Is “Gaytrification” a Real Phenomenon?

Abstract

Gentrification is an oft-sought solution to urban blight, and it has been proposed, for various reasons, that the presence of gays and lesbians is associated with an increased probability that an area will gentrify. Using census tract-level data from the 30 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) in the United States, we find that areas with more same-sex coupled households do, indeed, have a higher predicted probability of gentrifying from 2000 to 2010. A 1 percentage point increase in the number of same-sex coupled households is associated with an almost 2% to 3% increase in the probability of gentrification. We define gentrification as a change in the relative standing of a census tract with respect to average income and/or housing prices, and this finding is robust to various definitions of gentrification within these categories. This influence is persistent after controlling for family size, household income, the presence of different-sex, unmarried couples, and access to amenities.

Intimate Partner Violence in Small Towns, Dispersed Rural Areas, and Other Locations: Estimates Using a Reconception of Settlement Type

“…The nonmetropolitan areas of BJSUSR vary considerably on numerous socioeconomic indicators including persistence of poverty (Miller and Weber 2004), attractiveness to retirees (Brown and Glasgow 2008), deterioration of civic engagement (Besser 2009), level and complexity of social service needs (Heflin and Miller 2012), racial and ethnic segregation (Lichter et al 2007), and economic dependence on manufacturing, agriculture, mineral and petroleum extraction, recreation, or government services (Kusmin 2016). Similarly, within the "urban" areas of BJSUSR, there is substantial variation in central cities' per capita spending (Chernick, Langley, and Reschovsky 2015), sustainable development (Cloutier, Larson, and Jambeck 2014), urban blight (Hortas-Rico 2015), population density (Knaap, Lewis, and Schindewolf 2014), gentrification (Christafore and Leguizamon 2016), and economic competitiveness (Hartley, Kaza, and Lester 2016). Research on the variation within BJSUSR's "suburban" areas is even more specific in regard to their locational heterogeneity: Depending upon the method of data reduction used, as many as 10 different types of "suburbs" have been identified in the spaces outside the central cities but within MSAs (Mikelbank 2004).…”

Dynamics of Gay Men’s Organized Social Life on Dating Apps

“…Renninger (2018) adheres to a critical view of this argument by problematizing LGBT spatial dynamics in cities. If a few decades ago gay bathhouses and bars were relatively safe places because they allowed the free expression of an oppressed group, the advance of social movements, associated with evidence of the consumption potential of this segment, has created new urban dynamics, in which the presence of gay people is associated with property valuation and urban gentrification (Gorman-Murray, 2016)a phenomenon Christafore and Leguizamon (2018) have called "gaytrification" -, which can be observed in the districts of Castro, in San Francisco (Boyd, 2011); Brooklyn, in New York (Gieseking, 2013); and Marais, in Paris (Giraud, 2009). Indeed, when it comes to consumption, the LGBT market is highly attractive and profligate in novelties, as is the case of dating apps.…”

Whither queer suburbanisms? Beyond heterosuburbia and queer metronormativities

“…Black et al's (2002) 'amenity hypothesis' argues that, higher disposable incomes and lower levels of child-rearing draw male samesex households to amenity-rich areas, while family responsibilities and lower economic flexibility constrain female same-sex households in their pursuit of 'quality of life characteristics' (Hayslett and Kayne, 2011: 149). Florida's 'gay index' inspired the study of links between amenity-rich inner-city neighbourhoods, creative-sector job growth and housing markets (Anacker and Morrow-Jones, 2005;Black et al, 2002;Christaphore and Leguizamon, 2018;Florida and Mellander, 2009). While male same-sex households choose amenity-rich poles of creative sector employment (Anacker and Morrow-Jones, 2005), 'there is not even a weak relationship between the residential patterns of the creative class and lesbians' (Hayslett and Kayne, 2011: 149).…”