Spoiled Mixture: Where Does State-led `Positive' Gentrification End?

Mark Davidson

Urban Studies · 2008 · 338 citations · 41 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Social‑mixing policies aim to deconcentrate low‑income communities by attracting middle‑class residents, but critics argue they resemble gentrification and may offer limited benefits to working‑class neighborhoods. This study uses London case data to show that such state‑led initiatives threaten displacement of lower‑income residents and that these risks are increasingly context‑specific. The authors analyze London redevelopment projects to illustrate how policy designs create displacement risks for vulnerable groups. The paper concludes that existing state mechanisms are insufficient to mitigate the unjust aspects of gentrification.

Abstract

Over the past decade, policy-makers have introduced social mixing initiatives that have sought to address urban social problems by deconcentrating poor and working-class communities through attracting the middle classes back to the city. Such a policy objective clearly `smells like gentrification'. However, some commentators have warned against being critical of these policies, pointing out that the types of inner-city redevelopment generated by them is different from classical gentrification and that state-led gentrification offers benefits for many working-class communities. This paper draws upon research conducted in London to demonstrate how, despite having many commendable aspects, these policy agendas carry with them significant threats of displacement for lower-income communities. The paper also argues that, due to the mutating nature of gentrification, these threats are increasingly context-bound. In conclusion, the paper argues that those state mechanisms which might manage the unjust aspects of gentrification are inadequate.

References

41