thesis for gentrification

• Open access
• Published: 01 November 2023

Exploring differences in perceptions of gentrification, neighborhood satisfaction, social cohesion, and health among residents of two predominantly African American Pittsburgh neighborhoods (n = 60)

• Alexandra Mendoza-Graf 1 ,
• Sarah MacCarthy 2 ,
• Rebecca Collins 1 ,
• La’Vette Wagner 3 &
• Tamara Dubowitz 3  

BMC Public Health volume  23 , Article number:  2137 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

2773 Accesses

1 Citations

Metrics details

Gentrification often leads to changes in the social and physical environment of neighborhoods, which social capital theory has found are connected to aspects of resident health and wellbeing. A growing body of literature has explored the impact of gentrification on health and wellbeing of residents. The goal of this study is to qualitatively explore the ways in which gentrification may have impacted perceptions of neighborhood satisfaction, social cohesion, and health of neighborhood residents (n = 60) from two predominantly Black neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, one of which experienced Black gentrification during the study’s time period. This analysis is unique in its ability to capture experiences of residents who remained in their neighborhood throughout the course of the study, as well as those who moved away from their neighborhood.

Participants were randomly selected from a larger cohort enrolled in a quasi-experimental study and categorized by whether they lived in a census tract that gentrified, whether they owned or rented their home, and whether they moved from the neighborhood or remained in the same place of residence between 2011 and 2018. Phone interviews lasting approximately 30 min were conducted with participants and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants were provided a $40 gift card for their time. Interview data were analyzed using a directed content approach, and Cohen’s Kappa was obtained (k = 0.924) to signal good inter-rater reliability.

Results showed renters in gentrified census tracts overwhelmingly viewed gentrification trends as a negative change compared to homeowners. Overall, participants from gentrified census tracts reported being relatively satisfied with their neighborhood, though some suggested there were fewer resources in the neighborhood over time; felt their social cohesion had deteriorated over time; and more commonly reflected negative health changes over time.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that while gentrification can bring much needed improvements to neighborhoods, it can also bring other disruptive changes that affect the health and wellbeing of existing residents.

Peer Review reports

Gentrification represents an urban process that has the potential to change basic social and physical structures within neighborhoods (e.g., increasing home values, neighborhood demographic changes, revitalization of housing and other neighborhood structures). This is important because research has shown that health and wellbeing can be impacted by the social and physical aspects of one’s neighborhood environment [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Factors that can typically change in gentrifying settings include: access to food, greenspace, and affordable housing; social support, cohesion, and networks; and feelings of safety, prejudice, or discrimination [ 4 ]. Social capital theory [ 5 , 6 ] suggests that cumulative and transient exposure to factors such as safety, resources (e.g., libraries, recreational facilities, grocery stores, and social services), and social connections are mechanisms through which a change in the neighborhood environment can impact health and wellbeing [ 4 , 7 ]. Specifically, these factors have been found to affect health through their impact on healthcare utilization, health related behaviors, and biological responses [ 4 ]. Given the connections described in social capital theory, there is potential for gentrification to impact changes in health and wellbeing.

Though the definition of gentrification and how to measure it is often disputed, for the purposes of this study, we define it as the process through which disinvested neighborhoods experience renewal, driven by an influx in college educated individuals and upwardly trending housing prices [ 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Further, there continues to be disagreement about whether neighborhood changes brought about by gentrification are generally positive or negative for the health and wellbeing of its residents. Some potentially beneficial changes stemming from gentrification may include increases in investments and redevelopment into disinvested urban neighborhoods, making the neighborhoods more attractive to middle-income households [ 11 ]. Additionally, gentrification may bring about improvements in the residential environment for those who remain in their neighborhood, compared to those from low socioeconomic status neighborhoods that do not gentrify [ 12 ]. On the other hand, studies have warned that gentrification can lead to displacement of residents [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] and increased outmigration for less educated renters [ 19 ], resulting in a higher likelihood of economically disadvantaged residents moving to lower-income neighborhoods [ 20 ].

Given the potential for gentrification to change the social and physical aspects of neighborhood environments, a growing body of literature seeks to explore various health [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ] and wellbeing [ 12 , 18 , 26 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ] factors that may be impacted for residents living in gentrifying neighborhoods. Specifically, qualitative research in this space has described a number of health and wellbeing outcomes that have been found within the context of gentrification, including diminished food security for some residents in gentrifying areas [ 28 , 49 ]; the loss of social support [ 50 ], social ties [ 41 , 51 ], and cohesion [ 41 ] for some existing residents; as well as cultural displacement [ 18 ] and racial discrimination [ 52 ]. Other quantitative work in this area has shown mixed findings for other aspects of health, like mental health, where some studies have found no associations between gentrification and psychotic episodes [ 33 ] nor in changes in psychological distress [ 53 ]; some have found poorer mental health for higher-income older adults in gentrifying neighborhoods compared to similar adults in low-income neighborhoods [ 22 ]; and yet others have found higher degrees of psychological distress for residents in low-income neighborhoods when compared to gentrifying neighborhoods [ 31 ]. These findings should be considered with the caveat that research on gentrification is inherently difficult to conduct, given the difficulty associated with tracking neighborhood residents over time, particularly those who have moved or been displaced.

This research capitalizes on data from a cohort of residents from two neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that are part of a quasi-experimental study, one of which went through processes of gentrification during the study period. This parent quasi-experimental study is unique in that from its original cohort, it continued to follow participants who moved out of the neighborhood, which has not been widely captured in research related to gentrification and health to date. Prior multivariate analyses on the parent study sample suggested differential changes in neighborhood satisfaction and social cohesion over time by whether participants lived in a census tract that gentrified or not, as well as differences in neighborhood satisfaction changes by whether participants owned or rented their homes and whether they moved or remained in the same place of residence during the study period. The current study qualitatively explores the ways in which various changes during the gentrification process may have impacted the health and wellbeing of a subset of neighborhood residents, when compared to those from the other study neighborhood that did not experience gentrification. It uses semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants who were part of the parent study between 2011 and 2018 to understand their opinions of gentrification, neighborhood satisfaction, social cohesion, and health, with attention to differences by gentrification, homeownership, and mover status. This work adds to the current qualitative literature in this space by exploring various aspects of health and wellbeing that have been documented to be impacted by gentrification in other settings, and it also draws on and provides context for prior empirical results [ 8 ] as well as conceptual frameworks outlining how changes in the social and physical neighborhood environment brought about gentrification are connected to changes in health outcomes [ 4 ].

Parent study details

The Pittsburgh Hill/Homewood Research on Neighborhood Change and Health (PHRESH) study is a longitudinal, quasi-experimental study located in two neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, Hill District and Homewood (R01CA149105) which began in 2011. The study was designed to understand how changes in the social and physical environment impact health outcomes and other factors among neighborhood residents. At the beginning of the study, both of the neighborhoods were low-income and predominantly Black. During the course of the study, the Hill District experienced substantial increases in neighborhood investments, through the establishment of a full-service supermarket (the first one since the 1980s), the re-development of public housing (including the replacement of some public housing units with mixed-income housing), the renovation and creation of neighborhood greenspace (including several new parks and trails connecting parks), and other commercial investments (including the redevelopment of “Main Street”) [ 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. The parent study participants were selected through a random sample in both neighborhoods, where data collectors enrolled participants through door-to-door recruitment [ 54 ]. The total study sample at 2011 was 1,372 and 597 of those same households were interviewed again in 2018.

There are a total of 13 census tracts between the two study neighborhoods. In the case of the two study neighborhoods, the census tract boundaries align with the boundaries of the neighborhoods as designated by the city. Across those 13 census tracts, 5 experienced gentrification in the form of Black gentrification between 2011 and 2016. Black gentrification specifically describes a gentrification process in which the influx of higher educated residents to a neighborhood is characterized by an increase in Black college educated individuals (rather than the more commonly considered change of increased White college educated individuals moving into a neighborhood) [ 21 ]. All census tracts that experienced gentrification were part of the Hill District neighborhood, the neighborhood that received substantial increases in investments over the study period [ 53 ].

Sampling and data collection procedures

For this study participants in 2018 (i.e., those who responded to an interviewer-administered survey) were selected into categories stratified by: gentrification status (i.e., whether participants lived in study census tract, henceforth referred to as tract, that gentrified between 2011 and 2018), which was determined using a modified version of a measure developed by Freeman [ 9 , 10 ], with a more detailed description of this measure found in our prior analyses [ 53 ]; homeownership status (i.e., whether a participant owned or rented their home between 2011 and 2018), and moving status (i.e., whether participants moved or remained in the same place of residence between 2011 and 2018, hereafter referred to as movers and stable residents) (Fig.  1 ). From these categories, we then randomly selected participants within each group for interview recruitment.

Qualitative interview participant breakdown

Recruitment for the interviews was conducted by the cisgender female, African American Field Coordinator of the parent study, who was raised in one of the study neighborhoods (and also had extensive engagement with parent study participants during the entirety of the study [2011–2021]). Participants were contacted by phone and asked to schedule interviews. Of the 180 participants who were contacted, 4 were deceased, 5 refused (either at the time of recruitment or at the time of consent), 108 could not be reached (83 did not answer their phone, 25 had a number listed that was out of service), and 63 participants agreed to do an interview (60 participated in the interview, and 3 were no-shows for their scheduled interview times). We recruited 40 participants from gentrified tracts and 20 participants from tracts that did not experience gentrification during the study period. Based on our prior analyses, we saw relatively more variation in terms of neighborhood change occurring in the gentrifying tracts and felt we needed to interview more participants from gentrified tracts to reach data saturation, which is why we interviewed larger pool of participants from the gentrified tracts. In general, the study population is one that has been difficult to reach in prior data collection efforts. This is likely due to the fact that the larger parent study sample is predominantly older, low-income, and study participants often face issues with lack of telephone service, frequent illness, multiple jobs, or other competing responsibilities. However, we compared descriptive demographic information of those who participated in the interviews and those who could not be reached, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The final breakdown of interviews can be seen in Fig.  1 , broken down by our categories of interest. The interviewer (AMG) was a cisgender female Latina researcher with experience and training in qualitative data collection and analysis with community members. A total of 60 phone interviews were conducted with PHRESH study participants between February and March of 2021. Participants provided verbal consent, as was approved by the RAND Corporation’s IRB, and interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. The duration of interviews was between 20 and 45 min, with most close to 30 min in length. Each participant was mailed a $40 grocery store gift card as compensation for their time. A description of participants’ demographic characteristics can be viewed in Table  1 .

The interview protocol contained questions about gentrification, satisfaction with their neighborhood, and changes in social cohesion and health, as well as the social context in which these processes occurred. To understand participant views on gentrification, they were read a description of gentrification trends (e.g., increases in housing costs, new businesses coming into the neighborhood, and more people moving out/new, higher-income people moving into the area) and asked whether they felt those trends were happening in their neighborhood. They were also asked about their opinions of such trends and whether they were familiar with the term gentrification. To understand participants’ satisfaction with their neighborhood, they were asked their thoughts about the neighborhood trajectory; the most and least favorite aspects of their neighborhood; and opinions about changes in the neighborhood over time. To understand any changes in social cohesion brought about by changes in participants’ neighborhoods, they were asked whether they had changes in the people they know or their close relationships within their neighborhood and whether and how they like to engage in their communities. Further, for understanding whether there were any health changes that participants associated with changes in their neighborhood, they were first recounted changes they had described in the neighborhood and asked whether they felt these changes had impacted any aspect of their health, including their diet/how they get their groceries, their stress, how they get care, or any other aspect of health they could think of. Finally, interviews with participants were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the aftermath of several protest related to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. These factors were thought to potentially also impact participants’ perceptions of their neighborhood (since there may have been protests related to BLM in their neighborhoods or potential closures of local resources due to the COVID-19 pandemic); changes social cohesion (since the COVID-19 pandemic may have led to people keeping more to themselves); and changes in health (due to the risks and implications of contracting the COVID-19 virus). Due to these contextual factors occurring around the time of data collection, participants were also asked about whether they had noticed any changes in their neighborhood or in their personal lives due to these two factors.

The interview data were analyzed using a directed content approach [ 58 ]. Transcripts were reviewed by two researchers with extensive qualitative expertise (AMG and SM) to identify initial themes. An inductive and deductive approach was taken for developing an initial codebook, using both the interview protocol and initial themes to inform the components in the codebook. The codebook was shared with the rest of the research team (TD, BC, LW) to obtain input on the salience of preliminary themes. The two researchers then jointly coded 12 transcripts using Dedoose qualitative software [ 59 ] and made modifications and additions to the codebook as needed. The final codebook contained 4 codes and 17 sub-codes, as well as definitions, inclusion criteria, and example text to assist with coding determinations. Interrater reliability was established using Cohen’s Kappa on a set of 52 excerpts. Cohen’s Kappa was 0.924 representing good interrater reliability. The remaining transcripts were individually coded, and AMG and SM met weekly to discuss any concerns that came up during the coding process. Upon completion of the coding, excerpts for each code were exported to Excel and reviewed to understand the range and frequency of themes, identify additional themes that emerged during the coding process, and to understand any differences by participant type (e.g., gentrification status, homeownership status, and mover status).

The findings from the semi-structured interviews are organized according to the various factors thought to be related to gentrification explored in our prior analyses of the full study sample. This included participants providing their perspectives on gentrification trends in their neighborhoods, satisfaction with their neighborhood, and changes in social cohesion and health, as well as the social context in which these processes occurred. Differences among participants were found on some of these topics based on gentrification status, on whether they moved to another home during the study period, or whether they rented or owned their homes. Sub-group differences on these topics are noted throughout the results, and there were otherwise no notable differences found between participants among the different categories of interest (e.g., gentrification status, mover status, and homeownership status). Exemplary quotes were included through the text to illustrate some of the most salient themes that came up during the interviews and additional quotes can be found in Supplementary Tables  1 , 2 , 3 , and 4 . Additionally, a total of 7 participants (6 from gentrified tracts and 1 from a non-gentrified tract) who moved during the study period were forced to move due to housing renovations, and we note cases where there were any themes that were specific to this population.

• Gentrification

Conversations about gentrification revealed little understanding of the term among participants, divisions between those in gentrified and non-gentrified tracts on perceptions of change in their neighborhoods, and disagreements between renters and owners on whether these types of trends were generally positive or negative.

Unexpectedly, when participants were asked about the term gentrification, almost none were familiar with the term. Once described, however, the majority of respondents from gentrifying tracts felt gentrification trends (i.e., increased cost of living, new businesses coming to the neighborhood, people moving out and wealthier people moving in) were happening in their neighborhood and agreed that there had been increases in the cost of living and in residential turnover. There was also a recognition that these types of changes placed an additional burden on people of color who had been living in the neighborhood for a number of years, with some specifying that the burden was higher for those who were lower-income.

You know, the home[s] is so expensive, a lot of times people of color can’t afford it…the Hill used to be a mixture. It’s a mixture now. But like I said, the homes, the people that bought these houses, at first, they’re not even there anymore. So, this is just different. Participant from gentrified tract, renter, stable resident They want to come to a place where they can get closer, get to work quicker instead of driving all the way somewhere. So, they’re trying to force the blacks out. Not to be racist or anything, but they are, and they can get more money from one of these college kids, somebody who’s working downtown, somebody who’s making some good money. They don’t mind paying the $1,400 rent. So, it’s like they don’t really want too many black folks up here unless you really got some money really. But otherwise, they’re trying to force us out. Participant from gentrified tract, renter, mover

Further, participants from gentrified tracts were somewhat evenly divided on how they felt about such changes by homeownership status, where renters viewed gentrification as trend that was detrimental to the neighborhood, explaining that the types of changes (i.e., higher costs of living and increased residential turnover) did not seem fair and that the higher prices pushed longtime residents out, and homeowners mostly felt gentrification was a positive change for the neighborhood and relayed the changes may bring more jobs to the area, help to keep up the neighborhood, attract more people and diversity to the neighborhood, and potentially bring more businesses to the area. One renter shared their negative sentiments about gentrification trend, while a homeowner described the benefits of such trends:

I’ve been in the Hill all my life. So, stop chasing people who’ve been here all their lives out. You know, you build a new house and the person who’s been living in the Hill can’t afford it anymore. Where are they supposed to go? They are pushing you out in the suburbs. That’s not where I’m from. And that’s not where I want to be. Participant from gentrified tract, renter, stable resident I think that that’s a good thing because, in order to interest people to come into the area, it has to look decent. And nobody wants to come in and live in beat-down stuff. So, I think that that’s really good. I think that for your neighborhood to look nice you have to keep improving it. Participant from gentrified tract, owner, stable resident

There was less alignment among participants in non-gentrifying tracts, but of those who felt gentrification was happening, most attributed it the construction of new housing, and said they either would not mind or felt positively about the idea of gentrification happening in their neighborhood. Despite the differences in opinions about gentrification, almost all expressed they would want to remain in their neighborhoods regardless of any kind of gentrification trends. Some in particular expressed the importance of being able to stay in their historically Black neighborhoods:

Y’all take our children, y’all take our jobs, y’all take our men, y’all take our lives. Now y’all want to take our homes. What more do y’all want?…We built this foundation. Anything that’s over here, we built it, we loved it. Now, y’all want to come over here and take over for what? Come on now! Participant from gentrified tract, renter, mover

• Neighborhood satisfaction

Neighborhood satisfaction was explored through the lens of the perceived trajectory of the neighborhood, as well as residents’ most and least favorite aspects of their neighborhood. Differences were found between those from gentrified tracts and non-gentrified tracts on whether they felt their neighborhoods were on a positive trajectory. For most participants, regardless of gentrification, mover, or homeownership status, their favorite aspect of their neighborhood seemed to be the convenience to downtown and other resources, while their least favorite aspect included more variation, with some aspects being common across gentrification status and others differing by gentrification status.

Trajectory of the neighborhood. While responses from participants living in non-gentrified census tracts varied, participants from gentrified census tracts generally felt their neighborhood was on a positive trajectory. One nuance to these findings, however, was that a few participants from gentrified tracts felt this was only the case for certain groups of people (e.g., higher income, non-Black residents).

They don’t treat low income the way they treat the higher pay, rich people. And it’s not supposed to be that. That’s discrimination. And it happens every day, but we as Black people are afraid of authority and will not speak up. Participant from gentrified tract, renter, mover

Most favorite aspects of neighborhoods. Across both types of tracts, participants reflected positively on their neighborhood’s convenience. Participants from gentrified neighborhoods often said they appreciated the safety and quiet, the housing improvements, the increased police presence, and to a lesser extent, the diversity and political progressiveness of the neighborhood. One participant who was particularly enthusiastic about improvements in housing shared:

They did the greatest thing. They remodeled. They turned apartments into houses. That was good. So, we can keep our grandkids and things. We got houses now up there. I felt really good about it, excellent. That was long time overdue. We all need it. Participant from gentrified tract, renter, mover

Residents did share some caveats about the improvements to housing, including: some residents not being able to move back to their buildings; the closure of local businesses to clear the way for the construction; and diminished affordability and quality (one person even stating the walls were separating from one another in one room). Some felt that since some buildings were transformed into mixed-income housing, the new or renovated housing no longer catered to just low-income populations, leading some social services to leave the area. Further, some of the mixed-income housing seemed to separate residents into different sections and buildings, and residents felt the upkeep and quality of the low-income parts was subpar. Finally, it was shared that some of the rules and regulations of the new housing developments were too strict (e.g., people were not allowed to sit out on stoops, children could not ride bikes in the building areas, etc.). Only residents in non-gentrifying tracts mentioned appreciating the people and neighbors in the area, as they felt this contributed to having a good community.

Least favorite aspects of neighborhoods. Neighborhood aspects that were disliked from participants across gentrified and non-gentrified tracts included: violence in the neighborhood (e.g., shooting and fighting); the lack of resources and activities available for children and seniors (e.g., good playgrounds, places for recreation, places to sit down and eat, etc.); the departure of the grocery store in the Hill District ( note that during the study, the full-service supermarket opened in the neighborhood that went through gentrification in 2013, but shuttered in 2019 ); and all of the vacant properties. The perception that there were fewer resources in participants’ neighborhood was particularly prevalent among permanent residents, but overall, most participants said they had to leave the neighborhood to access needed resources, and this was particularly pronounced for participants in gentrifying tracts once the grocery store closed. One participant from a gentrified tract who felt there were fewer resources in the neighborhood shared that:

You ain’t got nowhere to eat over here and I think that’s terrible. That’s my thing, stuff like that. Not even for these kids, they had no recreation like we had, they ain’t got nothing over here for these kids nothing and then you all want to sit up and talk about it. They hanging out, well they ain’t got nothing to do…When we were all kids, we had three recreation centers on one street. Participant from gentrified tract, renter, stable resident

Participants from the gentrified tracts also said they disliked the lack of maintenance (e.g., of buildings, sidewalks, and streets); issues of drug use; and the perceived lack of responsiveness from local representatives. Participants from the non-gentrified tracts disliked the lack of police presence, and issues with people coming into the neighborhood from other areas to cause trouble.

Social cohesion changes

Social cohesion was explored through the lens of neighborhood interactions, as well as community engagement. In terms of neighborhood interactions, most participants felt they had some close relationships in the neighborhood, but there was variation by gentrification status on the frequency and quality of interactions with people in their neighborhood over time. Further, differences were found between renters and homeowners on whether they liked to engage in their neighborhoods, and this also sometimes varied by gentrification status.

Neighborhood Interactions. Overall, the majority of participants in both types of tracts said they had at least some close relationships or people they could turn to in the neighborhood if they needed help. Contradictingly, however, there were also comments from participants in both types of tracts saying new residents moving into the neighborhood did not seem to be as friendly or willing to come together as prior residents. In gentrified tracts, some shared they mostly kept to themselves and did not know many people despite having lived in the area for years, while others felt they knew almost everyone in their neighborhood. Similarly, in non-gentrified tracts, some participants said they knew and interacted with a lot of people and others said they prefer to keep to themselves. With regard to feeling like newer neighbors were less friendly, several participants from gentrified tracts recounted:

It used to be, people in the neighborhood looked out for each other, you know?… I was telling you like my nephew passed away…he was just getting out of his car and just passed out. On the street, nobody came around…They stood across the street where I live, just looking…But they didn’t say anything. Participant from gentrified tract, owner, stable resident The only time you see somebody is if something happens, they might look out the door. But you don’t see people unless there’s something bad. People don’t bother… I’m used to, “How you doing? Good morning.” Whatever. And people just don’t do it, they just don’t care. Participant from gentrified tract, owner, stable resident I still have close friends, but I just I mean I’m not close with a whole lot of people. When I was growing up, everybody knew everybody and we all got along, but now that I’m older like I said some moved away, some are dead, some we kind of drifted apart as our lives changed…Back then, people looked out for one another. You don’t have that anymore. Participant from gentrified tract, owner, stable resident

In both types of tracts, several participants who moved away suggested they were not very close with people in their new neighborhoods. Additionally, some residents who moved as a result of being forced to move when there was renovation of housing in their neighborhood shared the difficulties of living in a place that was not their first choice. One older resident who moved due to housing renovations described the difficulties it caused:

Up there, it’s isolated up there. It’s up on top of the hill. You have to leave from up there to get any type of services, anything. You know, I hated every second of that project up there, yeah… I didn’t – I just didn’t associate too much with the people. I worked up there on the polls in Arlington, and that was about it. You know, they have nothing for the seniors up there. Most of the stuff was geared towards the young kids, you know. Participant from gentrified tract, renter, mover

Some differences emerged by gentrification status, where participants from gentrified tracts mostly said they had fewer interactions with people in their neighborhood over time due to fewer neighborhood activities; having to move away themselves; others moving away and new people moving in; houses in the neighborhood being torn down; or more strict restrictions in newer housing complexes (e.g., not being able to all sit out and watch kids play or ride their bikes because they have to play outside of the property). One participant who felt there were fewer neighborhood activities shared the difficulty it brought for socializing:

I think that there’s new housing, but there’s not a lot of activities or things to do in a neighborhood. So, I think that people moving into the neighborhood are still doing things, wherever they came from because there’s nothing to do here. So, you’re really not meeting them and socializing with them…It was different before. Participant from gentrified neighborhood, owner, stable resident

Community Engagement. The majority of participants across both types of tracts said they like to engage in their respective communities, though this was somewhat more commonly heard from participants in the non-gentrified tracts. Within the respective types of tracts, one nuance was that there were differences in opinions about this between renters and homeowners, where a much higher proportion of homeowners said they liked to engage in their community than renters. Some homeowners in gentrified tracts, however, felt it had become more difficult to engage in their communities because information about neighborhood changes was not always readily available nor were residents always included in conversations or decisions about changes in the neighborhood.

I think that there are changes happening. But I think that the meetings are held at strange times, so everybody can’t participate in them. And I think that it’s a handful of people who are making decisions or suggesting things, but it’s not open to the community. It’s very hard to find out about things. And, when you do find out, everything’s already in gear. Participant from gentrified neighborhood, owner, stable resident

Further, several participants from non-gentrified tracts felt there was lack of community togetherness and community meetings.

It’s about the whole community coming together and stick together to make a change, we make a change when you come together, that’s when things change, but when you separate, then you can’t resolve anything. So that’s the main problem, people don’t want to come together, they all complain, but they don’t want to come together. Participant from non-gentrified neighborhood, renter, stable resident

Health changes

Participants had a range of responses they provided with respect to changes in their health. More often participants from gentrified tracts indicated that their health had been impacted negatively due to neighborhood changes and commonly described diminished ability to exercise due to changes in the neighborhood, as well as an increase in stress, often due to having to move to another home. One participant who had to relocate during a renovation shared the difficult experience of having to move somewhere that was unsafe:

Living in the projects can make you or break you…And it plays a little on your psyche…when I found out I was able to move back [after renovations], I was never so happy. It seemed like the whole time that I lived up in [the projects], there was a shooting every day, every day, there was some type of violence. I remember on Christmas Eve; they had a whole shootout in my court…they shot up the steps and the concrete steps fell. Like it was so much crazy. A guy I went to school with, I watched him die outside…And I saved someone from dying. Like it was a lot. Participant from gentrified neighborhood, renter, mover

Other commonly mentioned reasons for health changes were related to changes in neighborhood resources over the last several years, including difficulties with getting groceries, accessing a pharmacy, and accessing other social services, due to the recent closure of the only grocery store in the neighborhood and the departure of services catering to lower-income populations. On the other hand, participants from non-gentrified tracts mostly felt their health did not change much over time.

Context of COVID-19 and the black lives matter movement

Important contextual events occurred during the course of this study (February through March of 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic prompted participants to reflect on changes in access to resources and sense of community connection. Additionally, many noted that COVID-19 impacted either their own health or that of their family. A few people shared feeling very isolated and depressed over not being able to spend time with friends, family or neighbors or not being able to see spouses or other family living in nursing homes. Others relayed feeling more anxious due to having lost their jobs during the pandemic. Some participants also mentioned changes in their physical activity either due to the closure of fitness centers or to hesitancy around being out in public. The BLM movement, which came to somewhat of a tipping point with the killing of George Floyd in May of 2020, generated less of a response among participants, though some felt that more attention was now being paid to issues related to the BLM movement. Some also felt there was more police presence due to the BLM movement, though there were disagreements about whether this was favorable for the community, and there were also others who expressed a displeasure with the looting that occurred during some marches, as it reminded them of looting that negatively impacted their communities after the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The goal of this study was to better understand differences, including the processes and mechanisms, found in prior analyses on the relationship between gentrification and neighborhood satisfaction, social cohesion, and health among study participants from two neighborhoods, one of which experienced gentrification [ 8 ]. Results from the interviews suggested some differences among participants by gentrification, homeownership, and moving status.

Renters in gentrifying tracts overwhelmingly viewed gentrification trends in the neighborhood as a negative change, while homeowners were more likely to view gentrification trends positively. This is consistent with other studies finding homeowners being more likely to approve of changes in gentrifying neighborhoods than renters [ 60 , 61 ]. These differences make sense if we consider that gentrification trends are often accompanied by rising housing prices, which for homeowners translates into increased home values, while for renters, this will often manifest in rising rents, creating added financial pressures for renters.

Overall, participants from gentrified census tracts felt their neighborhood was generally on a positive trajectory compared to those from tracts that did not gentrify. Despite their feelings about general neighborhood trajectories, permanent residents from gentrified tracts more commonly suggested they had fewer resources in their neighborhood than before, when compared to those who moved to another place of residence. These findings seem to align with other studies that showed increases in satisfaction in gentrifying neighborhoods compared to low-income neighborhoods [ 42 ] and lower satisfaction for long-term residents of gentrifying neighborhoods versus newer residents [ 43 ]. These seemingly conflicting findings could be explained by the fact that although gentrification can bring about needed improvements to an area, it can also impact the resource landscape of a neighborhood, changing the availability and accessibility of resources for more permanent residents.

Participants from gentrified tracts mostly felt they had fewer interactions with neighbors, were not as close to people in the neighborhood, and that newer, younger residents were not as friendly as others in the past. These findings align with others showing that gentrification resulted in residents experiencing disruptions in social ties and lack of inter-generational cohesion [ 41 ], as well as smaller increases in social cohesion [ 53 ]. This may be due to the fact that changes happening in gentrifying neighborhoods, such as residential turnover, can break social ties for existing residents but also make it difficult to build new relationships with incoming residents when turnover occurs more frequently.

Participants referenced changes in mental health as well as other aspects of health, especially due to moving. Further, participants from gentrified tracts more commonly reflected negative health changes because of decreases in neighborhood resources over time and closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas health changes in non-gentrified tracts were more commonly due to issues of safety and violence in the community. These findings are somewhat different from others in the literature showing gentrification is associated with improved aspects of health, such as self-rated health [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 31 ] and hypertension [ 29 ]. Rather, our findings seem to align with studies that find more detrimental health outcomes for Black residents in gentrifying neighborhoods [ 21 ], and particularly with regard to self-rated health [ 31 ]. These findings should be considered within the context of the historical discrimination of Black populations with regard to land use, housing, and planning policy, which to this day contribute to differential outcomes for Black populations.

Taken together, these findings paint a complex picture of the experience of gentrification for Black populations in this specific Pittsburgh neighborhood. Overall, it seems that participants who were renters from gentrified census tracts were more likely to feel the pressures of rising housing costs and generally felt less engaged in community activities and decisions, and they were also more likely to have moved to another residence during the study period, which contributed to a sense of disconnect from their community. These experiences differed from participants who were homeowners from gentrified tracts, in that the homeowners were less likely to feel pressures from rising housing costs and therefore seemed to have more of an opportunity to embrace some gentrification changes and benefit from neighborhood improvements. Both renters and homeowners in gentrified tracts, however, seemed to be negatively impacted from resources leaving the neighborhood over time, suggesting there may be some aspects of gentrification that disproportionately affect sub-segments of a neighborhood, while other aspects can have a broader impact on most neighborhood residents.

Limitations and strengths

There was a high number of non-respondents during recruitment, making it possible that participants were somehow different from those who did not respond. It is also possible that the interview results were impacted by other external events happening at the time besides gentrification, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the BLM Movement. Additionally, given the qualitative nature of the study and the fact that this research explored potential impacts of gentrification, and particularly Black gentrification, in a predominantly Black neighborhood, the results may not be applicable to other settings beyond the parent study population or other similar types of neighborhoods, and it cannot establish causal relationships between gentrification and neighborhood satisfaction, social cohesion, and health. Another aspect that could impact the applicability of these findings to other settings is the fact that there were a large number of planned investments made in the Hill District, which may make the gentrification experience different than other neighborhoods where gentrification is more so driven by migration patterns and market forces. Further, although this is a study about the relationship between gentrification and the health and wellbeing of residents, residents were largely not familiar with the term “gentrification” (though they did think there were significant changes happening in the neighborhood). It is possible that categorizing areas as “gentrified” may sometimes be a term imposed on a community, and greater efforts should be made to understand how community residents characterize the changes happening in their neighborhoods. Finally, given that we knew prior to the interviews that there was not much of a change in the racial makeup of the neighborhood, we did not specifically probe on racial aspects of gentrification typically considered, such as racialized housing, though some perceptions about how neighborhood changes related to race were brought up in participants’ responses. Future studies should consider probing on differential experiences of gentrification related to race even for instances of gentrification that do not feature much change in the racial makeup of the neighborhood. This study, however, provides a unique perspective on the potential impacts of Black gentrification in predominantly Black neighborhoods, particularly due to the ability to obtain perspectives from both residents who remained in gentrified census tracts as well as those who moved away during the process of gentrification.

Findings from this study provide context to help further understand what aspects of health and wellbeing may be more impacted by neighborhood change for Black residents and showcase potential areas for future research. Given our findings, there are a few potential factors that community stakeholders should consider for mitigating detrimental effects to neighborhood residents. Some of the policy options available to help ease pressures on renters in gentrifying neighborhoods are that state and local governments can provide affordable housing provisions in the form of rent subsidies or rent control, as well as tax abatement policies that allow landlords to close gaps between rising market rents and what they receive from long-term tenants [ 62 ]. Further, given our results suggesting residents generally want to remain in their neighborhoods, regardless of gentrification, developers and landlords can play a part in ensuring this is a possibility by providing tenant’s the first right to return to housing after any renovations, and state and regional policy makers can provide home purchasing assistance for those who wish to remain in the neighborhood as homeowners [ 62 ]. Additionally, considering some of the health impacts to residents from gentrified census tracts were thought to be due to resources leaving the neighborhood, local businesses, local policymakers and community-based organizations should consider ways for residents to continue accessing their services by either retaining presence in neighborhoods or providing other options, such as shuttles or travel vouchers for residents to continue accessing services if they move their organization to another neighborhood. Also, for new resources coming into a neighborhood, such as businesses looking to establish a presence in the neighborhood, consideration should be given to the range of residents represented to ensure new resources cater to the full range of the neighborhood population rather than just a sub-section of it. Finally, given our findings suggesting a mix of improvements and negative changes stemming from gentrification, some successful strategies that have been identified for ensuring more positive changes include community participation and bottom-up planning processes [ 13 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. To that effect, local elected officials and decision-making bodies should take greater efforts to involve community members in development decisions. In terms of extending this body of work, future research should explore whether similar outcomes can be seen in other geographical areas with different socio-demographic profiles. Further, studies should continue to explore and further refine terminology related to gentrification, biomarkers to track the impact of stress and other aspects of health in the context of gentrification and should continue to build out theory around the relationships between gentrification and health and wellbeing. Taken together, this study contributes important contextual information on previously observed differences in health and wellbeing for residents in gentrifying neighborhoods as well as insights that can help to inform policy in gentrifying spaces.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Neighborhoods and health. Oxford University Press; 2003.

Diez Roux AV, Mair C. Neighborhoods and health. 2010.

Duncan DT, Kawachi I. Neighborhoods and health. Oxford University Press Oxford, UK:; 2018.

Bhavsar NA, Kumar M, Richman L. Defining gentrification for epidemiologic research: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0233361.

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Putnam RD. Tuning in, tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics. 1995;28(4):664–84.

Google Scholar  

Conrad D. Defining social capital. Social Capital. 2007;1:53–9.

Curley AM. Relocating the poor: social capital and neighborhood resources. J Urban Affairs. 2010;32(1):79–103.

Article   Google Scholar  

Mendoza-Graf A, Collins RL, Ghosh-Dastidar M, Beckman R, Hunter GP, Troxel WM et al. Changes in psychosocial wellbeing over a five-year period in gentrifying vs non-gentrifying Pittsburgh neighborhoods under review. 2020.

Freeman L. Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review. 2005;40(4):463–91.

Freeman L. Neighbourhood diversity, metropolitan segregation and gentrification: what are the links in the US? Urban Stud. 2009;46(10):2079–101.

McKinnish T, Walsh R, White TK. Who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods? J Urban Econ. 2010;67(2):180–93.

Article   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dragan K, Ellen IG, Glied S. Does gentrification displace poor children and their families? New evidence from medicaid data in New York City. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 2020;83:103481.

Newman K, Wyly EK. The right to stay put, revisited: gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City. Urban Stud. 2006;43(1):23–57.

Atkinson R. Measuring gentrification and displacement in Greater London. Urban Stud. 2000;37(1):149–65.

Bates LK. Gentrification and Displacement Study: implementing an equitable inclusive development strategy in the context of gentrification. 2013.

DeVerteuil G. Resisting gentrification-induced displacement: advantages and disadvantages to ‘staying put’among non‐profit social services in London and Los Angeles. Area. 2012;44(2):208–16.

Reese E, Deverteuil G, Thach L. Weak-center’gentrification and the contradictions of Containment: deconcentrating poverty in Downtown Los Angeles. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2010;34(2):310–27.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Versey HS, Murad S, Willems P, Sanni M. Beyond Housing: perceptions of Indirect Displacement, Displacement Risk, and Aging Precarity as challenges to Aging in Place in Gentrifying cities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(23):4633.

Brummet Q, Reed D. The effects of gentrification on the well-being and opportunity of original resident adults and children. 2019.

Ding L, Hwang J, Divringi E. Gentrification and residential mobility in Philadelphia. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 2016;61:38–51.

Gibbons J, Barton MS. The association of minority self-rated health with black versus white gentrification. J Urb Health. 2016;93(6):909–22.

Smith RJ, Lehning AJ, Kim K. Aging in place in gentrifying neighborhoods: implications for physical and mental health. Gerontologist. 2018;58(1):26–35.

Cole HV, Triguero-Mas M, Connolly JJ, Anguelovski I. Determining the health benefits of green space: does gentrification matter? Health Place. 2019;57:1–11.

Gibbons J, Barton M, Brault E. Evaluating gentrification’s relation to neighborhood and city health. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(11):e0207432.

Schnake-Mahl A, Sommers BD, Subramanian S, Waters MC, Arcaya M. Effects of gentrification on health status after Hurricane Katrina. Health Place. 2020;61:102237.

Breyer B, Voss-Andreae A. Food mirages: Geographic and economic barriers to healthful food access in Portland, Oregon. Health Place. 2013;24:131–9.

Rhodes-Bratton B, Rundle A, Lovasi GS, Herbstman J. The relationship between childhood obesity and neighborhood food ecology explored through the context of gentrification in New York City. Int Public Health J. 2018;10(4):481.

PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Whittle HJ, Palar K, Hufstedler LL, Seligman HK, Frongillo EA, Weiser SD. Food insecurity, chronic Illness, and gentrification in the San Francisco Bay Area: an example of structural Violence in United States public policy. Soc Sci Med. 2015;143:154–61.

Morenoff JD, House JS, Hansen BB, Williams DR, Kaplan GA, Hunte HE. Understanding social disparities in Hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control: the role of neighborhood context. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(9):1853–66.

Gibbons J. Are gentrifying neighborhoods more stressful? A multilevel analysis of self-rated stress. SSM-population Health. 2019;7:100358.

Izenberg JM, Mujahid MS, Yen IH. Health in changing neighborhoods: a study of the relationship between gentrification and self-rated health in the state of California. Health Place. 2018;52:188.

Izenberg JM, Mujahid MS, Yen IH. Gentrification and binge drinking in California neighborhoods: it matters how long you’ve lived there. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;188:1–9.

Narita Z, Knowles K, Fedina L, Oh H, Stickley A, Kelleher I, et al. Neighborhood change and psychotic experiences in a general population sample. Schizophr Res. 2020;216:316–21.

Huynh M, Maroko A. Gentrification and preterm birth in New York City, 2008–2010. J Urb Health. 2014;91(1):211–20.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lim S, Chan PY, Walters S, Culp G, Huynh M, Gould LH. Impact of residential displacement on healthcare access and mental health among original residents of gentrifying neighborhoods in New York City. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(12).

Dragan KL, Ellen IG, Glied SA. Gentrification and the health of low-income children in New York City. Health Aff. 2019;38(9):1425–32.

Rios R, Aiken LS, Zautra AJ. Neighborhood contexts and the mediating role of neighborhood social cohesion on health and psychological distress among hispanic and non-hispanic residents. Ann Behav Med. 2012;43(1):50–61.

Echeverría S, Diez-Roux AV, Shea S, Borrell LN, Jackson S. Associations of neighborhood problems and neighborhood social cohesion with mental health and health behaviors: the multi-ethnic study of Atherosclerosis. Health Place. 2008;14(4):853–65.

Mair C, Roux AD, Golden SH, Rapp S, Seeman T, Shea S. Change in neighborhood environments and depressive symptoms in New York City: the multi-ethnic study of Atherosclerosis. Health Place. 2015;32:93–8.

Gibbons J, Barton MS, Reling TT. Do gentrifying neighbourhoods have less community? Evidence from Philadelphia. Urban Stud. 2020;57(6):1143–63.

Versey HS. A tale of two harlems: Gentrification, social capital, and implications for aging in place. Soc Sci Med. 2018;214:1–11.

Uitermark J, Bosker T. Wither the ‘Undivided city’? An Assessment of State-Sponsored gentrification in a msterdam. Tijdschrift Voor economische en sociale geografie. 2014;105(2):221–30.

Dudek-Mańkowska S, Iwańczak B. Does gentrification of the Praga Północ district in Warsaw really exist? Bulletin of Geography Socio-economic series. 2018;39(39):21–30.

Jackson MI, Mare RD. Cross-sectional and longitudinal measurements of neighborhood experience and their effects on children. Soc Sci Res. 2007;36(2):590–610.

Lee YY. Gentrification and crime: identification using the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in Los Angeles. J Urban Affairs. 2010;32(5):549–77.

Kreager DA, Lyons CJ, Hays ZR. Urban revitalization and Seattle crime, 1982–2000. Soc Probl. 2011;58(4):615–39.

Linton SL, Cooper HL, Kelley ME, Karnes CC, Ross Z, Wolfe ME, et al. Cross-sectional association between ZIP code-level gentrification and homelessness among a large community-based sample of people who inject Drugs in 19 US cities. BMJ open. 2017;7(6):e013823.

Papachristos AV, Smith CM, Scherer ML, Fugiero MA. More coffee, less crime? The relationship between gentrification and neighborhood crime rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005. City & Community. 2011;10(3):215–40.

Anguelovski I. Healthy food stores, greenlining and food gentrification: contesting new forms of privilege, displacement and locally unwanted land uses in racially mixed neighborhoods. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2015;39(6):1209–30.

Betancur J. Gentrification and community fabric in Chicago. Urban Stud. 2011;48(2):383–406.

Burns VF, Lavoie J-P, Rose D. Revisiting the role of neighbourhood change in social exclusion and inclusion of older people. Journal of aging research. 2012;2012.

Shmool JL, Yonas MA, Newman OD, Kubzansky LD, Joseph E, Parks A, et al. Identifying perceived neighborhood stressors across diverse communities in New York City. Am J Community Psychol. 2015;56(1–2):145–55.

Mendoza-Graf A, Collins RL, Dastidar MG, Beckman R, Hunter GP, Troxel WM, et al. Changes in psychosocial wellbeing over a five-year period in two predominantly Black Pittsburgh neighbourhoods: a comparison between gentrifying and non-gentrifying census tracts. Urban Stud. 2023;60(6):1139–57.

Dubowitz T, Ncube C, Leuschner K, Tharp-Gilliam S. A natural experiment opportunity in two low-income urban food desert communities: research design, Community Engagement methods, and baseline results. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42(1suppl):87S–96S.

Dubowitz T, Ghosh-Dastidar M, Cohen DA, Beckman R, Steiner ED, Hunter GP, et al. Diet and perceptions change with supermarket introduction in a food desert, but not because of supermarket use. Health Aff. 2015;34(11):1858–68.

Richardson AS, Ghosh-Dastidar M, Collins RL, Hunter GP, Troxel WM, Colabianchi N et al. Improved street walkability, incivilities, and esthetics are associated with greater park use in two low-income neighborhoods. J Urb Health. 2020:1–9.

Flórez KR, Ghosh-Dastidar M, Beckman R, de la Haye K, Duru OK, Abraído‐Lanza AF, et al. The power of place: social network characteristics, perceived neighborhood features, and psychological distress among African americans in the historic Hill District in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Am J Community Psychol. 2016;58(1–2):60–8.

Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.

Dedoose. Dedoose Version 8.0.35, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC; 2018.

Sullivan DM. Reassessing gentrification: measuring residents’ opinions using survey data. Urban Affairs Review. 2007;42(4):583–92.

Grinstein-Weiss M, Yeo Y, Anacker K, Van Zandt S, Freeze EB, Quercia RG. Homeownership and neighborhood satisfaction among low-and moderate-income households. J Urban Affairs. 2011;33(3):247–65.

Ghaffari L, Klein JL, Angulo Baudin W. Toward a socially acceptable gentrification: a review of strategies and practices against displacement. Geogr Compass. 2018;12(2):e12355.

Cameron S. Gentrification, housing redifferentiation and urban regeneration:‘going for growth’in Newcastle upon Tyne. Urban Stud. 2003;40(12):2367–82.

Lees L, Ley D. Introduction to special issue on gentrification and public policy. London, England: Sage Publications Sage UK; 2008. pp. 2379–84.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding was provided by the National Cancer Institute (R01CA149105), a diversity supplement to National Cancer Institute (R01CA149105).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90407, USA

Alexandra Mendoza-Graf & Rebecca Collins

Department of Health Behavior, University of Alabama School of Public Health, 227 Ryals Public Health Building, 1665 University Boulevard, Birmingham, Alabama, 35233, England

Sarah MacCarthy

RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh Office, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90407, USA

La’Vette Wagner & Tamara Dubowitz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AMG, co-developed the interview protocol, conducted the interviews for the study, co-led the analysis, and developed an early draft of the manuscript. SM contributed to the development of the interview protocol, co-led the analysis of the interviews and contributed to the writing of the Methods and Results of the manuscript. RC contributed to the development of the interview protocol, and contributed to the writing of the Background and Discussion of the manuscript. LW reviewed and edited the interview protocol, helped with interview recruitment, reviewed and provided feedback for all parts of the manuscript. TD contributed to the development of the interview protocol and contributed to the writing of the Background and Discussion of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Mendoza-Graf .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. All experimental protocols were approved by a named institutional and/or licensing committee (the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee). Verbal informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or legal guardian(s), and the verbal informed consent were approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mendoza-Graf, A., MacCarthy, S., Collins, R. et al. Exploring differences in perceptions of gentrification, neighborhood satisfaction, social cohesion, and health among residents of two predominantly African American Pittsburgh neighborhoods (n = 60). BMC Public Health 23 , 2137 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16970-4

Download citation

Received : 31 May 2023

Accepted : 11 October 2023

Published : 01 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16970-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social cohesion
• Qualitative

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Advertisement

Breaking Down and Building Up: Gentrification, Its drivers, and Urban Health Inequality

• Built Environment and Health (MJ Nieuwenhuijsen and AJ de Nazelle, Section Editors)
• Published: 13 March 2021
• Volume 8 , pages 157–166, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Helen V. S. Cole   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0936-6810 1 ,
• Roshanak Mehdipanah 2 ,
• Pedro Gullón 3 &
• Margarita Triguero-Mas 1  

21k Accesses

61 Citations

16 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Purpose of Review

Many neighborhoods which have been unjustly impacted by histories of uneven urban development, resulting in socioeconomic and racial segregation, are now at risk for gentrification. As urban renewal projects lead to improvements in the long-neglected built environments of such neighborhoods, accompanying gentrification processes may lead to the displacement of or exclusion of underprivileged residents from benefiting from new amenities and improvements. In addition, gentrification processes may be instigated by various drivers. We aimed to discuss the implications of specific types of gentrification, by driver, for health equity.

Recent Findings

Several recent articles find differential effects of gentrification on the health of underprivileged residents of gentrifying neighborhoods compared to those with greater privilege (where sociodemographic dimensions such as race or socioeconomic status are used as a proxy for privilege). Generally, studies show that gentrification may be beneficial for the health of more privileged residents while harming or not benefiting the health of underprivileged residents. Very recent articles have begun to test hypothesized pathways by which urban renewal indicators, gentrification, and health equity are linked. Few public health articles to date are designed to detect distinct impacts of specific drivers of gentrification.

Using a case example, we hypothesize how distinct drivers of gentrification—specifically, retail gentrification, environmental gentrification, climate gentrification, studentification, tourism gentrification, and health care gentrification—may imply specific pathways toward reduced health equity. Finally, we discuss the challenges faced by researchers in assessing the health impacts of gentrification.

Similar content being viewed by others

Impacts of Gentrification on Health in the US: a Systematic Review of the Literature

Gentrification, Neighborhood Change, and Population Health: a Systematic Review

Causes, consequences and health impacts of gentrification in the Global North: a conceptual framework

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Urban health inequity.

Urban social (e.g., economic factors, educational opportunities, and employment conditions) and physical (e.g., transportation infrastructure, housing quality, and food access) inequalities have important implications for health. These urban inequalities are further exacerbated discrimination, limiting opportunities and creating unjust exposures based on one’s race or ethnicity, age, gender, and/or sexuality [ 1 , 2 ]. For example, in the USA, residential segregation, based on historical discriminatory housing policies, has resulted in and maintains a situation in which more Black and Latinx residents live in under-resourced neighborhoods [ 3 , 4 ]. These neighborhoods have limited access to resources such as healthy foods and good-quality schools, and are more likely to have concentrated poverty and to experience high crime rates [ 5 , 6 ]. These inequities have been linked to an array of health outcomes including obesity [ 7 ], breast cancer [ 8 ], asthma [ 9 ], and mortality [ 10 ].

Urban social and physical inequalities are also linked to unequal environmental exposures. The resulting environmental injustices, defined as the unjust distribution of unhealthy environments such as exposure to toxic waste, air and water pollution, and/or unhealthy working and living conditions, disproportionately affect neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty and/or racial and ethnic minority residents, who are more likely to live in areas with poorer environmental conditions [ 11 , 12 ]. These differential and unjust environmental exposures are linked to contrasting health outcomes like pregnancy outcomes, childhood cancer, and cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Thus, instances of health inequity, or avoidable and unjust differences in health outcomes [ 2 ], are often a result of differences in environmental conditions, unevenly distributed within urban areas. For example, social factors such as the impacts of interpersonal and institutional racism—that contribute to worse health outcomes among minority urban residents [ 5 , 17 ]—also contribute to the persistence of residential segregation by race or class, furthering differences in environmental conditions due to historic and continuing processes of uneven urban development, often the result of overtly racist practices and laws. Although variation in socioeconomic and racial residential segregation in cities varies by country, and is particularly notable in the USA, residential segregation by class is on the rise in many European cities [ 18 ].

In recent years, cities have sought to improve conditions in these socioeconomically and racially segregated neighborhoods by redirecting resources to “revitalize” or “regenerate” these areas. Such renewal projects have ranged from large-scale changes to environmental infrastructure and social resources to mid-and low-scale programs that address only one aspect, such as building green spaces or bringing in healthy food options through farmer’s markets. Due to former and present degradation in environmental conditions and thus the relatively low valuation of land in socioeconomically and racially segregated neighborhoods, changes (i.e., renewal or improvements) to the social and physical environments of these neighborhoods have placed them at higher risk for gentrification, which in turn leads to social and cultural exclusion of long-term (i.e., legacy) underprivileged and lower-income residents, and often displacement—and ultimately to health inequities [ 19 ]. In this paper, we define gentrification, provide examples of the different gentrification processes identified in the literature, discuss its impact on health and health inequity, and present implications for both research and policy. Although these processes have implications in other contexts, we focus on cases in the Global North and particularly on cities in the USA and Europe because those are the contexts where we have conducted research and we know best.

Gentrification, a (Not So New) New Form of Spatial Environmental Injustice

Apart from the low valuation of land due to past and present degradation of environmental conditions, socioeconomically and racially segregated neighborhoods become at risk for neighborhood gentrification when they experience improvements to social and physical neighborhood environments (which may be a sign of gentrification, or may instigate it), particularly if they are also centrally located, or desirable in other ways to wealthier residents. Gentrification is defined as a process of neighborhood change through which the demographic, real estate, and business characteristics of a place reveal a transition toward a more privileged population (e.g., more educated, wealthy, whiter population), able to afford new or renovated, more expensive homes while also fomenting new cultural and consumption practices [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Although some argue that gentrification should reduce social, physical, and health inequalities due to social mixing and improvements in access to cultural and environmental resources and other services among lower-income residents remaining in their neighborhoods, past research shows that by some measures, residential socioeconomic segregation is increasing in neighborhoods experiencing gentrification [ 18 ]. Gentrification may lead to the displacement of long-term—usually underprivileged—residents when they are unable to keep up with rising costs of housing and other costs of living, and it may lead to social or cultural exclusion as the population changes, shifting toward one that is wealthier, and more privileged. The increasing costs of living may be linked to heightened fear, anxiety, stress, and sleep deprivation for underprivileged residents [ 5 ].

Neighborhoods that are in the midst of the gentrification process often are those that receive an influx of public or private investment via new cultural and environmental amenities, new (often luxury) housing, and new forms of commerce [ 23 ]. Such changes also lead to changes in aspects of the neighborhood that influence health, but often in paradoxical ways. For instance, although new public amenities such as parks and open spaces, or private investments such as shops selling organic or other healthy foods, may indicate that the neighborhood is more supportive of better health among its residents, the equitable benefit of such amenities may be jeopardized when less wealthy, or underprivileged residents are excluded either by being displaced from their homes or excluded socioculturally, such as not being able to afford or feel welcomed, in these new amenities. All these changes in neighborhood amenities and social/cultural exclusion can be linked to feelings of socio-cultural erasure, worse nutrition habits, and decreased social cohesion for underprivileged residents [ 24 •]. All these factors can be linked to a wide range of health outcomes, including obesity, cardiovascular diseases, poor mental health including an increased risk of depression, and suicidal thoughts for these communities [ 24 •].

Thus, the question of how gentrification affects health becomes, more specifically, one of how gentrification affects health equity. Indeed, past research shows that gentrification itself may have no effect or even a positive effect on the health of the population as a whole while its effect on the health of underprivileged residents may be detrimental [ 25 •, 26 •, 27 ••, 28 ]. For instance, one study showed that while living in a gentrifying neighborhood was associated with better self-rated general health for the population at large, the opposite association was seen for Black residents [ 27 ••]. Similarly, living in a gentrified neighborhood was associated with a higher risk of pre-term delivery for Black and Hispanic women [ 28 •], and with worse mental health among low-income children [ 29 ]. Thus, by leading to worse outcomes for underprivileged groups, gentrification may worsen existing patterns of health inequity at least partly due to the effects of uneven urban development.

Future Directions—Moving Beyond a Generalist’s Perspective

To date, research on the health effects of gentrification has primarily focused broadly on neighborhood gentrification (sometimes with attention to gentrification intensity), without attention to nuances in the causes and types of gentrification which may have more specific implications for population health. In addition, research on gentrification and health has largely kept with the quantitative traditions of epidemiology research (for exceptions see [ 24 •, 30 •, 31 ]) and has avoided, sometimes intentionally, debates about causes of gentrification [ 32 ••]. Many researchers have suggested the need for a single measure to be used across settings and contexts for greater comparability [ 18 , 19 ]. Diverging from this generalist’s strategy, although not an exhaustive list, we present below six types of gentrification (see Fig. 1 ) by specific driver and discuss how each may have unique implications for public health research, in addition to the general effects described above. We separate these types to highlight the specific implications of each for health inequity, despite that multiple drivers often overlap in neighborhoods experiencing gentrification.

Retail gentrification—Madrid (Spain)

Types of gentrification presented in this paper: a Street Velarde in Tribal, Madrid. A street with a high density of new trendy shops. b Battery Park luxury development in Detroit Shoreway, Cleveland. New development next, with views and with pedestrian and cycling access to Edgewater Park. c Global Green’s Holy Cross community project in Lower Ninth Ward, New Orleans. New development focusing on sustainable standards available to be bought by anybody aiming to pay the price. d Anti-tourism and anti-gentrification banner in Barcelona. e New construction in Cedar Ave, West Philadelphia. This house, located 20min walking from University of Pennsylvania-sponsored K-8 school Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander School, is for sale for $745 000, which represent the mean price for housing in the area. f Abandoned health care facility in Garland. Sources: a , c , e Google Street View. b , d , f The authors

Changes in the retail market may come with changes in neighborhood social composition, in a process that can be defined as retail gentrification. Retail changes can be conceptualized as part of the process of gentrification or as a trigger of gentrification [ 33 ]. The type, density, and distribution of retail might be a key determinant of health and health inequities, through both positive (e.g., healthy food stores or available shops accessible by walking) and negative (e.g., tobacco retailers) changes [ 34 , 35 ].

Madrid is one of the largest cities in Europe and has experienced an enormous increase in both population and social segregation in the last 15 years [ 36 ]. This process has been accompanied by changes in the housing market and the distribution of goods and services within the city through private investments, especially in the city center. For instance, an association of private retail investors, with the support of the city council, has dramatically transformed a deprived area (known for drug-dealing in the 80s) into an upper-middle and upper-class retail area characterized by clothing shops and renamed Triball ( Triángulo Ballesta ) in tribute to Manhattan’s TriBeCa [ 23 ]. Throughout the city of Madrid, the distribution of walkability (including retail walking destinations) may also have increased the desirability of disadvantaged areas for retail investors due to a walkability paradox, where walkability has historically been better in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. However, gentrification is changing the relationship between walkability and neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) [ 37 ]. Bilal and colleagues [ 38 •] found that gentrifying areas in Madrid have a higher baseline number of supermarkets than non-gentrifying areas. But the impacts of changes in the retail environment on health are not necessarily straight-forward. For instance, while access to healthy food via supermarkets or other healthy food outlets may be beneficial to the health of residents, in a phenomenon known as a food mirage , new and more expensive healthy food outlets might not be affordable to lower-income staying residents [ 39 , 40 ]. Meanwhile, stayers might suffer a loss of social capital with the appearance of different type of stores, especially for older people [ 41 ].

Green gentrification—Detroit Shoreway neighborhood, Cleveland, OH (USA)

The improvement or construction of new environmental amenities such as parks, entwined with political and economic agendas, may ultimately socially and physically exclude or even displace long-term underprivileged residents, a process that has been called green or environmental gentrification [ 42 ]. Greenspace availability has been associated with a wide range of health outcomes [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Exposure to greenspaces alone has also been linked to decreased health inequalities [ 43 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. However, when considering greenspace in relation to gentrification processes, one study shows that the benefit of living in areas with more greenspace was experienced primarily by residents of gentrifying neighborhoods with high levels of education and income [ 49 ••]. New and improved parks may be linked, for example, to increased greenspace police patrolling, changes in park uses or community erosion [ 31 ], and decreased social interactions due to forced residential displacement of long-term residents’ friends and family. All these processes will also impact residents’ health, in addition to the straight-forward benefit of green space, particularly harming the health of underprivileged communities that may be more dependent on their nearby built and social environment.

The Detroit Shoreway neighborhood of Cleveland, OH, is a racially diverse neighborhood experiencing concentrated poverty and a long history of exposure to air and water pollution [ 50 ]. The most notable environmental improvement in the neighborhood has been the dramatic upgrade of Edgewater park, completed in 2013. The improvements transformed the park once riddled with crime—to one of the city’s main attractions, with lakeside beaches, boat ramps, a fishing pier, picnic areas, a beach house with a bar, and programed events that attract food trucks and live performances [ 50 ]. Nowadays, new luxury housing is being built in front of Edgewater Park. These new developments use the improved environmental amenities, particularly Lake Erie and its upgraded access via Edgewater Park, as selling points, but the new housing is not affordable for long-term lower-income residents. In addition, this increased attractiveness of part of the neighborhood is impacting the housing costs of nearly the entire neighborhood and starting to force residential displacement. Thus, while the improvements to the park have led to the apparent much-needed environmental improvement for this neighborhood, it is possible that underprivileged residents will not be able to stay long enough to benefit from the newly renovated park.

Climate gentrification—New Orleans, LA (USA)

The consequences of climate change are being experienced in major cities resulting in the uprooting of thousands of residents due to the damages caused by hurricanes, floods, and fires. In the process of rebuilding more climate-resistant infrastructure, property prices and new redevelopment/regeneration projects have made it difficult for low-income residents, people of color, and migrant communities to maintain or return to their homes, which can cause a double trauma [ 51 ]. This process has been described as climate gentrification. Furthermore, climate gentrification has also been discussed in the context of naturally occurring protected areas of cities. For instance, low-income neighborhoods situated in higher-elevation areas within low-elevation cities like Miami-Date county in Florida are at higher risk for gentrification as investors and developers seek to make profit on these “safe zones,” which could increase underprivileged residents risk of climate-related disasters such as post-traumatic stress symptoms, psychological distress, and even back and digestive problems [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. Regardless of its causes, climate gentrification has resulted in attracting more privileged residents and forcing socio-demographic shifts in these areas.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina swept through the city of New Orleans, leaving many homes inhabitable and displacing millions of residents [ 56 ]. In the months and years that followed, it became apparent that predominately lack neighborhoods had experienced greater flooding and in turn, housing damage, resulting in only 57% of the city’s black population being able to return after the Hurricane [ 52 , 57 ]. Long-term residents, who left during Hurricane Katrina, found it harder to return as these neighborhoods were not prioritized by the city for restoration and rebuild, providing cheap real estate opportunities for new residents and developers. As an example, prior to Hurricane Katrina, the Lower Ninth Ward had one of the highest rates of black homeownership in the city. Post-Hurricane Katrina, it was one of the hardest hit neighborhoods with slow progress in regenerating, resulting in many displaced residents reestablishing themselves in other cities. For those that stayed, recent rezoning and new development have attracted younger white residents to the area, resulting in the gentrification of this area and the loss of 64% of its Black residents [ 58 ]. Thus, climate gentrification in cities like New Orleans illustrates the complex ways in which re-occurring and increasingly acute weather events may lead to displacement, urban renewal, inequitable recovery, and, in turn, new patterns of exposure to health risk factors as the demographic and spatial distribution of communities are shaped by this process.

Tourism gentrification—Barcelona (Spain)

Tourism gentrification is exemplified by urban change and neighborhood transformation according to the needs of affluent visitors characterized by the proliferation of corporate entertainment and tourism venues [ 59 ]. This type of gentrification is also characterized by the expansion of short-term accommodation, resulting in rising housing prices, changes in retail and services, the emergence of a floating population that continuously passes through and changes, and the residential displacement of long-term residents to other areas [ 60 , 61 ]. Although the exact relationship between such effects of tourism and health is still not clear, some studies have found that mass tourism harms residents’ health via: environmental changes (such as disruptions in mobility, the commodification of nighttime leisure, increased insecurity, and decreased access to public space), pollution (such as air pollution), property speculation leading to eviction, a decline in social networks, and loss of identity [ 24 •, 30 •, 31 , 62 ]. Through these pathways, the risk of stress, anxiety, depression, sleep deprivation, respiratory diseases, and poor diet may increase [ 24 •, 30 •].

For example, Barcelona is a global city undergoing acute gentrification (Montaner et al., 2013). Redevelopment trends stemming from the hosting of the Olympic Games in 1992 and the development of an urban planning scheme known as “the Barcelona model”—including administrative support for tourism and major urban renewal projects in the 1990s and early 2000s—have contributed to a significant increase of tourism in the city in recent decades [ 60 , 63 ]. Moreover, the historical heritage, cultural dynamism, business economy, seashore including beaches (which were transformed as part of the preparation for the Olympics), and universities have contributed to the attractiveness of Barcelona [ 63 ]. Barcelona tourism has spilled over from the touristic sector itself, now affecting all sectors in the city and, consequently, all Barcelona residents [ 63 ].

Studentification—Philadelphia, PA (USA)

Studentification (or student-driven gentrification) can be defined as the situation where academic anchor institutions participate in the gentrification process, through direct investment procedures or changes in the housing market for students [ 64 ]. In addition to cost of living increases due to real estate investment as universities increase their footprint in specific neighborhoods, resulting demographic shifts thus include an increase in privileged young adult (college-aged) residents, leading to corresponding shifts in businesses and services to cater to this incoming population. Along with other potential effects of gentrification, studentification might make aging in place more difficult for older residents who may feel socially or culturally excluded even if they are not physically displaced [ 65 ] as such neighborhoods become increasingly youthful.

Philadelphia is one of the ten largest cities in the USA. Despite its high homeownership rate compared to other US cities and a relatively stable housing market, Philadelphia has experienced intense gentrification in recent years in some areas of the city [ 66 ]. Philadelphia is known for having several strong academic anchor institutions (e.g., University of Pennsylvania, Temple University, and Drexel University). These educational institutions are expanding their activities to participate in neighborhood revitalization processes; however, the question is how these efforts might be contributing to gentrification in these areas. For instance, since 1996, the University of Pennsylvania has been investing in the West Philadelphia Initiatives (WPI) to address safety, vacancy, and disinvestment concerns in West Philadelphia, where most of the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University campuses are located [ 67 ]. Although empirical analysis has not shown gentrification in the whole neighborhood, the area served by the University of Pennsylvania-sponsored K-8 school experienced drastic demographic change among students with significantly more students from wealthy families [ 67 ], indicating potential evidence of early gentrification. There are other places where student housing has led to the displacement of underprivileged communities [ 68 , 69 ].

Health care gentrification—Garland, TX (USA)

Health care gentrification is the process by which shifts in the type of and spatial distribution of health care favor wealthier residents while potentially excluding more vulnerable residents, leading to inequitable access to quality health care services. Similar to the role of academic anchoring institutions in studentification, health care systems have also become increasingly involved in redevelopment processes as for-profit real estate companies increasingly enter the health care market, both to manage health care services on a for-profit basis and for real estate investments more directly such as in the case of the former St. Joseph’s Hospital in Philadelphia, now a luxury housing development. Apart from the changes within health care systems themselves, health care gentrification also refers to the new challenges that health care providers face in meeting the health care needs of patients. These include challenges treating patients who are themselves experiencing complex social environments and threats of displacement or exclusion and the challenge of providing follow-up care to patients who are physically displaced from their neighborhoods. For instance, one study showed increased hospitalization for mental health problems and use of the emergency department for mental health care among residents displaced from gentrifying neighborhoods in New York City [ 70 ].

In Garland, TX, a working-class suburb of Dallas and a city of approximately 250,000, the city’s only hospital, owned by a non-profit health care system, was closed in 2017 due to its financial failings. This forced the city of Garland—which itself largely has no control over the provision of health care since health care facilities are owned and operated by private non-profit or for-profit entities—with no viable option to improve access to care except to purchase additional ambulances to transport residents experiencing medical emergencies to the nearest hospital, now in a neighboring city. Meanwhile, new hospitals and new types of health care facilities such as urgent care clinics boasting short wait times and no appointments necessary have been opened in wealthier parts of the Dallas metropolitan area, showing that facilities are sited based on profit potential rather than health care needs. Instantiations of health care gentrification vary by type of health care system. However, maintaining equitable access to care is a challenge for all health systems, even those offering “universal” access [ 71 ], due in part to decreases in funding, and the increasing role of the private sector in health care [ 72 , 73 , 74 ].

Challenges for Researchers

In this review, we have unpacked how different types of gentrification may be associated with health equity. The effect of gentrification on health has been addressed in several recent systematic reviews [ 25 •, 26 •, 75 , 76 •]; however, in this manuscript, we have discussed several specific changes to neighborhood environments resulting from distinct drivers of gentrification, and how those changes might be related to specific consequences for health equity. By using multiple cities as case examples, this review provides insights for policy-makers to prevent unintended, detrimental consequences for health equity of urban renewal and revitalization processes.

Advancing research on the health effects of gentrification faces several challenges. Gentrification is a global process that occurs as a global neoliberal shift in urban policies toward market-based solutions of urban problems [ 77 ]. Given the global scope of gentrification processes, some researchers have advocated for global standardized measures of gentrification and its effects arguing that generalizability of results would help to find solutions and strategies that can work in different contexts [ 25 •]. On the other hand, gentrification processes appear in specific historical, economic, socio-cultural, and urban contexts, which makes the generalizability of results at the local scale difficult. Thus, one challenge for future research is to balance the generalizability of results with detecting and understanding specific contextual effects. In fact, the definition for gentrification, and in turn the operationalization of the concept, varies across epidemiological studies to date [ 25 •, 78 ].

An additional challenge for future research on gentrification and health is the availability of data that includes health and demographic data, and finite geographic indicators that can link an individual to their neighborhood. Moreover, the health effects of gentrification might differ for “stayers” compared to “movers.” However, to date, due in part to the difficulty on obtaining data for displaced populations, most studies on gentrification and health focus on those still living in a neighborhood, often comparing the demographic characteristics (such as race/ethnicity or income) of long-term residents to those of newer arrivals. Accordingly, in order to explore causal relationships between gentrification and health, there is a need for longitudinal data capable of follow-up for both “stayers” (both long-term residents and new arrivals) and “displaced” persons since the potential implications for health equity may be different for these distinct populations. Yet, this type of data is both costly and time consuming to collect. Furthermore, the use of census and other public use data at the neighborhood scale exclusively can lead to ecological fallacy and prevents us from comparing populations within a community. Finally, the methods used are determined by the quality and availability of the data.

Cities are constantly changing, both in their physical and demographic characteristics as well as the socio-spatial distribution of these. Therefore, researchers have to take into account the dynamism of cities and the challenges that this poses to scientific research on cities, gentrification, and health equity. For instance, in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, cities face multiple challenges such as the sustained sudden disappearance of tourism (which may be both a driver of gentrification and an important part of the local economy) or the voluntary movement of wealthier populations to second homes in less dense areas, among others, and differential impact [ 79 , 80 ] that add uncertainty about what will happen in cities in the coming years.

Conclusions

Changes in social and physical environments of socioeconomically and racially segregated neighborhoods place these neighborhoods at higher risk of gentrification and its impacts on health equity (including fear, anxiety, stress, sleep deprivation, worse nutrition habits, lower social cohesion, obesity, cardiovascular diseases or mental health, all of which affect different segments of the population with greater intensity, for example). The strength of the association with these health outcomes and the importance of other potential pathways and health impacts will largely depend on the specific drivers of gentrification in a given neighborhood or city.

Gentrification is increasingly impacting neighborhoods around the globe. Thus, exploring how different population groups and types of gentrification—such as retail, green/environmental, climate, tourism, studentification, or health care—may lead to differential health effects is emerging as paramount to fully understand the impacts of gentrification on public health. However, developing appropriate tools, definitions, and measurements and accessing data at an suitable geographic scale remain as methodological challenges for the research on gentrification and health to be translated into policy.

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

Marmot M. Society and the slow burn of inequality. Lancet . 2020; 395 :1413–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30940-5 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Braveman PA, Kumanyika S, Fielding J, LaVeist T, Borrell LN, Manderscheid R, et al. Health disparities and health equity: the issue is justice. Am J Public Health . 2011; 101 :S149–55. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.300062 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gee GC, Ford CL. Structural racism and health inequities: old issues, new directions. Du Bois Rev . 2011; 8 :115–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X11000130 .

LaVeist TA. Segregation, poverty, and empowerment: health consequences for African Americans. Milbank Q . 1993; 71 :41–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/3350274 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Krieger N. Discrimination and health inequities. Int J Health Serv . 2014; 44 :643–710. https://doi.org/10.2190/HS.44.4.b .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bailey ZD, Krieger N, Agénor M, Graves J, Linos N, Bassett MT. Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet. 2017; 389 :1453–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30569-X .

Kershaw KN, Albrecht SS, Carnethon MR. Racial and ethnic residential segregation, the neighborhood socioeconomic environment, and obesity among Blacks and Mexican Americans. Am J Epidemiol . 2013; 177 :299–309. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws372 .

Dai D. Black residential segregation, disparities in spatial access to health care facilities, and late-stage breast cancer diagnosis in metropolitan Detroit. Health Place . 2010; 16 :1038–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.06.012 .

Williams DR, Sternthal M, Wright RJ. Social determinants: taking the social context of asthma seriously. Pediatrics. 2009; 123 :S174–84. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-2233H .

Collins CA, Williams DR. Segregation and mortality: the deadly effects of racism? Sociol Forum . 1999; 14 :495–523. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021403820451 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Taylor HL, Hill W. Historical roots of the urban crisis: African Americans in the industrial city, 1900-1950 ; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315052106 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Brulle RJ, Pellow DN. Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annu Rev Public Health . 2006; 27 :103–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102124 .

Wing S, Fruin S, Ritz B. Preterm birth among infants exposed to in utero ultrafine particle emissions from aircraft engines near the Los Angeles International Airport. ISEE Conf Abstr . 2018; 2018 . https://doi.org/10.1289/isesisee.2018.o02.03.51 .

Chaparro MP, Benzeval M, Richardson E, Mitchell R. Neighborhood deprivation and biomarkers of health in Britain: the mediating role of the physical environment. BMC Public Health . 2018; 18 :801. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5667-3 .

Chakraborty J. Cancer risk from exposure to hazardous air pollutants: spatial and social inequities in Tampa Bay, Florida. Int J Environ Health Res . 2012; 22 :165–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2011.628643 .

Brender JD, Maantay JA, Chakraborty J. Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes. Am J Public Health . 2011; 101 :S37–52. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300183 .

Krieger N. Living and dying at the crossroads: racism, embodiment, and why theory is essential for a public health of consequence. Am J Public Health. 2016; 106 :832–3. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303100 .

Musterd S, Marcińczak S, van Ham M, Tammaru T. Socioeconomic segregation in European capital cities. Increasing separation between poor and rich. Urban Geogr . 2017; 38 :1062–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1228371 .

Mehdipanah R, Manzano A, Borrell C, Malmusi D, Rodriguez-Sanz M, Greenhalgh J, et al. Exploring complex causal pathways between urban renewal, health and health inequality using a theory-driven realist approach. Soc Sci Med . 2015; 124 :266–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.050 .

Smith N. The new urban frontier: gentrification and the revanchist city . Oxon: : Routledge 1996.

Lees L, Shin HB, Lopez-Morales E. Global gentrifications: uneven development and displacement . Policy Press. 2015.

Smith N. Gentrification and uneven development. Econ Geogr . 1982; 58 :139–55.

Sequera J, Janoschka M. Gentrification dispositifs in the historic centre of Madrid: a re-consideration of urban governmentality and state-led urban reconfiguration. – Michael Janoschka. In: Lees L, Shin HB, Lopez-Morales E, eds. Global gentrifications: uneven development and displacement . London: : Polity Press 2015. 375–94. http://www.michael-janoschka.de/gentrification-dispositifs-in-the-historic-centre-of-madrid-a-re-consideration-of-urban-governmentality-and-state-led-urban-reconfiguration/ ().

Anguelovski, I.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Connolly, J.J.T.; Kotsila, P.; Shokry, G.; Pérez Del Pulgar, C.; Garcia-Lamarca M, et al .. Gentrification and health in two global cities: a call to identify impacts for socially-vulnerable residents. Cities Heal 2019;:1–10. Presents the hypothesize pathways by which gentrification affects health.

Bhavsar NA, Kumar M, Richman L. Defining gentrification for epidemiologic research: a systematic review. PLoS One . 2020; 15 :e0233361. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233361 Presents a basic conceptual model for understanding the relationship between gentrification and health .

Tulier ME, Reid C, Mujahid MS, et al. Clear action requires clear thinking’: a systematic review of gentrification and health research in the United States. Health Place . 2019; 59 :102173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102173 Robust systematic review of literature on the relationship between gentrification and health.

Gibbons J, Barton MS. The association of minority self-rated health with Black versus White gentrification. J Urban Health . 2016; 93 :909–22 Demonstrates the role of race in differentiating the impact of gentrification on self-rated health using a robust dataset.

Huynh M, Maroko AR. Gentrification and preterm birth in New York City, 2008-2010. J Urban Health . 2013; 91 :211–20.

Dragan KL, Ellen IG, Glied SA. Gentrification and the health of low-income children in New York City. Health Aff . 2019; 38 :1425–32.

Sánchez-Ledesma E, Vásquez-Vera H, Sagarra N, et al. Perceived pathways between tourism gentrification and health: a participatory Photovoice study in the Gòtic neighborhood in Barcelona. Soc Sci Med . 2020; 258 :113095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113095 Exemplifies the use of non-quantitative methods to illuminate pathways connecting gentrification and health.

Oscilowicz E, Honey-Rosés J, Anguelovski I, Triguero-Mas M, Cole H. Young families and children in gentrifying neighbourhoods: how gentrification reshapes use and perception of green play spaces. Local Environ . 2020; 25 :765–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2020.1835849 .

Cole HVS. A call to engage: considering the role of gentrification in public health research. Cities Heal 2020;:1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1760075 . Describes how key debates around the concept of gentrification can be integrated into epidemiologic study design decisions.

Hubbard P, Hubbard P. Introduction: gentrification and retail change. In: The battle for the high street . Palgrave Macmillan UK. 2017:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52153-8_1 .

Young-Wolff KC, Henriksen L, Delucchi K, Prochaska JJ. Tobacco retailer proximity and density and nicotine dependence among smokers with serious mental illness. Am J Public Health . 2014; 104 :1454–63. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301917 .

Smith M, Hosking J, Woodward A, Witten K, MacMillan A, Field A, et al. Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport - an update and new findings on health equity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act . 2017; 14 :158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0613-9 .

Sorando D, Leal J. Economic crisis, social change and segregation processes in Madrid. In: Tammaru T, Ham M van, Marcińczak S, et al. , eds. Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities: east meets west . Routledge 2015. 238–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315758879-17

Gullón P, Bilal U, Cebrecos A, Badland HM, Galán I, Franco M. Intersection of neighborhood dynamics and socioeconomic status in small-area walkability: the Heart Healthy Hoods project. Int J Health Geogr . 2017; 16 :21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-017-0095-7 .

Bilal U, Jones-Smith J, Diez J, et al. Neighborhood social and economic change and retail food environment change in Madrid (Spain): the Heart Healthy Hoods study. Health Place . 2018; 51 :107–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.03.004 Describes how retail environments are shaped and can be related to public health in Madrid.

Caspi CE, Sorensen G, Subramanian SV, Kawachi I. The local food environment and diet: a systematic review. Health Place . 2012; 18 :1172–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.05.006 .

Anguelovski I. Healthy food stores, greenlining and food gentrification: contesting new forms of privilege, displacement and locally unwanted land uses in racially mixed neighborhoods. Int J Urban Reg Res . 2015; 39 :1209–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12299 .

Conde P, Gutiérrez M, Sandín M, Díez J, Borrell L, Rivera-Navarro J, et al. Changing neighborhoods and residents’ health perceptions: the heart healthy hoods qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2018; 15 :1617. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081617 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gould KA, Lewis TL. Green gentrification : urban sustainability and the struggle for environmental justice . New York, NY: : Routledge 2017.

Triguero-Mas M, Donaire-Gonzalez D, Seto E, Valentín A, Martínez D, Smith G, et al. Natural outdoor environments and mental health: stress as a possible mechanism. Environ Res . 2017; 159 :629–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.048 .

O’Callaghan-Gordo C, Kogevinas M, Cirach M, et al. Residential proximity to green spaces and breast cancer risk: the multicase-control study in Spain (MCC-Spain). Int J Hyg Environ Health . 2018; 221 :1097–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.07.014 .

Chen H, Burnett RT, Bai L, Kwong JC, Crouse DL, Lavigne E, et al. Residential greenness and cardiovascular disease incidence, readmission, and mortality. Environ Health Perspect . 2020; 128 :087005. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6161 .

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas—linkages between science, policy and practice. 2017. 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_1

Mitchell RJ, Richardson EA, Shortt NK, Pearce JR. Neighborhood environments and socioeconomic inequalities in mental well-being. Am J Prev Med . 2015; 49 :80–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.017 .

Pearce J, Cherrie M, Shortt N, Deary I, Ward Thompson C. Life course of place: a longitudinal study of mental health and place. Trans Inst Br Geogr . 2018; 43 :555–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12246 .

Cole HVS, Triguero-Mas M, Connolly JJT, et al. Determining the health benefits of green space: does gentrification matter? Health Place . 2019; 57 :1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.02.001 First study to quantitatively study gentrification as a mediating factor in the relationship between the green space and health.

Berry DK, Coffman KB, Zimmerman BM. Cleveland Metroparks and the Lake Erie Coast: natural capital and resilience in the Forest City. In: Rodriguez GR, Brebbia CA, Almorza D, eds. Transactions on the built environment . Boston: : WIT Press 2017. 23–32.

Anguelovski I, Connolly JJT, Pearsall H, Shokry G, Checker M, Maantay J, et al. Why green ‘climate gentrification’ threatens poor and vulnerable populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116 :26139–43. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920490117 .

Aune KT, Gesch D, Smith GS. A spatial analysis of climate gentrification in Orleans Parish, Louisiana post-Hurricane Katrina. Environ Res . 2020; 185 :109384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109384 .

Lowe SR, Raker EJ, Arcaya MC, Zacher ML, Waters MC, Rhodes JE. A life-course model of trauma exposure and mental health among low-income survivors of Hurricane Katrina. J Trauma Stress . 2020; 33 :950–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22581 .

Zacher M, Raker EJ, Arcaya MC, et al. Physical health symptoms and Hurricane Katrina: individual trajectories of development and recovery more than a decade after the storm. Am J Public Health 2020;:e1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2020.305955

Keenan JM, Hill T, Gumber A. Climate gentrification: from theory to empiricism in Miami-Dade County. Florida Environ Res Lett. 2018; 13 :054001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabb32 .

Brunkard J, Namulanda G, Ratard R. Hurricane katrina deaths, Louisiana, 2005. Disaster Med Public Health Prep . 2008; 2 :215–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/DMP.0b013e31818aaf55 .

Fussell E, Sastry N, Vanlandingham M. Race, socioeconomic status, and return migration to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Popul Environ . 2010; 31 :20–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-009-0092-2 .

Moskowitz P. New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward targeted for gentrification: ‘it’s going to feel like it belongs to the rich’ | New Orleans | The Guardian. Guard. 2015; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/23/new-orleans-lower-ninth-ward-condos-gentrification (

Gotham KF. Tourism gentrification: the case of New Orleans’ Vieux Carre (French Quarter). Urban Stud . 2005; 42 :1099–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500120881 .

Degen M, García M. The transformation of the ‘Barcelona Model’: an analysis of culture, urban regeneration and governance. Int J Urban Reg Res . 2012; 36 :1022–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01152.x .

Cocola-Gant A. Tourism gentrification. In: Handbook of gentrification studies . Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. 2018. 281–93. doi: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785361746.00028

Nofre J, Sánchez–Fuarros Í, Carlos Martins J, et al. Exploring nightlife and urban change in Bairro Alto, Lisbon. City Community . 2017; 16 :330–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12248 .

López PF. Barcelona, from a city with tourism to a tourist city. Notes on a complex and unfinished process. Doc d’Analisi Geogr . 2015; 61 :483–506. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/dag.296 .

Moos M, Revington N, Wilkin T, Andrey J. The knowledge economy city: gentrification, studentification and youthification, and their connections to universities. Urban Stud . 2019; 56 :1075–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017745235 .

Powell KH. A new neighborhood every fall: aging in place in a College Town. J Gerontol Soc Work . 2016; 59 :537–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2016.1256363 .

Ding L, Hwang J, Divringi E. Gentrification and residential mobility in Philadelphia. Reg Sci Urban Econ . 2016; 61 :38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2016.09.004 .

Ehlenz MM. Neighborhood Revitalization and the anchor institution. Urban Aff Rev . 2016; 52 :714–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087415601220 .

Pickren G. Where can i build my student housing? The politics of studentification in Athens-Clarke County, Georgia. Southeast Geogr . 2012; 52 :113–30. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2012.0019 .

Dobbs OM. Investigating the housing market for student tenants surrounding an urban university . 2013. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/honorstheses/14 ().

Google Scholar  

Lim S, Chan PY, Walters S, Culp G, Huynh M, Gould LH. Impact of residential displacement on healthcare access and mental health among original residents of gentrifying neighborhoods in New York City. PLoS One . 2017; 12 :e0190139.

Dahrouge S, Hogg W, Muggah E, Schrecker T. Equity of primary care service delivery for low income “sicker” adults across 10 OECD countries. Int J Equity Health . 2018; 17 :182. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0892-z .

Sumah AM, Baatiema L, Abimbola S. The impacts of decentralisation on health-related equity: a systematic review of the evidence. Health Policy (New. York). 2016; 120 :1183–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.09.003 .

Blanchet Garneau A, Browne AJ, Varcoe C. Understanding competing discourses as a basis for promoting equity in primary health care. BMC Health Serv Res . 2019; 19 :764. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4602-3 .

Martinez A, Smith K, Llop-Gironés A, et al. La mercantilización de la sanidad: El caso de Catalunya. Cuad Relac Laborales . 2016; 34 :335–55. https://doi.org/10.5209/CRLA.53460 .

Smith GS, Breakstone H, Dean LT, Thorpe RJ Jr. Impacts of gentrification on health in the US: a systematic review of the literature. J Urban Health. 2020; 97 :845–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00448-4 .

Schnake-Mahl AS, Jahn JL, Subramanian SV, et al. Gentrification, neighborhood change, and population health: a systematic review. J Urban Health . 2020; 97 :1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-019-00400-1 Robust systematic review on the relationship between gentrification and health.

Smith N. New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode . 2002; 34 :427–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00249 .

Firth CL, Fuller D, Wasfi R, et al. Causally speaking: challenges in measuring gentrification for population health research in the United States and Canada. Heal Place 2020; 63 . doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102350 . Analyzes why measurement variation and methods are important considerations for public health research about gentrification.

Sharifi A, Khavarian-Garmsir AR. The COVID-19 pandemic: impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Sci Total Environ. 2020; 749 :142391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142391 .

Cole HVS, Anguelovski I, Baró F, García-Lamarca M, Kotsila P, Pérez del Pulgar C, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic: power and privilege, gentrification, and urban environmental justice in the global north. Cities Heal . 2020; 00 :1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1785176 .

Download references

Helen Cole and Margarita Triguero-Mas received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No. 678034; PI Isabelle Anguelovski) and from the Juan de la Cierva fellowship program of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (FJCI-2017-33842 and IJC-2018-035322-I). Pedro Gullón was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 842957.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability (BCNUEJ), Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) and the Medical Research Institute of the Hospital del Mar (IMIM), C/ Doctor Aiguader, 88, 08003, Barcelona, Spain

Helen V. S. Cole & Margarita Triguero-Mas

School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA

Roshanak Mehdipanah

Public Health and Epidemiology Research Group, Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Pedro Gullón

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen V. S. Cole .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of Topical Collection on Built Environment and Health

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cole, H.V.S., Mehdipanah, R., Gullón, P. et al. Breaking Down and Building Up: Gentrification, Its drivers, and Urban Health Inequality. Curr Envir Health Rpt 8 , 157–166 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-021-00309-5

Download citation

Accepted : 03 March 2021

Published : 13 March 2021

Issue Date : June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-021-00309-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Health equity
• Gentrification
• Urban renewal
• Studentification
• Touristification
• Urban health
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

A new study by a Stanford sociologist has determined that the negative effects of gentrification are felt disproportionately by minority communities, whose residents have fewer options of neighborhoods they can move to compared to their white counterparts.

Stanford sociologist Jackelyn Hwang looked at the city of Philadelphia and determined that the negative effects of gentrification are felt disproportionately by minority communities, whose residents have fewer options of neighborhoods they can move to compared to their white counterparts. (Image credit: Getty Images)

“If we look at where people end up if they move, poor residents moving from historically Black gentrifying neighborhoods tend to move to poorer non-gentrifying neighborhoods within the city, while residents moving from other gentrifying neighborhoods tend to move to wealthier neighborhoods in the city and in the suburbs,” said study co-author Jackelyn Hwang , assistant professor of sociology in Stanford’s School of Humanities and Sciences .

Hwang and co-author Lei Ding of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia conducted one of the first studies to examine empirically where disadvantaged residents move as a result of gentrification and how a neighborhood’s racial context affects those moves.

Looking at the city of Philadelphia, Hwang and Ding found that financially disadvantaged residents who moved from neighborhoods that were not predominantly Black benefitted from gentrification by moving to more advantaged locations, but those moving from once predominantly Black areas did not. The research is published in the American Journal of Sociology .

“As neighborhoods gentrify, when poor people can no longer remain in their neighborhoods and move, there are fewer affordable neighborhoods,” Hwang said. “Our findings suggest that, for the Black community, there are additional constraints when they move, leading them to move to a shrinking set of affordable yet disadvantaged neighborhoods within the city.”

For the purposes of the study, an area was considered to be gentrifying if it experienced a significant increase, compared to other areas in the same city, either in median gross rent or median home value coupled with an increase in college-educated residents. In Philadelphia, there are many historically Black neighborhoods that have undergone gentrification over the last 20 years.

The issue of how gentrification affects different racial groups is particularly relevant right now in light of the increased instability people are facing due to the pandemic and incidents bringing attention to the unnecessary use of policing against people of color in the United States, Hwang said.

Fewer options

Hwang and Ding analyzed a consumer credit database of more than 50,000 adult residents with financial credit records in Philadelphia.

Recognizing that a primary cause of gentrification-related displacement is increased costs for current residents, the authors looked at individuals with low or missing credit scores who might be more vulnerable to displacement and at the same time might face limitations in housing searches if they did move.

The study found that residents in predominately non-Black gentrifying neighborhoods have a broader set of neighborhoods they moved to, while those from Black gentrifying areas were relegated to less advantaged neighborhoods and faced fewer options. These options included other largely Black neighborhoods or immigrant-populated neighborhoods, exacerbating neighborhood inequality by race and class.

“Gentrification is reconfiguring the urban landscape by shrinking residential options within cities for disadvantaged residents and expanding them for more advantaged residents,” the authors write.

Reasons for this discrepancy in Philadelphia and other major cities, Hwang said, include racially stratified housing markets and discriminatory lending practices that have long disadvantaged Black people.

The researchers found that the patterns exhibited by poorer residents moving out of largely Black gentrifying neighborhoods were similar to those of other disadvantaged residents who moved from non-gentrifying neighborhoods.

“Even if people are moving by choice, white people have more advantage when they go into the housing market,” she said.

Combatting inequities

In order to combat the likelihood of gentrification increasing socioeconomic and racial segregation within cities, the authors note the need for policies like Philadelphia’s recently implemented property tax relief program, which prohibits increases in property taxes for long-time low- and middle-income homeowners.

While the authors consider this a step in the right direction, they also would like to see more cities adopt policies that ensure residential stability for renters. Efforts to address racial discrimination in the housing market and overall racial wealth disparities also require attention, they write.

The authors note that as cities continue to transform, a sustained investment in non-gentrifying neighborhoods is needed to attract racial and socioeconomic diversity. At the same time, policies must be in place that allow disadvantaged residents to stay and that connect them to resources and opportunities.

This greater investment in non-gentrifying neighborhoods would, Hwang and Ding write, “ensure that disadvantaged movers are not limited to neighborhoods with high levels of disadvantage, high crime and low-quality schools.”

The study, titled “Unequal Displacement: Gentrification, Racial Stratification, and Residential Destinations in Philadelphia,” was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health .

Media Contacts

Joy Leighton, Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences: [email protected]

• < Previous

Home > Colleges, Schools, and Departments > School of Architecture > School of Architecture Dissertations and Theses > Senior Theses > 467

Architecture Senior Theses

re-designing gentrification

Author(s)/Creator(s)

Elena Whittle

Document Type

Thesis, Senior

Spring 2020

gentrification, design, architecture, paris, built environment, community, social, city, class

• Disciplines

Architecture

Description/Abstract

In Paris sans le people, a book on the gentrification of Paris, Anne Clerval writes (in a French to English translation) that, “gentrification reflects the dynamics of class relationships in the urban space” (p. 10). This thesis explores this dynamic in the context of American cities and additionally points to race relations, and private-public interests’ relations as other important factors in the American urban sphere. This thesis is an exploration of how capital plays a critical role in the morphology of the built environment. One of the ways that this is most obviously observed is through the commonly occurring phenomena in major cities called gentrification. In cities like San Francisco, the case study for this project, unchecked capitalism and complacent city governments have resulted in reshaped urban environments that cast the poor communities that shaped them into the wayside. This thesis seeks to encourage critical thinking about how architecture has become a tool for gentrification and displacement, a truth that the field has largely turned a blind eye to in both academia and practice, and provide insight on how it could also be used to address and redesign the way neighborhoods become “gentrified.” Ultimately, this thesis takes the form of both a proposal and a critique. As a proposal, this thesis argues for a re-insertion of lower and middle-class communities back into the city through housing that is integrated into the existing urban fabric, rather than through isolated housing projects pushed to the city’s outskirts. Furthermore, to create housing opportunity for these communities, this thesis proposes the use of air rights and accessory dwelling units as strategies that are a manipulation of the existing San Francisco zoning code. At the same time, while the project sets up this proposal, it is also a self-critique, which challenges architecture’s own ability to “fix” social ills.

Recommended Citation

Whittle, Elena, "re-designing gentrification" (2020). Architecture Senior Theses . 467. https://surface.syr.edu/architecture_theses/467

Creative Commons License

Since July 23, 2020

Included in

Architecture Commons

• Academic Units
• Dissertations and Theses

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Author Resources

• Open Access at Syracuse
• Contribute Material
• Suggest a New Collection

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright SU Privacy Policy

Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy

Examining the negative impacts of gentrification.

September 17, 2017 by bmc85

by Emily Chong

Change to cities, neighborhoods, and communities is inevitable—however, with the latest tide of change, many communities are experiencing gentrification. Gentrification occurs when “communities experience an influx of capital and concomitant goods and services in locales where those resources were previously non-existent or denied.” [1] Usually, gentrification occurs when more affluent people move to or become interested in historically less affluent neighborhoods. Gentrification is a phenomenon subject to much debate—some believe that its effects are purely positive, while others argue that gentrification brings about harmful consequences. I argue the latter and examine the problems that gentrification causes.

Some argue that gentrification is beneficial since the gentrification process creates more development, rapid economic investment, and support of projects related to consumption and entertainment. [2] The incoming population of more affluent residents and people of privilege is directly connected to an increase in resource allocation to schools, stores, and other development. While these effects can be beneficial, the gentrification process becomes detrimental when it forces original residents to leave the neighborhood through exponentially increasing property prices, coercion, or buyouts. If there is no widespread displacement, and the shifts in the neighborhood are carefully planned through with community input and involvement, gentrification can be a good thing for the community, increasing “socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic integration.” [3] However, this is rarely ever the case.

Gentrification usually leads to negative impacts such as forced displacement, a fostering of discriminatory behavior by people in power, and a focus on spaces that exclude low-income individuals and people of color.

During gentrification, poorer communities are commonly converted to high-end neighborhoods with expensive housing options such as high-rises and condominiums. [4] As property prices increase, the original residents of the neighborhood are forced out in a variety of ways. First, with an increase in the prices of buildings, the gap between the price of the building and the income that the landlord gets from renting the building grows bigger; landlords thus increase rent prices, which forces out the low-income residents. [5] As building prices continue to increase, the problem exacerbates because it becomes even more profitable to convert these apartment buildings into non-residential areas. Additionally, since investors can earn more money from selling buildings, real-estate dealers have less incentive to improve the buildings. The real estate dealers instead sell the buildings at higher prices. This cycle of rising building prices continues until only large and well-financed investors are able to continue. [6]

Because of the potential for large profits from the conversion of ordinary living spaces to high-rise or office buildings, unscrupulous landlords have used immoral means to intentionally displace low-income residents from rent-controlled areas. [7] For example, a development corporation in New York Chinatown applied for a special zoning permit for the construction of an apartment on a plot with rent-control housing; before the city decided whether or not to issue the permit, the developer had already evicted the tenants and demolished the rent-controlled building. [8] The residents stated that the corporation forced them out of the building through deprivation of services, harassment, gang intimidation, and arson. [9]

Even when the living spaces in a gentrifying area remain residential, the developers attract new residents with higher incomes because of the services and amenities that improve in conjunction with the increase cost of living and property values. [10] The influx of these new and more affluent residents puts pressure on the housing market that produce inflated rents and prices that effectively displace low-income residents. [11] Furthermore, during rezoning, the new residents, who are in the groups with the “most spatialized privilege” and “high economic [standing, have] the power to shape city policy to protect themselves from further gentrification that might have priced them out of the area.” [12]

Displacement from these aforementioned methods is disproportionately borne by low-income individuals of color, many of whom are elderly individuals. [13] Physical frailty makes it more challenging for elderly individuals to resist the actions that landlords take to remove tenants. [14] Researchers have also found that elderly people are more intensively affected by social changes around them; for example, many older adults cited loss of friendships or community networks as a reason to move. [15] This is a problem that builds on itself— with gentrification, many people are rapidly forced out of their neighborhoods, leading to less community networks and more reason for elderly low-income individuals, who are already facing struggles from rising prices, to give up on their homes and move out of the neighborhood.

In addition to displacement due to rising property values and coercive techniques, low-income individuals and people of color also can face exclusion from the newly planned spaces in the gentrifying location. [16] Common in gentrification efforts is the urban planning shift from “fostering community formation” to “investing the city with money and consumption-oriented spaces that resemble suburban shopping malls that exclude low-income and people of color.” [17] Instead of community integration, there is selective development and enforcement of distinction between different areas. [18] Moreover, when developers do build houses, they are not building these houses for low income families. There are frequent cuts in low-income housing federal assistance, and so new buildings are usually intended for upper-income families. [19] These spaces are societally problematic because they disproportionately exclude people of color and low-income individuals.

Most gentrification occurs because of a lack of policies that value community input, offer equitable rezoning policies, and provide intentional housing options. Without policies that attempt to remedy the trends that cause forced displacement, gentrification will continue to dismantle and displace lower-income communities. To develop such policies, we must recognize the disproportionate and destructive effects of gentrification.

[1] Sabiyha Prince, African Americans and Gentrification in Washington, DC: Race, Class and Social Justice in the Nation’s Capital 2 (2014).

[2] Arlene Dávila, Barrio Dreams: Puerto Ricans, Latinos, and the Neoliberal City 1-2 (2004) (explaining claims of proponents of the gentrification process).

[3] Lance Freeman, There goes the Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Group Up 39 (2011).

[4] Peter Kwong, The New Chinatown 51 (rev. ed. 1999).

[5] Id. at 51-52.

[6] Id. at 51.

[9] Id at 52.

[10] Winnie Tam Hung, Enforcing Stillness: Chinatown Youth and Geographies of Illegality, 123 (Oct. 2011) (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Davis), https://search.proquest.com/docview/937030797.

[11] Rowland Atkinson, The hidden costs of gentrification: Displacement in central London . 15 J. Hous. Built Env’t 307, 307 (2000); See also Prince, supra note 1, at 12.

[12] Hung, supra note 10.

[13] See Atkinson, supra note 11, at 123.

[16] Hung, supra note 10, at 106.

[19] Kwong, supra note 5, at 52.

• 2024 Elections
• 2024 Fall Mixer

Gentrification is beneficial on average, studies say. That doesn’t mean it’s not painful for some.

Demographics By Alex Baca (DC Policy Director) ,  Nick Finio (Contributor) August 6, 2019   46

New construction at T Street and 14th NW. by Randall Myers used with permission.

Gentrification produces mostly positive effects for the existing, generally lower-income residents of upscaling neighborhoods, some recent studies show. But that doesn’t mean that there are no losers. Neighborhood change is as complex as it always has been, which means there are near-infinite ways to decipher and judge its effects on individuals.

Authors Quentin Brummet with NORC at the University of Chicago and Davin Reed at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia released a paper in July that studies the effects of gentrification on the economic well-being of original residents and children. In this study, “original residents and children” are defined as the people who lived in a neighborhood in the year 2000, and either remained there or moved out as the neighborhood gentrified over the next decade. Gentrification is defined as the net-positive in-movement of people with college degrees into a lower-income census tract.

Its main findings are that neighborhood mobility is already high across income categories : 70% to 80% of renters change neighborhoods over a decade, and 40% of homeowners do, too. When a neighborhood is gentrified, the likelihood that original residents move increases only slightly, by about 5%. That likelihood is slightly higher for lower-income renters.

Brummet and Reed conclude that gentrification only marginally increases out-movement, and, importantly, that those who remain experience certain benefits. Those benefits include exposure to lower poverty rates, increases in home values, and other correlates of neighborhood opportunity.

Gentrification in DC is exceptional

Of course, this made a splash , and the study received lots of coverage . CityLab has a thorough summary of its particulars and results. In short, the methods are impressive: The authors use a unique and very large set of Census panel data to track the life trajectories of people between 2000 and 2010-2014. They look at the 100 most populous metropolitan areas in the country.

The authors rank Washington as the “most gentrifying central city” in the country from 2000 to 2010-2014, ahead of other hotspots like Portland, Seattle, and Denver, echoing a few other recent reports . Their map, produced at the end of the paper, shows the familiar pattern of gentrification in and around DC’s core.

From page 30 of the study.

This study, like other recent macro-scale econometric studies on gentrification, reports most of its results in averages. A neighborhood out-mobility rate increase of a few percent on average , across gentrifying neighborhoods in the whole country, can mask what’s happening at the hyper-local scale. In certain neighborhoods, out-movement through displacement, whether direct or indirect, has likely been much higher.

When we talk about gentrification in DC, we often use U Street, Shaw, Bloomingdale, and Columbia Heights as signifiers of it, even though what’s happening in them, and neighborhoods like them, is exceptional. A 2017 paper by Kyle Fee , a researcher at the Cleveland Fed, classified neighborhoods in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh by a typology of change. He concluded that while most neighborhoods remained the same over time, the rate of change in some neighborhoods increased the rate of change overall:

In general, this analysis shows that from 1970 to 2010, most neighborhoods tended to remain the same from decade to decade. However, the overall rate of neighborhood change has increased in all four of the cities studied during the past two decades, with Cincinnati and Pittsburgh experiencing the greatest change from the 1990s to the 2000s

Most neighborhoods in most American cities are not gentrifying . But the intensity of what happens in the neighborhoods that are is often so unfair, and so visible, that we respond in kind: virulently. So, we’re not challenging Brummet and Reed’s econometric findings, which we think are solid. But we know that econometrics are not the sole criteria on which to judge the effects of neighborhood change on individual residents.

Brummet and Reed refer frequently to “the baseline” from which they measure change. It’s important to remember that “the baseline” for a lot of people in many neighborhoods—not just the ones that gentrify—is poverty and instability. This tracks with the extensive research showing that concentrated poverty results in more displacement than gentrification. (This is famously illustrated by Matthew Desmond’s Evicted .) Poverty undergirds gentrification’s ill effects.

What about gentrification’s other impacts?

Still, the conclusions of Brummet and Reed’s work can feel insensitive, given the lived experience of people in neighborhoods where there is an influx of wealth. The authors themselves note that their research’s greatest shortcoming is that it doesn’t estimate the costs of leaving a neighborhood.

Gentrification can harm people through direct costs like moving costs, or the security deposit for a new apartment, which—given that few people have enough cash to cover emergency expenses—could easily unfold into an even more precarious financial situation. And though gentrification’s social and cultural costs are well-covered by many qualitative studies, that’s exactly what feels so unaccountable as to be the overwhelming driver of change .

If people perceive that their neighborhoods are so different they no longer think of them as home, does it matter if they’re are able to comfortably remain in their homes? Does it matter that the places that they live are safer, healthier, and more accessible—which often means that the homes there become more expensive? How much does it matter if they benefit economically?

Lance Freeman’s 2006 book, There Goes the ‘Hood , dissected a similar question. His research has continued to provoke thoughtful discussion of whether we’ll accept change, or if we’d prefer neglect. An excerpt of it reads :

This book argues that indigenous residents do not necessarily react to gentrification according to some of the preconceived notions generally attributed to residents of these neighborhoods. Their reactions are both more receptive and optimistic, yet at the same time more pessimistic and distrustful than the literature on gentrification might lead us to believe. Residents of the ‘hood are sometimes more receptive because gentrification brings their neighborhoods into the mainstream of American commercial life with concomitant amenities and services that others might take for granted. It also represents the possibility of achieving upward mobility without having to escape to the suburbs or predominantly white neighborhoods. These are benefits of gentrification typically not recognized in the scholarly literature. Yet the long history of disenfranchisement, red lining, and discrimination also inspires a cynicism toward gentrification that might not be evidenced elsewhere. Though appreciative of neighborhood improvements associated with gentrification, many see this as evidence that such amenities and services are only provided when whites move into their neighborhoods. Moreover, many see these improvements as the result of active collaboration between public officials, commercial interests, and white residents. Though much has been written about displacement and somewhat less about the political consequences of gentrification for indigenous residents, this dimension of cynicism toward gentrification has not been explored.

Brummet and Reed’s paper gives us approximately zero data on how people feel about living in a different place, and how they feel about their neighborhoods changing. But we think that’s OK. Its authors don’t purport to do that, and they offer valuable insight by placing the small number of neighborhoods that are nearly always discussed simultaneously with gentrification in relief, against many, many other neighborhoods nationwide. Their recommendations—accommodating the increased demand for housing close to amenities and city centers by building more of it—align with GGWash’s worldview.

Another recent study based on Medicaid data found that gentrification did not displace low-income children in New York. It was conducted by Ingrid Gould Ellen, professor of urban policy and planning and director of NYU’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy; health economist Sherry Glied, dean of NYU’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, and Kacie Dragan, project manager for NYU Wagner’s Policies for Action Research Hub.

“These kids move a lot, whether their neighborhood gentrifies or it doesn’t gentrify,” Glied told CityLab . NYU’s researchers found that health outcomes for children who stayed in gentrifying neighborhoods improved. But those benefits accrue within a shifting and rocky landscape that’s replete with other factors. Per CityLab:

When vulnerable families did move, they tended to move longer distances (which the researchers can track by their exact addresses). Low-income families leaving gentrifying areas were more likely to change zip codes or move to another borough (although they were no more likely to leave New York City altogether). Maybe that’s because these families must travel farther to find affordable housing.

People—ourselves included—can’t help but view new buildings as representative of development and growth. Our country’s history of racial and economic segregation has meant that change is almost unilaterally uneven and unfair . Housing policies and mechanisms like the DC’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Affordable Housing Preservation Fund, legalizing apartments, increasing voucher amounts and expanding access to services , and compliance with fair-housing laws can mitigate this, but can’t completely or individually staunch the racial wealth gap.

By the transitive property of signifiers of neighborhood change, the very new buildings that could possibly mitigate some negative effects of newcomers, by literally absorbing them without much displacement, are almost universally regarded as symbolizing the physical and cultural exclusion of current residents. Data can nearly never account for that.

Correction: Quentin Brummet’s affiliation is with NORC at the University of Chicago, not the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Thanks for reading! 

We are reliant on support from readers like you to fund our work. If everyone reading this gave just $5, we could fund the publication for a whole year. 

Can you make a one-time or recurring contribution today to keep us going strong? 

Support our work!

GGWash is supported by our recurring donors, corporate supporters, and foundations.

• News Center >
• News Releases >
• Balancing act: UB study links gentrification to reduced crime, but downsides of gentrification can’t be ignored

Balancing act: UB study links gentrification to reduced crime, but downsides of gentrification can’t be ignored

UB-led study is a first step toward understanding gentrification’s effects on crime on mid-size cities, but more work is needed, researchers say. Photo: Douglas Levere

By Bert Gambini

Release Date: August 28, 2024

BUFFALO, N.Y. – Neighborhood gentrification in Buffalo between 2011 and 2019 was associated with a decrease in property crime, independent of a general decrease in similar crime city-wide during those same years, according to a University at Buffalo study.

The findings published in the journal PLOS One could help city planners and lawmakers faced with balancing issues like neighborhood improvement and crime. The study’s authors, however, caution that gentrification is often accompanied by multiple effects, and the wide-ranging impact of the process demands carefully measured thought ahead of any direct action.

“If well managed, gentrification could be part of a strategy to make neighborhoods safer,” says Zhe Zhang, a sociology graduate student in the UB College of Arts and Sciences, and the study’s lead author. “However, it must be emphasized that gentrification is a complex issue, and the countervailing effects of crime reduction must be considered alongside potentially negative outcomes, like displacement of long-time residents.”

Since the 1990s, gentrification, which involves an in-migration of a new, middle-class population following a period of economic decline, has changed many urban landscapes in the U.S.

But most research on gentrification has been in large cities like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Because lessons learned in those large cities do not necessarily apply to smaller cities, Zhang and study co-author Ashley Barr, PhD, an associate professor of sociology at UB, expand upon that earlier work by focusing on Buffalo, a mid-sized city.

Buffalo, a characteristic Rust Belt city, prospered through the early 20th century, but then experienced high unemployment and population loss in the 1980s, followed by a surge in development beginning around 2010. This was fueled by state-funded projects and private investment. In addition to those changing features, Buffalo, in the last 20 years, has become a destination for refugees and migrants.

“By studying neighborhoods in cities like Buffalo, we can look at gentrification in a place that has continued to go through economic hardships while simultaneously experiencing the hallmarks of gentrification,” says Zhang. “Buffalo’s unique experience with gentrification, despite its ongoing economic struggles, provides insights that can apply to other, older industrial cities aiming for revitalization.”

The current study, which relied on census data and data from the Buffalo Police Department, also distinguished itself from previous work by not looking at gentrification as a discrete process. Earlier studies have centered on the differences between gentrified and non-gentrified areas, but Zhang and Barr also examine changing crime rates within neighborhoods as they undergo gentrification. They studied 79 different census tracts — areas containing 1,200 to 8,000 people — in the years leading up to and following gentrification.

“This approach helps clarify whether crime rate changes are due to gentrification itself or other factors,” says Zhang.

Neighborhoods that eventually become gentrified are different in some ways from neighborhoods that are vulnerable but do not gentrify, according to Barr.

“Although both are disadvantaged, the latter are more so. It is important to take these preexisting differences into account if we are to say gentrification matters for crime. By looking at two differences – those between gentrified and never-gentrified tracts, and changes over time within the same tract — our multipronged approach does this,” says Barr.

The results were the same across the study’s multiple approaches: Gentrification was linked to reduced crime.

“Although this study does not speak directly to policy changes and their effects, plausible ways forward might include affordable housing programs, community engagement efforts and economic support for long-term residents to ensure that the benefits of gentrification, such as reduced crime, do not come at the cost of the most vulnerable populations,” says Zhang.

This study is a first step toward understanding gentrification’s effects on crime on mid-size cities, but more work is needed.

“We encourage qualitative research — stories from people in these areas — as well as quantitative research like ours, to better understand the underlying reasons behind the link between gentrification and crime and other effects resulting from the process, both positive and negative,” says Zhang.

Media Contact Information

Bert Gambini News Content Manager Humanities, Economics, Social Sciences, Social Work, Libraries Tel: 716-645-5334 [email protected]

Read the latest in your favorite channels.

Take UB With You. Wherever.