The Gentrification of Harlem?
Author(s): Richard Schaffer and Neil Smith
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp.
347-365
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2562585 .
Accessed: 30/07/2012 12:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Annals of the Association of American Geographers.
http://www.jstor.org
The Gentrification
ofHarlem?
Richard Schaffer*and Neil Smitht
*Division of Urban Planningand HistoricPreservation,Columbia University,New York,NY 10027
tDepartmentof Geography,RutgersUniversity,New Brunswick,NJ 08903
The processofgentrification
has begunto affect
themajority
oflargeandmoderately
sized
Abstract.
urbanareasintheadvancedcapitalist
world,andimpressionistic
reportssuggestthatHarlemmaybe
undergoing
gentrification.
Afterreviewing
someof thedebatesand arguments
in thegentrification
we identify
literature,
a numberofindicators
from1980censusdataandexamineotherhousingand
datathrough
hasbegunbutthatthereare
mortgage
1984.Theresultssuggestthatindeedgentrification
to theprocess.The numberof wealthyblackhouseholdsin Harlemis
severalpotentiallimitations
to whitein-migration
relatively
small,and ifgentrification
proceedsitwilllead eventually
andto the
ofblacks.
displacement
New YorkCity.
KeyWords:gentrification,
Harlem,1980census,urbanrestructuring,
displacement,
areaswherethehousingstockhas
GENTRIFICATION, accordingto the 1980 working-class
or where,
disinvestment
Oxford American Dictionary, is the beendevaluedthrough
the
urbandevelopment,
"movementof middleclass familiesintourban because of continuing
areas causingproperty
values to increaseand location of the neighborhoodhas become
morehighly
prizedand therefore
having[the] secondaryeffectof drivingout increasingly
poorerfamilies."Althoughthe process often priced, making gentrificationa profitable
of residential
neigh- option.
involvesthe rehabilitation
class, it can
borhoodsoccupiedby theworking
In thispaperwe examinetheextentto which
Harlem,a
appearsto be affecting
also occur in nonresidential
areas wherethe gentrification
located on ManhattanIsland in
obsoletebutsuf- neighborhood
buildingstockis economically
is viable.New New York City. Perhaps the most trenchant
ficiently
soundthatrehabilitation
symbolofblack
York'sSoHo, forexample,was a predominantlynationaland eveninternational
gen- urbanculture,Harlem seems at firstsighta
industrial
area as weremanyotherrecently
Yet
trifiedareas occupyinga waterfront
location highlyunlikelytargetforgentrification.
inthelocal press,and
beganas a predomi- amongHarlemresidents,
(Zukin1982).Gentrification
press("Harlem.Black,
nantlyresidentialprocess but in recentyears evenintheinternational
has become morebroadlybased, involvinga tan, and white . . ." 1984; Kruger 1985), reports
are emerging.In additionto
of centraland inner of gentrification
fundamental
restructuring
an empiricalassessmentof the procityland uses (Fainsteinand Fainstein1982; providing
Smithand Williams1986).Alongwithresiden- cess today, we offerconclusions about the
that
tial restructuring,the process especially futureofHarlemand assess theconditions
there.
limitgentrification
(boutiques couldpotentially
involvescommercial
redevelopment
for food, furniture,
and pets as well as for
ofrecreational
clothes)and a newdevelopment
facilities(fromfernbars and discos to marinas Background
and touristarcades, such as Baltimore'sHarborplaceor London's CoventGarden).In dif- As a systematic process, gentrification
ferentlocationsgentrification
takes differentemergedon theheelsoftheurbanrenewal,slum
probutthecommonthreadis therenovation clearance, and post-warreconstruction
forms,
duringthe 1950sand 1960s
of old innerand centralcitybuildingstockfor gramsimplemented
newuses, generally
associatedwiththemiddle in mostadvancedcapitalistnations.The term
class. Whereit is residentialpropertythatis gentrification
was apparentlycoined by Ruth
beingrenovated,theprocessusuallyoccursin Glass in theearly1960s:
AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers,76(3), 1986,pp. 347-365
? Copyright
1986 by Associationof AmericanGeographers
347
348
Schaffer
and Smith
One byone,manyoftheworking-class
quartersof
Londonhavebeeninvadedbythemiddleclassesupperand lower.Shabby,modestmewsand cottages-two roomsup and two down-have been
takenover,whentheirleases have expired,and
havebecomeelegant,expensiveresidences.Larger
Victorianhouses, downgradedin an earlieror
recentperiod-whichwereused as lodginghouses
or were otherwisein multipleoccupation-have
been upgradedonce again.... Once thisprocess
of"gentrification"
startsina district
itgoeson rapidlyuntilall or mostof theoriginalworking
class
occupiersare displacedand thewholesocialcharacterofthedistrict
is changed(Glass 1964,xviii).
theexpenseofconveying
thediversity
ofexperienceinvolvedin gentrification
(Holcomband
Beauregard1981;Hamnett1984;D. Rose 1984).
The complexities
of theprocessshouldneither
become an excuse for neglectingthe general
patternsthatprevailnorbe dismissedas epiphenomenalirrelevancies.
It is fromthisconvictionofthenecessityto matchtheoretical
and
empirical
investigation
thatthepresentstudyof
thegentrification
ofHarlemproceeds.
Debate over gentrificationhas emerged
aroundthreemainquestions:thesignificance
of
This is not the firstperiod in whichresidential theprocess(oritsextent),theeffects
ofgentrifirehabilitationhas occurred; there was sporadic cation,and its causes. Underthesethreeheadto summarize
verybriefly
rehabilitationin numerous nineteenth-centuryingswe shallattempt
European cities, and a substantial number of the major arguments.It will quicklybecome
urban workers were displaced by "The
obviousthatthesethreeissuesarecloselyinterImprovements,"as they were called in Britain, related.
or by embourgeoisement, as it was called in
France (Rodger 1982; Harvey 1985,94-96). The
differencebetween earlier experiences of rehabilitationand contemporarygentrification
is that
thelatteris farmore systematicand widespread;
it is an internationalnot a national process and
is synchronizedwithlargereconomic, political,
and social changes (Smith 1982; Kendig 1984;
Williams1984). Withinaffectedcities it is highly
concentratedspatially.It occurs especially, but
not exclusively,in the inner city areas around
the CentralBusiness District,the area thatused
to be described in traditionalChicago School
and ecological models of urban structureas the
zone of transition(Burgess 1925; Griffinand
Preston 1966; Rex 1968). If such areas are again
in transition,it is an upward transitionrather
than the downward one envisioned by traditional theorists.
As the effectsof gentrification
emergedmore
clearly in the public eye and indeed as the process seemed to accelerate in many cities in the
mid-1970s,a flurryof research began (for surveys see Laska and Spain 1980; Palen and London 1984; Smith and Williams 1986). In the
United States this work tended to be highly
empirical (e.g., Gale 1977; Laska and Spain
1980) whereas in Britainempiricalinvestigations
were tempered by a concern for theory (Williams 1976; Hamnett 1973). From this work it
has become clear thatthere are obvious limitations to narrow, empirical (sometimes empiricist) case studies of gentrifying
neighborhoods;
equally clear are the limits to more abstract
theorizingthat may well identifysome of the
salientcauses of the process but oftendoes so at
Significance
In 1970U.S. census data, probablesignsof
gentrification
beganto showup at the scale of
individualcities.The processwas tightly
conina fewneighborhoods
centrated
for
accounting
a verysmallpercentageof the overallarea of
individual
cities(Lipton1977).In themid-1970s,
a surveyof local officialsby the UrbanLand
Institute(1976) suggestedthatnearlyhalfof
U.S. cities withover 50,000populationwere
in the
some levelof rehabilitation
experiencing
innercity housingmarket.If there is little
debateon thesefindings
as such,thereis certainlydebateoverwhattheymean.1980census
data have been analyzed so far only at the
neighborhood level for individual cities;
researchershave not yet repeated Lipton's
(1977)broaderanalysisforthe nation'slargest
cities.
The debateis essentially
this:is gentrification
a small-scale,geographically
restricted
process
thathas littleor no effect
on thecityas a whole,
of
or is ittheharbinger
ofa majorrestructuring
urbanspace? Advocatesof whatwe mightcall
theminimalist
resortto data
position,generally
at thecityor metropolitan
scale to demonstrate
thecontinuation
ofurbandeclineandthesuburbanizationof whites(e.g., Berry1985),evenif
in some cases at reduced rates (see Nelson
1984).Onlya fewof themostaccessibleneighborhoodshave been affected.In policyterms,
is therefore
seen as a solutionto
gentrification
theurbanproblem"and the problemof urban
Gentrification
ofHarlem
349
andso
housing"(Sumka1979)and shouldtherefore
be resultssuggestlowratesofdisplacement,
encouraged. In the words of Sternlieband according
to thisargument
no anti-displacement
Hughes(1983,467)gentrification
is a "triumph" policiesneed be implemented;
thesewouldbe
thatcan potentially
bringhigherpropertytax prematureand mightretard"revitalization"
returnsand therebyenhance the "economic (Sumka1979).
vigor"ofthecity(see also Kern1981).
Againstthisview,morerecentevidencesugAgainstthissomeresearchers
arguethatgen- geststhatas manyas 23 percentof departing
are distrification
is part of a largerrestructuring
neighborhoods
of residentsin gentrifying
urbanspace thatis clearlywellunderway.This placed (Schill and Nathan 1983,7). Hartman
is mostobviousin U.S. citieswheretheremay (1979) and LeGates and Hartman(1981) have
alreadybe "convergencetowardtheEuropean argued,on thebasis ofan exhaustivesurveyof
reports,thattheproblemis widemodel" of urbanstructure
(Fainsteinand Fain- displacement
stein1982).Thismodelis characterized
bya his- spread, that governmentfiguresthemselves
toricallypreservedurbancenterwherenumer- indicate that 500,000 familiesare displaced
ous high-income
residentialareas have been annuallyfromtheirhomes,and thatgentrificamaintained
and whereeliteretailand commer- tionaccountsfora sizable minority
of these.
cial establishments
eviare concentrated.
Some see Beyondthe statistics,the impressionistic
this "social Manhattanization" as already dencesuggeststhattheproblemis real.The fear
in targetneighborhoods
is cerclearlyevidentin manyU.S. cities(Williams of gentrification
and Smith1986). Proponentsof this position tainlywidelyreported
(e.g., Daniels1983a),and
generallyresort to data at the micro level inareaswheretheprocesshas begun,everyone
(censustractor neighborhood),
wherethepro- has a storyaboutold friendsand familiesnext
fundityof changefromgentrification
is most doorwhoweremovedout.
apparent.
therefore
attempt
Opponentsofgentrification
to pointout thatthe costs of the process are
unevenly
feltand thatthenotionofoverallgain
Effects
forthecityis misleading."The city"is notan
undifferentiated
poolofabstractly
equal individThe debate here is morecomplexand con- uals butrathercomprisesa stratified
population
cernstheoverallcosts and benefitsof gentrifi-whoseexperienceofgentrification
is highlydifcation.In whatis probablythe majority
(Smithand LeFaivre 1984). Some
view, ferentiated
and one thatcertainlydominatesmostofficial gainand some lose. In a recentsurvey,which
probis suffersfromsome vital methodological
policy toward the process, gentrification
laudedas themajorhopeforreversing
theeco- lems,Schilland Nathan(1983,119)assertthat
nomicand socialdeclinethatstilldominates
the althoughdisplaced households face higher
innercities.The benefits,in termsof rehabili- rentalcosts, theymay also respondto questatedhousingunits,highertax revenues,and a tionersthattheirhousingis betterand theyfeel
is thereby
as
construed
generally
greater"economicvigor"are heldto betteroff.Displacement
exceed the costs, especiallydisplacement.In potentially
beneficial
to working-class
residents,
thefirstplace, then,thereis an argument
over and it is a shortstepfromhereto a policyof
theextentto whichpoorandworking-class
resi- benign neglect. This view has been flatly
the
underestimating
dentsare displacedfromgentrifying
areas,with rejectedas systematically
ofgentrification
thatthe adverse effectsof gentrification
(Hartman,
proponents
maintaining
extentof displacement
and its effectsare rela- Keating,and LeGates 1982;LeGates and Harttivelyunimportant.
Duringthe Carterpresi- man1986).
dency, when the administration actively
attemptedto encourage"revitalization,"the
U.S. Department
of Housingand UrbanDevel- Causes
opment(1979, 1981) eventuallyacknowledged
The strictly
as a problembut downplayedits
ecologicalexplanationsreferred
displacement
as a
of gentrification
importance;2 percentwas the unofficialbut to above-the treatment
ofthezone oftransition-havecerwidelyacceptedapproximation
of annualdis- re-invasion
(London
placement in gentrifyingneighborhoods. tainlybeeninvokedas wellas critiqued
evidenceis admittedly
Although
thin,available 1980). But such explanationsof an apparent
350
Schafferand Smith
reversalinsocialecologicalpatterns
havegener- Finally,thereis thequestionof methodology
theissueofhowto identify
is construedas andparticularly
genallybeen post hoc; description
explanation,withlittleor no insightintothe trifying
withinHarlem. There
neighborhoods
littlediscussionof this
deeper reasons for urban change. Thus the has been remarkably
and so a further
debateover causes has come to centeron the questionin theliterature
aimof
issue of production-basedvs. consumption- thispaperis to beginto identify
statistical
indibased explanations.Especiallyin the U.S. the catorsofgentrification.
Mostpreviousresearch
processhas generally
beenexplainedas a result has tendedto relyon the impressions
of local
ofchanging
and demographic
lifestyles
changes "experts" (planners,academics, real estate
(the maturation
of the baby boom generation, agents,community
activists)as indicatorsof
highernumbersof singleadultslivingtogether, the process because sufficientlysensitive
data were scarce. As Clay
higherfemalelabor forceparticipation
rates, neighborhood-level
and so forth).Togetherthese lead to altered (1979b,40) concluded,"statistical
indicators
are
consumption
patternsand preferences,
leading not likelyto yieldearlyclues to middle-class
to a heightened
pattern
ofdemandforhousing. reinvestment." In fact, as gentrification
Some of these ideas have been challenged matures,statisticalindicatorsare increasingly
(e.g., WalkerandGreenberg
1982),andan alter- available.One wouldexpectto see changesin
nativetradition
has developedemphasizing
the the occupationaland socioeconomiccharacter
as wellas intheproprole of the stateand capitalin producing
neighborhoods
both ofaffected
the potentialand the realityof gentrification.ertymarket,and indicatorsare available for
such changes. Specifically,one
Williams(1976, 1978) emphasizesthe role of identifying
British
ofcolbuilding
societiesinproviding
thecapital wouldexpectincreasesinthepercentage
in gentrifyfor transforming
the inner city landscape. lege graduatesand of professionals
and thesedata are available
Othershave theorizedthatit is thelonger-termingneighborhoods,
movement
of capitalin the builtenvironment,in censusreports.Neitheris a sensitiveindicaofcollege
creatinga "rent gap" in the innercity,that tor,however.The spatialdistribution
creates the opportunity
forprofitablecapital graduatesis highlydifferentiated,
but some of
reinvestment
inredevelopment
or housingreha- the most dramaticincreasesin this indicator
bilitation.
where1970levels
More generally,
some formof "col- appearinpoorneighborhoods
lective social action" ratherthan individual wereextremely
low. The percentageof profesdecisionmakingis necessaryto promotethe sionalsmighthave been a sharpindicator,
but
process(Smith1979,545; 1982).The emphasis occupationaldefinitionschanged sufficiently
hereis squarelyon theprimary
role of capital betweenthe 1970and 1980 censuses thatthe
theurbanland- resultsare notcomparable.
(privateor public)in fashioning
do emerge,however,fromthe
scape. Clearly productionand consumption Twoindicators
mustbe related,but the determination
of how census.Incomeandrentlevelsincreasedramatneighborhoods;
per
theyarerelatedandwhichpredominates
cannot ically in mostgentrifying
be madeon thebasisofempirical
studiesalone. capitaincomeprovidesthemostsensitiveindiEach of the different
positionsin thisdebate, catorof incomechanges,and mediancontract
themostcomparable
dataon housing
then,involvesa largertheoretical
commitmentrentoffers
concerningthe way in whichurban space is costs. Beyondthecensus,housingmarketdata
give a fairlyclear pictureof reversalsin the
and repatterned.
continually
patterned
We cannotaddressall of the questionspro- devaluationcycle (Smith1979)and the beginvokedinthesedebatesinthecontextofHarlem. ningsofreinvestment.
We proposetheseas staIn particular
becausegentrification
in Harlemis tisticalindicatorsthatare sufficiently
sensitive
at bestinitsinfancy
in Harlemand also have
andbecausetheareahas an to detectgentrification
inordinatenumberof vacant and abandoned widerapplicability.
itwillbe difficult
to use thisempirical
buildings,
oftheeffects
of
studyto advanceourknowledge
gentrification.
Preciselybecause theprocessis Harlem as a TargetforGentrification
in its infancy,however,this studycan offer
some clues concerning
Harlemis an international
causes, and because of
symbolof black
thepresumeddifficulty
ofHarlemas a targetfor culture.Two themesdominatemostcontempothe process,the studyshouldalso yieldsome raryimagesof Harlem.The first,a nostalgic
conclusionson thesignificance
ofgentrification.
imagenow,is theHarlemoftheHarlemRenais-
Gentrification
ofHarlem
351
sanceor oftheBlackPanthers(Anderson1982;
Lewis 1981).The secondthemeis Harlemthe
ghetto,one of the largestconcentrationsof
1
0
2
3km
blackworking-class
and poorinhabitants
in the
U.S. (Osofsky1971).Alongwiththisimagegoes
2mi
0
1
a pictureof physicaldilapidation,
social deprivation,crime,and drugs.If thetwothemesare
different,they are not incompatible; each
obviouslyportrays
onlya partof thereal Harlem.In thefirstplace, then,thisis a case study
of theextentof gentrification
in an internationMON
;
\
4THE
BRONX
allyknownblackneighborhood.
Constructed
initially
as a mixedmiddle-and
working-class
area in the last decades of the
nineteenth
centuryand located on the north
edgeofCentralParkin Manhattan
(Fig. 1),Har155T STt
lem's housingstockis comprisedof five-and
CENTRAL
HMILTON
HARLEM
six-storytenementsand townhouses.1As the
HEIGHTS
whitemiddleclass movedouttothesuburbsand
theblackmigration
fromtheSouthaccelerated
duringWorld War I, Harlem's population
~~~~125TH
becameincreasingly
black,andbythe1920sthe
5T.
MORNINGSIDE
PARK
HarlemRenaissanceplacedthearea squarelyat
theforefront
ofblackculture.New construction
had effectively
ceased by the beginning
of the
war,however,andhousingdisinvestment
began
seriouslyduringthe Depression. Ever since,
therehas been littlesignificant
in
reinvestment
PARK YORK
VILL
Harlemexceptforundertakings
thatwerepartly
UPECENTRA~L
WEST
SIDE
or whollyfundedby thestate.By thetimethat
Q~~~~UEENS
Harlemagain made international
headlinesin
NEW
II~.6
f
the 1960s,it had been transformed
intoa slum JERSEY
II
and quicklybecamethemostnotorioussymbol
in America.
ofblackdeprivation
theneighborhood's
ofdisinAlthough
history
CLINTON
42NDST
vestment
and declineis typicalof otherneighborhoodsfacinggentrification,
Harlemis quite
Harlem
atypicalin otherways.Mostimportant,
is a solidlyblack area. Accordingto the 1980
CHELSEA
census,96 percentof CentralHarlemresidents
o
14THST
are black. Gentrification
in the U.S. has cer-Z
ofblackandother
tainlyled to thedisplacement
GREENWICH
~.
VILLAGE
butbecause manyof the
minority
populations,
LOWER
black urbanneighborhoods
had been targeted
~EAST -~~~~
SOHO
SIDE
earlierby urban renewaland because white
beenless
middle-class
gentrifiers
havegenerally
TRIBECA
squeamishabout movinginto whiteworkingaffected
class areas,theearliestneighborhoods
BROOKLYN
have usuallybeen whiteor at
by gentrification
least mixed. Withsome exceptions,heavily
black neighborhoods
have been perceivedas
An obviousexceptionis Capharderto gentrify.
itolHillinWashington,
D.C. (Gale 1977),which
Figure 1. Manhattanand Central Harlem.
has undergone gentrification since the
mid-1960s, but this comparison points to
2)
I?
-
____
-
352
and Smith
Schaffer
of Harlem:its
There are several purposes, then, to this
characteristic
anotherimportant
size. Harlemis muchlargerthanCapitolHill. study.First,it offersa case studyof an urban
is over300,000anditcovers areawithan international
Its totalpopulation
reputation;
thegentriofHarlemwouldindeedbe an an event
an areaofaboutfoursquaremiles.Perceivedby fication
the middleclass (especiallythe whitemiddle of some significance.
Second,thisstudydocuhavinga universally mentsthe process at its inception,therefore
threatening,
class)as highly
a base lineagainstwhichfuture
trends
depressedhousingmarket,and possessinga providing
Harlem can be assessed.Partlyoutofdisbelief
thatpast
cohesivesocial and politicalidentity,
obstacleforgentrifica-trendswould be reversed,most researchers
represents
a challenging
onlyafter
tionin New YorkCity.Its locationon theother have tendedto studyneighborhoods
is an accomplishedfact.Even if
northof CentralParkfrom gentrification
hand-immediately
midtownManhattan-does promiseconsider- theprocessis truncated
or halted,a studyofits
able economicopportunity
fordeveloperswho originscan assistin comprehending
thereasons
Withthismuchat stake,it forsuccessorfailure.Third,thisstudyis meant
initiate
gentrification.
is littlewonderthaton theone side Harlemis tocastsomelighton thedebatesoverthecauses
of the process.Thereis little
pro- and significance
seenas a supremetestforthegentrification
thatHarlemrepresents
is seenas disagreement
a difficult
cess, whileon theothergentrification
to the extentthatit
a powerful
threatto Harlemresidentswho are targetforgentrification;
ofhousingat rents takesplace, we shouldbe moreinclinedto see
dependent
on theavailability
the generalprocess of gentrification
marketlevels.
as trenwellbelowManhattan
and
to gentrification
primar- chantand longterm.If it weretemporary
Harlemis susceptible
ily because of its location.Duringthe 1970s, small in scale, why would developers and
residentsmakesuchlong-term
investNew YorkCitylost population,fallingfroma incoming
perpeak of nearly8 millionin 1971to just over7 mentshere ratherthanin neighborhoods
less risky?
millionin 1980.(It has sincestabilizedandeven ceivedas sociallyand economically
populationincreases.)Man- The presentstudywillalso maketentative
registered
marginal
conhattanfollowedthistrend,fallingfrom1.54 to clusionsaboutthe potentialeffectsof the proto thediscus1.43millionduringthedecade,butin thesame cess inHarlemandwillcontribute
andconsumption-side
periodthenumberof householdsin Manhattan sionoverproduction-side
The theoretical
howconclusions,
actually increased by 2.5 percent(Stegman explanations.
1982).Alongwiththisincreasein households, ever,will be limitedand tentative,
pointingin
ratherthanclaimingto prove
thegentrification
process,whichhad certainly certaindirections
been evidentin the citybefore1970,beganto or disprovespecifictheoretical
propositions.
and western
flourish,
especiallyin thesouthern
partsof Manhattan.SoHo, Tribeca,theLower
East Side, Chelsea, Clinton,and the Upper The StudyArea
rehabiliWestSide all experienced
considerable
Thereare different
definitions
ofHarlem,but
tationofold buildingstock(Fig. 1). By thelate
consideredto be thearea stretchManhattan'slargest it is generally
1970s,Harlemrepresented
residenceswith ingfortwomilesnorthofCentralParkin Manof working-class
concentration
Thus, despite the hattan.On theEast Side itextendssouthto 96th
virtuallyno gentrification.
loss at thecitylevelduring Streetwhileon the West Side it goes onlyto
continued
population
showsup strongly
for 125thStreet.Generally,
itincludesManhattan's
the 1970s,gentrification
the firsttimewithcensus-tract
Districts10 and 11 and mostofthe
data fromthe Community
partof Community
butalso in northern
District9. During
1980census,especiallyinManhattan
Brooklyn.A recentstudyby Chall(1984)docu- thelate 1970sand early1980s,some new conand renovationbegan in the eastern
mentsthe processin New YorkCitybut seri- struction
its extent.2It is against sectionabove 96thStreet,and therewerealso
ously underestimates
in thebeginnings
in thewesternsecthisbackgroundof extensiverehabilitation
ofrenovation
areas closerto midtown
Manhattan,
rapidlyris- tion,especiallyin HamiltonHeights.But the
ing housing costs and rent levels, and an heartof Harlemlies in thecentralarea directly
low citywidevacancyrateofabout2 northof the Park. Unless thisarea of Central
extremely
of Harlemhas Harlemis gentrified,
itis unlikely
thattherehapercentthatthe gentrification
bilitation
and new construction
comeontotheagenda.
alongtheedges
of Harlem
Gentrification
353
Table 1. StatisticalProfileof Central Harlem Populationand Housing, 1980
Percentpopulationblack
Per capita income ($)
Percenthigh-incomehouseholds (?$50,000)
Percentlow-incomehouseholds (<$10,000)
Percentcollege graduates(adults with: 4 years of college)
Median contractrent($ per month)
Percentmanagerial,professional,and related occupations
Privateresidentialpropertyturnoverrate per year,
1980-84 (%)
Populationchange, 1970-80 (%)
Percenthousingabandoned
Central
Harlem
Manhattan
96.1
4,308
0.5
65.5
5.2
149
15.9
21.7
10,992
8.4
37.4
33.2
198
41.7
3.3
-33.6
24.2
5.0
- 7.2
5.3
Sources:U.S. BureauoftheCensus(1972,1983);CityofNewYork,Department
ofCityPlanning
(1981);Real EstateBoard
ofNew York(1985).
willamountto anything
verysignificant.
Thus whichwillgivea morerefinedand moreup-tofar,mediareportsofgentrification
havefocused date view of changestakingplace in the area.
moreon theeasternand westernedgesof Har- Weconcludewithan assessmentofchangesthat
lem, withfarfewerreportsof activityin the have occurred,a discussionof the limitsand
centralarea. We therefore
takeCentralHarlem constraints
process in
upon the gentrification
as thefocusofourresearch.
CentralHarlem,and an attemptto assess the
The studyareais defined
bytheboundaries
of likelyeffectsof the process on presentresiCommunityDistrict 10 (Fig. 1). This area dents.
stretches
from110thStreetinthesouthto 155th
Streetinthenorth,
andfromFifthAvenueinthe
east to Morningside
and St. Nicholasparksin Census ResultsforCentral
thewest.Table1 providesa statistical
profileof Harlem, 1970-1980
thearea,comparing
itwithManhattan
averages
in orderto emphasizethe social,physical,and
We firstexamineseveralkeyindicators
from
in
economiccontrast
betweenHarlemandtherest the1980censusforevidenceofgentrification
we examinechangesover
of Manhattan.The pictureconveyedby these Harlem.In particular,
statistics
is clear.CentralHarlem'spopulation
is thedecade in percapitaincome,medianfamily
predominantly
poor,workingclass, and almost income,mediancontractrent,and racialcomin the position.The mostobviouspatternto emerge
totallyblack;ithas declinedby one-third
lastdecade.Proportionately
of decline.
CentralHarlemhas fromthesedata is the continuation
increased
a tinymiddleclass, a low percentage
ofcollege WhilepercapitaincomeinManhattan
graduates,and a smallnumberof high-incomeby 105.2percentduringthe 1970s(withno corhouseholds.Medianrentsare 25 percentlower rection for inflation)and by 96.5 percent
New YorkCity,in CentralHarlem
thantheManhattanaverage,one-quarter
of all throughout
housingunitsare abandoned,housingcondi- the increasewas only77.8 percent,about 20
rate
tionsare bad, and theprivatehousingmarketis percentagepointslowerthanthe inflation
soft.The contrastwiththe restof Manhattan forthedecade. The standardof livingforCencouldhardlybe moremarked.Withinthisgen- tralHarlemresidentstherefore
droppedmarkthe1970s.As might
be expected,the
eralpicture,however,
thereis considerable
vari- edlyduring
declineofrealincomewas evenmoremarkedin
ation.
The studyproceedswithan examination
of termsof medianfamilyincome.Median con1980 census data and the changes thattook tractrent,on theotherhand,rose by 113perthedecreasein living
place duringthe 1970s.Fromthiswe shallbe cent,further
exacerbating
able to identify
areas, roughlyat first,where standards,althoughagain thiswas lowerthan
some sort of social, economic,and physical the Manhattanand New York City averages
We thenlookat more (which were 141 percent and 125 percent,
changemaybe beginning.
detaileddata,especiallyon thehousingmarket, respectively). The percentage of blacks
354
Schafferand Smith
remainedsteadyat 96.1 percentcomparedwith
96.3percentin 1970(U.S. BureauoftheCensus
1972,1983).
But thisgeneraltrendof economicdeclineis
notuniversal.
A disaggregation
ofthedataat the
census-tract
levelprovidesclearevidenceofan
oppositetrendin some areas. The mostsensitive indicatorwas per capita income,and the
155THST
L
secondmostsensitive
was mediancontract
rent.
In ninetracts,percapitaincomeincreasedmore
thanthecityaverage,and in thesesame tracts
JACKIq
ROBINSOIN'
rentincreaseswere also generallyabove the
PARKI -~;
localaverage,indicating
a changeinthehousing
market
as wellas a changeinthesocialandeconomicstatusofresidents.We wouldexpectper
capitaincomeincreasesto be a moresensitive
indicatorof gentrification
thanmedianfamily
145THST
incomebecausefigures
forfamily
incomedo not
includeunrelatedindividuals,who are usually
in gentrification.
prominent
(In CentralHarlem,
only five census tracts demonstrateaboveaverageincreasesin familyincome,and in at
least threeof thesetracts,it is highlyunlikely
that any gentrification
is takingplace.) The
thereis a spatialpattern
to
questionis whether
ST NICHOA S
theselarger-than-average
increasesinpercapita
C 135THSTPARK
income.Such a patternwould be expectedin
the case of gentrification
because the process
tends to be tightlyconcentratedin specific
blocksandneighborhoods,
at leastin thebeginning.Figure2 showsthedistribution
of census
tractswithincreasesin per capitaincomethat
wk
0
areabovethecityaverage,anditis immediately
evidentthat a distinctspatial concentration
125THST
exists.Thereare twocorridors
of morerapidly
HARLEMSTATE
risingincomes,one on thewesternedge of the
OFFICEBUILDIN
MARCUS
the otheron the easternedge. But is
district,
GARVEY'
thispattern
theresultofgentrification,
ordoes it
resultfromsomeothersetofprocesses?To provide a preliminary
answerwe look at specific
census tracts;this will not tell us definitely
whichof thetractsare experiencing
gentrificaPAPARK
tion,butitwillhelpus to eliminate
thosetracts
whereincomeroserapidlyforotherreasons.
The patternthat emergesfromthis closer
be
examination
is thatwhilegentrification
might
in thewesterncorridor,
theidea ofan
occurring
easterncorridor
is nottenable.
ofgentrification
The easterncorridor,
from126thStreetto 139th
k
Street(Fig. 2), comprisesa low-and moderate- l
Li1/2mi
incomeurbanrenewalproject(Lenox Terrace)
as well as severalblocks of severelydeterio- Figure 2. Above-average increase in per capita
ratedtenements
and townhouses.Thereis no income,1970-80.
obvious explanation for the above-average
Gentrification
ofHarlem
355
increasesin incomehere,butitis at leastpossiblethatthispartofHarlemis experiencing
some
spinoff
effectfromthe concentration
of office
employment
(since 1971) in the new Harlem
StateOfficeBuilding,immediately
to thesouth
on 125thStreet.Field observation
disclosesno
signsof significant
residential
rehabilitation
or
redevelopment
since 1970,and we are inclined
to concludethattheareais notexperiencing
any
gentrification.
Theremaining
tractintheeastern
to the southof MarcusGarveyPark,
corridor,
~~~~~~~~~TENEMENt4TS
2.0
mayhoweverbe undergoing
the beginnings
of
gentrification.
Therehas been some rehabilitationoftownhouseshere,and thearea has been
targeted
by theCityofNew Yorkin itsauction Figure3. Volumeandvalueofprivatesales, 1980-84.
of city-owned
properties
(see below). At best,
however,theprocessis in itsinfancy.
therecession in 1983,prices rose dramaticallyin
In the westerncorridor,
thereis firmer
evi- 1984. This would tend to support the general
dence of the beginnings
of gentrification.
The perceptionof realtors,public officials,and resiindicators
suggestan above-average
increasein dents of the area thatthe markethas heated up
incomeand rentalindicators,
especiallyabove considerablybut that there remains something
126thStreet,and thereis an areawideincrease of a wait-and-see attitude among potential
in high-income
households,butthedata on the investors;speculative investmenthas increased
number
ofprofessionals
andcollegegraduates
is since 1984 but appears to involve smallerrather
moreambiguous.This is particularly
surprisingthan largerinvestors(C. Douglas 1986).
because the westerncorridorborderson the
As with the census results, these sales data
City College of New York, whichwould be forthe area as a whole do not give the fullpicexpectedto contribute
graduatesand "profes- ture. Figure 4 shows the geographicaldistribusionals" to thegentrification
process.Still,the tion of the turnoverrate of private residential
censusdata suggestthereal possibility
of gen- propertiesin the five years from 1980 to 1984.
trification
inthisarea. A moreprecise The map shows that the highestrate of private
beginning
analysisdemandsthatwe examinea broader sales occurs in and around the same western
rangeofdata,especiallyconcerning
thehousing corridorthatemergedfromthe census data as a
market.
possible locus of gentrification.Further it is
$120,000
on--
--to
ofsales
NNumber
100,000
o,- ------ -0
Sale price
802000
120 -
40,000
100
80 -
40,000
60-
4o
ANO4ALET8
-
-
_
20 -
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
apparentthatin the most active areas, turnover
rates are over 7 percent per year, appreciably
HousingMarketTrendsSince 1980
more than the Manhattanrate of 5 percent and
more than the 3.3 percent rate forCentralHarBetween1980and 1984thereare ambiguous lem as a whole.
trendsin the CentralHarlemhousingmarket, This indicationof increased activityin the real
and theseare shownin Figure3, whichgraphs estate marketconcurs with earlier results. The
dataon thevolumeandvalueofprivateresiden- Harlem Urban Development Corporation(1982)
tialsales (Real EstateBoardofNew York1985). concluded that in the area of the West Harlem
The firsttrendis thedeclinein volumeof sales South Triangle-the southwest section of the
in 1982withtheonsetofthenationalrecession; study area bounded on the south by 110th
thiswas matchedbya declineofpricesin 1983. Street,on the west by Manhattanand MorningThereis littledoubtthatthesedeclinesrepre- side avenues, and on the northeastby the St.
sentnationaltrends;nationally,sales volume Nicholas Avenue diagonal (see Fig. 2)-there
declined17.5percentin 1982overtheprevious was a considerable increase in sales activity
year,and pricesactuallydeclinedin manyparts between 1978 and 1981. A subsequent report
ofthecountry
forthefirsttimeinovera decade reached a similarconclusion (AKRF 1982). The
("Home sales low . . ." 1983). But the second data through1984 suggesta secular strengthenimportant
trendis thatalthoughthe volumeof ing of this trend in the western corridor as a
salesdidnotpickup appreciably
aftertheendof whole.
356
Schaffer
and Smith
toless
L
"I
... .. .
. A
\\...
than20%
20-34.9%
X
35% and over
W.;
o
o
1km
lI
l
1/2mi
Figure4. Privateresidentialturnoverrates, 1980-84.
Althoughit is the western corridorthat
emerges as the area undergoingsignificant
andinthehousing
changesinsocialcomposition
market,thereare two otherpartsof Central
Harlemwhererehabilitation
and redevelopment
are beginning
to take place. First,thereis the
HarlemGatewayarea, the nameof whichsugof federaland local
gestsvividlytheintentions
agencies. Lying between 110th and 112th
streets,FifthAvenueand ManhattanAvenue,
themajorassetoftheGatewayis thatithugsthe
northern
edgeofCentralPark(Fig. 2). Thisarea
was designateda Neighborhood
StrategyArea
by HUD in 1979,meaningthatit was targeted
and is
forHUD's majordevelopment
programs
also targetedby HarlemUrban Development
andvariousCityagencies.By 1982,
Corporation
therewereat leastfiveSection8 low-and modfederalprojectsactivein thearea,
erate-income
substantial
rehabilitation
ofnearly450
providing
housingunits.Since then,severalnewprojects
anditis recognized
havebeenannounced,
today
thatthisarea is on the"vergeofmajorredevelopment" (Daniels 1984). Most important
are
severalcondominium
projectsbeingundertaken
bothon Lenox Avenueand on thewesternedge
oftheGateway.At leastfournewor renovated
condominium
buildingsare in the planningor
construction
phase, severalof theminvolving
coalitionsof local developers.The largestand
most significant
development,however,is a
599-unit
condominium
beingconstructed
bythe
Rockefeller-inspired
New York City Housing
Partnership.
Groundforthisprojectwas broken
in October1985.
The significance
of the HousingPartnership
condominiums-named
Towerson the Parklies in the extraordinary
financialundertaking
involved. In the summerof 1985 the City
receiveda $6 millionFederalUrbanDevelopmentActionGrantto subsidizethecondominiums, and this triggeredan unprecedented
ChemicalBank loan of $47 millionto finance
construction
(Oser 1985).Thisis byfarthelargestprivateresidential
inHarcapitalinvestment
lemin decades and nearlyeighttimesthetotal
thatwentintothe
privatemortgagefinancing
whole of CentralHarlemin 1982. In thisone
can be seen boththe severityof
development
in thepastandthepotential
redlining
forgentrificationin the future.As construction
begins,
thetotalprojectedcostofTowerson theParkis
$70.5 million;whilesome unitsare to be earmarkedformoderate-income
tenantsat approxi-
ofHarlem
Gentrification
357
mately $60,000, the majoritywill be sold, values. Likewise, the risingpropertymarket
accordingto currentestimates,at between indicatesthat socioeconomicchanges in the
are tiedto an upwardrevaluawesterncorridor
$80,000and $125,000(Oser 1985).
Also significant
The secondareaofsomeactivity
since1982is tionof thephysicalstructures.
thereis
the area around Marcus Garvey Park. The is thefactthatin thiswesterncorridor
census data on incomeand rentgive a mixed no detectableracial change,no whiteinflux.
picture,suggesting
above-averageincreasesin This suggeststhatso farwe are witnessinga
thetractto thesouth(Fig. 2) butbelow-average processofblackgentrification.
has beguninthewestincreases immediatelyadjacent to the park.
gentrification
Although
albeiton a smallscale,itis imporinthisarea begantwoyears erncorridor,
Mostoftheactivity
ago whentheCitybeganits sealed bid auction tantto be cautiousaboutitsextent.Even inthis
theprocessis as
with12brownstone
thathad area, whichis mostaffected,
program
properties
beentakenin property
taxforeclosure
proceed- yetverysporadic.Beyondthewesterncorridor,
ings.Three-quarters
ofthesewerein theimme- only Marcus Garvey Park and the Gateway
and
diatevicinity
ofMarcusGarveyPark.The prop- appearto have experiencedgentrification,
ertiesweretobe rehabilitated
bythosewhowon theretoo itis bothsporadicand preliminary.
ofthe
character
theauction,in whatwas seen as a trialrunby
To emphasizethepreliminary
the City.Accordingto Roy Miller,Directorof process,it is possibleto comparesales datafor
theHarlemOfficeof Community
Development Central Harlem with similardata for other
Whereas
areasinManhattan.
andNeighborhood
Preservation,
only1 ofthe12 clearlygentrifying
had been completely
properties
renovatedtwo CentralHarlemhad a totalof 635 residential
yearsaftertheauctionand 7 werestillawaiting propertytransactionsin the five-yearperiod
the beginningof construction(pers. comm., from1980to 1984(fora totalof$30 millionand
April13, 1984).Nonethelessthe Cityadminis- an averagesale priceof $47,500)clearlygentritrationwas determined
to continuetheauction fyingareas of Manhattansuchas Yorkvilleand
levels
muchgreater
programand to expand it. The area around Clinton(Fig. 1) experienced
MarcusGarveyParkhas remaineda prominentof activity.Yorkville,on theeasternborderof
focusin thisprogramand has also been high- East Harlemand theUpperEast Side, had 121
lightedin media publicity(Daniels 1983b; transactionsin 1980 and 1981 for a total of
Coombs1982).BetweenJanuary1980and June $106.1millionand an averagepriceof$877,000.
1983,a totalof 30 townhousesweresold in the Clinton,west of EighthAvenuebetween42nd
tractadjacentto thepark,thethirdhighest
total and 57thstreets,had 142sales in thesametwoforCentralHarlem.Physicalinspectionof the yearperiodfora totalof nearly$46 millionand
area also indicates significantrehabilitation an averagesale priceof$322,000(AKRF 1982).
comparable
thesedata are notstrictly
Although
activity.
different
housingstock
because theyrepresent
in different
areas, thecomparisondoes suggest
marketin partsof Centhatwhiletheproperty
The Extentof Gentrification
to showsignsofgentritralHarlemis beginning
small
The westerncorridorof CentralHarlemis fication,it remainson a comparatively
that
to remember
it is important
experiencingthe beginningof gentrification.scale. Further,
used here
Above-averageincreases in income and rent the 1970base levelsoftheindicators
levelsas well as in thenumberof high-income(e.g., income,rent)arelowerthanthecityaverfamilieswere matchedby a rapidincreasein age, as are propertysale prices,and so large
sales activity.This simultaneously
risingprop- percentageincreases,especiallyforthe small
ertymarketand risingsocioeconomicprofilein census tractsin the westerncorridor,do not
meanlarge-scaleactivity.
the neighborhoodconstitutethe hallmarkof necessarily
on thelocation
briefly
It is worthcommenting
gentrification.
Further,this combinationis
unlikelyto occurin Harlemforany otherrea- of theupwardchangesthathave begunso far.
son. The socioeconomicchangeindicatesthat Giventhatthe core of CentralHarlemrepreand devaltheheatingup oftheproperty
market
is notsim- sentssome of themostdeteriorated
one wouldexpecttheprocessto
plytheresultof speculation,
although
thelatter ued properties,
In somecases, suchas the
occurs(C. Douglas 1986),mostlikely beginat themargins.
certainly
thismight
partofthewesterncorridor,
withtheearly1980ssurgeinproperty northern
beginning
358
and Smith
Schaffer
be consideredspilloverfromalreadygentrifying
trifiers,
the negativeimageof CentralHarlem,
areas such as HamiltonHeights.Elsewhere, buildingsize and zoninglimitations,
and the
however,thisis notthecase; theMarcusGar- supplyofprivatemortgage
financing.
veyParkarea is notclose to anyothergentrifyingarea,andin thesouthern
sectorofthewestern corridor,the metamorphicoutcrops of The SupplyofGentrifiers
MorningsidePark have been employedas an
effective
barrierto social and economicinter- At presentit is clear thatdespiteprominent
course betweenHarlembelow and Columbia pressreportsfeaturing
individualwhitegentriUniversity'sMorningsideHeightsabove the fiersin Harlem(Coombs1982),thevastmajorhill. It can hardly,therefore,be considered ityofpeopleinvolvedinrehabilitation
andredespillover.Rather,the commondenominator velopmentin CentralHarlemare black. First,
betweenthese areas is a matterof economic thecensusdata register
no significant
decrease
gradient-theexistenceofa severegroundrent in thepercentage
ofblacks,evenin thoseareas
gradient
(Smith1979),suchthatlandvaluesare wheregentrification
appearsto be beginning
or
highto thesouthand westand inordinately
low is threatened.
In thewesterncorridor,
all ofthe
in themiddleofCentralHarlem.Sinceitis less tractsremainedgreaterthan90 percentblack,
riskyin markettermsto attempt
to leveloffthe somealmost100percent.Second,of the2,500
rentgradientat the marginswherehigherland applicationsreceivedforthefirstroundof the
valuesact as an economicanchorthanto begin Citysealed bid auction,approximately
80 perin the center,it is the edges thatattractinitial centwereblack(DonaldCogsville,President
of
attention.
As we shallsee below,thisis also the HarlemUrbanDevelopment
Corporation,
pers.
of the City'sRedevelopment
strategy
Plan for comm.,1984).Whatis thelikelihoodthatblack
Harlem.
Harlemresidentswillbe able to carryout the
majorpartof theredevelopment
and rehabilitationof Harlemthemselvesas envisagedin the
Limitsand Momentum: Cityplan?
Constraints,
The FutureofGentrification
in
In the 1982 auction,the Cityrequiredthat
CentralHarlem
each entrantearn at least $20,000per year(P.
Douglas 1983), but in lightof the difficulties
As gentrification
is onlyin its earlieststages experienced
withthatauction,the 1985auction
in CentralHarlem,theanticipation
ofchangeis was openonlyto households(orpairsofrelated
obviouslymuchgreaterthanthereality.On the households)withsubstantially
higherincomes.
one hand,local municipalofficialsand public In today'smarket,rehabilitation
costs are estiandprivaterealestatedevelopersarepromotingmatedto be morethan$135,000fora mediumthe possibilitiesforredeveloping
CentralHar- sized townhouse,and thisrequiresa minimum
lem.Theyemphasizetheoptimistic
of annualhouseholdincomeof between$50,000
potential
as wellas thefragility
redevelopment
ofthepro- and$87,500forpotential
renovators
("Profileof
cess, the constraintsand obstacles, and the a winning
sealedbidder"1985).
necessityof overcomingthem.On the other The 1980 census data reveal thatonly 262
hand,thosewhoopposegentrification
(because households in Central Harlem had incomes
wholesale displacementis likelyand finding above $50,000.In thewholeof Manhattan,
the
adequateand affordable
alternative
housingis numberof blackhouseholdsearningmorethan
stressthefactthatonce gentrification
difficult)
$50,000didnotexceed 1,800.Clearlythegentriit is difficult
beginsin a neighborhood
to stop. ficationof Harlemwill not proceedfarif it is
How realisticis thisanticipation
ofthegentri- simplya processof"incumbent
upgrading"
(see
ficationof CentralHarlem?Whatare its likely Clay 1979a)byHarlemresidents.
A similarconeffects?Gentrification
is a novel processpre- clusionwas reachedbyE. M. GreenAssociates
ciselybecauseit abrogatespreviousconstraintsina 1981marketing
in
studyfora co-opbuilding
and limitations;
it is a reversalin economicand the Gateway area (AKRF 1982). The same
social terms. Central Harlem, however, study,however,concludedthatthe potential
presentsa moreformidable
set of constraints wouldexistamongnon-Harlem
blacks.It is cerand limitations
thanmostneighborhoods.
We tainlypossible thatthe economicvacuumin
shallconsiderfourof these:the supplyof gen- CentralHarlemcould be filledby non-Harlem
ofHarlem
Gentrification
359
tionof CentralHarlemas a wholewilldepend
ultimately
on whetheror notthelargestockof
tenements
and vacantlots can be rehabilitated
andredeveloped.Without
extensivepublicsubsidies,CentralHarlem'stenements
willhaveto
be rehabilitated
byprivatedevelopers,probably
as condominiums
and co-ops,giventhecurrent
unattractiveness
of rentalhousingin New York
City.To date, this kind of rehabilitation
and
conversion
has occurredin onlyone or twoisolated cases, and it is unclearwhetherprivate
developerswillfindrehabilitating
CentralHarlem's relativelysmall tenementseconomically
attractive.
Almostall the community's
residentiallots
are currently
zoned forrelativelylow-density
development,
whicheffectively
limitsnew construction
to aboutsix stories.Although
private
developerscurrently
preferto buildlargeapartmenthousesin orderto maximizetheirreturns,
CentralHarlem's relativelylow land prices
might
enablethemto construct
townhouses
and
low-scaleapartment
buildings.Alternatively,
a
The Image of CentralHarlem
successfulchallengemightwell be mounted
againstthezoningregulations
in thenameof a
If the gentrification
of CentralHarlem is
newHarlemRenaissance.
whiteinflux,white
dependenton a substantial
perceptions
of thearea are critical.To thevast
majority
ofmiddle-class
whites,CentralHarlem
The SupplyofPrivateMortgage
Financing
is perceivedas a dangerousplace. However
accuratethisimage,it is also perceivedas a
Recentmortgage
data showthedearthofpriblack-defined
geographical
space inthecity,and
vate institutional
in the area. Of the
financing
Thus
bythisfactaloneis therefore
threatening.
millioninvestedin CentralHarlemmort$12
itis impossible
to disentangle
whitemiddle-class
gagesin 1982(nearlyall ofwhichwas forlarge
fearfromracistperceptions
aboutthearea. The
multifamily
dwellings)HUD provided47.5 perrealityofCentralHarlemis quitedifferent
from
cent for six separate buildings.Most of the
the ideologicalimage,and yet the imageis a
remaining
34.5 permortgage
money(a further
trenchant
one and will remainso foryearsto
thatis,
cent)was purchasemoneymortgages,
come.It is probablythemostimmediate
barrier
seller-financed
mortgages.There were more
to whitein-migration.
than 30 privateinstitutional
lenders,mostly
It is difficult
to assess howmuchthisnegative
small local lenders, but no one of them
imagewillultimately
precludewhitegentrificaaccountedformorethan2 percentof thetotal
tionin thearea. The experienceof CapitolHill
mortgagemoney.That is, no single private
in Washington,D.C. and a numberof other
financial institutionventured as much as
neighborhoods
suggeststhatwhitegentrification
$240,000in theentirearea in 1982(CityofNew
ofnonwhite
can occur.ButHarneighborhoods
York,Commission
on HumanRights1983).
lemis muchlargersymbolically
as wellas physiThis findingheightensthe possibilitythat
callyandthereby
perceivedas morethreatening
wherepropertytransactionshave been brisk,
yetmoreintriguing
bythewhitemiddleclass.
notablythe westerncorridor,the sales were
smallin scale and oftenself-financed
or seller
increased
financed.
Without
substantially
priBuildingSize and Zoning Limitations
vate financing,large-scalerehabilitation
and
Whilethe immediatetargetof rehabilitationredevelopmentwill not take place. This is
is thearea's townhouses,
efforts
thegentrifica-clearlyperceivedby all publicandprivateinstiblacks, but it is unlikely.All the empirical
researchon theoriginofgentrifiers
suggeststhat
fewof themactuallyreturnfromthe suburbs
(Laska and Spain 1980; Gale 1977);forevery
returning
suburbanitethereare an estimated
fouror fivegentrifiers
alreadyresidentin the
city(Smith1979).ShouldCentralHarlemfollow
this establishedtrend,its major reservoirof
willbe New YorkCityresipotential
gentrifiers
dents.Ifhigh-income
blackhouseholdsaretobe
themainsourceofgentrifiers,
itis doubtful
that
the process will proceed far since thereare
fewerthan 8,000 such families(earningover
$50,000)in all of New YorkCity.The inescapable conclusionis thatunlessHarlemdefiesall
the empiricaltrends,the process mightwell
butanywholesale
beginas blackgentrification,
rehabilitationof Central Harlem properties
wouldnecessarily
involvea considerable
influx
of middle-and upper-classwhites.This brings
us to thesecondconstraint.
360
Schaffer
and Smith
tutionsinvolvedin the redevelopment
Table 2. Ownershipof Housing Units in Central
of the
Harlem, 1983
area. Thus the City'sRedevelopment
Strategy
forCentralHarlem,proposedin 1982,begins
Housing
fromthe assumptionthat"withdrasticreducunits
Ownership
%
in
tions federalhousingand economic aid"
8,144
14.6
resulting
fromthe Reagan cuts, the emphasis Public housing
19,588
35.2
would have to shifttoward private market City-ownedhousinga
Publiclyassisted private
investment
and public-private
partnerships:
the housing
"privatesector. . . wouldhavetoplaya pivotal
Mitchell-Lama
2,520
4.5
Federal Title 1
role" (Cityof New York,HarlemTask Force
3,528
6.4
Urban Development Corp.
501
0.9
1982,i-ii). It is difficult
to predicttheextentto
21,399
38.4
whichprivatefinancialinvestment
willbeginto Private
Total
55,680
100.0
flowintothe CentralHarlemhousingmarket.
of CityPlanning
For decades Harlem has been almost com- Source:Cityof New York,Department
pletelyredlined,and despitea secularincrease (1983).
a Buildings
takenbycitythrough
in rem process.
inrenovation
activity
at thenationalscale inthe
early1980s,theChemicalBankloanof$47 millionrepresents
thefirstsignificant
influxofpri- structedwithpublicassistance.The Citycurvate capitalintoCentralHarlem.The outcome rentlyanticipatestakingover 5,000 additional
oftheTowerson theParkcondominiums
willbe privateunitsin tax foreclosureproceedings,
crucial.
reducing
theproportion
ofprivateunitstobelow
The constraintson gentrification
in Central 30 percent.Figure5 givesa pictureof theconHarlemare, then,considerable,
butnotneces- centration
ofCity-owned
housingin thearea.
sarilyinsurmountable.
There are also strong As one aspect of theirpolicy,the Cityaucforcespushingfortheredevelopment
and reha- tioned12 townhousesforrehabilitation
in Febbilitation
of the neighborhood's
housingstock. ruary1982,and in Augustof thatyear,Mayor
Primeamongthemare the obvious assets of Koch releasedcopiesofa Redevelopment
StratCentralHarlem's locationand transportationegyforCentralHarlem,preparedby a special
access. As professional,
andadmin- task force (City of New York, Harlem Task
managerial,
istrativeemployment
continuesto expand in Force 1982).The reportcallsfora selectivetarManhattan, as the number of households getingof "stronger"anchorareas in Central
increases,and as the housingmarkettightens, Harlemin the attemptto inducea redevelopHarlembecomesan increasingly
attractive
can- mentthatis "economicallyintegrated"(p. 2).
didateforgentrification.
Butdespiteitssubstan- The City'stargetareas are shownin Figure6.
is to bolsterthe areas wherethe
tiallyunderpriced
housinginrelationto therest The strategy
ofManhattan
andtheeconomicopportunity
this privatemarketis becomingactive(thewestern
and to use anchorareasto
thereis no automatic
corridor,
transformation
essentially)
represents,
of Harlemintoa gentrified
"haven." In loca- the south (the Gateway) and the north(the
fromHamiltonHeightsto thecomparationaland economicterms,thereis no doubt stretch
thatthepotentialforgentrification
is there;the tivelywell offStriversRow wheredisinvestquestionis whetherthese economicand loca- menthas been less markedand privatelenders
tionalforcesare powerful
enoughto overcome stilloperate)in orderto encirclethe heartof
Harlem.As one participant
theconstraints.
putit,theplanis to
determinant
of "circlethewagonsaround"and movein from
Perhapsthe mostimportant
is thesuccessorfailure the outskirts(Donald Cogsville,pers. comm.,
CentralHarlem'sfuture
of the City'sstrategy
forthe area. The Cityis April20, 1984).
had successBy 1985,the Citygovernment
because it is the major
particularly
important
The conventional fullymaneuveredthroughand around much
landlordintheneighborhood.
wisdomis thatabout65 percentofthehousing local opposition(Daniels 1983a) and put 149
unitsin CentralHarlemare Cityowned,butthe additional
townhouses
up forauction;1,257bids
actualbreakdown
is morecomplex were received,and the winnerspaid between
ofownership
(Table2). The Cityownsjust over35 percentof $2,000 and $163,000forthe properties.The
theCentralHarlemhousingstockand another averagewas $50,000,and of the winners,98
toresidents
ofCommu26.4percentis eitherpublichousingorwas con- wentbyprioragreement
/
\
. . . ..:.
\....
m
less than 25%
/
/
25-50%
&E
-
\\
1 adjacentareas
LiIito PhaseI
Phase11
[
50% and over
X
PhaseI
Economic
Development
-135THST-
125THST
\L\ ::
o
0
1km
1/2mi
housingunitsas
ofCity-owned
Figure5. Distribution
oftotalhousingunits.
percentage
_
O
_
_
_1km
1/2mi
Strategy
Figure6. Cityof New YorkRedevelopment
Areas.
362
Schafferand Smith
nityDistricts9 and 10 in Harlem(C. Douglas 1,2).In oneveryrealsense,thisis morepossible
1985).Perhapsmostsignificant
is thatCityoffi- in CentralHarlem than elsewhere.The City
cials succeeded,withthe help of a $6 million ownssucha vast stockof abandonedbuildings
grant,inconvincing
theFreedomNationalBank (manyof themvacant) and undevelopedland
to providepurchaseandrenovation
loansat the thatit is possibleforsubstantial
rehabilitation
below-marketinterestrate of 7.5 percent. and redevelopment
to occurbeforelow-income
Togetherwiththe Chemical Bank deal, this residentsare directlythreatened
withdisplaceagreement
basedredevelsuggeststhatprivatecapitalis begin- ment.ButfortheCity'sprivately
ningto perceiveHarlemas a viableandperhaps opmentstrategy
to succeed,two prerequisites
even lucrative investmentespecially when are crucial.First,CentralHarlemwillhave to
backedbypublicfunds.
most
a largenumber
ofoutsideresidents,
attract
of whommay be black at first,but manyof
whomwill necessarilybe whiteas momentum
builds. Second, the area will have to attract
Conclusion
much largerquantitiesof privatefinancing.
be achieved,Central
From our examinationof data on social Shouldtheseprerequisites
froma depressed
changesin CentralHarlemup to 1980and of Harlemcouldbe transformed
into a "hot spot" of
in the housingmarketthroughisland of disinvestment
transformations
1984,we concludethattheinitialstagesofgen- reinvestment,
integratedinto the Manhattan
can be observedin CentralHarlem, housingmarket.This would ultimately
mean
trification
especiallyin the westerncorridor.Compared that large numbersof communityresidents
withfouryears earlierwhenthe mostrecent wouldface displacement.
Thus forHarlemas
reporton thequestionwas issued(AKRF 1982, formanyotherareas thathave undergone
genmaybe an
"economicintegration"
76, 87), thereare certainlymore substantial trification,
signs of incipientgentrification.But little impossiblehope and "a littlegentrification"
momentum
has yetbeenachieved.Ifthesecon- maybe too unstablea stateto surviveforlong.
clusionsare necessarily
tentative,
thestudyhas The City redevelopmentstrategyadmits as
theadded value of providing
an empiricalbase much: in Harlem, "economic integration"
forevaluating
thetrendsthatwillemergein the meansbringing
in richpeople and "social ballate 1980s.
ance" meansan influxofwhites.
In termsof thetheoretical
debatesreviewed Gentrification
may only be one piece in a
earlier,the resultsof thiscase studyare also largerurbanrestructuring
thatwill fundamententative.
The factthattheprocesshas begunat tallyaltertheface of Harlem.The conclusions
is even on theagendain ofourresearchmakeitdifficult
all, thatgentrification
to disagreewith
Harlem,lendssupportto theclaimthatwe are HaroldRose's prognosison thefutureof black
"If the evolving
witnessingnot a curiousanomalybut a tren- working-class
neighborhoods.
chantrestructuring
development
ofurbanspace. The Harlem spatialpatternofblackresidential
altered,"accordingto Rose
experienceaccordswiththeview thatthepro- is notsignificantly
cess involves"collectivesocial actors."In this (1982, 139), the next generationof "ghetto
to a selected
be confined
case, it is not privatecapital alone thathas centerswillessentially
played the leadingrole. Not until1985 did a set of suburbanringcommunitieslocated in
largepotential
influxofprivatemortgage
areas wherethecentralcityblack
capital metropolitan
The state,in a numberof populationalready numbersmore than onebeginto materialize.
institutionalguises, has been most heavily quartermillion."We mightadd the corollary
involvedinfacilitating
in thatiftheevolvingspatialpatternofgentrificaan upwardmomentum
thehousingmarket;theleadership
rolehas been tionin thecentralcitycontinues,thennotonly
takenbythelocal state-the CityofNew York. willthesuburbanghettosburgeon,
buttheinner
The Cityproposesa redevelopment
strategycity ones will shrinkat the hands of white
thatwillbenefit
CentralHarlemresidents,
avoid middle-class
migrants.
and producean "ecothatCentralHarlemwill
large-scalegentrification,
We arenotpredicting
nomicallyintegrated"community.The City inevitably
Apart
becomea whiteneighborhood.
statesexplicitly
thatthis"can be achievedwith- fromtheCity'spolicytowardthearea,thereare
of CentralHaroutdisplacingthepresentresidentsofHarlem" two othermajordeterminants
(Cityof New York,HarlemTask Force 1982, lem's future:the conditionof the nationaland
ofHarlem
Gentrification
363
New YorkCityhousingmarketsand theeffec- as the solutionto the housingproblemsfaced by
tivenessof politicalopposition.If the housing Harlem residents. At the ground breakingfor
marketremainsstrongand oppositionis weak, the Towers on the Park condominiums, U.S.
thengentrification
has a betterchanceofbuild- Senator Alfonse D'Amato was confrontedby
ingmomentum.
If as partof a largereconomic organizedcommunityprotestorschantingopporecessionthehousingmarketalso declinesor if sitionto thegentrification
of Harlem. Callingthe
to thethreatofa gentrified
opposition
Harlemis condominiumproject "beautiful," and "New
sufficiently
great, then the process may be York at its best," D'Amato glared at the proteshalted.Anotherimportant
questionconcerns tors and, as The New YorkTimes described the
the culturalrevivalthat Harlem is currently scene, then declared, " 'I'd like to sing too,'
withthereopeningof theApollo and broke into a brief,off-keyaria: 'Gen-tri-fiexperiencing,
Theater,the announcementof a new Multi- ca-tion. Hous-ing for work-ing people.
Media ArtsCenteron the site of the Renais- A-men.' " ("Disharmony and housing" 1985).
sance Ballroom ("$14.5 millionarts project
. ."
1984), and the "discovery" by the white
middleclass of severalof Harlem'srestaurantsAcknowledgments
and clubs. Bus tours around Harlem have
For valuable assistance in the preparationand
alreadyattracted
thousandsoftourists.
Ironicas
for this paper we want to thank Alex
it sounds,thisemerging
"New HarlemRenais- research
Schwartz,Andrea Katz, Barri Brown,and Diana
sance" mayunwittingly
ease thegentrification
Elrod. Jan van Weesup, Bob Beauregard,Roman
processas significant
numbersof whitesvisit Cybriwsky,
and theAnnalsreviewersgave valuable
and GeorgeColbertdrew
on earlierdrafts,
and beginto feelcomfortable
in Harlem.Thus, comments
according to The Harlem EntrepreneurPortfo- thefinalversionsofthefigures.
lio, whichpromotesitselfas "Harlem'snewest
brownstone
"The joys of livingin
newsletter,"
Harlemareendless.The mainone beinga sense Notes
ofcommunity"
("Profilesinbrownstone
living" 1. By townhouses,
we meanthree-tofive-story
resi1985).
dential structureswith brick or brownstone
fronts.This includesmanybrownstones,
butin
It is difficult
to avoid theconclusionthatfor
Harlem"brownstone"is a misleading
label for
CentralHarlem residents,gentrification
is a
thesestructures
as manydo nothavebrownstone
"Catch 22." Withoutprivaterehabilitation
and
fronts.
redevelopment,the neighborhood'shousing 2. Challmakesmuchofaggregate
citywide
datathat
stockwillremainseverelydilapidated;
do not showany absolutereversalof suburbanwithit,a
izationtrends(at leastup to 1980),and so downlargenumberof CentralHarlemresidentswill
playstheextentof gentrification.
In fact,ifone
be displacedandwillnotbenefit
ultimately
from
examinespercapitaincomechanges,ratherthan
the betterand moreexpensivehousing.They
householdincome, and if one is preparedto
willbe victimsratherthanbeneficiaries
ofgenexaminespatiallycontiguousgroupsof census
tractsand theirinternal
changes,a muchclearer
trification.
Atpresent,
thereareno plansforthis
picture
ofgentrification
emerges.ThemostsignifeitherintheCity'sRedevelopment
contingency,
icantaspectof the 1980censusin thisrespectis
or elsewhere;noneofthedevelopment
Strategy
preciselythat gentrification
shows up at the
strategiesforCentralHarlemeven admitthe
census-tract
levelforthefirsttime.Thisis immelikelihoodof displacement.As Harold Rose
diatelyevidentbymapping
percapitaincomeand
mediancontractrentincreasesforManhattan,
(1982,148)so perceptively
putsitinthebroader
wherethesouthern
andwesternpartoftheisland
context:"Needless to say,thereappearsto be
show dramaticrises. The findings
demonstrate
littleconcernregarding
thesocialand economic
thesubstantial
spreadand expansionof theproimplications
associatedwiththepresentspatial
cess since1970.See also Marcuse(1986).
reorganization
uponthefutureof urbanblacks,
or forthatmatter
uponthefutureofthecity."
Rose mighteasily have been generalizing References
fromtheHarlemexperienceand thereactionof
study:
politicaland planningofficialsto the effectof AKRF,Inc. 1982.Harlemarea redevelopment
in Harlem.2 parts.ReportpreGentrification
on theworking
class. Fornotonly
gentrification
paredforHarlemUrbanDevelopment
Corporais the potentialproblemignored or simply
tion,New York.
denied;gentrification
has even been construed Anderson,Jervis.1982. This was Harlem: A cultural
Schaffer
and Smith
364
portrait. 1900-1950. New York: Farrar Straus
Giroux.
Berry,B. J. L. 1985. Islands of renewalin seas of
decay. In The new urban reality,ed. P. Peterson.
and applications,ed. D. Herbertand R. Johnston,pp. 283-319.Chichester:
JohnWiley.
Harlem. Black, tan and whitefantasy?1984. The
Economist, December 1.
Washington,
D.C.: The Brookings
Institution. HarlemUrbanDevelopment
Corporation.
1982.Rev.
Burgess,E. W. 1925.The growthof thecity.In The
version. Analyses of propertysales within
city,ed. R. E. Park,E. W. Burgess,and R. D.
selectedareas of the HarlemUDC task force
McKenzie.Chicago:University
ofChicagoPress.
area.
Chall, Daniel. 1984.Neighborhood
changesin New Hartman,
Chester.1979.Comment
on "Neighborhood
York City duringthe 1970's. Are the gentry
revitalization
and displacement:
A reviewof the
returning?Federal Reserve Bank of New York
QuarterlyReview (Winter1983-84):38-48.
evidence." Journal of the American Planning
Association 45:488-94.
York,January25.
future.Journalof Urban Economics 9:106-24.
The New YorkTimes, February 19.
Review 15(3):207-49.
The Progressive,March, pp. 33-37.
43:136-47.
Cityof New York, Commissionon HumanRights. Hartman,
Chester;
Keating,
Dennis;andLeGates,Rich1983.Mortgage
activity
reports.
ard. 1982. Displacement: How to fightit. BerkeofCityPlanning.1981.
ley:NationalHousingLaw Project.
CityofNewYork,Department
file.
Sanbornvacantbuildings
Harvey, David. 1985. Consciousness and the urban
. 1983.Housingdatabase-Public andpublicly
experience. Studies in the historyand theoryof
aidedhousing.
capitalist urbanization.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
CityofNewYork,HarlemTaskForce.1982.Redevel- Holcomb,
Briavel,andBeauregard,
Robert.1981.ReviforCentralHarlem.
opmentstrategy
talizingcities.Washington,
D.C.: Associationof
AmericanGeographers.
Clay, P. 1979a. Neighborhood renewal. Lexington,
Home sales low in '82, buta recoveryis seen. 1983.
Mass.: D. C. Heath.
reinvestment
The New YorkTimes, February 1.
. 1979b.Neighborhood
without
displacement:
A handbookforlocal government. Kendig,Hal. 1984. Gentrification
in Australia.In
of Urban
Cambridge,
Mass.: M.I.T. Department
Palenand London1984,pp. 235-53.
Studiesand Planning.
Kern,Clifford
R. 1981.Upperincomerenaissancein
thecity:Itssourcesandimplications
forthecity's
Coombs,Orde.1982.The newbattleforHarlem.New
Daniels,Lee. 1983a.Hope and suspicionmarkplanto
Kruger,
Karl-Heinz.1985.Oh, baby.Scheisse.Wieist
redevelop Harlem. The New York Times, Febdas gekommen?
Der Spiegel11,March11.
ruary6.
Laska,S., and Spain,D., eds. 1980.Back to thecity.
. 1983b. Town houses in Harlem attracting
N.Y.: Pergamon.
Elmsford,
buyers. The New YorkTimes, August 21.
LeGates,Richard,and Hartman,
Chester.1981.Genat Harlemedge.
. 1984. New condominiums
trification-related
displacement.Clearinghouse
Disharmony
andHousing.1985.TheNew YorkTimes,
. 1986. The anatomyof displacementin the
October22.
UnitedStates.In Smithand Williams1986.
Douglas,CarlyleC. 1985.149wininauctionofHarlem Lewis, David. 1981. WhenHarlem was in vogue. New
houses. The New YorkTimes, August 17.
York:RandomHouse.
. 1986.Harlemwarilygreetsplansfordevelopment. The New YorkTimes, January19.
Lipton,S. G. 1977.Evidenceof centralcityrevival.
Douglas,Pamela.1983.Harlemon theauctionblock.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners
Fainstein,Norman,and Fainstein, Susan. 1982. London,Bruce.1980.Gentrification
as urbanreinvatheAmericancity:A comparative
Restructuring
sion. In Back to the city,ed. S. Laska and D.
N.Y.: Pergamon.
perspective. In Urban policy under capitalism,
Spain.Elmsford,
ed. N. Fainsteinand S. Fainstein,pp. 161-89. Marcuse,Peter. 1986. Abandonment,
gentrification
and displacement:The linkagesin New York
BeverlyHills:Sage.
$14.5 millionartsprojectforHarlem.1984.AmsterCity.In Smithand Williams1986.
dam News, January21.
Nelson,Kathryn.1984. Urbaneconomicand demomovement
Gale, Dennis. 1977. The back-to-the-city
graphicchange:Recentshiftsand futureprosrevisited. Occasional Paper, Departmentof
pects. In The changing economic and fiscal
Urbanand RegionalPlanning,GeorgeWashingstructure,ed. RobertD. Edel. Vol. 4, Research in
tonUniversity.
Conn.:JAIPress.
urbaneconomics.Greenwich,
takesconLondon:Aspectsof Oser,AlanS. 1985.Mixed-income
Glass,Ruth.1964.Introduction.
high-rise
dominiumform.The New YorkTimes, June30.
change.London: CentreforUrbanStudiesand
MacGibbon& Kee.
Osofsky, Gilbert. 1971. Harlem: The making of a
D. W., andPreston,
R. E. 1966.A restatement
ghetto.2d ed. New York:HarperandRow.
Griffin,
zone' concept.Annalsof the Palen,J. John,and London,Bruce,eds. 1984.Gentriof the 'transitory
Association
of American Geographers
56:
fication,displacementand neighborhoodrevitali-
of New York
339-50.
zation. Albany:State University
Press.
Chris.1973.Improvement
Hamnett,
grantsas an indiin InnerLondon. Area Profileof a winning
sealedbidder.1985.TheHarlem
cator of gentrification
5:252-61.
EntrepreneurPortfolio(Summer).
and residential
location Profilesin brownstoneliving. 1985. The Harlem
. 1984.Gentrification
EntrepreneurPortfolio(Summer).
theory:A reviewand assessment.In Geography
and the urban environment,
Departprogress in research RealEstateBoardofNewYork,Inc.,Research
ofHarlem
Gentrification
365
anddisrevitalization
ment.1985.Manhattanreal estateopen market Sumka,H. 1979.Neighborhood
placement:A reviewof theevidence.Journalof
sales, 1980-1984.Mimeo.
the American Planning Association 45:480-87.
Rex,John.1968.The sociologyofa zoneoftransition.
In Readings in urban sociology, ed. R. E. Pahl, U.S. BureauoftheCensus.1972.Censusofpopulation
and housing.Census tracts,New York, N.Y.
pp. 211-31. Oxford:Pergamon.
D.C.
SMSA, 1970.Washington,
Rodger,Richard.1982.Rentsandgroundrents:Housing and the land marketin nineteenth
century
. 1983. Census of populationand housing.
Britain. In The structureof nineteenth-century
Censustracts,New York,N.Y.-N.J.SMSA, 1980.
cities,ed.J.H. Johnsonand C. G. Pooley,pp.
D.C.
Washington,
39-74. London:CroomHelm.
ofHousingand UrbanDevelopment.
U.S. Department
Rose,D. 1984.Rethinking
gentrification:
Beyondthe
1979. Displacement report. Washington, D.C.:
unevendevelopmentof Marxisturbantheory.
Officeof Policy Developmentand Research,
Society and Space 2:47-74.
HUD.
ofblackghettos.In
Rose,HaroldM. 1982.The future
An update.
. 1981.Residentialdisplacement:
Cities in the 21st century,ed. G. Gappert and R.
D.C.: OfficeofPolicyDevelopment
Washington,
Knight, pp. 133-48. Urban AffairsAnnual
andResearch,HUD.
Reviews,vol. 23. BeverlyHills:Sage.
for resUrbanLand Institute.1976. New opportunities
AmerSchill,M., and Nathan,R. 1983.Revitalizing
identialdevelopmentin central cities. Report no.
ica's cities. Albany: State Universityof New
D.C.
25. Washington,
YorkPress.
D. 1982.Postindustrialand
Greenberg,
Walker,
R.,
Smith,Neil.1979.Towarda theory
ofgentrification:
A
A critique.Antipode
reform:
and
political
ism
backto thecitymovement
bycapitalnotpeople.
14(1):17-32.
Journal of the American Planning Association
in the
Williams,Peter.1976.The role of institutions
45:538-48.
Islingcase
of
market:
The
housing
Inner-London
. 1982.Gentrification
andunevendevelopment.
Economic Geography58(2):139-55.
Smith,Neil,andLeFaivre,Michele.1984.A class analysisofgentrification.
In Palenand London1984,
pp. 43-63.
Smith,Neil,and Williams,
Peter,eds. 1986.Thegen-
ton. Transactionsof theInstituteofBritishGeographers n.s. 1:72-82.
. 1978. Buildingsocietiesand the innercity.
Transactions of the Instituteof British Geogra-
phersn.s. 3:23-34.
in Britainand Europe.In
. 1984.Gentrification
Palenand London1984,pp. 205-34.
Unwin.
Peter,and Smith,Neil. 1986.From'renaisStegman,Michael. 1982. The dynamicsof rentalhous- Williams,
The dynamics
ofcontemsance' to restructuring:
ing in New York City. New Brunswick, N.J.:
CenterforUrbanPolicyResearch,RutgersUniporaryurbandevelopment.In Smithand Williams1986.
versity.
Sternlieb,G., and Hughes,J. 1983. The uncertain Zukin, Sharon. 1982. Loft living: Cultureand capital
futureof the centralcity. Urban AffairsQuarterly
in urbanchange.Baltimore:
JohnsHopkinsUni18:455-72.
versity
Press.
trificationof the city. London: George Allen and