as
deferred loans because of difficulties some
owners faced when selling a house of
relatively low property value with deferred
debt.
Neighborhood Housing Services, a
community-based organization in Midtown,
has been able to rehabilitate approximately
10 to 12 houses a year in the Bartlett
Park/Midtown areas. A partnership
established with Bank of America will be a
source of funding for owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation. Mt. Zion, a
community housing development
organization, or ChoDO, also completes an
average of 10 housing rehabilitation projects
a year. Across St. Petersburg, the city has
supported 1,531 rehabilitation projects of
single-family housing since 1997 (RMPK
Group, Inc. 2002).
Challenges for Rehabilitation
One of the main challenges in rehabilitating
old houses is staying within budget.
Respondents said it is difficult to know
beforehand exactly what work is needed
until they get started. Deciding which work
to do after discovering additional needs is
difficult, but finances are limited. Housing
rehabilitation can be successful when the
following factors are taken into account:
identify one or a small number of
contractors who are reliable, stable, and do
quality work; work with trusted contractors
exclusively; and hire capable staff who can
prepare clear work descriptions for
contractors, monitor projects well, and keep
them within budget.
Infill Development
The city, private developers, and nonprofit
developers rely on infill development to turn
vacant lots and abandoned buildings
scattered throughout Midtown into
developable land parcels and habitable
properties in a city otherwise built out. The
large number of vacant lots across Midtown
encourages infill development—one
respondent noted that there are 3,000–
4,000 vacant lots, along with 300–500
vacant, boarded-up houses on the city’s list

St. Petersburg, FL 17
of properties in Midtown. The city also offers
properties for sale to nonprofits at a
discounted price to encourage
development. The WIN program acquires
boarded-up properties through code
enforcement and demolition. The city also
has 50–100 lots available for private
developers to purchase, ranging from
$8,000 to $15,000 in Midtown. To date, the
majority of infill housing development is
single-family detached houses.
Infill development benefits incumbent
residents by increasing the number of
quality houses for sale, potentially turning
former renters into homeowners.
Homeowners will be less affected by
increases in housing prices than if they
remained renters. It can also serve to
increase the population of Midtown by
attracting new residents.
There are two primary nonprofit
organizations that develop housing in
Midtown neighborhoods. Mt. Zion develops
housing for households earning at or less
than 80 percent of the area median income.
It acquires old or otherwise abandoned
houses to demolish, then rebuilds on the lot.
To date, Mt. Zion has completed 50 units of
housing in Midtown, averaging 10 a year.
The director commented that the increasing
competition for land in the area, along with
dwindling number of available lots, is
decreasing the number of units the
organization will be able to build as private
developers do more.
Neighborhood Housing Services, another
organization that focuses on housing
development and homeownership, has
formed a limited liability partnership with
Bank of America to build 50 houses
throughout the Bartlett Park neighborhood.
It also hopes to receive a grant to fund
construction and purchase assistance for 37
properties in Midtown, 35 of which would be
located in Bartlett Park.
Private developers are also active in
Midtown building affordable housing. There
are approximately 10 companies active in
St. Petersburg and Midtown at present,
which according to one developer should
enable Midtown to rebuild more quickly.
The nonprofit and private developers have
made an impact. Vacant and boarded
properties in Midtown have decreased 50
percent between 1998 and 2001, to 391.
Since then such properties have further
been reduced to 180. Public investment in
Midtown since 1997 includes 383 new
housing units and homeowner assistance
for 170 clients (RMPK Group, Inc. 2002).
Implementation Challenges
One challenge in building new houses in
neighborhoods with old stock and few sales
is getting appraisals for the initial sale.
Resale can also be challenging because the
new house will be priced much higher than
surrounding properties.
Infill development is practical for Bartlett
Park and the broader Midtown area, but the
pace of revitalization through this approach

18 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
can be slow. Because vacant land parcels
are scattered, it is difficult to build more than
one house at a time, which the nonprofit
organizations and city would like to do.
Respondents hope new housing itself will
spark additional investments.
Another challenge is that the city and some
developers would like to build more
condominiums and town houses, but such
projects are difficult politically because of
resident opposition to new multifamily
developments. Respondents believe the
opposition will change, but for now, infill
development mostly is restricted to singlefamily
houses.
Having a supportive city government can
make a difference in the cost and schedule
of new housing production. Respondents
believe the current city government is
responsive to business and housing needs,
and they give it credit for being flexible in
responding to changing circumstances.
Additional Strategies
Zoning Changes
St. Petersburg is revising its Land Development Regulations to allow greater flexibility in development
across the city, including mixed-use developments and increased density. Current zoning regulations
were established in the 1970s and reflected suburban realities of larger lot sizes: new construction has
had to abide by the required 75-foot frontage. Houses in older areas of town, including Bartlett Park, have
50-foot frontages. To build a new house in areas with smaller lots, builders have had to request a zoning
variance, which slows the pace of building, or acquire two lots for one new house, which reduces the
number of houses. While the revised zoning regulations will apply across the city, the benefits to Midtown
are significant, in light of the current housing stock and mismatch between the lot sizes and current
zoning regulations.
Economic Development
Many respondents view economic development as an important component of housing affordability and
revitalization. The city hopes to spark revitalization by being the first to invest in economic development in
many areas across the city. By providing early support, other business and residential investors will
follow. Economic development is necessary early in the revitalization process because it will allow
incumbent residents to increase their earnings, thereby reducing the chance that lower-income people will
get caught in a cycle of being displaced to lower cost areas as neighborhoods change and housing
values increase.

St. Petersburg, FL 19
Conclusion
Bartlett Park and Midtown are beginning to
experience revitalization. At present,
housing practitioners focus on developing
and maintaining affordable housing to
address current needs and to take
advantage of opportunities available due to
the lack of gentrification pressures. Factors
such as the available and affordable land
parcels make infill development and
housing rehabilitation attractive strategies to
use. Were the community experiencing
stronger market-rate housing pressures,
affordable infill development likely would
give way to, or at least be more difficult
because of, revitalization targeting higherincome
households.
These early revitalization efforts might very
well help reduce any future displacement in
the area if and when gentrification
pressures materialize. City, nonprofit, and
private developers are increasing the
number of affordable houses in the area,
increasing homeownership rates, and
improving housing conditions for current
residents so they can remain in their
homes—all factors that lend stability to the
area while also increasing investment. The
city’s commitment to improving the Midtown
area makes most respondents hopeful that
change will come about in a positive
manner.
Most respondents talked about the
interconnection between housing and
economic development—that both needs
should be addressed simultaneously in
order to improve the lives of incumbent
residents and to attract new residents to
Midtown. If economic development is
carried out in a way that increases
employment and earnings opportunities for
current residents, then the dual approach
for revitalization can strengthen the hand of
residents so that they are less likely to be
displaced as housing prices continue to rise.

20 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Population
Table 3: St. Petersburg, FL and Bartlett Park
City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990-2000
Year City total Bartlett Park
Population 1990 240,800 4,300
2000 250,300 3,900
% change population 1990–2000 3.9 -9.3
% black non-Hispanic 1990 19.2 89.5
2000 22.6 89.5
% white non-Hispanic 1990 76.4 9.3
2000 69.7 6.9
% other race non-Hispanic 1990 2.1 0.5
2000 3.6 0.8
% Hispanic 1990 2.3 0.8
2000 4.2 2.7
Income and poverty
Average family income (in 1999 dollars) 1990 52,500 22,400
2000 57,300 32,300
Poverty rate 1990 13.5 37.2
2000 13.2 41.2
Employment
Unemployment rate 1990 5.2 13.8
Housing conditions
2000 5.2 12.7
Occupied housing units 1990 106,900 1,600
2000 110,500 1,400
Total rental units 1990 44,800 1,200
2000 42,400 1,000
Rental vacancy rate 1990 13.7 21.9
2000 8.9 19.3
% housing units owner-occupied 1990 63.8 41.7
2000 65.0 44.7
Average value owner-occupied housing units (in 2000
dollars) 1990 106,000 50,400
2000 115,800 52,600
% of renters paying > 35% of income on rent 1990 34.6 49.4
2000 31.2 38.1

St. Petersburg, FL 21
Home mortgage indicators
Total number of mortgages originated/1,000 housing units a Avg. (95, 96) 29.6 14.0
Avg. (00, 01) 22.1 14.8
% change in number of mortgages originated, 1995/96–
2000/2001 a -25.3 5.7
Dollar value of mortgages originated/ housing unit a Avg. (95, 96) 2,534 670
Avg. (00, 01) 2,399 820
% change in dollar value of mortgages originated, 1995/96–
2000/2001 a -5 22
Average value of mortgages originated
(1–4-unit structures) a Avg. (95, 96) 85,600 47,700
Avg. (00, 01) 108,600 55,400
% change in average value of mortgages originated,
1995/96–2000/2001 a 26.9 16.1
Source: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban Institute’s Neighborhood
Change Database (NCDB) based on 1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses.
Note: Data for Bartlett Park are analyzed using census tract 12103020500.
a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the Urban Institute.
Dollar amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

22 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
SACRAMENTO, CA
OAK PARK
Key strategy: vacant property redevelopment
Other strategies: Housing Trust Fund, homeownership programs
City and Neighborhood
Sacramento, the capital of the nation’s most
populous state, experienced rapid growth in
employment, income, and population during
the 1990s. The city’s reasonable cost of
living and supply of affordable housing have
attracted businesses away from neighboring
high-cost areas, such as the Bay Area.
Sacramento’s population increased 10
percent between 1990 and 2000, climbing
to almost 400,000 people (Census CD
Neighborhood Change Database) (see
Table 4 at the end of the case study). An
influx of businesses located in Sacramento
around the same time, including Hewlett-
Packard, Company NEC, Apple Computers,
and Oracle.
Business and population growth have
contributed to the rise of property values in
Sacramento. Home purchases, as
measured by mortgage originations,
increased here more than in any other of
the top 100 largest cities in the country
between 1996 and 2001, while mortgage
loan amounts increased at about the same
rate as the national average during the
same time period.
Oak Park, one of Sacramento’s oldest
communities, is beginning to experience
changes in its housing market as well. The
neighborhood is located southeast of
downtown, adjacent to Tahoe Park, a
middle-income community. Oak Park began
as a farming community in the mid-1800s.
The area developed into Sacramento’s first
suburban, middle-class neighborhood by
the early 1900s. The community started to
decline in the 1930s when homeowners,
affected first by the Depression and then
World War II, were no longer able to
maintain their properties. In response to a
subsequent housing shortage, many owners
divided their homes into rental units. By the
mid-1940s, residents were leaving Oak Park
for newer suburbs with inexpensive homes,
which led to further deterioration of the
neighborhood’s economic and social
conditions. By the late 1960s, housing and
commercial properties were in serious
decline and the neighborhood was marked
by vacant lots and poor infrastructure. The
Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Sacramento established Oak Park as a
redevelopment area in 1973, which it
remains today. The designation allows the
agency to target its activities to the area.

Sacramento, CA 23
The Oak Park neighborhood today is
described as a diverse, densely populated,
low-income residential area intersected by
commercial streets. During the 1990s, the
population grew about 7 percent, driven
primarily by an increase in Latino residents.
Latinos make up approximately one-third of
the neighborhood, whites one-quarter and
African Americans 20 percent (Census CD
Neighborhood Change Database).
Incomes in Oak Park rose slightly during the
1990s. The average family income in Oak
Park increased by 5 percent, while the
percent of renters in Oak Park paying more
than 35 percent of their income for rent – a
proxy for housing hardship -- decreased
from 53 percent of the renters to 41 percent
(Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database).
The majority of Oak Park residents are
renters; absentee landlords own a
significant percentage of the rental housing.
According to respondents, the Oak Park
neighborhood has a fair share of lowincome
housing, much of which is not well
maintained. Oak Park does have its
attractions. It is close to William Land Park,
a multipurpose park with picnic facilities, a
golf course, and tennis courts. The
neighborhood is also home to the
Sacramento Zoo, the UC–Davis Medical
Center, McGeorge Law School, and a local
bakery.
A number of community groups, churches,
nonprofits, and coalitions are active within
the neighborhood. These groups include
Kevin Johnson’s St. Hope Corporation
(SHDC), ACORN, Habitat for Humanity, city
council member Lauren Hammond’s
Renaissance Project, Rebuilding Together,
and Building Unity. Many faith-based
organizations, especially in Oak Park, are
active in building homeownership
opportunities in lower-income communities.
Redevelopment efforts by the Sacramento
Housing & Redevelopment Agency (SHRA),
nonprofits, and community organizations
within the neighborhood include housing
renovations, street and sidewalk
improvements, and promotion of
commercial investment.
Former NBA star Kevin Johnson’s
involvement in the Oak Park community has
been influential in the redevelopment
efforts. Johnson, an Oak Park native, has
been involved with revitalizing the
neighborhood since his first year in the
NBA. In 1989, he founded St. Hope
Academy, an intensive after-school
language arts and math program. Johnson
has since expanded St. Hope and its
revitalization efforts in Oak Park. According
to respondents, Johnson’s involvement in
the neighborhood has provided motivation
for revitalization efforts. The St. Hope
Development Corporation transformed a
20,000 square foot complex into a
commercially viable mixed-use property.
The new development, 40 Acres, includes a
bookstore, art gallery, barbershop,
restaurant, Starbucks, and loft apartments.
SHRA loans and grants in addition to SHDC
dollars funded the project. SHDC has also

24 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
been involved with preserving and restoring
other buildings in Oak Park.
In general, Sacramento has a strong
network of advocacy organizations and a
broad-based coalition of housing leaders.
The Sacramento Housing Alliance (SHA) is
a membership organization composed of
over 65 community agencies concerned
with housing-related issues. SHA focuses
on preserving and producing more
affordable housing through public
education, public policy targeting the needs
of lower income people, and advocacy. SHA
members include nonprofit and for-profit
affordable housing developers, service
providers, various constituency groups, and
residents.
According to respondents, council member
Dave Jones has played a major role in
placing affordable housing issues on the
political agenda. In addition, developers, the
SHRA, and city/county planning are all key
players in affordable housing policy. It must
be noted some respondents stated that a
lack of political will among local elected
officials for affordable housing has been a
challenge in the city of Sacramento.
Stage of Gentrification
Oak Park is in the early stage of
gentrification. The neighborhood has begun
to experience a resurgence over the past
couple years due to the strong housing
market citywide, the neighborhood’s
proximity to downtown’s art and
entertainment amenities and places of
employment for many workers in the region,
and the amenities located within Oak Park
itself. Residents facing long commutes are
moving closer to their places of
employment, including neighborhoods close
to downtown such as Oak Park. Although
property values are increasing in Oak Park,
inexpensive housing is still available. Those
who cannot afford to live in many areas of
Sacramento are gradually moving into the
Oak Park because housing is less
expensive.
It is unclear whether gentrification will gain
momentum, reducing the amount of
affordable housing and displacing lowincome
residents in large numbers. People
have noticed an increase in first-time
homebuyers moving into the community,
along with longer-term households moving
out. However, the magnitude of this
movement is not clear. Some people
believe that the recent boom in the housing
market will encourage absentee
homeowners to sell their properties now that
there is a viable market in Oak Park. The
neighborhood’s proximity to other
gentrifying communities may also possibly
lead to intensified gentrification efforts.
However, ongoing problems with safety,
crime, and drugs make the neighborhood an
undesirable area for some development and
higher-income residents.

Sacramento, CA 25
Key Strategies—Vacant Property
Redevelopment and Vacant Lot
Development
Key strategies used in Oak Park to promote
revitalization and maintain affordable
housing include rehabilitation through the
Boarded and Vacant Homes Program and
infill development through the Vacant Lot
Development program. Both programs
target the acquisition and redevelopment of
vacant properties, and both serve to
increase the stock of affordable housing
while bringing investment to the
neighborhood.
Revitalization efforts in the Oak Park
community have brought together
community groups, churches, nonprofits,
and the city council member to work
together and address the abundance of
vacant lots and buildings in the community
and the low rate of homeownership. These
community groups were able to push
policies that address urban infill by
transforming vacant lots and abandoned
buildings into affordable housing
opportunities for residents. The SHRA, as a
partner, has been instrumental in
redevelopment efforts in the neighborhood.
Boarded and Vacant Homes
Program (BVHP)
Established in 1997, the Boarded and
Vacant Homes Program (BVHP) arose from
the need to provide incentives for the
rehabilitation and development of singlefamily
boarded and vacant homes in the city
and county of Sacramento. Boarded and
vacant properties have led to problems in
SHRA redevelopment areas. According to
respondents, the vacancies have come
about in part due to the city’s stringent code
enforcement. The city tried to purchase and
rehabilitate the properties, but this proved
too cumbersome. Instead, the SHRA moved
to an incentive-based system, the BVHP, to
attract developers to rehabilitate and
develop these properties, and then sell
them to low-income households.
Through BVHP, developers receive a
$10,000 fee for properties in target areas,
$15,000 in redevelopment areas, and
$20,000 in the Oak Park redevelopment
area, for the acquisition and rehabilitation of
a single-family boarded and vacant home.
Homes eligible for the BVHP require a
minimum of $15,000 of rehabilitation or
must be listed on the city’s Dangerous
Buildings Inspector Cases Report. The
developer must provide the acquisition and
rehabilitation financing. The Sacramento
Housing and Redevelopment Agency runs
the BVHP program and allocates the
developer fees. Homes must be sold to an
owner-occupant and income limits apply to
the buyer due to the funding source. The
developer receives the fee after final
inspection by the SHRA and the sale of the
home to a homebuyer.
In a five-year period between 1997 and
2002, more than 115 homes were acquired
citywide through BVHP and 101 were sold
to owner-occupants. In total, 119 properties
have been acquired, rehabilitated, and sold

26 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
to low- and moderate-income homebuyers.
Of the 119 homes, 24 have been completed
in Oak Park with two pending.
The Vacant Lot Development
Program (VLDP)
The Vacant Lot Development Program
(VLDP) is intended to encourage the
acquisition and development of unimproved
single-family vacant lots in the North
Sacramento, Oak Park, and Walnut Grove
redevelopment areas. VLDP is modeled
after the BVHP program, and is similar to it
in that it targets difficult properties on
scattered sites, provides a developer fee
upon completion of a project, and sets a
regulatory agreement against the property
to guarantee long-term owner-occupancy
and affordability.
The Vacant Lot Development Program
(VLDP) arose from the need to address the
long-term difficulties connected with vacant
lots, low owner-occupancy rate, and the
lack of large homes in the North
Sacramento neighborhood. Sacramento
contemplated an infill policy, and
brainstormed ideas to address the
challenges of developing infill sites
throughout Sacramento. Oak Park and
North Sacramento were identified as the
communities most appropriate to test the
VLDP on a pilot basis. The two
neighborhoods are redevelopment areas
with numerous long-standing undeveloped
residential lots that have become areas for
dumping and other illegal activities. Both
areas also had enough available set-aside
funds to capitalize the program.
In 2002, the SHRA, the city of Sacramento,
and the county of Sacramento approved
$200,000 in funding for Oak Park for the
pilot Vacant Lot Development Program, as
well as funding for North Sacramento and
Walnut Grove neighborhoods. Developers
participating in the VLDP receive a fee for
the acquisition and development of a singlefamily
residential vacant lot in the amount of
$7,500 for a two-bedroom/two-bath house,
$20,000 for a three-bedroom/two-bath
house, and $25,000 for a four-bedroom/twobath
house. The new home must be sold to
an income-qualified household at an
affordable price due to the tax increment
funding of the VLDP. The developer fee is
allocated upon approved completion and
sale of home to an owner-occupant.
Residential subdivisions cannot be
developed under the VLDP because the
purpose is to target scattered sites within
current residential neighborhoods. Special
homebuyer financing is available for some
buyers of these homes.
According to the SHRA, the pilot Vacant Lot
Development Program has been a quick
success. The initial allocation of $200,000
for Oak Park was used immediately for the
construction of eight new homes: six fourbedroom
homes and two three-bedroom
homes.

Sacramento, CA 27
Implementation Challenges
The Boarded and Vacant Homes program
and the Vacant Lot Development program
face similar challenges. The incentives
offered through the two programs are
provided to offset costs of infill development
or otherwise make the projects financially
feasible. However, the payoff for developers
from developing large subdivisions in the
suburbs is more lucrative than infill
development, according to respondents.
Housing market strength also affects the
value of the fee. In the early 1990s when
the Sacramento housing market was not as
strong, many properties were rehabilitated
through the BVHP. Now that the market has
strengthened, developers do not view the
developer fee as much of an incentive as in
years past. The city is working on an
updated infill policy that would make urban
infill development more financially feasible
through discounting fees and streamlining
design review and plan-check processes.
Although the BVHP and the VLDP provide
developer fees, an arsenal of tools for
affordable development, which inherently
requires subsidy layering, is necessary.
Many nonprofit developers use tax
increment financing, Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit (LIHTC), and Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for
affordable housing development. Some
affordable housing deals use mortgage
revenue bonds and take advantage of fee
waivers and deferral provided by the SHRA.
Another challenge has come from residents
who are opposed to additional affordable
housing in their neighborhood. Some Oak
Park residents feel the community already
has a fair share of low-income housing and
see a need for new market-rate units to
attract higher-income residents into the
neighborhood. Other respondents want the
new affordable housing because they
believe it will ultimately encourage the
development of market rate-housing. Some
respondents reported that NIMBY-ism is a
major problem for affordable housing
development in both high- and low-income
neighborhoods. Various organizations in
Sacramento are involved with community
education and outreach to address the fears
that affordable housing will have a negative
impact on a community. The Sacramento
Mutual Housing Alliance works with
neighborhood organizations and provides
affordable housing education and outreach
before affordable housing development
plans are even scheduled. SHRA staff has
gone door-to-door to inform residents about
the project taking place in their community.
As a number of respondents pointed out,
very low income households tend not to be
served by the vacant property
redevelopment programs. The newly
constructed single-family homes would
require deeper subsidies to reach very low
income people. Some respondents also
have concerns that the infill and
homeownership programs, coupled with
other revitalization forces in the Oak Park
community, may fuel gentrification. These

28 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
respondents point to other neighborhoods in
Sacramento to see the dwindling of
economic diversity as a result of renovation
projects.
Additional Strategies
Housing Trust Fund
Enacted by the city council in 1989, the Housing Trust Fund is intended to ensure that nonresidential
development assist with low-income housing needs connected with job growth. The Housing Trust Fund
establishes a housing linkage fee per square foot of commercial development. The purpose of the funding
is to support the development of housing for low-income workers that are employed in new retail or
commercial developments.
Sacramento was the first city in California to adopt a housing linkage fee for commercial development.
The amount of the fee was based on a study that quantified the relationship between types of commercial
development, low-wage jobs, low-income housing needs, and the subsidy cost of providing new
affordable housing. Payment of the fee is required to receive a building permit. The fees are deposited
into the citywide Housing Trust Fund and administered through the Sacramento Housing and
Redevelopment Agency. The money can be used for gap financing for affordable housing development.
Housing Trust Fund dollars are usually layered with other financial subsidies, such as state and federal
tax credits, mortgage revenue bonds, state deferred loans, or rent subsidies.
A total of $14,897,746 has been collected for the Trust Fund since 1989. Since that time, approximately
$400,000 in Housing Trust Fund revenues has been used in Oak Park for the Boarded and Vacant Home
program and another program called the Pre-Apprenticeship Construction Training Program.
Homebuyer Programs
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency offers various homebuyer programs, two of which
we highlight, the Target Area Homebuyer Program and the First-Time Homebuyer Program. The Target
Area Homebuyer Program (TAHB) provides downpayment and closing cost assistance to low- and
moderate-income homebuyers for home purchases within Oak Park and four other redevelopment areas.
Eligible applicants must qualify for a loan to purchase the home, attend homebuyer-training classes, live
in the home being purchased, and be low-to moderate-income. Eligible properties must be located with
the program designation areas, meet minimum housing quality standards, and the sales price of the
property cannot exceed the Affordable Housing Cost for the area.
The First-Time Homebuyer Program (FTHP) offers downpayment and closing cost assistance to lowincome
homebuyers on home purchases within the city and county of Sacramento. Eligible applicants
must be first-time homebuyers, qualify for a loan to purchase the home, attend homebuyer training
classes, live in the home being purchased, and be low-income. Eligible properties are single-family

Sacramento, CA 29
homes located within the city or county of Sacramento and a few surrounding cities, and the appraised
values cannot exceed the HUD 203b mortgage limit for the area. Program features include a deferred
payment loan secured by a deed of trust and no interest charged on the loan.
Prospective homebuyers can layer programs to purchase a home. In Oak Park, 107 homebuyers used
some type of homebuyer assistance program to purchase a home, for a total of $395,089 in assistance.
Within the entire city and county, 3,865 homebuyers used some type of homebuyer assistance program,
for a total of $15,009,428 in assistance.
Conclusion
The increased investment and development
in Oak Park is carried out in ways to
balance The increased investment and
development in Oak Park is carried out in
ways to balance redevelopment efforts with
nondisplacement strategies. The Boarded
and Vacant Homes and the Vacant Lot
Development programs combined with
various homeownership programs through
the SHRA provide homeownership
opportunities for residents to move into the
rehabilitated properties. Similar to efforts in
St. Petersburg’s Bartlett Park, the
combination of rehabilitating properties and
providing affordable homeownership
opportunities to residents will benefit current
residents while supporting the area’s
strengthening housing market.
An important difference between the two
neighborhoods is the opposition to
increasing the affordable housing stock in
Oak Park, leading to the need for greater
community outreach. Oak Park practitioners
learned the importance of involving the
community in the planning and
implementation of such strategies so that
the community is aware of the potential
benefits of redevelopment efforts. General
misperceptions about affordable housing
and NIMBYism within Oak Park and
Sacramento have proven to be challenges
to affordable housing development.

30 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Population
Table 4: Sacramento, CA and Oak Park
City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990 and 2000
Year City total Oak Park
Population 1990 358,800 37,000
2000 395,800 39,500
% change population 1990–2000 10.3 6.8
% black non-Hispanic 1990 14.9 22.6
2000 16.5 20.4
% white non-Hispanic 1990 53.6 33.1
2000 41.7 24.9
% other race non-Hispanic 1990 15.7 16.7
2000 20.4 18.1
% Hispanic 1990 15.7 27.6
2000 21.4 36.6
Income and poverty
Average family income (in 1999
dollars) 1990 54,900 32,600
2000 54,500 34,100
Poverty rate 1990 17.1 34.1
Employment
2000 19.8 33.9
Unemployment rate 1990 7.6 12.7
Housing conditions
2000 7.8 14.1
Occupied housing units 1990 140,600 12,300
2000 150,500 12,300
Total rental units 1990 73,400 7,500
2000 79,700 7,600
Rental vacancy rate 1990 6.5 8.3
2000 5.6 6.5
% housing units owner-occupied 1990 51.2 44.0
2000 50.0 41.9
Average value owner-occupied
housing units (in 2000 dollars) 1990 176,700 94,600
2000 151,300 86,500
% of renters paying > 35% of
income on rent 1990 38.3 53.3
2000 34.2 41.1

Sacramento, CA 31
Home mortgage indicators
Total number of mortgages
originated/1,000 housing units a Avg. (95, 96) 23.8 17.9
Avg. (00, 01) 62.4 45.3
% change in number of mortgages
originated, 1995/96–
2000/2001 a 162.1 153.1
Dollar value of mortgages
originated/housing unit a Avg. (95, 96) 2,916 1,330
Avg. (00, 01) 8,053 3,468
% change in dollar value of
mortgages originated,
1995/96–2000/2001 a 176.2 160.8
Average value of mortgages
originated (1–4-unit
structures) a Avg. (95, 96) 122,400 74,500
Avg. (00, 01) 129,000 76,600
% change in average value of
mortgages originated,
1995/96–2000/2001 a 5.4 2.8
Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban Institute’s
Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) based on 1990 and 2000 U.S.
Censuses.
Note: Data for Oak Park are analyzed using census tracts 001800, 002700,
002800,003700, 004401, 004402, 004601, and 004602.
a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the
Urban Institute. Dollar amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

32 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Middle Stages of Neighborhood Revitalization/Gentrification
The next two neighborhoods, Reynoldstown in Atlanta, GA, and Figueroa Corridor in Los
Angeles, CA, have experienced increased gentrification pressures but still have considerable
affordable housing stock and/or developable land. These neighborhoods are in the middle stage
of gentrification. Increased land values make development more difficult, affecting the strategies
selected and how they are implemented. Nonprofit organizations and city agencies active in
these neighborhoods increasingly have turned to private partners, making it more challenging to
manage the balance between meeting affordable housing needs and attracting private
investors.

Atlanta, GA 33
ATLANTA, GA
REYNOLDSTOWN
Key strategies: housing rehabilitation and affordable housing production
Other strategies: IDA, community building
City and Neighborhood
The city of Atlanta, Georgia, is relatively
small in relation to its region—only 415,000
people live in the city compared to the
region’s population of 4.1 million (Census
CD Neighborhood Change Database). The
city’s population is significantly poorer than
the region—Atlanta’s 2000 poverty rate is
25 percent compared to the region’s 9
percent. However, during the 1990s, Atlanta
increased in population by 6 percent, and
the housing market accelerated above the
national average (see Table 5 at the end of
the case study).
Factors contributing to Atlanta’s increasing
population and home values can be
attributed to three interconnected factors:
the hosting of the 1996 Olympics, the
strengthening of community development
corporations (CDCs), and public reactions
against sprawl, traffic, and long commutes.
The 1996 Olympics brought an influx of
federal, state, and private funds into the city
resulting in capital and streetscape
improvements in select neighborhoods such
as Summerhill, Mechanicsville, and
Cabbagetown on the city’s eastern side.
The games encouraged people to visualize
improvements in other in-town
neighborhoods surrounding the central
business district, which suffered from
decades of neglect. The Olympics also led
to the displacement of many low-income
residents to make room for the Olympic
facilities.
During approximately the same time period,
national and local intermediary groups, such
as the Enterprise Foundation and the
Atlanta Neighborhood Development
Partnership (ANDP), began building
community development capacity in
organizations located in these same in-town
neighborhoods. This attention to
community-based organizations and CDCs
helped stabilize communities and attract
private investment. It also ensured that
long-term attention was paid to in-town
neighborhoods after the Olympics were
over.
Sprawl and related commuter traffic and
congestion also contributed to making
Atlanta neighborhoods near the central
business district attractive, as more people
moved closer to their workplace. The region
averages a 35-minute commute—second
only to Los Angeles.
Reynoldstown, the neighborhood for this
case study, is located east of downtown,
next door to the already gentrified
neighborhood of Cabbagetown, and near
some of the first neighborhoods to

34 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
experience housing market appreciation
after the 1996 Olympics. Immediately to the
north of Reynoldstown (across the railroad
tracks) is the historically white, upper-class
neighborhood of Inman Park, with its large
single-family homes with sizeable yards.
Reynoldstown was one of the first free
African American neighborhoods in Atlanta,
and it has been a black working-class
neighborhood since World War II. It is a
relatively small, residential community
consisting of narrow, tree-lined streets. Little
retail or commercial activity exists within the
neighborhood, although small businesses
such as auto repair shops and restaurants
are located on the neighborhood’s
boundaries. A steel plant sits in the middle
of neighborhood and a former cotton mill
(recently converted to lofts) is located just
outside of the neighborhood. Historically,
Reynoldstown residents worked at the steel
and cotton plants.
The neighborhood started to revitalize over
the past decade. The local CDC,
Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation
(RRC), worked with the police department
to reduce petty crime, prostitution, and
loitering. RRC’s sister civic organization,
Reynoldstown Civic Improvement League
(RCIL), initiated a neighborhood
beautification campaign, cleaning the
streets and planting trees. Long-term and
absentee landlords have cleaned up their
properties, and private investors developed
interest in the neighborhood. Bike riders,
dog walkers, and joggers can be found the
neighborhood—positive signs that residents
from the neighborhood and elsewhere feel
comfortable doing recreational activities in
Reynoldstown.
With such improvements, new residents
have begun to move in. Many of the new
residents are childless couples or single
residents, who represent a diversity of
races, sexual orientations, and professions.
These new residents tend to have higher
incomes than the incumbent residents and
pay more in rent. For instance, the
neighborhood’s average income rose 21
percent during the last decade (Census CD
Neighborhood Change Database). The
number of whites increased by over 200
percent, pulling white resident’s proportion
up to 12 percent in the neighborhood
(Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database).
Reynoldstown’s housing market began
accelerating three to four years ago.
Housing consists primarily of single-story
bungalows, many of which are for rent.
Homeownership is historically low in
Reynoldstown. However, within the last few
years, RRC and private developers have
built new single-family housing for sale
similar in style to the original bungalow
single-family stock but with additional floors.
RRC also built a new multiunit rental
apartment building, the first multiunit
building in Reynoldstown.

Atlanta, GA 35
Stage of Gentrification
Reynoldstown is in the early- to mid-stage
of gentrification. Gentrification forces that
previously affected the surrounding
neighborhoods, the Historic District,
Cabbagetown, and Kirkwood, have started
affecting Reynoldstown. Housing and lot
prices have appreciated during the past few
years such that lots selling for $5,000 five
years ago now sell for between $30,000 and
$40,000. Also, five years ago single-family
homes cost no more than $80,000, while
now a rehabilitated house costs between
$150,000 and $200,000.
Census data show the average value of
owner-occupied housing to have increased
from $46,000 to $96,000, a 108 percent
increase in a decade (Census CD
Neighborhood Change Database). While
there have been sharp increases in housing
prices and turnover in properties, the
majority of housing stock in Reynoldstown
remains rental and affordable. It is not clear
how much displacement has occurred due
to the increased housing prices. It may have
been minimal in the first few years because
RRC built new units in vacant lots and
targeted owner-occupied rehabilitation as
their primary housing strategy.
Instances of backlash against gentrification
have occurred in some neighborhoods in
Atlanta, particularly when new residents
have been gay or lesbian. For instance, an
African American clergyman spoke out
against homosexuals moving into his
parish’s neighborhood (Atlanta Journal and
Constitution, Editorial, June 9, 2002).
Separate from who is causing housing
appreciation, there is also vocal concern for
elderly homeowners on fixed incomes
having to cope with appreciating property
taxes. Proposals for tax abatement
programs have stemmed from such
discussions. Community support of
gentrification has occurred as well. A former
councilwoman, who represented
Reynoldstown and other neighborhoods in
east Atlanta, ran her reelection campaign on
a strong anti-gentrification platform. She
was voted out of office in favor of a new
official, who takes a more moderate
approach toward gentrification.
Within Reynoldstown, there has been no
public anti-gentrification, anti-white, or antigay
or lesbian backlash, although
gentrification has not progressed as far as it
has in other neighborhoods. RRC’s strategy
of serving incumbent residents first via
owner-occupied rehabilitation programs
may be a reason for the lack of opposition.
(This strategy is discussed in greater detail
below.)
Key Strategies—Housing Rehabilitation
and Affordable Housing Production
Housing rehabilitation and production were
first carried out in the neighborhood by the
Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation
(RRC). RRC helps homeowners rehabilitate
their homes, builds affordable single-family
and multiunit rental housing projects, as well
as offers an individual development account
(IDA) program, works toward crime

36 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
reduction, and sponsors a yearly festival.
The organization encourages incumbent
residents to remain in their neighborhood
and improve their properties, while
simultaneously encouraging new residents
to move in.
RRC began its work in Reynoldstown by
conducting a needs assessment survey in
the early 1990s. Residents’ priorities
included improving/repairing existing
homes, increasing neighborhood safety,
reducing abandoned property and lots, and
building new housing. Based on this
assessment, RRC worked in the early
1990s to stabilize the existing housing stock
through code compliance and rehabilitating
owner-occupied housing. They successfully
rehabilitated 300 units, which has been an
important factor in stabilizing the
community, bringing value to residents, and
keeping residents connected to the
community. According to respondents, this
work was a comfort to long-term residents
and helped RRC forge a partnership with
the community. RRC made it clear that they
were dedicated to the incumbent residents,
and only later did they focus on developing
new housing to attract new residents. RRC
staff believe that working on existing
community needs first helped reduce the
negative effects of gentrification because
new residents were not attracted to
Reynoldstown until later.
It was not until 1996 that RRC began
building new homes. Often the newly
constructed homes were on vacant lots,
which RRC was able to purchase before the
housing market appreciated. The
community supported the development of
these vacant lots, as they were recognized
as a source of neighborhood blight.
RRC’s success in developing affordable
housing is reflected in the number of
affordable homeownership and rental units
they have built. Altogether they have built
30 affordable rental units and built or
rehabilitated 43 single-family homes, 35 of
which are affordable. They are planning to
build 80 affordable rental units in two
projects, and an additional 35 affordable
homeownership units—six single-family
units, plus 12 town homes in one project
and 17 town homes in another. Specific
examples include 10 modular town homes
where they used HOME financing to buy
down the price, and they consolidated four
rooming houses, which had been
problematic in the community. In addition,
they built Amberwood Village in 1994, a fully
leased, 30-unit multifamily building financed
by LIHTC and Section 8 that targets
residents at 60 percent of the area median
income (AMI).
RRC was able to purchase vacant lots
through a partnership with the Bank of
America Community Development
Corporation. The Bank of America CDC
provided capital and startup financing
enabling RRC to purchase vacant parcels
before land prices became too high. RRC

Atlanta, GA 37
spent two years assembling properties, and
they worked with the state and county land
bank to clear back taxes and liens on them.
Currently, there are few parcels remaining—
approximately six—and competition with
private investors is fierce, driving up the
cost of land.
Because of the reduction in available land
and increasing land prices, RRC has
switched approaches—from building
affordable housing on their own to building
affordable housing with for-profit private
developers. RRC’s impetus for partnering is
their need for capacity, and private
developers (or lending institutions) benefit
by fulfilling community investment and basic
philanthropic interests. RRC believes that
their work in Reynoldstown has contributed
to stabilizing the neighborhood’s rental and
homeownership market—they have acted
as the risk capital. Through partnership with
RRC, developers learn the Reynoldstown
housing market and can realize a profit.
One for-profit partner is John Wieland
Homes, a private development company
known for its work in the Atlanta region.
RRC and Wieland Homes have a joint
venture partnership with a 50-50 split for a
project to build homeownership and rental
units on 3.7 acres of a subdivided property.
On 1.25 acres will be 40 to 50 low-income
rental units for seniors. In addition, they are
renovating 22 existing flats and building 24
new town homes, which will be two- and
three-bedroom units. Approximately half of
the new and rehabilitated town homes will
be pegged as affordable, costing
approximately $140,000, while the marketrate
units will be priced between $180,000
to $200,000.
Financing is a key issue for RRC. According
to respondents, RRC’s new affordable units
tend to run between $135,000 and
$180,000, which is the top of the IDA
spectrum, compared to $270,000 for
privately developed housing. One way RRC
keeps the units affordable is by adjusting
the unit size, building two floors instead of
three, and reducing the number of
bedrooms, while still including two
bathrooms to ensure future marketability.
RRC protects their subsidy through a
“recapture clause,” which places a thirdposition
lien on the property for the amount
of the subsidy for 10 years. RRC decided
against capping the resale value because
they want to contribute to the buyer’s equity;
however, the lien ensures that the CDC can
recapture some of their investment should
the buyers sell early. The recapture clause
also acts as a disincentive for “flipping,” or
buyers selling the property for a higher price
soon after purchasing it.
Implementation Challenges
The challenges facing RRC’s work are
typical of any nonprofit developer. The
market has made development difficult as
demand has driven up the cost of land, and
competition with private developers is fierce.
For instance, respondents report that land
prices increased from $1 a square foot in
1998 to $6 a square foot in 2000. RRC must

38 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
rely on different types and multiple sources
of financing, which results in more
complicated and drawn-out deals—a
disadvantage compared to private
developers. They also rely on mixed-income
housing to develop affordable units. The
market-rate units help subsidize the
affordable units. RRC’s partnerships with
private developers has allowed them to
provide affordable housing, especially in
light of appreciated housing prices.
Land acquisition is a large challenge for
RRC, as prices have increased and
availability decreased. A county-run land
bank proved ineffective and hampered the
potential for gaining parcels early on. Only
RRC’s work with the Bank of America CDC
assisted with acquiring vacant land. RRC
approached funders in 1996 to create a land
bank, but the funders questioned whether
Reynoldstown would ever be a desirable
locale. An effective land banking system
would have allowed more affordable units to
be built. Development and construction
costs stay relatively consistent over time,
even when gentrification occurs, while land
costs more easily fluctuate and appreciate.
By controlling land costs, CDCs can better
provide affordable housing and reduce
competition with private investors.
RRC also recognizes the need to turn its
attention back to rental housing. The market
has driven the strategy of new construction
and homeownership, but it is recognized
that lower-income residents need more
rental housing. The housing stock in
Reynoldstown is typically single-family
homes—the only multi-family rental unit
available is a 30-unit apartment building
RRC built in the mid-1990s. Consequently,
they have another 30-unit apartment
building in development funded with Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits.
RRC’s overall challenge is harnessing the
forces of gentrification. In many ways, an
appreciated housing market and new influx
of residents have improved Reynoldstown.
However, RRC needs to ensure that
incumbent and new lower-income residents
can live in the neighborhood as housing
costs continue to increase.
Additional Strategies
IDA Program
RRC’s IDA program began in 1998 and is funded by the United Way. The program enables participants to
build wealth and serves as a community building tool. Participants can use their savings toward
homeownership in Reynoldstown or in any of the other 10 approved neighborhoods. Participants receive
$4,800 to match their required $1,200 in savings after successfully completing RRC’s education,
homeownership, and budget counseling. The subsidy can be used for downpayment or closing costs.
(The subsidy is slightly lower if participants use it outside of the approved neighborhoods but in the same

Atlanta, GA 39
county.) Since the program began, 21 Reynoldstown residents have participated, eight of whom have
purchased homes with IDA funds. Seven of the eight purchases were in Reynoldstown.
Community Building
In conjunction with their mission, RRC works with RCIL to improve the quality of life in Reynoldstown.
RRC worked with the police department asking them to target nuisance and quality-of-life crimes that
negatively affect the community, such as loitering, prostitution, and drug dealing. RRC and RCIL have
worked to beautify the neighborhood through neighborhood cleanups and tree planting campaigns. Since
1996 RRC has organized a yearly neighborhood festival, the Wheelbarrow Summer Theater, which
attracts visitors from all over the city. The festival is designed to celebrate Reynoldstown by providing the
community with quality entertainment and promoting local talent. The festival acts as a community
outreach mechanism and a way to positively promote Reynoldstown.
Task Forces
Additionally, Atlanta convened two task forces on affordable housing showing the city’s interest in tackling
the issue. The Atlanta city council convened the Gentrification Task Force in September 2001, with
members from city agencies, area universities, and including involved residents. This first task force
focused on the plight of the lowest income households in Atlanta. City Council passed 4 of the 40
recommendations to assist in the development of affordable housing and to ensure that very low and
extremely low income families were targeted for subsidies. One of these recommendations defined
“affordability” as targeting only those making less than 50 percent of AMI, and the second required twothirds
of all public subsidies (i.e., CDBG and HOME) to target “extremely low income” families or those
making less than 30 percent of AMI. These stringent definitions were not well received by developers,
both private and not-for-profit, who believed the strict definitions would eliminate profitability and restrict
them from providing affordable housing at all. Currently it is unclear whether the legislation passed from
the task force’s recommendations will be applied.
Atlanta’s current mayor, Shirley Franklin, convened the Affordable Housing Task Force in 2002. This task
force focused on “workforce housing”—housing for the middle class such as teachers, police officers, and
firefighters—and championed mixed-income neighborhoods. Eleven members selected by the mayor sat
on this task force, consisting of private and nonprofit developers, city officials from the housing
department, representatives of intermediary groups, and the banking community. Among the
recommendations of this task force are calls to improve the city’s building permit process, implement
inclusionary zoning ordinances, create a more effective land bank authority, freeze property taxes for over
65-year-old homeowners, and streamline Empowerment Zone and CDBG financing. In addition, the task
force recommended targeting affordable housing to families making between 50 and 80 percent of AMI.

40 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Conclusion
The majority of housing stock in
Reynoldstown continues to be rental and
affordable, though there have been sharp
increases in housing prices and property
turnovers. As Reynoldstown moves into a
middle stage of gentrification, there could be
adequate time to implement policies and
processes to hedge future displacement of
current residents. However, this goal has its
challenges. To encourage additional
investment without displacing residents
requires carefully balancing efforts to attract
private developers without losing focus on
the housing needs of current and future
lower-income residents. Respondents from
different sectors reported that improving the
city’s permitting process and implementing
an effective land banking system would
greatly improve community development
corporations’ and other nonprofits’ ability to
develop more affordable housing. Managing
the influx of higher-income residents by
offering rental housing for lower-income
households, as well as subsidized
homeownership options, will help lowerincome
residents share in the neighborhood
improvements. If development efforts are
carried out in a way that reverses years of
decline in Reynoldstown and creates new
opportunities for lower-income residents,
incumbent residents are less likely to be
displaced as housing prices continue to
increase.
Involving the community is another crucial
lesson learned in Reynoldstown. The role of
RRC is not only affordable housing
development and retention but community
building as well. By focusing on the
community—focusing on their needs and
developing leadership among the incumbent
residents to advocate for their own needs—
RRC has been able build community
support for its efforts and seemingly
minimize displacement. Involving the
community has also proved fruitful in
involving residents in RRC programs. For
instance, RRC reached out to renters from
Amberwood (their low-income multiunit
rental building) to participate in the IDA
program. Approximately five previous
Amberwood residents have purchased
homes through the IDA program.

Atlanta, GA 41
Population
Table 5: Atlanta, GA and Reynoldstown
City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990 and 2000
Year City total Reynoldstown
Population 1990 390,000 1,700
2000 415,100 1,600
% change population 1990–2000 6.4 -5.8
% black non-Hispanic 1990 66.5 95.5
2000 61.4 83.1
% white non-Hispanic 1990 30.5 3.3
2000 31.6 11.5
% other race non-Hispanic 1990 1.0 0.5
2000 2.4 1.6
% Hispanic 1990 1.9 0.7
Income and poverty
2000 4.5 3.8
Average family income (in 1999 dollars) 1990 59,600 32,800
2000 73,300 39,800
Poverty rate 1990 27.3 26.4
Employment
2000 24.5 20.0
Unemployment rate 1990 9.1 12.9
Housing conditions
2000 14.0 7.2
Occupied housing units 1990 154,600 600
2000 167,900 700
Total rental units 1990 104,200 500
2000 103,000 400
Rental vacancy rate 1990 15.1 14.3
2000 7.4 7.9
% housing units owner-occupied 1990 42.8 36.6
2000 43.2 42.3
Average value owner-occupied housing
units (in 2000 dollars) 1990 165,500 46,200
2000 240,900 96,000
% of renters paying > 35% of income on
rent 1990 34.9 39.2
2000 32.3 26.2

42 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Home mortgage indicators
Total number of mortgages
originated/1,000 housing units a Avg. (95, 96) 26.3 18.0
Avg. (00, 01) 48.8 51.1
% change in number of mortgages
originated, 1995/96–2000/2001 a 85.5 183.9
Dollar value of mortgages
originated/housing unit a Avg. (95, 96) 4,211 1,325
Avg. (00, 01) 8,882 5,957
% change in dollar value of mortgages
originated, 1995/96–2000/2001 a 111 350
Average value of mortgages originated
(1–4-unit structures) a Avg. (95, 96) 160,100 73,400
Avg. (00, 01) 182,100 116,500
% change in average value of mortgages
originated, 1995/96-2000/2001 a 13.7 58.7
Source: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban Institute’s Neighborhood
Change Database (NCDB), based on 1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses.
Note: Reynoldstown consists of one entire census tract (131210031), and three partial census
tracts (131210032, 131210050, and 131210052). The census and HMDA data shown above
come exclusively from the one complete census tract, 131210031.
a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the Urban Institute. Dollar
amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

Los Angeles, CA 43
LOS ANGELES, CA
FIGUEROA CORRIDOR
Key strategy: Housing Trust Fund
Other strategies: code enforcement, rent stabilization, land trust
City and Neighborhood
Los Angeles grew in population by
approximately 6 percent between 1990 and
2000, reaching 3.7 million (see Table 6 at
the end of the case study). During the same
time period, the Latino population grew by
one-quarter, accounting for approximately
half of the total population by 2000 (Census
CD Neighborhood Change Database). The
housing market accelerated in the late
1990s. Home purchases increased by 50
percent, roughly 30 percentage points
higher than the national average, and
mortgage amounts increased by 15 percent.
More than half of Los Angeles residents
rent, and rental housing became scarce as
the rental vacancy rate decreased from 7 to
4 percent (Census CD Neighborhood
Change Database). People talk of the city’s
affordable housing crisis.
The escalation of housing prices in Los
Angeles can be attributed to steady
population growth and the reduction in the
supply of land. In years past, Los Angeles
built new housing to meet the increasing
housing needs of the growing population.
Currently, construction has practically
stopped altogether, even though the
population continues to grow, because of
high construction costs, especially for infill
development, lack of vacant land, and
building codes that prevent mixed-use
development. By the late 1990s, property
values increased to the point where working
families in the city were paying a higher
proportion of their income on rent than in
any other jurisdiction in California
(Recommendations of the Housing Crisis
Task Force 2000). According to
respondents, neighboring cities and
counties have developed little affordable
housing due to their policies of exclusionary
zoning and covenants. This, in turn, placed
additional pressure on Los Angeles to
provide affordable housing in an already
tight market.
The Figueroa Corridor is a predominantly
Latino community located downtown,
southwest of the central business district.
The neighborhood encompasses 40 blocks,
bounded to the south by the University of
Southern California (USC) and to the north
by the Staples Center, home to the LA
Lakers basketball team and Kings hockey
team. The Figueroa community is an older
residential part of the city with some
commercial properties. The housing stock
includes multifamily developments and
single-family homes, including some
Victorian homes. Part of the Figueroa
Corridor is located in the West Adams
section of Los Angeles. West Adams was
one of the most fashionable areas in the city

44 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
at the turn of the 20th century until it was
overshadowed by the development of
Beverly Hills in 1917. Well-known architects
constructed large mansions in West Adams,
many of which remain today but are in poor
condition. Some of the multifamily
residences in Figueroa Corridor are
severely overcrowded and in need of major
rehabilitation. The Figueroa community was
designated a redevelopment area by the
Community Redevelopment Agency, but the
designation has since expired.
Figueroa Corridor has a large low-income
population—the poverty rate for the
neighborhood was 43 percent in 2000,
almost double the city’s rate (Census CD
Neighborhood Change Database). Many
low-income residents are immigrants who
work in garment factories and service jobs.
Large concentrations of homeless can be
found in Figueroa Corridor—the single-room
occupancy hotels in the neighborhood
provide temporary housing.
During the 1990s, Figueroa Corridor
experienced an influx of wealthier residents.
The neighborhood’s population increased 7
percent, slightly more than the citywide
average, driven by new white residents.
Greater numbers of Latinos moved out. The
average household income increased by 23
percent, and within two census tracts,
average incomes increased by almost half
(Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database). Adding to a tight housing
market, rental vacancy rates decreased
from 11 to 4 percent in Figueroa Corridor
overall.
The housing market in the Figueroa
Corridor has been affected in part by the
area’s major institutions and amenities.
USC students who want to live closer to
campus are moving into the area. In
response, landlords are evicting lowerincome
residents to make room for students
who pay higher rents. For instance, garment
industry workers who live in the community
have experienced rent increases and have
noticed the marketing of low-income
housing to students. Respondents noted
that university alumni buy older buildings in
the Figueroa neighborhood and rent them to
students at higher rates.
The Staples Center and its planned
expansion has affected the housing market
as well. Developers are converting
commercial properties around Staples
Center into lofts to attract people downtown.
Consequently, single-room occupancy
hotels are losing properties, as new lofts are
being developed.
In recent years, “urban pioneers” have
moved into the Figueroa Corridor and
surrounding areas to restore older buildings
and revitalize the community. There is some
tension between the historic preservation
efforts by the West Adams Heritage
Association and affordable housing efforts
in the Figueroa Corridor. According to
respondents, the West Adams Heritage

Los Angeles, CA 45
Foundation was successful in removing the
Community Redevelopment Agency from
the area in order to receive a Historic
Preservation Overlay Zone. Maintenance of
historic properties tends to be more
expensive, making it difficult to keep
housing affordable for current residents.
While some respondents noted the
importance of historic preservation, they
also noted the pressing need to ensure a
safe and affordable living environment for
current residents.
The area has a strong affordable housing
advocacy base, consisting of various
community groups. When developers were
initially planning the expansion of the
Staples Center, they did not include local
residents in the planning process. In
response, Strategic Actions for a Just
Economy (SAJE) brought together 30
community, labor, and religious
organizations and founded the Figueroa
Corridor Coalition for Economic Justice
(FCCEJ) to provide a community-based
perspective to development plans.
In May 2001, FCCEJ negotiated an historic
Community Benefits Agreement with the LA
Arena Land Company, owned by billionaires
Rupert Murdoch and Phillip Anschutz.
According to the agreement, the Land
Company must make significant
improvements to the area surrounding the
Staples Center in order for the expansion to
move forward. The agreement requires the
developers to include living wage and union
jobs, affordable housing, local hiring, and
parks to the Center’s four million square foot
addition (Esperanza 2003). The progressive
Community Benefits Agreement provides a
model for ensuring low-income residents
are considered when major developments
are built in their communities.
The Esperanza Community Housing
Corporation (ECHC) is another organization
that has made a significant impact on
affordable housing in the Figueroa Corridor.
ECHC has taken a leadership role in
pushing forward the dialogue and initiatives
necessary to address the affordable
housing crisis in Los Angeles. ECHC played
an important part in the establishment of the
Housing Trust Fund. The organization also
provides information on legal rights to
tenants living in dilapidated housing.
Stage of Gentrification
The Figueroa Corridor is in the middle to
late stage of gentrification. According to
respondents, rent prices are increasing at a
faster rate in the Figueroa Corridor than in
the city of Los Angeles. The changes
occurring in the Figueroa Corridor can be
attributed to its proximity to USC, the
Staples Center, and the historic
preservation efforts. As an example of the
immense pressure on the local real estate
market in the neighborhood, the Esperanza
Community Housing Corporation (ECHC)
was approached with high, all-cash offers
for three of its properties. Around the same
time, tenant organizers at SAJE were
inundated with calls from tenants claiming
their landlords were attempting illegal
evictions, harassment, and discrimination in

46 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
order to evade the rent stabilization
ordinance and replace working-class
residents with higher-income renters. In
response to the displacement efforts, SAJE
organized tenant unions and trained
residents on their legal rights. SAJE hired a
tenants’ rights lawyer, held weekly legal
clinics, and worked with a network of pro
bono lawyers to slow the displacement
process.
Key Strategy—Housing Trust Fund
The Housing Trust Fund, established in the
2000–2001 budget by the Los Angeles City
Council, provides money for a variety of
affordable housing development and
preservation needs using loans or grants for
predevelopment, acquisition, development,
new construction, rehabilitation, or
restoration of rental or ownership housing.
The trust fund allocates city funds to be
leveraged with other state and federal funds
to address affordable housing needs. The
priority of the trust fund is to expand and
preserve the number of rental units for
households with combined incomes less
than 60 percent of the area median income.
The history of the trust fund begins with
nonprofit attention. In 1998, the Southern
California Association of Nonprofit Housing
(SCANPH) organized a two-year campaign
to establish a housing trust fund targeted
solely toward affordable housing. This
campaign was fueled by instances of
affordable housing funding being
reallocated for economic development. The
campaign included a broad coalition of
community organizations, housing
advocates, and the business community,
which marks a shift from the business
community’s previous lack of involvement in
housing issues. In 1999, the City Council
convened the Housing Crisis Task Force to
make recommendations on legislative and
program reforms to address the affordable
housing needs. The first recommendation
listed in the 2000 report was the
establishment of a housing trust fund.
In 2000, the Housing Trust Fund was
established with seed funding of $5 million.
In the following fiscal year, $10.5 million
was appropriated to the fund. In January
2002 the mayor released a proposal for
permanent funding sources, separate from
the City Council proposal. The funding
option produced through the mayor’s office
was eventually approved. In the 2002–03
budget, Mayor Hahn and the City Council
provided $42 million for the trust fund as the
first installment of a three-year, $100 million
commitment, which is the largest
commitment to a Housing Trust Fund for
any city in the United States. Resources for
the 2002–2003 allocation of $42 million
comes from the city’s general fund, the
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), the Community Redevelopment
Agency, the Department of Water and
Power’s public benefits fund, and bond
savings.

Los Angeles, CA 47
In May 2002, Mayor Hahn appointed a
Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee
composed of nonprofit and for-profit
developers, community and business
leaders, housing advocates, and land use
experts to recommend guidelines to govern
trust fund allocations and administration. In
2003, the City Council approved the
following percentages for expenditures of
the Housing Trust until further guidelines
are established: 60 percent for multifamily
rental projects serving households at or
below 60 percent of the area median
income (AMI); 20 percent for projects that
create homeownership opportunities for
households at or below 120 percent of AMI;
5 percent for emergency rental assistance;
10 percent to remain flexible with the priority
going toward preservation of housing that is
at risk of converting to market rate; and 5
percent for administrative costs.
The Los Angeles Housing Department
(LAHD) administers the Housing Trust
Fund. The LAHD issues a Notice of
Financial Award (NOFA) to announce the
availability of funding. Developers may then
apply for the money from the trust fund by
completing the appropriate application along
with other subsidy applications. Developers
who apply for trust fund money must
leverage the funds with other state, federal,
or private market capital. Leveraged funding
has come from federal programs such as
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC),
HOME, Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG), and state bond financing.
Even while relatively new, the Housing Trust
Fund has successfully contributed to the
construction of new housing. The beginning
net balance for 2002–2003 was $39.7
million and the beginning net balance for
2003–2004 was $57 million. Ten projects
have received financial commitments
totaling $15.2m for the development of 527
units, of which 518 are earmarked for
households earning below 60 percent of
AMI. Two Housing Trust Fund projects are
located near the Figueroa Corridor as
defined in this study: Broadway II, located
just south of Figueroa Corridor, and Mt.
Zion, which is located slightly south and
east of the Corridor.
The Housing Trust Fund has also been
successful in helping to establish affordable
housing as a priority in the city. Inclusionary
zoning and mixed-use development are now
on the political agenda. According to some
advocates, if made economically viable,
inclusionary zoning offers the greatest
potential for involving the private sector in
affordable housing. SCANPH helped run a
campaign for inclusionary zoning that
advocated bonuses and other incentives
provided to developers to offset their
development costs. Many of the advocates
for inclusionary zoning also worked on the
Housing Trust Fund.
Implementation Challenges
Respondents identified a couple of
challenges to implementation, especially
financing difficulties and land availability.
The rising cost of affordable housing

48 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
construction and the difficulty in subsidy
layering are factors inhibiting the
effectiveness of the Housing Trust Fund.
Money from LIHTC, HOME, CDBG, the
CRA, state bond financing, and foundations
contribute to the construction of affordable
housing, but in certain instances, layering of
these funds does not provide the gap
financing needed for a project, even with
trust fund dollars. Also, practitioners caution
to ensure that other subsidies come through
before allocating trust fund dollars. Some
affordable housing developers hire a project
manager or outside consultant to package
the subsidy layers because working with the
subsidies can be time-consuming and
difficult. In addition, the cost of land is rising
as the availability of inexpensive land
quickly dwindles.
Additional Strategies
Code Enforcement
In 1998, the city council approved the Systematic Housing Code Enforcement Program (SCEP),
to inspect all residential rental properties with two or more dwellings every three years to
determine housing code compliance. SCEP assigns a certificate of compliance if no deficiencies
are found, and citations when a building is not in compliance. If deficiencies are found, a
reinspection will take place, and if necessary, a General Manager’s Hearing will take place to
deal with any continuing code compliance problems. If citations are not resolved, the LAHD has
programs that address properties that are out of compliance: the Rent Escrow Account Program
(REAP) allows tenants to pay their rent into a city-administered escrow account until the
citations are resolved, and the Rent Reduction Program (RRP) reduces tenants’ rent based on
the LAHD’s evaluation of the value of the missing service. SCEP also enables the housing
department to identify areas of the city with older housing stock, and to direct developers to do
rehabilitation in those neighborhoods. Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, legal aid
groups, ACORN, and tenant advocates played an integral role in the adoption of SCEP.
Rent Stabilization
The Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) was passed in 1978 to protect renters from sharp rent
increases, while permitting landlords to receive a reasonable return on their investments. Most
housing stock built before October 1978 is covered by RSO as long as a tenant has resided in it
for 60 or more consecutive days. The annual permitted rent increase for units under the RSO is
tied to the Consumer Price Index and is calculated each year. Workshops are available in some

Los Angeles, CA 49
communities to inform tenants under the RSO about their rights as renters. The RSO is
administered through the housing department.
According to respondents, the RSO has played an integral role in maintaining units’ affordability
in Los Angeles. However, the number of units under the RSO is decreasing due to the qualifying
date of the program and turnover rate of the units. As a result, the preservation effects of the
RSO are becoming diluted. In addition, respondents stated the average rents under rent
stabilization do not tend to be much lower than market-rate rents.
Land Trust
Although the city offers programs such as the Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing
development and preservation, community organizations are stepping in to take a more
aggressive approach to affordable housing development and preservation in their communities.
For example, the Esperanza Community Housing Corporation (ECHC) and Strategic Actions for
a Just Economy (SAJE) are working to establish a land trust. Community leaders from the
Figueroa Corridor visited cities across the country to explore longer-term solutions to slowing
resident displacement. The idea for a land trust resulted from these visits. The goals of the land
trust are to help stabilize the community by bringing existing housing under community
ownership, help improve the quality of life of neighborhood residents, and create a variety of
ownership opportunities, ranging from single-family ownership, limited-equity cooperatives, and
condominiums, by regulating land costs over time.
Conclusion
The Housing Trust Fund has contributed to
the construction of new affordable housing.
Other strategies are needed, however, to
provide additional affordable housing. The
price of constructing new housing—
particularly infill housing—is steadily
increasing, which is motivating housing
practitioners to consider other strategies
involving private developers, such as
inclusionary zoning. The city plays an
important role in creating an environment
that can help attract private developers.
While the Housing Trust Fund is only one of
a number of strategies, it has helped put
affordable housing on the political agenda,
which in itself is a success.
Community groups within the Figueroa
Corridor have played a crucial role in
preserving and producing affordable
housing within the community. Practitioners
learned the importance of involving many
stakeholders in the process of formulating
the details of the trust fund. Hosting public
hearings and workshops enabled the
community to become involved creating
support for the strategy. However, it is
important to note that the community was
torn between the pull for historic preservation
and the need for affordable housing.

50 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Population
Table 6: Los Angeles, CA and Figueroa Corridor
City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990 and 2000
Year
City total
Figueroa
Corridor
Population 1990 3,480,400 16,600
2000 3,697,300 16,500
% change population 1990–2000 6.2 -0.6
% black non-Hispanic 1990 13.2 5.7
2000 11.4 5.7
% white non-Hispanic 1990 37.5 19.5
2000 30.8 20.1
% other race non-Hispanic 1990 10.0 4.7
2000 11.3 9.7
% Hispanic 1990 39.3 70.1
Income and poverty
2000 46.5 64.5
Average family income (in 1999 dollars) 1990 68,300 27,200
2000 64,200 30,005
Poverty rate 1990 18.9 44.3
Employment
2000 22.1 42.7
Unemployment rate 1990 8.4 9.2
Housing conditions
2000 9.3 12.2
Occupied housing units 1990 1,216,100 4,100
2000 1,276,400 4,000
Total rental units 1990 790,900 4,400
2000 815,000 4,000
Rental vacancy rate 1990 6.8 10.4
2000 3.8 6.2
% housing units owner-occupied 1990 39.4 5.9
2000 38.6 7.0
Average value owner-occupied housing
units (in 2000 dollars) 1990 380,400 206,700
2000 316,100 167,400
% of renters paying > 35% of income on
rent 1990 39.4 45.5
2000 37.0 37.0

Los Angeles, CA 51
Home mortgage indicators
Total number of mortgages
originated/1,000 housing units a Avg. (95, 96) 20.1 4.2
Avg. (00, 01) 32.2 6.7
% change in number of mortgages
originated, 1995/96–2000/2001 a 60.2 59.5
Dollar value of mortgages originated/
housing unit a Avg. (95, 96) 4,214 679
Avg. (00, 01) 7,160 1,071
% change in dollar value of mortgages
originated, 1995/96–2000/2001 a 69.9 57.7
Average value of mortgages originated
(1–4-unit structures) a Avg. (95, 96) 209,300 160,700
Avg. (00, 01) 222,400 160,100
% change in average value of mortgages
originated, 1995/96–2000/2001 a 6.3 -0.4
Source: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban
Institute’s Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) based on 1990 and
2000 U.S. Censuses.
Note: Data for Figueroa Corridor are analyzed using census tracts 23110,
221900, 224020, 224420, 224600, and 224700.
a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the Urban Institute. Dollar
amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

52 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Late Stages of Neighborhood Gentrification
In previously disinvested neighborhoods that now have a strong private housing market,
housing practitioners face constrained options for addressing affordable housing needs.
Organizations working to produce or preserve housing for lower-income households must act in
an environment with limited access to land and high housing costs. Central Area in Seattle, WA,
and Uptown in Chicago, IL, are examples of such neighborhoods.

Seattle, WA 53
SEATTLE, WA
CENTRAL AREA
Key strategies: infill development and housing levy
Other strategies: home repair, review of development regulations, employment
City and Neighborhood
Seattle, Washington, located in the Pacific
Northwest on Puget Sound, is perhaps best
known as home to a number of major
companies, including Boeing, Microsoft, and
Amazon.com, as well as Starbucks. The city
takes pride in being recognized as one of
the best places to live and to locate a
business. Between 1990 and 2000, Seattle
grew by 9 percent to reach a population of
563,374 (see Table 7 at the end of the case
study). Whites make up more than twothirds
of the population and Asians are the
second largest demographic group, at
approximately 13 percent (Census CD
Neighborhood Change Database).
Even though Seattle has been hit hard by
the dot-com bust and layoffs at Boeing, the
housing market has remained strong with
home sales indicators above national
averages. Home purchases increased by 39
percent between 1996 and 2001, compared
to a 29 percent national increase. The
percent increase in median mortgage
amount during the same time period was 33
percent, compared to a 14 percent average
increase nationwide (HMDA). Vacancy rates
remained very low in Seattle for both
homeowners and renters.
Housing costs have increased tremendously
across Seattle; respondents described
prices as “skyrocketing” since the late
1990s. One reason cited for the increases
was the growth in management regulations
limiting suburban growth. The regulations
are believed to direct development back into
the city. With the city mostly built out, land
and housing prices have risen.
Central Area, also referred to as Central
District, is located about one mile east of
downtown. Central Area has four sections,
though it is considered one neighborhood.
For this case study, we focus on the 23rd
and Jackson section.
Central Area is credited as being the first
residential area in Seattle. Since it was
developed in the mid-19th century, the
neighborhood has been home to a number
of white and Asian immigrants, and Jews.
After the Second World War, African
Americans who moved to Seattle for
employment opportunities settled in Central
Area, one of the few neighborhoods in
which they were then allowed to purchase a
home. Subsequent white flight led to
increased racial segregation. A number of
subsidized housing projects were built in the
neighborhood beginning in the 1960s, which
by 1990 constituted 25 percent of the
neighborhood’s housing stock. In the mid-

54 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
1960s, the neighborhood was affected by
urban renewal as many properties were torn
down and lots left vacant. The commercial
hub at 23rd and Jackson streets lost nearly
all of its businesses in the 1960s (Carter
1997). People who were able to move from
Central Area did so in order to leave what
was a growing problem of crime and drugs.
Central Area was designated a Special
Objective Area (SOA) in the late 1980s. The
designation meant that without community
approval, no additional subsidized housing
could be built in the neighborhood with city
funds. When Seattle was recognized as the
most livable city in the early 1990s, Central
Area residents raised the issues of high
crime and poverty by organizing a large
march downtown to the Chamber of
Commerce. Participants asked the business
community to become involved in efforts to
revitalize Central Area and nearby Rainier
Valley.
In 1994, the Central Area Development
Association (CADA), a community-based
development organization, was founded to
help spark neighborhood revitalization. As
change began to occur in Central Area,
higher-income white households started
moving to the neighborhood, in part
because of the attraction of living in a
diverse area. Major chains, including
Starbucks and Walgreens, also began
investing in the community, which further
supported housing price increases.
Respondents commented that today, people
who left the area before it started to
revitalize no longer can afford to return.
There has been considerable change in
Central Area’s demographics between 1990
and 2000. 1 The population increased 10
percent to 22,000 residents. Whites and
Latinos fueled the increase, while the
African American population decreased
from more than half of the neighborhood’s
population to slightly more than one-third
(Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database).
Housing and income data also point to
change in Central Area. The average home
value increased by 81 percent (from
$153,000 to $277,000), much higher than
the still-notable increase of 43 percent
citywide. In addition to large increases in
average house price, the change in average
household income also was significant.
Average income increased by 48 percent in
Central Area compared to a 26 percent
increase citywide (Census CD
Neighborhood Change Database).
Changes occurring in Central Area are
attributed to its proximity to downtown and
to public transportation. As the downtown
area revitalized in the late 1980s to mid-
1990s, interest in living near downtown
increased. The neighborhood is also close
to a freeway, parks, and universities.
Another factor affecting the housing market
is that houses are more affordable relative
to other neighborhoods. According to

Seattle, WA 55
CADA, 10 years ago housing prices were
low in Central Area and as elderly
homeowners either moved from the area or
passed away, their houses were renovated
and rented or sold for a higher price.
Respondents also credited CADA for much
of the change, especially in the business
sector. Once major chains moved into the
shopping center at 23rd and Jackson,
changes began occurring more rapidly.
Residents in Central Area have not been
highly organized to work on affordable
housing and other issues, though local
leadership is strengthening. Residents did
have input into the Neighborhood Action
Plan, a plan that explicitly discusses
gentrification and the need to balance
neighborhood improvements with stability of
the current residents and businesses. More
than 2,000 people participated over three
years in the planning process to develop the
Central Area Action Plan II, the most recent
neighborhood plan.
There is hope that the city will increase its
focus on gentrification in part due to the last
mayoral election. Current Mayor Nickels
narrowly was elected with help from the
African American community because of his
campaign promise to focus on race and
social justice issues. Some respondents
said that the city is not yet doing enough but
is beginning to direct more attention and
resources to affordable housing issues.
Stage of Gentrification
Central Area is at an advanced stage of
gentrification. Sections of the neighborhood
are more gentrified than others, and there
are still a number of depressed housing
units as well as underdeveloped parcels of
land, though few vacant lots. As evidence of
gentrification, people point to housing
prices, displacement, changes in the
commercial areas, and the types of people
who are moving to the neighborhood. The
median home price in 2002 was $278,500,
compared to average prices of $231,000 to
$249,000 in other distressed areas of
Seattle (CADA). While there is no data that
track displacement, most people refer to
anecdotal information about people leaving
because of increasing rents. There is also
concern that elderly residents might not be
able to remain due to deferred maintenance
issues and costs of upkeep. A number of
respondents talked about the inability of
people who previously lived in Central Area
to afford to move back.
According to CADA and city staff, African
American residents who are leaving Central
Area are moving to the southeast and
southwest areas of Seattle, as well as to
neighboring towns. All of these locations
tend to be lower-income communities. New
residents in Central Area have higher
incomes—the area is second only to
downtown in household income increases.
They also tend to be white. Changes in the
commercial corridors, especially 23rd and
Jackson, are also pointed to as indications
of gentrification. Some of the local

56 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
businesses serving primarily the African
American community are hurting because of
the change in population base and the draw
of the new businesses.
Responses to the changes in Central Area
vary. Some people are pleased with what
they view as improvements on par with
other parts of the city. However, there is
also concern about the degree of change
among residents and businesses. Local
businesses are working to take advantage
of the changes without being displaced, with
businesses located closer to the chains
faring better than others.
To understand the sentiments about the
changes occurring in Central Area, it is
important to know that there was active
redlining in Seattle until the late 1960s. In
the mid-1960s, an open housing measure
was put before voters that if passed, would
have allowed African Americans to buy a
home anywhere in the city. The measure
was defeated. The city council later passed
a comprehensive open housing law in 1968.
Respondents spoke of racial tensions as
long-term residents notice that the
improvements seem to come along with the
increase in white residents. There is, as one
person stated, an “undercurrent of
suspicion” regarding the motivation behind
the changes—that were it not for the white
households, the level of investment would
be lower. One person stated that while he
likes the new investments, he does not want
to see the area become a white
neighborhood. In his business he has
experienced an attitude among in-movers
that the neighborhood should now cater to
their needs.
Although the investments and housing
prices keep increasing in Central Area, most
respondents talk about the situation in ways
suggesting that it is not too late to prevent
widespread displacement. Central Area was
contrasted with Capitol Hill, which has
gentrified to the point that there is little to no
affordable housing left. Acknowledging that
Central Area will continue to gentrify, people
spoke of the need to create a balance so
that lower-income households can remain
or move into the area.
Key Strategies—Infill Development and
Housing Levy
Key housing strategies used in the Central
Area neighborhood are infill development,
including the development of mixed-use
projects, and a citywide housing levy to
raise funds for the production and
preservation of affordable housing, both
rental and homeownership.
Infill Development
Through mixed-use infill projects, CADA
seeks to revitalize the business areas in
Central Area that were nearly cleared by
urban renewal and to provide additional
affordable and market-rate housing units.
CADA likes mixed-use projects because of

Seattle, WA 57
the belief that every community should have
a viable business node. An example is a
construction project at 23rd and Jackson,
described below, on land zoned for mixeduse
development. The envisioned project fit
well with the neighborhood plan, which calls
for projects that will strengthen existing
business nodes.
Most respondents agreed that the Central
Area is built out. Infill development allows
developers to take advantage of the vacant
or dilapidated properties that exist in the
neighborhood. According to CADA there are
10 to 15 available parcels. Were the
neighborhood completely gentrified, like
Capitol Hill, infill projects might not be
possible to initiate. Rather, the focus likely
would shift to preserving existing affordable
housing stock, which the organization is
anticipating doing in the near future.
The size and location of a property affects
the type of project that can be done. CADA
has redeveloped individual lots for singlefamily
houses, as well as larger parcels,
such as the current mixed-use project. 2 The
larger, higher-density projects can have the
most impact on the neighborhood by
increasing employment opportunities and
outlets for shopping and other business
transactions for current community
members, as well as drawing new residents
and customers to the area. The organization
views infill development on vacant or
underdeveloped land as a way to balance
gentrifying forces by building without
displacing residents or businesses.
CADA raises both public and private funds
to finance its housing and commercial
projects. To acquire properties for
development, development organizations
can purchase land from the city at lower
than market value. CADA has purchased
one land parcel from the city to date, though
it paid the appraised value, which at the
time was affordable. Given the lengthy
development process of mixed-use
developments, the land value increased 80
percent by the time construction began.
When a community-based development
organization purchases land from the city’s
Office of Economic Development, there are
a number of stipulations, including
requirements for a certain number of
affordable units at 60 to 80 percent of AMI,
maintaining affordability of the units over
time, and hiring construction staff from the
local community.
CADA’s 23rd and Jackson project under
construction is a good example of infill that
serves both housing and economic
development goals. Welch Plaza is being
built on the former site of a neighborhood
hardware store, diagonally across the street
from a Starbucks. CADA is partnering with a
private real estate development company to
develop the site, and will retain part
ownership once the project is completed.
The approximately $27 million project,
funded by a major bank, private investors,
and two city departments (Economic
Development and Housing), will provide
affordable and market-rate rental housing
units, and retail and commercial space.

58 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
The initial plan called for two apartment
buildings and one office building, but with
the office vacancy rate in the city on the
rise, the plan was revised. The final plan
includes a total of 162 apartments from
studio to two-bedroom units, 17 percent of
which will be affordable to households
earning up to 60 percent of AMI and 31
percent of which will be affordable to
households earning up to 80 percent of
AMI. The project also includes 18,000
square feet of ground floor retail and
commercial space, and slightly over 200
parking spaces, most of which will be
located underground. The first phase of the
project was scheduled for completion in
October 2003, with the entire project slated
for January 2004 completion.
The project has incorporated economic
development into the construction phase by
setting targets for the participation levels of
minority and women subcontractors and for
the employment of local residents. CADA’s
newsletters document these participation
levels. Overall, respondents said there has
been more positive than negative responses
to the Welch Plaza project. Community
members have been pleased to see racial
minority and women employees on the
construction site. And though some
residents are unhappy with the higher
density and overall large size of the project,
other residents like it. One issue has been
the selection of a non-union contractor,
which has created a problem with the
unions.
According to CADA staff, the CDC’s role in
leading new development in Central Area is
not as significant now that the private
market has taken over. Since Starbucks and
Bank of America arrived in the
neighborhood, private developers are more
willing to move in. Now that private
investment is coming to the area again, the
organization is starting to prioritize other
aspects of what it does, such as preserving
affordable housing. As a next step, the
organization is beginning to look at projectbased
Section 8 opt-out properties to
purchase and maintain as subsidized
housing. Although these properties’ values
are increasing as well, they are not yet
valued at the market rate. CADA has
purchased one Section 8 development so
far that consists of 24 housing units in two
buildings.
Implementation Challenges
Housing practitioners in Central Area must
cope with increasing land prices posing a
challenge to the viability of development
projects. As an example of the increasing
land costs, CADA purchased the parcel at
23rd and Jackson for $198,000; five years
later, the property was appraised at $1.2
million. Even though the CDC can purchase
land from the city at lower than market
value, increasing land values makes such
purchases difficult. In addition to cost, the
number of vacant parcels in Central Area is
declining. CADA estimates that it will be

Seattle, WA 59
able to continue purchasing land for
development for perhaps two more years.
Mixed-use projects bring other challenges,
which include acquiring funding for the
commercial portion of a project. The city’s
Office of Community Development has an
equity fund for commercial development,
which CADA taps. CADA also identifies
private developers with which to partner.
Many CDCs do not get involved with
commercial projects because of the funding
difficulties. Mixed-use developments are
higher risk than housing developments. As
CADA said, a CDC needs to work with a
private developer who understands the
risks, has deep pockets, and is patient.
Community involvement and communication
are critical when doing infill projects. CADA
spoke of the importance of gathering
community input on specific projects from
the earliest stages of planning. A CDC
needs to get the community involved, pay
heed to any concerns, and incorporate
ideas. In Seattle, the permitting process can
take about 18 months. Because the city
requires community input into a plan in
order to grant permits, not inviting
community involvement early on can lead to
serious permitting delays. Updating key
constituents and the broader community
during the course of a project helps keep
people aware of progress and any obstacles
so that they feel in the loop.
CADA staff offered suggestions for work on
mixed-use infill developments: if working in
a union town, negotiate with the unions to
secure a quality contractor. Find a private
partner for projects on which it is difficult to
raise sufficient public money. As mentioned
earlier, a “good” partner is one who
understands the risks involved, is patient,
and has pockets deep enough to weather
the few years it might take to realize decent
revenue streams. CADA recommends
mixed-use developments in part because of
the revenue streams and developer fees
that can be realized. However, it
acknowledges that it usually takes time for
the revenues to materialize.
Housing Levy
The housing levy is a property tax
assessment that raises funds for affordable
housing preservation, production, and
assistance. Levy funds can be used across
Seattle, though most of the funds are
intended for use in Special Objective Areas
(SOA), areas that the city has designated as
economically distressed. Central Area is
one of the four SOAs listed in the 2002 levy.
The decision to place a housing levy before
citizens for a vote stemmed from the need
to increase the affordable housing stock in
the city. Prior to the first levy, passed in
1981, the only funding sources for
affordable housing production were CDBG
and public housing funds. When the city
was designing the levy, staff debated
whether to structure the assessment as a
percentage of property taxes or to specify
an overall amount to be raised. Believing
that there would be greater support if voters
knew the exact amount they would be

60 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
asked to approve, staff decided to specify a
dollar figure. The planning process for the
most recent levy began two years before it
was initiated. There was a citizen advisory
committee that included former mayors. The
city spent about $300,000 on the levy
campaign, which it raised through
contributions from banks and other
contributors.
Seattle voters have since passed four
housing levies. The first levy raised funds to
meet housing needs of senior citizens. The
city’s decision to target the levy this way
was pragmatic—the elderly was an easy
group to serve politically. The second levy in
1986 was broadened to include special
needs and family housing. This levy also
focused on the downtown area of the city.
The levy of 1995 was expanded again to
include rental preservation and production,
homeownership, and operations and
maintenance of housing.
The 2002 levy will total $86 million over
seven years, costing the average
homeowner approximately $49 a year
(Seattle Office of Housing 2003). The levy
was placed on the ballot after the city
council passed an ordinance that adopted
an Affordable Housing Financing Plan. The
current levy is organized into five programs:
the Rental Preservation & Production
Program, the Homeownership/Home Buyer
Assistance Program, the Neighborhood
Housing Opportunity Program, the Rental
Assistance Program, and the Operating and
Maintenance Program. Five percent of levy
funds will be set aside for each program
administration. The Office of Housing is
charged with administering each of the levy
programs except for the Rental Assistance
Program, for which the Human Services
Department is responsible. Each program
calls for leveraging of funds with other city,
state, or federal funding sources, including
the McKinney Homeless Assistance
program, the State Housing Trust Fund,
HOME, CDBG, various city sources, and
foundation support.
There have not been significant challenges
to the levy program; however, the changing
housing market has affected the levy’s
Homeownership/Home Buyer Assistance
Program. Now, the downpayment
assistance mostly goes toward the
purchase of condominium units because of
the increasing costs of detached housing.

Seattle, WA 61
Programs Funded by Housing Levy
Most of the funding, 65 percent or $56.1 million, is targeted for the Rental Preservation and Production
Program. This program offers funding for the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of vacant or occupied
buildings, new construction, and for financing. Tenants of housing produced or preserved with levy
funds must have incomes at or below 30, 50, or 60 percent of AMI, depending on the type of project.
However, nearly 60 percent of the funds from this program must go toward units affordable to
households with income at or below 30 percent of AMI. Funds are in the form of various types of
loans, which are made to nonprofit organizations, the Seattle Housing Authority, public development
authorities, and private developers. Projects funded through the Rental Preservation and Production
Program may be located across the city.
The Homeownership/Home Buyer Assistance Program will receive 9 percent of the levy funds ($7.8
million total). This program seeks to help low-income, first-time homebuyers to purchase a house in
Seattle. Beneficiaries of the assistance must have incomes at or below 80 percent of AMI, with at least
half of the funds targeted to households earning at or below 60 percent of AMI. Most of this program’s
funds will be targeted for use in the four Special Objective Areas, which include the Central Area.
The Neighborhood Housing Opportunity Program (NHOP) is new in the 2002 levy. It will receive 8
percent of levy funds ($7.2 million total). This program will support three objectives: projects located in
the identified economically distressed areas, projects in historically distressed areas, and projects that
can serve as a catalyst to revitalization. Geographic stipulations on these funds include the Central
Area. The program criteria include mixed-use or mixed-income projects and projects that will help
mitigate the impact of gentrification in an area by providing a range of housing types and prices.
Housing funded by this program must be affordable to households at 80 percent of AMI, and at least a
quarter of the funding must support housing for people at or below 30 percent of AMI.
The Rental Assistance Program accounts for 3 percent ($2.8 million) of the levy. The program pays a
rent subsidy directly to a private landlord via a public agency or a nonprofit organization. The
assistance is short-term, meant to help prevent homelessness due to economic hardship and to help
households transition from homelessness into rental housing. Households receiving assistance under
this program must have income at or less than 50 percent of AMI.
Finally, the Operating and Maintenance Program makes up 9 percent of the levy ($7.8 million total).
This program offers multiunit developments under the Rental Preservation and Production Program
operating support so that units in the developments can be affordable to extremely low income
households (income at or less than 30 percent of AMI). Private developers, nonprofit organizations,
and public agencies except for the Housing Authority may participate in this program.

62 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Under the 1981 Housing Levy, 1,300 units
of elderly housing were affected, exceeding
the goal of 1,000. The goal for the second
levy in 1986 was to affect 1,000 units of
housing, and again the city exceeded the
goal by 900 units. Under the current levy,
housing goals are 1,522 units under the
Rental Preservation and Production
Program; 326 under the Homeownership
Program; and 196 in the Neighborhood
Housing Opportunity Program, for a total of
2,044 units produced or affected. City staff
estimated the actual number will likely be
closer to 2,500 units. In addition, the Rental
Assistance Program is estimated to assist
approximately 500 households a year or
3,500 households over the course of the
levy.
According to CADA, the housing levy has
provided support to three projects in Central
Area. Harvey Apartments received about 20
percent of project costs from the levy to
preserve 20 units as low-income housing.
Union James project received about 40
percent of project costs to include 28 units
of affordable housing. Finally, the Welch
project under construction has received
about 5 percent of the project cost to go
toward 21 affordable units.
Implementation Challenges
City staff offered a number of suggestions
for creating a housing levy. First, keep it
simple at the start by beginning with one
program rather than with many. Poll to get a
sense of the type of program that could
garner widespread public support. Seattle
found that senior or family/workforce
housing were good initial programs. Even
with careful design of the levy, a city should
anticipate a hard sell of the program. The
planning process for Seattle’s housing levy
began two years before the levy was
initiated. The city spent about $300,000 on
the campaign, which was raised through
contributions from banks and other
contributors. The political strategies for
gathering support for the levies have been
different each time around. The process of
getting the levy passed is a good
opportunity to bond with nonprofit
organizations. City staff commented that the
relationships developed during the process
of shaping and getting passed the housing
levy has helped the implementation of the
levy programs.

Seattle, WA 63
Additional Strategies
Home Repairs
Efforts to preserve affordable housing include home repair work. CADA has carried out maintenance and
repair work for neighborhood homeowners for the past seven years. Volunteers work on up to 10 houses
each summer during weekends to paint exteriors, repair roofs, do yard work, and improve home security
for elderly or disabled residents. The city also offers a home repair program, called HomeWise.
HomeWise offers loans at 3 percent interest to low- and moderate-income homeowners to cover the costs
of health and safety-related repairs, accessibility modifications, or code violation upgrades. The program
also offers free weatherization grants to low-income households.
Housing Regulations
Another strategy in Central Area is to revisit development regulations that affect affordable housing
production. The Central Area satellite office of the Department of Neighborhoods worked with the
Department of Housing to host a forum in June 2003 to discuss lifting the moratorium on affordable
housing development that exists because the neighborhood is designated as an SOA. At present,
projects located in SOAs that receive city funding cannot include affordable units unless developers
receive neighborhood approval. The SOA was initiated in order to disperse new affordable housing
developments into areas that did not already have a concentration of them. Now that housing prices have
increased in Central Area, some people want the moratorium lifted so that it will be easier to build new
affordable housing in an effort to balance the gentrification forces in the neighborhood. The number of
subsidized units in Central Area dropped from 25 percent of the housing stock in 1990 to approximately
15 percent at present (compared to 8 percent citywide). City staff did not anticipate opposition to lifting the
moratorium in Central Area.
Employment
Another strategy is based on the perspective that anti-displacement efforts must take a broader focus
than housing alone, and include employment. The Chamber of Commerce established the Urban
Enterprise Center (UEC), a nonprofit affiliate with ties to the business community, which focuses on the
Central Area. UEC held a retreat with Central Area leaders to discuss community needs. The primary
issue identified was the lack of jobs. Two of UEC’s initiatives are job creation and business development.
UEC has sent out approximately 3,000 letters to employers encouraging them to hire people from inner
areas of the city. To work with the program, businesses have to offer a yearly salary of at least $20,000
along with benefits. UEC works with the Employment Security Office to identify potential employees and
get them job-ready before matching them with employers. To date, UEC has helped over 7,000 people
from Central Area and Rainier Valley who previously had received welfare to find employment. With
financial support from the Ford Foundation and private businesses, UEC has funded community-based
organizations to help develop businesses. New businesses are required to hire 50 percent of their
workforce from the local community. Graduate students from the University of Washington provide
businesses with marketing and accounting assistance so that they might remain competitive as larger
chains locate nearby.

64 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Conclusion
Because the Central Area neighborhood is
in process of gentrifying, respondents
believe that it is not too late to prevent
increasing displacement of current
residents. The availability of
underdeveloped parcels of land and some
vacant lots allow for infill development for at
least two more years. The city’s housing
levy programs will support the construction
and preservation of affordable rental and
homeowner properties in Central Area and
elsewhere in the city. If the SOA designation
is altered, developers will be able to
construct subsidized housing using city
funds once again as a way to balance the
strong private housing market. Importantly,
respondents all understand the need for
economic development initiatives to bring in
new stores and services and to support
existing businesses. This broader view of
both neighborhood revitalization and
displacement mitigation acknowledges the
interdependence between residential and
business components of a community.
Population
Table 7: Seattle, WA and Central Area
City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990 and 2000
Year
City total
Central
Area
Population 1990 516,200 20,300
2000 563,300 22,200
% change population 1990–2000 9.1 9.4
% black non-Hispanic 1990 9.8 56.5
2000 9.6 38.9
% white non-Hispanic 1990 73.8 30.6
2000 68.8 41.7
% other race non-Hispanic 1990 13.1 10.3
2000 16.4 11.1
% Hispanic 1990 3.3 2.6
2000 5.3 8.3
Income and poverty
Average family income (in 1999
dollars) 1990 66,600 43,500
2000 83,800 64,300
Poverty rate 1990 12,400 20,900
2000 11,800 19,200

Seattle, WA 65
Employment
Unemployment rate 1990 4.9 9.1
Housing conditions
2000 5.1 6.2
Occupied housing units 1990 236,700 8,800
2000 258,500 10,000
Total rental units 1990 127,100 5,600
2000 138,400 6,100
Rental vacancy rate 1990 4.8 6.9
2000 3.7 4.3
% housing units owner-occupied 1990 48.9 40.4
2000 48.4 42.1
Average value owner-occupied
housing units (in 2000 dollars) 1990 220,600 153,100
2000 315,500 276,800
% of renters paying > 35% of income
on rent 1990 31.2 35.8
2000 30.6 35.3
Home mortgage indicators
Total number of mortgages
originated/1,000 housing units a Avg. (95, 96) 26.5 27.5
Avg. (00, 01) 38.8 39.5
% change in number of mortgages
originated, 1995/96–2000/2001 a 46.4 43.6
Dollar value of mortgages
originated/housing unit a Avg. (95, 96) 4,446 3,945
Avg. (00, 01) 8,246 7,869
% change in dollar value of
mortgages originated, 1995/96–
2000/2001 a 85.5 99.5
Average value of mortgages
originated (1–4-unit structures) a Avg. (95, 96) 167,900 143,300
Avg. (00, 01) 212,700 199,400
% change in average value of
mortgages originated, 1995/96–
2000/2001 a 26.7 39.1
Source: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban
Institute’s Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) based on
1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses.
Note: Data for Central Area are analyzed using census tracts
007700, 007900, 008700, 008800, 008900, and 009000.
a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the Urban Institute.
Dollar amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

66 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
CHICAGO, IL
UPTOWN
Key strategy: voluntary inclusionary zoning
Other strategies: nonprofit retention strategies, tax assessment retention strategies
City and Neighborhood
Chicago increased in population and
housing values during the 1990s. Chicago
grew by roughly 4 percent in the 1990s
reaching 2.9 million people in 2000 (Census
CD Neighborhood Change Database). The
price of homes increased one-quarter
during the late 1990s, while the number of
homes bought increased by 30 percent (see
Table 8 at the end of the case study). The
accelerated housing market did not happen
uniformly across neighborhoods throughout
the city, however. Neighborhoods bordering
Lake Michigan north of the central business
district and neighborhoods immediately
south and west of the downtown area
appeared to drive the city’s overall housing
market gain. Neighborhoods located on the
far south and west sides—historically
African American and poor—continued to
experience neglect during the 1990s.
Uptown is located along Lake Michigan,
approximately eight miles north of
downtown. South of Uptown are upscale
neighborhoods, and immediately north is
Edgewood, a neighborhood that also
experienced an accelerated housing market
during the 1990s, along with an influx of
new upscale retail and restaurant
establishments.
Uptown historically has been a diverse and
densely populated area. Since the early
1900s, it has been the port of entry for
immigrant populations, including Russians,
Koreans, Mexicans, Vietnamese,
Cambodians, and Laotians. During the
1940s and 1950s, the neighborhood’s
population continued to diversify as African
Americans, southern rural whites, and
Native Americans were attracted to
Uptown’s affordable housing stock. During
the federal deinstitutionalization of mental
health institutions in the 1970s, the
neighborhood also became home to a large
number of former mental health patients.
During the 1950s post-World War II housing
shortage, housing was converted to
accommodate more units by splitting singlefamily
residences and smaller apartment
buildings into multiunit properties. Uptown
also experienced a 25 percent reduction in
housing stock during the federal urban
renewal period during the 1960s and 1970s
(Chicago Fact Book Consortium 1963).
The neighborhood’s housing stock consists
of mid-sized and large apartment buildings,

Chicago, IL 67
as well as the largest concentration of
single-room occupancy hotels (SROs) in the
city. Roughly two-thirds of Uptown’s housing
stock is concentrated in buildings with 20 or
more units, compared to the citywide
average of only 23 percent (Haas et al.
2002). High-rise apartment buildings line the
lake, while smaller rental units—some as
small as six-flat apartments—are located
further west in the neighborhood. Uptown
has some single-family detached homes,
which are designated historic, located along
the lake and on the western border.
Homeownership rates are relatively low in
Uptown, 23 percent compared to 44 percent
citywide (Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database).
Residential development has been
prevalent in Uptown during the past 10
years. According to respondents,
condominium conversions—where
developers convert rental apartment units
into owner-occupied condominiums—have
become commonplace. Data supports this
perception: parcels occupied by apartment
buildings decreased by 12 percent while the
number of parcels with condominiums
increased by 102 percent (Haas et al.
2002). Consequently the homeownership
rate of 23 percent—while still relatively low
for Chicago—increased by 35 percent over
the 1990s (Census CD Neighborhood
Change Database). The number of vacant
units—another indicator of demand for
housing—decreased from 10 to 6 percent in
Uptown (Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database).
Uptown has a rich pool of human service
providers and nonprofit organizations, such
as ethnic and immigrant organizations,
homeless service providers, job training
programs, and churches and religious
institutions. Commercial and retail activity is
concentrated on the main streets running
north-south and east-west in the
neighborhood and consist of small
businesses such as beauty and nail salons,
convenience stores, and fast food
restaurants. Two large entertainment and
music venues are also located in Uptown,
attracting patrons from across the city.
While there is a plethora of small
businesses in Uptown, upscale commercial
development has not kept pace with
residential development. Three Starbucks
coffee shops, the Seattle coffee chain
considered a harbinger of gentrification,
opened in Uptown, but little other high-end
retail has entered Uptown thus far.
The neighborhood continues to be one of
the most diverse in Chicago. Whites make
up the majority of residents, while onequarter
are African American, 20 percent
are Latino, and 18 percent are other
ethnicities, which consists mostly of Asians
(Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database). Uptown experienced an
increase in middle-aged residents, while
children and senior citizens decreased in
number. 3 According to respondents, more
singles and childless couples moved into
Uptown attracted by condominium
conversions; hence the increase in the
middle-age category. Many of these new

68 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
residents were also reported to be white,
middle-class, and gay.
Uptown’s residents became somewhat
wealthier during the 1990s. The
neighborhood’s poverty rate decreased by
22 percent during the 1990s, and the
average family income increased by 25
percent (Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database).
Factors influencing Uptown’s housing
market are numerous. It is one of the last
north side neighborhoods along Lake
Michigan affordable to middle-income
residents. The Lakeview and Wrigleyville
neighborhoods to the south have already
gentrified, and Uptown’s inexpensive land
from years of disinvestment is attractive to
developers. Uptown also offers a number of
amenities—access to public transportation
through a subway station and bus lines, a
relatively short commute downtown, and the
lake itself, with its beaches, parks, bike
lanes, and sports fields.
Local groups have advocated both for and
against gentrification. Chicago has a history
of grassroots advocacy and organizing
stemming from the work of Saul Alinsky
during the 1930s, and Uptown is no
exception. The Community of Uptown
Residents for Accountability and Justice
(COURAJ), a grassroots advocacy group,
organizes against new developments that
exclude affordable units for low-income
residents. Other organizations, such as the
Uptown Chicago Commission, tend to have
a more pro-development outlook. Block
groups are active in some parts of Uptown,
representing mainly homeowners. Tensions
have erupted between some affordable
housing organizations and block clubs over
low-income housing developments.
Affordable housing is an issue on the
mayor’s agenda. The city’s Department of
Housing administers programs intended to
benefit low- to moderate-income families
through homeownership and in the rental
market (some of these programs are
described below). However, critics of Mayor
Daley contend he has not done enough to
ensure an adequate amount of affordable
housing for low-income and working
families, but focuses on attracting middleincome
residents to the city.
Aldermanic support for affordable housing is
particularly strong in Uptown. Chicago is
divided into 48 wards with an elected
alderman representing each ward. Uptown
is split between two wards, with the majority
of Uptown represented by Alderman Helen
Shiller and the remaining by Alderman Mary
Ann Smith. Alderman Shiller has served
Uptown residents for the past 16 years and
is credited with focusing on diversity and
affordability in her ward. For instance,
Uptown has the greatest concentration of
single-room occupancies hotels (SRO) in
the city. Alderman Shiller recognizes that
development opportunities exist in Uptown
and she helps to ensure that current

Chicago, IL 69
residents benefit, as well as new residents.
Alderman Shiller’s goal for development is
“gentrification without displacement,”
believing that a mixture of economic classes
should coexist within her ward. Alderman
Shiller also has her critics—some consider
her obstructionist and anti-development.
Stage of Gentrification
Housing prices for single-family detached
homes, condominiums, and larger
apartments have increased, while some
rental housing stock remains affordable.
Indications of rising housing costs are the
following: the median sales price for singlefamily
detached homes increased by 33
percent between 1990 and 2000 compared
to the citywide increase of 12 percent, and
condominiums increased in price by 112
percent compared to 53 percent citywide
(Haas et al. 2002).
Though affordable housing still exists in the
form of rental housing, the pool appears to
be shrinking. For instance, the total number
of rental units declined by 11 percent
(Census CD Neighborhood Change
Database). Small apartments tend to cost
less in Uptown compared to other parts of
the city, and SROs still make up a great
proportion of Uptown’s rental stock (Haas et
al. 2002). According to recent estimates,
there is also a relatively large amount of
subsidized housing in Uptown: 18 percent,
or 5,896 units, are subsidized (Haas et al.
2002). While federally subsidized housing
exists in Uptown, respondents are
concerned about landlords opting out of
Section 8. Two census tracts in Uptown saw
a decrease in the number of voucher
holders by 21 percent between 1997 and
2000, while the remaining three census
tracts in Uptown held steady (Haas et al.
2002).
Affordable housing advocates point out that
landlords and developers rather than
residents have benefited from Uptown’s
gentrification. Because most of the housing
stock is rental, most real estate transactions
occur between landlord and developer or
between private developers. There has
been little asset building for residents.
Instead, many incumbent residents are
faced with higher housing costs (at least for
larger apartments, condos, and singlefamily
homes) and the threat of expiring
Section 8 contracts.
Key Strategy—Voluntary Inclusionary
Zoning
The key program highlighted in this case
study is an inclusionary zoning program
called Chicago Partnership for Affordable
Neighborhoods (CPAN), which was
implemented citywide in 2001. CPAN is a
voluntary program where developers and
aldermen from each ward determine the
number of affordable units, if any,
developers will set aside in their market-rate
developments. Those affordable units are
“written down” by the developer and the city
provides purchase price assistance to
homebuyers. Residents eligible for CPAN
can earn no more than 100 percent of the
area median income, or $68,700, and

70 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
participants must be either first-time
homebuyers or not have owned a home in
the last three years.
While CPAN is a citywide program, it is at
the discretion of each alderman whether
developers must participate. The developer
and alderman negotiate the percentage of
affordable housing set asides, although the
program recommends between 10 and 20
percent. Therefore, CPAN is applied on a
case-by-case basis differing across the city
and even within wards by project. However,
because developments over six units
normally need some type of aldermanic
zoning change approval (even as basic as
alley access), aldermen usually have the
leverage to negotiate. Normally it is also in
the developer’s best interest to get
aldermanic and community support. If
developers want a zoning change, they
must hold a public hearing.
Tangible incentives exist for the developers
to participate beyond aldermanic zoning
approval and good community relations. For
every affordable unit, the city waives the
required building permit fees, which can
cost up to $10,000 per unit. The city also
assists with the developer’s site
improvement budget, such as perimeter site
improvements and landscaping, on a caseby-case
basis. Multiple benefits exist for the
buyer as well. The city provides housing
and pre-purchase counseling, as well as
purchase price assistance that covers the
difference between the developer’s writedown
price and 30 percent of the buyer’s
income. This assistance is offered as a
deferred loan at 0 percent interest for
income-eligible individuals, which is reduced
on an annual pro rata basis. The unit must
be the resident’s main housing. If the
homebuyer lives in the unit beyond the
length of the loan, the loan is forgiven.
Purchase price assistance is provided
through HOME dollars.
CPAN has provisions to avoid “flipping”—
where homebuyers quickly sell the
subsidized unit at higher market-rate prices.
The city adds a junior mortgage on the write
down. If residents move within 30 years, this
subsidized money goes into the Chicago
Low-Income Housing Trust Fund, which
uses the proceeds for affordable housing.
The owners do not realize the subsidized
equity.
As of May 2003, 18 months into the
program, 21 developers have participated in
the CPAN program citywide, totaling $7.4
million in developer write downs. The
average developer write down per
affordable unit was $70,000, and, on
average, 17 percent of units per project
were deemed affordable. This translates
into 179 affordable units out of 1,457 units
to be built citywide. Construction is not
complete in all the projects. 4 In Uptown, five
developers have participated in CPAN since
its inception. Twenty-two affordable units
out of a total of 282, 11 percent, are in the
process of being built. The average

Chicago, IL 71
developer write down per project is $56,000,
with a total of $281,000 of total developer
write downs.
The most recent high-profile project using
CPAN in Uptown is a formerly vacant
department store, the Goldblatts Building,
that is being remodeled and rehabilitated for
mixed-use development using CPAN and
tax increment financing (TIF) dollars. The
development will include 37 one- and twobedroom
condominiums, of which
approximately eight units will qualify under
the CPAN program. The ground floor of the
former Goldblatts Building will house a
Borders Books & Music store, as well as
other retail shops.
Those eligible for the affordable units can
make only between 60 and 80 percent of
AMI. CPAN provides purchase price
assistance to the potential buyers, but the
developer needed additional financial
assistance beyond CPAN to write down
their market-rate units. Therefore, $700,000
of TIF funds will be used to write down the
market-rate price from $225,000 to
$155,000.
The developer is receiving $5.75 million
through the TIF district to finance the
Goldblatts Building project. In turn, the
developer is providing $1.25 million to a notfor-profit
developer to rehabilitate the
neighboring six-story residential Leland
Apartments, which has 99 single-room
occupancy units and 34 studios for low-rent
tenants. The nonprofit intends to rehabilitate
the building and rooms, as well as provide
in-house social services and retail space on
the ground floor.
There was both vocal opposition and
support to the Goldblatts project. Grassroots
advocacy groups like COURAJ opposed the
TIF subsidy for market-rate condos
advocating that more affordable housing,
especially rental housing, is needed in
Uptown (Walters 2002). Other
organizations, like the Uptown Chicago
Commission, a coalition of block clubs and
businesses, advocated for retail and
commercial development using TIF dollars
like the renovated Goldblatts building in
Uptown (Grossman 2001).
Implementation Challenges
A citywide challenge for CPAN is that it is a
voluntary program, leaving it to the
discretion of aldermen whether developers
will participate. Alderman Shiller is both a
strong proponent of CPAN and one of its
architects. However, support is not as
universally strong in the rest of the city.
Another problem inherent in a voluntary
program is whether developers will choose
to participate or take their business
elsewhere. Aldermen have leverage only if
the developer needs zoning approval.
Those developers who have the appropriate
zoning may choose not to participate in
CPAN even if the alderman would normally
support and require it, and may outbid other
developers that would set aside affordable
units.

72 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
In reaction against the voluntary nature of
CPAN, 15 affordable housing organizations
formed the Balanced Development
Campaign to advocate for mandatory
inclusionary zoning. An ordinance was
introduced to the city council for such a
mandatory ordinance requiring a 20 percent
set-aside of affordable housing units, higher
than the CPAN recommendation. While this
mandatory ordinance was being lobbied for,
another similar ordinance, the Affordable
Housing Ordinance, was accepted by the
city council in April 2003. It requires
developers buying city-owned land below
market rate price to set aside 10 percent of
the new units as affordable. If a developer
receives city financial subsidies, then the
developer must set aside 20 percent of the
units as affordable. In addition, there is an
in-lieu-of fee of $100,000 per unit if
developers do not build the mandatory
number of affordable units that is applied to
the Chicago Low-Income Housing Trust
Fund. While the city’s ordinance has been
recognized as a good start by a number of
organizations, it is also criticized that it is
limited in scope due to the small amount of
developable city-owned land.
A number of lessons were learned in regard
to CPAN. First, ensuring community support
for housing development is crucial. Some
developers believe that only elected
official’s support is necessary to approve
housing development. In Uptown, the wider
community needs to be informed and
involved. Residents can organize around
the issues of too much density or the threat
of taking away parking, blocking the
development of affordable housing. Or,
grassroots organizations may protest the
development of market-rate housing in favor
of low-income housing.
Private developers need to be coached in
regard to community charettes and public
hearings. Often private developers are not
accustomed to working with the public and
negotiating compromises, but it is crucial in
active neighborhoods like Uptown.
Another lesson learned in regard to
retaining affordable housing is the need to
bank land. In the mid-1980s, gentrification
was dismissed as a potential threat in
Uptown according to one nonprofit. People
thought it would never happen. In
retrospect, the nonprofit believes they
should have put as much land in a land trust
as possible and converted private buildings
to nonprofits. They now advise a
neighborhood west of Uptown that has yet
to experience gentrification to anticipate its
arrival and begin landbanking now.

Chicago, IL 73
Additional Strategies
Retention Strategies of Nonprofits
Local nonprofits working in Uptown and the surrounding neighborhoods have waged campaigns to retain
existing affordable housing. Organization of the NorthEast (ONE)—an umbrella organization representing
78 members from three neighborhoods including Uptown—recognized the importance of land use and
affordable housing early on. Between 1980 and 1995, ONE worked to convert privately owned apartment
buildings into nonprofit ownership. They focused on high-rise properties along the lakefront to help keep
the area diverse and affordable, and successfully assisted in the purchase of 10 Section 8 privately held
buildings that would opt out in 20 years. ONE also worked to convert apartment buildings into limitedequity
co-ops creating permanent affordable buildings, and assisted nonprofits in purchasing privately
owned SROs, which resulted in rehabbed SROs with social services. The nonprofit Lakefront SRO
Corporation, for instance, owns approximately 600 beds in six SRO buildings in Uptown.
The Jane Addams Senior Caucus, an organization focusing on the housing and health care needs of
senior citizens living in Uptown and the surrounding neighborhoods, also works to retain affordable
housing for seniors. They led a successful campaign convincing the landlord of the Rienzi Plaza
Apartments to renew his Section 8 contract in the Lakeview neighborhood, which neighbors Uptown. In
addition, the Jane Addams Senior Caucus along with two other nonprofits successfully purchased city
land in Uptown and built 83 units of affordable rental housing specifically for seniors.
Retention Strategies Through Tax Assistance
The Cook County Assessor’s Office offer three tax incentives to retain multiunit family rentals in Chicago:
Class 3, Class 9, and Class S. The Class 3 tax classification reduces the assessment on all multi-unit
residential properties with seven or more units from 33 percent to 26 percent. The Class 9 tax
classification applies to buildings with seven or more rental units targeted to low- and moderate-income
households (or households making less than 80 percent of the area median income) that have been
rehabilitated or newly constructed. These buildings’ assessments are reduced to 16 percent of market
value for up to 10 years with the possibility of two 10-year extensions. The Class S classification provides
incentives to owners of expiring Section 8 buildings to renew their contracts using HUD’s Mark Up to
Market program. The purpose of the tax incentive is to slow affordable rentals converting to market-rate
rentals and condominiums. Landlords that decide to renew their Section 8 contracts qualify to cut their tax
assessments from a 33 percent to a 16 percent assessment rate, matching the assessments of
homeowners. Previously, this tax reduction could be applied only in low- and moderate-income census
tracts but now it applies countywide.
Conclusion
Uptown has not yet completely gentrified,
therefore there are still affordable housing
units available to current residents. Due to
the fact that aldermanic approval is often
necessary for developers to proceed,
aldermen have a certain degree of leverage

74 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
to negotiate set-asides—thus ensuring
some amount of affordable housing in the
foreseeable future. However, aldermen do
not necessarily have control over the type of
housing built, and because condo
conversion is prevalent in Uptown, most
incumbent residents are faced with higher
housing costs (at least for larger
apartments, condos, and single-family
homes) and the threat of expiring Section 8
contracts. As a result, the pool of housing
for families and the lowest income
population in Uptown is most at risk as
gentrification proceeds. Subsidized rental
units are crucial for low- and very low
income residents, and there are steep
challenges to ensure affordable rental units
as land prices skyrocket and financial
incentives exist for landlords to opt out of
federal subsidy programs.
To prevent displacement of current
residents, respondents remain hopeful that
continued support from programs such as
CPAN and local aldermen offices as well as
further improvements to existing efforts will
help ensure the availability of affordable
housing, particularly rental units, in Uptown.
While respondents recognize the benefits of
development activity, they stress the
importance of coordinated, focused efforts
on behalf of the city, aldermen, developers,
and community groups alike in supporting a
more universal adherence to the 10 to 20
percent affordable set-aside provision
throughout the revitalization process.
Population
Table 8: Chicago, IL and Uptown
City and Neighborhood Demographics, 1990 and 2000
Year City total Uptown
Population 1990 2,783,500 24,700
2000 2,895,600 24,200
% change population 1990–2000 4.0 -2.0
% black non-Hispanic 1990 38.7 25.4
2000 36.9 23.3
% white non-Hispanic 1990 38.2 37.8
2000 32.1 39.2
% other race non-Hispanic 1990 3.9 16.2
2000 5.0 17.9
% Hispanic 1990 19.2 20.6
2000 26.0 19.6

Chicago, IL 75
Income and poverty
Average family income (in 1999 dollars) 1990 52,100 40,000
Employment
2000 59,200 50,100
Unemployment rate 1990 11.3 10.9
Housing conditions
2000 10.1 8.7
Occupied housing units 1990 1,025,200 10,600
2000 1,061,700 11,000
Total rental units 1990 663.9 10.0
2000 637.5 8.9
Rental vacancy rate 1990 9.7 9.6
2000 6.4 5.5
% housing units owner-occupied 1990 41.5 14.5
2000 43.8 23.5
Average value owner-occupied housing
units (in 2000 dollars) 1990 124,000 223,400
2000 169,000 312,200
% of renters paying > 35% of income on
rent 1990 34.4 37.6
2000 30.8 31.0
Home mortgage indicators
Total number of mortgages
originated/1,000 housing units a Avg. (95, 96) 22.8 13.4
Avg. (00, 01) 33.9 35.0
% change in number of mortgages
originated, 1995/96–2000/2001 a 48.7 161.2
Dollar value of mortgages
originated/housing units a Avg. (95, 96) 3,078 1,602
Avg. (00, 01) 5,813 5,401
% change in dollar value of mortgages
originated, 1995/96–2000/2001 a 88.8 237.1
Average value of mortgages originated
(1–4-unit structures) a Avg. (95, 96) 134,800 119,700
Avg. (00, 01) 171,400 154,200
% change in average value of
mortgages originated, 1995/96–
2000/2001 a 27.2 28.8
Source: Unless otherwise noted, the data come from The Urban Institute’s
Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB) based on 1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses.
Note: Data for Uptown are analyzed using census tracts 031000, 031200, 031300,
031600, and 031900.
a. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset, 1995–2001, compiled by the Urban
Institute. Dollar amounts expressed as constant 2001 dollars.

76 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
3
section
CONCLUSION
A
range of approaches has been taken to address affordable housing needs in six
diverse neighborhoods located across the country. The six neighborhoods represent
the spectrum of gentrification and housing market pressures. Whether housing
practitioners in these neighborhoods referred to housing market pressures and accompanying
neighborhood change as revitalization or gentrification—as a positive or negative situation or a
complicated mix of both—most agreed on the need to balance the strengthening housing
market with affordable housing provisions so that lower-income residents are not displaced.
We draw from the case studies lessons
related to the three types of strategies to
reduce gentrification-related displacement:
affordable housing production, affordable
housing retention, and asset building. We
also consider a number of cross-cutting
issues important to strategy implementation:
land availability; the role of city government;
the role of community members; and the
importance of economic development.
Displacement Mitigation Strategies
Our findings begin with the fact that none of
the practitioners believed it was too late to
implement some type of affordable housing
strategy. Even in later-stage neighborhoods,
such as Central Area and Uptown, building
or retaining affordable housing stock was
still possible, though constrained. Figure 1
offers an overview of findings by strategy
type and gentrification stage with regards to
feasibility and implementation. 5
Figure 1: Housing Strategy by Stage of Gentrification
Stage of Gentrification
Early → Middle → Late
Affordable housing
production strategies
Feasible
Affordable housing
→
Constrained
Mixed-income
housing
Affordable housing
retention strategies
Feasible
Retain individual
homes
→
Feasible
Retain multi-unit
properties
Asset-building strategies
Feasible
Effective
→
Feasible
Less effective

Conclusion 77
Affordable Housing Production
Housing production is the key approach to
addressing affordable housing needs in
each of the six sites, regardless of the stage
of the local housing market. The emphasis
on production might be due in part to the
relative ease of building new or
rehabilitating existing housing units
compared to retaining existing affordable
housing. While production is common
across the case study sites, the way in
which projects are implemented is shaped
by the local context. Housing production
tends to focus less on incumbent residents
than retention strategies. By focusing on
increasing the affordable housing stock,
production can mitigate exclusionary
displacement, though it also benefits current
residents who might move into new
affordable rental or homeownership
properties.
Two primary, and related, factors affecting
housing production implementation are land
availability and the stage of gentrification.
As a neighborhood’s housing market begins
to gain strength, most of the units produced
can be affordable because land costs are
still relatively low and developable parcels
are still relatively plentiful. In such a market
environment, the motivation for housing
development stems from neighborhood
investment. Residents want to see their
neighborhood improve while they,
community based organizations and the city
hope that initial investments lead to
additional private investments for further
revitalization. Under these conditions, it is
feasible for nonprofit developers and niche
for-profit developers to produce affordable
housing. Their investment can serve as
evidence to other builders that the financial
risk is sufficiently low and interest in the
neighborhood is sufficiently high to make
additional activity worthwhile. Bartlett Park
and the Midtown areas in St. Petersburg are
examples where land is available, new
housing is affordable, and most people
hope that additional investments will lead to
both residential and commercial
improvements.
In neighborhoods with strengthening or
strong housing markets, high land prices
constrain the number of new affordable
units that can be built and the role of
nonprofit developers in housing production.
In such areas, nonprofit developers might
partner with for-profit developers on mixedincome
housing projects, leveraging the
demand for market-rate housing and retail
and commercial businesses to help finance
affordable units. Community and city
support for low-income housing can help
motivate entities to build affordable housing.
Inclusionary zoning regulations, for
example, can encourage or require for-profit
developers to include affordable units in
their own projects. As we saw in Los
Angeles’s Figueroa Corridor, people
anticipate a turn to the mixed-use and
mixed-income models of development in the
near future due to the increasing costs of
housing and land. In Central Area of Seattle
and in Chicago’s Uptown, such
development already is taking place.

78 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Affordable Housing Retention
Most sites also employed strategies to
retain existing affordable housing stock. In
many instances, retention strategies
focused on ensuring the continued
affordability of housing units and the ability
of current residents to remain in their homes
and neighborhood—housing retention can
mitigate secondary displacement of
residents.
In neighborhoods beginning to experience
increasing housing costs, retention efforts
can strengthen the affordable housing stock
through assisting residents with home
improvements so that they can remain in
their homes. The concern is not necessarily
one of affordable housing supply. Such an
approach tends to focus on already existing
homeowners. Improvements help stabilize a
neighborhood for current residents as well
as send visual signals that investment is
occurring, which in turn can attract
additional investment. Early on, retention is
often targeted to individual housing units or
small blocks of units rather than larger-scale
efforts. Until the housing market
accelerates, there is not much concern with
retaining large quantities of affordable
housing stock—housing already in supply.
Affordable housing retention efforts often
intensify once land costs increase and the
available parcels diminish—and concern
with the loss of affordable housing units
becomes widespread. Retention strategies
in stronger housing markets often target
rental units. In Central Area, the CDC is
looking into purchasing additional propertybased
Section 8 developments as they
become eligible to opt out of the program,
and as production opportunities wane due
to high costs. Uptown offers a slightly
different example of retention efforts. There,
organizations anticipated future pressures
on affordable housing and converted a
number of privately owned affordable
properties to nonprofit ownership before
housing and development prices rose
significantly.
Asset Building
Asset building strategies, also used in each
of the six sites, play a complementary role
to production and retention approaches.
The goal is to increase individuals’ assets
so that they have increased ability to
address housing and other needs, making
them less at the mercy of housing market
changes. Individual development accounts
(IDAs) and programs to increase
homeownership are examples of such
efforts. Alone, asset building efforts are
unlikely to have a broad impact in a
community, though certainly they are
important for individual participants. In
combination with other approaches, they
can strengthen overall displacement
mitigation efforts.
The implementation of asset-building
approaches is not as affected by stage of

Conclusion 79
gentrification as other strategies, production
in particular. Programs related to asset
building can be carried out regardless of
land or property costs, although the
outcome of such efforts can be greatly
affected by the strength of the housing
market. Whereas participants might be able
to use IDA savings toward the purchase of a
home in an area before prices increase,
once prices are high, they are less likely to
be able to do so.
Cross-Cutting Lessons
The study sites differed from each other in
many ways, but together they suggest a
number of lessons that are important
regardless of city size, housing market
strength, or stage of gentrification.
Land Availability Is Essential
The availability of developable land parcels
is a factor for entities addressing affordable
housing and displacement mitigation,
regardless of the strength of the housing
market. The availability and cost of
developable sites will affect the choice of
strategy—plentiful land at affordable prices
makes housing production feasible; lack of
land or high costs can encourage mixedrate
or mixed-use housing resulting in fewer
affordable units or push organizations
toward housing retention efforts.
People across the study sites spoke of the
need to bank land early, before costs
become prohibitive for affordable housing
development. Purchasing parcels early at
low cost can help control future
development costs, ensuring affordable
housing units for lower-income households.
Effective land banking, however, requires
foresight. Respondents from areas
experiencing later stages of gentrification,
such as practitioners in Uptown, spoke with
regret of not purchasing land early. In some
instances, people spoke of how hard it was
beforehand to imagine their neighborhoods
would ever experience such strong housing
demand, such as in Atlanta’s Reynoldstown.
St. Petersburg’s Bartlett Park is at a stage
where the city and CDCs could bank land; it
is available and costs have not increased
dramatically. This site is also an example of
how difficult it can be to convince other
people of the need to bank something
currently in supply. There is no guarantee
that Bartlett Park will experience
gentrification in the future. And there is little
consensus among interested parties as to
when, or if, attention to a possible future
affordable housing pinch should occur. In
places such as Bartlett Park in which there
appears to be time to monitor land and
housing cost trends, land banking can still
take place in the near future if indicators
suggest it should, and if support for such
action can be garnered.
City Government Involvement Is Crucial
The case studies suggest that local
government involvement and leadership is
vital to addressing affordable housing needs
regardless of the stage of gentrification.
Local government plays a key role in
creating regulatory supports and removing

80 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
barriers to housing development, providing
project financing or technical support, and
sending a message that affordable housing
is an important component of the broader
community. Attentive management of
regulations and city programs can help
create opportunities to affect neighborhood
revitalization/gentrification and
displacement, or hinder them. If a city does
not proactively support the provision of
affordable housing and become involved in
efforts to manage gentrification forces, it will
be that much more difficult for community
organizations and developers to do so.
The case studies offer a number of
examples. In St. Petersburg, the city was
reviewing the zoning regulations and
preparing to change them to better reflect
local context and development needs.
Without the zoning changes, developers in
in-town neighborhoods would need to
purchase two lots for one new house in
order to meet zoning requirements that
were established based upon suburban lot
sizes. Changing the zoning regulations will
allow new development without reducing the
number of land parcels in Midtown’s Bartlett
Park and other city neighborhoods. Seattle’s
Department of Neighborhoods and
Department of Housing were reviewing the
Special Objective Area designation of
Central Area, which was initially established
to disperse additional affordable housing
away from the neighborhood that already
had an abundance of such housing. Now
that housing costs have risen considerably
in Central Area, the city and community
residents were discussing removing the
designation so that it will be easier to build
affordable units. By managing the SOA
designation, it might be possible to affect
the balance of affordable and market-rate
housing production. Uptown provides
another example of significant government
involvement. Given the voluntary approach
to inclusionary zoning established in the
city, it is up to local aldermen to negotiate
the inclusionary zoning requirements. To
the advantage of Uptown’s affordable
housing community, its alderman is a strong
proponent of inclusionary zoning.
Community Involvement Is Crucial
Community involvement is crucial as well. It
can help motivate city government and
other organizations to support affordable
housing initiatives. Community members
can identify specific needs of a
neighborhood and develop workable ideas.
Once developments or programs move
toward implementation, community
members can assist or block any change.
The community played a pivotal role in a
number of the case studies. Figueroa
Corridor is a good example of strong
community involvement in identifying and
addressing local housing needs.
Organizations active in the area have
organized tenants and trained them on their
rights in response to clear efforts to displace
lower-income residents. Community

Conclusion 81
involvement is not always in support of
affordable housing and displacement
mitigation efforts, of course. A prodevelopment
organization in Uptown is
against efforts that might slow the pace of
investment in the area. Seattle offers an
example of courting community support for
its housing levies. The city is dependent
upon community support for the levies—the
levies are put up for vote. The city has
marketed the levies prior to the elections. It
also designed the first levy to be politically
expedient by targeting funds to seniors.
Based upon initial success, subsequent
levies have expanded in scope to reach
broader segments of the population in need
of affordable housing.
It is interesting to note that while there is
some level of organizational activity in each
of the six neighborhoods, resident
involvement in affordable housing activities
was strong only in the three most gentrified
communities. We are cautious in
interpreting this finding, but it does suggest
that residents are more likely to become
involved once housing concerns are
pressing. The challenge for communitybased
organizations is to promote resident
participation earlier so that people are
involved with defining and addressing
housing needs before options are limited
and they feel powerless in the face of
market forces.
Displacement Is a Housing and
Economic Issue
Many respondents across the sites agreed
that while affordable housing is needed, it is
not sufficient by itself for reducing
gentrification-related displacement.
Employment and earnings also affect
housing (and neighborhood) stability. In
order for low-income residents of gentrifying
neighborhoods to remain in place and
benefit from neighborhood improvements,
communities need to develop a holistic
approach to mitigating displacement. In
many of the neighborhoods in this study,
business corridors experienced
disinvestment similar to the residential
communities. Changes to the housing and
business sectors have been occurring
reflexively—changes in one support
changes in the other. Support for the
development of existing businesses, so that
they can weather change, and incentives for
successful businesses to locate in the
neighborhoods can create job opportunities
for incumbent residents. Depending upon
the wages offered, new jobs might in turn
increase residents’ ability to remain in their
community.
Seattle offers two examples of economic
development initiatives. Through the
Chamber of Commerce’s Urban Enterprise
Center, employers are encouraged to offer
jobs with decent salaries to former welfare
recipients who receive job-readiness
training. The program also supports the
development of new businesses committed
to hiring locally. The businesses receive

82 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
technical assistance to take advantage of
the changing market conditions. The CDC
active in Central Area sets hiring targets for
minority and women subcontractors for its
development projects, and publishes the
results in its newsletters.
Wrapping Up
The term gentrification is laden with
meaning, much of it negative in the eyes of
people for whom it has become
synonymous with displacement. Focusing
on whether neighborhood investment,
increasing land and housing values, and an
influx of higher-income residents should be
labeled gentrification or revitalization shifts
focus away from what many respondents
see as the key issue of concern—balancing
the positive and negative changes that
accompany increased neighborhood
investment. Can ways be found to
encourage investment and residential
stability at the same time? Are there
strategies that might serve both goals? The
case studies offer hope in this regard
through their examples of community
involvement—not to stop change from
occurring but to help direct it. Nonprofit
organizations and local governments can
take advantage of the opportunities at hand
to leverage additional affordable housing
units from market-rate developments. But to
strike a balance, involved parties need to
take stock of changing conditions on a
regular basis and act in a timely manner
while it is possible to make adjustments.
Starting late in the game in a context of cost
limitations will only make it more difficult to
make a difference. Attempting to balance
the forces at play in neighborhoods by
necessity will be an ongoing process.
The one regret mentioned by respondents
from areas in later stages of gentrification is
that they did not act earlier, especially in
relation to land acquisition. Considering
displacement early on can help maintain
neighborhood balance over time. Interested
parties can monitor changes occurring and
plan courses of action rather than respond
after the fact when options are constrained.
Anticipating change might also reduce later
community resistance if the people most
affected by increasing costs are involved
and know their concerns are being taken
into consideration. It certainly increases the
likelihood that the range of opportunities for
future actions will be as broad as possible.

References 83
REFERENCES
Atkinson, Rowland. 2002. “Does Gentrification Help or Harm Urban Neighborhoods? An
Assessment of the Evidence-Base in the Context of the New Urban Agenda.” Economic
and Social Research Council, Centre for Neighborhood Research, Paper 5.
Atlanta Journal and Constitution. Editorial. June 9, 2002. “Our Opinion: Mixed Blessings: Make
community revival benefit all,” page 8f.
Carter, Don. 1997. “Central Area Blooms and Booms.” Seattle Post Intelligencer. November 1.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/neighbors/centralarea/cent26.html (Accessed July 2003).
Chicago Fact Book Consortium, ed. 1963. Local Community Fact Book Chicago Metropolitan
Area 1960. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation (ECHC) and Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
(SAJE). 2003. “Hoover-Adams Neighborhood Land Trust.” Strategy paper.
Freeman, Lance, and Frank Braconi. 2002. “Gentrification and Displacement.” The Urban
Prospect. Citizens Housing and Planning Council. Vol. 8, No. 1.
Glass, Ruth. 1964. “Introduction: Aspects of Change.” In Centre for Urban Studies (ed) London:
Aspects of Change, MacGibbon and Kee.
Grossman, Kate N. 2001. “Uptown Protestors Seek More Low-Cost Housing.” Chicago Sun-
Times, May 6, p. 20.
Hass, Peter, Philip Nyden, Thomas Walsh, Nathan Benefield, and Christopher Giangreco. 2002.
“The Uptown Housing and Land Use Study.” The Center for Urban Research and
Learning, Loyola University of Chicago.
Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. 2002. “The State of the Nation’s
Housing: 2002”. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/Son2002.pdf.
(Accessed July 2003).
Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. 2003. “The State of the Nation’s
Housing: 2003”. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/son2003.pdf.
(Accessed April 2004).

84 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Kennedy, Maureen, and Paul Leonard. 2001. “Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A
Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices.” Discussion paper prepared for the
Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and PolicyLink.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Marcuse, P. 1986. “Abandonment, gentrification and displacement: the linkages in New York
City.” In Smith, N. and P. Williams (eds.) Gentrification of the City. London: Unwin
Hyman.
Millennial Housing Commission. 2002. “Meeting Our Nation’s Housing Challenges.” Report of
the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission Appointed by the Congress of the United
States.
National Housing Task Force. 1988. “A Decent Place to Live.” Washington, DC: National
Housing Task Force.
National Low-Income Housing Coalition. 2002. “Out of Reach 2001: America’s Growing Wage-
Rent Disparity.” http://www.nlihc.org/oor2001/introduction.htm. (Accessed July 2003).
Recommendations of the Housing Crisis Task Force. 2000. “In Short Supply.” March.
RMPK Group, Inc., A.A. Baker and Associates. 2002. Strategic Planning Group, Inc., City of St.
Petersburg Midtown Strategic Planning Initiative.
Seattle Office of Planning. 2003. City of Seattle 2002 Housing Levy. Administrative and
Financial Plan: Program Years: 2003 & 2004.
Sherraden, M. 1991. Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe. pp. 101–105.
Smith, Neil. 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London:
Routledge.
Vigdor, Jacob L. 2002. “Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?” In Gale, William G. and Janet
Rothenberg Pack (eds.), Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs 2002. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Walters, Sabrina. 2002. “Activists Rip Pricey Condo Plan in Uptown.” Chicago Sun-Times.
February 3, p. 13.

References 85
Weber, Rachel and Janet Smith. 2001. “Assets and Neighborhoods: The Role of Individual
Assets in Neighborhood Revitalization.” Fannie Mae Foundation 2001 Housing
Conference proceedings.
Wyly, Elvin K., and Daniel J. Hammel. 1999. “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing
Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrification.” Housing Policy Debate Vol. 10, Issue 4,
pp. 711–71.
Data Sources
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) requires certain mortgage lending institutions to
compile and disclose data about loan applications and approvals. Institutions required to
file HMDA data include commercial banks, savings and loans, credit unions, and
mortgage companies that meet specific criteria. Data collected under HMDA are used to
help the public determine if lending institutions are meeting the housing credit needs of
their communities, to help public officials target community development investment, and
to help regulators enforce fair lending laws. The data include individual loan records for
almost all mortgage lenders in the U.S, including loan amounts, terms, and
characteristics of the borrower and lender.
Web site: http://www.ffiec.org
Census CD Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB)
The NCDB is the main source of decennial census data used in this report. Funded by the
Rockefeller Foundation, the NCDB is a joint project between the Urban Institute and
Geolytics, Inc., to develop a national set of comparable population and housing variables
from the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses. A methodology has been
developed to link the associated data to 2000 census tract boundaries so that consistent
comparisons can be made across census years. For more information, refer to Tatian,
Peter A. 2003. CensusCD Neighborhood Change Database: Data Users’ Guide (Long
Form Release). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. October.
Geolytics, Inc., Web site: http://www.geolytics.com

86 In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement
Related Publication
Levy, Diane K., Jennifer Comey, and Sandra Padilla. 2006. “Keeping the Neighborhood
Affordable: A Handbook of Strategies for Gentrifying Areas.” Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute.
ENDNOTES
1 Neighborhood data differ somewhat depending upon the source due to slight differences in census
tracts included in analyses. For the purposes of this study, the tracts used are 007700, 007900, 008700,
008800, 008900, and 009000. Though the data in Urban Institute’s analysis differ from some of the data
provided by city staff, the trends are the same in all cases.
2 In addition to the large, mixed-use projects, CADA has developed 57 homeownership units and 59
rental units in Central Area. CADA assists approximately 10 households a year through its program to
help maintain the homes of elderly and disabled residents.
3 The 40–64 age group increased by 21 percent, while the percentage of children under age 18
decreased by 22 percent and senior citizens age 65 and older decreased by 9 percent (Haas et al. 2002).
4 Numbers come the city of Chicago, Department of Housing summary of Chicago Partnership for
Affordable Neighborhoods (CPAN) as of May 13, 2003.
5 The arrows in the chart pointing toward increasing degrees of gentrification should not be interpreted as
suggesting neighborhood change occurs in one direction or along one path. For purposes of this study,
we were looking at neighborhoods experiencing changes that at the time indicated increasing
neighborhood investment and gentrification.

APPENDIX 1
SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY
Our methodology for selecting case study sites involved three steps:
• identify cities that experienced accelerated housing markets between 1996 and
2001 using data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA);
• identify census tracts within the top cities that experienced above-average
housing market activity using HMDA data; and
• survey stakeholders in potential sites to determine whether gentrification has
occurred, in what locations, and at what stage; identify the type of mitigation
strategies implemented; and assess the political and organizational climate.
Cities with Accelerated Housing Markets
We first identified the top 100 central cities within the country by population. To identify
cities within the top 100 that experienced an accelerated housing market, we calculated
the percent change in the number of home purchase loans that were approved for
owner-occupied, principle dwellings and the percent change in the median amount of
home purchase loans between 1996 and 2001. We focused on HMDA data from 1996
to 2001 in order to capture the economic boom the nation experienced during the mid- to
late-1990s. We retained cities that ranked above the national percent increase in
median loan amount and the number of loan originations for further analysis. A total of
21 cities remained from our original list of 100.
Census Tracts with Accelerated Housing Markets
We next identified the census tracts in each of the 21 cities that had above-average
housing activity between 1996 and 2001. First, we excluded census tracts from our
analysis if the median household income of the tract was greater than 120 percent of the
median household income of the city in 1990 (120 percent is a HUD standard) because
we are only interested in gentrifying areas (i.e., those areas where high-income people
were moving into lower-income neighborhoods). Census tracts were also dropped if
HMDA data at the census tract level was missing in 1996 or 2001.
We again calculated the percent change in the number of home purchase loans and the
percent change in the median amount of the home purchase loans between 1996 and
2001 in each tract. Census tracts were dropped from the analysis if the percent change
in median loan amount and number of loans between 1996-2001 were less than the

average city change. The remaining census tracts represent the areas with accelerated
housing markets within the 21 cities.
Stakeholder Surveys about Gentrification and Strategies
Our final task was to survey local stakeholders, knowledgeable city department
employees and nonprofit staff, to corroborate HMDA findings and to gather specific
information on:
• where gentrification has occurred in a city since 1996 (i.e., in what specific
neighborhoods), and whether the gentrification in those neighborhoods is in the
beginning or later stages for each identified area. In addition, we asked for
census tract numbers to compare to our analysis when possible;
• the types of displacement mitigation strategies being implemented in the areas
identified, if any, how long the strategies have been in place, and strategy
outcomes;
• the policy climate regarding mitigation strategies, i.e., whether city departments
are working to address affordable housing needs;
• the organizational capacity of the residents and organizations in the identified
neighborhoods; and,
• neighborhoods showing early signs of market change that might gentrify in the
future. Identifying areas in the early stage of gentrification is very difficult to
pinpoint through HMDA or Census data; gathering local opinion ensures better
success in identifying these areas.
After contacting people in the potential study sites, we eliminated three cities from
consideration because gentrification had not occurred in the neighborhoods or because
it was a politically sensitive topic and city government officials did not want to participate
in the study.
Based upon stakeholder information on the types of strategies implemented, the
intensity of the housing market, and in consultation with Fannie Mae Foundation staff,
we selected the six neighborhoods in six cities represented a range of strategies and
stages of gentrification.

APPENDIX 2
ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED FOR CASE STUDIES
Atlanta
Young Hughley, Executive Director
Kevin Byers, Manager of Housing Production and Economic Development
Reynoldstown Revitalization Corporation
Bruce Gunter, President
Progressive Redevelopment, Inc.
Nathaniel Smith, Public Policy Manager
Myke Harris-Long
Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership, Inc.
Kwaku George, Director of Lending and Equity
Community Redevelopment Loan and Investment Fund Inc. (an affiliation of ANDP)
Protip Biswas, Project Director
The Enterprise Foundation
Mike Dobbins, former Commissioner of Department of Planning and Community
Development, city of Atlanta
Larry Keating, professor
City and Regional Planning Program, Georgia Institute of Technology
Chicago
Sarah Jane Knoy, Executive Director
Organization of the NorthEast (ONE)
Joyce Dugan, Director of Community Economic Development
Uptown Community Development Corporation (UPCORP)
Stacie Young, Director of Research Planning and Development
Marti Wiles, Coordinating Planner
William Eager, Deputy Commissioner
Kelly Marie Clarke, Assistant Commissioner
Department of Housing, City of Chicago

Kenneth Snyder, Executive Director
Mary Burns, resident
Jane Addams Senior Caucus
Maggie Marystone, Assistant
Alderman Helen Shiller’s Office, 46 th Ward, City of Chicago
Greg Harris, Chief of Staff
Alderman Mary Ann Smith’s Office, City of Chicago
Los Angeles
Sheila Bernard, President
Lincoln Place Tenant’s Association
Steve Clare, Executive Director
Venice Community Housing Corporation
Margarita H. de Escontrias, Housing Manager
John McCoy, Deputy Administrator, Community Development II
Donald Spivack, Deputy Administrator
Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Los Angeles
Sister Diane Donoghue, Executive Director
Helen Villagomez, Asset Manager
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
Gilda Haas, Executive Director
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
Beatrice Hsu, Legislative Deputy
Councilmember Eric Garcetti, Thirteenth District, City of Los Angeles
Sam Mistrano, Deputy Director
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
Ed P. Reyes, Councilmember
Gerald G. Gubatan, Chief Planning Deputy
First Council District, City of Los Angeles
Nataki Finch Richards, Deputy Director of Housing, Mayor’s Office of Economic
Development
City of Los Angeles
Sally Richman, Manager, Executive Management, Policy and Planning
Los Angeles Housing Department

Thomas Safran
Thomas Safran & Associates
Walker Wells, RESCUE Program Director
Global Green USA
Sacramento
Paul Ainger, Director of Development
Community Housing Opportunities Corporation
Tim Brown, Executive Director
Joan Burke, Director of Advocacy
Loaves and Fishes
John W. Dangberg, Executive Director
Jacqueline Whitelam, Administrative Services Director
Captiol Area Development Authority
Ethan J. Evans, Executive Director
Sacramento Housing Alliance
Beverly Fretz-Brown, Director of Policy and Planning
Sarah Hansen, Acting Director City Community Development
Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency
Tina Glover, Information Services
Katrina Middleton, Information Services
Laurie Simon, Adult and Aging Commission
Community Services Planning Council
Mari Grimes, Fellow
St. Hope Neighborhood Corps
Dave Jones, Council Member District Six, Vice Mayor
City of Sacramento
Greg Sparks, Director Housing Development
Mercy Housing California
Seattle
Ted Divina, Neighborhood District Coordinator
Department of Neighborhoods
Central Neighborhood Service Center
Darlene Flynn, Neighborhood Development Manager
East/Southeast Sectors

Department of Neighborhoods
Rick Hooper, Manager
Planning and Policy
Office of Housing
Herman McKinney, Vice President, Urban Affairs
Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
Lenny Rose, Owner-Operator
Rose & Associates, L.L.C.
Red Apple Markets
George M. Staggers, Chief Executive Officer
Central Area Development Association
Laura Hewitt Walker, Senior Planning and Development Specialist
Office of Housing
Lish Whitson, Senior Planner
Department of Design, Construction and Land Use
St. Petersburg
Askia Muhammad Aquil, Executive Director
St. Petersburg Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.
Lolita Dash, Community Liaison
Front Porch
Michael Dove, AICP, Deputy Mayor
Neighborhood Services
City of St. Petersburg
Elder Martin Rainey, Chairman
Front Porch
Brian Smith, Marketing Agent
General Home Development Corporation
George Smith, Executive Director
Mt. Zion Human Services, Inc.
Thomas deYampert, Manager
Housing and Community Development
City of St. Petersburg

Page 124 of 150

Attachment D
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification
Page 125 of 150

Mapping Susceptibility
to Gentrification:
The Early Warning Toolkit

Author
Karen Chapple, Faculty Director, Center for Community Innovation
Cover Photo
Tiffany Yang
Key Support
The invaluable contributions of many different research assistants made this study possible. I am deeply grateful to
Mason Austin, Rebecca Coleman, Anne Martin, Nina Meigs, Tessa Munekiyo, Jane Rongerude, Elizabeth Wampler, and
Tiffany Yang for their efforts. I would like to thank Miriam Chion, Marisa Cravens, Jennifer Yeamans, and the members
of the Development Without Displacement Advisory Committee for their comments. A California Department of
Transportation grant to the Association of Bay Area Governments supported this research.
The Center for Community Innovation (CCI) at UC-Berkeley nurtures effective solutions that expand economic
opportunity, diversify housing options, and strengthen connection to place. The Center builds the capacity of nonprofits
and government by convening practitioner leaders, providing technical assistance and student interns, interpreting
academic research, and developing new research out of practitioner needs.
University of California
Center for Community Innovation
316 Wurster Hall #1870
Berkeley, CA 94720-1870
http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu
August 2009

Mapping Susceptibility
to Gentrification:
The Early Warning Toolkit

Introduction
The Bay Area is one of the most expensive and challenging
housing markets in the country. 1 On average, local
households spend 48% of their income on housing,
compared to 29% for the country as a whole, and just 12%
can afford the median priced home. 2 A quarter of Bay
Area renters meet HUD’s definition of severely housing
burdened, dedicating more than 50 percent of their income
to housing. 3
Anticipated growth will place even more pressure on the
region’s housing market. The Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) projects an additional 1.9 million
people and 1.6 million jobs by 2035. 4 Meanwhile, new
funding for transit approved by Bay Area voters will add
100 new stations, many in already built-up areas, to the
region’s existing 300 rapid transit stations and transit
corridors. 5
Although the planned new transit facilities will help to
accommodate much of the population growth, they also
present a challenge. Researchers generally agree that new
transit investment will bring higher property values to the
surrounding area (except in the immediate vicinity of the
transit station). 6 This could spur a process of gentrification,
which will be beneficial to some – but not to those who
cannot bear rent increases and are forced to leave the
neighborhood.
This report was prepared for ABAG as part of its
Development without Displacement project funded by an
environmental justice grant from CalTrans. This project
is meant to increase regional and local understanding
of gentrification and displacement, and in particular
increase awareness of equitable development policies that
jurisdictions can use to capture the benefits of new growth
for their current residents. The purpose of this report is
to create an early warning toolkit to help communities
identify whether their neighborhood is susceptible to
gentrification as reinvestment occurs. This in turn suggests
potential for displacement — but does not necessarily
predict it. In order to understand future displacement
potential more fully, a jurisdiction would need to combine
the toolkit with an assessment of its existing affordable
housing policies and stock, as well as the effects of any
proposed redevelopment plan.
Gentrification,
displacement, and TODs
Since the term “gentrification” first appeared in the
1960s, the debate over its meaning and impact has only
intensified. 7 The definitions range from the purely
economic (such as new high-income households, housing
investment, or transition from renter- to owner-occupancy),
to the demographic (influx of white households, collegeeducated
residents, non-family households, etc.), to some
combination. Some describe gentrification’s impact as
revitalization that for the most part benefits the entire
neighborhood’s population; others equate it directly with
the displacement of existing residents.
How we define gentrification matters. Depending on its
characteristics, this type of neighborhood change can be
positive or negative. Neighborhood residents may benefit
from the influx of new residents. For instance, a group
of college-educated artists may arrive; instead of pushing
up rents so that long-term residents cannot afford to stay,
these newcomers may be renovating former commercial
spaces, creating public art, and offering low-cost art
classes. An increase in median household income in the
neighborhood might reflect improved access to college
education for second-generation immigrants. All residents
will benefit from the presence of new services attracted
by the rising neighborhood incomes. And, housing price
appreciation might make it possible for families to sell their
homes and move to neighborhoods with better amenities.
At the same time, the influx of new residents and capital
may be harmful. As reinvestment occurs and property
values rise, the potential for different forms of indirect
displacement rises. Able to command higher rents on the
market, landlords will raise rents to the extent permitted by
law, increasing tenant turnover. While these increases may
impact any tenant not residing in permanently affordable
housing, they are most likely to displace those already
paying a disproportionate share of their income for rent,
who are not able to squeeze their transportation or food
budget any more to pay for housing. Whether the influx
is of affluent homeowners or nontraditional households,
the changes are likely to tighten the housing market and
make it difficult for new low-income residents to move in.
Moreover, the new population will undoubtedly change
the neighborhood’s essential character, in some areas
making it difficult to preserve historic significance. 8
Mission District, San Francisco
Photo: Center for Community Innovation
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 1

This report defines gentrification as a process of
neighborhood change that encompasses economic change
in the form of increases in both real estate investment and
household income, as well as demographic change in the
form of increases in educational attainment. These changes
may be highly correlated with racial/ethnic transition
as well, though this is not measured directly. Although
some change could be coming from within, as existing
residents improve their economic circumstances, most is
driven by exogenous forces, as evidenced by home price
appreciation. 9 Thus, we differentiate gentrification from
revitalization more generally, which consists simply of
improvements in neighborhood income (due either to
newcomers or changes for existing residents). Specifically,
this report uses the definition of gentrification put forth
by Freeman (2005), modified slightly for the Bay Area, to
describe change in the decade of the 1990s: a central city
neighborhood with housing price appreciation above the
regional average, increase in educational attainment above
the regional average, and household income at or below
the 40th percentile of regional household income (roughly
80% of median income, a standard definition of lowincome)
in the starting year (as the process begins). 10
Though it is helpful in identifying low-income
neighborhoods in which the market is expressing interest,
this definition does not include any measures of indirect
displacement that occurs as the neighborhood changes.
Researchers have found that it is very difficult to define
how much indirect and involuntary displacement is
occurring in conjunction with neighborhood change. The
best estimate of the extent of involuntary displacement
comes from Newman & Wyly (2006), who find that up
to ten percent of rental moves in New York City occur
due to displacement. However, New York City may be
anomalous, due to a very hot rental market and stringent
rent control and stabilization laws. Several national studies
suggest that gentrification and mobility are not strongly
associated – in fact, poor renters are more likely to remain
in gentrifying areas than to depart. 11
Even when survey data on the reason for moving is
available (as in New York City), it may be inaccurate. 12 For
instance, it may understate displacement by not surveying
those who have moved out of the city, or not including
those who moved because of the threat of a rent increase
rather than an actual increase. But it may also overstate
displacement by including those experiencing trouble
paying the rent due not to rent increases but personal
economic hardship, such as the loss of a job, or landlordtenant
disagreements over who is responsible for building
maintenance.
Since it is so difficult to know why households move,
another way of determining whether indirect and
involuntary displacement is occurring is to look at
evictions. Court records on evictions describe the reasons
for owner action. However, they are not available in
database or aggregate format, with the exception of the
few cities with rent control laws that track evictions
carefully (e.g., San Francisco). In any case, one study of
evictions data in Richmond found that only a very small
share of households were evicted for rent increases –
suggesting that either displacement is rare in low-income
neighborhoods or, more likely, landlords cite other reasons
when trying to evict tenants. 13
No research to date has explicitly examined the
relationship between transit investment and gentrification.
But findings from many studies suggest that the area
around rail transit stations may be particularly susceptible
to gentrification – and potentially displacement as well –
for several reasons. 14 It is well established that new transit
stations increase property values (except in their immediate
vicinity), because of the improved accessibility they bring.
Also, when built in urban areas, these neighborhoods
are more economically and racially diverse than other
neighborhoods; they house a relatively large share of lowincome
households (many of whom are transit-dependent),
and are likely to attract college-educated commuters and
non-family households – exactly the types of changes
associated with gentrification (as we find in this study).
Even the process of developing new transit facilities can
spur displacement, since the disamenity of construction can
result in temporary displacement that becomes permanent,
or discourage the traditional neighborhood in-migrants
from moving in.
North Beach, San Francisco
Photo: Tom Dill
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 2

In this report we demonstrate current (as of 2000) patterns
of gentrification and, based on the factors behind that
change, predict where it is most likely to occur in the future
(Figure 1). Further, we identify a number of factors that
may increase the likelihood that residents are displaced
by new development. However, we are not able either
to describe where displacement has occurred or predict
exactly where it will take place in the future. In other
words, though we can use past trends to help predict how
neighborhoods will change in the future, we do not know
whether existing (and new) residents are benefiting or
harmed by the change.
The following presents our findings in four sections. The
first describes patterns of neighborhood change in the Bay
Area from 1990 to 2000 (the most recent period for which
reliable small-area data were available), using census
tracts, areas of approximately 4,000 residents, to represent
neighborhoods and U.S. decennial census data for the
analysis. The second looks specifically at change in the
form of gentrification – which, though not extensive, is
strongly associated with transit stations – and determines
the factors that cause this type of change (again relying
mostly on census data). This analysis allows us to predict
future susceptibility to gentrification; if an area scores high
on the factors that cause gentrification, then it is likely
to gentrify at some point in the future. A third analysis
identifies other indicators that suggest the potential for
displacement in the future. These analyses together
comprise the early warning toolkit, and the next section
uses the Lake Merritt station area as a case study to show
how the toolkit might be used. A final section outlines
steps for future research.
A portrait of neighborhood
change and transit in the
Bay Area, 1990 to 2000
Every Bay Area neighborhood is going through some
process of neighborhood change. One type of change is
of course gentrification. By defining gentrification based
on these factors – starting as a low-income neighborhood
in a central location, and experiencing increases in
household income and educational attainment greater
than the Bay Area region as a whole – there are 102
census tracts that gentrified from 1990 to 2000 (7.3% of
the total tracts, with 6% of all households) (see Figure 2
and Appendix Figures 1-6 for subregional maps). Thus,
93% of Bay Area neighborhoods are going through other
types of change. We can characterize these changes by
looking at how the distribution of household income
changes in neighborhoods over time. Neighborhood
income distributions may shift either through household
turnover (out-migrants and in-migrants) or changes in
income status for existing households. Although publicly
available census data does not allow us to understand
whether change is happening through turnover or existing
households, it does paint a picture of income trends in the
aggregate.
Neighborhoods consist of households with incomes that
fall into one of six categories relative to the area median
income (AMI) of the nine-county Bay Area. We chose
the categories to represent categories commonly used by
affordable housing programs: 15
1) very low income (less than 50% of AMI);
2) low-income (50% to 80% of AMI);
3) moderate income (80% to 100% of AMI);
4) high to moderate-income (100% to 120% of AMI);
5) high income (120% -150% of AMI);
6) very-high-income (150% of AMI and above).
The analysis looks at neighborhood change from 1990
to 2000 using the Neighborhood Change Database
developed by Geolytics, Inc., a database which allows
for the comparison of census tracts over time even when
boundaries change. 16 Data on housing sales (to analyze
gentrification) comes from Dataquick zip code data.
Figure 1. Process of neighborhood change.
1990 2000 2010
Neighborhood Neighborhood Neighborhood
Existing
Residents
Ongoing
Public
Investment
(Transit)
Market
Changes
Existing
Residents
New
Residents
Existing
Residents
New
Residents
?
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 3

Figure 2. Typology of neighborhood change, 1990-2000.
Ü
Santa Rosa
Napa
Vacaville
Vallejo
San Rafael
Richmond
Pittsburg
Concord
Oakland
San Francisco
Livermore
San Francisco
San Mateo
San Jose
San Rafael
Richmond
Gilroy
San Francisco
Oakland
Neighborhood Type
Becoming bipolar
Gentrifying
Becoming middle income
Becoming lower income
Other
Becoming upper income
Existing Stations
Planned Stations
Source: Author’s calculations from Geolytics Neighborhood Change Database and Dataquick. See text for definitions.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 4

Figure 3. Relationship between transit accessibility and type of
neighborhood change.
100%
90%
17
80%
70%
149
84 278
158
Census tracts
60%
50%
40%
85
No transit
With transit
30%
20%
71
57 170
142
10%
0%
Gentrifying
Becoming
bipolar
Becoming
middle income
Becoming
lower income
Becoming
upper income
Source: Author’s calculations from Geolytics Neighborhood Change Database and Dataquick.
Tracts that are becoming bipolar are seeing growth of
households in both the lowest and highest of the six income
groups, at the expense of the four groups in the middle. 17
There are 220 bipolar tracts in the San Francisco Bay Area,
about 16 percent of the total (see Figure 3). 18 This type of
change often occurs in areas with concentrations of both
permanently affordable housing and new high-end units.
Other types of change include becoming more middle
income, becoming lower income, or becoming upper
income. 19 Middle income neighborhood change occurs
when the share of population in the two middle income
categories is greater in 2000 than in 1990, and is over 25%
by 2000. 141 (ten percent) of Bay Area tracts are becoming
more middle income, many in the inner-ring suburbs
which have experienced an influx of first-time homebuyers.
Likewise, lower income change (448 tracts, 32 percent of
the total) occurs when the share in the two lower income
categories is greater in 2000, and the ending point is at
least 25 percent. These areas are mostly in the urban core
and ex-urban fringe. Concentrated mostly in areas that
are already affluent, upper income change (300 tracts, 21
percent) is when the share in the top two income categories
is greater in 2000, with a ending share of 25 percent or
more. “Other” (185 tracts) is a residual category and seems
to consist of a mix of tracts where there is no systematic
pattern of change.
Most (85) of the gentrifying tracts are located within a
half-mile walk from a rail and ferry transit station (see
Appendix Table 1), half in San Francisco and the other half
in Alameda and Santa Clara counties. It is not surprising
that many gentrifying neighborhoods are located adjacent
to transit, since studies have shown the residential market
pressures around TODs. But what is striking is the contrast
between neighborhoods experiencing gentrification as
their predominant form of neighborhood change and
those undergoing different types of change: gentrifying
neighborhoods are nearly twice as likely to be located
within one-half mile of transit than any other kind of
neighborhood (Figure 3).
As is evident in Appendix Table 1, many of these transit
stations (42 in total) are BART or BART plus other modes;
22 are Muni Metro (or Muni plus other modes); twelve
Caltrain, ten VTA, eight Amtrak, four ferry stations, and
even four cable car stops! Thus, gentrification can occur
around many different forms of transit. Though this
analysis does not incorporate bus transit stops, it should
be noted that bus lines run through almost all of the
gentrifying census tracts.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 5

Predicting susceptibility
to gentrification in the Bay Area
What types of neighborhoods are most susceptible to
gentrification? To answer this question, we can look
at the 102 tracts that gentrified from 1990 to 2000 and
examine what they were like in 1990. Using multivariate
regression, we can identify different types of factors that
make a neighborhood more likely to gentrify. 20 These
might be demographic factors, such as types of families
in the neighborhood; income factors, such as the extent
to which local households are experiencing high rent
burdens; transportation factors, such as reliance on transit
for the commute; housing factors, such as a large share
of rental housing; locational factors, such as where the
neighborhood lies in the region; and amenities, including
parks and community facilities. 21
Table 1 lists the nineteen factors that lay behind
gentrification in the 1990s, showing whether they had a
positive influence, causing more gentrification, or negative
influence, causing less. The table ranks the variables’
significance and shows the most important ones in bold;
since these factors are many times more important than the
others, it is worth examining them in more detail.
Availability of amenities and public transportation top
the list of factors (see Figures 7-12 in Appendix). More
than who lived in the neighborhood in 1990, or where it
was located within the region, or even the characteristics of
the neighborhood, what was most important in attracting
change and investment to the area was the proximity of
amenities such as youth facilities and public space (and
to a lesser extent, small parks), as well as the convenient
location of transit (as evidenced by a high share of transit
commuters). Interestingly, two of these variables were
more likely to cause neighborhoods not to gentrify (i.e.,
were negative in influence): the presence of public/
nonprofit recreational facilities and a concentration of
homes with more than three cars. The latter variable
simply reflects auto-oriented outer suburban areas that are
not likely to gentrify anyway because they are not central
locations. Though more research is needed to understand
why recreational facilities deter gentrification, it may be
because they draw heavy traffic from more disadvantaged
groups.
Table 1. Factors behind gentrification in the 1990s.
Variable type Variable Direction Rank
Transportation % of workers taking transit Positive 4
Youth facilities per 1,000 Positive 3
Public space per 1,000 Positive 5
Amenities Small parks per 1,000 Positive 17
Demographic % non-family households Positive 8
% of dwelling units in buildings with 5+ units Positive 7
% of dwelling units in buildings with 3-4 units Positive 10
% renter-occupied Positive 13
Housing Public housing units Positive 19
Income diversity Positive 6
Income % of renters paying > 35% of income Positive 11
Location Distance to San Jose Positive 14
Transportation
% of dwelling units with three or more cars
available Negative 2
Amenities Recreational facilities per 1,000 Negative 1
% married couples w/ children Negative 9
Demographic % non-Hispanic white Negative 12
Housing Median gross rent Negative 18
Income % of owners paying > 35% of income Negative 15
Location Distance to San Francisco Negative 16
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 6

Three income variables (Figures 13-15 in Appendix) make
a significant difference in whether a neighborhood will
gentrify. Income diversity is a very important indicator:
if an area is more diverse, i.e., has relatively equal
representation across the six income groups, then it is more
likely to attract this form of neighborhood change.
Likewise, if there is a high share of renters who pay over
35% of their income for rent, then the neighborhood is
more susceptible. 22 It is easy to envision what occurs in this
case: as an influx of newcomers increases area rents, these
overburdened renters find themselves unable to pay an
even higher share of their income for rent, so they depart,
leaving more vacancies for new gentrifiers. In contrast,
neighborhoods with concentrations of overburdened
owners are less likely to gentrify, perhaps because
the neighborhoods with high concentrations of home
ownership tend to be more affluent.
One predictable, but important, demographic variable
that leads to gentrification is a larger share of nonfamily
households. In contrast, the more non-Hispanic whites
are in the area, the less likely it is to gentrify: the most
susceptible areas are those where the majority is minorities.
Likewise, the more married couples with children, the
less likely the area is to gentrify (though there are some
exceptions in areas with concentrations of Latino families,
e.g., San Jose) (Figures 16-18 in the Appendix).
Finally, four types of housing variables, closely related
to each other, matter significantly (Figures 19-23 in the
Appendix). In particular, the higher the share of multiunit
buildings (with three or more units) and the higher
the share of renter-occupied housing, the more likely the
area is to gentrify, perhaps because change can occur
more rapidly through turnover of rental units. 23 Not
surprisingly, the higher the median gross rent, the less
likely the area is to gentrify (since it may be affluent
already). Finally, the higher the number of public housing
units, the more likely the area is to gentrify, perhaps
because there is often a lot of mobility in neighborhoods
adjacent to public housing. 24
If these factors caused gentrification in the past, then they
are likely to make neighborhoods more susceptible to
gentrification in the future. We can look at how each tract
scores on each of these factors to determine whether it is
likely to gentrify by 2010 or shortly thereafter.
For each tract, we look at whether it is above or below
average on each of the nineteen factors in 2000. For
instance, the East Northside neighborhood of San Jose
has a below average share of non-Hispanic whites (13%
compared to 50% in the region) but an above average
share of overburdened renters (35% compared to 30%
in the region). Since tracts with a below average share
of non-Hispanic whites are more likely to gentrify, this
neighborhood scores 1 on this factor; likewise, since tracts
with above average rent-burdened households are more
likely to gentrify, this neighborhood also scores 1 on the
rent burden factor. We total the scores across all nineteen
factors to come up with the susceptibility index. Using this
index, Figure 4 maps the susceptibility to gentrification
across the region (see also subregional maps in the
Appendix), while Table 2 shows the 18 neighborhoods near
transit deemed highly susceptible that haven’t gentrified
already.
Chinatown, Oakland
Photo: Center for Community Innovation
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 7

Figure 4. Projected susceptibility to gentrification in the future (2000-2010).
Ü
Santa Rosa
Napa
Vacaville
Santa Rosa
Vallejo
San Rafael
Richmond
Pittsburg
Concord
Pinole
San Rafael El Sobrante
San Pablo
Larkspur
Richmond
El Cerrito
Mill Valley
Kensington
Tiburon
Albany Orinda
StrawberryBelvedere
Berkeley
Sausalito
Emeryville
Piedmont
Oakland
Alameda
San Francisco
Oakland
San Francisco
San Mateo
Livermore
San Jose
Daly CityBrisbane
Colma
San Leandro
San Lorenzo
Gilroy
San Mateo
San Jose
Susceptibility to Gentrification
No Susceptibility
Low Susceptibility
Moderate Susceptibility
High Susceptibility
Existing Stations
Planned Stations
Planned Rail Expansions
Source: Author’s calculations.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 8

Table 2. Bay Area transit-oriented neighborhoods most susceptible to gentrification in the future.
County
Tract
Susceptibility
Index
Neighborhood/City
System
Alameda 4013 18 Telegraph/23rd/Art Murmur BART
Alameda 4021 17 West Oakland BART
Alameda 4035 17 Broadway/Auto Row BART
Alameda 4234 17 South Berkeley BART
Alameda 4235 17 South Berkeley BART
San Francisco 106 17 North Beach/ Telegraph Hill
Alameda 4030 16
Downtown/Chinatown
(Oakland)
Cable Car, Central Subway,
Street Car
Ferry
Alameda 4034 16 Lakeside (Oakland) BART
Alameda 4037 16 Adams Point (Oakland) BART
Alameda 4060 16 East Peralta (Oakland) BART
Alameda 4224 16 Downtown Berkeley BART
Alameda 4251 16 Emeryville Amtrak
San Francisco 107 16 North Beach Cable Car, Street Car
San Francisco 155 16 Japantown Cable Car*
San Francisco 159 16 Western Addition Cable Car*
San Francisco 163 16 Hayes Valley (West) MUNI Metro, Street Car
Solano 2509 16 Downtown Vallejo Ferry
Sonoma 1530.03 16 West Santa Rosa SMART
*Note: Though the nearest rail transit station in these neighborhoods is the cable car, in practice the frequent 38 Geary
bus service likely attracts far more residents.
To qualify as highly susceptible, a tract has to
score 1 on 16 or more factors, have a median income below
the regional median, and be within one-half mile of a
rail or ferry transit station (to highlight impacts of transit
investment). The most susceptible tracts are concentrated
in or near downtown Oakland and San Francisco.
Tracts that are moderately susceptible to gentrification
have a score of 13, 14, or 15 on the index. There are 90 of
these tracts within one-half mile of transit, 61 of which
have not gentrified already. Though most are near the
major downtowns, they also appear in older suburbs
and in urban low-income neighborhoods such as in
East Oakland, Bayview in San Francisco, and the Iron
Triangle in Richmond. Table 2 in the Appendix shows the
susceptibility levels for all the tracts in the Bay Area.
If each of these factors contribute towards gentrification,
there could in theory be some level or threshold for each
at which the gentrification process becomes more likely.
Although it is hard to pinpoint an exact threshold, it is
possible to compare the factors across gentrifying and
non-gentrifying neighborhoods in order to determine the
point at which gentrifying areas distinguish themselves.
Table 3 shows the average level of each variable in
gentrifying and non-gentrifying areas. For instance, in the
gentrifying neighborhoods, 26% of the workers commute
via transit (versus about 9% other neighborhoods). Any
neighborhood with that level of transit usage or more
may be more susceptible to gentrification. Likewise,
neighborhoods with over 44% non-family households may
be more likely to gentrify. These numbers should not be
taken as exact thresholds, but rather approximate levels at
which to watch for multiple signs of gentrification.
Each of these factors has a direct implication for planning.
This research has shown that accessibility to transit (and
inconvenience for multiple-car households) makes a
neighborhood much more likely to gentrify. This suggests
that whenever planners make transit improvements, they
should also examine how to preserve and create more
permanently affordable housing, whether through joint
development, coordination with the housing element,
partnerships with nonprofits, or other means.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 9

Table 3. Mean factor levels in gentrifying and non-gentrifying neighborhoods.
Variable type
Variable
Average by
neighborhood type
Non-gentrifying Gentrifying
Transportation
% of workers taking transit 8.7% 25.9% ***
% of dwelling units with three or more cars available 22.3% 8.3% ***
Recreational facilities per 1,000 residents 0.006 0.004
Amenities
Youth facilities per 1,000 residents 0.010 0.032 ***
Public space per 1,000 residents 0.025 0.055 ***
Small parks per 1,000 residents 0.189 0.300 ***
% non-family households 31.7% 44.0% ***
Demographic % non-Hispanic white 63.1% 28.9% ***
% married couples w/ children 28.5% 16.7% ***
% of dwelling units in buildings with 5+ units 20.4% 37.7% ***
% of dwelling units in buildings with 3-4 units 5.9% 12.0% ***
Housing % renter-occupied 38.3% 63.7% ***
Median gross rent $742 $516 ***
Public housing units 57 146 ***
Income diversity 0.73 0.74
Income % of renters paying > 35% of income 31.6% 38.6% ***
% of owners paying > 35% of income 21.7% 21.2%
Location
Distance to San Jose (miles) 0.566 0.784 ***
Distance to San Francisco (miles) 0.399 0.176 ***
*** Difference significant at p < .001
Most amenities, from small parks to public space to
youth facilities, seem to be strongly associated with
gentrification. Again, this makes an argument for linking
planning for open space and other design improvements
to various processes for planning and building affordable
housing. Some amenities may actually deter gentrification
– for instance, this research found that the presence of
recreational facilities was negatively associated with
gentrification. This finding warrants further research, but
does suggest the importance of developing amenities that
explicitly support the existing population, rather than some
potential future residents.
Cities with rent and eviction controls should make
sure that these buildings remain protected; if they are
project-based Section 8 or some other type of subsidized
housing with expiring affordability provisions, cities
should intervene pro-actively to ensure that they remain
affordable. Restrictions on condo conversion may also help
to preserve affordable rental units. Finally, in areas where
renters pay a disproportionately high share of income for
rent, planners should identify households with high rent
burdens and connect them to rental assistance programs.
Proactive action may be able to preserve housing
affordability for tenants as neighborhood rents rise.
A number of factors lead to direct implications for
affordable housing planning. The association of non-family
households with gentrifying areas suggests that planners
might slow this type of neighborhood change by requiring
buildings with larger units (e.g., three or more bedrooms)
and amenities that cater to children or the elderly. Most
susceptible to gentrification are neighborhoods with multiunit,
renter-occupied buildings.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 10

Other indicators of
displacement potential
Though we are not able to measure precisely how much
displacement is taking place in neighborhoods due to
gentrification, there are a variety of factors that make
it more likely that displacement will occur in a certain
neighborhood. Of the factors presented above, renter
occupancy and high rent burdens are likely the most
strongly associated with displacement, since renters may
not have the choice to stay in their unit as rents increase.
In addition, housing policy can prevent or accelerate
displacement processes directly: two factors that drive the
extent of displacement are rent control and availability of
subsidized housing.
Just nine Bay Area cities have some form of rent control:
Berkeley, Campbell, East Palo Alto, Fremont, Hayward,
Los Gatos, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. Almost
all of these cities exempt more recent buildings (typically
those built from 1980 on) from the controls. The strength
of rent control legislation varies widely across cities by
the types of units covered, the extent to which “landlord
hardship” can be invoked to release units from rent control,
and the amount that landlords are allowed to increase the
rent or charge for improvements. Most cities now have
vacancy decontrol, which has meant a steady decrease in
the number of rent-controlled units. Almost all of these
cities also have just cause eviction controls to protect
renters, meaning that landlords can only evict with proper
cause, such as a tenant’s failure to pay rent or destruction
of property. Combined, rent and eviction controls should
help stem, though not halt altogether, the number of
tenants displaced because of rising market rents in the
neighborhood.
The Bay Area has almost 90,000 units of public housing
built under the 1937 and 1949 Housing Acts. Some of
this stock will remain permanently affordable (especially
if cities do one-for-one replacement as they renovate the
projects into mixed-income developments); however,
some local cities are selling their scattered-site units and
rehousing occupants via Section 8 vouchers. Moreover,
nearly half of its subsidized housing stock now consists
of units built since the 1970s, in the form of project-based
Section 8 (approximately 20,000 units), Low Income
Housing Tax Credit projects (almost 60,000 units), or
other programs. Many of these programs have expiring
affordability clauses; in other words, the government
helped to fund the projects based on a commitment to keep
the units affordable to low-income families for a period
of years (from 15 to 30). Projects that are in gentrifying
areas and are not managed by nonprofits often convert
the units to market-rate once the affordability clause
expires. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the potential loss of
subsidized housing because of expirations in the projectbased
Section 8 program; if a project is not managed by a
nonprofit, it is deemed more likely to be lost to the market
when the project expires. 25 Figure 5 shows the location of
the 19,491 units available in 2010; by 2025 (Figure 6), just
under 4,000 remain. It is possible that more units will be
retained, as intermediaries such as the Local Initiatives
Support Corporation work actively to transfer this stock to
nonprofit management. But much depends on the amount
of market pressure in years to come.
Housing policies drive the supply of affordable housing,
but household incomes indicate the demand. Two income
indicators suggest potential for displacement because of
pressures on the family budget: the compound burden
of housing and transportation costs, and the burden of
unaffordable mortgages resulting in foreclosure.
The Center for Neighborhood Technology (in collaboration
with the Center for Transit-Oriented Development) has
devised a methodology to estimate how much households
of different income levels pay for both housing and
transportation (H+T). Overall, in the Bay Area, households
pay 48% of their income for housing and transportation
costs combined. However, low-income households pay a
much greater share of their income for H+T: in fact, were
it not for public subsidies that help pay for H+T, some
low-income households would find that the two combined
exceed their entire income. Figure 7 maps H+T for families
at the 25 th percentile of household income or below
($35,000) for block groups in the Bay Area. Low-income
households living in the core areas and/or near transit tend
to have a much lower H+T (less than 65%) than households
living in outer areas. In neighborhoods highly susceptible
to gentrification, an H+T that is disproportionately high
indicates that residents are unlikely to be able to stay in
the absence of supportive housing policies. Overall, this
indicator suggests more potential for displacement in outer
suburbs, due to the high H+T.
Tenderloin, San Francisco
Photo: Center for Community Innovation
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 11

Figure 5. Project-based Section 8
Units in 2010 by zip code.
Figure 6. Project-based Section 8
Units in 2025 by zip code.
Total Units: 19,491
San Rafael
Richmond
Total Units: 3,914
Units Lost (2010 - 2025): 15,577
San Rafael
Richmond
Oakland
San Francisco
San Francisco
Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa
Vacaville
Vacaville
Napa
Napa
Vallejo
Vallejo
San Rafael
Richmond
Pittsburg
Concord
San Rafael
Richmond
Pittsburg
Concord
Oakland
San Francisco
Livermore
Oakland
San Francisco
Livermore
San Mateo
San Mateo
# of Units/1000 Households (2000)
0
San Jose
# of Units/1000 Households (2000)
San Jose
0
0 - 2.5
0 - 2.5
2.5 - 5
2.5 - 5
5 - 7.5
Gilroy
7.5 - 10
10 - 12.5
> 12.5
Existing Stations
Proposed Stations
p
5 - 7.5
Gilroy
7.5 - 10
10 - 12.5
> 12.5
Existing Stations
Proposed Stations p
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as modified by the California Housing Partnership.
Oakland
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 12

Figure 7. Housing plus transportation costs for those at an
income level of $35,000 or below, San Francisco Bay Area, 2000.
Ü
Santa Rosa
Napa
Vacaville
Vallejo
San Rafael
Richmond
Pittsburg
Concord
Oakland
San Francisco
Livermore
All Block Groups Set to Low Income
Housing +Transportation Costs / $35,000
< 65%
San Mateo
66% - 75%
76% - 95%
> 95%
Existing Stations
San Jose
Planned Stations
0 10 20 40 Miles
Gilroy
Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology. This shows the combined H+T
costs for families with incomes of $35,000 or below in those neighborhoods.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 13

Another indicator is the incidence of preforeclosure
notices, the initial notice of default when a household
has not met its mortgage payment (Figure 8). Data on
foreclosures is provided by private vendors at low cost
and is typically available at three levels: the preforeclosure
notice, the auction (when the lender puts up the property
for sale because of mortgage default), and the REO
(real estate owned), a property that goes back to the
mortgage company after an unsuccessful foreclosure
auction. The preforeclosure stage is the best indicator
of housing burden, as it reveals all the households
having difficulty paying the mortgage; using REO as
an indicator is not as accurate since it does not include
owners able to sell their property on the private market
or ward off foreclosure temporarily. In general, owners
burdened by their mortgages are concentrated in the
core areas of the East Bay (Richmond and Oakland) and
suburban areas of the North and East Bay. Although these
households may be displaced by foreclosure, if they can
stay in the neighborhood they may actually benefit from
gentrification, as rising property values increase their home
equity.
Finally, another income burden indicator readily available
in the U.S. census is the share of neighborhood income that
comes from newcomers to the area. If a relatively large
share of aggregate neighborhood income comes from inmigrants,
the nature of the neighborhood might change in
particular as the new income attracts retailers catering to
the newcomers – and offering goods at prices unaffordable
to long-time residents. Figure 9 maps neighborhood
income for the Bay Area, indicating a high share of new
income in the core areas identified by the susceptibility
index, as well as in outer suburban areas not so likely to
gentrify.
Tenderloin, San Francisco
Photo: Center for Community Innovation
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 14

Figure 8. Preforeclosure notices in the Bay Area, 2008.
Ü
Santa Rosa
Vacaville
Napa
Vallejo
Pittsburg
San Rafael
Concord
Richmond
San Francisco
Oakland
Livermore
San Mateo
San Jose
San Francisco
Oakland
Pre-Foreclosure Notices
per Owner-Occupied Housing Unit
Gilroy
< 0.5%
0.5 - 1.0%
1.0 - 5.0%
5.0 - 10.0%
San Mateo
0 5 10 20 Miles
> 10.0%
Existing Stations
Planned Stations
0 10 20 40 Miles
Source: Foreclosures.com.
Figure 9. Share of aggregate household income from recent movers.
Ü
Santa Rosa
Napa
Vacaville
Vallejo
San Rafael
Richmond
Pittsburg
Concord
San Rafael
Oakland
Richmond
San Francisco
Livermore
San Mateo
San Francisco
Oakland
San Jose
0 5 10 20 Miles
Gilroy
San Mateo
% of Aggregate Household Income from Recent Movers
0 - 28.5%
28.5% - 32%
32% - 36%
>36%
San Jose
Existing Stations
Planned Stations
0 5 10 20 Miles
0 10 20 40 Miles
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, Table HCT 16.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 15

Using the Early Warning Toolkit:
the Lake Merritt/Chinatown case
The Lake Merritt/Chinatown area provides an interesting
case not only because of how the neighborhood is
changing, but also because the early warning toolkit
can help inform ongoing planning processes that will
shape its future. The City of Oakland is currently
developing a station area plan for the neighborhood
around the Lake Merritt BART Station, with the goal of
creating a more livable and sustainable neighborhood by
improving coordination between transportation and land
use, improving mobility, and encouraging mixed-use
development. In conjunction with the planning process
and its own Development without Displacement project,
ABAG awarded Asian Health Services and the Oakland
Chinatown Chamber of Commerce (along with PolicyLink
and the Center for Community Innovation as technical
consultants) a small grant to conduct a community
engagement process before the planning process started.
That engagement process, which included several public
meetings, focus groups, and a survey, revealed several
community priorities: in particular, preserving and
increasing neighborhood open space, reducing crime, and
improving pedestrian conditions. More than anything,
it revealed deep bitterness among current and former
community members who remembered the displacement
that occurred with many previous redevelopment efforts,
in particular the construction of the BART Lake Merritt
station, which demolished three blocks of Chinatown.
Oakland, along with CalTrans and Alameda County,
began urban renewal and highway construction efforts
in the 1950s. Early projects, almost all involving the
condemnation and acquisition of predominantly residential
properties, included the Nimitz Freeway, the Oakland
Public Library, the Alameda County Administration
Building, and Laney College.
The 1960s saw additional acquisition and demolition of
residences and community facilities to construct the BART
Lake Merritt Station, the BART administration building,
the MTC administration building, and the Oakland
Museum. By the 1980s, awareness of the loss of housing
in Chinatown had grown, and local nonprofits, including
the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation, began
building more affordable housing in the area. The pace of
large-scale redevelopment slowed in the 1990s, with the
exception of the Pacific Renaissance Plaza, which included
200 units of market-rate housing, 50 units of affordable
housing, and space for the Asian Cultural Center and
Oakland Asian Library. After the landlord evicted the
affordable housing tenants, several community groups
organized the Stop Chinatown Evictions Coalition, which
fought successfully in court to restore the affordable units
and construct more affordable units off-site. The Pacific
Renaissance experience, compounded by the history of
redevelopment and Mayor Jerry Brown’s recent “10K”
initiative to bring housing back downtown, has made the
community very aware of how development pressures are
shrinking the boundaries of Chinatown (Figures 10 & 11).
In contrast, however, there is less concern for the potential
for displacement through gentrification, in part because
of the uncertainty over its extent. Local activists are aware
that families are leaving for nearby suburbs, but it is
unclear whether this is because of high rents, poor schools,
rising crime, or some other motives. Whatever the reason,
many express a desire to return to the neighborhood.
The Lake Merritt/Chinatown study area includes the
area adjacent to the Lake Merritt Bart station, consisting
mostly of redeveloped superblocks with institutional and
government users, and the intact grid in Chinatown to the
west. The area in the immediate vicinity of the station was
already gentrifying in the 1990s, but Chinatown, to the
west, was becoming increasingly low-income due to the
continued influx of new immigrants (Figure 12).
Lake Merritt Neighborhood, Oakland
Photo: Center for Community Innovation
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 16

Figure 10. Oakland Chinatown boundaries, 1960.
Figure 11. Oakland Chinatown boundaries, 2000.
Ü
Ü
Redevelopment - Pacific Renaissance Plaza
The Oakland Museum
Madison Square Park
Nimitz Freeway
Lake Merritt BART & BART Headquarters
Laney College
Legend
Legend
1960 Chinatown Boundary
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles
1990s Encroachment
1973 Encroachments
1973 Chinatown Boundary
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles
Source: Center for Community Innovation. Source: Center for Community Innovation.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 17

Figure 12. Neighborhood change, 1990-2000.
Emeryville
Piedmont
Oakland
Neighborhood Type
Alameda
Bipolar
Gentrified
Middle Income
Lower Income
Other
Upper Income
Existing Stations
Ü
0
0.5 1 2 Miles
Source: Author’s calculations from Geolytics Dataquick data.
Figure 13. Projected susceptibility to gentrification
in the future, 2000-2010.
Emeryville
Piedmont
Oakland
Alameda
Susceptibility to Gentrification
No Susceptibility
Low Susceptibility
Moderate Susceptibility
High Susceptibility
Ü
Existing Stations
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Source: Author’s calculations.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 18

Figure 14. Share of workers who commute
via public transit, 2000.
Emeryville
Piedmont
Oakland
Commuters Using Public Transit
Regional Average = 9.4%
Alameda
< 2.5%
2.5 - 5%
5 - 13%
> 13%
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Existing StationsÜ
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000.
Figure 15. Small parks per 1,000 people.
Emeryville
Piedmont
Oakland
Small Parks per 1,000 People
Regional Average = 0.19
0
0 - 0.22
0.22 - 0.38
0.38 - 6.33
Existing Stations
Ü
Alameda
0 0.45 0.9 1.8 Miles
Source: Author’s calculations.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 19

Figure 16. Share of white residents by block, 2000.
Oakland
% White Residents
0
0 - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
Ü
> 80%
No Population Data Available
Existing Stations (2000)
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 Miles
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000.
!
Figure 17. Foreclosures as a percent of owner occupied
housing units, 2006-2007.
Emeryville
!
Piedmont
!
Oakland
!
!
!
Foreclosures / Owner Occupied Housing Units
15%
Ü
Alameda
Foreclosures by Address
! Existing Stations
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Source: Foreclosures.com.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 20

The early warning toolkit suggests that this area is highly
susceptible to gentrification in the future, with a score of
16 out of the 19 indicators (Figure 13). Interestingly, the
area does not have a high enough level of income diversity,
household rent burden, or non-family households to
score positively on those indicators, but it scores high
on all of the others. In particular, it has a high level of
amenities, with a large share of transit commuters and
small parks (Figures 14 and 15), and a very low share of
white population (Figure 16). It also has a relatively high
concentration of foreclosures, likely due to defaults in
market-rate condominiums near the waterfront (Figure 17).
What, then, might the community learn from the toolkit?
First, the high susceptibility level should inform the
residents that they will need to remain engaged. The
neighborhood is likely to be very attractive to newcomers,
and the existing residents will want to manage the change
that is likely to happen. This will require a community
engagement process that continues well beyond the station
area planning process.
From a policy and planning perspective, the most
important intervention is to create permanently affordable
housing. Since rent burden does not (yet) seem to be
a critical issue, the focus should be on offering more
opportunities for low-income homeownership, to slow
the pace of residential turnover. If rent burdens increase
as newcomers arrive, rental assistance programs will be
appropriate.
One of the community’s current strengths that may
be slowing the pace of gentrification is the presence of
families with children; to ensure that families remain as
the neighborhood changes, new housing should include
a disproportionate share of large units (with three or
more bedrooms). Another strength--but one which may
be attracting gentrification--is the concentration of small
parks. Over the coming years, as the city and developers
enhance existing parks and build new public spaces,
these parks should focus on the recreational needs of
existing residents (e.g., their need for tai chi space) and
celebrate existing culture rather than provide more generic
amenities.
Conclusion and next steps
This report offers an early warning toolkit for predicting
neighborhood change in the form of gentrification.
Gentrification is perhaps not as common as many perceive
it to be. Just 7% of Bay Area neighborhoods are gentrifying.
However, these areas house a disproportionate share
of the region’s transit stations. A number of different
factors predict whether a neighborhood will gentrify, most
importantly local amenities, transit commuting, and income
diversity. Neighborhoods that score high on these factors
are likely to gentrify at some point in the near future. This
process of neighborhood change is particularly likely
to result in the displacement of residents in the absence
of certain housing policies, in particular rent control,
preservation of affordable rental units, and rental assistance
programs to ease the rent burden.
This toolkit will help inform the many different planning
processes in the Bay Area’s new transit station and priority
development areas. New development presents an
opportunity to recapture value to benefit existing residents.
A growing literature on transit-oriented development
and value capture suggests mechanisms from assessment
districts to tax increment financing to development
impact fees that could be leveraged to protect residents as
neighborhoods experience reinvestment. 26 Value capture
policies, as well as other policies preserving affordable rental
housing stock, might best target the area within a 1/2-mile
radius of the transit station, where pressures will be greatest.
Future research should try to expand the reach of the
toolkit. In particular, this project would benefit from a better
understanding of the relationship between public investment
and gentrification. If data on public improvements were
added to the database, it would be possible to determine
the types of neighborhood change and the extent of
gentrification that might occur with different types and
levels of public investment. Though we now understand
better the relationship between rail transit investment and
gentrification, it is important to expand this research to
examine the impacts of bus transit, as well as to determine
the time frame of gentrification, in other words, how long
after the transit investment it is likely to gentrify. It would
be valuable to understand the effects of neighborhood
change on different subgroups of the population: for
instance, very low-income vs. low-income households, rentburdened
households, family households, and so forth. We
look forward to the publication of the 2010 census data,
which will allow us to refine this model and anticipate the
next decade of change.
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 21

Notes
1
National Association of Realtors; National Low-Income
Housing Coalition, Out of Reach, 2006.
2
Bay Area Council, Bay Area Economic Forum and the
Association of Bay Area Governments, The
Innovation Economy: Protecting the Talent
Advantage, Bay Area Economic Profile, 2006.
“Affordable” housing costs are defined here as 30
percent of income – the prevailing standard used
by the US Department of Housing (HUD). Source:
ABAG, A Place to Call Home: Housing in the San
Francisco Bay Area, (2006): 2.
3
California Budget Project, The Rising Tide Left Some
Boats Behind: Boom, Bust & Beyond in the San
Francisco Bay Area, December 2005.
4
Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2009.
5
http://www.greatcommunities.org
6
For a summary of the literature, see Parsons Brinkerhoff,
The Effect of Rail Transit on Property Values: A
Summary of Studies, prepared for the Denver
Regional Council of Governments [http://www.
drcog.org], 2001
7
It was coined by Ruth Glass, who was describing
the invasion of the middle class into poor London
neighborhoods in London: Aspects of Change
(London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1964).
8
Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard, Dealing
with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on
Gentrification and Policy Choices, discussion
paper prepared for the Brookings Institution
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy
and PolicyLink [http://www.policylink.
org/pdfs/BrookingsGentrification.pdf], 2001.
9
New housing investment serves as a proxy for an influx of
newcomers into the neighborhood. Ideally, the
definition of gentrification would include some
measure of in- and out-movers. However, as other
researchers have found, the type of data that is
available at the neighborhood level – tract, block
group, or block data from the U.S. Census – is not
well suited to measure very localized population
flows.
10
Freeman’s definition also includes a measure of building
age (percent of housing units built in the last
twenty years), since gentrifiers are often attracted
by older, architecturally significant housing stock.
However, this variable does not work well in the
Bay Area, where gentrifying neighborhoods have
seen much new construction. Lance Freeman,
“Displacement or succession? Residential
mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods,” Urban
Affairs Review 40.4, (2005): 463-491.
11
These studies include Freeman & Braconi (2004); Vigdor
(2002); McKinnish, Walsh & White (2008); and
Freeman (2005). However, it should be noted
that most of these studies (with the exception
of Freeman) have flaws either in how they define
gentrification (as in McKinnish, Walsh & White,
who do not include real estate investment) or how
they define their comparison sample.
Lance Freeman and Frank Braconi, “Gentrification
and displacement in New York City,” Journal of the
American Planning Association 70.1, (2004) 39-52.
Jacob Vigdor, “Does Gentrification Harm the
Poor?” Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs
(2002): 133-182.
Terra McKinnish, Randall P. Walsh, and
Kirk White, Who Gentrifies Low-Income
Neighborhoods? NBER Working Paper No. W14036.
[http://ssrn.com/abstract=1139352], 2008.
12
Kathe Newman and Elvin Wyly, “The right to stay
put, revisited: Gentrification and resistance to
displacement in New York City,” Urban Studies
43.1, (2006): 23-57.
13
Brock Winstead, The Politics of Tenant Protection in
Richmond, California (Berkeley, CA: Center for
Community Innovation, 2006). Winstead found
that about one percent of unlawful detainers
(landlord actions when tenants disobeyed a “notice
to quit”) were no-cause and associated with
rent increases. Collecting such data from the
courts is a very time-consuming task (the
Richmond study took approximately 300 hours to
complete). Purchasing it from vendors is not viable
because they sell the data per building or tenant,
not by geographic unit.
14
To learn more about the income and housing
characteristics of transit station areas, see Center
for Transit-Oriented Development, Preserving and
Promoting Diverse Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods,
prepared for the Ford Foundation, 2006, and
Capturing the Value of Transit, prepared for the US
Department of Transportation and Federal
Transportation Administration, 2008.
15
To construct these six categories, we first had to convert
the census data on household income from 10-
16 irregular categorical variables (in 1990 and 2000)
into consistent and meaningful groups. Following
Berube and Tiffany (2004) and Galster et. al. (2005)
we use two different methods to aggregate the
finer (census) distribution into our six categories
(based on the income cutoffs relative to the
AMI). First, we calculate the area median income
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 22

using the linear interpolation method. Then, for
each census tract in the Bay Area we calculate
the share of households in each of the census
categories and their cumulative density. In
aggregating to our six categories, we use linear
interpolation to find breakpoints within a census
category for those at or below the median income.
However, we assume that the distribution of
households within the higher-income categories
follows a pareto distribution. This assumes that
there is more density towards the lower cutoff.
Alan Berube and Thacher Tiffany, The shape
of the curve: Household income distributions
in U.S. Cities, 1979-1999. Living Cities Census
Series. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution,
2004).
George Galster, Jason C. Booza, Jackie Cutsinger,
Kurt Metzger, and Up Lim, Low-Income
Households in Mixed-Income Neighborhoods:
Extent, Trends, and Determinants. Report
prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. (Washington D.C.: HUD.
2005).
16
The NCDB provides 1990 census data for normalized
2000 census tract definitions, allowing us to
compare 1990 neighborhood characteristics to 2000.
17
Galster & Booza (2007) identify neighborhoods that are
“bipolar” using a formulation based on the
entropy index. The entropy index is based
upon the thermodynamic principle that any system
will naturally trend towards evenness. The
amount of entropy in a system refers to how
far along a system is in reaching complete evenness
or equilibrium. In the social sciences researchers
have developed an index that varies from 0 to 1,
also called the Shannon-Weaver Index, to measure
entropy of a population across social categories:
k
∑
− π
i
lnπ
i
i
H =
ln k
where H is the index, π is the proportion of the
population in each category, and k is the number
of categories. In addition to this nominal entropy
index, Galster & Booza construct a new ordinal
entropy index and use the ratio of the two to
measure bipolarity. George Galster and Jason
Booza, “The Rise of the Bipolar Neighborhood,”
Journal of American Planning Association 73.4, (2007):
421–435.
18
Just ten of the tracts that were becoming bipolar were
also gentrifying, and we classified them as
gentrifying. Interestingly, this confirms Galster
& Booza’s finding that the bipolar category is
basically distinct from gentrification.
19
A small share of these neighborhoods is experiencing
gentrification at the same time as consolidating in
one of these income categories. Thirteen tracts fall
into both becoming middle income and gentrifying
categories, 19 into both becoming lower income
and gentrifying, and 41 into both becoming upper
income and gentrifying. We classify all of these as
gentrified since this is the dominant type of change.
20
Since this analysis was attempting to identify
systematically which variables did and didn’t
matter, we used a stepwise regression, which starts
with a large number of variables and eliminates
collinear variables, or those which are highly
associated with variables that fit better in the
analysis.
21
The analysis began with a very large set of variables
identified in the literature on gentrification, and
reduced it to the variables that most powerfully
predict gentrification. Variables on youth facilities,
public space, and recreational facilities were
constructed from 501(c)3 data from the National
Center for Charitable Statistics. The small park
variable comes from ESRI, supplemented by city
websites. The distance to major city variables come
from ESRI. All of the other variables were
constructed from U.S. Decennial Census data.
22
We use the 35% threshold, rather than 30%, to reflect the
Bay Area context, where high housing costs have
made it customary to pay a higher share of income
for housing.
23
It should be noted that it is not the density itself that is
causing gentrification: in fact, controlling for all
else, the higher share of multi-unit buildings
the less likely the area is to gentrify. Thus, there
are several intervening variables which make highdensity
neighborhoods more susceptible: in
particular, higher levels of renter occupancy and
higher shares of amenities.
24
Again, however, controlling for all other factors,
public housing actually makes gentrification less
likely, suggesting that some other variables are
intervening to make the influence of public
housing seem positive.
25
The California Housing Partnership provided the
analysis of potential expiration for these maps.
26
See Nadine Fogarty, Nancy Eaton, Dena Belzer, and
Gloria Ohland, Capturing the Value of Transit. (Prepared for
the Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, November 2008).
Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit 23

Page 126 of 150

Advocacy Foundation Publishers
Page 127 of 150

Advocacy Foundation Publishers
The e-Advocate Quarterly
Page 128 of 150

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. I 2015 The Fundamentals
I
The ComeUnity ReEngineering
Project Initiative
Q-1 2015
II The Adolescent Law Group Q-2 2015
III
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (PA)
Q-3 2015
IV The First Amendment Project Q-4 2015
Vol. II 2016 Strategic Development
V The Fourth Amendment Project Q-1 2016
VI
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (NJ)
Q-2 2016
VII Youth Court Q-3 2016
VIII
The Economic Consequences of Legal
Decision-Making
Q-4 2016
Vol. III 2017 Sustainability
IX The Sixth Amendment Project Q-1 2017
X
The Theological Foundations of
US Law & Government
Q-2 2017
XI The Eighth Amendment Project Q-3 2017
XII
The EB-5 Investor
Immigration Project*
Q-4 2017
Vol. IV 2018 Collaboration
XIII Strategic Planning Q-1 2018
XIV
The Juvenile Justice
Legislative Reform Initiative
Q-2 2018
XV The Advocacy Foundation Coalition Q-3 2018
Page 129 of 150

XVI
for Drug-Free Communities
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (GA)
Q-4 2018
Page 130 of 150

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. V 2019 Organizational Development
XVII The Board of Directors Q-1 2019
XVIII The Inner Circle Q-2 2019
XIX Staff & Management Q-3 2019
XX Succession Planning Q-4 2019
XXI The Budget* Bonus #1
XXII Data-Driven Resource Allocation* Bonus #2
Vol. VI 2020 Missions
XXIII Critical Thinking Q-1 2020
XXIV
The Advocacy Foundation
Endowments Initiative Project
Q-2 2020
XXV International Labor Relations Q-3 2020
XXVI Immigration Q-4 2020
Vol. VII 2021 Community Engagement
XXVII
The 21 st Century Charter Schools
Initiative
Q-1 2021
XXVIII The All-Sports Ministry @ ... Q-2 2021
XXIX Lobbying for Nonprofits Q-3 2021
XXX
XXXI
Advocacy Foundation Missions -
Domestic
Advocacy Foundation Missions -
International
Q-4 2021
Bonus
Page 131 of 150

Vol. VIII
2022 ComeUnity ReEngineering
XXXII
The Creative & Fine Arts Ministry
@ The Foundation
Q-1 2022
XXXIII The Advisory Council & Committees Q-2 2022
XXXIV
The Theological Origins
of Contemporary Judicial Process
Q-3 2022
XXXV The Second Chance Ministry @ ... Q-4 2022
Vol. IX 2023 Legal Reformation
XXXVI The Fifth Amendment Project Q-1 2023
XXXVII The Judicial Re-Engineering Initiative Q-2 2023
XXXVIII
The Inner-Cities Strategic
Revitalization Initiative
Q-3 2023
XXXVIX Habeas Corpus Q-4 2023
Vol. X 2024 ComeUnity Development
XXXVX
The Inner-City Strategic
Revitalization Plan
Q-1 2024
XXXVXI The Mentoring Initiative Q-2 2024
XXXVXII The Violence Prevention Framework Q-3 2024
XXXVXIII The Fatherhood Initiative Q-4 2024
Vol. XI 2025 Public Interest
XXXVXIV Public Interest Law Q-1 2025
L (50) Spiritual Resource Development Q-2 2025
Page 132 of 150

LI
Nonprofit Confidentiality
In The Age of Big Data
Q-3 2025
LII Interpreting The Facts Q-4 2025
Vol. XII 2026 Poverty In America
LIII
American Poverty
In The New Millennium
Q-1 2026
LIV Outcome-Based Thinking Q-2 2026
LV Transformational Social Leadership Q-3 2026
LVI The Cycle of Poverty Q-4 2026
Vol. XIII 2027 Raising Awareness
LVII ReEngineering Juvenile Justice Q-1 2027
LVIII Corporations Q-2 2027
LVIX The Prison Industrial Complex Q-3 2027
LX Restoration of Rights Q-4 2027
Vol. XIV 2028 Culturally Relevant Programming
LXI Community Culture Q-1 2028
LXII Corporate Culture Q-2 2028
LXIII Strategic Cultural Planning Q-3 2028
LXIV
The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated
Service Approach to Delinquency
Prevention
Q-4 2028
Page 133 of 150

Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitalization
LXIV
LXV
LXVI
Part I – Strategic Housing
Revitalization
(The Twenty Percent Profit Margin)
Part II – Jobs Training, Educational
Redevelopment
and Economic Empowerment
Part III - Financial Literacy
and Sustainability
Q-1 2029
Q-2 2029
Q-3 2029
LXVII Part IV – Solutions for Homelessness Q-4 2029
LXVIII
The Strategic Home Mortgage
Initiative
Bonus
Vol. XVI 2030 Sustainability
LXVIII Social Program Sustainability Q-1 2030
LXIX
The Advocacy Foundation
Endowments Initiative
Q-2 2030
LXX Capital Gains Q-3 2030
LXXI Sustainability Investments Q-4 2030
Vol. XVII 2031 The Justice Series
LXXII Distributive Justice Q-1 2031
LXXIII Retributive Justice Q-2 2031
LXXIV Procedural Justice Q-3 2031
LXXV (75) Restorative Justice Q-4 2031
LXXVI Unjust Legal Reasoning Bonus
Page 134 of 150

Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy
LXXVII Public Interest Law Q-1 2032
LXXVIII Reforming Public Policy Q-2 2032
LXXVIX ... Q-3 2032
LXXVX ... Q-4 2032
Page 135 of 150

The e-Advocate Monthly Review
2018
Transformational Problem Solving January 2018
The Advocacy Foundation February 2018
Opioid Initiative
Native-American Youth March 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Barriers to Reducing Confinement April 2018
Latino and Hispanic Youth May 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Social Entrepreneurship June 2018
The Economic Consequences of
Homelessness in America S.Ed – June 2018
African-American Youth July 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Gang Deconstruction August 2018
Social Impact Investing September 2018
Opportunity Youth: October 2018
Disenfranchised Young People
The Economic Impact of Social November 2018
of Social Programs Development
Gun Control December 2018
2019
The U.S. Stock Market January 2019
Prison-Based Gerrymandering February 2019
Literacy-Based Prison Construction March 2019
Children of Incarcerated Parents April 2019
Page 136 of 150

African-American Youth in The May 2019
Juvenile Justice System
Racial Profiling June 2019
Mass Collaboration July 2019
Concentrated Poverty August 2019
De-Industrialization September 2019
Overcoming Dyslexia October 2019
Overcoming Attention Deficit November 2019
The Gift of Adversity December 2019
2020
The Gift of Hypersensitivity January 2020
The Gift of Introspection February 2020
The Gift of Introversion March 2020
The Gift of Spirituality April 2020
The Gift of Transformation May 2020
Property Acquisition
for Sustainability June 2020
Investing for Organizational
Sustainability July 2020
Biblical Law & Justice TLFA August 2020
Gentrification AF September 2020
…
Page 137 of 150

The e-Advocate Quarterly
Special Editions
Crowdfunding Winter-Spring 2017
Social Media for Nonprofits October 2017
Mass Media for Nonprofits November 2017
The Opioid Crisis in America: January 2018
Issues in Pain Management
The Opioid Crisis in America: February 2018
The Drug Culture in the U.S.
The Opioid Crisis in America: March 2018
Drug Abuse Among Veterans
The Opioid Crisis in America: April 2018
Drug Abuse Among America’s
Teens
The Opioid Crisis in America: May 2018
Alcoholism
The Economic Consequences of June 2018
Homelessness in The US
The Economic Consequences of July 2018
Opioid Addiction in America
Page 138 of 150

The e-Advocate Journal
of Theological Jurisprudence
Vol. I - 2017
The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process
Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code
Scriptural Application for Tort Reform
Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation
Vol. II - 2018
Scriptural Application for The Canons of Ethics
Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform
& The Uniform Commercial Code
Scriptural Application to The Law of Property
Scriptural Application to The Law of Evidence
Page 139 of 150

Legal Missions International
Page 140 of 150

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. I 2015
I
II
God’s Will and The 21 st Century
Democratic Process
The Community
Engagement Strategy
Q-1 2015
Q-2 2015
III Foreign Policy Q-3 2015
IV
Public Interest Law
in The New Millennium
Q-4 2015
Vol. II 2016
V Ethiopia Q-1 2016
VI Zimbabwe Q-2 2016
VII Jamaica Q-3 2016
VIII Brazil Q-4 2016
Vol. III 2017
IX India Q-1 2017
X Suriname Q-2 2017
XI The Caribbean Q-3 2017
XII United States/ Estados Unidos Q-4 2017
Vol. IV 2018
XIII Cuba Q-1 2018
XIV Guinea Q-2 2018
XV Indonesia Q-3 2018
XVI Sri Lanka Q-4 2018
Page 141 of 150

Vol. V 2019
XVII Russia Q-1 2019
XVIII Australia Q-2 2019
XIV South Korea Q-3 2019
XV Puerto Rico Q-4 2019
Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. VI 2020
XVI Trinidad & Tobago Q-1 2020
XVII Egypt Q-2 2020
XVIII Sierra Leone Q-3 2020
XIX South Africa Q-4 2020
XX Israel Bonus
Vol. VII 2021
XXI Haiti Q-1 2021
XXII Peru Q-2 2021
XXIII Costa Rica Q-3 2021
XXIV China Q-4 2021
XXV Japan Bonus
Vol VIII 2022
XXVI Chile Q-1 2022
Page 142 of 150

The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report
______
Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in The US
Vol. II. – The Prison Industrial Complex
Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice
Vol. IV – The Sixth Amendment Right to The Effective Assistance of Counsel
Vol. V – The Theological Foundations of Juvenile Justice
Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency
Page 143 of 150

The e-Advocate Newsletter
Genesis of The Problem
Family Structure
Societal Influences
Evidence-Based Programming
Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits
2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in The US
Introduction/Ideology/Key Values
Philosophy/Application & Practice
Expungement & Pardons
Pardons & Clemency
Examples/Best Practices
2013 - Restorative Justice in The US
2014 - The Prison Industrial Complex
25% of the World's Inmates Are In the US
The Economics of Prison Enterprise
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
The After-Effects of Incarceration/Individual/Societal
The Fourth Amendment Project
The Sixth Amendment Project
The Eighth Amendment Project
The Adolescent Law Group
2015 - US Constitutional Issues In The New Millennium
Page 144 of 150

2018 - The Theological Law Firm Academy
The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government
The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making
The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative
The EB-5 International Investors Initiative
2017 - Organizational Development
The Board of Directors
The Inner Circle
Staff & Management
Succession Planning
Bonus #1 The Budget
Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation
2018 - Sustainability
The Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process
The Quality Assurance Initiative
The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative
The Community Engagement Strategy
2019 - Collaboration
Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice
International Labor Relations
Immigration
God's Will & The 21st Century Democratic Process
The Community Engagement Strategy
The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative
2020 - Community Engagement
Page 145 of 150

Extras
The Nonprofit Advisors Group Newsletters
The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process
The Board of Directors
The Gladiator Mentality
Strategic Planning
Fundraising
501(c)(3) Reinstatements
The Collaborative US/ International Newsletters
How You Think Is Everything
The Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships
Accelerate Your Professional Development
The Competitive Nature of Grant Writing
Assessing The Risks
Page 146 of 150

Page 147 of 150

About The Author
John C (Jack) Johnson III
Founder & CEO
Jack was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Rutgers
Law School, in Camden, New Jersey. In 1999, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia to pursue
greater opportunities to provide Advocacy and Preventive Programmatic services for atrisk/
at-promise young persons, their families, and Justice Professionals embedded in the
Juvenile Justice process in order to help facilitate its transcendence into the 21 st Century.
There, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “The Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived
and developed over roughly a thirteen year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Educational
Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development, Community Change
Management, Practitioner Re-Education & Training, and a host of related components.
The Foundation’s Overarching Mission is “To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”, by
implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative & Transformative Justice" programs &
projects currently throughout the northeast, southeast, and western international-waters regions, providing prevention and support
services to at-risk/ at-promise youth, to young adults, to their families, and to Social Service, Justice and Mental
Health professionals” everywhere. The Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and been
expanded to include a three-tier mission.
In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law & Business at National-Louis
University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business & Legal Ethics, Labor & Employment Relations, and Critical
Thinking courses to undergraduate and graduate level students). Jack has also served as Board President for a host of wellestablished
and up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “Visions Unlimited Community
Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence Prevention and Gang Intervention Social Service
organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence Prevention Partnership, a state-wide
300 organizational member, violence prevention group led by the Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University and The
Original, Atlanta-Based, Martin Luther King Center.
Attorney Johnson’s prior accomplishments include a wide-array of Professional Legal practice areas, including Private Firm,
Corporate and Government postings, just about all of which yielded significant professional awards & accolades, the history and
chronology of which are available for review online. Throughout his career, Jack has served a wide variety of for-profit
corporations, law firms, and nonprofit organizations as Board Chairman, Secretary, Associate, and General Counsel since 1990.
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org
Clayton County Youth Services Partnership, Inc. – Chair; Georgia Violence Prevention Partnership, Inc – Vice Chair; Fayette
County NAACP - Legal Redress Committee Chairman; Clayton County Fatherhood Initiative Partnership – Principal
Investigator; Morehouse School of Medicine School of Community Health Feasibility Study - Steering Committee; Atlanta
Violence Prevention Capacity Building Project – Project Partner; Clayton County Minister’s Conference, President 2006-2007;
Liberty In Life Ministries, Inc. – Board Secretary; Young Adults Talk, Inc. – Board of Directors; ROYAL, Inc - Board of
Directors; Temple University Alumni Association; Rutgers Law School Alumni Association; Sertoma International; Our
Common Welfare Board of Directors – President)2003-2005; River’s Edge Elementary School PTA (Co-President); Summerhill
Community Ministries; Outstanding Young Men of America; Employee of the Year; Academic All-American - Basketball;
Church Trustee.
Page 148 of 150

www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org
Page 149 of 150

Page 150 of 150