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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Davidson, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Spoiled Mixture: Where Does State-led `Positive' Gentrification End?

Urban Research Centre, University of Western Sydney, Level 6, 34 Charles St, Parramatta, New South Wales, 2150, Australia, mark.davidson{at}uws.edu.au

Over the past decade, policy-makers have introduced social mixing initiatives that have sought to address urban social problems by deconcentrating poor and working-class communities through attracting the middle classes back to the city. Such a policy objective clearly `smells like gentrification'. However, some commentators have warned against being critical of these policies, pointing out that the types of inner-city redevelopment generated by them is different from classical gentrification and that state-led gentrification offers benefits for many working-class communities. This paper draws upon research conducted in London to demonstrate how, despite having many commendable aspects, these policy agendas carry with them significant threats of displacement for lower-income communities. The paper also argues that, due to the mutating nature of gentrification, these threats are increasingly context-bound. In conclusion, the paper argues that those state mechanisms which might manage the unjust aspects of gentrification are inadequate.

Urban Studies, Vol. 45, No. 12, 2385-2405 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0042098008097105


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