Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Contemporary sociology offers competing images of the breadth and consequences of gentrification. One subset presents gentrification as a nearly unstoppable force that plays a prominent role in the spatial reorganization of urban life; another presents it as less monolithic and less momentous for marginalized residents, particularly racial minorities. Although neither camp is methodologically homogenous, more qualitative scholars, typically relying on micro-level analyses of individual neighborhoods, tend to present gentrification as increasingly endemic, advanced, and consequential, whereas more quantitative scholars, typically relying on macro analyses, tend to present it in less dire terms. These competing images of gentrification originate in the fact that each subset of research asks different questions, employs distinct methods, and produces particular answers. Exacerbating and partially driving these divergences are different responses to an anxiety within and beyond the academy about broader spatial and economic shifts, such as growing income inequality.
Annual Review of Sociology – Annual Reviews
Published: Jul 31, 2017
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.