Urban Gentrification and Urban Morphology
Urban Gentrification and Urban Morphology
The term ‘gentrification’ has myriads of interpretations from different geographers, and sociologists. Ever since, there has been protracted debate on its methodology, consequences and whether it constitutes a dominant or residual urban form. The term ‘gentrification’ was first coined by the Marxist urban geographer Ruth Glass (Glass, 1964) to describe the influx of wealthier individuals into cities or neighbourhoods who replace working or lower-classes already living there by using London districts such as Islington as her example. On the other hand, Smith and Williams (1986, p.1) define gentrification as “the rehabilitation of working class and derelict housing and the consequent transformation of an area into a middle-class neighbourhood.” Whilst Hamnett (2003, p.2402) builds on Glass’s definition of gentrification as a process involving class connotations and offers a more comprehensive definition incorporating economic views when he defines gentrification as a “social and spatial manifestation of the transition from industrial to a post industrial urban economy based on financial, business and creative services, with associated changed in the nature and location of work, in occupational class structure, earnings and incomes, life styles and the structure of the housing market”. Smith (1987) supply side (which focuses on investments within urban structure) and offers his ‘rent-gap’ theory of gentrification whereas proponents of the Feminist perspective consider the notion of patriarchy, changing gender relations and feminisation of labour markets. (Dutton, 1998, p.32) Therefore, with the myriads of interpretations by various authors (simultaneously enlarging the gentrification literature), it is evident that gentrification means differently to individuals depending on which school of though one ascribes to. Curran (2008, p.537) correctly points out the sentiments of this author that vast literature on gentrification
The term ‘gentrification’ has myriads of interpretations from different geographers, and sociologists. Ever since, there has been protracted debate on its methodology, consequences and whether it constitutes a dominant or residual urban form. The term ‘gentrification’ was first coined by the Marxist urban geographer Ruth Glass (Glass, 1964) to describe the influx of wealthier individuals into cities or neighbourhoods who replace working or lower-classes already living there by using London districts such as Islington as her example. On the other hand, Smith and Williams (1986, p.1) define gentrification as “the rehabilitation of working class and derelict housing and the consequent transformation of an area into a middle-class neighbourhood.” Whilst Hamnett (2003, p.2402) builds on Glass’s definition of gentrification as a process involving class connotations and offers a more comprehensive definition incorporating economic views when he defines gentrification as a “social and spatial manifestation of the transition from industrial to a post industrial urban economy based on financial, business and creative services, with associated changed in the nature and location of work, in occupational class structure, earnings and incomes, life styles and the structure of the housing market”. Smith (1987) supply side (which focuses on investments within urban structure) and offers his ‘rent-gap’ theory of gentrification whereas proponents of the Feminist perspective consider the notion of patriarchy, changing gender relations and feminisation of labour markets. (Dutton, 1998, p.32) Therefore, with the myriads of interpretations by various authors (simultaneously enlarging the gentrification literature), it is evident that gentrification means differently to individuals depending on which school of though one ascribes to. Curran (2008, p.537) correctly points out the sentiments of this author that vast literature on gentrification