Anda di halaman 1dari 11




Division of Geography & Tourism, KU Leuven, the University of Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200E bus
2409, B-3001, Leuven, Belgium. E-mail:

Received: June 2018; accepted July 2018

‘The Changing State of Gentrification’ (2001) by Jason Hackworth and the late Neil Smith is one
of the most influential papers ever published in TESG. By introducing three waves, or periods,
of practices and patterns of gentrification, it changed the way we think about gentrification. This
Introduction to the Forum discusses the three waves introduced by Hackworth and Smith as well as
fourth wave introduced by Lees et al. Finally, I will argue that during the global financial crisis we
have entered fifth-wave gentrification. Fifth-wave gentrification is the urban materialisation of
financialised or finance-led capitalism. The state continues to play a leading role during the fifth
wave, but is now supplemented – rather than displaced – by finance. It is characterised by the
emergence of corporate landlords, highly leveraged housing, platform capitalism (e.g. Airbnb),
transnational wealth elites using cities as a ‘safe deposit box’, and a further ‘naturalisation’ of
state-sponsored gentrification.

Key words: state-led gentrification, neoliberal urbanism, finance-led capitalism, financialisation,

corporate landlords, platform capitalism

INTRODUCTION and ending with full-fledged and later ‘super’

gentrification; Lees 2003), but Hackworth and
Our aim in this first TESG Forum is to revisit Smith discussed how gentrification was quali-
a classic paper published in this journal and tatively different in different decades.
take a moment to reflect on the continued The main concept introduced in the arti-
importance of this ‘classic’ to the field. ‘The cle, ‘third wave gentrification’, sometimes also
Changing State of Gentrification’ (2001) by referred to as state-led or government-spon-
Jason Hackworth and the late Neil Smith is one sored gentrification, was quickly included in
of the most influential papers ever published discussions of neoliberal urbanism as both
in TESG. This paper changed the way we think paid a great deal of attention to the role of
about gentrification. Hitherto, discussions had local government in furthering the interests
been dominated by production- versus con- of local elites and developers rather than
sumption-led debates and the process of gentri- conceptualising the local authority as pri-
fication itself had been approached as having marily interested in welfare. In this wave or
different stages (starting with marginal gen- phase, gentrification processes, market-led
trifiers (Rose 1984), like artists and students, urban public policies and commodification

 ijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie - 2018, DOI:10.1111/tesg.12332, Vol. 0, No. 0, pp. 00 -00..
© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG

of urban space became ‘generalised’ as Smith starting point to study gentrification rather
(2002) would later argue. The third wave of than as a given, fixed category. We have asked
gentrification also took gentrification outside them to discuss the continued usefulness of
the inner city core and into more peripheral wave thinking in contemporary gentrification
urban – and even rural – areas. To me, the research and debates.
concept of third-wave gentrification is more First, Elvin Wyly (this issue) discusses the
useful than gentrification as a general term; it critiques that have been launched against
centres on the role of the (local) state as an in- ‘wave thinking’ in gentrification. He argues
stigator, catalyst or sponsor of the socio-spatial in favour of such wave thinking; to Wyly, gen-
restructuring of the city. trification is inseparable from the enduring
The government-sponsored and debt-fu- legacy of evolutionary theory in social science.
elled gentrification of the late 1990s and early Shenjing He this issue discusses the meanings
2000s was at the root of the North-Atlantic fi- and uses of wave thinking to understand gen-
nancial crisis that started in the US in 2007. Yet, trification in China. She proposes a different
it appears that what we now see in many places, periodisation, differently defined waves, to
both in those hit hard by the financial crisis understand how the interplay between state,
and those relatively spared, is the continuation market and society produces gentrification in
of state-led gentrification. Is this TESG Forum China. Wouter van Gent and Willem Boterman
we seek to answer the following questions: this issue argue that in gentrification debates,
What has third wave gentrification meant for class relations should be more visible vis-à-vis
urban research and what is its meaning today? the state. Like He, Van Gent and Boterman
How can we use ‘wave thinking’ to understand adapt the periodisation of gentrification to
contemporary urban processes and policies? make it fit their case, Amsterdam. They show
Are we still in a third wave or have we entered how Amsterdam was transformed from a rad-
a fourth or fifth wave – and how are the new ical but largely low-income city into a liberal,
waves different from the old ones? middle-class city. Finally, Jason Hackworth
In the next section, I will discuss the three this issue responds to the different articles
waves discussed by Hackworth and Smith building on or critiquing his taxonomy of
(2001) as well as Lees et al.’s (2008) proposi- gentrification waves. He argues that for Neil
tion for a fourth wave. In the subsequent sec- Smith and him, gentrification was always
tion I will argue that we have now entered about something bigger and should not be
fifth-wave gentrification. As during earlier separated from broader economic and social
waves of gentrification, an economic crisis processes.
triggered a mutation in the process of gentri-
fication, which led to the emergence of fifth-
wave gentrification in which the process is FOUR WAVES OF GENTRIFICATION
further generalised. Fifth-wave gentrification
is the urban materialisation of financialised or In their article Hackworth and Smith intro-
finance-led capitalism. The state continues to duce a periodisation of gentrification (see
play a leading role during the fifth wave, but Figure 1). Although they provided examples
is now supplemented – rather than displaced from New York City to illustrate their argu-
– by finance. ment, they stress that their periodisation is
This Introduction to the Forum is followed based on readings of other cases and has wider
by three articles and a commentary by Jason applicability: ‘Specific dates for these phases
Hackworth, the lead author of ‘The Changing will undoubtedly vary from place to place, but
State of Gentrification’. The editors of TESG not so significant as to diminish the influence
have invited four authors that previously have of broader scale political events on the local
used the idea of the third wave in their work on experience of gentrification’ (Hackworth &
gentrification in, respectively, North America, Smith 2001, p. 466). In the first wave the dom-
East Asia and Western Europe. All four have inant discourse on cities is still one of ame-
not simply taken the idea of the third wave liorating urban decline, which in NYC was
at face value, but have used the concept as a visible in the form of landlord abandonment
© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG

Source: Hackworth & Smith (2001).

Figure 1. Schematic history of gentrification (recessions in grey).

© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG


and arson. As a result, first-wave gentrification in both academic and political terms. It was
was sporadic, highly localised but also signifi- no longer about the small-scale and bottom
cantly funded by the state. up initiatives of the first wave. Nor was it sim-
During the recession of the mid 1970s gen- ply about developers finding a (new?) way to
trification mutates. In the resulting second make money on urban land (second wave).
wave, federal programmes are scaled back and Third-wave gentrification was about how the
gentrification takes a more laissez-faire form. local authorities and national state use their
At the same time, gentrification expands geo- regulatory and financial powers to enable –
graphically, covering a larger part of the city, and indeed, to boost – profits made by private
but also internationally. Gentrification is no developers: ‘state assistance (or some other
longer simply a process of class-residential form of assistance) is increasingly necessary
change, but extends into cultural and com- for the process to swallow “underdeveloped”
mercial spheres. The presence of arts and parcels further from the CBD’ (Hackworth &
culture, either implicitly or explicitly, often Smith 2001, p. 469). Personally, the heuristic
functions as a ‘soft factor’ attracting new flows of state-led gentrification has helped me to
of capital into these neighbourhoods. The understand the dynamics of urban change in
recession that started with the stock market Amsterdam. In the ‘revitalisation’ of the in-
crash of 1987 and the recession of the early famous Bijlmer housing estate, the local and
1990s prompted some to speak of the end of national state were present in many different
gentrification or of ‘degentrification’, a myth forms and guises. One of the key uses of the
that was already debunked by Smith in 1995. state was to make the Bijlmer safe for real
What happens instead is that gentrification estate investment by ‘cleaning’ the district
mutates again. ‘Third-wave’, ‘post-recession’, from undesirable groups like drug users and
‘government-sponsored’ or ‘state-led’ gentrifi- homeless people (Aalbers 2011).
cation is distinct from first- and second wave Likewise, in the restructuring of Amsterdam’s
gentrification in at least four ways: red-light district De Wallen, the local authority
uses its regulatory and financial power to force a
First, gentrification is expanding both
class and image change that makes the area safe
within the inner-city neighbourhoods that
for corporate investment (Aalbers & Deinema
it affected during earlier waves and to more
2012). Framed as a policy to fight human traf-
remote neighbourhoods beyond the im-
ficking, ‘Plan 1012’ aimed to close most of the
mediate core. Second, restructuring and
brothels on De Wallen and create a ‘high quality
globalisation in the real estate industry has
entrance to the city’ (City of Amsterdam 2011,
set a larger context for larger developers be-
p. 30). The public presentation of Plan 1012 took
coming more involved in gentrifying neigh-
place in a hotel that planned to invest EUR120
bourhoods (Logan 1993; Coakley 1994;
million in the area and a mid-term evaluation
Ball 1994). While such developers used to
of the plan didn’t mention human trafficking
be common in the process only after the
once, but bragged about the presence of an
neighbourhood had been ‘tamed’ (Zukin
Italian wine bar as a sign of the success of the
1982; Ley 1996), they are now increasingly
City’s interventions. Perhaps the City was aware
the first to orchestrate investment. Third,
of what Zukin (1995) and Atkinson (2003),
effective resistance to gentrification has
respectively, call ‘pacification’ and ‘domestica-
declined as the working class is continually
tion’ by cappuccino. The City had effectively mo-
displaced from the inner city, and as the
bilised a growth coalition or machine, consisting
most militant anti-gentrification groups
of government agencies, real estate developers,
of the 1980s morph into housing service
banks, hotel and non-profit housing associations
providers. Fourth, and of most relevance to
to make De Wallen safe for investment without
this paper, the state is now more involved
being able to scale down human trafficking or
in the process than [in] the second wave.
prostitution, which is simply moved to other, less
(Hackworth & Smith 2001, p. 468)
visible locations (Aalbers & Deinema 2012).
The concept of state-led gentrification Many people have asked the question: is this
made gentrification research more relevant gentrification? I think the class restructuring of
© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG

the Bijlmer and De Wallen through govern- Lees and colleagues see this fourth-wave as
ment interventions that make these neigh- specific to the US because it ‘is not readily
bourhoods safe for corporate investment are identifiable outside of the United States’ (Lees
clear cases of state-led gentrification, that is,. et al. 2008, p. 184).
the ‘subsidised private-market transforma-
tion of the urban built environment’ (Smith FIFTH-WAVE GENTRIFICATION
2002, p. 444). The bigger question is: what is
the use of the concept of the power of third- It could be argued that fourth-wave gen-
wave gentrification? First, Hackworth and trification is simply a continuation or even
Smith have provided us with a periodisation intensification of third-wave gentrification
of gentrification that can be applied, but also (see also Doucet 2014). Some countries ex-
contested or expanded, as we will see in the perienced a crisis in the late 1990s (e.g. the
next section and subsequent articles. It helps 1997 Asian financial crisis) or early 2000s
us to understand how gentrification is quali- (e.g. 2001 dot-com crash), which could be
tatively different in different periods. Second, considered another period of mutation, but
it helps us to understand international trends this seems too close to the last transition
in real-world gentrification, as the mutations period. Alternatively, the Asian financial
of gentrification are not limited to NYC or crisis could be considered a delayed transition
the United States. Although it could be ar- period to the third wave. Furthermore, the
gued gentrification started at a different time dot-com crash did not result in a deep reces-
in different cities and countries, and that the sion and in hindsight may appear more like a
years in Figure 1 are incorrect for other places short break during a long period of economic
(cf. He this issue; van Gent & Boterman, this growth. What did change is that the dot-com
issue), it could also by hypothesised that we are crash led to a massive switching of capital into
seeing a process of synchronisation in which the real estate (cf. Gotham 2006), which eventu-
mutations that result in new phases in- ally cumulated in the global financial crisis
creasingly take place around the same time that started in the United States in 2007 and
(cf. Aalbers 2015). Third, I see state-led spread internationally and mutated into sev-
gentrifi-cation as a synthesis of the exsting eral other crises, including the European sov-
gentrification literature with earlier key con- ereign debt crisis that started in 2009 and the
cepts on urban change, including growth ma- popping of the Chinese stock market bubble
chines (Molotch 1976), pro-growth coalitions in 2015 (Aalbers 2015).
(Mollenkopf 1983) and entrepreneurial ur- These subsequent and linked crises mark
banism (Harvey 1989). a new transition period, which in some coun-
The idea of state-led gentrification was tries was – or, still is – characterised by aus-
quickly picked up in the literatures on gen- terity urbanism (Peck 2012) and temporarily
trification and neoliberal urbanism. The idea slowed down the state-support of gentrifica-
of waves itself received a less enthusiastic re- tion. This paved the road for a new wave of
sponse and little analytical or theoretical work gentrification: fifth-wave gentrification. At a
has been done to expand the thinking about more abstract level, fifth-wave gentrification
gentrification in terms of periodic phases. In is the urban materialisation of financialised
their book, simply titled Gentrification, Lees or finance-led capitalism (e.g. Boyer 2000).
et al. (2008) are among the few that have tried A continuation of the third and fourth waves
to theorise subsequent waves of gentrification. is that in the fifth wave the state plays a lead-
They have coined a fourth wave of gentrifica- ing role in sponsoring gentrification, but the
tion that combines ‘an intensified financial- state’s prominent role is now supplemented
ization of housing … with the consolidation – rather than displaced – by finance. This is
of pro-gentrification politics and polarized not simply about the financial sector facilitat-
urban policies’ (Lees et al. 2008, p. 179) – in ing homeownership through mortgages (as
other words: third-wave gentrification plus in earlier waves), but also about finance tak-
the ‘financialization of home’ (Aalbers 2008). ing a stronger foothold through the rise of

© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG


corporate landlords (i.e. landlords backed by in a select – yet expanding – group of cities
international capital markets) and platform as a ‘safe deposit box’, a place to store their
capitalism (e.g. Airbnb). excess capital safely (Fernandez & Aalbers
2016). Such investments have manifold and
Corporate landlords and real estate extensive consequences for the urban fabric,
as an asset class – In the fifth-wave including a disappearing sense of community,
gentrification becomes further ‘generalised’ diminishing housing affordability and a
(Smith 2002) and intensified. The gentrification loss of local economic opportunities. The most
frontier is not only rolled out to new areas but immediate consequences of the heightened
already gentrifying areas also experience new interest in the top end of the real estate market
waves of investment. Local investment remains have been price increases and competition in
strong in many areas, but is now supplemented every segment of the housing market. This has
by global investment. Real estate, including resulted in out-pricing in subsequent price
housing, is increasingly treated as ‘ just another ranges in the already tight housing markets.
asset class’ (van Loon & Aalbers 2017; see also Sassen (2014) labels the displacements and
Merrifield 1993; Guironnet et al. 2016; Calbet I socio-economic inequality due to systemic
Elias 2017; Fields 2018). Corporate landlords, changes in the global economy and unequal
backed by capital from Wall Street or the City of access to resources as ‘expulsions’, a term
London, include real estate investment trusts that points at the irreversibility of these
(REITs), real estate private equity (REPE) and inequalities and displacements.
other large investment funds that increasingly
target not just commercial real estate but also Platform capitalism and touristi­
low and middle-income residential real estate fication – Platform capitalism, primarily
for investment (Beswick et al. 2016; Byrne 2016; in the form of Airbnb, is another development
Fields 2018; Gotham 2006; Teresa 2016; Rouanet that channels more capital into specific
& Halbert 2015; Searle 2014; Waldron 2018; neighbourhoods, typically those close to the
Wijburg et al. 2018).1 Although the effects of centre or those in ‘arty’ and ‘cultural’ areas
REITs, REPE and other investment funds are full of marginal gentrifiers. Dutch bank ING
mixed and can include downgrading of the (2016) has concluded that the presence of
stock, these funds typically try to maximise Airbnb results in price increases, but also
rents and benefit from gentrification potential. that the potential income from Airbnb may call
for bigger mortgage loans for apartments and
Investment by transnational wealth houses with Airbnb-potential. Airbnb has
elites and middle classes – International also pushed the ‘touristification’ of certain
capital also flows into gentrifying and already neighbourhoods, not only resulting in
gentrified neighbourhoods through the house price inflation but increasingly
investments of transnational wealth elites – or also displacement, as Airbnb is often used
simply the super-rich – and increasingly also throughout the year and thereby relegating
upper middle classes into, respectively, ‘super- long-term tenants to other districts (Gant
prime’ and other classes of residential real 2016; Lee, 2016; McNeill 2016; Sans &
estate in elite tourism capitals, prime global Quaglieri 2016; Lambea Llop 2017; Mermet
cities like London and New York and a range of 2017). Several cities may be trying to
second-tier global cities such as Vancouver and regulate Airbnb but so far many Airbnb
Amsterdam (Fernandez et al. 2016; Hay & landlords appear to be bypassing such
Beaverstock 2016; Webber & Burrows 2016; rules. In Amsterdam – an Airbnb Top
Atkinson et al. 2017; Ho & Atkinson 2017; 10 city – an increasing number of locals
Ley 2017; Rogers & Koh 2017). In many spends the summer camping at the city edge
cases, these individual investors, especially the while renting out their properties through
transnational wealth elites, do not buy super- Airbnb, according to a local newspaper
prime real estate to profit from high rents, (van der Keijl 2017). Furthermore, large
but rather they use houses and apartments corporations are trying to get into the Airbnb

© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG


market. Residents in central Amsterdam have rents broadly tend to follow the developments
received flyers of an investor who is willing in house prices, this also puts pressure on
to pay 25 per cent over current market prices rental properties, again not only in gentrifying
to acquire apartments that can be rented neighbourhoods, but more so in those areas
out through Airbnb (van der Meijden 2017). as there is more potential to raise rents and
Although this turned out to be a joke, it is rent out properties to higher-income groups
a likely future development now that rental than those living there previously.
housing is increasingly treated as an asset
class by international investment funds
The role of the (local) state – At
(Fields 2018; Wijburg et al. 2018).
first sight, the role of the state in all
this may appear somewhat ambiguous.
Global mortgage debt – The North- On the one hand, many state institutions
Atlantic financial crisis that started have pushed mortgaged homeownership, the
in 2007 has meant a pause in the securitisation of mortgages (now also at the
expansion of mortgage debt, but the pause international state level; see Fernandez &
was short and global mortgage debt has Aalbers 2017) and the spread of REITs.
been increasing ever since. Many countries On the other hand, municipalities – that
in the Global North as well as in the Global is, the local state – are increasingly trying
South continue to subsidise mortgaged to regulate Airbnb as well as international
homeownership, often through fiscal capital going into local housing markets.
measures. Furthermore, the securitisation of Overall, however, it appears that the state
mortgage loans – the technique that allows continues to display many of its third and
mortgages portfolios to be resold to fourth-wave features, that is, state assistance
investors and pumps more money into the plays an increasingly dominant role in
housing market – has been, and continues facilitating private investment, not only in
to be, rolled out to an increasing number of inner cities but increasingly also in other
countries. Fiscal subsidies and securitisation parts of the urban region.
do not necessarily result in increasing The state-support of gentrification is often
homeownership rates – in fact, several, considered ‘natural’, as if it is the duty of the
mostly Anglophone, countries have seen state to support private investment. Indeed,
this rate drop – but mortgage debt has in the fifth wave gentrification appears not
grown exponentially since the crisis as new only generalised but increasingly also nat-
countries have opened up to more and uralised. Local governments may be acting
bigger mortgages loans to an increasing based more on ‘potential’ than ‘need’, as van
number of households Rolnik 2013; Gent and Boterman this issue show for the
(Fernandez & Aalbers 2016). City of Amsterdam in their contribution to
this Forum. Not only entrepreneurial urban-
ism but also ‘new public management’2 (that
Lack of housing affordability – The suggests government should be run like cor-
financialisation of housing (Aalbers 2008), porations) has been fully internalised. It re-
described by Lees et al. (2008) as a specificity of the mains to be seen if this is part of a wider trend
US American fourth wave, increasingly is towards the financialisation of local govern-
becoming generalised around the globe in ment (e.g. Weber 2010; Hendrikse 2015; Peck
fifth wave gentrification. This results in house & Whiteside 2016; van Loon et al. 2018). This
price inflation across the board, not only in emerging literature is not just looking into
gentrifying neighbourhoods, but it does imply how municipalities are run internally, but also
that increasingly larger social groups are how they sponsor and participate in real estate
excluded from housing in certain locations as markets. In some places there appears to be a
prices are simply out of their reach, resulting trend towards the state as not only a sponsor
in a great deal of indirect displacement. As but also a direct agent of gentrification.

© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG


The subsumption of alternatives– advocating a certain localism … can be-

An alternative way to read consecutive come its own kind of universalist response,
waves of gentrification – bridging cultural and threatening a new kind of theoretical stale-
economic readings of gentrification processes – mate. (Smith 1995, p. 124)
would be to see gentrification as an important Indeed, there are no universally applicable
‘urban form of capitalism’ that, like capitalism (urban) theories, but there is also no localism
itself, increasingly subsumes urban practices that can explain all particularities in a globally
that were once developed as alternatives connected world. Explanations that suggest
to urban capitalism. The first and second all is different and unique are as geographi-
waves of gentrification could be characterised cally flat as explanations that suggest that all is
by liberal (in the sense of progressive) values, universal and the same. Ironically, the latter is
a ‘do it yourself’ mentality and a sense of often used as a straw-man by the advocates of
counterculture, but this often developed into the former – a straw-man because such claims
what the French so aptly call BoBo: bourgeois to universality have long ceased to exist. To un-
bohemian. The third wave brought attention to derstand the particularities of gentrification in
arts and culture, but under urban capitalism different places we need to understand local his-
this was mutated into ‘the creative class’ tories, processes and institutions, but we should
(Florida 2002). Alternative consumption be careful to privilege the local and reject the
patterns, such as a preference for organic possibility of a ‘common trajectory’ (Hay 2004;
food, popular among many of the new see also Fernandez & Aalbers 2016) a priori. Not
middle classes was also quickly subsumed all agents of gentrification are locally embed-
in new waves of gentrification. Likewise, the ded; policies ‘travel’; and Airbnb and REITs are
promise of the democratisation of the (urban) international phenomena. This does not imply
‘sharing economy’ of Airbnb, Uber and other their impact is the same everywhere. Policies
companies is subsumed by a ‘cyber-libertarian mutate and agents adapt to local conditions. Yet,
impulse’ (Dahlberg 2010) that is based on policies and agents do not simply embed them-
a naïve ‘technology solutionism’ (Morozov selves locally, they also change local practices of
2013) under fifth-wave gentrification. gentrification. It would be a loss to urban theory
to ignore commonalities, common trajectories
CODA and inter-local agents simply because partic-
ularities, difference and local agents are con-
sidered more worthy explanations of change.
Wave thinking in urban research has been
As Hackworth this issue writes in his response
criticised for ignoring differences between
this Forum: ‘The important point is figuring
places (for a discussion, see Wyly this issue).
out which are actually local challenges or devi-
Hackworth and Smith, like others who have
ations from larger patterns and which are the
advocated a periodisation to gentrification
residue of similar processes with different local
have never claimed their waves explain every-
thing or are globally applicable in the sense
One of the dominant forces in fifth-wave
that they are the same in different places.
gentrification is finance; not simply capital,
What they do claim, is that:
but financial capital, that is, the concentra-
an explanation that invoked only local dif- tion of capital in the hands of and controlled
ferences would not tell us much either. … by financial institutions (cf. Hilferding 1910).
[B]ut I think we need to be careful about It is a period in which urban development is
an illicit slippage between levels of abstrac- increasingly controlled by financial institu-
tion (universal-particular) and geograph- tions. Rather than finance replacing the state,
ical scales of experience (global-local). finance supplements the state in gentrifica-
It has become fashionable to assert priv- tion. Neither the state nor finance establish a
ilege of ‘local knowledge’, to use Geertz’s monopoly over urban development, but they
(1983) phrase. The irony, of course is that have become the dominant powers that give

© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG


shape to it. Developers remain important, The Rise of Global Corporate Landlords in ‘Post-
but ‘Financial actors can determine when cit- crisis’ Urban Landscapes. City 20, pp. 321–341.
ies grow ... as well as how and where they grow’ Boyer, R. (2000), Is a Finance-led Growth Regime
(Weber 2015, p. 39, emphasis in original). This a Viable Alternative to Fordism? A Preliminary
does not imply other actors have no agency Analysis. Economy and Society 29, pp. 111–145.
or that finance capital directs development Byrne, M. (2016), ‘Asset Price Urbanism’ and
in the same manner around the world, but it Financialization after the Crisis: Ireland’s National
does mean we need to study the dominance Asset Management Agency. International Journal of
of finance capital across cases to understand Urban and Regional Research 40, pp. 31–45.
contemporary gentrification. Calbet I Elias, L. (2017), Financialised Rent Gaps
and Public Interest in Berlin’s Housing Crisis. In:
Notes A. Albet & N. Benach, eds., Gentrification as a
Global Strategy, pp. 165–176. New York: Routledge.
1. Slater (2015) also sees the predominance of insti- City of Amsterdam (2011), Project 1012.
tutional investors with high return expectations Voortgangsrapportage 2011. Amsterdam: Gemeente
as one of the characteristics of what he names Amsterdam.
‘planetary rent gaps’. Coakley, J. (1994), The Integration of Property and
2. On NPM in local government, see Ward (2006) Financial Markets. Environment and Planning A 26,
and Weikart (2001). pp. 99–112.
Dahlberg, L. (2010), Cyber-libertarianism 2.0: A
Discourse Theory/Critical Political Economy
REFERENCES Examination. Cultural Politics 6, pp. 331–356.
Doucet, B. (2014), A Process of Change and a
Aalbers, M.B. (2008), The Financialization of Changing Process: Introduction to the Special
Home and the Mortgage Market Crisis. Competition Issues on Contemporary Gentrification. Tijdschrift
& Change 12, pp. 148–166. voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 105, pp.
Aalbers, M.B. (2011), The Revanchist Renewal of 125–139.
Yesterday’s City of Tomorrow. Antipode 43, pp. Fernandez, R. & M.B. Aalbers (2016), Financialization
1695–1724. and Housing: Between Globalization and Varieties
Aalbers, M.B. (2015), The Great Moderation, of Capitalism. Competition and Change 20, pp. 71–88.
the Great Excess and the Global Housing Crisis. Fernandez, R. & M.B. Aalbers (2017), Capital
International Journal of Housing Policy 15, pp. 43–60. Market Union and Residential Capitalism in
Aalbers, M.B. & M. Deinema (2012), Placing Europe: Rescaling the Housing-centred Model of
Prostitution: The Spatial-Sexual Order of Financialization. Finance and Society 3, pp. 32–50.
Amsterdam and its Growth Coalition. City 16, pp. Fernandez, R., A. Hofman & M.B. Aalbers (2016),
129–145 London and New York as a Safe Deposit Box for
Atkinson, R. (2003), Domestication by Cappuccino the Transnational Wealth Elite. Environment and
or a Revenge on Urban Space? Control and Planning A 48, pp. 2443–2461.
Empowerment in the Management of Public Fields, D. (2018), Constructing a New Asset Cass:
Spaces. Urban Studies 40, pp. 1829–1843. Property-led Financial Accumulation after the
Atkinson, R., S. Parker & R. Burrows Crisis. Economic Geography 94, pp. 118–140.
(2017), Elite Formation, Power and Space in Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class: And
Contemporary London. Theory, Culture & Society How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and
34, pp. 179–200. Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
Ball, M. (1994), The 1980s Property Boom. Gant, A.C. (2016), Holiday Rentals: The New
Environment & Planning A 26, pp. 671–695. Gentrification Battlefront. Sociological Research
Beswick, J., G.Alexandri, M. Byrne, S. Vives- Online 21, 10.
Miro, D. Fields, S. Hodkinson & M. Janoschka Geertz, C. (1983), Local Knowledge. New York: Basic
(2016), Speculating on London’s Housing Future: Books.

© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG


Gotham, K.F. (2006), The Secondary Circuit of Crisis: Analysis and Policy Recommendations.
Capital Reconsidered: Globalization and the US Harvard Law & Policy Review 10, pp. 229–254.
Real Estate Sector. American Journal of Sociology Lees, L. (2003), Super-gentrification: The Case of
112, pp. 231–275. Brooklyn Heights, New York City. Urban Studies 40,
Guironnet, A., K. Attuyer & L. Halbert pp. 2487–2509.
(2016), Building Cities on Financial Assets: The Lees, L., T. Slater & E. Wyly (2008), Gentrification.
Financialisation of Property Markets and its New York: Routledge.
Implications for City Governments in the Paris Ley, D. (1996), The New Middle Class and the Remaking
City-region. Urban Studies 53, pp. 1442–1464. of the Central City. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hackworth, J. (this issue), Revisiting the Changing Ley, D. (2017), Global China and the Making
State of Gentrification. Tijdschrift voor Economische of Vancouver’s Residential Property Market.
en Sociale Geografie 110, in press. International Journal of Housing Policy 17, pp. 15–34.
Hackworth, J. & N. Smith (2001), The changing Logan, J. (1993), Cycles and Trends in the
state of gentrification. Tijdschrift voor Economische Globalization of Real Estate. In: P. Knox, ed., The
en Sociale Geografie 92, pp. 464–477. Restless Urban Landscape, pp. 33–44. Englewood
Harvey, D. (1989), From Manageralism to Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation of McNeill, D. (2016), Governing a City of Unicorns:
Urban Governance in Late Capitalism. Geografiska Technology Capital and the Urban Politics of San
Annaler, Series B: Human Geography 71, pp. 3–17. Francisco. Urban Geography 37, pp. 494–513.
Hay, C. (2004), Common Trajectories, Variable Mermet, A.-C. (2017), Critical Insights from the
Paces, Divergent Outcomes? Models of European Exploratory Analysis of the ‘Airbnb Syndrome’in
Capitalism under Conditions of Complex Reykjavík. In: M. Gravari-Barbas, and S.
Economic Interdependence. Review of International Guinand, eds. Tourism and Gentrification in
Political Economy 11, 231–261. Contemporary Metropolises: International Perspectives,
Hay, I. & J. Beaverstock (2016), Handbook on Wealth pp. 52–74. New York: Routledge.
and the Super-rich. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Merrifield, A. (1993), The Canary Wharf
He, S. (this issue), Three Waves of State-led Debacle: From ‘TINA’ – There is No Alternative
Gentrification in China. Tijdschrift voor Economische – to ‘THEMBA’ – There Must be an Alternative.
en Sociale Geografie 110, in press. Environment and Planning A 25, pp. 1247–1265.
Hendrikse, R. (2015), The Long Arm of Finance: Mollenkopf, J. (1983), The Contested City. Princeton,
Exploring the Unlikely Financialization of Governments NJ: Princeton University Press.
and Public Institutions. Amsterdam: Offpage. Molotch, H. (1976), The City as a Growth Machine:
Hilferding, R. (1910), Finance Capital: A Study of Towards a Political Economy of Place. American
the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development. Reprinted, Journal of Sociology, 82, pp. 309–330.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (1973). Morozov, E. (2013), To Save Everything, Click Here:
Ho, H.K. & R. Atkinson (2017), Looking for Big The Folly of Technological Solutionism. New York:
‘Fry’: The Motives and Methods of Middle-Class PublicAffairs.
International Property Investors. Urban Studies 55, Peck, J. (2012), Austerity Urbanism: American Cities
2040­–2056. under Extreme Economy. City, 16, pp. 626–655.
ING (2016), Airbnb heeft flink opwaarts effect Peck, J. & H. Whiteside (2016), Financializing
of Amsterdamse huizenprijzen. Available at Detroit. Economic Geography 92, pp. 235–268.
< Rogers, D. & S.Y. Koh (2017), The Globalisation of
berichten/2016/04/airbnb_heeft_flink_op- Real Estate: The Politics and Practice of Foreign
waarts_effect_op_amsterdamse_huizenprijzen. Real Estate Investment. International Journal of
html>. Accessed on14 July 2017. Housing Policy 17, pp. 1–14.
Lambea Llop, N. (2017), A Policy Approach to the Rolnik, R. (2013), Late Neoliberalism: The
Impact of Tourist Dwellings in Condominiums Financialization of Homeownership and Housing
and Neighbourhoods in Barcelona. Urban Research Rights. International Journal of Urban and Regional
& Practice 10, pp. 120–129. Research 37, pp. 1058–1066.
Lee, D. (2016), How Airbnb Short-term Rentals Rose, D. (1984), Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond
Exacerbate Los Angeles’s Affordable Housing the Uneven Development of Marxist Urban

© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG


Theory. Environment & Planning D: Society & Space, Van Loon, J. & M.B. Aalbers (2017), How Real
2, pp. 118–138. Estate Became ‘Just Another Asset Class’: The
Rouanet, H. & L. Halbert (2015), Leveraging Financialization of the Investment Strategies of
Finance Capital: Urban Change and Self- Dutch Institutional Investors. European Planning
empowerment of Real Estate Developers in India. Studies 25, pp. 221–240.
Urban Studies 53, pp. 1401–1423. Van Loon, J., S. Oosterlynck & M.B. Aalbers
Sans, A.A. &A. Quaglieri (2016), Unravelling (2018), Governing Urban Development in
Airbnb: Urban Perspectives from Barcelona. In: A.P. the Low Countries: From Managerialism to
Russo & G. Richards (Eds.) Reinventing the Local in Entrepreneurialism and Financialization.
Tourism: Producing, Consuming and Negotiating Place, European Urban and Regional Studies, in press.
pp. 209–228. Bristol: Channel View. Waldron, R. (2018), Capitalizing on the State:
Sassen, S. (2014), Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity The Political Economy of Real Estate Investment
in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Trusts and the ‘Resolution’ of the Crisis. Geoforum
University Press. 90, pp. 206–218.
Searle, L.G. (2014), Conflict and Commensuration: Ward, K. (2006), ‘Policies in Motion’, Urban
Contested Market Making in India’s Private Real Management and State Restructuring: The
Estate Development Sector. International Journal of Trans-local Expansion of Business Improvement
Urban and Regional Research 38, pp. 60–78. Districts. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Smith, N. (1995), Gentrifying Theory. Scottish Research 30, pp. 54–75.
Geographical Magazine 111, pp. 124–126. Weber, R. (2010), Selling City Futures: The
Smith, N. (2002), New Globalism, New Urbanism: Financialization of Urban Redevelopment Policy.
Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. Antipode Economic Geography 86, pp. 251–274.
34, pp. 427–450. Weber, R. (2015), From Boom to Bubble: How Finance
Teresa, B.F. (2016), Managing Fictitious Capital: Built the New Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of
The Legal Geography of Investment and Political Chicago Press.
Struggle in Rental Housing in New York City. Webber, R. & R. Burrows (2016), Life in an
Environment and Planning A 48, pp. 465–484. Alpha Territory: Discontinuity and Conflict in
Van der Keijl, J. (2017), Stadscampings zien Steeds an Elite London ‘Village. Urban Studies 53, pp.
Vaker Airbnb-verhuurders. Het Parool, 14 July. 1339–1354.
Available at < Weikart, L.A. (2001), The Giuliani Administration
dam/stadscampings-zien-steeds-vaker-airbnb-ver- and the New Public Management in New York
huurders~a4506254/>. Accessed on14 July 2018. City. Urban Affairs Review 36, pp. 359–381.
Van Der Meijden, N. (2017), Amsterdams Bedrijf Wijburg, G., M. B. Aalbers & S. Heeg (2018), The
wil Eerste Airbnb-wijk ter Wereld Oprichten. Financialization of Rental Housing 2.0: Releasing
Het Parool, 12 June. Available at <https:// Housing into the Privatized Mainstream of Capital Accumulation. Antipode 50, 1098–1119.
rijf-wil-eerste-airbnb-wijk-ter-wereld-opricht- Wyly, E.K. (this issue), The Evolving State of
en~a4500483/>. Accessed on 4 July 2018. Gentrification. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
Van Gent, W. & Boterman, W.R. (this issue), Geografie 110, in press.
Gentrification of the changing state. Tijdschrift Zukin, S. (1982), Loft Living: Culture and Capital in
voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 110: in press. Urban Change. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
Gentrification of the Changing State. Tijdschrift University Press.
voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 110, in Zukin, S. (1995), The Cultures of Cities. Oxford:
press. Blackwell.

© 2018 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG