The Indirect Displacement Hypothesis: a Case Study in Washington, D.C.

  • Rodney D. Green
  • Judy K. Mulusa
  • Andre A. Byers
  • Clevester Parmer
Article

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.

Keywords

Gentrification Neighborhood transition Indirect displacement Commercial development Washington, DC 

References

  1. 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.
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Byers A. Interview of Andre Byers, Manager, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, District of Columbia, with Judy Mulusa. 2010.Google Scholar
  5. Columbia Heights/Washington D.C. Crime-Areavibes. http://www.areavibes.com/washington-dc/columbia+heights/crime/. Retrieved 17 Aug 2016.
  6. Davidson M. Spoiled mixture: where does state-led ‘positive’ gentrification end? Urban Stud. 2008;45:12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davidson M. The two faces of gentrification: can zoning help? Am Plan Assoc News. 2002.Google Scholar
  8. Douglas G. The edge of the island: cultural ideology and neighbourhood identity at the gentrification frontier. Urban Stud. 2012;49:16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman L, Braconi F. Gentrification and displacement in New York City in the 1990s. J Am Plan Assoc. 2004;70:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glemmer G. Quantitative and spatial analysis techniques for analyzing gentrification patterns, case study of Portland Oregon, Independent Research Project. 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Hamnett C. The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of gentrification. Trans Inst Br Geogr. New Series. 1991; 16:2.Google Scholar
  13. Hamnett C. Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of inner London, 1961–2001. Urban Stud. 2003;40:12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hyra D. Mixed income housing: where have we been and where do we go from here? Cityscape. 2013;15:2.Google Scholar
  15. Hyra D. The back-to-the-city movement: neighborhood redevelopment and processers of political and cultural displacement. Urban Stud. 2015;52:10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Kolko J. The determinants of gentrification. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California; 2007.Google Scholar
  18. Lees L. Gentrification and social mixing: towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Stud. 2008;45:12.Google Scholar
  19. Ley D. Reply: the rent gap revisited. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2010;77(3):465–68.Google Scholar
  20. Maly M. Beyond segregation: multiracial and multiethnic neighborhoods in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  21. McKinnish T, Walsh R, White K. Who gentrifies low income neighborhoods? J Urban Econ. 2010;67:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore R. Interview with Robert Moore, CEO, Development Corporation of Columbia Heights, by Judy Mulusa. 2010.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Newman K. Newark, decline and avoidance, renaissance and desire: from disinvestment to reinvestment. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci. 2004;594:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newman K, Ashton P. Neoliberal urban policy and new paths of neighborhood change in the American inner city. Environ Plan A. 2004;36:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rose D. Rethinking gentrification: beyond the uneven development of Marxist urban theory. Environ Plan D. 1984;2:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slater T. The eviction of critical perspectives from gentrification research. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2006; 30.Google Scholar
  28. Smith N. Gentrification and the rent gap. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2010;77(3):462–65.Google Scholar
  29. Smith N. The new urban frontier: gentrification and the Revanchist City. London: Routledge; 1996.Google Scholar
  30. Vigdor J, Sanford T. Does gentrification harm the poor? Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  31. Washington, DC Economic Partnership (WDCEP). DC neighborhood profiles. Washington, DC: Washington DC Economic Partnership. 2015.Google Scholar
  32. 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.
  33. Wyly E, Hammel D. Islands of renewal: housing policy and the resurgence of gentrification. Hous Policy Debate. 1999;10:4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zukin S. Gentrification, culture and capital in the urban core. Annu Rev Sociol. 1987; 13.Google Scholar
  35. Zukin S. The naked city: the death and life of authentic urban places. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodney D. Green
    • 1
  • Judy K. Mulusa
    • 2
  • Andre A. Byers
    • 3
  • Clevester Parmer
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsHoward UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Business StudiesPrince George’s Community CollegeLargoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceHoward UniversityWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Center for Urban ProgressHoward UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations