Is Gentrification A Useful Paradigm To Analyse Social -Books Pdf

IS GENTRIFICATION A USEFUL PARADIGM TO ANALYSE SOCIAL
11 Jan 2020 | 30 views | 0 downloads | 26 Pages | 1.05 MB

Share Pdf : Is Gentrification A Useful Paradigm To Analyse Social

Download and Preview : Is Gentrification A Useful Paradigm To Analyse Social


Report CopyRight/DMCA Form For : Is Gentrification A Useful Paradigm To Analyse Social



Transcription

Since the pioneer work of Ruth Glass social scientists have produced an abundant. literature about gentrification but contributions on French cities are quite scarce The word. itself has no translation and the English word has only been used in the last ten years often. with accompanying health warnings and sandwiched between quotation marks. This does not mean that the issue of upper and middle classes replacing the working. class in various neighbourhoods of large cities has not been discussed and studied Indeed. during the last forty years many researchers have stressed the significant social change that. was under way with the constantly increasing weight of upper class categories in the. population of central Paris and the decrease of that of blue collar workers The first work of. reference on the subject has been that of Coing 1966 which plays a similar landmark role as. that of Glass 1964 for London although it is a monograph of one neighbourhood only. Subsequently various other sociologists have analysed the process of social restructuring of. the Paris metropolis as characterized by an embourgeoisement of the central part of the city. social movements in 1968 and after protested against the r novation d portation urban. renewal deportation of the working class and Henri Lefebvre captured that spirit in his. advocacy for the right to the city 1968, It is the case however that the detailed analysis of social change and practices in. formerly working class neighbourhoods has not been developed as widely as for the British. and North American cities The most often cited book after Coing s is Chalvon Demersey s. 1984 on the neighbourhood around rue Daguerre in the XIVth arrondissement of Paris But. it is Bidou reflecting on her own similar work on the Aligre neighbourhood in the XIIth. arrondissement then on the old centre of Amiens who first explicitly took up the themes and. vocabulary of gentrification from the anglo american literature translating a piece by N. Smith in her edited book on retours en ville Bidou 2003. Is this more limited attention paid to the issue of gentrification in French urban research. a sign of its underestimation as Donzelot 2004 has argued or of a different way of dealing. with it Are the schemas of analysis of gentrification developed in the UK USA or Canada. relevant for the understanding of social changes in the Paris metropolis What is the scope of. processes corresponding to gentrification what are the significant differences The answers to. these questions are discussed in this paper based on the results of a detailed empirical analysis. of urban social changes in the Paris metropolis during the 1990s1. The complete presentation of this work can be found in Pr teceille 2003. 1 The State embourgeoisement and gentrification, The processes through which upper and upper middle classes have come to live in. formerly working class areas of Paris have been analyzed since the 1960s mostly in relation. with State driven programmes In urban renewal programmes particularly public authorities. invested heavy resources juridical financial technical to demolish large decaying housing. areas some of them designated as slums to be cleared since the beginning of the XXth. century and replace them with modern housing neighbourhoods with good infrastructure and. then let private developers take advantage of those dramatic changes to offer housing for. middle and upper class customers cf Coing 1966 Duclos 1973 Godard et al 1973 Lojkine. 1972 1974 Topalov 1973 1974 1984 These analyses predate the rent gap theory developed. by N Smith 1996 with a key difference being the more central role played by the State The. cases of urban improvement programmes whether they focused on historical areas like. Marais or were simply housing improvement were analyzed in a similar perspective. Here is a first significant difference French researchers have given a key role to the. State when English or American ones saw first of all a market dynamic whether they. favoured a supply side approach like N Smith or a demand side one based on cultural. transformations like S Zukin 1982 or D Ley 1996 It has to be noted however that there. was a significant difference of period and conjuncture the aforementioned works on Paris. were part of the neo marxist wave of urban research which developed in the late 1960s at a. time when the State was seen as the key actor in capitalist urban policies3 Anglo American. research on gentrification developed more in the 1980s at a time when neoliberal policies. took the lead in the USA with Reagan and the UK with Thatcher and the market was. promoted as the central process At the same time France had elected a Socialist President. and the rise of neoliberalism was delayed and slower although it was significant and. particularly in Paris which had a right wing mayor and was the hottest location for private. firms and upper class clients the role of the private sector banks and developers in urban. development became more prominent But this was not reflected in urban research for. various reasons the anti marxist revanchist ideology which expanded from the late 1970s. disqualified the urban political economy perspective that could have dealt with it the urban. research policies had severe discontinuities which weakened and fragmented the urban. research community which had developed new research perspectives emerged which were. closely associated with the narrower orientation of the new politique de la ville focused on. social problem areas like poverty urban exclusion crises in social housing estates The few. works cited above that looked at gentrification areas came from researchers interested in the. new ways of life of the middle classes and were therefore closer to the demand side. perspective, A second significant difference can be found in the frequent use of the word. embourgeoisement to point out the cases of neighbourhoods where upper middle class areas. Sauvegarde du Patrimoine Historique for the first and op rations programm es d am lioration de l habitat. for the second, For a historical overview in English see E Lebas 1982. were replacing working class residents Compared to the use of the word gentrification it. represents a clear difference in the characterization of the social categories active in the. process Embourgeoisement means that these categories are considered either to be part of the. dominant capitalist class or are aspiring to be part of it gentrification through the. metaphorical reference to the gentry designates a class which is distinct from the upper. class nobility and dominated by it but is also distinct and distant from the lower ones. Most French authors using the word embourgeoisement to describe social changes in. central urban areas from the 1960s onwards have been conscious of this and often noted that it. was not a satisfactory notion since a large part of the categories which were engaged in the. process could not be considered simply to be part of the capitalist class The growth of these. categories empirically described in the INSEE s official statistical institute nomenclature as. cadres sup rieurs and later cadres et professions intellectuelles sup rieures the closest. equivalent of these statistical occupation categories would be professionals we will discuss. this later most of them salaried workers was the subject of intense sociological debates. during the 1970s and 1980s which stressed their distinctiveness from the upper class 4. Could the use of the word gentrification solve the problem as Bidou 2003 argues. Many are doubtful because of the implicit categorization which also looks backwards in time. although differently and because of the fuzziness which can be seen by the many variations. in sociological meaning which can be identified in the literature Instead of answering a. priori we will try here a more inductive approach by looking in detail at the contribution of. the diverse upper and upper middle categories to social change in different working class. neighbourhoods The identification of the significant social structures emerging new social. mixes new residential distances counterposed to more general sociological results about. changes in status and relation between these categories should lead to a more informed. answer to the question, A third difference which may have produced also some reluctance to import the.
gentrification model is the recognition that French upper and upper middle classes contrary. to the Anglo American ones have always favoured central neighbourhoods for their. residence Therefore the idea of a movement back to the city seems inadequate for social. categories that never left it And the process of embourgeoisement of working class areas can. be traced back to the Haussmann reform which already combined a strong public intervention. with that of banks and developers Although this is not to say that present day processes. would be just the continuation of that embourgeoisement was clearly an adequate. categorization for those times it is questionable for the present recent changes in areas like. the Faubourg Saint Antoine or the canal Saint Martin cannot be seen as an extension of the. traditional upper class areas beaux quartiers even less as a reprise of Haussmanisation. Cf for example Grunberg and Mouriaux 1979 Boltanski 1982 Bidou et al 1983 Bidou 1984 Mendras. 1988 For a presentation and discussion of the various perspectives of analysis of the relations between the. middle classes and the city in French sociology see Oberti and Pr teceille 2004. Although this is not entirely the case the west south west of London and parts of Manhattan having long been. traditional places of upper class residence, For all these reasons it seems useful to understand what is the intensity of the recent. changes designated as gentrification how far they represent continuity or discontinuity from. former trends how spatially specific they are Having in mind that during the last decades the. overall social structure of large metropolises like Paris or London has been characterized by a. strong growth of upper and middle categories and a strong decline of blue collar workers. partly compensated by the increase of a new tertiary proletariat 6. In the following part of the paper and before coming back in the conclusion to. discussing the relevance of the category we shall use the word gentrification to designate. processes of strong growth of higher social categories in working class neighbourhoods We. shall retain and test three elements of the process which seem to be common to most analyses. of gentrification The first one is the hypothesis of a change in the residential choices of a. substantial part of the upper and upper middles classes from a preference for suburban. locations to a taste for denser urban areas The second is that those new preferences are. mainly focused on central areas The third is the rapid pace of the subsequent changes. dramatically modifying the social profile of the neighbourhoods from working class to upper. middle class dominance, 2 The overall dynamic of residential change of upper and upper middle classes. The INSEE nomenclature of categories socioprofessionnelles CS is the empirical. description of socio economic categories most widely used in France It is based on. occupation and classifies the active population in 6 main CS 31 detailed ones 540 individual. occupations according to the type of work relations salaried vs independent the skills and. position in the hierarchy and the sector of activity It is the result of a mix of theoretical. considerations about classes and hierarchies and institutionalized labour classifications which. has been improved through a dialogue between sociologists and statisticians7 and has the. advantage of allowing cumulative data because of its systematic use in public statistics but. also in many private ones and surveys, In the present definition of this nomenclature upper and upper middle categories belong. mainly to the CS3 of cadres et professions intellectuelles sup rieures to cadres sup rieurs et. professions lib rales in the definition prior to 1982 The six sub categories are the liberal. professions CS31 managers in the civil service cadres de la fonction publique CS33. professors and literary professions CS34 professionals in the media artistic and. entertainment activities CS35 managers and executives in private firms cadres et. professions administratives et commerciales des enterprises CS37 and engineers and. technical professionals in private firms CS38 Using CS3 is an evaluation of the total of. This has been documented by our work on Paris Pr teceille 1995 2003 2006 as well as C Hamnett s on. London Hamnett 1994 2003 and is quite different from the widespread view of social dualisation strengthened. by the global city model proposed by S Sassen 1991. For a detailed historical presentation see Desrosi res et Th venot 1988. The category of professionals is used here in the French sense which does not imply the same degree of. organisation and control of access it has in the anglo american meaning cadres is the typical French category. upper and upper middle categories slightly by default because some belong to the CS2 of. ind pendants non salaried most of them the petite bourgeoisie of very small business. owners namely the minority of large business owners who do not have a salaried status the. majority of large firms top managers do have it It is also more widely an evaluation by. excess since a significant part of some categories like civil servant professionals professors. and scientific and literary professionals professionals of the media arts and entertainment do. not belong to the upper or upper middle class but to the middle middle ones at best like. secondary school teachers most young journalists many people working in the cinema. television theatre music activities all with very precarious work contracts and mediocre. Such an extension into the middle middle class is acceptable however at least in the. first instance since the literature often points out that such categories with high cultural. resources and interests but middle or low incomes are actors in the first wave of. gentrification pioneers, The top line in Figure 1 shows the evolution of the total number of this CS3 in its two. successive definitions in the City of Paris taken as the central part of the Paris metropolis. Upper and upper middle categories have increased their numbers continuously over the. period with only a slight acceleration in the 1980s when the total active population decreased. until 1982 then remained stable Therefore the hypothesis of their return to the city can be. excluded without any doubt, This does not mean however that all upper and upper middle categories have their.
residence in the central part of the metropolis The limited size and the density of occupation. of the central space have been such that the growth of these categories has inevitably also. taken place outside the central city in the banlieue where they are today more numerous than. in the City of Paris 66 of cadres et professions intellectuelles sup rieures of the. metropolis lived outside of Paris in 1999 against 52 of cadres sup rieurs in 1962. which designates a position of authority in the work hierarchy but is an institutional definition difficult to. translate see Boltanski 1982 for the historical and sociological analysis of that social group. The small discontinuity in 1982 is mainly due to the addition of the professions in the arts and entertainment. who before were classified in a category of Others with the police the military the clergy. The administrative region of Ile de France is used here as a proxy for the Paris metropolis The region is. divided in 8 d partements 3 in the first ring around Paris Hauts de Seine Seine Saint Denis Val de Marne. and 4 in the second ring Essonne Seine et Marne Val d Oise Yvelines and about 1300 municipalities the. Ville de Paris being both a municipality and a d partement. Figure 1 Trends in the distribution of upper, and upper middle categories by d partement of Ile de France. 1962 1967 1972 1978 1983 1989 1994,Seine et Marne,Val de Marne. Seine St Denis,Hauts de Seine,300000 Paris,Source INSEE recensements de la population CS3. The discontinuity in 1982 corresponds to a small revision of the nomenclature cf supra. The growth of upper and upper middle categories has been moderate although. continuous in three d partements of the second ring of suburbs Essonne Val d Oise Seine. et Marne and two of the first ring Val de Marne et Seine Saint Denis the last period. showing a stagnation of CS3 for this last d partement. The growth has been quite intense and also continuous in the two d partments of Hauts. de Seine first ring west of Paris and Yvelines second ring west of Hauts de Seine But in. spite of that upper and upper middle categories have constantly grown more rapidly in the. central city Thus the increasingly suburban residence of these categories does not undermine. the steady preference for a central residence It confirms the absence of a return to the city. the constantly increased presence of upper and upper middle categories in central Paris going. with an outspread of these categories in the banlieues in the two d partments west of Paris. particularly, The first component of the gentrification model the idea of a change of residential. preferences of upper and upper middle categories in favour of central locations is therefore. 3 Gentrification a specific change in central working class neighbourhoods. To explore the validity of this second component of the model we shall rely on the. statistical analysis of the transformation of socioeconomic profiles of neighbourhoods of the. Paris metropolis between 1990 et 1999 Pr teceille 2003 This was done in two steps The. first was a cluster analysis of neighbourhoods in 1990 using the detailed cat gories. socioprofessionnelles crossed with labour situation employed or not and job stability It 12. produced a set of 18 clusters divided in three groups upper types middle mixed types. working class types it has to be noted that most of the 18 clusters are mixed to some extent. except the four extreme ones which are strongly polarized the two most exclusively upper. class and the two most working class The second was a cluster analysis of social profile. changes of those neighbourhoods between the last two censuses of 1990 and 1999 which. produced a set of 11 cluster divided in four groups strong growth of upper and upper middle. categories S moderate growth of middle categories and casual jobs M decrease of. private firm professionals stability of blue collar workers and increase of casual jobs O. increase of unemployment casual jobs and personal service workers and decrease of all other. stable occupations C 13, Table 1 Profile changes in 1990 socioeconomic clusters of IRIS Ile de France.
of total active population,Type 1990 Type of change 1990 99 S M O C Total. Upper types 6 2 2 1 4 5 0 5 13 3,Middle mixed types 11 2 6 0 6 0 3 0 26 3. Working class types 10 7 17 2 10 9 21 5 60 4,Total 28 2 25 3 21 5 25 0 100 0. To characterize the changes in a more synthetic way we will use the aggregate version. of the two cluster analyses which are crossed in table 1. The case which best corresponds to the general idea of gentrification is that of initially. working class types 3 line having experienced a strong influx of upper and upper middle. categories 1 column There are 500 neighbourhoods IRIS in that case out of 2636 in the. working class types in 1990 and a total of 4390 representing 18 almost 1 5 of the active th. population of working class neighbourhoods and 11 of the total active population This. case therefore represents a minority of the trajectory of working class neighbourhoods but a. significant one, We used as a definition of neighbourhoods the division of urban space into IRIS lots regroup s pour. l information statistique areas of 2000 inhabitants on average introduced by INSEE for the 1999 census. These areas being smaller than municipalities and more homogenous in size are more adequate to study the. issues of segregation and gentrification Only the IRIS with more than 400 active persons have been used the. socioeconomic data for the census being computed on a 1 4th sample. These additional variables were introduced because casualisation of labour pr carit in French and long. term unemployment are two major changes in the labour market affecting the quality of the CS categorization to. describe the social structure Since 1990 census data includes a variable describing the stability casualisation of. Detailed presentation of the clusters and methods in Pr teceille 2003. It also represent a significant contribution to the spatial distribution of the growth of. upper and upper middle categories since 35 2 more than 1 3 of its total has taken place in. this group of 500 working class neighbourhoods experiencing the most rapid and contrasted. change as can be seen in table 2, Table 2 Profile changes in 1990 socioeconomic clusters of IRIS Ile de France.
of the growth of cadres et professions intellectuelles sup rieures. Type 1990 Type of change 1990 99 S M O C Total,Upper types 15 2 1 4 2 2 0 0 14 3. Middle mixed types 37 0 5 6 0 3 0 2 42 4,Working class types 35 2 13 2 0 5 4 5 43 3. Total 87 3 20 1 3 1 4 4 100 0, There is a smaller but not negligible share of the growth of upper and upper middle. categories 13 2 in another set of working class neighbourhoods those which have. experienced a moderate growth of middle categories and casual jobs 2 column But the. largest part of the growth however has taken place in other modalities 14 in the group of. upper types and 42 in that of middle mixed types, Where are those 500 working class neighbourhoods which are the best candidates to the. gentrification model and what is their contribution to social change in the metropolis. The first result is that the contribution of gentrifying working class neighbourhoods of. the central city of Paris is quite limited with 7500 more members of upper and upper middle. categories compared to 14000 in the same modality in Hauts de Seine 6500 in Yvelines. almost 4000 in Val de Marne If gentrification in the wider sense of rapid social upgrading of. working class areas is a significant element in the general trends of change of the metropolis. it is not predominantly focused on its central part and takes place more in banlieues than in. A second result is that the contribution of the closest modality which is that of working. class areas experiencing a moderate growth of middle categories and casual jobs is quite low. A third result is that the strongest growth of upper and upper middle categories in the. central city of Paris has taken place in the middle mixed types first of all and secondly in the. upper types 73 has occurred in the 400 IRIS of the upper and middle mixed groups. experiencing a strong growth of upper categories, The total number of neighbourhoods corresponding to gentrification in the complete.
definition is thus quite small 63 IRIS and they have a limited contribution to the growth of. upper and upper middle categories in Paris 16, How can we explain such a contrast with the widespread image of gentrification. transforming dramatically the social landscape of Paris. The first element of the answer is that there were not many truly working class. neighbourhoods left in 1990 only 177 IRIS out of 872 for Paris Among those however the. proportion of gentrifying neighbourhoods is quite significant more than a third a proportion. higher than in the rest of the metropolis which was one fifth In other words gentrification is. not a very significant element of change in Paris as a whole but it is significant for the few. remaining working class neighbourhoods, A second element of the answer is that the widespread image of gentrification. encompasses many areas which are still seen as working class neighbourhoods which were so. in the past but have ceased to be for a decade at least Gentrification is thus used. inappropriately to describe social change in areas which already belong to the middle mixed. types it is in that group as we have seen that the growth of upper and upper middle. categories has been the most intense In the XVIIIth arrondissement for example in the north. the large majority of IRIS that have experienced a strong growth of those categories were. classified as middle mixed in 1990 We know from data at a less detailed scale that many of. them were working class neighbourhoods decades earlier It can be concluded that. gentrification does take place in Paris but that it is a much slower more continuous and more. progressive process than the Anglo American model argues. Another interesting result that the map shows has to do with the location of those few. truly gentrifying neighbourhoods Almost all of them are contiguous with middle mixed or. upper areas in such a way that their change of profile is clearly an incorporation into those. wider areas stretching out their borders and not the conquest of new territories starting from. outposts as part of the literature puts it,4 Gentrification in the suburbs. As we mentioned already the vast majority 437 out of 500 IRIS of the working class. neighbourhoods experiencing a strong increase of upper and upper middle class categories are. to be found out of the Ville de Paris in the banlieues The d partement most concerned and. that received the largest part of the growth of those categories is that of Hauts de Seine with. 98 IRIS and 11 of the total growth of upper and upper middle class categories against 63. and 6 for Paris Yvelines west of it comes next with 79 IRIS and 5 2 then Val de. Marne with 67 IRIS et 4 6 and Essonne with 59 IRIS and 3 2 This type of social. transformation of working class areas is undoubtedly predominantly suburban the growth of. upper and upper middle class categories in such areas in the four d partements mentioned. representing four times that inside Paris, The proportion of such neighbourhoods among working class ones is about one third in. Hauts de Seine like in Paris It is only one fifth in Yvelines and Val de Marne And Seine. Saint Denis the most working class d partement is also the one less concerned with only. one tenth of its 555 working class IRIS, The division in IRIS cannot be used for census data prior to 1990 The most detailed division available was.
that of the 80 quartiers of Paris that we used in previous work Pr teceille 2000 2001. Which by the way shows how wrong is the unified image of the banlieue given by the media who consider is. as equivalent of run down public housing estates for unemployed poor immigrants. Within the d partement of Hauts de Seine the cases of most rapid growth of upper and. upper middle class categories which are neither gentrification in the usual sense because it. is not in the central city nor suburbanisation of upper middle classes because this. d partement like the other two in the first ring is a dense urban area close to the central city. are to be found in the municipalities of Levallois Perret 2684 Rueil Malmaison 1452. Suresnes 1172 Boulogne Billancourt 1016 Issy les Moulineaux 860 Puteaux. 828 Asni res 796 Antony 704 These are all municipalities where neighbourhoods. of the upper and middle mixed groups are predominant and they show the same type of. location of gentrifying neighbourhoods observed in Paris i e and incorporation into compact. upper or mixed areas of adjacent working class neighbourhoods. This is particularly clear in the central area of the d partement where those gentrifying. neighbourhoods either enlarge the preexisting upper areas or contribute to their homogeneity. by rubbing off the few remaining working class areas within A similar trend can be observed. in the south of the d partement around the municipality of Sceaux By contrast there is not. one single gentrifying IRIS to be found in the northern part which is predominantly a. working class area like the municipality of Gennevilliers. In the Val de Marne d partement the second of the first ring south east of Paris there. is a similar but smaller expansion of the compact upper and middle mixed areas situated. around the park of Vincennes or along the valley of the river Marne. In the predominantly working class areas of the west centre of Val de Marne and of. Seine Saint Denis the third d partement of the first ring north east of Paris the less. numerous cases of gentrifying IRIS are more scattered except for some clustering in the. south east of Seine Saint Denis which is fact corresponds to the previous logic of expansion. of upper and middle mixed areas of Vincennes and Paris and some in the centre of Seine. Saint Denis on a Les Lilas Tremblay en France axis where the few more bourgeois. municipalities of the d partement like Le Raincy are to be found. In the second ring of suburbs the d partement of Yvelines in the west has the highest. number of gentrifying IRIS and the strongest contribution to the growth of upper and upper. middle class categories Map 2 shows that in that ring they are mainly located according to. two logics The first is in the continuity of compact upper and middle mixed areas in the. centre east of Yvelines and is in fact the same phenomenon observed already in the adjacent. Hauts de Seine the expansion of relatively dense upper class urban areas The second is a. dispersion of more isolated cases in outer suburban areas with some more limited clustering. along the Seine valley and the Oise valley in the north around the new town of Cergy. Pontoise and no neighbourhoods of the upper group close to them That second type of. location can be considered as closer to suburbanisation of upper middle classes. As a whole we see that there is a predominant logic in the location of gentrifying IRIS. which is the expansion of compact upper and middle mixed areas into adjacent working class. areas and a distinct one significant but minority which is of scattered neighbourhoods. creating new small poles of upper and upper middle class concentration in predominantly. middle mixed and working class areas, The first logic is found mostly in those parts of the metropolis which concentrate the. largest share of upper and upper middle categories and also the largest share of their growth. These areas are mainly in Paris Hauts de Seine and Yvelines all three d partments which. have in common that the majority of the growth of upper and upper middle class categories. takes place there not in gentrifying working class areas but in neighbourhoods of the upper. and middle mixed types table 3, This logic of expansion of dense concentrations of upper and upper middle class. categories is not homogenous however because the areas in the upper group of clusters are not. homogenous Our analysis Pr teceille 2003 has shown that there are three modalities which. present substantial differences in the relative weight of the detailed upper categories One sub. group has a clear dominance of upper categories linked to private firms and liberal. professions and can be considered as the real spaces of the bourgeoisie the XVIth and VIIth. arrondissements and Neuilly sur Seine for example From a spatial point of view the. expansion of those spaces can thus be correctly named as embourgeoisement A second sub. group has some predominance of the more intellectual upper categories although the private. business categories and liberal professions are very present too the Vth and VIth. arrondissements for example the expansion of these areas is less clearly embourgeoisement. in the classic sense The third sub group has more intellectual categories and categories in the. media artistic and entertainment activities a smaller presence of private firms professionals. and managers and more people with casual jobs the expansion of these areas is closer to the. classic narrative of culture lead gentrification and could certainly not be called. embourgeoisement no real bourgeois would even envisage a residence in areas like. Belleville or La Goutte d Or or Montreuil Again this is from a spatial point of view. considering the dominant profile of the upper status areas into which those gentrifying. neighbourhoods are being integrated We will return to this discussion later from a social. point of view by discussing the social profile of the gentrifiers. The second logic in the location of gentrifying neighbourhoods with a smaller weight. than the former is quite different since it is that of scattered neighbourhoods representing. isolated spots of gentrification in predominantly working class and middle mixed areas with. no upper areas close by A few of them are to be found in the north east of Paris but most are. in the suburbs They represent a scattered process of social upgrading of these areas which. again from a spatial point of view seems to have little to do with either embourgeoisement or. culture lead gentrification Some of them being in the outer areas of the urban region with a. low density are clearly cases of suburbanisation of upper middle classes but they are not. very numerous,5 Social housing against gentrification. In the analysis of gentrification processes the dynamics of housing markets play an. important role a major one when they are not the result of intense public interventions The. existence of formerly middle class residences in bad condition able to provide large. apartments with architectural and historical qualities when renovated or of industrial. buildings or warehouses that can be converted into lofts are often seen as positive factors in. the more cultural demand side interpretation Brownfield areas which can be emptied to build. entirely new neighbourhoods are positive factors of a different kind corresponding more to. the supply side interpretation but also to a different kind of cultural orientations for the. customers There are no data bases on the qualities of the housing stock or use of land which. would allow a statistical exploration of those factors which can only be seen at work through. qualitative studies of local processes There is however data on another aspect of the housing. stock the distribution of social housing called HLM habitations loyer mod r i e. moderate rent housing which can be considered a priori as a negative factor regarding. potential gentrification since it stabilizes the presence of modest or low income groups. Furthermore the image of social housing is often associated with poverty unemployment and. immigration a stigmatizing vision not very attractive for gentrifiers. Table 4 gives the distribution of neighbourhoods which have seen a strong increase or. upper and upper middle categories according to the share of the resident population in social. housing 16, Table 4 Share of social housing residents in 1999 in working class neighbourhoods of. the Paris metropolis with a strong growth of cadres sup rieurs by d partement. D partement 0 0 1 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 75 75 Total gentrif. Paris 1 24 13 15 8 2 63,Hauts de Seine 4 26 25 27 14 2 98.
Yvelines 16 30 13 15 2 1 77,Val de Marne 3 19 21 18 4 2 67. Essonne 17 14 10 14 6 1 62,Val d Oise 6 17 8 9 1 1 42. Seine et Marne 19 9 5 3 2 1 39,Seine Saint Denis 7 14 10 9 8 2 50. Total 73 153 105 110 45 12 498, Source INSEE Recensement g n ral de la population 1999. data by IRIS that belonged to the working class clusters in 1999. In the central city of Paris out of 63 neighbourhoods concerned only 10 had more than. 50 social housing residents Since there were a total of 74 working class neighbourhoods. with more than 50 social housing residents only a small minority have been touched by. gentrification and the contribution of such neighbourhoods to gentrification is quite small. This data by IRIS is available for 1999 only Contrary to many western countries France has maintained a. social housing policy but it was slowed down substantially during the 1990s although there were no massive. privatizations or destructions as in other cases Therefore it can reasonably be considered that the 1999 data. account for a stable situation over the 1990s, In contrast among the 83 working class neighbourhoods with less than 50 social.
housing residents the majority 53 have experienced gentrification. There is thus confirmation that a strong presence of social housing is an obstacle to. gentrification And this is not specific to the central city A similar situation can be observed. in the d partement of Hauts de Seine with only 16 neighbourhoods experiencing a strong. growth of upper and upper middle categories out of the 113 working class ones with more. than 50 social housing or in that of Val de Marne with 6 out of 59. The proportion is even smaller in Seine Saint Denis and much smaller in the second. ring of suburbs This is not surprising since in the outer d partements such neighbourhoods. can hardly be attractive for upper and upper middle classes considering the stigmatizing. image of public housing and the often low quality of the urban environment and urban. landscape in which it has been built there Whereas inside Paris and to a lesser degree in the. first ring of suburbs especially in the municipalities close to Paris the location advantages or. potential qualities of the urban environment can be strong enough to allow gentrification in a. number of areas despite the dominant presence of social housing It should be added that in. the more central urban locations a substantial part of the public housing stock has a more. mixed population and does not carry such a negative image. In that central part of the metropolis if the predominant weight of social housing in a. neighbourhood does constitute an obstacle to gentrification because of the type of housing and. tenure the mere presence of social housing in neighbourhoods where it is mixed with other. types of housing does not discourage gentrification This can be seen in the much larger. number and proportion of working class neighbourhoods with 25 to 50 social housing. which experience a strong growth of upper and upper middle categories. 6 Who are the gentrifiers, A widespread narrative of gentrification processes gives an active role to upper middle. categories in artistic and intellectual occupations with high cultural resources and interests. but average or low incomes who would find interesting and cheap spaces for housing and for. developing cultural activities in working class areas relatively close to the central part of the. city whose history and traditional neighbourhood culture they would also value positively. Their increasing presence and investment would then result in a physical and symbolic. transformation of the neighbourhood making it progressively attractive for other upper middle. and upper occupation groups less culture oriented but with higher incomes first as consumers. of trendy bars restaurants art galleries and music places then as dwellers and. simultaneously to developers interested in exploiting the rent gap Smith 1996 through. upgrading and marketing the housing stock, In most empirical analyses of gentrification cases however the sociological. characterization of the actors involved is fuzzy and fluctuating from one case to the other We. will attempt here to specify the contribution of the various upper and upper middle categories. according to the nomenclature of categories socioprofessionnelles presented before. The analysis of the overall change in the socio spatial structure of the Paris metropolis. shows that managers and executives in private firms CS37 and engineers and technical. professionals in private firms CS38 are the categories contributing most to the polarisation. trend increasing the social distance between upper status areas and working class areas. Pr teceille 2003 p 90 and following This is a general result and does not necessarily apply. to those working class neighbourhoods we are considering here Table 5 shows the absolute. variation between 1990 and 1999 for each category by d partement for the whole of. neighbourhoods under discussion TotalO S for the whole of neighbourhoods with a strong. growth of upper and upper middle categories Total S and in the whole metropolis. The sub group of working class neighbourhoods with a strong growth of upper and. upper middle categories O S accounts for 40 of the total growth of those categories in the. Paris metropolis and shows a distribution of the variations across categories slightly different. from the whole group of neighbourhoods experiencing a similar change S Categories with. the strongest absolute increase are also managers and executives in private firms and. engineers and technical professionals in private firms but in relative terms of the share of. total variation in the group S it is highest for managers in civil service professors and. literary and scientific professions and even more for professionals in the media artistic and. entertainment activities This slight inflexion is not sufficient to validate the current. commonly held narrative of gentrification giving the pioneer role to intellectuals artists and. culture oriented professionals since the corresponding categories only account for 20 of the. total growth of upper categories in the sub group of neighbourhoods against 56 for. engineers and private firm professionals, Table 5 Variations of CS3 by d partement in working class neighbourhoods. having experienced a strong growth of upper and upper middle categories 1990 99. CS D partement 17,75 92 78 94 91 95 77 93 TotalO S Total S Total. Liberal professions non sal 466 630 210 479 97 142 44 81 2061 5381 9950. Liberal prof sal 131 56 48 49 5 4 7 8 298 1529 2958. Managers civil service 610 953 464 804 414 167 205 155 3772 7383 13169. Profess litter scientif prof 847 460 756 557 337 170 354 143 3624 6492 9427. Prof info arts untertainment 407 523 26 57 105 59 38 2 1213 902 2979. Manag priv firm exec 1078 4516 1663 1285 856 860 400 131 10789 27382 7585. Eng tech prof in priv firms 1499 4829 2459 1648 1597 890 721 520 14163 35878 30329. Professional in casual positions 1837 1245 550 673 288 215 157 502 5467 19192 38507. Unemployed professionnals 691 684 376 265 309 137 118 250 2830 7456 16757. Total CS3 7566 13896 6552 5817 3998 2644 1956 1788 44217 109791 125703. Total active pop 2636 13612 6107 7505 6799 6658 5301 808 49426 77889 111187. This is particularly clear for professionals in the media artistic and entertainment. activities supposed to be the core of gentrification pioneers They decrease in numbers in the. whole group of neighbourhoods where upper and upper middle categories grow and increase. The code numbers for the d partements are the following Paris 75 Hauts de Seine 92 Yvelines 78 Val de. Marne 94 Essonne 91 Val d Oise 95 Seine et Marne 77 Seine Saint Denis 93.

Related Books

History of Social Psychology: Insights, Challenges, and ...

History of Social Psychology Insights Challenges and

4 History of Social Psychology: Insights, Challenges, and Contributions to Theory and Application (i.e., the general failure to appreciate the power of situational forces and constraints in controlling social behavior); (c) the motivation or need to see oneself as consistent, rational, and moral; and (d) the impact of expectations and beliefs that bias perceptions, interpretations, and ...

Confronting Sexual Stigma and Prejudice: Theory and Practice

Confronting Sexual Stigma and Prejudice Theory and Practice

Confronting Sexual Stigma and Prejudice: Theory and Practice Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. University of California, Davis This is a preprint of a paper that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Social Issues. Minor changes may be made to the paper in the course of copy editing. AUTHOR NOTE. I am grateful to the National Institute of Mental Health, the Monette-Horwitz Trust, and the ...

Application Packet for a Family Child Care Home Registration

Application Packet for a Family Child Care Home Registration

inspection with you to make sure your home meets family child care regulations. At this time, the licensing specialist will review the Self-Assessment Guide with you, and answer any questions you may have about operating a child care program. There are no fees for any inspections conducted by the Regional Licensing Office. However, there may be ...

OFFICE OF CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION & PROFESSIONAL ...

OFFICE OF CURRICULUM INSTRUCTION amp PROFESSIONAL

OFFICE OF CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACADEMIC COURSE OUTLINE Department History/Social Science Co u rse T i tl e Medieval World History Co u rse Co d e 2138 Grade Level 7 Sh o rt T i tl e Medieval World History G rad Req u i remen t S u b j ect No Course Length 1 year Cred i ts p er Se mester 5 Ap p ro ved fo r Ho n o rs Yes Req u i red Yes E l ecti ve No Prerequisites

Request for Proposal No. 1895 Fire Extinguishers, Fire ...

Request for Proposal No 1895 Fire Extinguishers Fire

Fire Extinguishers, Fire Suppression, Fire Alarms, Emergency Lighting & Sprinkler Systems Maintenance Issue Date: June 26, 2017 Closing Location: Purchasing Department 2020 Labieux Road Nanaimo, BC V9T 6J9 Closing Date and Time: Proposals must be received at the Purchasing Department prior to: July 24, 2017; 3:00 pm (15:00 hrs) Pacific Time Questions and Inquiries are to be sent to: Debbie ...

Accessibility Features of this Booklet - romeo.elsevier.com

Accessibility Features of this Booklet romeo elsevier com

sibility very cheaply which improves overall usability, search engine optimization, and promotes best practice in software engineering. I was sold on Accessibility! As we look towards the future every form of information, product, and service is going online.

Centering Movement Booklet - IPOWER, Inc.

Centering Movement Booklet IPOWER Inc

Sacred Centering MovementSacred Centering Movement from several traditionsfrom several traditions ... spiritual and material welfare of those ever-steadfast devotees who always remember and adore Me with single-minded contemplation. Bhagavad Gita, 9.22 Those who see Me in everything and see everything in Me, are not separated from Me and I am not separated from them. Bhagavad Gita, 6.30 He is ...

Future smart: Why robotics changes everything

Future smart Why robotics changes everything

CFO Insights Future smart: Why robotics changes everything 4 Assuming a successful pilot, many organizations may want to determine how to scale the technology to meet additional needs and opportunities. In this regard, organizations can adopt something of a pay-as-you-go strategy, using the money saved from a first round of RPA to finance the next round, and so on. Aside from that, several ...

Workbook 9051-5401 Issue 6 - Deltex Medical

Workbook 9051 5401 Issue 6 Deltex Medical

2. Cardiac Anatomy and Physiology Page 2 2. Cardiac Anatomy And Physiology This section briefly describes the structures of the heart and key cardio dynamic definitions.

e m ote Sesi l o ng n r u o Journal of Remote Sensing & GIS

e m ote Sesi l o ng n r u o Journal of Remote Sensing amp GIS

Accra Flood Modelling through Application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Remote Sensing Techniques and Analytical Hierarchy Process Clement Kwang1* and Edward Matthew Osei Jnr 2 1Remote Sensing and GIS Department, Space and Earth Institute, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey 2Geomatic Department, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana