This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Newman, K. Articles by Wyly, E. K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City

Department of Urban Planning and Policy Development, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, 33 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA, knewman{at}rci.rutgers.edu

Elvin K. Wyly

Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, 1984 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z2, Canada, ewyly{at}geog.ubc.ca

Displacement has been at the centre of heated analytical and political debates over gentrification and urban change for almost 40 years. A new generation of quantitative research has provided new evidence of the limited (and sometimes counter-intuitive) extent of displacement, supporting broader theoretical and political arguments favouring mixed-income redevelopment and other forms of gentrification. This paper offers a critical challenge to this interpretation, drawing on evidence from a mixed-methods study of gentrification and displacement in New York City. Quantitative analysis of the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey indicates that displacement is a limited yet crucial indicator of the deepening class polarisation of urban housing markets; moreover, the main buffers against gentrification-induced displacement of the poor (public housing and rent regulation) are precisely those kinds of market interventions that are being challenged by advocates of gentrification and dismantled by policy-makers. Qualitative analysis based on interviews with community organisers and residents documents the continued political salience of displacement and reveals an increasingly sophisticated and creative array of methods used to resist displacement in a policy climate emphasising selective deregulation and market-oriented social policy.

Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1, 23-57 (2006)
DOI: 10.1080/00420980500388710


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Winkler Prolonging the Global Age of Gentrification: Johannesburg's Regeneration Policies Planning Theory, November 1, 2009; 8(4): 362 - 381. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. M. Carpenter and J. K. Ross Testing O'Connor and Thomas: Does the Use of Eminent Domain Target Poor and Minority Communities? Urban Stud, October 1, 2009; 46(11): 2447 - 2461. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Indergaard What to Make of New York's New Economy? The Politics of the Creative Field Urban Stud, May 1, 2009; 46(5-6): 1063 - 1093. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Van Criekingen Moving In/Out of Brussels' Historical Core in the Early 2000s: Migration and the Effects of Gentrification Urban Stud, April 1, 2009; 46(4): 825 - 848. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Ley and C. Dobson Are There Limits to Gentrification? The Contexts of Impeded Gentrification in Vancouver Urban Stud, November 1, 2008; 45(12): 2471 - 2498. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Walks and M. August The Factors Inhibiting Gentrification in Areas with Little Non-market Housing: Policy Lessons from the Toronto Experience Urban Stud, November 1, 2008; 45(12): 2594 - 2625. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Moos and A. Skaburskis The Probability of Single-family Dwelling Occupancy: Comparing Home Workers and Commuters in Canadian Cities Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2008; 27(3): 319 - 340. [Abstract] [PDF]