abstraction; examines the interrelation of this abstraction with different concrete sociospatial formations; and then moves back to the abstract and examines the dialectic developed at a systemic level so far.
How can these recommendations be taken on board? In essence, restriction is demanded both with regard to the issues studied and the theories examined. In this respect, the following points form critical junctures for this book.
Definition of gentrification: I follow Clark’s (2005) definition of gentrification and count all processes as gentrification that ‘involv[es] a change in the population of land users such that the new users are of higher socio‐economic status than the previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment through a reinvestment of fixed capital’ (Clark 2005, p. 258). With this, I position myself within close range to what has become known as ‘supply‐side theories’ in the world of gentrification researchers.3FIGURE 1.2 The relationship of abstraction and empirical observation in this study.Two empirically observable issues are the focus of my interest. These are: (i) the investment of capital into the built environment (see Smith 1979, 1996) and (ii) the displacement of low‐income residents by more affluent users (see also Marcuse 1986). In my view, these are the basic conditions that make gentrification different from other forms of neighbourhood change, as well as the two prerequisites without which the concept of gentrification would cease to make sense. Achieving higher quality and returns on existing pieces of land and housing is (in the long run) not possible without putting work and capital into it. Capital, in turn, is only invested when a satisfactory rate of return is achieved that is higher than what is already gained from the piece of land in question. Gentrification and investment are, thus, causally connected. In a similar vein, gentrification is all but impossible without the exclusion of groups of people. If everybody was able to use land, housing and infrastructure in the same way in a particular area, displacement could not occur and would either become pure coincidence or be caused by something other than gentrification.4 For all these reasons, reinvestment and displacement form the two key variables that are examined in all the cases studied in this research.
Structuralism as a starting point: The rent gap theory provided by Neil Smith (1979) builds the theoretical point of reference for this study. The main reason for this is that the theoretical ambitions of supply‐side theories have always been more universal than those of their demand‐side counterparts. Arguably this makes them a more attractive starting point for a comparative study. The goal is, thereby, not to verify or falsify supply‐side theories, but to examine how theories work in different contexts, identify their limits and suggest new theories.
Methodological substantivism, institutionalism and historicism: Gentrification is not analysed in a formalised way as an expression of abstract political economies, but it is situated in space and time. Thereby, institutions are given a primary role in the explanation of gentrification. These are understood as historically and geographically specific sets of formal rules, compliance procedures and standard operating practices that structure the relationships and the interactions between individuals (see Hall 1986, p.19). As such, they have more formal status than cultural norms, but they are not necessarily legally codified. With this definition, there is a wide variety of institutions, legal codes, administrative organisations, customary habits and traditions. This study, however, focuses on formal institutions – like forms of tenure, property regulations and rent laws. This choice is motivated by the cases analysed, in which formal institutions play a central role. It should not be seen as conceptually exclusive; depending on the context, other institutions (e.g. caste, family, ethnicity) might be more important.
Comparitivism: The project applies a comparative research strategy and examines heterodox cases of gentrification. This strategy is, however, distinguished from formal and static ways of comparing distinct cases, as it seeks to engage observable differences between the cases for the purpose of broader theorising. In order to stretch the boundaries of imagination and to ‘provincialize’ (Chakrabarty 2000) ill‐informed universalisation, it actively searches for dissimilar cases and seeks to interrogate different modes of interaction between the market and state in terms of gentrification. Heterogeneity is, thus, sought as a means to identify diverse combinations of factors.
The operational model of this research is the following: reinvestment is thought to result in displacement (which is the core of gentrification), while at the same time different institutions can impact on this interrelation in a way that can modify, alter and even prevent both reinvestment and displacement from happening. As a consequence, different forms of gentrification can emerge. The interrelation of these elements is expressed in Figure 1.3.
The empirical backbone of my argument stems from three empirical studies in London, Berlin and St Petersburg. As the universal conditions enabling gentrification, ‘namely, rent production, reproduction, and capture; production of gentrifiers and gentrifiable areas; and class displacement/replacement’ (Betancur 2014) are present in all three cities, one can assume it will be possible to find gentrification in each of them as well. However, as I will show, although instances of gentrification can be observed in all three cases, their dynamics, spatial patterns and causalities are highly diverse. In other words, I study a sample of dissimilar gentrifications, and while the cases studied support the idea that gentrification is a somewhat global phenomenon, they also demonstrate how this global phenomenon operates in fairly varied ways and is based upon different sets of local and national relations.
FIGURE 1.3 The relation of institutions, reinvestment, displacement and gentrification.
Having manifold representations of gentrification in mind, I focused on inner city residential neighbourhood change. I thus went to the ‘usual suspects’ of gentrification. The reason for this is that I aimed to include urban environments that would be connected to gentrification by most observers. Moreover, two of the cases selected have a longer history, allowing us to study the impact of changing institutions and regulatory environments over time. Typically, such cases are to be found in inner city environments. Based on these considerations, I selected Barnsbury (London) and Prenzlauer Berg (Berlin) as case studies. Both these neighbourhoods are seen as classical cases in their contexts and have been gentrified over decades. Case selection was more difficult in Russia, as gentrification is a new phenomenon there and often seen as a matter of newly built gated communities on city fringes or in former industrial wastelands, rather than as an inner city phenomenon. Nevertheless, I studied gentrification in the ‘classical’ environment provided by St Petersburg’s inner city (Tsentralnyi Rayon). While this might be seen as being prone to the fallacy of morphological determinism, I argue that it is exactly the difficulties that gentrification faces in these environments that provide lessons to be learned. In some respects, the case of St Petersburg can be regarded as a control case, allowing insights that cannot be gained in Germany or the UK.
Why did I study gentrification in Russia, the UK and Germany as opposed to, say China, Nigeria and France? There are two reasons for this. First, on an epistemological level, while all these countries are located in Europe, they have very different histories and state structures, resulting in different relationships between capital, state, land and the people. Despite morphological similarities, they present different sets of institutions, relations and practices. As the study focuses on causality, not regularity or generalisability, choosing other cases would have allowed including even more dissimilar cases, making it possible to find other causalities. However, this would hardly have resulted in substantial changes with regard to the general theoretical argument
