Measuring the Effect of Gentrification on Displacement: Multifamily Housing and Eviction in Wisconsin's Madison Urban Region

Abstract

Gentrification research is often based on aerial units that function as proxies for neighborhoods. Despite the applicability of this approach, the method is susceptible to the modifiable aerial unit problem that obscures sociospatial patterns of interest both within and across units. This research seeks to complement and problematize findings from aerial unit-based approaches to gentrification through the use of georeferenced temporal data representing two specific processes that are generally understood to occur in real estate-led gentrification processes: new multifamily housing development and displacement in the form of recorded eviction filings. Interrupted time series analysis is used to compare two time points in the development process for various types of new multifamily housing projects with different distance thresholds of recorded eviction filings in the City of Madison, Wisconsin. Findings demonstrate that large multifamily housing developments produce increased eviction filings within a small radius (a tenth of a mile).

Displacement beyond dislocation: Aversive racism in gentrification studies

“…Popular debates around gentrification have stalled in their wrangling over displacement as a feature. In the academic literature, too, “the jury is still out” (Freeman, 2005) regarding gentrification's relationship to displacement (see also Brown-Saracino, 2017; Desmond and Gershenson, 2017; Freeman and Braconi, 2004; Hamnett, 2003; McKinnish et al, 2010; Sims, 2021; and Zimmer, 2022 for similar claims). However, in a review of the widespread application of the concept of displacement within gentrification scholarship, Elliott-Cooper et al (2020: 493) challenge such an assertion, contending that “there can be no doubt that gentrification and displacement are linked.” In fact, they argue, displacement is its “defining feature” (Elliott-Cooper et al, 2020: 503).…”

Infrastructural Activism: Google Bus Blockades, Affective Politics, and Environmental Gentrification in San Francisco

“…They argue that high‐end developments often increase rental costs for the low and middle end of the market by driving up the median rent and “potential ground rent” (Smith 1979) in a neighbourhood as a whole. While it is hard to prove that market rate construction drives up rental costs in all cases (or drives them down as pro‐market rate developers claim), studies have shown that new market rate construction increases rents in formerly low‐rent areas (Damiano and Frenier 2020), leading to further gentrification (Davis 2021), increased regional inequality (Rodríguez‐Pose and Stroper 2020) and increased evictions within a tenth of a mile (Sims 2021). These are specific rather than generalised arguments about market rate development, but together they are suggestive of a general trend.…”

The right to the unhealthy deprived city: An exploration into the impacts of state-led redevelopment projects on the determinants of mental health

“…Primarily targeting environmental and economic development is presumed to have a knock-on effect on social conditions, positively impacting (mental) health (Gray and Mooney, 2011). However, increasinglyparticularly in the field of urban environmental justicesome question the capacity of redevelopment/regeneration schemes to improve the conditions of existing residents and decrease social and health inequities (e.g., Anguelovski et al, 2020;Sims, 2021;Anguelovski, 2013). Such schemes exemplify the trade-offs between prioritizing the economic and environmental pillars of sustainability and addressing deeper social vulnerabilities and needs (ibid).…”