Understanding Latinx Perceptions of and Responses to Neighborhood Change

1 ‘Latinx’ is recognized as a pan-ethnic label for those with Latin American ancestry and acts to ungender Latina/o (Salinas & Lozano, 2021). It is used throughout this paper for consistency when referring to participants overall. However, not all individuals identify completely with this term and instead describe themselves as Hispanic, Latino/a, Chicano/a, or Mexican American, etc. (García, 2020). When participants referred to themselves with a particular term, that term is used to identify them.

Abstract

Using a place attachment lens, this article evaluates Latinx perceptions of and responses to neighborhood change. Research questions guiding this study include: (a) How do perceptions of place and neighborhood change vary among Latinx communities? (b) How do Latinx community members frame neighborhood change (as beneficial or disruptive)? And (c) How do these perceptions and assessments of neighborhood change shape the protective actions that are taken? This case study, based in Santa Ana, California, includes participant observations (nearly 180 hours) and semistructured interviews (28) with Latinx residents embedded in neighborhood associations and community-based organizations, selected because of their work against or for urban development. Results indicate that perspectives and responses varied by homeownership, age, immigration generation, and organizational affiliation, demonstrating differences among Latinxs in Santa Ana. Shaping their various perspectives are lived experiences (including racial discrimination and anti-immigrant sentiment) and both past and present perceptions of place.

Keywords:

• Latinx communities
• opposition
• neighborhood change
• place attachment

Opposition to neighborhood change is often addressed in urban studies research documenting the history of revitalization and the struggles with gentrification² and displacement³ experienced by communities of color. Nonetheless, these findings are frequently presented in a monolithic manner, with scholarly literature and planning processes glossing over important differences in perspective (Monkkonen & Manville, 2019). Resistance to aspects of neighborhood change is prevalent among all demographic groups, but the varying motivations informing Latinx perspectives on and responses to neighborhood change remain an understudied topic. In this context, more research is needed to understand the role of place attachment (Devine-Wright, 2009; McAuley, 1998), the emotional ties individuals have to a certain place, in shaping Latinxs’ perceptions and the responses they take to protect their communities from emerging threats/disruptions to their sense of place.

Place attachment literature recognizing the historical racialization⁴ of space is limited (Orta, 2021); however, this process is important to consider, as its mechanisms have worked to shape what would become “place” for some and not others through segregation, fostering what residents come to appreciate or dislike about their neighborhoods. These circumstances may lead residents to perceive and respond to changes in their community differently—they may accept or resist them, or choose to withdraw. Using a place attachment lens to understand perspectives and responses among the Latinx community could bring to the surface important issues and persistent tensions that are pivotal for urban planners to recognize when facilitating planning processes and developing solutions.

Accordingly, this research examines the following questions: (a) How do perceptions of place and neighborhood change vary among Latinx communities? (b) How do Latinx community members frame neighborhood change (as beneficial or disruptive)? And (c) How do these perceptions and assessments of neighborhood change shape the protective actions that are taken? Semistructured interviews (28) and participant observations (nearly 180 hours) with Latinx residents in Santa Ana, a predominantly low-income and Latinx community in central Orange County, California, were conducted to better understand their perspectives on neighborhood change and what leads them to respond to changes. Given their extensive efforts to support or oppose development in their community and because they contrast greatly in age and circumstances, Latinx residents specifically involved in neighborhood associations (NAs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) were selected as participants for this study.

Results indicate that perspectives and responses varied by homeownership status, age, immigration generation, and organization affiliation, demonstrating differences among Latinxs in Santa Ana. Although many CBO leaders (primarily renters) who identified as first-generation immigrants in their 30s and 40s and second-generation Mexicans/Salvadorans/Chicanxs in their early 20s and 30s resisted market-rate high-density development, they applauded efforts to build 100% affordable high-density apartments on vacant or underutilized lots. Motivating them to respond in this way was a deep desire to ensure that Santa Ana remains a working-class, Latinx immigrant city. In contrast, many NA leaders (mostly homeowners), consisting of third-generation Mexicans/Chicanxs in their 60s, welcomed high-density development in their traditionally single-family neighborhoods, regardless of affordability, if they anticipated that their community would change for the “better.” For some, the idea of “better” included fewer renters, whom NA leaders assumed were indifferent about maintaining their homes. Several were also motivated by a desire for more “diversity,” increased property values, and improved visual aesthetics in their neighborhood. CBO leaders were less receptive toward increased “diversity,” leading several to withdraw support from businesses that served a clientele other than working-class Latinx immigrants.

In the sections that follow, I first outline a brief history of the segregation of Latinx neighborhoods in the US. I also introduce place attachment as a lens for assessing resident perspectives and responses to neighborhood change. I then highlight prior scholarship documenting varying perceptions of neighborhood change within communities of color. Second, I present the methods for carrying out this study, highlighting my approach and the rationale behind it. Third, I elevate the themes that resonated in conversation with Latinx residents from NAs and CBOs. Finally, I center the complexities of neighborhood change in Latinx communities within place attachment theory and provide recommendations for planners working in communities experiencing similar changes and points of tension.

The Segregation, Gentrification, and Displacement of Latinx Neighborhoods

In the 1940s to 1960s the Latinx population in the US grew considerably, as a result of political instability and increasing poverty in Latin America (Gutiérrez, 2016). Owing to varying migration patterns, numerous Latinx and/or Chicanx neighborhoods burgeoned across the US and have historically drawn Latinx immigrants seeking refuge, job opportunities, and reunification with their families (Portes, 2018). Latinxs in the US would be faced with colorism (Frank et al., 2018) and labeled as “alien citizens” and “illegals” (Gómez, 2022), with stratifying effects akin to other social hierarchies (Menjívar, 2021). Despite persistent tactics of racialization aimed at limiting immigration (Becerra et al., 2022), Latinx migration has continued to grow in cities across the US, including less traditional cities like Charlotte, North Carolina (Gámez, 2012; Smith & Furuseth, 2016), and Atlanta, Georgia (Vásquez et al., 2008).

Segregation in the US is used as a tool to stratify low-income communities and communities of color. It is commonly described in the context of a Black and White dichotomy (Massey & Denton, 2019). Less considered is how segregation relates to the Latinx population in the US in light of the effects of racialization (i.e., colorism, racism, and anti-immigrant sentiment and policy). The concentration of Latinxs in certain neighborhoods is often described as self-segregation, in which immigrants seek to live close to others who speak the same language and where there are job opportunities. In parallel, a sense of preserving one’s history and racial heritage may also influence one’s decision to move into a particular community (Boyd, 2005).

There are also many Latinxs who choose not to self-segregate for various reasons (such as pressure to act as a “model minority,” the ability to afford higher housing costs elsewhere, English proficiency, or financial literacy) and are able to live in areas that are primarily made up of non-Hispanic Whites (Cheng, 2013). These areas may be preferred, given their proximity to better schools and enhanced safety (Ready & Brown-Gort, 2005). However, Latinxs also face limitations, discrimination, and deteriorated spaces in segregated suburbs (Betancur, 1996).

Similar to the forced segregation of Black communities in urban areas, low-income Latinx communities have also historically been relegated to unwanted areas of the city (in close proximity to freeways and industry; Massey & Denton, 2019). Government-led decisions in the 1930s, such as the redlining of Latinx and Black communities, prevented residents of color from obtaining loans to improve their homes and restricted their mobility to suburban neighborhoods, where increased investment was made toward schools, infrastructure, and amenities (Trounstine, 2023). In contrast, White⁵ residents received financial support to move to better neighborhoods and have also resisted Latinxs, regardless of national origin, citizenship status, or generation, moving into their neighborhoods. For example, in Orange County, California, White residents expressed feeling threatened by the growing Latinx population and preferred to share space only with those similar to themselves (Lacayo, 2016). Apart from exclusion, predominantly low-income, Latinx residents would also come to experience on a daily basis anti-immigrant stigmatization and violence (Gemignani & Hernandez-Albujar, 2015) and the militarization of their communities (Dunn, 1996).

Although many Latinx residents sought job opportunities and others who spoke the same language when choosing a place to live, many also prioritized safe spaces given experiences of systemic racism and discrimination in predominantly non-Hispanic White neighborhoods. Latinx residents have sought safe spaces of their own to uphold their history and culture by opening community centers and businesses (e.g., Latinx grocery stores and quinceañera dress shops), and by hosting festivals celebrating their heritage (González, 2017). These attributes demonstrate deeply symbolic spaces (Anderson & Sternberg, 2013) that also set Latinx immigrants apart from other racial/ethnic groups in the US as they experience a sense of “transnationalism,” sustaining connections with their countries of origin while building ties in their community and country of destination (Portes, 1999). Such actions and spaces have become very meaningful to residents facing discrimination, and have been promoted in Latino urbanism literature, boasting Latinxs’ unique contributions to the character of cities across the US (Arreola, 2012). These contributions are also central to place attachment and yet have not been accounted for in the field.

Through processes of urban renewal, local governments have disregarded any sense of place attachment and deemed Latinx homes and businesses to represent urban decay and “blight,” facilitating plans for redevelopment and forced displacement of predominantly Latinx, low-income residents (González, 2017). On many occasions, Latinx communities have been demolished for freeway construction, parking lots, stadiums, or the development of high-density apartment complexes (Avila, 2004). These projects are often a façade for economic revitalization and have physical displacement effects, drawing middle-class White residents into areas historically recognized as low-income (Sarmiento & Sims, 2015). Indirect displacement also bears emphasis, as many residents feel disconnected from new developments taking shape in their neighborhoods (Marcuse, 1985). Place attachment can also be disrupted when residents see buildings or homes that helped anchor their memories destroyed (Relph, 1985).

Place Attachment

The concept of place attachment originates from environmental psychology and describes the emotional bond that evolves between people and place (Shumaker & Taylor, 1983; Giuliani, 2003). An outcome of this process is a positive emotional relation with place and its familiar locales, such as one’s home or neighborhood (Manzo 2005). Although for some individuals, place may not evoke positive memories, place attachment demonstrates that people and place are closely linked (Seamon, 2013). Place-protective behavior occurs when place attachment is disrupted (e.g., by increased demolition and development) and can be recognized in the form of protests, boycotts, talking to neighbors, resisting plans, organizing, or petitioning against or for a change. When individuals respond to disruptions to their neighborhoods, they often do so in order to defend their sense of place. Other times, a lack of emotional connection to place could foment disinterest and a sense of withdrawal (Devine-Wright, 2009).

Two components of place attachment are place identity and place dependence. Place identity alludes to the ways in which physical and symbolic features of particular locations contribute to a sense of self (Proshansky et al., 1983), on both a personal level (as in the statement “Santa Ana has become a part of me”) and a social level (e.g., “I feel completely Santanerx”; Bonnes et al., 1995). Place dependence refers to the resources that make enjoyable activities available (Lee et al., 2012) and fulfill the need for services and support (George & George, 2004) or help residents meet functional goals (Moore & Graefe, 1994).

Although environmental psychology literature focuses extensively on individual factors influencing perceptions of place and response (Devine-Wright, 2009), it does not engage with underlying tensions particular to Latinx communities shaped by policies or practices that sustain race and class inequality (i.e., redlining, urban renewal, and anti-immigration). Such aspects are important to acknowledge, considering the role they have played in designating place for residents and isolating them from important services and amenities (LeClere et al., 1997). Colorism, illegality, and the notion of “alien citizen” all continue to affect Latinx communities (limiting upward mobility, social capital, and political opportunities, and reinforcing inequality), perpetuating differences that contribute to varying perceptions of and responses to change.

Perspectives on Neighborhood Change

Previous work within urban studies offers insight into dimensions that are important for residents to consider when faced with revitalization efforts. González (2017) discusses urban revitalization plans in downtown Santa Ana since the 1970s, highlighting the contrasting views of Latinx activists and city officials. The former recognized the changes as gentrification, and the latter saw them as progress toward economic growth. Harwood and Myers (2002) describe how race and class tensions arose throughout Santa Ana in response to concerns about overcrowded neighborhoods that came with the increase of immigrants. Whereas middle-class residents fought against overcrowding, working-class immigrant residents claimed it was the only way they could live in the city.

Patillo (2010) highlights similar variations within Black communities of Chicago, arguing that homeowners and renters, new and longtime residents, and those who live in public housing exhibit an economic order reflecting different levels of financial security or lack thereof. These differences influence the ways people organize and their motivations for getting involved in the planning of urban development projects. Small (2004) investigates community participation in a predominantly Puerto Rican and low-income Boston barrio. Small attributes changes in community participation, which was high in the 1970s and 1980s, to differences between older and younger generational cohorts. Small examines the cultural frames through which members of these cohorts view their neighborhood and respond to their “common structural conditions.” Residents framed neighborhood change differently because, over the course of their lifetimes, they had experienced differing historical moments and political and economic conditions (Small 2004, preface xv).

Patillo, Small, Gonzalez, and Harwood offer accounts of how and why people view and respond to change differently. They shed light on the complexities of neighborhood change, beyond the model of gentrification. Political and economic factors, immigration, density, and overcrowding also incite disruptions, protests, and activism. I seek to expand on these studies with a place attachment lens by highlighting the internal variations that exist among the Latinx population—including high levels of heterogeneity related to homeownership, age, immigration status, and motivations stemming from these factors—all of which could work to shape residents’ perspectives on and responses to neighborhood change.

Materials and Methods

Study Area

Santa Ana is a city in central Orange County, California, located just south of Los Angeles County, east of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, and north of San Diego County. Santa Ana has a population of approximately 308,189 and a population density of 11,347 people per square mile. It is a majority Latinx city (76.7% of the total population is Latinx, and 41.7% of Latinx residents are foreign born). In addition, about 80% of the population speaks a language other than English (the most common being Spanish). The median household income is about $77,283. This is above the US average; however, it represents less than the median household income in Orange County, which is $100,485. The majority of residents are renters (54.3%), and the homeownership rate in the city is 45.7% (United States Census, 2022).

Since the 1970s, numerous Santa Ana residents have resisted plans for redevelopment, invoking the mass displacement of immigrant communities and the destruction of historic homes in close proximity to the historic downtown corridor, Calle Cuatro (Sarmiento & Sims, 2015). Previous studies have also highlighted the history of gentrification processes in Santa Ana linked to art galleries, downtown revitalization, and affordable housing (González, 2017; Romero & Seeley, 2022; Sarmiento & Sims, 2015; Sims & Sarmiento, 2019). The city represents a broader trend across the nation, in which redevelopment plans were adopted with the pretext of transforming blighted areas in low-income, Black, Latinx, and people of color communities (Hom, 2023; Hyra, 2015). To protect the historical character of their city, advocate for more affordable housing, and mitigate displacement, resident groups have demanded more inclusion in decision-making processes and opportunities to shape the outcomes of development (Harwood & Myers, 2002).

In the last decade, Santa Ana has facilitated the development of a 4.15-mile streetcar (the OC Streetcar—slated to begin service in 2024). The OC Streetcar will run from the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center on the eastern edge of the city, through historic Calle Cuatro and several traditional single-family residential neighborhoods, to the western edge of the city. With supporting policy,⁶ many applications have been made to convert single-family residential areas adjacent to planned stops into high-density apartment complexes, triggering aspects of neighborhood change (e.g., land value/use and demographic shifts; Houston & Zuñiga, 2021) and exacerbating ever-present overcrowding and displacement (Sims & Sarmiento, 2023).

Santa Ana presents an opportune moment to study resident perspectives on neighborhood change; although every case is unique, findings here can reflect trends in other predominantly Latinx neighborhoods and cities undergoing similar processes of redevelopment. To investigate community perspectives, I employed interviews and participant observations, along with a review of relevant literature and local news media articles. Each data source was used to triangulate and corroborate emerging themes, synthesize data collected, and answer the research questions posed (Fielding, 2012).

Author Positionality

I identify as a Latina; however, I am not from Santa Ana, nor did I grow up in the city or live there at the time of this study. To learn more about the issues residents were facing in their communities, as a graduate student, I participated in volunteer opportunities with CBOs fighting gentrification and threats of displacement. I was eager to learn about the antidisplacement strategies that organizations used to defend their communities, given my limited knowledge of the city. As I attended city council and community meetings, I also heard from leaders of NAs, another powerful group. I thought it was important to include their perspectives in my analysis, to achieve a broader understanding of neighborhood change in Santa Ana. My fluency in English and Spanish allowed me to connect with both Spanish- and English-speaking residents involved in organizing efforts, across immigrant generations. I also introduced myself as a graduate student to members of various organizations to highlight my eagerness to listen to their experiences and perspectives, regardless of my involvement with organizations fighting against gentrification. Although I volunteered with a CBO, I constantly engaged in reflexivity (Berger, 2015, p. 220) and bracketing to minimize biases during relationship building, data collection, and data analysis. My interpretation of the findings was also considered and discussed with a number of Santa Ana residents to ensure the results were consistent with their experiences (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

Interviews

From October to December 2019, a total of 28 semistructured interviews were conducted. I identified interviewees through purposive sampling, selecting individuals who identified broadly as Latinx and those extensively involved in NAs and CBOs. Individuals from these organizations are important to consider given their active involvement in urban development and their mobilization of residents’ support for or opposition to proposed projects. NAs are advisory or quasi-governmental groups whose members usually include homeowners from neighborhoods in a given city. They are diligent about expressing neighborhood concerns to public officials, with the aim of improving quality of life and/or raising property values (Harwood & Myers 2002; Ruef & Kwon, 2016). CBOs can be public or private nonprofits, grassroots organizations or coalitions, and can focus on a range of issues. They can also influence community development through organizing efforts (Hum, 2010; Sarmiento & Sims, 2015).

Latinxs from these groups were first identified at city council meetings, where they were seen actively opposing or supporting contentious projects and zoning changes through public comments. Their organizations’ information was located online, and individuals were then contacted with an interview request, via email and/or a phone call. Given their active involvement in organizing efforts, it could be assumed that this is a highly educated and wealthy population. Although NA and CBO members are indeed more engaged in neighborhood planning and had time to participate in this study, they also reflect a different demographic than what is traditionally portrayed in NA literature (i.e., predominantly White, non-Hispanic homeowners; Davis, 2006; Thomas, 1986). Most, but not all, NA members interviewed are retired. A handful worked full-time jobs, and the majority live in working-class Mexican/Chicanx neighborhoods, those historically disinvested, highly patrolled for gang activity, and slated for urban renewal (Lane, 2002). CBO members also demonstrated a range of income and education levels; most had a low income and a bachelor’s degree, but few hopes of continuing their education given financial constraints.

Interviewees represented various neighborhoods across the city, personal characteristics (age, homeownership, education, immigration status and generation, and class), and concerns regarding development in Santa Ana (see Table 1 for description). CBO members were majority renters, and NA leaders were majority homeowners. On average, CBO leaders were younger and had higher educational attainment than NA leaders (average ages were 38 for the former and 55 for the latter; 66% and 44%, respectively, had a bachelor’s degree or higher). Pseudonyms are used in order to avoid identifying the interviewees. Interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 3 hours, lasting 1 hour on average. Most interviews were carried out in English, but the questions were also translated and interpreted into Spanish; approximately 28% of respondents preferred to conduct their interview in Spanish.

Table 1. Description of interviewees.

Interviewee	Type of org.	Age	Race/ethnicity	Homeowner/renter	Highest education
1	CBO	30	Honduran	Renter	Bachelor’s
2	CBO	50	Mexican American	Renter	Bachelor’s
3	CBO	60	Mexican	Renter	Bachelor’s
4	CBO	33	Mexican	Renter	Master’s
5	CBO	40	Mexican	Renter	High school
6	CBO	40	Mexican	Renter	High school
7	CBO	33	Salvadoran American	Renter	High school
8	CBO	33	Mexican American	Homeowner	Master’s
9	CBO	26	Mexican American	Renter	Bachelor’s
10	CBO	40	Chicana	Renter	High school
11	CBO	26	Mexican American	Renter	Bachelor’s
12	CBO	26	Mexican American	Renter	Bachelors’
13	CBO	26	Mexican American	Renter	Bachelor’s
14	CBO	36	Mexican	Renter	High school
15	CBO	27	Mexican American	Renter	Bachelor’s
16	CBO	26	Mexican American	Renter	Bachelor’s
17	CBO	68	Mexican immigrant	Renter	High school
18	CBO/NA	35	Mexican American	Renter	Bachelor’s
19	CBO	28	Mexican American	Renter	Bachelor’s
20	CBO	28	Mexican American	Renter	Master’s
21	NA	56	Chicana	Homeowner	High school
22	NA	43	Mexican	Homeowner	High school
23	NA	56	Mexican American	Homeowner	Bachelor’s
24	CBO/NA	80	Mexican American	Renter	Master’s
25	NA	35	Mexican American	Homeowner	High school
26	NA	65	Chicana	Homeowner	High school
27	NA	69	Mexican	Homeowner	High school
28	NA	56	Mexican American	Homeowner	Bachelor’s

The conceptual framework used to design the interview questions was Devine-Wright’s stages of psychological response to place change over time (Devine-Wright, 2009, see Figure 1). By using this framework, I was able to ask residents about the changes they have observed in the last 10–15 years, how they make sense of the changes, whether they thought overall conditions were improving or worsening in their neighborhood, and how they respond to the changes. I also integrated questions aimed at exploring one’s emotional connection to place. Although this study engages the perspectives of individuals embedded in NAs and CBOs, others involved in resisting or supporting change in their community (e.g., members of the police association or chamber of commerce) are not included. Thus, further research is needed to provide a more holistic view.

Figure 1. Stages of psychological response to place change over time.

Source: Devine-Wright, 2009.

Participant Observations

Findings also derive from over 180 hours of participant observations acquired between January 2018 and January 2020. Over 15 city council, NA, and CBO meetings concerning large development proposals were attended, to better understand the range of concerns and perspectives of Latinx residents regarding planned projects in their city (including high-density apartment complexes, the streetcar, parks, and bicycle infrastructure). These meetings were found using the city website or by word of mouth. Interactions, organizing efforts, and responses (e.g., speaking up at city council meetings, going to developer-led meetings, and planned rallies) were observed and documented in different settings to support and triangulate interview data. In 2019, I started speaking at city council meetings to share my concerns related to future projects and their potential displacement of local low-income residents. I also canvassed residents for any threats of displacement or rent increases they had experienced in the last year. These direct, participatory observations allowed me to acquire a greater understanding of the magnitude of issues residents were experiencing and the solutions they were advocating for.

Data Analysis

The stages of psychological response to place change over time (Devine-Wright, 2009) guided my approach to acquiring and assessing data. Atlas.ti was used to assess interview data, and only one researcher coded the data. Tools used to assess interview and participant observation data include coding, memos, and constant comparison. Predetermined codes were used to group the data into categories representing the framework, such as “place attachment/emotional ties with place,” “becoming aware of changes,” “interpreting change,” “evaluation of change,” “response to change,” “benefits,” and “disruptions.” Data were assessed a second time inductively to discover emerging categories. Data were coded and searched for patterns and themes to acquire insight into perspectives on neighborhood change and motivations for opposition. Incidents were also compared to identify similarities and differences (Locke, 2001). This constant comparison helped develop theoretical properties associated with the categories, providing an explanation of how things happened as they did (Saldaña, 2021). Conclusions were drawn by corroborating existing literature and participant observations with themes generated from interview data in relation to each stage represented in the framework of psychological response to place change over time.

Results

Results below are presented by first highlighting residents’ sense of place attachment to the city of Santa Ana, followed by sections that reflect the stages of psychological response to place change over time (Devine-Wright, 2009). Table 2 lists a summary of the varying perspectives of benefits, disruptions, and responses interviewees shared.

Table 2. Summary of varying perspectives on neighborhood change among NA and CBO leaders.

Organizational affiliation	Perceived benefits	Perceived disruptions	Responses
NA	Increased diversity Improved aesthetics Increased property value	Parking congestion Overcrowding Lack of renter stability (tenants moving in/out of their neighborhoods regularly)	Support development of new high-density apartment housing when they are able to influence planning Support new, diverse businesses on Calle Cuatro Consider moving from the city when desired changes are not made Anticipate changes Embrace changes
CBO	None More bike lanes Increased community organizing One new culturally relevant space on Calle Cuatro	Increased diversity threatening Latinx immigrant identity Market-rate housing Displacement and gentrification Rent increase Parking congestion Overcrowding	Support development of high-density apartment complexes with affordable housing Resist plans for exclusively market-rate apartments and organize for affordable housing Boycott new businesses that do not affirm the Latinx, immigrant community Anticipate changes Rely on survival mode

Source: Author interviews.

Sense of Place Attachment

Results demonstrate that Latinxs involved with an NA or CBO all had strong place attachment for their city. What they valued about place and thought of as disruptions to their place attachment, however, differed by homeownership status, immigrant generation, and age. Homeowners in their 60s and those involved in NAs displayed a strong sense of place dependence (Butcher & Breheny, 2016), relative to characteristics such as proximity to highways, centrality to work, walkability, and accessibility to county services. Such highly regarded attributes shaped this group’s emotional connection to place. Those involved with NAs also expressed gratitude for the connection they had with local government, which enabled them to learn more about proposed projects, access additional resources, and build connections with the police force, local politicians, and city staff.

The place attachment exhibited by renters was based more on place identity than on place dependence (Broto, 2010). When asked about their emotional connection, many used words such as “love,” “strong,” and “roots,” and phrases such as “Santa Ana is part of my identity.” Many young Latinxs who were born and raised in Santa Ana spoke of it in a romantic manner. Isabel, a young Mexican American in her mid-20s, who volunteers for a local organization working on tenants’ rights, shared, “I wouldn’t mind spending the rest of my life here.” Others, like Javier, a CBO organizer also in his 20s, took pride in Santa Ana’s history, stating, “It’s very rooted in lucha, like struggle. So, I feel, I carry that with me.” When sharing their appreciation for their city, many young organizers referenced their immigrant parents’ sacrifice, leaving their home countries for a better future, amid anti-immigrant sentiment and few resources. These sentiments were rarely discussed in interviews with NA members.

Perception, Interpretation, and Evaluation of Changes

Latinxs involved in NAs and CBOs perceived similar changes in their community: increased overcrowding, intensified high-density development, more bike lanes, elevated threats of gentrification and displacement, rising cost of living, and growing diversity in their city. Yet these groups interpreted and evaluated such changes differently (i.e., as threats/disruptions or benefits), given their varying forms of place attachment. In the following section, a subset of perceived changes, as well as residents’ perspectives on these changes, are described.

Overcrowding of People and Cars

Concerns regarding overcrowding were resounding. All interviewees across age, generation, and homeownership status described the exacerbation of this issue in the last 10–15 years—both in terms of more individuals living within single-family homes due to the shortage and high cost of housing in California, and in terms of more high-density apartment complexes bringing in a growing number of residents.

Henri, a homeowner and Mexican American man in his 60s who leads his NA, was born and raised in Santa Ana. He lives in a neighborhood considered one of the poorest and most overpoliced. He mentioned that he had seen an increase in Vietnamese and Salvadoran residents in his majority Mexican neighborhood, many of whom were living in overcrowded conditions. Henri grew aware of overcrowding in his community as he helped translate the census form from English to Spanish for a Salvadoran neighbor who lived in a home intended for a single family. Henri asked basic questions from the census, such as “How many people live here?” His neighbor replied, “20.” Surprised, Henri asked, “How many rooms do you have here?” His neighbor responded, “Three.” Henri went on to ask, “Where the heck do you put these people at?” His neighbor replied, “We sleep everywhere. We rent out the closet, we rent out the living room.” Henri was shocked that people were living this way in his neighborhood. Henri and many others from NAs and CBOs added that overcrowded homes have resulted in overcrowded parking. To Henri, 10 people renting a home equated to 10 additional cars. The need for parking often resulted in residents strategizing how to save scarce spaces for their friends and family: parking in the middle of a side street or keeping trash bins out to save places on the street. Following Henri’s logic, renters were contributing not only to overcrowded conditions but also to a lack of care for existing homes. For these reasons, he believed that the overall conditions of his neighborhood were growing worse.

Magali, a Chicana and renter, is a resident of the same neighborhood as Henri and has lived with her grandmother, where she was born and raised, for about 40 years. She is affiliated with various CBOs in her city, striving to ensure development without displacement. She mentioned that the number of cars parked along her street was an indication of the increased number of people living in each household. Furthermore, rather than seeing families in these homes as she once did, she now observed several individuals living together as housemates, each with their own room or space and a shared kitchen and bathroom. She added that she now saw individuals sitting in their cars looking at their phones or outside on the sidewalk having a meal by themselves just to escape the crowded conditions of their homes. Magali concluded that the overall conditions of her neighborhood were growing worse; she shared, “My heart breaks that we don’t have enough space to be happy, healthy, and free.” In addition, she did not see future market-rate, high-density apartment developments such as one proposed near her grandmother’s home as helping the local population. She expected that they would make matters worse by increasing the cost of living, causing displacement, and exacerbating overcrowded living conditions, parking congestion, and arguments between neighbors over scarce parking.

Of the renters interviewed, five, all in their 20s–30s and involved in CBOs (first- and second-generation immigrants), had lived in or were currently living in overcrowded circumstances. Samantha and Patricia, for example, both lived in a one-bedroom apartment with two other siblings and their parents. Patricia shared that the recession in 2009 led her family to lose their home in the area and resort to living in an overcrowded apartment. Martha, a Honduran immigrant, once lived in the living room of a one-bedroom apartment with her three children; at the time of this study her family of five was living in a three-bedroom affordable housing⁷ unit.

Interviewees offered a number of reasons for overcrowding. Raquel, a Mexican American NA leader and homeowner in her late 30s, attributed the issue to Mexican mothers not wanting to let go of their adult children. However, several second-generation Mexican Americans renters in their 20s said that a lack of affordable places was holding them back from living on their own. Many of them considered increased development of market-rate high-density apartment complexes, which were not affordable for them or their families, to be harming their neighborhoods. Araceli, a CBO organizer in her 20s, demonstrates how questions of affordability and family responsibilities were putting dreams on hold:

Speaking from a place of being a woman in a Latinx household. I feel that there’s more thinking in terms of what it would mean if I would ever want to move out by myself? One, can I afford it? Two, is it the smartest thing for my family, my parents? I want to start a family with someone. Is that selfish to leave your family?

For Araceli, the conditions in her neighborhood were growing worse because the high cost of housing was making the possibility of moving out on her own to start a family much more distant, given her need to support her parents financially.

Vanessa, a Chicana (third-generation) homeowner in her late 50s and NA leader, who was born and raised in Santa Ana, shared that it was common to see eight people living in an apartment intended for four. She mentioned that many residents are living in garages and sheds, unaccounted for. Santa Ana neighborhoods were dotted with advertisements for seminars teaching homeowners how to construct a granny flat in the backyard or for contractors who could convert garages into additional housing units for homeowners to rent out. The scarcity of parking also indicated to Vanessa that her neighborhood was overcrowded and that conditions were worsening. With the thought of high-density apartment complexes planned for her city, she and those from other NAs wondered, “Where will all the residents park? They are going to come and park here in my neighborhood.” She grew disappointed imagining apartment dwellers parking in her single-family residential area.

Growing “Diversity”

Members of both NAs and CBOs perceived an influx of different racial groups into Santa Ana, but they used different frameworks to describe this trend. The majority of participants involved in NAs recognized new residents as part of the growing “diversity” in Santa Ana and something to be appreciated. For example, Daniel, a 40-year-old Mexican immigrant, homeowner, and NA leader, who has lived in a neighborhood near downtown since he was eight years old, thought it was a good thing to see a more diverse clientele downtown. According to interviewees, Asian Americans, Whites, and African Americans were moving into or spending time in Santa Ana, which would not have been seen before. NA leaders described the changes downtown as “much needed,” noting more variety in shopping and restaurants on the main street and different populations visiting. But the majority of Latinxs involved in CBOs expressed opposition to these shifts, because they perceived that changes, such as the increase of high-density apartment complexes, were intended to benefit recent arrivals and not existing Latinx immigrant communities.

Several young organizers referred to Santa Ana’s downtown, Calle Cuatro, as central to their strong place attachment, yet it was also the location where they sensed the most change occurring, both physically and demographically. They shared that, in the past, they would go downtown (to Calle Cuatro) to run errands, buy a quinceañera dress, eat at an affordable Mexican restaurant, or just spend time with family. Recently, however, as noted by Latinxs in CBOs, there has been significantly less of that. Instead of seeing other working-class Mexican families, they have observed many more Whites and Asian Americans visiting Santa Ana on the weekends in the last 10–15 years. Samantha and Patricia further expressed that part of their frustration with the growing diversity on Calle Cuatro was that many of the newcomers would never have visited in the past (in the late 1990s and early 2000s); instead, outsiders ridiculed it for being a dangerous and poor area filled with Mexicans.

Observing the change in demographics reminded Patricia of times when she was a teenager and played soccer matches in her city with students from wealthier areas of the county. She recalled overhearing several of them discriminate against Santa Ana and make jokes about being in a predominantly Mexican city. Samantha grew sad thinking that her city had shifted from focusing on the community of Mexican immigrants and their needs and desires to prioritizing those of outsiders and tourists. Instead of affordable or culturally relevant options for the low-income community that made Santa Ana what it is, overpriced restaurants, luxury apartments, and businesses catering to other communities were moving in, according to Samantha. Because of this rationale, younger Latinxs involved in CBOs like Samantha and Patricia may be keen to acknowledge distinct races and the disparate treatment of communities of color, rather than celebrating Santa Ana’s demographic shift as a step toward appreciating diversity.

Increased Threats of Displacement and Gentrification

In addition, all participants interviewed, regardless of homeownership, perceived that their community was increasingly threatened by displacement and gentrification. Several renters shared that they themselves had been displaced and connected this experience to the process of gentrification. Patricia had faced barriers to renewing the lease for an apartment she lived in with her parents and two siblings. The manager refused the renewal on the grounds that an additional person, Patricia’s uncle, was living in the apartment with them; Patricia and her family had to move elsewhere. Months after having left the apartment complex, she returned to drop off some flyers as part of her job informing residents about tenants’ rights. She saw that the property had been improved dramatically, with a new paint job and beautification enhancements. According to Patricia, younger, single individuals were living there, rather than the working-class families that had been there previously. This experience made her think that the displacement of her family was an intentional act, to facilitate gentrification. Furthermore, although several young organizers had not been displaced physically, changes (actual and anticipated) in the downtown area had led them to sense indirect displacement (Marcuse, 1985). Isabel, who expressed a strong attachment to and identification with Santa Ana, stated that the observed changes came with a “sense of loss” that everyone in her circle of friends talked about. Isabel described the experience as “that sense of not knowing where you’re from anymore.” Isabel shared that this feeling was exacerbated when she observed changes throughout the city and learned of future projects being planned, and yet could not get information about the progress of these developments. For these reasons, Isabel believed the overall conditions of her neighborhood were worsening.

In contrast, homeowners were less likely to speak about experiencing physical or indirect displacement within the last 10–15 years. They have, however, witnessed displacement in various ways. For example, they share having seen new families move in and out of adjacent homes and apartments repeatedly. They have seen furniture pile up on the curb because another family was displaced suddenly. They have also heard from renters in their neighborhood who are facing substantial rent increases. Many times, these observations were met with shrugs and described as a “natural part of the process.” CBO members denied this claim, seeing instead “forced changes” on behalf of the city and developers. Armando, a CBO leader, stated, “The same forces, economics, politics, that have looked to change the façade, change this zone of the city, they have provoked the loss of these spaces.”

Responses to Neighborhood Change

Acceptance Under Particular Conditions

The reasons for accepting anticipated changes were partly informed by participants’ different economic circumstances. Renters saw market-rate high-density housing as detrimental to their community identity and ability to stay in their neighborhood because they associated it with an increased cost of living that they could not afford. Renters interviewed only accepted development (in vacant or underutilized spaces) that included a high percentage of affordable housing to reduce threats of gentrification. Homeowners considered new high-density apartments as a benefit on two main conditions: First, parking should be planned correctly to avoid burdening surrounding neighborhoods. And, second, local residents should be able to influence the number of rooms in each unit to ensure that families can live in the new apartment complexes, preserving the family-oriented neighborhood character Latinx homeowners valued. Several homeowners also saw the absence of plans for vacant land in their community as a threat to their place attachment; they considered empty lots to be an eyesore and therefore accepted market-rate development that would improve the aesthetics of their neighborhood.

Henri, an NA leader, stated, “I am for anything that improves the neighborhood.” Henri accepted the luxury market-rate developments proposed in his low-income community because he thought they would bring needed change, including better aesthetics and the displacement of renters who did not take care of the homes in his neighborhood. Similarly, Veronica, a Chicana and NA leader living downtown, embraced changes that had increased the value of her condo, purchased for $51,000 in 1999 and valued at nearly $300,000 at the time of this interview. Veronica, implying her support for new development, stated, “I have to be a part of these changes.” Previously, she was intensely involved with CBOs that resisted changes. With CBOs, she found herself constantly fighting the city every time a new development was proposed. This continual struggle burned her out, leading her to take a step back and change her philosophy. She further observed, “There are a couple of groups that really scream about the gentrification that’s happening. I’ve always disagreed with that. Gentrification is going to happen. It’s just that evolution.”

Organizing

Almost all individuals from NAs and CBOs mentioned that, given their experiences and perceptions, they chose to join an organization that held similar values and desires to resist or support change. When NA leaders recounted how they first got involved, they emphasized changes they wanted to push forward. Vanessa, Veronica, and Henri joined their NAs partially out of disappointment, because they were not seeing adequate investment in their community, for example in the form of well-maintained parks and traffic-calming measures. Comparable narratives from CBO leaders tended to highlight the need to respond to unwanted changes, such as market-rate development, being imposed from the top down. Javier has coped with the changes he observes by being part of several organizing spaces focused on issues across the city. Javier shared that it was difficult to grasp everything that was happening, but he also described a sense of power in the fact that there were a lot of groups responding to protect long-time residents. Samantha shared that since the city had expanded its investments from downtown to other areas, with plans for high-density luxury apartments along the OC Streetcar line, her CBO had developed a city-wide response. Samantha observed, “I think it really inspired and opened their eyes to some community members that they can create change with their actions. I think that has been the most monumental benefit [of neighborhood change].” Armando adds that although the community had been able to make significant changes to projects, “We have not been able to change the whole game,” given the persistence of market-rate development proposed in historically low-income communities of color.

Withdrawal

A few involved in NAs contemplated withdrawing or leaving Santa Ana, whereas renters from CBOs did not. Henri has thought about leaving Santa Ana for less crowded spaces in neighboring Riverside County. He has lived in his neighborhood since he was a child, but the persistence of gang-related activities, nearby sex work, overcrowded conditions, parking issues, and unkept yards drove him to consider moving out of the city. He added that some areas did not look attractive, such as the multitude of auto shops that border his neighborhood. However, Henri was inclined to stay after imagining that increased investment in the form of market-rate, high-density apartment complexes would force people out who could not afford the increased rent.

On the contrary, all participants interviewed from CBOs showed that their love for the city was relentless; they did not contemplate leaving. Armando, a leader who has witnessed a great loss of residents in his city, shared, “My feelings have not changed for my community. I maintain that same feeling of pride, of love for my community despite the challenges.” However, CBO organizers were found to withdraw from some spaces in the city. Instead of looking for somewhere else to live, they questioned how often they would visit Calle Cuatro, where the majority of investment has occurred. Isabel stated, “The more I went to downtown, the more guilty I felt that I was giving more money to the people that were being part of the change.” Isabel saw herself living in Santa Ana forever, but she had reached a point of withdrawing from the historic downtown that she used to visit often with her family. For CBO organizers, withdrawal meant boycotting those spaces in the city that no longer catered to the predominantly Latinx, immigrant population.

Survival Mode

CBO members also described that many residents simply cannot respond to threats/disruptions because they are in “survival mode.” Magali, a CBO leader, shared that she and many residents of the city were “all struggling so hard.” Magali admitted she might one day have to resort to overcrowded living conditions herself because she is not able to afford a place on her own. In her neighborhood, she has also witnessed over-policing and sex work that made her feel uncomfortable. She does not blame the residents, however, but rather a system that fails to help people excel. Magali responds to threats by organizing, but she also has thought about the reality for a lot of individuals in her neighborhood, particularly those who have experienced trauma and do not have the bandwidth to get involved and resist market-rate, high-density apartments. Magali realized that trauma (e.g., abuse, displacement, or loss) can impede sound decision-making related to life and community, and that many residents are in survival mode as they try to make ends meet renting in Santa Ana.

Apart from experiencing housing instability himself, Armando shared the story of a good friend and fellow organizer from the community who recently experienced displacement after living over two decades in the same house in her downtown-adjacent neighborhood. The home Armando’s friend rented with her family was sold to a developer. Armando and several others tried to reason with the owner, without success. Armando’s friend had to pack her things and leave with her children to find a new home. Armando offered to fight the landlord who evicted his friend, but she responded, “No, right now my only priority is to find where we could live.” Armando reflected, “Our people decide first to survive before getting into the fight to remain.”

Discussion

The objective of this study was to acquire a greater understanding of why some individuals who identify as Latinx oppose aspects of neighborhood change, some withdraw from changes in their city, and others come to accept them. It described the distinct perspectives of various individuals within this community and sought to explain how those perspectives arose. In doing so, it demonstrates tensions between Latinxs embedded in NAs and those embedded in CBOs, regarding their views on neighborhood change and what they consider to be improvements to the overall conditions of the area. For all interviewees in this study, place attachment proved to be central to their response, as they all thought about what they appreciated and what they felt they could protect in their city (Devine-Wright, 2009).

Variations in responses to neighborhood change were closely related to the type of emotional connections that interviewees felt with their city, and the ways that memory fed into these emotions. Younger Latinx organizers embedded in CBOs grew nostalgic remembering downtown as Calle Cuatro. Nostalgia has been described as the “enabler” of place attachment and as the “bitter-sweet emotion defined as a mental return to the past” (Lewicka, 2013). Many young Latinx organizers recalled going to Calle Cuatro as children, to run errands with their parents or to enjoy attractions the Latinx immigrant population had established to meet needs and preserve culture (Arreola, 2012). Such childhood memories in relation to place are important sources of identity (Knez, 2006). In contrast, many Latinxs embedded in NAs or those who were homeowners referred to downtown as a “ghost town” in the 1980s, with little to do or see yet high crime and drug use. Younger CBO leaders may not remember Calle Cuatro of the 1980s in this way, since it was before many were born or migrated to the city. Still other CBO leaders recognize the longstanding drug use and crime in their community, but are deeply committed to fighting the underlying factors that lead to these issues (housing instability, job loss, etc.) rather than bringing in high-end development to drive out marginalized populations. Such distinctions are similar to descriptions of the difference in discourse among Mexican working-class residents and city officials who had perceived downtown as blighted and dangerous (González, 2017).

Experiences of stigma also informed interviewees’ views on change. Although NA leaders were more supportive of change, given their longing to “clean up” their neighborhoods and attract new residents, CBO leaders were emboldened by the stigmatization that marked their city. Several Latinx NA leaders often self-stigmatized their communities, expressing disappointment in the unkept yards, overcrowded living conditions, and instability of renters entering their neighborhoods. They pointed to these issues as reasons for supporting development, which they imagined would reduce the presence of problems within their community. The tension rose as several Latinx NA leaders also placed blame on renters—who could very well be Latinx CBO leaders with a strong desire to remain in Santa Ana—and in turn supported high-density developments because of the desire to displace them.

On the other hand, Latinx CBO leaders viewed their city’s hardships with pride. Their unconditional love comes both in spite of and because of the stigma they faced growing up; even to this day it reinforces their place identity. Similarly, Broto et al. (2010) found that stigmatizing factors such as pollution do not break the bonds between identity and place, which emerge from positive and negative experiences. This pride in hardship, in addition to cultural identity (as a working-class, Latinx immigrant community), led many CBO organizers to create symbolic boundaries tied to structures of inequality, shaping neighborhood identities (Hwang, 2016) and encouraging resistance toward developments like market-rate apartment complexes that threatened to erase the community’s history.

Furthermore, whereas individuals embedded in CBOs are more race conscious (Anderson, 2012), focused on how they connect or disconnect with others in relation to racial identity and culture, individuals embedded in NAs are less likely to frame their views of change in these terms. They speak more of their appreciation of diversity for bringing in new demographic groups and fostering a variety of shops and restaurants in the downtown area that go beyond serving only Mexican clientele. This echoes the approach used by many in education, commerce, and planning institutions who emphasize “diversity” and its importance. Sarmiento (2022) finds that the term is used to promote development that will induce the displacement of Latinx immigrant-serving businesses from Santa Ana’s Calle Cuatro. Results from this study further show that the term “diversity” means little to individuals with heightened racial consciousness. Instead, it may serve as a distraction from understanding and addressing existing inequalities (Ahmed, 2009) that are especially pressing in a city like Santa Ana. Additionally, their resistance to “diversity” may also stem from their place attachment intertwined with the history of racial segregation and anti-immigrant sentiment they have faced and the few spaces they have to call their own, like Calle Cuatro, in Santa Ana.

Regardless of the centrality of place attachment in the lives of Latinxs in Santa Ana, it is also worth noting the influence of wealth inequality and other important economic factors, such as the cost of rent and property values, in shaping perspectives on and responses to neighborhood change. Pressures to increase one’s property value among homeowners and persistent financial constraints amid rising housing costs for renters could also lead individuals to resist or support development. Resistance toward systems of oppression could also fuel residents’ response, particularly in areas with a history of urban revitalization and forced displacement. Such circumstances confirm the importance of understanding place attachment within the context of unequal patterns of wealth accumulation and structural racism often associated with disproportionate impacts on low-income communities and communities of color. Doing so highlights deeper insights into current developments within their neighborhoods and the meanings of change for community members.

Urban Planning Recommendations

The variety of residents’ perceptions and responses presents numerous challenges to urban planners as they make decisions regarding future development and try to discern which perspectives and solutions to prioritize. On the basis of interviews and participant observations, I offer some concepts and ideas that urban planners should keep in mind when facilitating meetings about proposed changes or initiatives in communities.

Comprehensive Training in How to Facilitate Discussions With Diverging Perspectives

Planners must be well equipped with training, resources, funding, and additional assistance to take on the difficult conversations that may emerge between groups at odds with one another. These conversations have the potential to unite residents, given their shared attachment to place. However, more training is needed to better equip planners as they enter such discussions. Professional development workshops regarding cultural competence, community engagement, equity, and social justice to assist planners in better understanding Latinx perspectives and responses and to co-create solutions are crucial.

Cultural Preservation

Given the significance of places and the history of cities like Santa Ana to residents, it is important for planners to recognize and preserve the cultural heritage and identity of Latinx communities. Local initiatives that protect and bolster community spaces should be supported, including cultural festivals, murals commemorating key figures and the community’s history, cultural institutions, community-driven conferences that showcase the work of community members, and local, long-time businesses that serve the Latinx immigrant population. City initiatives that undermine these efforts should be reexamined, augmented, or eliminated to benefit the Latinx immigrant community.

Recognition of a Community’s History

Before acting on cultural preservation, it is also important for local planners to take time to understand and recognize their community’s history, not just in terms of urban development, but also in terms of the racialization of space. For example, what historical policies have fostered anti-immigrant sentiment in your region? What perpetuates segregation in your region? How planners are trained to understand context and identity matters for discussions regarding future development and how planners intervene in cultural displacement.

Conclusion

In the context of increased development, these divergent perspectives on benefits and disruptions/threats are common in cities across the US. Although results from this study reflect only the perspectives of a subset of the Santa Ana population, many aspects may be transferrable to other populations experiencing similar conditions. Other racial/ethnic groups in cities across the US are also bound to understand and respond to neighborhood change within their communities in various ways, given their unique place attachment, history, and experiences. Taking their perspectives as monolithic would obfuscate differences that are important to the planning process and scholarship (Monkkonen & Manville, 2019). Future research should seek out individuals representing different groups or even those uninvolved in organizations, to acquire and examine a range of perspectives. Additional research is also needed to elucidate the mechanisms through which different community organizations, whether supported by local government or not, shape perceptions and develop strategies for resisting or accepting development.

Finally, resident perspectives are vital not only for local planners, who need to understand concerns and develop appropriate interventions, but also for state officials, who often enact policies that have localized effects. By examining other majority Latinx communities and their approaches to preserving their history and culture amid increased investment and development, we can shape planning processes that fully engage with a range of views.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Maria Ceja for assisting with transcription, translation, and suggestions to improve data collection. Thank you also to the numerous interviewees who enhanced my understanding of neighborhood change and what development means to them. I am very appreciative to the organization leaders for sharing their time and invaluable perspectives. Thank you also to Doug Houston, Maria Rendón, Walter Nicholls, Deyanira Nevárez Martínez, José Gámez, Fushcia-Ann Hoover, Candace Miller, Laureen Hom, and Ashley Camille Hernandez for their generous comments and suggestions.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michelle E. Zuñiga

Michelle E. Zuñiga holds a PhD in urban and environmental planning and policy from the University of California, Irvine. Since 2012, Michelle has focused on Latinx communities, particularly low-income, immigrant communities and how they experience and respond to neighborhood change, environmental injustice, threats of displacement, and anti-immigrant sentiment. Michelle explores their perspectives and experiences in the context of urban planning processes and policy taking shape in their communities. Michelle uses qualitative tools, community-engaged methods, and interdisciplinary approaches to better understand the multifaceted dimensions of urban complexities related to neighborhood change.

Notes

1 ‘Latinx’ is recognized as a pan-ethnic label for those with Latin American ancestry and acts to ungender Latina/o (Salinas & Lozano, 2021). It is used throughout this paper for consistency when referring to participants overall. However, not all individuals identify completely with this term and instead describe themselves as Hispanic, Latino/a, Chicano/a, or Mexican American, etc. (García, 2020). When participants referred to themselves with a particular term, that term is used to identify them.

2 Gentrification can be understood as one type of neighborhood change that involves the socioeconomic upgrading of previously low-income, central-city neighborhoods (Freeman, 2005; Hwang, 2016).

3 Displacement is understood to occur when a household is forced from their residence by conditions beyond the tenants’ control (Grier & Grier, 1978). Categories of displacement include direct/physical causes (e.g., formal/informal eviction), indirect/economic causes (e.g., foreclosure), and exclusionary causes (e.g., zoning policies). For additional information on these categories, see Zuk et al. (2018).

4 Racialization refers to the process by which society and state actors designate individuals to certain racial groups and position the groups in relation to each other (Gómez, 2022).

5 White residents are defined as non-Hispanic and “having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa” (United States Census, 2022).

6 California Senate Bill 10 permits cities to upzone areas in close proximity to jobs and transit, and allows existing urban areas to permit up to 10 units without needing to undergo the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process (California Legislative Information, 2021). The term “upzone” refers to an increase in the level of permitted density (Davis, 2021).

7 Affordable housing, as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, is housing where the tenant pays 30% or less of their gross income on housing, including utilities (Thorsby, 2022).