You’ve got a Kindle.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Enter your mobile phone or email address
By pressing "Send link," you agree to Amazon's Conditions of Use.
You consent to receive an automated text message from or on behalf of Amazon about the Kindle App at your mobile number above. Consent is not a condition of any purchase. Message & data rates may apply.
Gentrifier (UTP Insights) Hardcover – April 3, 2017
Gentrifier opens up a new conversation about gentrification, one that goes beyond the statistics and the clichés, and examines different sides of a controversial, deeply personal issue. In this lively yet rigorous book, John Joe Schlichtman, Jason Patch, and Marc Lamont Hill take a close look at the socioeconomic factors and individual decisions behind gentrification and their implications for the displacement of low-income residents. Drawing on a variety of perspectives, the authors present interviews, case studies, and analysis in the context of recent scholarship in such areas as urban sociology, geography, planning, and public policy. As well, they share accounts of their first-hand experience as academics, parents, and spouses living in New York City, San Diego, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Providence. With unique insight and rare candour, Gentrifier challenges readers' current understandings of gentrification and their own roles within their neighborhoods. A foreword by Peter Marcuse opens the volume.
- Print length256 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherUniversity of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division
- Publication dateApril 3, 2017
- Dimensions6.25 x 0.82 x 9.28 inches
- ISBN-101442650451
- ISBN-13978-1442650459
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics (Signet Classics)William L. RiordanMass Market Paperback
Editorial Reviews
Review
“The co-authors of Gentrifier take a daring tack: Professors all, they break the third wall of social science to admit that their interest is not purely academic.” Gentrifiers themselves, Schlichtman, Patch and Hill “believe that by sharing their experiences, they can help make sociological sense of this fraught topic.”
(Daniel Brook The New York Times, Sunday, July 9, 2017)‘This book provides a welcome corrective to the slap-dash way ‘gentrification’ is used as an explanatory force in popular narratives … It would be a valuable addition to reading lists on urban studies, urban geography and urban planning.’
(Peter Matthews London School of Economics Review of Books blog August 2017)‘Highly Recommended.’
(D. Fasenfest Choice Magazine vol 55:04:2017)"This is a very interesting piece of work that is likely to draw some attention and may even create some controversy in the gentrification studies circle."
(Aysegul Can Urban Studies Journal Vol 55:09:2018)"[Gentrifier] is a powerful reminder of the need for a new framework for urban development that re-imagines and re-situates the position of a variety of actors in the urban/suburban landscape."
(Sheila Foster The Nature of Cities (online))"The authors are well-aware that they risk being self-serving, defensive, or even ‘whiny’ as they attempt to stake a position in this complex terrain, as both academics and gentrifiers. But by making themselves and their choices part of the analysis, they have produced a unique and important contribution to the progressive literature on gentrification, one that truly does work in the much-sought middle ground between supply and demand side explanations of this form of urban change."
(Amy Starechesk Antipode, Radical Journal of Geography (online))"In their book Gentrifier, instead of trying to solve the gentrification Rubik’s cube, they decide to pull it apart, block-by-block, naming each part and its role in neighborhood change. The book provides not only a glossary of terms, but also tools and rules of engagement for deploying this thing that—if we can all agree on nothing else—has now become a fully loaded and weaponized word. The function of this breakdown is that by using a more scrupulous lexicon for describing the changes happening to one’s neighborhood or environment, legislators and regulators can be more responsive and accurate in their policy proposals."
(Brentin Mock City Lab, "Books that influenced us in 2017" (online))Review
"Gentrifier does a masterful job of explaining, unpacking, and grounding the key analytical concepts that underpin debates on gentrification. In clear, readable, and entertaining prose, John Joe Schlichtman, Jason Patch and Marc Lamont Hill make gentrification more tangible and relevant as an important social topic worthy of rigorous and careful understanding."
(John L. Jackson, Jr., Richard Perry University Professor and Dean of the School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania)"John Joe Schlichtman, Jason Patch and Marc Lamont Hill clearly engage in the theoretical and policy debates surrounding gentrification while offering very smart analyses of their own narratives. There is a lot out there on gentrification but Gentrifier is most definitely fresh!"
(Mary Pattillo, Harold Washington Professor of Sociology and African American Studies, Northwestern University)"Gentrifier is the sort of book that vintage, pre-Kardashian Kanye West might have written had he had a PhD in urban policy, supplying it with an irresistible hook: "We're all gentrifiers, I'm just the first to admit it." Schlichtman, Patch, and Hill help us shelve what we thought we knew about gentrification, and give us instead a brutally honest reckoning with the ills, conveniences and virtues – but especially the consequences on the vulnerable – of gentrification. They ably wrestle with a characteristic facet of modern existence, rescuing the term from automatic demonization while never once letting it off the hook for the damage it can do."
(Michael Eric Dyson, Professor of Sociology at Georgetown University and author of 'Tears We Cannot Stop: A Sermon to White America')About the Author
John Joe Schlichtman is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at DePaul University.
Jason Patch is an associate professor in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at Roger Williams University.
Marc Lamont Hill is Distinguished Professor of African American Studies at Morehouse College.
Peter Marcuse is a German-American lawyer and Professor Emeritus of Urban Planning at Columbia University. Marcuse holds a JD from Yale Law School and a PhD from UC Berkeley in City and Regional Planning.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- Publisher : University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division; 1st edition (April 3, 2017)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 256 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1442650451
- ISBN-13 : 978-1442650459
- Item Weight : 1.21 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.25 x 0.82 x 9.28 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,194,270 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #161 in Regional Politics Planning
- #604 in Canadian Politics
- #1,106 in City Planning & Urban Development
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
IK Carter MD
Gentrifier is an attempt to describe every conceivable angle and objection to gentrification, by three ethnographers who use their own experience as the basis. This is, of course, never wise. I did like that they distilled gentrification of a neighborhood into a de- phase, followed by a re- phase. That is a lovely, elegant and simple image for anyone to grasp the impact. They have also classified gentrifiers into six stereotypes: Conqueror, Colonizer, Competitor, Capitalist, Consumer, and Curator, which I was not so happy with. There are at least two other obvious possibilities they never consider (possibly because they don’t begin with C). In immigrant communities all over the world, people with similar backgrounds like to congregate. It gives them a sense of support, familiarity and comfort. So if an Indian community suddenly develops in New Jersey, it’s gentrification as blacks and/or whites move out. And two, there can be a (all too rare) sense of excitement being part of something that is building, not just existing. When Soho changed from industrial to artsy, it attracted people who liked that new ethos. It’s not just (or necessarily) wealthier people taking over rundown housing.
From what I have seen, gentrification is just a slander of the term redevelopment, like calling public school government school. (I wanted to use “urban renewal”, but apparently I have spent a lifetime misusing urban renewal. The authors narrowly define it as government cleansing in the 1950s-70s, so we can’t use it to describe the rebirth of neighborhoods today.)
What Gentrifier skips over is that we go through eras. Cities used to hollow out as suburbs became fashionable, starting with the interstate highway system in the 50s. Now suburbs are déclassé and inner cities are where it’s at. The whole world is urbanizing, so there’s investment going on. Cities are living breathing beings, if you read Jane Jacobs or Ayn Rand. They get ill, they recover, they grow, they die, they re-emerge. Gentrification is one passing phase in the life of a neighborhood. In 25 years, you won’t recognize it. It could disappear like Detroit or blossom like Bed-Stuy. Neighborhoods were never built blighted. Gentrification is just another stage.
Gentrifier reads like philosophy: things are both what they seem and not. Everything can be viewed positively and negatively. There is no clear path, it says. In quantum physics, the mere fact a scientist witnesses an event changes its outcome. In Gentrifier, many just want to fit in and not change their new neighborhood. But guess what? Just by being there, they do. And unless we want to live in Amish villages, there will be gentrification, not better, not worse.
David Wineberg
By David Wineberg on May 8, 2017
Gentrifier is an attempt to describe every conceivable angle and objection to gentrification, by three ethnographers who use their own experience as the basis. This is, of course, never wise. I did like that they distilled gentrification of a neighborhood into a de- phase, followed by a re- phase. That is a lovely, elegant and simple image for anyone to grasp the impact. They have also classified gentrifiers into six stereotypes: Conqueror, Colonizer, Competitor, Capitalist, Consumer, and Curator, which I was not so happy with. There are at least two other obvious possibilities they never consider (possibly because they don’t begin with C). In immigrant communities all over the world, people with similar backgrounds like to congregate. It gives them a sense of support, familiarity and comfort. So if an Indian community suddenly develops in New Jersey, it’s gentrification as blacks and/or whites move out. And two, there can be a (all too rare) sense of excitement being part of something that is building, not just existing. When Soho changed from industrial to artsy, it attracted people who liked that new ethos. It’s not just (or necessarily) wealthier people taking over rundown housing.
From what I have seen, gentrification is just a slander of the term redevelopment, like calling public school government school. (I wanted to use “urban renewal”, but apparently I have spent a lifetime misusing urban renewal. The authors narrowly define it as government cleansing in the 1950s-70s, so we can’t use it to describe the rebirth of neighborhoods today.)
What Gentrifier skips over is that we go through eras. Cities used to hollow out as suburbs became fashionable, starting with the interstate highway system in the 50s. Now suburbs are déclassé and inner cities are where it’s at. The whole world is urbanizing, so there’s investment going on. Cities are living breathing beings, if you read Jane Jacobs or Ayn Rand. They get ill, they recover, they grow, they die, they re-emerge. Gentrification is one passing phase in the life of a neighborhood. In 25 years, you won’t recognize it. It could disappear like Detroit or blossom like Bed-Stuy. Neighborhoods were never built blighted. Gentrification is just another stage.
Gentrifier reads like philosophy: things are both what they seem and not. Everything can be viewed positively and negatively. There is no clear path, it says. In quantum physics, the mere fact a scientist witnesses an event changes its outcome. In Gentrifier, many just want to fit in and not change their new neighborhood. But guess what? Just by being there, they do. And unless we want to live in Amish villages, there will be gentrification, not better, not worse.
David Wineberg
The authors call this book an "auto-ethnography" and it does seem to be that. There is a good exploration of some of the subtleties and contradictions in the study of "gentrification." However, I would have liked the authors to go farther and take a broader perspective. For me, many of the limitations of the book come from their definition of "gentrification" which they define on pg 4 as having to do with "middle-class people moving into divested neighborhoods in a period during which a critical mass of other middle class people did the same, thereby exerting economic, political and social pressures upon the existing community." For me this definition is too narrow, as is the term "gentrification".
There's an inherent problem in the term "gentrification" as its' used now, which is that it takes just one kind of change to a community and vilifies it, while apparently. ignoring or viewing as neutral all other types of changes to a community. Gentrification is viewed as a modern phenomenon, (the term being coined in 1964) ...but communities and use of their claimed spaces have been changing for far longer than that, and I can't see leaving out this whole part of the picture.
For instance, in California, the original indigenous inhabitants of the Bay Area were Native Americans. Then along came the first "gentrifiers", the Spanish nobility, who obtained ranchos or land grants from the Spanish crown or Mexico, and took over the lands. Then these ranchos were lost in part by fraud, in part by hardship, and were subdivided and sold to settlers -- the next set of "gentrifiers." Settlers and farmers then were in turn "gentrified" out by those building early cities and towns.
Though many people in Oakland (for example) now refer to whites who move into majority black neighborhoods as "gentrifiers", the fact is that at the city's start, in 1854, it is possible that no black citizens lived in the city at all. It would have been mostly hispanic rancho owners and whites at the time of its founding. Even just prior to WWII, only 3% of Oakland's population was black. Seen in this context, it seems legitimate to question why there is a need to view black communities as somehow owning the city or parts of it.
The point being, that places change, and it seems oddly narrow to only look at some parts of this change and to vilify some forms of change and not others. Shall we call working class people who move into a middle class or upper class area, as "slummifiers" or "ghettoizers"? On pg 134 of their book, the authors describe Spike Lee complaining that his father has lived in the area since 1968 and played jazz music there, but now the new people moving into their neighborhood are calling the cops on him due to the noise. But this problem also occurs exactly in reverse. Noisy working class people move into nice quiet middle class areas and ruin them. You have a quiet middle class or upper middle class neighborhood, and then a working class family moves in and starts using their front lawn to park greasy and dumpy cars they are working on, plays loud music on weeknights, has friends come over late at night who use their car horn as a doorbell to say I'm here. In other words, bring ghetto behavior to middle class areas.
And this problem can occur in a widespread way, and has, in many cities which have decayed by the influx of working class or underclass into formerly middle class areas. But where are the articles and books vilifiying such slummification or ghettoization of formerly nice areas? Fair is fair......it seems ridiculous to me to demonize some forms of change while ignoring others which may actually cause more serious social problems.







