CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Directory of Open Access Journals SPATIUM International Review UDK 711.433(497.113) ; 316.334.56 ; 72.01 No. 21, December 2009, p. 66-75 Original scientific paper INFLUENCES OF GENTRIFICATION ON IDENTITY SHIFT OF AN URBAN FRAGMENT - A CASE STUDY Dejana Nedučin1, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Novi Sad, Serbia Olga Carić, University Business Academy, Faculty of Economics and Engineering Management, Novi Sad, Serbia Vladimir Kubet, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Novi Sad, Serbia This paper discusses the process of gentrification, researched through a perspective of its positive and negative aspects. It underlines the importance of reasonable proportioning, sensible structuring and long-term planning of transformation of urban spaces, which contributes to an upgrade of living conditions and qualitative advancement of social consciousness and development of needs of the local inhabitants, regardless of their socio-economic profile. Despite not perceiving gentrification as an a priori negative process, influences of alterations of urban tissue carried out through radical and narrowly interpreted modifications of their character may cause undesired changes in the perception and use of the space and were analyzed as well. A case study of the gentrification of Grbavica, an urban fragment in Novi Sad, Serbia, is presented. The goal of this research was to critically valorize the over-all transformation of the aforementioned fragment, taking into account architectural, urban, social, cultural, economic and other facets. Key words: gentrification, urban transformation, socio-economic impact, identity a relatively well-off, middle- and upper INTRODUCTION1 middle-class population” (Smith, 1998, GENTRIFICATION AS A PROCESS p.199) and experience a comprehensive Dynamic changes in contemporary urban Complexity of Perception2 tissue under the controversial name of identity change. ‘gentrification’ have been a vexed topic among Formally derelict neighborhoods are The term gentrification was initially coined in international circle of scholars for more than “rediscovered” and either refurbished or by 1964by Ruth Glass, a British pioneer of urban two decades now. However, the process started erecting new structures in attempt to sociology in Europe, who tried to depict spreading its tentacles in urban society almost “recapture the value of place” (Zukin, 1991, changes of central London neighborhoods half a century ago. p.191), the real-estate value is increased. formally inhabited by the working class. By Today, the vast term of gentrification is a Rather than identifying gentrification as an gentrification, Glass entails a process by which subject to numerous interpretations and “inner-city phenomenon” (Badcock, 2001, local lower class residents are displaced by presents a process highly dependent on an p.1559), in this paper gentrification is viewed developers and higher class home buyers, entire spectrum of aspects, such as the spatial, as a long lasting process or a continuum which while the area in question is rehabilitated from social, political, economic, contextual, historic, enables it to be comprehended in all its the spatial and economic aspects (Glass, cultural, etc. After numerous alterations along complexity, especially concerning those 1964). She refers exclusively to transformation the course of years since it was initially noted, aspects referring to its immediate context in of the existing dilapidated structures in gentrification today may be defined as a terms of space and time. process by which economically declined All analyzed aspects of gentrification are 2 inner-city neighborhoods encounter a The paper was done within the project "Redefinisanje elaborated and critically valorized through a modela i tipova javnih prostora i unapređenje strategije “reversal, reinvestment, and the in-migration of case study of Grbavica, a gentrified district of njihove obnove i korišćenja u prostornom i Novi Sad, Serbia. urbanističkom planiranju i projektovanju" of the Ministry 1 Trg Dositeja Obradovića 6, 21 000 Novi Sad, Serbia of Science and Technological Development, Republic of [email protected] Serbia 66 spatium Nedučin, D. et al.: Influences of gentrification on identity shift of an urban fragment - a case study residential areas. Such a view is today known relation to the local lower class residents, overall identity shift, and being that these as ‘classical gentrification’ (Lees et al., 2008). although a number of them agree on the fact neighborhoods over time accumulated similar that the process also has certain positive if not the same characteristics and suffered Up until the mid 1980s, while trying to effects, primarily from the economic point of consequences as the ones that had faced only comprehend what was causing the process to view. Namely, gentrification has a potential to renovation, one should not fail to advert to start, as well as its consequences, the induce revitalization and reinvestment in such neighborhoods, including the non- international circle of scholars was tightly depressed inner-city neighborhoods (Shaw, residential ones, as gentrified. sticking to Glass’ original definition which, 2008; Freeman, 2005), as well as to increase despite the effort of the media to promote the property value and reduce vacancy rates Beyond just Housing process as positive, still had mostly negative (Atkinson and Bridge, 2005). While some of connotations. The displacement of the working these views of gentrification were subjective While before there was a genuine agreement class was in the limelight as well as and thus extreme, one thing that most agreed that gentrification was “the residential ‘gentrification’, the word itself, implying class- on was the need for a broader definition, what component of urban redevelopment” based segregation which was not sounding too Neil Smith already recognized in 1986: (Deutsche, 1996, p.IV) and thus affecting only politically correct. “Gentrification is a highly dynamic process … such central city quarters, as the process was Nevertheless, in 1985, the discussion on this not amenable to overly restrictive definitions” further spreading regardless to the land use, topic was spurred and the perception of the (Smith, 1986, p.17). location within a city or even character of the process changed. Beginning with now built environment, it became apparent that legendary Real Estate Board of New York advert Nature of Physical Changes non-residential areas may also be a subject of with a catchy name: “Is Gentrification a Dirty gentrification (Ley, 1996). Gentrification Word?”, published in The New York Times The other topic of disputes was the nature of evolved in more ways than one: rural (New York Times, 1985), gentrification was physical changes that the neighborhoods were gentrification, new-built gentrification, super- stoutly defended, at least for the time being. In experiencing and whether these changes could gentrification, and other descriptive variations the advert mentioned above, social be described as gentrification. The classical of the process are increasingly being accepted consequences were cleverly by-passed by definition was referring only to renovation and (Lees et al., 2008). However, for a process emphasizing economic benefits of the restoration of older housing stock, while when housing replaces other non-residential neighborhood change. neighborhoods around the world were land uses within the city centre, a term transforming their physical structure and, thus, ‘residentialization’ was proposed (Lambert and For the next few years, radical resistance to the their characters in many diverse manners. By Boddy, 2002). process was almost silenced and gentrified tightly sticking to early interpretations of the neighborhoods, scintillating with prosperity, process’ invariables that comprise solely of Economic Aspect were eagerly greeting their new residents. renovation and upgrading of the existing Shedding lurid light on positive effects that the residential buildings, change of urban tissue When discussing gentrification, the economic change brings and even partially romanticizing that encompasses demolition and replacement aspect asserts itself as an initiator and, perhaps the process with effusive propaganda, the would not be considered as gentrification the most influential component of the process, economically driven gentrifies deflected (Redfern, 1997), as that would mean, and can be viewed through the models of negative aspects into the closet. However, the according to some, “stretching the term and supply and demand. From this point of view, complexity of the process and inability to be what it set out to describe too far” (Lambert according to some, urban centers are more and one-sided to its results and consequences was and Boddy, 2002, p.20). more financially gaining power due to demand already back then sporadically spotted: rather than supply (Zukin, 1995). Then again, it “gentrification [is] complex and multifaceted, On the other hand, taking the initial definition was the developers, property owners, banks being simultaneously a physical, economic, of gentrification verbatim would exclude and real-estate agencies who paved the way for social and cultural process” (Hamnett, 1984, comprehension of the fact that the process gentrification (Smith,