Revisiting the Diversity of Gentrification: Neighbourhood Renewal Processes in Brussels and Montreal
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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 gen-
trification concept only adequatly describes the upward movement of very restricted parts of the
inner city, while neighbourhood renewal in general more typically comprises marginal gen-
trification, 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 differen- [that] have been aggregated under a single
tiated process appears now to be a cliché in (ideological) label and have been assumed
the literature on urban studies. Gentrification to require a single causal explanation
occurs in various ways in different neigh- (Beauregard, 1986, p. 40).
bourhoods of different cities, comprising di- and had called for its conceptual disaggrega-
verse trajectories of neighbourhood change tion. Nevertheless, these calls were very little
and implying a variety of protagonists (Lees, heard and, almost four decades after the term
2000). By the mid 1980s, Rose (1984) and was first coined by R. Glass, there is still no
Beauregard (1986) had already recognised unanimously approved empirical delimitation
gentrification of the concept of gentrification (Bourne,
1993; Slater, 2000). A typology of neigh-
as a ‘chaotic concept’ connoting many bourhood change that can take into account
diverse if interrelated events and processes 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: mvancrie@ulb.ac.be
and jmdecrol@ulb.ac.be.
0042-0980 Print/1360-063X On-line/03/122451–18 2003 The Editors of Urban Studies
DOI: 10.1080/00420980320001361562452 MATHIEU VAN CRIEKINGEN AND JEAN-MICHEL DECROLY together under the single banner of gen- of neighbourhood renewal may greatly en- trification has yet to be elaborated. lighten the understanding of how inner-city The persistence of the chaotic nature of the neighbourhoods are being reshaped in differ- gentrification concept is particularly prob- ent urban contexts, in different cities or lematic in a geographical perspective. In- within the same city. The concern of this deed, the diverse processes commonly article is to build such a typology and to referred to as ‘gentrification’ in the literature apply it to two cities, a Western European are very likely to display contrasting geogra- one, Brussels, and a North American one, phies. Most often, gentrification refers to a Montreal. This approach allows a compara- process sometimes labelled ‘yuppification’— tive analysis at both intraurban and interur- i.e. the metamorphosis of deprived inner-city ban levels. It may also put in prospect neighbourhoods into new prestigious resi- findings drawn from cities higher up the dential and consumption areas taken up by a urban hierarchy as neither Brussels nor Mon- new class of highly skilled and highly paid treal, although important cities, can be con- residents, typically business services profes- sidered to be on an equal footing with sionals living in small-sized non-familial metropolises such as New York or London households—that brings displacement of the (with regard to size, population or position neighbourhood’s initial population (Brown within the urban hierarchy, notably). and Wyly, 2000). This kind of process is the This article is in four parts. In the first, the most complete expression of the ideal-type typology of neighbourhood renewal is out- gentrification detailed by the classic stage lined. This typology challenges the use of the model (see Clay, 1979; Gale, 1980). Evi- stage model of gentrification when dealing dence of such processes has been mainly with the geographical diversity of neighbour- reported from global cities, New York and hood renewal. It assumes that several distinct London most of all. processes are simultaneously occurring in In other cases, however, the concept of cities and that these processes cannot a priori gentrification is used to refer to processes be reduced to steps within the progression of involving groups which cannot be portrayed gentrification towards maturity. These pro- as a ‘new urban élite’ of yuppies because of cesses—namely, gentrification (sensu their socioeconomic (for example, relatively stricto), marginal gentrification, upgrading modest or unstable income) or socio-demo- and incumbent upgrading—have been graphic (for example, family with children) identified through a critical review of the profiles. These ‘alternative’ types of gen- empirical literature on Western cities (Van trification have received much less attention Criekingen, 2001). An operational delimita- in the literature. Nevertheless, it can be as- tion is proposed for each of them and their sumed that these processes are most likely to respective nature as well as a set of causal be specific to cities whose positions within factors are outlined. national or international urban hierarchies are Typically, these processes involve a wide relatively modest and where labour markets range of interrelated changes concerning dif- offer relatively few highly paid professional ferent urban functions (for example, influx of jobs in the advanced tertiary sector (Cheva- new inhabitants, change in the retail struc- lier, 1994; Rose, 1984, 1996). ture, creation of new leisure or tourist infra- Hence, the chaotic nature of gentrification structure, building of new office complexes). makes it difficult to use this single ill-delim- In order to deal with that complexity, the ited concept as a cornerstone for comparative delimitations provided focus solely on those analysis of the reshaping of various inner- changes affecting the residential use of city neighbourhoods. It is here argued that neighbourhoods (i.e. characteristics of inhab- comparative analysis based on a typology itants and housing). While changes in the wherein gentrification is precisely delimited housing sphere are probably first to come to as only one among several distinct processes mind when debates are about inner-city gen-
REVISITING THE DIVERSITY OF GENTRIFICATION 2453
trification, the residential dimension seems to run-down neighbourhoods which provide
be an efficient key to differentiate processes spaces for alternative lifestyles (for example,
of neighbourhood renewal. avant-garde artists, gay and lesbian com-
In the second section, this typology is munities). Subsequent stages increasingly in-
applied to Brussels and Montreal. It is noted volve wealthier middle-class households and
that gentrification affects very restricted parts real-estate developers
of both the Brussels and Montreal inner city,
who capitalise on the ‘rent gap’ or poten-
while marginal gentrification and upgrading
tial increase in value in these neighbour-
of middle-class neighbourhoods are much
hoods by buying up dwellings, renovating
more widespread in both cities. Results are
them, and reselling them to more affluent
discussed in the third section. Both intra-
members of the new middle class, in the
urban and interurban comparisons are devel-
process displacing both old-established
oped. The concluding section summarises the
and new-wave occupants (Rose, 1996,
main findings and outlines further research
p. 132).
questions.
The final stage is marked by consolidation of
the new upper-class character of these neigh-
1. Towards a Typology of Neighbourhood
bourhoods (for example, through ‘historic’
Renewal in Western Cities
district designation).
That “gentrification is not the same every- The present approach radically challenges
where” (Lees, 2000, p. 397) seems now this way of thinking. The latter is fundamen-
widely acknowledged in the literature, nota- tally based on the assumption that changes in
bly thanks to evidence drawn from compara- the occupation of inner-city neighbourhoods
tive research at the intraurban (see, for from lower- to higher-income residents can
example, Beauregard, 1990; Butler, 1997; be read as the progression of a single pro-
Bondi, 1999; Butler and Robson, 2001) or cess—gentrification—coming to maturity
interurban (see, for example, Carpenter and through an ineluctable series of stages. In
Lees, 1995) level. Nevertheless, a compre- this way, ‘alternative’ processes of neigh-
hensive ‘geography of gentrification’, al- bourhood renewal are a priori confined in
though attracting growing attention in recent necessarily transitional statuses within this
years, is still in its infancy (Ley, 1996; Lees, progression. However, as Rose pointed out,
2000). While there is no doubt about the
it is not inevitable, even in advanced ter-
need for deeper analyses of the geographical
tiary cities, that all neighbourhoods where
diversity of neighbourhood renewal experi-
a ‘beachhead’ of ‘first wave gentrifiers’ is
ences, it is here argued that the persistence of
established will ultimately be caught up in
the chaotic nature of the gentrification con-
an irreversible dynamic largely driven by
cept is highly problematic in this respect.
major real estate interests and leading to
Most of the literature still deals with the
their transformation into homogeneous
geographical diversity of neighbourhood re-
Yuppie preserves (Rose, 1996, p. 153).
newal in the light of the stage model of
gentrification drawn up in the late 1970s. It is here argued that the geographical diver-
According to this model, neighbourhood sity of neighbourhood renewal, at city-wide,
change is thought to occur in successive national or international level, is better
stages. One can find in the literature numer- understood as the outcome of the various
ous references to these early, middle or late combinations of several distinct processes.
stages of gentrification or to early-stage and Moreover, it is assumed that each of these
late-stage gentrifiers (see for example, Ley, neighbourhood renewal processes is relevant
1996; Wyly and Hammel, 1999; Clemmer, on its own—i.e. linked to a particular set of
2000). Typically, gentrification is initiated by causal factors. In sum, this paper argues for
a few households in search of urban niches in replacing a ‘geography of gentrification’ by a2454 MATHIEU VAN CRIEKINGEN AND JEAN-MICHEL DECROLY
Table 1. Processes of neighbourhood renewal (X ⫽ criterion fulfilled, O ⫽ criterion unfulfilled)
Initially Transformations Outcome
Decayed and Improvements Social
impoverished to the built status Population Wealthy
neighbourhood environmenta growth change neighbourhood
Gentrification X X X X X
Marginal gentrification X X X X O
Upgrading O X X X X
Incumbent upgrading X X O O 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 pro- affluent new urban élite of yuppies who dis-
cesses’. place working-class, low-income, sitting ten-
It is therefore necessary to build a typol- ants.
ogy of neighbourhood renewal processes In a geographical perspective, this kind of
wherein gentrification is precisely delimited. process is most specific to cities where the
Through a critical review of the empirical emergence of the new middle class is essen-
literature on Western cities, four distinct pro- tially bound up with the growth of global
cesses have been identified: gentrification, corporate and financial high-end activities—
marginal gentrification, upgrading and in- i.e. in global cities such as New York or
cumbent upgrading (Van Criekingen, 2001). London. In cities further down the urban
An operational delimitation is provided for hierarchy, however, where the ranks of yup-
each of them in Table 1. Five criteria have pies are quite sparse, one could expect gen-
been used, three of them describing the trans- trification to be less extended while other
formations associated with the renewal pro- processes of neighbourhood renewal would
cess (changes in housing and population prevail.
characteristics) and two criteria respectively
depicting the neighbourhood before and after
renewal. In the remainder of this section, the 1.2 Marginal Gentrification
nature and set of causal factors of each type This refers to neighbourhood change associ-
of neighbourhood renewal process are ated with middle-class households who could
investigated. be summarised as being, following
Bourdieu’s terminology, richer in cultural
capital than in economic capital—i.e.
1.1 Gentrification
fractions of the new middle class who
In the authors’ view, gentrification (sensu were highly educated but only tenuously
stricto) consists of the transformation of de- employed or modestly earning profession-
prived, low-income, inner-city neighbour- als, and who sought out niches in inner-
hoods into new wealthy areas based on
city neighbourhoods—as renters in the
population change (influx of affluent new-
private or non-profit sector, or … as co-
comers and displacement of initial inhabi-
owners of modestly priced apartment units
tants) and on improvements to the built
(Rose, 1996, p. 134).
environment. Delineated in that way, gen-
trification refers first of all to ‘yuppification’ By the early 1980s, Rose (1984) had already
processes—i.e. sharp class transformations argued for a specific conceptualisation of this
of inner-city neighbourhoods led by an process, distinct from mainstream gen-REVISITING THE DIVERSITY OF GENTRIFICATION 2455 trification. She coined it “marginal gen- arrangements (such as one-person house- trification”. Unfortunately, this concept has holds, young unmarried adults living to- remained very seldom used, as most of the gether) after leaving the parental home and literature did not (and still does not) recog- before (eventually) getting married (Staple- nise any intrinsic relevance to this process ton, 1980; Galland, 1990). However, all so- apart from a necessarily transitional status cial classes have not been equally affected by within the progression of gentrification to- these restructurings affecting transition to wards maturity. Smith is particularly explicit adulthood (Jones, 1987). It has been argued in this respect when stating that “marginal that the widening of the gap between leaving gentrifiers are important, especially in the home and settling down within a new famil- earlier stages of the process” (Smith, 1996, ial household has been much more striking p. 104; emphasis added). for young adults from middle- or upper-class In contrast, it is argued that gentrification origin than for those originating from lower and marginal gentrification are best under- social classes. For the middle-class young stood as distinct processes, both linked to a adults, “leaving home, getting married and particular set of causal factors. In this re- starting a family may [now] be spread over a spect, marginal gentrification seems under- decade” (Jones, 1987, p. 72). analysed in relation with contemporary These restructurings are largely ignored in trends of growing labour market flexibility most of the gentrification literature. There- and reshaping of life-courses, especially con- fore, this literature does not conceive the sidering the growing constraints weighing on residential strategies of many supposed ‘gen- familial and professional stabilisation of trifiers’ as a temporary response given by young adults (Van Criekingen, 2001). On the young non-familial households (mostly from one hand, growing flexibility in the labour middle-class origin) to unsettled and highly market throughout Western post-Fordist changeable familial and professional posi- economies (for example, proliferation of tions. These households occupy these posi- short-term contractual jobs, multiple part- tions in the growing time-interval between, time work, back and forth moves between on the one hand, leaving the parental home work and unemployment periods) has and entering the labour market and, on the swelled the ranks of workers holding un- other hand, settling down with a new family stable or precarious employment and in- and securing long-term professional status secure incomes (Sennett, 1998). While this and income. In most cities, however, living trend is typically associated with the rise of conditions supplied by inner-city neighbour- the ‘McDonald’s economy’, evidence of hoods are particularly suited to the specific flexibilisation and casualisation of labour is social reproduction needs of young adults in increasingly pointed out for skilled white- both familial and professional transitional collar occupations, especially amongst young positions—notably, given the segmentation adults entering the labour market (see, for of the urban housing market, most of the example, Lipietz, 1998). not-too-expensive rental housing supply is On the other hand, socio-demographic re- concentrated in inner-city neighbourhoods. structuring commonly summed up in the ‘se- Moreover, one can presume that a cond demographic transition’ paradigm (van significant part of these young households de Kaa, 1987; Lestaeghe, 1995) implies pro- will leave the inner city once their familial found reshaping of life-courses. Since the and professional long-term stability is se- 1970s, the transition to adulthood has been cured. At the neighbourhood level, marginal lengthening, notably because of the post- gentrification is therefore likely to imply, in ponement of marriage and parenthood, and many cases, a turnover of marginal gen- has become more complex as young people trifiers (those leaving the neighbourhood as are more often moving into diverse indepen- they get familial and professional stabilisa- dent and highly flexible non-familial living tion being replaced by others still lacking
2456 MATHIEU VAN CRIEKINGEN AND JEAN-MICHEL DECROLY
these conditions) rather than a replacement incumbent upgrading, a concept introduced
by necessarily higher-income gentrifiers. in the late 1970s (Clay, 1979; Holcomb and
In the authors’ view, marginal gen- Beauregard, 1981) to refer to neighbourhood
trification can thus be thought of as lying renewal processes where reinvestment is pri-
outside the framework of the classic stage marily achieved by long-term residents, often
model—that is, as a specific process of moderate-income owner-occupiers who seek
neighbourhood renewal distinct from gen- to improve their own housing conditions.
trification, rather than as a temporary prelude Incumbent upgrading, therefore, implies very
to the inevitable transformation of the neigh- little (if any) population change.
bourhoods into new wealthy inner-city en- Gentrification, marginal gentrification, up-
claves. However, as Neil Smith (1996) has grading and incumbent upgrading can thus
argued, marginal gentrification also repre- be distinguished as clearly distinct processes
sents a divisive and polarising force (i.e. of neighbourhood renewal. Here, the paper
involving displacement of low-income in- departs from commonly held views that see
habitants) which the term itself appears to these processes as basically transitional states
minimise. within a step-by-step progression towards a
common gentrified fate. If not a complete
one, this set of processes composes, how-
1.3 Upgrading and Incumbent Upgrading
ever, a relevant basis on which an oper-
Gentrification also has to be differentiated ational typology of neighbourhood renewal
from processes for which basic prerequisites can be built. This typology provides a basis
of the stage model are not fulfilled. On the for interurban and intraurban comparative
one hand, there is the case of processes analysis, a research project to which the pa-
taking place in inner-city neighbourhoods per now turns.
that have only undergone a slight downturn
in the post-war period. These are typically
2. Neighbourhood Renewal in Brussels
long-established bourgeois neighbourhoods
and Montreal: Implementing the Typol-
inhabited by elderly middle- to upper-class
ogy
households. In those neighbourhoods, im-
provements to the built environment made by Research on gentrification tends to focus pri-
(or on behalf of) newcomers mainly consist marily on very large Anglo-American global
of minor renovations intended to adapt the cities while metropolises further down the
dwellings to the newcomers’ requirements, hierarchy of world cities, such as Brussels
notably when the latter (for example, dual-in- and Montreal (see Beaverstock et al., 1999),
come families with young children) are much usually receive less attention. About 1.7 mil-
younger than the previous occupiers, rather lion inhabitants live in the Brussels’ metro-
than of ‘conspicuous stylish refurbishment’ politan area, of whom nearly 1 million are
of buildings (see, for example, Bunting and located within the core city, the Brussels-
Phipps, 1988). Therefore, the slightly de- Capital Region. In Montreal, the City of
cayed and long-established bourgeois charac- Montreal (1.8 million inhabitants) is the core
ter of these neighbourhoods does not exclude part of a metropolitan area of 3.3 million
either improvements to the built environment inhabitants. Both cities display broadly the
or social status growth through population same socio-spatial structure, with most of the
change1. The name ‘upgrading’ is suggested poor living in inner-city neighbourhoods and
for this type of neighbourhood renewal pro- most of the well-to-do living in affluent sub-
cess, referring to labels such as ‘upgrading of urbs. Nevertheless, social and ethnic polaris-
élite areas’ or ‘upgrading of middle-class ation between neighbourhoods is much less
neighbourhoods’ (see, for example, Bourne, pronounced in Brussels and Montreal than in
1993). most US cities (Kesteloot et al., 1998; Ger-
On the other hand, there is also the case of main and Rose, 2000).REVISITING THE DIVERSITY OF GENTRIFICATION 2457
Table 2. Indicators of neighbourhood renewal in Brussels and Montreal
Brussels Montreal
Initially
Decayed and impoverished
urban neighbourhood Social standing index in 1981 Social standing index in 1981
a
Transformations
Improvements to the built Percentage of private housing Evolution of the mean rent
environment renovated with the help of level of private housing,
renovation grants, 1983–96 1981-96
Social status growth Evolution of the percentage Evolution of the percentage
of university graduates of university graduates
among those holding a among those aged more than
Belgian diploma, 1981–91 15, 1981–96
AND AND
Evolution of the percentage Evolution of the percentage
of high-level employeesb in of directors, managers and
the working population, administrators in the working
1981–91 population, 1981–91
Population change Evolution of the percentage Evolution of the percentage
of the 25–34 age-group in the of the 25–34 age-group in the
total population, 1981–97 total population, 1981–96
OR OR
Evolution of the percentage Evolution of the percentage
of the 35-44 age-group in the of the 35-44 age-group in the
total population, 1981–97 total population, 1981–96
Outcome
Wealthy neighbourhood 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 variables assessing the socioeconomic status
of the inhabitants (for example, levels of
Analysing patterns of neighbourhood re-
newal in Brussels and Montreal on the basis education, types of occupation, unemploy-
of the typology worked out in the previous ment rate) through a principal component
section first requires the ‘translation’ of each analysis. This method has enabled the rank-
type of neighbourhood renewal into a set of ing of each census tract from the poorest to
relevant variables which can be compared the wealthiest. An identical method has been
between both cities. This set of indicators is implemented in Montreal on the basis of 10
summarised in Table 2. variables extracted from the 1981 census
The extent to which inner-city neighbour- (levels of education, types of occupation,
hoods were deprived as a consequence of mean household income) in order to have a
post-war impoverishment and disinvestment comparable measurement of social standing.
has been assessed in both cities by a social Improvements to the built environment
standing index calculated for each census have been assessed differently in both cities,
tract in 1981.2 In Brussels, this index has given the absence of any directly comparable
been calculated by Grimmeau et al. (1994) data. In Brussels, records of the main reno-
on 1981 census data by combining different vation grant programme implemented by the2458 MATHIEU VAN CRIEKINGEN AND JEAN-MICHEL DECROLY
Brussels-Capital Region authorities since the Population change is considered according to
1980s have been used. These grants are allo- a significant increase in the share of the
cated to home-owners (with certain condi- 25–34 or of the 35–44 age-group.
tions) for the renovation of private housing. Finally, the appraisal of the neighbour-
These data have been accessed for the 1983– hoods’ wealthy character as a result of re-
96 period. Renovations achieved in the newal processes is based on the income level
framework of other programmes imple- of the inhabitants by the mid 1990s. This
mented by public authorities have been taken variable is generally underexploited in the
into account as well (Decroly et al., 2000). It gentrification literature (Bourne, 1993) al-
is thought that this data-set provides a satis- though it is very likely to differentiate, for
factory proxy variable to assess the intensity instance, between the moving in of affluent
of improvements to the built environment at yuppies and of marginal gentrifiers. Indeed,
the neighbourhood level. In Montreal’s case, the latter tend to have higher incomes than
a more indirect measurement of housing im- inner-city, working-class residents but
provement has had to be used—i.e. the evol- significantly lower incomes than yuppies.
ution of the mean rent level of private All these variables have been calculated
housing. This option rests on the well-estab- for each census tract in both cities and their
lished correlation between renovation of pri- values have been compared with the values
vate rental housing and rent increases (see, for the whole metropolitan area in each case.
for example, Sénécal et al., 1991, on Mon- For instance, a census tract is considered to
treal). Moreover, private rental housing is have undergone gentrification between 1981
largely predominant in Montreal’s inner-city and the 1990s if it was deprived in 1981 (i.e.
neighbourhoods (78 per cent of the inner-city below the median of the social standing in-
housing stock; 67 per cent in Brussels). dex) and if all three transformation criteria
An assessment has been made of social are fulfilled for the 1981–1990s period (i.e.
status growth in both cities on the basis of an evolution in the census tract exceeding the
increasing share of the high-educated and of metropolitan average)4 and if it can be con-
high-level employees. It has been necessary sidered wealthy by the mid 1990s (i.e. house-
to calculate these variables for a shorter time- hold income higher than the metropolitan
period in Brussels than in Montreal, the Bel- average). Therefore, these variables compose
gian census being 10-yearly while the a set of five criteria whose different combina-
Canadian one is quinquennial. Moreover, the tions enable the assessment of each neigh-
evolution of the share of directors, managers bourhood renewal process according to its
and administrators in Montreal has had to be respective delimitations (see Table 1).
compiled for the 1981–91 period because of
changes in the classification of occupations
2.2. Gentrification and Other Neighbourhood
since the 1996 census.
Renewal Processes in Brussels and Montreal
A very substantial body of research has
brought to the fore the importance of young The set of criteria depicting gentrification is
adults amongst newcomers moving to ‘revi- fulfilled in only two census tracts in Mon-
talising’ neighbourhoods. As mortality rates treal—i.e. Old-Montreal and Little Bur-
are very low at this period of the life-course, gundy—and in no census tracts in Brussels.
a significant increase in the share of young Hence, it can be said that gentrification af-
adults in a census tract is very likely to point fects only very restricted parts of both Brus-
to an in-migration movement.3 Hence, popu- sels’ and Montreal’s inner city (see Figures 1
lation change has been assessed by targeting and 2).
the 25–34 age-group (comprising ‘post-stu- In Brussels (Figure 1), all the census tracts
dent’ young adults). The 35–44 age-group for which the three transformation criteria
has also been taken into account as a comp- are fulfilled (i.e. improvements to the built
lement, comprising more mature households. environment, social status growth and popu-REVISITING THE DIVERSITY OF GENTRIFICATION 2459
Figure 1. Typology of neighbourhood renewal processes in Brussels.
lation change) and where the 1997 household ing fieldwork in both cities lead the authors
income level exceeds the metropolitan aver- to think that some small areas, composing
age were already ranked amongst the top 20 only parts of a census tract, do meet all the
per cent of the wealthiest Brussels’ neigh- parameters of gentrification. These ‘pockets
bourhoods (according to the social standing of gentrification’ consist of particular inner-
index) in 1981. Simultaneously, all the cen- city locations where prestigious private re-
sus tracts for which the three transformation newal projects have been carried out,
criteria are fulfilled and which could be con- combining luxury housing with prestigious
sidered as deprived in 1981 still display very retail (such as art galleries) or high-order
low household income levels in 1997. These offices. In Brussels, this is notably the case
results lead to the conclusion that gen- along the Dansaert street where conspicuous
trification is irrelevant at the census-tract reinvestment has been carried out since the
scale in Brussels. mid 1980s by avant-garde fashion designers
This highlights the issue of the spatial (Van Criekingen, 1996). Since most of the
scale at which gentrification is measured. It latter originate from Flanders, the gen-
could indeed be anticipated that more gen- trification of the Dansaert area also illustrates
trification would have been detected if the the role of language as a factor of urban
analysis had been carried out at the street or change in Brussels.
block level. In this respect, observations dur- In Montreal (Figure 2), pockets of gen-2460 MATHIEU VAN CRIEKINGEN AND JEAN-MICHEL DECROLY
Figure 2. Typology of neighbourhood renewal processes in Montreal.
trification are typically found in the sur- eastern part of the 19th century belt (in Saint-
roundings of distinctive amenities (for exam- Gilles, Ixelles and Schaerbeek). In Montreal,
ple, Victorian houses bordering the marginal gentrification is principally under-
Saint-Louis Square or old industrial ware- way on the Plateau Mont-Royal and in the
houses recycled in lofts along the refurbished Centre-Sud district (including the Quartier
Lachine Canal) (Germain and Rose, 2000). Latin and the Gay Village) while more
The well-documented case of Shaughnessy working-class districts such as Saint-Henri,
Village, an islet of renovated Victorian Pointe-Saint-Charles, Rosemont or even
houses on the edge of the CBD, falls into the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve are more tenuously
same category (Corral, 1986). affected.
In both cities, marginal gentrification and In both cities, most of the current trendiest
upgrading are much more widespread than ‘hot spots of inner-city revival’, often re-
gentrification. In Brussels, the criteria of ferred to in the local media, are found within
marginal gentrification (i.e. census tracts that these districts. Nevertheless, fieldwork re-
were decayed and impoverished in 1981 and veals many differences in the built and social
that experienced improvements to their built environment of those areas, even from street
environment, social status growth and popu- to street (for example, new trendy retail fa-
lation change during the 1980s and early cilities coexisting with various shops serving
1990s but that still display a low-income a socially diverse clientèle). Hence, stereo-
profile by the mid 1990s) are fulfilled within types of homogeneous yuppie enclaves have
the historical core (the Pentagone) and in the to be vigorously refuted in these cases.REVISITING THE DIVERSITY OF GENTRIFICATION 2461
In Brussels, the criteria of upgrading (i.e. marginal gentrification fuelled by newcomers
census tracts that were of high standing in (GIUM, 1984; LARSI, 1985). Thus, the au-
1981 and that subsequently experienced im- thors’ approach obscures in this case under-
provements to their built environment, social lying processes of incumbent upgrading.
status growth and population change during These results contrast sharply with
the 1980s and early 1990s) are fulfilled in findings brought out by work based on a
long-established bourgeois neighbourhoods continuous index of the ‘level of gen-
built up in the 19th century in the eastern trification’ that basically refers to the view of
inner city (for example, the Squares district one single process on the way towards ma-
or around Louise avenue) as well as in sev- turity. David Ley’s work on the geography of
eral census tracts scattered throughout the gentrification in large Canadian cities offers
south and eastern inner greenbelt (from Uc- a clear example of the latter approach. Echo-
cle to Evere). The latter correspond to cores ing Neil Smith’s (1996) ‘new urban frontier’
of 18th-century villages captured by the metaphor, Ley (1996) depicts gentrification
progress of urbanisation. In Montreal, up- in Montreal in terms of an “advancing front
grading has taken place in middle-class areas of reinvestment” (p. 100), as
on the sides of the Mount Royal (for exam-
the principal feature of the 1970s, consoli-
ple, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, North Outre-
dation and infill in and near existing
mont).
higher-status districts [around Mount-
Finally, the results obtained for incumbent
Royal], has given way [in the 1980s and
upgrading are less convincing. In-depth
the 1990s] to the widespread colonisation
fieldwork and field surveys are more appro-
of poorer neighbourhoods [e.g. Pointe-
priate to bring out this type of process which
Saint-Charles] (Ley, 1996, p. 98).
occurs (by definition) without many easily
quantifiable traces at the census-tract level. Beyond statistical indicators (see the results
Nevertheless, the approach has produced presented above), field observation clearly
some notable findings. In Brussels, the cri- indicates that this supposed inexorable ad-
teria of incumbent upgrading (i.e. census vance of a uniform tide of gentrification all
tracts that were decayed and impoverished in over the inner city is a much too simplistic
1981 and that experienced improvements to statement. Differences in the reshaping of the
their built environment during the 1980s and built and social environment are highly vis-
early 1990s but neither social status growth ible amongst Montreal’s inner-city neigh-
nor population change, and that still display a bourhoods—notably, between Old-Montreal,
low-income profile in the mid 1990s) are colonised by high-status lofts and luxury
fulfilled in pericentral neighbourhoods built boutiques, and Pointe-Saint-Charles where
up in the early 20th century—notably in the only some small working-class houses dis-
La Roue district, a publicly owned garden persed amongst old industrial buildings and
city built up in the 1920s where important council houses are being modestly renovated.
improvements to the built environment have Moreover, contrasts are sharp when com-
been carried out (individually) after some of paring experiences in different cities. For
the sitting tenants bought their homes from instance, walking along the streets of Cab-
the municipality in the late 1980s (Van bagetown in Toronto, Canada’s “most cel-
Criekingen, 1994)5. ebrated case of gentrification” (Ley, 1996,
In Montreal, the criteria of incumbent up- p. 93), provides a much more pronounced
grading are fulfilled in several (peri)central sense of wealth and socio-physical homo-
census tracts. Moreover, two field surveys geneity than when wandering over the sup-
carried out in the 1980s have brought out posedly “fully gentrified” Plateau Mont-
evidence of incumbent upgrading by long- Royal in Montreal.
term residents on the Plateau Mont-Royal; Finally, these comments clearly stress the
this was taking place at the same time as inadequacy of the use of a chaotic concept of2462 MATHIEU VAN CRIEKINGEN AND JEAN-MICHEL DECROLY
gentrification as cornerstone for intraurban or ples without children (notably, empty-
interurban comparative analysis of neigh- nesters), who buy expensive condominiums
bourhood renewal. In the authors’ view, the or conspicuous lofts in recycled heritage
combination of distinct processes—i.e. gen- buildings, shop in high-status boutiques and
trification, marginal gentrification, upgrading meet in gourmet restaurants (Labelle, 1996;
and incumbent upgrading—gives a much Germain and Rose, 2000).
better account (although not a complete one) Today’s landscape of Little Burgundy is of
of the reshaping of inner-city neighbour- a very different kind, resembling a little sec-
hoods in both Brussels and Montreal. tion of middle-class suburb located within a
stone’s throw of the CBD skyscrapers. As in
3. Discussion: Intraurban and Interurban the case of Old-Montreal, major public inter-
Comparisons vention has been a determining factor in the
gentrification of this previously industrial
3.1. Different Neighbourhoods, Distinct Re- and working-class neighbourhood which has
newal Processes been massively disinvested during post-war
Looking at this paper’s findings, some would decades and was targeted for slum clearance
suggest that processes such as marginal gen- by the late 1960s. During the 1980s, rows of
trification merely compose a transitional step suburban-like, one-family townhouses were
within a broader neighbourhood upward tra- built within the framework of the ‘Opération
jectory. In contrast, it was argued in the first 20.000 logements’, a programme intended to
section that marginal gentrification (like up- sell off the City of Montreal’s bank of vacant
grading, incumbent upgrading or other pro- land to private developers on advantageous
cesses) can be distinguished from terms. Today, Little Burgundy’s inhabitants
gentrification by a particular nature and set of are mostly middle-class, dual-income famil-
causal factors. This statement can now be ies (typically, married couples with children)
investigated more deeply by comparing types who have bought a house in this new neigh-
of neighbourhood renewal processes in the bourhood as an attractive alternative to living
case studies. in a more distant suburb, but who still con-
sider themselves as downtown commuters
Gentrification. At the neighbourhood scale, (Charbonneau and Parenteau, 1991; Germain
gentrification is relevant in only two cases, and Rose, 2000).
both located in Montreal. Old-Montreal cor- Massive public intervention has thus been
responds to the historical core of the city, a determining factor in the gentrification of
directly connected to the Old Port and to the both Old-Montreal and Little Burgundy.
recently refurbished Lachine Canal. Despite However, two clearly different urban land-
its official designation as an historic district scapes have been produced: in the first case,
in 1964, Old-Montreal was much of a run- the archetypal conspicuous reinvestment in
down no-man’s-land by the mid 1970s, with an historic neighbourhood, associated with
less than 500 inhabitants. Under way since that new class of highly skilled and highly
the late 1970s, Old-Montreal’s ‘reconquest’ paid residents so much featured in the main-
has been funded mainly by extensive public stream gentrification literature (Old-Mon-
investment intended to promote Old-Mon- treal); in the second case, the redevelopment
treal as a distinctive environment for resi- of vacant land in the inner city into a new
dence, shopping, tourism and post-industrial suburban-like neighbourhood mainly associ-
activities (cinema and multimedia notably).6 ated with middle- and upper-class family
Today, Old-Montreal has become a major households (Little Burgundy).
tourist venue (more than 4 million visitors
each year) and its population has risen to Marginal gentrification. In both cities, mar-
2200 inhabitants, typically small affluent ginal gentrification is a widespread process
households, single yuppies or unmarried cou- and is mostly taking place in areas adjacentREVISITING THE DIVERSITY OF GENTRIFICATION 2463 to established upper-middle-class neighbour- young adults living alone or as childless hoods, while the most deprived working- couples who became home-owners in the class neighbourhoods are much more neighbourhood where they had previously tenuously affected. been renting. Nevertheless, most of them In Brussels, this pattern is expressed by a regarded home purchase in this neighbour- sharp contrast within the 19th-century belt hood as basically a transitional step in their with marginal gentrification occurring only housing career, the ownership of a one-fam- in its southern and eastern parts—i.e. be- ily home in a lower-density and socially tween the historical core (the Pentagone) and more homogeneous suburban environment the wealthy south-eastern inner greenbelt. remaining the first option following the birth This divergence echoes a long-standing east– of the first child (Charbonneau and Par- west contrast within the Brussels urban land- enteau, 1991). scape, opposing working-class and immi- Apart from the Plateau Mont-Royal, the grant western neighbourhoods to bourgeois ‘marginal’ profile of many newcomers mov- neighbourhoods on the eastern bank of the ing into inner-city neighbourhoods is even Senne valley. This contrast is notably evident more striking in the case of Hochelaga- in the built environment, but is also reflected Maisonneuve, where evidence of tenuous in the urban experience of the middle classes, marginal gentrification has been reported the eastern inner city being much more inti- (Figure 2). In this case, Sénécal (1995, mately integrated within the urban realm of p. 357) even speaks about a “gentrification the middle classes, notably because of the de pauvres” (literally, a “gentrification by location of two major university campuses in poor people”)—i.e. a process led by “young this part of the city. Moreover, these neigh- households or single persons holding an uni- bourhoods supply accommodation opportuni- versitary degree but with low incomes and in ties (mainly small affordable private rental precarious employment situations” (p. 357, housing) and facilities (plenty of cultural fa- translated). Surely this cannot be argued to cilities and meeting-places such as cinemas, be gentrification in sensu stricto. pubs and theatres) particularly suited to In sum, the reshaping of neighbourhoods meeting the specific social reproduction where marginal gentrification has been re- needs of ‘post-student’ young adults of mid- vealed by the typology seems mostly fuelled dle-class origin occupying transitory posi- by young and relatively cash-poor house- tions in the growing time-period before holds seeking transitional responses to unset- securing professional and family positions. tled and highly changeable family and In Montreal, marginal gentrification is professional positions. It could be suggested mostly spreading around the Mount Royal then that these neighbourhoods are becoming and close to wealthy boroughs such as Outre- trendy rather than affluent areas. This is not mont and Westmount. The Plateau Mont- to say, however, that marginal gentrification Royal, today’s most trendy Montreal occurs without growing pressure on the in- inner-city neighbourhood (but still one of the ner-city housing market; many low-income poorest), is particularly affected by this pro- households in those neighbourhoods are be- cess. Many newcomers in the Plateau Mont- ing put under severe threat of displacement. Royal are young professionals with relatively This is the case in Brussels (Van Criekingen, low and insecure incomes, employed mostly 2003) as well as in Montreal (see, for exam- in the public, cultural, artistic or communi- ple, Comité du Logement du Plateau Mont- cation sector (Rose, 1996). This ‘marginal’ Royal, 2002). profile echoes the predominant one amongst purchasers of homes produced on infill sites Upgrading. In both Brussels and Montreal, throughout the Plateau Mont-Royal during upgrading is a significant process too and the 1980s within the framework of the ‘Opér- deserves careful attention. On the one hand, ation 20.000 logements’: they were mostly newcomers moving into most of the neigh-
2464 MATHIEU VAN CRIEKINGEN AND JEAN-MICHEL DECROLY
bourhoods where upgrading has been 3.2. Brussels’ and Montreal’s Renewal in a
identified seem on average to be older Wider Context
than the ones moving into neighbourhoods
As stated above, archetypal gentrification led
of marginal gentrification (35–44 years
by an affluent new urban élite does not seem
old rather than 25–34). Indeed, it is worth
adequate to describe the complex change
noticing that most of the census tracts underway in most Brussels’ and Montreal’s
classified under upgrading in both Brussels inner-city neighbourhoods. In the authors’
and Montreal would have been omitted if the view, the scarcity of gentrification in these
research had only taken into account the two cities (at least in comparison with pro-
evolution of the 25–34 age-group (and not cesses of marginal gentrification and upgrad-
the 35–44 age-group) as an indicator of ing) has first to be linked to their relatively
population change. Therefore, it can be hy- modest position within the international ur-
pothesised that the renewal of these ban hierarchy. In both cities, the ranks of
neighbourhoods (i.e. old villages in Brus- well-paid employees in highly skilled white-
sels’ south-eastern inner greenbelt, Notre- collar occupations in the advanced tertiary
Dame-de-Grâce and North Outremont in sector, transnational business and financial
Montreal) is mainly associated with the services especially, are quite sparse.
moving-in of mature middle-class house- In the Canadian context, an important
holds (i.e. with children and job security) share of Montreal high-level white-collar
seeking to secure a long-term position in the workers have moved to Toronto since the
housing market in a relatively dense but 1970s, following the relocation of their jobs
socially stable and affluent urban environ- as the position of Toronto at the summit of
ment. In that way, upgrading processes the Canadian urban and economic hierarchy
would result from the search for alternatives became increasingly asserted. Most corporate
to suburban flight by middle- or upper-class headquarters now located in Montreal are
families. serving Quebec rather than Canada (Polèse,
On the other hand, upgrading of long-es- 1998). Usually, Brussels ranks above Mon-
tablished bourgeois neighbourhoods in the treal among world cities (Beaverstock et al.,
Brussels eastern inner city can be linked to 1999), primarily due to its international pol-
the swelling ranks of well-paid expatriates itical status. This international position
employed by international institutions head- brings many well-paid expatriate profession-
quartered in Brussels, in particular the offices als to live and work in Brussels (such as EU
of the EU. These international professionals or NATO officials, lobbyists and lawyers).
show a higher propensity to choose an urban However, advanced business services are
residence than do the Belgian middle and less developed in the Brussels’ inner city
upper classes but, within the city, they compared with other European metropolises.
clearly favour neighbourhoods on the eastern This has to be linked to the small size of the
edge of the 19th-century belt (Kesteloot, Belgian domestic market, increasingly con-
2000). These neighbourhoods are particularly trolled by foreign-based corporations, and to
attractive to them given their close location intrametropolitan decentralisation of such ac-
to the Léopold district, where most of the tivities towards the suburbs, notably around
international institutions’ headquarters are the Zaventem airport, although without edge
situated (for example, the EU Commission), city formation (Vandermotten, 1999; Van
and their distinctive built environment (for Hamme and Marissal, 2000).
example, Horta’s art nouveau houses in the Nevertheless, compared with Montreal,
Squares district). The very high purchasing Brussels’ stock of well-paid professionals
power of these transnational professionals seems higher. It is quite surprising then to
enables them to access these neighbour- notice that, despite an apparently higher po-
hoods. tential, gentrification is even more tenuous inREVISITING THE DIVERSITY OF GENTRIFICATION 2465
Brussels than in Montreal. Two main ele- particularly hit by budget cutbacks and by
ments have to be taken into account in order growing labour market flexibility since the
to shed light on this paradox. On the one 1980s (Rose, 1996; Martinez, 1998). Hence,
hand, efforts supported by Brussels’ public a large number of professionals employed in
authorities in the field of neighbourhood re- these sectors in both cities are restricted to
newal have been relatively modest (at least short-term and precarious employment con-
until the 1990s). While gentrification of Old tracts and insecure incomes, particularly
Montreal and Little Burgundy has resulted among young adults at the beginning of their
first and foremost from massive incentive professional career. In the authors’ view, this
schemes implemented by the Montreal and is fundamentally important in analysing the
Quebec public authorities, Brussels’ inner- significance of marginal gentrification in
city neighbourhoods have not yet been both Brussels and Montreal.
targeted by extensive residential renewal pro- Finally, Brussels’ position as an important
grammes intended to encourage high-level political node within the European and world
professionals to take up or maintain resi- urban system has notable repercussions on
dence in the inner city. neighbourhood renewal patterns in Brussels.
On the other hand, the small size of the Since well-paid professionals linked to inter-
Brussels’ metropolitan area (about 1600 national functions, affluent expatriates es-
square km while Montreal’s is about 4000 pecially, are much more prone to settle down
square km) is likely to play a significant role, in long-established bourgeois neighbour-
too, as the trade-off between central and hoods in the eastern inner city (or in a
peripheral locations is less relevant than in a wealthy suburb) than in a central working-
large metropolis (Kesteloot, 2000). In other class area, this brings about significant up-
words, living in the wealthy Brussels’ south- grading rather than gentrification.
eastern inner greenbelt or in the first belt of
middle-class suburban municipalities, corre-
4. Conclusion
sponds—given the short distance—to similar
downtown access conditions to those experi- In this paper, it has been argued that gen-
enced by many inner-city residents in Mon- trification is only one—and often not the
treal (all the more so in New York or major—process of neighbourhood renewal in
London). contemporary Western cities. It has been at-
As second-tier (Brussels) or third-tier tempted to demonstrate this assertion empiri-
(Montreal) world cities (see Beaverstock et cally by examining neighbourhood renewal
al., 1999), the constitution of Brussels’ and processes in Brussels and Montreal by means
Montreal’s new middle class is more of a four-fold typology of such processes
specifically bound up with the growth of the wherein gentrification is precisely delimited.
(para)public, cultural and communications This analysis radically challenges the exten-
sectors. Figures speak for themselves: edu- sive use of a chaotic conception of gen-
cation, health, social and public services trification referring to the classic stage model
count for 64 per cent (47 per cent) of all when dealing with the geographical diversity
professionals living in the Brussels (Mon- of neighbourhood renewal. In the authors’
treal) metropolitan area while only 18 per view, inner-city neighbourhoods are being
cent (24 per cent) of these professionals are reshaped by several distinct processes, not by
employed in FIRE (finance, insurance and successive waves of a single gentrification
real estate) and other producer services (Bel- process.
gian and Canadian 1991 censuses). Figures In both Brussels and Montreal, it was
are nearly identical when considering inner- found that gentrification only adequately
city neighbourhoods in both cities. However, describes the upward movement of very re-
education, health, social and public services stricted parts of the inner city—i.e. Old-
(culture, art and media notably) have been Montreal and Little Burgundy in Montreal2466 MATHIEU VAN CRIEKINGEN AND JEAN-MICHEL DECROLY
and some ‘pockets’ (smaller than a census from middle-class origin. On the other hand,
tract) in both cities. Neighbourhood renewal marginal gentrification and other neighbour-
under way in both Brussels and Montreal hood renewal processes represent divisive
consists mainly of marginal gentrification, and polarising forces, and further research
upgrading and incumbent upgrading, al- should thus focus on their different social
though the methodology and criteria used in impacts, notably concerning forms of dis-
this paper only imperfectly assessed the latter. placement.
These findings contrast sharply with the often
overgeneralising claims made in the litera- Notes
ture regarding the extent of gentrification.
Empirical results drawn from Brussels and 1. Classic measurements of social status are
Montreal show that a typology such as the influenced by age. On the one hand, retired
persons usually have lower revenues (but
one implemented in this article may more properties) than people in employment.
significantly enlighten our understanding of On the other hand, the proportion of gradu-
how inner-city neighbourhoods are being di- ates is higher among young people as general
versely reshaped in Western cities. This ap- access to high education rose during the
proach may thus stimulate further research course of the 20th century.
2. Although not absent in the 1970s, most
aimed at building a geography of neighbour- neighbourhood renewal processes in Brus-
hood renewal throughout Western cities. In sels and Montreal have taken place since the
this respect, further research should analyse 1980s. Moreover, the main revitalisation pro-
other cities and compare their respective grammes implemented by the authorities in
neighbourhood renewal patterns. Cities occu- both cities did not begin until the late 1970s.
pying relatively modest positions within in- 3. Such an increase could also result from an
ageing process without mobility or from a
ternational urban hierarchies, in different decrease in absolute terms of all other age-
national contexts, deserve particular attention groups. Inspection of the evolution of the age
while it is also worth re-examining the diver- pyramid can easily confirm these hypotheses.
sity of neighbourhood renewal processes in 4. Concerning the variable assessing improve-
global cities. ments to the built environment in Brussels, a
threshold has been set above which the reno-
However, the typology should be extended vation activity is considered significant: 12
because gentrification, marginal gen- per cent of the census tract’s housing stock
trification, upgrading and incumbent upgrad- renovated with the help of renovation grants
ing certainly do not comprise an exhaustive between 1983 and 1996 (the mean rate for
inventory of neighbourhood renewal pro- the whole of the Brussels Capital Region is
cesses throughout Western cities. Further re- 7.5 per cent).
5. This process is very similar to the ‘right-to-
search should notably pay attention to buy’ programme implemented in the UK, but
‘immigrant-driven gentrification’ (see, for on a much smaller scale.
example, Brown and Wyly, 2000) and to 6. Between 1979 and 1998, Montreal, Quebec
‘social renewal’—i.e. processes based on and Canadian authorities have invested a
public-driven reinvestment schemes intended total of more than CAN$120 million (about
83 million Euros) in the Old-Montreal his-
for improving the housing conditions of low- torical district (Société de Développement de
income inner-city residents (see, for exam- Montréal, 1998).
ple, Marcuse, 1999).
Finally, it is also important to continue to
investigate the causes and social impacts of References
different neighbourhood renewal processes. BEAUREGARD, R. A. (1986) The chaos and com-
On the one hand, marginal gentrification plexity of gentrification, in N. SMITH and P.
ought to be analysed further in relation to WILLIAMS (Eds) Gentrification of the City,
pp. 35–55. Winchester: Allen and Unwin.
contemporary trends of growing labour BEAUREGARD, R. A. (1990) Trajectories of neigh-
flexibility and reshaping of life-courses, no- bourhood change: the case of gentrification,
tably affecting many skilled young adults Environment and Planning A, 22, pp. 855–874.You can also read
