While it was true of the early gentrification literature that it was overly descriptive it is
now possible that the literature has become too theoretical. After the numerous empirical
accounts of gentrification a theoretical framework which made sense of these
developments within a wider arena was necessary for the literature to get any further.
The theoretical nature of much of the gentrification literature (Bridge, 1994, Smith,
1979, 1991, 1996 and Hamnett, 1991) supports the earlier view that gentrification has
become an orthodoxy which some writers like Lees and Bondi (1995) and Clark (1994)
have sought to synthesise, arguably to the benefit of the subject.
In this regard the field of gentrification studies appears to be unable to attain an ordering
or repeatable and coherent set of theories which may be applied to policy guidance and
insights into the process. The value of the knowledge attached to studying gentrification
is related to its ability to say something about the way our various urban environments
are structured. That they are relatively unstructured may be a reasonable conclusion to
draw from the schisms within the debates.
Theory also plays a crucial role in the measurement and perception of social phenomena
through methodological tools (Atkinson, 1994) and the impingement of theory on
method or more particularly extent of measured manifestation has been noted (Bourne,
1993 and Galster and Peacock, 1986). A good example of the relationship between
theory and observation may be given by citing Bourne’s use of the census to measure
the extent of gentrification where he showed that use of income as a measurement
underestimated gentrification while use of educational attainment overestimated its
manifestation.
These points demonstrate the need for the careful working out, in hypothetical terms, of
those factors that one believes to be involved in the gentrification process. If one takes a
constructivist view of the research process it is important to understand that a selection
of priorities and factors in theoretical terms directly affects the operationalisation and
measurement of the phenomenon under consideration. This also demonstrates the need
for a strong definition of gentrification. Atkinson (1995) discussed the need for a strong
definition that could be used to delineate between what is and is not gentrification by
stressing those factors which were contextual and those which appeared universally in
its manifestation.
While it is clear that there is as much divergence within and between cities as countries
the existence of a dramatic difference between the gentrification of Britain and Europe
and that of North America has been debated by Lees (1994) and Smith (1991). The
importance of this debate is in its wider implications for the way in which one
conceptualises cross-cultural differences and the ways in which one can overcome the
complexities of comparison.
Lees has countered a need to remain contextually aware (1994) with an evolutionary
comparative study (Lees and Carpenter, 1995) of the gentrification process in London,
New York and Paris. This approach may be criticised on a number of counts. While
Lees and Bondi agree with Beauregard (1986) that gentrification is often explained in
terms of ‘specific instances’ to ‘broad statements’ Lees and Carpenter adopt such an
approach in their analysis of these three arbitrarily chosen cities. Little is explained that
might reveal the underlying dynamics of a comparative process since the areas chosen,
Park Slope, New York, Barnsbury, London and the Marais in Paris, are remarkably
similar in their route to gentrification. The result is that gentrification is again revealed
as a homogenous process with little cultural differentiation. Lost then is the potential to
reveal a divergent picture that is seen as an important project by some gentrification
commentators (Lees, 1994, Van Weesep and Musterd, 1991) who see the emergence of
a more complex picture of gentrification. This takes us back to Smith and Williams view
that the;
“preoccupation with the description of gentrification means that we have little sense
of the contextual and compositional forces that ‘produce’ this process” (Williams,
1996:64).
These difficulties, expressed in terms of a need to ‘fit’ the gentrification of one country
with another, may yet be synthesised through an examination of the processes contingencies and constant factors. Both relativistic and universalistic accounts of the
process suffer from the criticism that they are either overly restrictive or too general
respectively. A mediation between these two theoretical positions is clearly desirable. In
order to achieve a truly comparative study of the process of gentriflcation it is necessary
for a reconciliation of both contextual and overarching features to be taken into any
account (Atkinson, 1995).
Smith’s rent gap theory of the gentriflcation process was developed in an attempt to
understand the way in which capital restructuring had led to the gentriflcation of certain
areas of the city at a particular point in time. Smith defined the rent gap as;
“the disparity between the potential ground rent level and the actual ground rent
capitalized under the present land use…the rent gap is produced primarily by capital
depreciation (which diminishes the proportion of ground rent able to be capitalized)
and also by continued urban development and expansion.” (Smith, 1979b:545)
Smith’s work has been very influential in the various attempts that have been made to
understand the central dynamics behind gentriflcation. It must be understood that the
rent gap is not restricted to the explanation of gentriflcation, in Smith’s own words it is
‘a general theory of a very specific set of urban processes’ (Smith, 1991:53).
A Value Gap
Hamnett (1984, 1986) developed an explanation of gentriflcation which is very similar
to Smith’s work. It appears at first sight that Hamnett and Williams’ differences are
based upon their location in two different cultural contexts, in which the exact details
and dynamics of the gentriflcation process have diverged in their manifestation. Such
differences, if accepted, give added weight to any claim that gentriflcation diverges
between locations across the Atlantic.
Clark describes the value gap as; “a disparity between the ‘vacant possession value’ of a property and its ‘tenanted
investment value’. The measure of the vacant possession value of a property is its
sale price to an owner occupier. The measure of the tenanted investment value of a
property is a multiple of its annual rental income as rented property, i.e. the present
value of future rental income as reflected in the sale price between two landlords.”
(Clark, 1992:17)
The difference between the two theories lies in the distinction that they make between
land rent and building value, also apparently related to cultural differences from where
the theories originate.
These gaps indicate divergences in the way in which gentrification has occurred over
time and space yet they also point out the way in which gentrification has remained a
recognisable phenomenon for all its differentiation.
It may be considered a measure of some success that an attempt has been made to relate
the value and rent gaps (Clark, 1991, 1994). However, there remains a lack of consensus
within these theoretical areas. Smith is an emissary of the production based school of
explanation and any debate over the complementarity of the two theories has been
submerged by Smith’s own assertion of the primacy of his own work. In his own words;
“the rent-gap theory remains valid, but that for us to understand both its insights as
well as its limitations, the theory cannot remain isolated but must be connected to a
much more complicated discussion of urban change.” (Smith in Van Weesep and
Musterd, 1991:53)
This point is echoed by Van Weesep (1994) when he asks that the study of this
complex urban phenomenon be rooted in context and in a greater understanding of the
complexities of urban life. It is worrying, however, that these repetitive calls for an
understanding of the complex and chaotic appear as rhetoric, when little has been
done within the literature to expand the empirical base while theorising is constantly
undertaken with no seeming input into policy.
Smith (1979) asserts the existence of two pivotal concepts which form the basis of the
theory, these are 1) the systematic disinvestment in the inner city as a corollary to
suburban expansion and 2) a gap between capitalized ground rent and the potential
ground rent that could be extracted under the highest and best use. Smith assumes the
real world to fit around the theory but two things appear wrong, first, suburban
expansion has all but ceased in many cities while the inner city remains under invested
and simultaneously invested in and, second, as Smith’s preconditions have altered,
gentriflcation has continued such that one cannot explain gentriflcation in terms of those
essential conditions.
Cultural differentiation is not the only weak point of the theory; little theory may be
valid at all times in all places yet Smith argues that his theory ‘remains valid’. Rather it
remains valid when x, y, and z apply; surely they do not. Musterd and van Weesep
(1991) argue that “by explaining the essentials (points 1 and 2 above), this theory will
have the widest applicability” (Musterd and van Weesep, 1991:13). Yet nowhere do
Smith or Musterd and van Weesep argue why these ‘essentials’ are indeed universal or,
even, why they are essential. This is as dogmatic a position to adopt as Smith’s claim
that the fundamental weakness of consumption based theory (particularly Ley) was
deterministic because it suggested that to be correct it must assert that “individual
preference change in unison…internationally” (Smith, 1979:540). This debate points out
one of the fundamental dichotomies in the literature about those elements of
gentriflcation which are contextual and those which are found in all examples of its
manifestation.
These debates and attempts at reconciliation demonstrate a dramatic tension around
what is considered to be an adequate explanation of the gentriflcation process. Both
consumption and production side explanations of the phenomenon have failed to
recognise the importance of the operationalisation of their ideas within an empirical
framework. While both Saunders (1981) and Clark appear to agree on the need for
empirical verification or falsification it appears lacking in the literature.
Interestingly Smith invokes Clark’s work as the way forward for gentriflcation theory;
“We should stop asking the one-dimensional question: ‘Which theory of
gentrification is true, the rent-gap theory, the post-industrial restructuring theory, the
consumer demand for amenities theory, or the institutionalist theory?’ and start
asking ‘If it is so that there is empirical support for all these theories, can we arrive
at an understanding of the ways in which they stand in a logical relation of
complementarity.” (Clark in Smith, 1991:60)
In Smith’s latest foray (1996) he persists in stressing the fundamental basis of
gentrification in production within the context of New York and widens his view to
include case studies in Budapest, Amsterdam and Paris. Perhaps the main reservation
one might have with Smith is his self-location as a radical in emphasising his
production-side arguments as both novel and new and then, simultaneously, adopting
those parts of consumption theory which serve his overall argument (Atkinson, 1997).
