Revisiting the Diversity of Gentrification

Transcription

Urban Studies, Vol. 40, No. 12, 2451–2468, November 2003
Revisiting the Diversity of Gentrification:
Neighbourhood Renewal Processes in Brussels and
Montreal
Mathieu Van Criekingen and Jean-Michel Decroly
[Paper first received, October 2002; in final form, April 2003]
Summary. This article provides a comparative analysis of neighbourhood renewal processes in
Brussels and Montreal based on a typology of such processes wherein gentrification is precisely
delimited. In this way, it seeks to break with the extensive use of a chaotic conception of
gentrification referring to the classic stage model when dealing with the geographical diversity of
neighbourhood renewal, within or between cities. In both Brussels and Montreal, the gentrification concept only adequatly describes the upward movement of very restricted parts of the
inner city, while neighbourhood renewal in general more typically comprises marginal gentrification, upgrading and incumbent upgrading. Evidence drawn from the case studies suggests
that each of these processes is relevant on its own—i.e. linked to a particular set of causal
factors—rather than composing basically transitional states within a step-by-step progression
towards a common gentrified fate. Empirical results achieved in Brussels and Montreal suggest
that a typology such as the one implemented in this article could be used further in wider
research aimed at building a geography of neighbourhood renewal throughout Western cities.
Introduction
To refer to gentrification as a highly differentiated process appears now to be a cliché in
the literature on urban studies. Gentrification
occurs in various ways in different neighbourhoods of different cities, comprising diverse trajectories of neighbourhood change
and implying a variety of protagonists (Lees,
2000). By the mid 1980s, Rose (1984) and
Beauregard (1986) had already recognised
gentrification
as a ‘chaotic concept’ connoting many
diverse if interrelated events and processes
[that] have been aggregated under a single
(ideological) label and have been assumed
to require a single causal explanation
(Beauregard, 1986, p. 40).
and had called for its conceptual disaggregation. Nevertheless, these calls were very little
heard and, almost four decades after the term
was first coined by R. Glass, there is still no
unanimously approved empirical delimitation
of the concept of gentrification (Bourne,
1993; Slater, 2000). A typology of neighbourhood change that can take into account
the diversity of processes usually brought
Mathieu Van Criekingen and Jean-Michel Decroly are in the Department of Human Geography, Université Libre de Bruxelles,
Boulevard du Triomphe, CP 246 (Campus Plaine), 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Fax: ⫹ 32 2 650 50 92. E-mail: [email protected]
and [email protected].
0042-0980 Print/1360-063X On-line/03/122451–18  2003 The Editors of Urban Studies
DOI: 10.1080/0042098032000136156
2452
MATHIEU VAN CRIEKINGEN AND JEAN-MICHEL DECROLY
together under the single banner of gentrification has yet to be elaborated.
The persistence of the chaotic nature of the
gentrification concept is particularly problematic in a geographical perspective. Indeed, the diverse processes commonly
referred to as ‘gentrification’ in the literature
are very likely to display contrasting geographies. Most often, gentrification refers to a
process sometimes labelled ‘yuppification’—
i.e. the metamorphosis of deprived inner-city
neighbourhoods into new prestigious residential and consumption areas taken up by a
new class of highly skilled and highly paid
residents, typically business services professionals living in small-sized non-familial
households—that brings displacement of the
neighbourhood’s initial population (Brown
and Wyly, 2000). This kind of process is the
most complete expression of the ideal-type
gentrification detailed by the classic stage
model (see Clay, 1979; Gale, 1980). Evidence of such processes has been mainly
reported from global cities, New York and
London most of all.
In other cases, however, the concept of
gentrification is used to refer to processes
involving groups which cannot be portrayed
as a ‘new urban élite’ of yuppies because of
their socioeconomic (for example, relatively
modest or unstable income) or socio-demographic (for example, family with children)
profiles. These ‘alternative’ types of gentrification have received much less attention
in the literature. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that these processes are most likely to
be specific to cities whose positions within
national or international urban hierarchies are
relatively modest and where labour markets
offer relatively few highly paid professional
jobs in the advanced tertiary sector (Chevalier, 1994; Rose, 1984, 1996).
Hence, the chaotic nature of gentrification
makes it difficult to use this single ill-delimited concept as a cornerstone for comparative
analysis of the reshaping of various innercity neighbourhoods. It is here argued that
comparative analysis based on a typology
wherein gentrification is precisely delimited
as only one among several distinct processes
of neighbourhood renewal may greatly enlighten the understanding of how inner-city
neighbourhoods are being reshaped in different urban contexts, in different cities or
within the same city. The concern of this
article is to build such a typology and to
apply it to two cities, a Western European
one, Brussels, and a North American one,
Montreal. This approach allows a comparative analysis at both intraurban and interurban levels. It may also put in prospect
findings drawn from cities higher up the
urban hierarchy as neither Brussels nor Montreal, although important cities, can be considered to be on an equal footing with
metropolises such as New York or London
(with regard to size, population or position
within the urban hierarchy, notably).
This article is in four parts. In the first, the
typology of neighbourhood renewal is outlined. This typology challenges the use of the
stage model of gentrification when dealing
with the geographical diversity of neighbourhood renewal. It assumes that several distinct
processes are simultaneously occurring in
cities and that these processes cannot a priori
be reduced to steps within the progression of
gentrification towards maturity. These processes—namely,
gentrification
(sensu
stricto), marginal gentrification, upgrading
and incumbent upgrading—have been
identified through a critical review of the
empirical literature on Western cities (Van
Criekingen, 2001). An operational delimitation is proposed for each of them and their
respective nature as well as a set of causal
factors are outlined.
Typically, these processes involve a wide
range of interrelated changes concerning different urban functions (for example, influx of
new inhabitants, change in the retail structure, creation of new leisure or tourist infrastructure, building of new office complexes).
In order to deal with that complexity, the
delimitations provided focus solely on those
changes affecting the residential use of
neighbourhoods (i.e. characteristics of inhabitants and housing). While changes in the
housing sphere are probably first to come to
mind when debates are about inner-city gen-
REVISITING THE DIVERSITY OF GENTRIFICATION
trification, the residential dimension seems to
be an efficient key to differentiate processes
of neighbourhood renewal.
In the second section, this typology is
applied to Brussels and Montreal. It is noted
that gentrification affects very restricted parts
of both the Brussels and Montreal inner city,
while marginal gentrification and upgrading
of middle-class neighbourhoods are much
more widespread in both cities. Results are
discussed in the third section. Both intraurban and interurban comparisons are developed. The concluding section summarises the
main findings and outlines further research
questions.
1. Towards a Typology of Neighbourhood
Renewal in Western Cities
That “gentrification is not the same everywhere” (Lees, 2000, p. 397) seems now
widely acknowledged in the literature, notably thanks to evidence drawn from comparative research at the intraurban (see, for
example, Beauregard, 1990; Butler, 1997;
Bondi, 1999; Butler and Robson, 2001) or
interurban (see, for example, Carpenter and
Lees, 1995) level. Nevertheless, a comprehensive ‘geography of gentrification’, although attracting growing attention in recent
years, is still in its infancy (Ley, 1996; Lees,
2000). While there is no doubt about the
need for deeper analyses of the geographical
diversity of neighbourhood renewal experiences, it is here argued that the persistence of
the chaotic nature of the gentrification concept is highly problematic in this respect.
Most of the literature still deals with the
geographical diversity of neighbourhood renewal in the light of the stage model of
gentrification drawn up in the late 1970s.
According to this model, neighbourhood
change is thought to occur in successive
stages. One can find in the literature numerous references to these early, middle or late
stages of gentrification or to early-stage and
late-stage gentrifiers (see for example, Ley,
1996; Wyly and Hammel, 1999; Clemmer,
2000). Typically, gentrification is initiated by
a few households in search of urban niches in
2453
run-down neighbourhoods which provide
spaces for alternative lifestyles (for example,
avant-garde artists, gay and lesbian communities). Subsequent stages increasingly involve wealthier middle-class households and
real-estate developers
who capitalise on the ‘rent gap’ or potential increase in value in these neighbourhoods by buying up dwellings, renovating
them, and reselling them to more affluent
members of the new middle class, in the
process displacing both old-established
and new-wave occupants (Rose, 1996,
p. 132).
The final stage is marked by consolidation of
the new upper-class character of these neighbourhoods (for example, through ‘historic’
district designation).
The present approach radically challenges
this way of thinking. The latter is fundamentally based on the assumption that changes in
the occupation of inner-city neighbourhoods
from lower- to higher-income residents can
be read as the progression of a single process—gentrification—coming to maturity
through an ineluctable series of stages. In
this way, ‘alternative’ processes of neighbourhood renewal are a priori confined in
necessarily transitional statuses within this
progression. However, as Rose pointed out,
it is not inevitable, even in advanced tertiary cities, that all neighbourhoods where
a ‘beachhead’ of ‘first wave gentrifiers’ is
established will ultimately be caught up in
an irreversible dynamic largely driven by
major real estate interests and leading to
their transformation into homogeneous
Yuppie preserves (Rose, 1996, p. 153).
It is here argued that the geographical diversity of neighbourhood renewal, at city-wide,
national or international level, is better
understood as the outcome of the various
combinations of several distinct processes.
Moreover, it is assumed that each of these
neighbourhood renewal processes is relevant
on its own—i.e. linked to a particular set of
causal factors. In sum, this paper argues for
replacing a ‘geography of gentrification’ by a
2454
Table 1. Processes of neighbourhood renewal (X ⫽ criterion fulfilled, O ⫽ criterion unfulfilled)
Gentrification
Marginal gentrification
Upgrading
Incumbent upgrading
Initially
Transformations
Outcome
Decayed and
impoverished
neighbourhood
Improvements Social
to the built
status Population
environmenta growth
change
Wealthy
neighbourhood
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
O
X
O
X
O
a
Through rehabilitation or recycling of old decayed buildings or through construction of new
buildings on previously vacant land (redevelopment).
‘geography of neighbourhood renewal processes’.
It is therefore necessary to build a typology of neighbourhood renewal processes
wherein gentrification is precisely delimited.
Through a critical review of the empirical
literature on Western cities, four distinct processes have been identified: gentrification,
marginal gentrification, upgrading and incumbent upgrading (Van Criekingen, 2001).
An operational delimitation is provided for
each of them in Table 1. Five criteria have
been used, three of them describing the transformations associated with the renewal process (changes in housing and population
characteristics) and two criteria respectively
depicting the neighbourhood before and after
renewal. In the remainder of this section, the
nature and set of causal factors of each type
of neighbourhood renewal process are
investigated.
1.1 Gentrification
In the authors’ view, gentrification (sensu
stricto) consists of the transformation of deprived, low-income, inner-city neighbourhoods into new wealthy areas based on
population change (influx of affluent newcomers and displacement of initial inhabitants) and on improvements to the built
environment. Delineated in that way, gentrification refers first of all to ‘yuppification’
processes—i.e. sharp class transformations
of inner-city neighbourhoods led by an
affluent new urban élite of yuppies who displace working-class, low-income, sitting tenants.
In a geographical perspective, this kind of
process is most specific to cities where the
emergence of the new middle class is essentially bound up with the growth of global
corporate and financial high-end activities—
i.e. in global cities such as New York or
London. In cities further down the urban
hierarchy, however, where the ranks of yuppies are quite sparse, one could expect gentrification to be less extended while other
processes of neighbourhood renewal would
prevail.
1.2 Marginal Gentrification
This refers to neighbourhood change associated with middle-class households who could
be summarised as being, following
Bourdieu’s terminology, richer in cultural
capital than in economic capital—i.e.
fractions of the new middle class who
were highly educated but only tenuously
employed or modestly earning professionals, and who sought out niches in innercity neighbourhoods—as renters in the
private or non-profit sector, or … as coowners of modestly priced apartment units
(Rose, 1996, p. 134).
By the early 1980s, Rose (1984) had already
argued for a specific conceptualisation of this
process, distinct from mainstream gen-
trification. She coined it “marginal gentrification”. Unfortunately, this concept has
remained very seldom used, as most of the
literature did not (and still does not) recognise any intrinsic relevance to this process
apart from a necessarily transitional status
within the progression of gentrification towards maturity. Smith is particularly explicit
in this respect when stating that “marginal
gentrifiers are important, especially in the
earlier stages of the process” (Smith, 1996,
p. 104; emphasis added).
In contrast, it is argued that gentrification
and marginal gentrification are best understood as distinct processes, both linked to a
particular set of causal factors. In this respect, marginal gentrification seems underanalysed in relation with contemporary
trends of growing labour market flexibility
and reshaping of life-courses, especially considering the growing constraints weighing on
familial and professional stabilisation of
young adults (Van Criekingen, 2001). On the
one hand, growing flexibility in the labour
market throughout Western post-Fordist
economies (for example, proliferation of
short-term contractual jobs, multiple parttime work, back and forth moves between
work and unemployment periods) has
swelled the ranks of workers holding unstable or precarious employment and insecure incomes (Sennett, 1998). While this
trend is typically associated with the rise of
the ‘McDonald’s economy’, evidence of
flexibilisation and casualisation of labour is
increasingly pointed out for skilled whitecollar occupations, especially amongst young
adults entering the labour market (see, for
example, Lipietz, 1998).
On the other hand, socio-demographic restructuring commonly summed up in the ‘second demographic transition’ paradigm (van
de Kaa, 1987; Lestaeghe, 1995) implies profound reshaping of life-courses. Since the
1970s, the transition to adulthood has been
lengthening, notably because of the postponement of marriage and parenthood, and
has become more complex as young people
are more often moving into diverse independent and highly flexible non-familial living
2455
arrangements (such as one-person households, young unmarried adults living together) after leaving the parental home and
before (eventually) getting married (Stapleton, 1980; Galland, 1990). However, all social classes have not been equally affected by
these restructurings affecting transition to
adulthood (Jones, 1987). It has been argued
that the widening of the gap between leaving
home and settling down within a new familial household has been much more striking
for young adults from middle- or upper-class
origin than for those originating from lower
social classes. For the middle-class young
adults, “leaving home, getting married and
starting a family may [now] be spread over a
decade” (Jones, 1987, p. 72).
These restructurings are largely ignored in
most of the gentrification literature. Therefore, this literature does not conceive the
residential strategies of many supposed ‘gentrifiers’ as a temporary response given by
young non-familial households (mostly from
middle-class origin) to unsettled and highly
changeable familial and professional positions. These households occupy these positions in the growing time-interval between,
on the one hand, leaving the parental home
and entering the labour market and, on the
other hand, settling down with a new family
and securing long-term professional status
and income. In most cities, however, living
conditions supplied by inner-city neighbourhoods are particularly suited to the specific
social reproduction needs of young adults in
both familial and professional transitional
positions—notably, given the segmentation
of the urban housing market, most of the
not-too-expensive rental housing supply is
concentrated in inner-city neighbourhoods.
Moreover, one can presume that a
significant part of these young households
will leave the inner city once their familial
and professional long-term stability is secured. At the neighbourhood level, marginal
gentrification is therefore likely to imply, in
many cases, a turnover of marginal gentrifiers (those leaving the neighbourhood as
they get familial and professional stabilisation being replaced by others still lacking
2456
these conditions) rather than a replacement
by necessarily higher-income gentrifiers.
In the authors’ view, marginal gentrification can thus be thought of as lying
outside the framework of the classic stage
model—that is, as a specific process of
neighbourhood renewal distinct from gentrification, rather than as a temporary prelude
to the inevitable transformation of the neighbourhoods into new wealthy inner-city enclaves. However, as Neil Smith (1996) has
argued, marginal gentrification also represents a divisive and polarising force (i.e.
involving displacement of low-income inhabitants) which the term itself appears to
minimise.
1.3 Upgrading and Incumbent Upgrading
Gentrification also has to be differentiated
from processes for which basic prerequisites
of the stage model are not fulfilled. On the
one hand, there is the case of processes
taking place in inner-city neighbourhoods
that have only undergone a slight downturn
in the post-war period. These are typically
long-established bourgeois neighbourhoods
inhabited by elderly middle- to upper-class
households. In those neighbourhoods, improvements to the built environment made by
(or on behalf of) newcomers mainly consist
of minor renovations intended to adapt the
dwellings to the newcomers’ requirements,
notably when the latter (for example, dual-income families with young children) are much
younger than the previous occupiers, rather
than of ‘conspicuous stylish refurbishment’
of buildings (see, for example, Bunting and
Phipps, 1988). Therefore, the slightly decayed and long-established bourgeois character of these neighbourhoods does not exclude
either improvements to the built environment
or social status growth through population
change1. The name ‘upgrading’ is suggested
for this type of neighbourhood renewal process, referring to labels such as ‘upgrading of
élite areas’ or ‘upgrading of middle-class
neighbourhoods’ (see, for example, Bourne,
1993).
On the other hand, there is also the case of
incumbent upgrading, a concept introduced
in the late 1970s (Clay, 1979; Holcomb and
Beauregard, 1981) to refer to neighbourhood
renewal processes where reinvestment is primarily achieved by long-term residents, often
moderate-income owner-occupiers who seek
to improve their own housing conditions.
Incumbent upgrading, therefore, implies very
little (if any) population change.
Gentrification, marginal gentrification, upgrading and incumbent upgrading can thus
be distinguished as clearly distinct processes
of neighbourhood renewal. Here, the paper
departs from commonly held views that see
these processes as basically transitional states
within a step-by-step progression towards a
common gentrified fate. If not a complete
one, this set of processes composes, however, a relevant basis on which an operational typology of neighbourhood renewal
can be built. This typology provides a basis
for interurban and intraurban comparative
analysis, a research project to which the paper now turns.
2. Neighbourhood Renewal in Brussels
and Montreal: Implementing the Typology
Research on gentrification tends to focus primarily on very large Anglo-American global
cities while metropolises further down the
hierarchy of world cities, such as Brussels
and Montreal (see Beaverstock et al., 1999),
usually receive less attention. About 1.7 million inhabitants live in the Brussels’ metropolitan area, of whom nearly 1 million are
located within the core city, the BrusselsCapital Region. In Montreal, the City of
Montreal (1.8 million inhabitants) is the core
part of a metropolitan area of 3.3 million
inhabitants. Both cities display broadly the
same socio-spatial structure, with most of the
poor living in inner-city neighbourhoods and
most of the well-to-do living in affluent suburbs. Nevertheless, social and ethnic polarisation between neighbourhoods is much less
pronounced in Brussels and Montreal than in
most US cities (Kesteloot et al., 1998; Germain and Rose, 2000).
2457
Table 2. Indicators of neighbourhood renewal in Brussels and Montreal
Brussels
Initially
Decayed and impoverished
urban neighbourhood
Social standing index in 1981
Montreal
Social standing index in 1981
a
Transformations
Improvements to the built
environment
Social status growth
Population change
Outcome
Wealthy neighbourhood
Percentage of private housing
renovated with the help of
renovation grants, 1983–96
Evolution of the percentage
of university graduates
among those holding a
Belgian diploma, 1981–91
AND
of high-level employeesb in
the working population,
1981–91
of the 25–34 age-group in the
total population, 1981–97
OR
of the 35-44 age-group in the
Evolution of the mean rent
level of private housing,
1981-96
of university graduates
among those aged more than
15, 1981–96
AND
of directors, managers and
administrators in the working
population, 1981–91
of the 25–34 age-group in the
OR
of the 35-44 age-group in the
Mean household income, 1997
Mean household income, 1995
a
Each evolution has been calculated by a difference between the percentage at the end of the period
and the percentage at the beginning of the period.
b
Directors, managers, scientific occupations and professions libérales (mainly doctors and lawyers).
Sources: Brussels: census, population register and statements of income statistics (Institut National de
Statistiques), records of the renovation grant programme (Brussels–Capital Region); Montreal: census
(Statistics Canada).
2.1. Notes on Method
Analysing patterns of neighbourhood renewal in Brussels and Montreal on the basis
of the typology worked out in the previous
section first requires the ‘translation’ of each
type of neighbourhood renewal into a set of
relevant variables which can be compared
between both cities. This set of indicators is
summarised in Table 2.
The extent to which inner-city neighbourhoods were deprived as a consequence of
post-war impoverishment and disinvestment
has been assessed in both cities by a social
standing index calculated for each census
tract in 1981.2 In Brussels, this index has
been calculated by Grimmeau et al. (1994)
on 1981 census data by combining different
variables assessing the socioeconomic status
of the inhabitants (for example, levels of
education, types of occupation, unemployment rate) through a principal component
analysis. This method has enabled the ranking of each census tract from the poorest to
the wealthiest. An identical method has been
implemented in Montreal on the basis of 10
variables extracted from the 1981 census
(levels of education, types of occupation,
mean household income) in order to have a
comparable measurement of social standing.
Improvements to the built environment
have been assessed differently in both cities,
given the absence of any directly comparable
data. In Brussels, records of the main renovation grant programme implemented by the
2458
Brussels-Capital Region authorities since the
1980s have been used. These grants are allocated to home-owners (with certain conditions) for the renovation of private housing.
These data have been accessed for the 1983–
96 period. Renovations achieved in the
framework of other programmes implemented by public authorities have been taken
into account as well (Decroly et al., 2000). It
is thought that this data-set provides a satisfactory proxy variable to assess the intensity
of improvements to the built environment at
the neighbourhood level. In Montreal’s case,
a more indirect measurement of housing improvement has had to be used—i.e. the evolution of the mean rent level of private
housing. This option rests on the well-established correlation between renovation of private rental housing and rent increases (see,
for example, Sénécal et al., 1991, on Montreal). Moreover, private rental housing is
largely predominant in Montreal’s inner-city
neighbourhoods (78 per cent of the inner-city
housing stock; 67 per cent in Brussels).
An assessment has been made of social
status growth in both cities on the basis of an
increasing share of the high-educated and of
high-level employees. It has been necessary
to calculate these variables for a shorter timeperiod in Brussels than in Montreal, the Belgian census being 10-yearly while the
Canadian one is quinquennial. Moreover, the
evolution of the share of directors, managers
and administrators in Montreal has had to be
compiled for the 1981–91 period because of
changes in the classification of occupations
since the 1996 census.
A very substantial body of research has
brought to the fore the importance of young
adults amongst newcomers moving to ‘revitalising’ neighbourhoods. As mortality rates
are very low at this period of the life-course,
a significant increase in the share of young
adults in a census tract is very likely to point
to an in-migration movement.3 Hence, population change has been assessed by targeting
the 25–34 age-group (comprising ‘post-student’ young adults). The 35–44 age-group
has also been taken into account as a complement, comprising more mature households.
Population change is considered according to
a significant increase in the share of the
25–34 or of the 35–44 age-group.
Finally, the appraisal of the neighbourhoods’ wealthy character as a result of renewal processes is based on the income level
of the inhabitants by the mid 1990s. This
variable is generally underexploited in the
gentrification literature (Bourne, 1993) although it is very likely to differentiate, for
instance, between the moving in of affluent
yuppies and of marginal gentrifiers. Indeed,
the latter tend to have higher incomes than
inner-city, working-class residents but
significantly lower incomes than yuppies.
All these variables have been calculated
for each census tract in both cities and their
values have been compared with the values
for the whole metropolitan area in each case.
For instance, a census tract is considered to
have undergone gentrification between 1981
and the 1990s if it was deprived in 1981 (i.e.
below the median of the social standing index) and if all three transformation criteria
are fulfilled for the 1981–1990s period (i.e.
evolution in the census tract exceeding the
metropolitan average)4 and if it can be considered wealthy by the mid 1990s (i.e. household income higher than the metropolitan
average). Therefore, these variables compose
a set of five criteria whose different combinations enable the assessment of each neighbourhood renewal process according to its
respective delimitations (see Table 1).
2.2. Gentrification and Other Neighbourhood
Renewal Processes in Brussels and Montreal
The set of criteria depicting gentrification is
fulfilled in only two census tracts in Montreal—i.e. Old-Montreal and Little Burgundy—and in no census tracts in Brussels.
Hence, it can be said that gentrification affects only very restricted parts of both Brussels’ and Montreal’s inner city (see Figures 1
and 2).
In Brussels (Figure 1), all the census tracts
for which the three transformation criteria
are fulfilled (i.e. improvements to the built
environment, social status growth and popu-
2459
Figure 1. Typology of neighbourhood renewal processes in Brussels.
lation change) and where the 1997 household
income level exceeds the metropolitan average were already ranked amongst the top 20
per cent of the wealthiest Brussels’ neighbourhoods (according to the social standing
index) in 1981. Simultaneously, all the census tracts for which the three transformation
criteria are fulfilled and which could be considered as deprived in 1981 still display very
low household income levels in 1997. These
results lead to the conclusion that gentrification is irrelevant at the census-tract
scale in Brussels.
This highlights the issue of the spatial
scale at which gentrification is measured. It
could indeed be anticipated that more gentrification would have been detected if the
analysis had been carried out at the street or
block level. In this respect, observations dur-
ing fieldwork in both cities lead the authors
to think that some small areas, composing
only parts of a census tract, do meet all the
parameters of gentrification. These ‘pockets
of gentrification’ consist of particular innercity locations where prestigious private renewal projects have been carried out,
combining luxury housing with prestigious
retail (such as art galleries) or high-order
offices. In Brussels, this is notably the case
along the Dansaert street where conspicuous
reinvestment has been carried out since the
mid 1980s by avant-garde fashion designers
(Van Criekingen, 1996). Since most of the
latter originate from Flanders, the gentrification of the Dansaert area also illustrates
the role of language as a factor of urban
change in Brussels.
In Montreal (Figure 2), pockets of gen-
2460
Figure 2. Typology of neighbourhood renewal processes in Montreal.
trification are typically found in the surroundings of distinctive amenities (for example, Victorian houses bordering the
Saint-Louis Square or old industrial warehouses recycled in lofts along the refurbished
Lachine Canal) (Germain and Rose, 2000).
The well-documented case of Shaughnessy
Village, an islet of renovated Victorian
houses on the edge of the CBD, falls into the
same category (Corral, 1986).
In both cities, marginal gentrification and
upgrading are much more widespread than
gentrification. In Brussels, the criteria of
marginal gentrification (i.e. census tracts that
were decayed and impoverished in 1981 and
that experienced improvements to their built
environment, social status growth and population change during the 1980s and early
1990s but that still display a low-income
profile by the mid 1990s) are fulfilled within
the historical core (the Pentagone) and in the
eastern part of the 19th century belt (in SaintGilles, Ixelles and Schaerbeek). In Montreal,
marginal gentrification is principally underway on the Plateau Mont-Royal and in the
Centre-Sud district (including the Quartier
Latin and the Gay Village) while more
working-class districts such as Saint-Henri,
Pointe-Saint-Charles, Rosemont or even
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve are more tenuously
affected.
In both cities, most of the current trendiest
‘hot spots of inner-city revival’, often referred to in the local media, are found within
these districts. Nevertheless, fieldwork reveals many differences in the built and social
environment of those areas, even from street
to street (for example, new trendy retail facilities coexisting with various shops serving
a socially diverse clientèle). Hence, stereotypes of homogeneous yuppie enclaves have
to be vigorously refuted in these cases.
In Brussels, the criteria of upgrading (i.e.
census tracts that were of high standing in
1981 and that subsequently experienced improvements to their built environment, social
status growth and population change during
the 1980s and early 1990s) are fulfilled in
long-established bourgeois neighbourhoods
built up in the 19th century in the eastern
inner city (for example, the Squares district
or around Louise avenue) as well as in several census tracts scattered throughout the
south and eastern inner greenbelt (from Uccle to Evere). The latter correspond to cores
of 18th-century villages captured by the
progress of urbanisation. In Montreal, upgrading has taken place in middle-class areas
on the sides of the Mount Royal (for example, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, North Outremont).
Finally, the results obtained for incumbent
upgrading are less convincing. In-depth
fieldwork and field surveys are more appropriate to bring out this type of process which
occurs (by definition) without many easily
quantifiable traces at the census-tract level.
Nevertheless, the approach has produced
some notable findings. In Brussels, the criteria of incumbent upgrading (i.e. census
tracts that were decayed and impoverished in
1981 and that experienced improvements to
their built environment during the 1980s and
early 1990s but neither social status growth
nor population change, and that still display a
low-income profile in the mid 1990s) are
fulfilled in pericentral neighbourhoods built
up in the early 20th century—notably in the
La Roue district, a publicly owned garden
city built up in the 1920s where important
improvements to the built environment have
been carried out (individually) after some of
the sitting tenants bought their homes from
the municipality in the late 1980s (Van
Criekingen, 1994)5.
In Montreal, the criteria of incumbent upgrading are fulfilled in several (peri)central
census tracts. Moreover, two field surveys
carried out in the 1980s have brought out
evidence of incumbent upgrading by longterm residents on the Plateau Mont-Royal;
this was taking place at the same time as
2461
marginal gentrification fuelled by newcomers
(GIUM, 1984; LARSI, 1985). Thus, the authors’ approach obscures in this case underlying processes of incumbent upgrading.
These results contrast sharply with
findings brought out by work based on a
continuous index of the ‘level of gentrification’ that basically refers to the view of
one single process on the way towards maturity. David Ley’s work on the geography of
gentrification in large Canadian cities offers
a clear example of the latter approach. Echoing Neil Smith’s (1996) ‘new urban frontier’
metaphor, Ley (1996) depicts gentrification
in Montreal in terms of an “advancing front
of reinvestment” (p. 100), as
the principal feature of the 1970s, consolidation and infill in and near existing
higher-status districts [around MountRoyal], has given way [in the 1980s and
the 1990s] to the widespread colonisation
of poorer neighbourhoods [e.g. PointeSaint-Charles] (Ley, 1996, p. 98).
Beyond statistical indicators (see the results
presented above), field observation clearly
indicates that this supposed inexorable advance of a uniform tide of gentrification all
over the inner city is a much too simplistic
statement. Differences in the reshaping of the
built and social environment are highly visible amongst Montreal’s inner-city neighbourhoods—notably, between Old-Montreal,
colonised by high-status lofts and luxury
boutiques, and Pointe-Saint-Charles where
only some small working-class houses dispersed amongst old industrial buildings and
council houses are being modestly renovated.
Moreover, contrasts are sharp when comparing experiences in different cities. For
instance, walking along the streets of Cabbagetown in Toronto, Canada’s “most celebrated case of gentrification” (Ley, 1996,
p. 93), provides a much more pronounced
sense of wealth and socio-physical homogeneity than when wandering over the supposedly “fully gentrified” Plateau MontRoyal in Montreal.
Finally, these comments clearly stress the
inadequacy of the use of a chaotic concept of
2462
gentrification as cornerstone for intraurban or
interurban comparative analysis of neighbourhood renewal. In the authors’ view, the
combination of distinct processes—i.e. gentrification, marginal gentrification, upgrading
and incumbent upgrading—gives a much
better account (although not a complete one)
of the reshaping of inner-city neighbourhoods in both Brussels and Montreal.
3. Discussion: Intraurban and Interurban
Comparisons
3.1. Different Neighbourhoods, Distinct Renewal Processes
Looking at this paper’s findings, some would
suggest that processes such as marginal gentrification merely compose a transitional step
within a broader neighbourhood upward trajectory. In contrast, it was argued in the first
section that marginal gentrification (like upgrading, incumbent upgrading or other processes) can be distinguished from
gentrification by a particular nature and set of
causal factors. This statement can now be
investigated more deeply by comparing types
of neighbourhood renewal processes in the
case studies.
Gentrification. At the neighbourhood scale,
gentrification is relevant in only two cases,
both located in Montreal. Old-Montreal corresponds to the historical core of the city,
directly connected to the Old Port and to the
recently refurbished Lachine Canal. Despite
its official designation as an historic district
in 1964, Old-Montreal was much of a rundown no-man’s-land by the mid 1970s, with
less than 500 inhabitants. Under way since
the late 1970s, Old-Montreal’s ‘reconquest’
has been funded mainly by extensive public
investment intended to promote Old-Montreal as a distinctive environment for residence, shopping, tourism and post-industrial
activities (cinema and multimedia notably).6
Today, Old-Montreal has become a major
tourist venue (more than 4 million visitors
each year) and its population has risen to
2200 inhabitants, typically small affluent
households, single yuppies or unmarried cou-
ples without children (notably, emptynesters), who buy expensive condominiums
or conspicuous lofts in recycled heritage
buildings, shop in high-status boutiques and
meet in gourmet restaurants (Labelle, 1996;
Germain and Rose, 2000).
Today’s landscape of Little Burgundy is of
a very different kind, resembling a little section of middle-class suburb located within a
stone’s throw of the CBD skyscrapers. As in
the case of Old-Montreal, major public intervention has been a determining factor in the
gentrification of this previously industrial
and working-class neighbourhood which has
been massively disinvested during post-war
decades and was targeted for slum clearance
by the late 1960s. During the 1980s, rows of
suburban-like, one-family townhouses were
built within the framework of the ‘Opération
20.000 logements’, a programme intended to
sell off the City of Montreal’s bank of vacant
land to private developers on advantageous
terms. Today, Little Burgundy’s inhabitants
are mostly middle-class, dual-income families (typically, married couples with children)
who have bought a house in this new neighbourhood as an attractive alternative to living
in a more distant suburb, but who still consider themselves as downtown commuters
(Charbonneau and Parenteau, 1991; Germain
and Rose, 2000).
Massive public intervention has thus been
a determining factor in the gentrification of
both Old-Montreal and Little Burgundy.
However, two clearly different urban landscapes have been produced: in the first case,
the archetypal conspicuous reinvestment in
an historic neighbourhood, associated with
that new class of highly skilled and highly
paid residents so much featured in the mainstream gentrification literature (Old-Montreal); in the second case, the redevelopment
of vacant land in the inner city into a new
suburban-like neighbourhood mainly associated with middle- and upper-class family
households (Little Burgundy).
Marginal gentrification. In both cities, marginal gentrification is a widespread process
and is mostly taking place in areas adjacent
to established upper-middle-class neighbourhoods, while the most deprived workingclass neighbourhoods are much more
tenuously affected.
In Brussels, this pattern is expressed by a
sharp contrast within the 19th-century belt
with marginal gentrification occurring only
in its southern and eastern parts—i.e. between the historical core (the Pentagone) and
the wealthy south-eastern inner greenbelt.
This divergence echoes a long-standing east–
west contrast within the Brussels urban landscape, opposing working-class and immigrant western neighbourhoods to bourgeois
neighbourhoods on the eastern bank of the
Senne valley. This contrast is notably evident
in the built environment, but is also reflected
in the urban experience of the middle classes,
the eastern inner city being much more intimately integrated within the urban realm of
the middle classes, notably because of the
location of two major university campuses in
this part of the city. Moreover, these neighbourhoods supply accommodation opportunities (mainly small affordable private rental
housing) and facilities (plenty of cultural facilities and meeting-places such as cinemas,
pubs and theatres) particularly suited to
meeting the specific social reproduction
needs of ‘post-student’ young adults of middle-class origin occupying transitory positions in the growing time-period before
securing professional and family positions.
In Montreal, marginal gentrification is
mostly spreading around the Mount Royal
and close to wealthy boroughs such as Outremont and Westmount. The Plateau MontRoyal, today’s most trendy Montreal
inner-city neighbourhood (but still one of the
poorest), is particularly affected by this process. Many newcomers in the Plateau MontRoyal are young professionals with relatively
low and insecure incomes, employed mostly
in the public, cultural, artistic or communication sector (Rose, 1996). This ‘marginal’
profile echoes the predominant one amongst
purchasers of homes produced on infill sites
throughout the Plateau Mont-Royal during
the 1980s within the framework of the ‘Opération 20.000 logements’: they were mostly
2463
young adults living alone or as childless
couples who became home-owners in the
neighbourhood where they had previously
been renting. Nevertheless, most of them
regarded home purchase in this neighbourhood as basically a transitional step in their
housing career, the ownership of a one-family home in a lower-density and socially
more homogeneous suburban environment
remaining the first option following the birth
of the first child (Charbonneau and Parenteau, 1991).
Apart from the Plateau Mont-Royal, the
‘marginal’ profile of many newcomers moving into inner-city neighbourhoods is even
more striking in the case of HochelagaMaisonneuve, where evidence of tenuous
marginal gentrification has been reported
(Figure 2). In this case, Sénécal (1995,
p. 357) even speaks about a “gentrification
de pauvres” (literally, a “gentrification by
poor people”)—i.e. a process led by “young
households or single persons holding an universitary degree but with low incomes and in
precarious employment situations” (p. 357,
translated). Surely this cannot be argued to
be gentrification in sensu stricto.
In sum, the reshaping of neighbourhoods
where marginal gentrification has been revealed by the typology seems mostly fuelled
by young and relatively cash-poor households seeking transitional responses to unsettled and highly changeable family and
professional positions. It could be suggested
then that these neighbourhoods are becoming
trendy rather than affluent areas. This is not
to say, however, that marginal gentrification
occurs without growing pressure on the inner-city housing market; many low-income
households in those neighbourhoods are being put under severe threat of displacement.
This is the case in Brussels (Van Criekingen,
2003) as well as in Montreal (see, for example, Comité du Logement du Plateau MontRoyal, 2002).
Upgrading. In both Brussels and Montreal,
upgrading is a significant process too and
deserves careful attention. On the one hand,
newcomers moving into most of the neigh-
2464
bourhoods where upgrading has been
identified seem on average to be older
than the ones moving into neighbourhoods
of marginal gentrification (35–44 years
old rather than 25–34). Indeed, it is worth
noticing that most of the census tracts
classified under upgrading in both Brussels
and Montreal would have been omitted if the
research had only taken into account the
evolution of the 25–34 age-group (and not
the 35–44 age-group) as an indicator of
population change. Therefore, it can be hypothesised that the renewal of these
neighbourhoods (i.e. old villages in Brussels’ south-eastern inner greenbelt, NotreDame-de-Grâce and North Outremont in
Montreal) is mainly associated with the
moving-in of mature middle-class households (i.e. with children and job security)
seeking to secure a long-term position in the
housing market in a relatively dense but
socially stable and affluent urban environment. In that way, upgrading processes
would result from the search for alternatives
to suburban flight by middle- or upper-class
families.
On the other hand, upgrading of long-established bourgeois neighbourhoods in the
Brussels eastern inner city can be linked to
the swelling ranks of well-paid expatriates
employed by international institutions headquartered in Brussels, in particular the offices
of the EU. These international professionals
show a higher propensity to choose an urban
residence than do the Belgian middle and
upper classes but, within the city, they
clearly favour neighbourhoods on the eastern
edge of the 19th-century belt (Kesteloot,
2000). These neighbourhoods are particularly
attractive to them given their close location
to the Léopold district, where most of the
international institutions’ headquarters are
situated (for example, the EU Commission),
and their distinctive built environment (for
example, Horta’s art nouveau houses in the
Squares district). The very high purchasing
power of these transnational professionals
enables them to access these neighbourhoods.
3.2. Brussels’ and Montreal’s Renewal in a
Wider Context
As stated above, archetypal gentrification led
by an affluent new urban élite does not seem
adequate to describe the complex change
underway in most Brussels’ and Montreal’s
inner-city neighbourhoods. In the authors’
view, the scarcity of gentrification in these
two cities (at least in comparison with processes of marginal gentrification and upgrading) has first to be linked to their relatively
modest position within the international urban hierarchy. In both cities, the ranks of
well-paid employees in highly skilled whitecollar occupations in the advanced tertiary
sector, transnational business and financial
services especially, are quite sparse.
In the Canadian context, an important
share of Montreal high-level white-collar
workers have moved to Toronto since the
1970s, following the relocation of their jobs
as the position of Toronto at the summit of
the Canadian urban and economic hierarchy
became increasingly asserted. Most corporate
headquarters now located in Montreal are
serving Quebec rather than Canada (Polèse,
1998). Usually, Brussels ranks above Montreal among world cities (Beaverstock et al.,
1999), primarily due to its international political status. This international position
brings many well-paid expatriate professionals to live and work in Brussels (such as EU
or NATO officials, lobbyists and lawyers).
However, advanced business services are
less developed in the Brussels’ inner city
compared with other European metropolises.
This has to be linked to the small size of the
Belgian domestic market, increasingly controlled by foreign-based corporations, and to
intrametropolitan decentralisation of such activities towards the suburbs, notably around
the Zaventem airport, although without edge
city formation (Vandermotten, 1999; Van
Hamme and Marissal, 2000).
Nevertheless, compared with Montreal,
Brussels’ stock of well-paid professionals
seems higher. It is quite surprising then to
notice that, despite an apparently higher potential, gentrification is even more tenuous in
Brussels than in Montreal. Two main elements have to be taken into account in order
to shed light on this paradox. On the one
hand, efforts supported by Brussels’ public
authorities in the field of neighbourhood renewal have been relatively modest (at least
until the 1990s). While gentrification of Old
Montreal and Little Burgundy has resulted
first and foremost from massive incentive
schemes implemented by the Montreal and
Quebec public authorities, Brussels’ innercity neighbourhoods have not yet been
targeted by extensive residential renewal programmes intended to encourage high-level
professionals to take up or maintain residence in the inner city.
On the other hand, the small size of the
Brussels’ metropolitan area (about 1600
square km while Montreal’s is about 4000
square km) is likely to play a significant role,
too, as the trade-off between central and
peripheral locations is less relevant than in a
large metropolis (Kesteloot, 2000). In other
words, living in the wealthy Brussels’ southeastern inner greenbelt or in the first belt of
middle-class suburban municipalities, corresponds—given the short distance—to similar
downtown access conditions to those experienced by many inner-city residents in Montreal (all the more so in New York or
London).
As second-tier (Brussels) or third-tier
(Montreal) world cities (see Beaverstock et
al., 1999), the constitution of Brussels’ and
Montreal’s new middle class is more
specifically bound up with the growth of the
(para)public, cultural and communications
sectors. Figures speak for themselves: education, health, social and public services
count for 64 per cent (47 per cent) of all
professionals living in the Brussels (Montreal) metropolitan area while only 18 per
cent (24 per cent) of these professionals are
employed in FIRE (finance, insurance and
real estate) and other producer services (Belgian and Canadian 1991 censuses). Figures
are nearly identical when considering innercity neighbourhoods in both cities. However,
education, health, social and public services
(culture, art and media notably) have been
2465
particularly hit by budget cutbacks and by
growing labour market flexibility since the
1980s (Rose, 1996; Martinez, 1998). Hence,
a large number of professionals employed in
these sectors in both cities are restricted to
short-term and precarious employment contracts and insecure incomes, particularly
among young adults at the beginning of their
professional career. In the authors’ view, this
is fundamentally important in analysing the
significance of marginal gentrification in
both Brussels and Montreal.
Finally, Brussels’ position as an important
political node within the European and world
urban system has notable repercussions on
neighbourhood renewal patterns in Brussels.
Since well-paid professionals linked to international functions, affluent expatriates especially, are much more prone to settle down
in long-established bourgeois neighbourhoods in the eastern inner city (or in a
wealthy suburb) than in a central workingclass area, this brings about significant upgrading rather than gentrification.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, it has been argued that gentrification is only one—and often not the
major—process of neighbourhood renewal in
contemporary Western cities. It has been attempted to demonstrate this assertion empirically by examining neighbourhood renewal
processes in Brussels and Montreal by means
of a four-fold typology of such processes
wherein gentrification is precisely delimited.
This analysis radically challenges the extensive use of a chaotic conception of gentrification referring to the classic stage model
when dealing with the geographical diversity
of neighbourhood renewal. In the authors’
view, inner-city neighbourhoods are being
reshaped by several distinct processes, not by
successive waves of a single gentrification
process.
In both Brussels and Montreal, it was
found that gentrification only adequately
describes the upward movement of very restricted parts of the inner city—i.e. OldMontreal and Little Burgundy in Montreal
2466
and some ‘pockets’ (smaller than a census
tract) in both cities. Neighbourhood renewal
under way in both Brussels and Montreal
consists mainly of marginal gentrification,
upgrading and incumbent upgrading, although the methodology and criteria used in
this paper only imperfectly assessed the latter.
These findings contrast sharply with the often
overgeneralising claims made in the literature regarding the extent of gentrification.
Empirical results drawn from Brussels and
Montreal show that a typology such as the
one implemented in this article may
significantly enlighten our understanding of
how inner-city neighbourhoods are being diversely reshaped in Western cities. This approach may thus stimulate further research
aimed at building a geography of neighbourhood renewal throughout Western cities. In
this respect, further research should analyse
other cities and compare their respective
neighbourhood renewal patterns. Cities occupying relatively modest positions within international urban hierarchies, in different
national contexts, deserve particular attention
while it is also worth re-examining the diversity of neighbourhood renewal processes in
global cities.
However, the typology should be extended
because gentrification, marginal gentrification, upgrading and incumbent upgrading certainly do not comprise an exhaustive
inventory of neighbourhood renewal processes throughout Western cities. Further research should notably pay attention to
‘immigrant-driven gentrification’ (see, for
example, Brown and Wyly, 2000) and to
‘social renewal’—i.e. processes based on
public-driven reinvestment schemes intended
for improving the housing conditions of lowincome inner-city residents (see, for example, Marcuse, 1999).
Finally, it is also important to continue to
investigate the causes and social impacts of
different neighbourhood renewal processes.
On the one hand, marginal gentrification
ought to be analysed further in relation to
contemporary trends of growing labour
flexibility and reshaping of life-courses, notably affecting many skilled young adults
from middle-class origin. On the other hand,
marginal gentrification and other neighbourhood renewal processes represent divisive
and polarising forces, and further research
should thus focus on their different social
impacts, notably concerning forms of displacement.
Notes
1. Classic measurements of social status are
influenced by age. On the one hand, retired
persons usually have lower revenues (but
more properties) than people in employment.
On the other hand, the proportion of graduates is higher among young people as general
access to high education rose during the
course of the 20th century.
2. Although not absent in the 1970s, most
neighbourhood renewal processes in Brussels and Montreal have taken place since the
1980s. Moreover, the main revitalisation programmes implemented by the authorities in
both cities did not begin until the late 1970s.
3. Such an increase could also result from an
ageing process without mobility or from a
decrease in absolute terms of all other agegroups. Inspection of the evolution of the age
pyramid can easily confirm these hypotheses.
4. Concerning the variable assessing improvements to the built environment in Brussels, a
threshold has been set above which the renovation activity is considered significant: 12
per cent of the census tract’s housing stock
renovated with the help of renovation grants
between 1983 and 1996 (the mean rate for
the whole of the Brussels Capital Region is
7.5 per cent).
5. This process is very similar to the ‘right-tobuy’ programme implemented in the UK, but
on a much smaller scale.
6. Between 1979 and 1998, Montreal, Quebec
and Canadian authorities have invested a
total of more than CAN$120 million (about
83 million Euros) in the Old-Montreal historical district (Société de Développement de
Montréal, 1998).
References
BEAUREGARD, R. A. (1986) The chaos and complexity of gentrification, in N. SMITH and P.
WILLIAMS (Eds) Gentrification of the City,
pp. 35–55. Winchester: Allen and Unwin.
BEAUREGARD, R. A. (1990) Trajectories of neighbourhood change: the case of gentrification,
Environment and Planning A, 22, pp. 855–874.
BEAVERSTOCK, J. V., SMITH, R. G. and TAYLOR, P.
J. (1999) A roster of world cities, Cities, 16,
pp. 445–458.
BONDI, L. (1999) Gender, class, and gentrification: enriching the debate, Environment
and Planning D, 17, pp. 261–282.
BOURNE, L. S. (1993) The demise of gentrification? A commentary and prospective
view, Urban Geography, 14, pp. 95–107.
BROWN, K. and WYLY, E. (2000) A new gentrification? A case study of the russification of
Brighton Beach, New York, Geographical
Bulletin, 42, pp. 94–105.
BUNTING, T. E. and PHIPPS, A. (1988) Inner-city
home renovation in two medium-sized Canadian cities: a case of modest upgrading, in T. E.
BUNTING and P. FILION (Eds) The Changing
Canadian Inner City, pp. 137–158. Waterloo:
University of Waterloo.
BUTLER, T. (1997) Gentrification and the Middle
Classes. Aldershot: Ashgate.
BUTLER, T. and ROBSON, G. (2001) Social capital,
gentrification and neighbourhood change in
London: a comparison of three South London
neighbourhoods, Urban Studies, 38, pp. 2145–
2162.
CARPENTER, J. and LEES, L. (1995) Gentrification
in New York, London and Paris: an international comparison, International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 19, pp. 286–
303.
CHARBONNEAU, F. and PARENTEAU, R. (1991) Opération 20.000 logements et l’espace social de
Montréal, Recherches Sociologiques, 32,
pp. 237–254.
CHEVALIER, J. (1994) Les contradictions d’une
‘renaissance’ au cœur des villes nord-américaines, in: J. CHEVALIER and J.-P. PEYON (Eds)
Au centre des villes, dynamiques et recompositions, pp. 213–260. Paris: L’Harmattan.
CLAY, P. L. (1979) Neighbourhood renewal. Lexington. MA: D.C. Heath.
CLEMMER, G. (2000) Quantitative and spatial
analysis techniques for analyzing gentrification
patterns, Independent Research Project, Portland State University (www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/
gentrification.html; accessed September).
COMITÉ DU LOGEMENT DU PLATEAU MONT-ROYAL
(2002) Mon quartier … j’y suis, j’y reste !!!
(www.cam.org/ ⬃ clpmr).
CORRAL, I. (1986) Inner-city gentrification: the
case of Shaughnessy Village, Montreal. MA
thesis, McGill University, Montreal.
CRIEKINGEN, M. VAN (1994) Evolution différentielle de deux ensembles de cités-jardins bruxelloises: La Roue à Anderlecht, Le Logis et Le
Floréal à Watermael-Boitsfort, Revue Belge de
Géographie, 56, pp. 167–176.
CRIEKINGEN, M. VAN (1996) Processus de gentrification à Bruxelles: le cas du quartier
2467
‘Dansaert Saint-Géry’, Bulletin de la Société
Belge d’Etudes Géographiques, 2, pp. 205–
233.
CRIEKINGEN, M. VAN (2001) La rénovation résidentielle à Montréal et à Bruxelles. Unpublished PhD thesis, Université Libre de
Bruxelles.
CRIEKINGEN, M. VAN (2003) Les impacts sociaux
de la rénovation urbaine à Bruxelles: analyse
des migrations intra-urbaines, Belgeo, 4, pp.
355–376.
DECROLY, J.-M., CRIEKINGEN, M. VAN and CRAHAY, A. (2000) Les conséquences sociospatiales des politiques urbaines ‘entrepreneuriales’, Ruimte en Planning, 20, pp. 51–64.
GALE, D. E. (1980) Neighborhood resettlement:
Washington, DC, in: S. B. LASKA and D. SPAIN
(Eds) Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood
Renovation, pp. 95–115. New York: Pergamon.
GALLAND, O. (1990) Un nouvel âge de la vie,
Revue Française de Sociologie, 31, pp. 529–
551.
GERMAIN, A. and ROSE, D. (2000) Montréal: The
Quest for a Metropolis. Chichester: John Wiley
and Sons.
GIUM (1984) Patrimoine résidentiel du grand
Plateau Mont-Royal: Sondage des résidents.
Unpublished report, Montreal.
GRIMMEAU, J.-P., MARISSAL, P. and ROELANDTS,
M. (1994) Une carte de standing dans
l’agglomération bruxelloise, Acta Geographica
Lovaniensa, 34, pp. 351–359.
HAMME, G. VAN and MARISSAL, P. (2000) Les
causes de la faible croissance économique de
la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale. Report for the
Government of the Brussels Capital Region,
Brussels, IGEAT-ULB.
HOLCOMB, H. B. and BEAUREGARD, R. A. (Eds)
(1981) Revitalizing Cities. Washington, DC:
Association of American Geographers.
JONES, G. (1987) Leaving the parental home: an
analysis of early housing careers, Journal of
Social Policy, 16, pp. 49–74.
KAA, D. VAN DE (1987) Europe’s second demographic transition, Population Bulletin, 42,
pp. 1–57.
KESTELOOT, C. (2000) Brussels: postfordist polarisation in a fordist spatial canvass, in: P. MARCUSE and R. VAN KEMPEN (Eds) Globalizing
Cities: a New Spatial Order?, pp. 186–210.
Oxford: Blackwell.
KESTELOOT C., MISTIAEN, P. and DECROLY, J.-M.
(1998) La dimension spatiale de la pauvreté à
Bruxelles. Indicateurs, causes et stratégies
locales de lutte contre la pauvreté, in: J.
VRANKEN, B. VANHERCKE and L. CARTON (Eds)
20 ans CPAS: Vers une actualisation du projet
de société, pp. 123–153. Bruxelles: Acco Leuven/Amersfoort.
2468
LABELLE, M. (1996) Analyse et gestion d’un projet global de revitalisation d’un quartier patrimonial du centre-ville: le Vieux-Montréal.
Unpublished MA thesis, UQAM, Montreal.
LARSI (1985) Impact de la restauration dans les
quartiers centraux de Montréal. Research report, UQAM, Montreal.
LEES, L. (2000) A reappraisal of gentrification:
towards a ‘geography of gentrification’, Progress in Human Geography, 24, pp. 397–408.
LESTAEGHE, R. (1995) La deuxième transition démographique dans les pays occidentaux: une
interprétation, in: D. TABUTIN (Ed.) Transitions
Démographiques et Sociétés, pp. 133–180.
Louvain-la-Neuve:
Academia;
Paris:
L’Harmattan.
LEY, D. (1996) The New Middle Class and the
Remaking of the Central City. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
LIPIETZ, A. (1998) La société en sablier. Paris: La
Découverte.
MARCUSE, P. (1999) Comment on Elvin K. Wyly
and Daniel J. Hammel’s ‘Islands of decay in
seas of renewal: housing policy and the resurgence of gentrification’, Housing Policy Debate, 10, pp. 789–797.
MARTINEZ, E. (1998) Organisation du travail,
temps travaillés et précarisation de l’emploi, in:
Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Belgian
French-speaking Economists, pp. 205–222.
Charleroi: CIFOP.
POLÈSE, M. (1998) Montréal dans le systèmemonde: ville internationale ou métropole nordaméricaine?, in: C. MANZAGOL and C. R.
BRYANT (Eds) Montréal 2001. Visages et défis
d’une métropole, pp. 65–79. Montreal: Presses
de l’Université de Montréal.
ROSE, D. (1984) Rethinking gentrification: beyond the uneven development of marxist urban
theory, Environment and Planning D, 2,
pp. 47–74.
ROSE, D. (1996) Economic restructuring and the
diversification of gentrification in the 1980s: a
view from a marginal metropolis, in: J.
CAULFIELD and L. PEAKE (Eds) City Lives and
City Forms: Critical Research and Canadian
Urbanism, pp. 131–172. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
SÉNÉCAL, G. (1995) Le quartier HochelagaMaisonneuve à Montréal: le réaménagement
d’une zone industrielle ancienne face à la nouvelle urbanité post-moderne, Le Géographe
Canadien, 39, pp. 353–362.
SÉNÉCAL, P., TREMBLAY, C. and TEUFEL, D.
(1991) Gentrification or Urban Sprawl? Central Montreal and Surrounding Area. Montreal:
Société d’Habitation du Québec.
SENNETT, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character:
The Personal Consequences of Work in the
New Capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton.
SLATER, T. (2000) What is gentrification?
(www.gentrification.org).
SMITH, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London:
Routledge.
SOCIÉTÉ DE DÉVELOPPEMENT DE MONTRÉAL (1998)
Plan d’action pour le Vieux-Montréal. Montreal.
STAPLETON, C. M. (1980) Reformulation of the
family life-cycle concept: implications for residential mobility, Environment and Planning A,
12, pp. 1103–1118.
VANDERMOTTEN, C. (1999) Bruxelles dans la
compétition internationale, Revue Belge de
Géographie, 66, pp. 17–29.
WYLY, E. K. and HAMMEL, D. J. (1999) Islands of
decay in seas of renewal: housing policy and
the resurgence of gentrification, Housing Policy
Debate, 10, pp. 711–771.

Revisiting the Diversity of Gentrification

Transcription

Similar documents

2148 Linby St

Meeting Package - InterContinental Montréal

arts district

Brussels, in search of counter-narratives

History of Sun Life Financial

The International Eco

Visit Montreal Part 3

With its glamorous Hollywood theme and Montreal`s own set of

11 March 2016 CHARTS – Childers Art Space 7am start A delightful

Gingerbread and Glühwein: Warming Winter Delights in Belgium

Comparing Gentrification in Parkdale, Toronto and Park Slope, NYC