Abstract
Why is gentrification in the USA so easily represented as a matter of unquestioned consensus? I outline an answer identifying three factors that shape the regulation of public space. The first is the fact that Anglo cultural complexes remain demographically, politically, and economically dominant, leading to assumptions of Anglo privilege in public space. Second, although ideas of place lodge deeply within identity and personhood, public space regulations address behaviors, not actual people. The third factor is simply that cities—both in their geographies and in their legal frameworks—are concerned with property rights, unlike states, which are more concerned with human rights. In combination, these factors help explain how gentrification in inner-city neighborhoods has come to be widely considered as both necessary and inevitable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arendt, H. (1968). The origins of totalitarianism. Orlando: Harcourt.
Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2011). Banished: The new social control in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blomley, N. (2004a). Un-real Estate: proprietary space and public gardening. Antipode, 36(4), 614–641.
Blomley, N. (2004b). Unsettling the city: Urban land and the politics of property. New York: Routledge.
Frug, G., & Barron, D. (2014). City Bound: How states stifle urban innovation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Keenan, S. (2015). Subversive property: Law and the production of spaces of belonging. New York: Routledge.
Kim, A. M. (2015). Sidewalk city: Remapping public space in Ho Chi Minh City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langegger, S., & Koester, S. (2016a). Dwelling without a home: Denver’s splintered public spaces. In M. De Backer, L. Melgaco, G. Varna, & F. Menichellil (Eds.), Criminology meets geography: Order and conflict in public space (pp. 140–159). New York: Routledge.
Langegger, S., & Koester, S. (2016b). Invisible homelessness: Anonymity, exposure and the right to the city. Urban Geography, (Online First).
Lefebvre, H. (1996). The right to the city (Elenore Kofman & Elizabeth Lebas, Trans.). In E. Kofman & E. Lebas (Eds.), Henri Lefebvre: Writings on cities (pp. 147–159). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Mitchell, D., & Heynen, N. (2009). The geography of survival and the right to the city: Speculations on surveillance, legal innovation, and the criminalization of intervention. Urban Geography, 30(6), 611–632.
Perin, C. (1977). Everything in its place: Social order and land use in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Searle, J. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Valverde, M. (2005). Taking ‘land use’ seriously: Toward an ontology of municipal law. Law Text Culture, 9, 34–59.
Valverde, M. (2011). Seeing like a city: The dialectic of modern and premodern ways of seeing in urban governance. Law & Society Review, 45(2), 277–312. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00441.x.
Valverde, M. (2012). Everyday law on the street. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Williamson, T. (2010). Sprawl, justice, and citizenship: The civic costs of the American way of life. New York City: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Langegger, S. (2017). Coda: Now What?. In: Rights to Public Space. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41177-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41177-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41176-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41177-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)