Gentrification and the creation and formation of rent gaps

Abstract

This contribution intervenes in the debate about gentrification theory's applicability to contexts outside the Global North, specifically responding to the work of [Ghertner, D. Asher. 2014. ‘India’s Urban Revolution: Geographies of Displacement beyond Gentrification.’ Environment and Planning A 46 (7): 1554–1571; Ghertner, D. Asher. 2015. ‘Why Gentrification Theory Fails in “Much of the World”.’ City 19 (4): 552–563]. It aims to show that, contrary to Ghertner's claims, gentrification theory is well equipped to analyze and understand the many different factors and forces that are involved in processes of urbanization and urban change across the globe. However, in order for the theory to be able to properly grasp these, I propose that we distinguish between two distinct processes involved in gentrification: (1) the creation and formation of rent gaps, making very relevant the state violence and legal/regulatory changes that accompany the enclosures and accumulation by dispossession that Ghertner says gentrification theory renders ‘unthinkable’, as well as other forces such as informality and conflict, and (2) these rent gaps’ subsequent closure (including property development), because the existence of a rent gap in and of itself is not a sufficient explanation of gentrification. Instead, whether areas with a rent gap gentrify is subject to numerous local specificities in the Global North and South alike. This distinction forces gentrification scholars to pay thorough attention to the political, cultural, social and economic factors that guide the creation and exploitation of rent gaps throughout the globe. To illustrate my arguments, I use examples from my work on the urban transformation of Beirut, Lebanon.

Key words:

• rent gap
• gentrification
• Global South
• Beirut
• Lebanon
• postcolonial urbanism

ORCID

Marieke Krijnen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4021-5888

Notes

1 I refer to both rent gap ‘formation’ and ‘creation’ as a first process. By ‘formation’ I mean that rent gaps form because of certain conditions in an area, including urban growth and building devaluation. By ‘creation’ I refer to more direct intervention to create a rent gap, including the violent displacement of dwellers or changes in the zoning and construction law that suddenly enlarge potential ground rent, for example. I realize that the level of agency involved in each process differs; after all, when a landlord disinvests in a property this is the action of an agent as well. However, I think the distinction between the formation and creation of rent gaps is useful because it allows us to analyze the scale of intervention that occurs. After all, when entire swaths of land are privatized and become exploitable for their exchange value where they were not available before, this creates a sudden gap between the current use of that land (such as informal housing) and the potential use of that land (as an addition to the urban real estate market).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Marieke Krijnen

Marieke Krijnen is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Orient Institut Beirut (OIB).