Abstract
Stereotypes abound about the clash between newcomers to urban neighborhoods and their longstanding residents. In a case study of Columbia Heights in the District of Columbia, the preferences and attitudes of newcomers and longstanding residents are compared. The comparison will help assess the extent to which indirect displacement pressures in the domain of retail activity might be occurring in Columbia Heights. Data from surveys conducted in 2008 by the Howard University Center for Urban Progress (HUCUP) form the empirical base of this study. A total of 217 completed surveys were received, 116 from an Internet survey and 101 one-on-one street interviews. The sample was split into thirds (according to length of time that the participant lived in the neighborhood) leading to break points at two years and eight years of residency. All respondents who lived in the neighborhood two years or less or eight years or more were kept in the final sample. The former were defined as “newcomers” and the latter were defined as “longstanding residents”. There were 77 newcomers and 74 longstanding residents in the final sample. The survey instrument inquired about respondents’ opinions about the availability and quality of stores by type, the variety of stores, and what types of stores they would like to see added to the neighborhood. Respondents were then asked their assessment of the new commercial developments and of the previously existing businesses in the corridor. Chi-square tests were used to test the hypotheses that there were differences between the two populations -- newcomers and long-standing residents -- in terms of preferences and attitudes. The findings demonstrated significant differences between the two groups in terms of their opinions about the commercial corridor, although both groups were generally pleased with the new retail developments. The analysis of these data weakly supports the hypothesis that indirect factors could heighten pressures for displacement of longstanding residents, but it is argued that the main focus of gentrification studies should continue to be on the direct economic factors affecting longstanding residents during neighborhood revitalization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Data on joblessness among the two populations were not gathered, but it is likely that, if there were a difference, joblessness would be greater among the longstanding residents, reflecting the respective racial characteristics of the two groups. Black and white unemployment rates in Washington, DC are 12.7% and 2.3% respectively (Wilson 2016). If joblessness is greater among longstanding residents than among newcomers, the closer employment attachment to the neighborhood by the longstanding residents would be accentuated.
References
Atkinson R, Wulff M. Gentrification and displacement: a review of approaches and findings in the literature. AHURI Positioning Paper No. 115, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited, Melbourne. 2009. https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/position-papers/115.
Abramson D, Manzo L, Hou J. From ethnic enclaves to multi-ethnic translocal community: contested identities and urban design in Seattle’s Chinatown-International District. J Architect Plan Res. 2006;23(4):341–60.
Billingham C. The broadening conception of gentrification: recent development and avenues for future inquiry in the sociological study of urban change. Mich Sociol Rev. 2015;29:75–102.
Byers A. Interview of Andre Byers, Manager, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, District of Columbia, with Judy Mulusa. 2010.
Columbia Heights/Washington D.C. Crime-Areavibes. http://www.areavibes.com/washington-dc/columbia+heights/crime/. Retrieved 17 Aug 2016.
Davidson M. Spoiled mixture: where does state-led ‘positive’ gentrification end? Urban Stud. 2008;45:12.
Davidson M. The two faces of gentrification: can zoning help? Am Plan Assoc News. 2002.
Douglas G. The edge of the island: cultural ideology and neighbourhood identity at the gentrification frontier. Urban Stud. 2012;49:16.
Freeman L, Braconi F. Gentrification and displacement in New York City in the 1990s. J Am Plan Assoc. 2004;70:1.
Glemmer G. Quantitative and spatial analysis techniques for analyzing gentrification patterns, case study of Portland Oregon, Independent Research Project. 2000.
Hamnett C. Gentrification and residential location theory: a review and assessment. In: Hebert D, Johnson R, editors. Geography and the urban environment vol. 6: progress in research and applications. New York: John Wiley Publishers; 1984.
Hamnett C. The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of gentrification. Trans Inst Br Geogr. New Series. 1991; 16:2.
Hamnett C. Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of inner London, 1961–2001. Urban Stud. 2003;40:12.
Hyra D. Mixed income housing: where have we been and where do we go from here? Cityscape. 2013;15:2.
Hyra D. The back-to-the-city movement: neighborhood redevelopment and processers of political and cultural displacement. Urban Stud. 2015;52:10.
Kennedy M, Leonard P. Dealing with neighborhood change: a primer on gentrification and policy choices. Discussion Paper, Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. 2001.
Kolko J. The determinants of gentrification. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California; 2007.
Lees L. Gentrification and social mixing: towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Stud. 2008;45:12.
Ley D. Reply: the rent gap revisited. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2010;77(3):465–68.
Maly M. Beyond segregation: multiracial and multiethnic neighborhoods in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2005.
McKinnish T, Walsh R, White K. Who gentrifies low income neighborhoods? J Urban Econ. 2010;67:2.
Moore R. Interview with Robert Moore, CEO, Development Corporation of Columbia Heights, by Judy Mulusa. 2010.
Nesbitt A. A model of gentrification: monitoring commercial change in selected neighborhoods of St. Petersburg Florida using the Analytical Hierarchy Process. MA thesis, University of Florida. 2005.
Newman K. Newark, decline and avoidance, renaissance and desire: from disinvestment to reinvestment. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci. 2004;594:1.
Newman K, Ashton P. Neoliberal urban policy and new paths of neighborhood change in the American inner city. Environ Plan A. 2004;36:7.
Rose D. Rethinking gentrification: beyond the uneven development of Marxist urban theory. Environ Plan D. 1984;2:1.
Slater T. The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2006; 30.
Smith N. Gentrification and the rent gap. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2010;77(3):462–65.
Smith N. The new urban frontier: gentrification and the Revanchist City. London: Routledge; 1996.
Vigdor J, Sanford T. Does gentrification harm the poor? Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 2002.
Washington, DC Economic Partnership (WDCEP). DC neighborhood profiles. Washington, DC: Washington DC Economic Partnership. 2015.
Wilson V. State unemployment rates by race and ethnicity at the start of 2016 show a plodding recovery, with some states continuing to lag behind. Washington, D.C. Economic Policy Institute. 2016. http://www.epi.org/publication/state-unemployment-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity-at-the-start-of-2016-show-a-plodding-recovery-with-some-states-continuing-to-lag-behind. Retrieved 2 Oct 2016.
Wyly E, Hammel D. Islands of renewal: housing policy and the resurgence of gentrification. Hous Policy Debate. 1999;10:4.
Zukin S. Gentrification, culture and capital in the urban core. Annu Rev Sociol. 1987; 13.
Zukin S. The naked city: the death and life of authentic urban places. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Green, R.D., Mulusa, J.K., Byers, A.A. et al. The Indirect Displacement Hypothesis: a Case Study in Washington, D.C.. Rev Black Polit Econ 44, 1–22 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12114-016-9242-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12114-016-9242-9