Rofe, M.W. (2009) Globalization, Gentrification and Spatial Hierarchies in and beyond New South...

Globalisation, Gentrification and SpatialHierarchies in and beyond New South Wales:the Local/Global Nexus

MATTHEW W. ROFEDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Natural and Built Environments, TheUniversity of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia.Email: [email protected]

Received 31 July 2006; Revised 11 November 2007; Accepted 19 February 2008

AbstractPopular visions of globalisation envisage the collapse of physical space as asignificant determinant in social relations. The rapid speed at which movements ofcapital and information occur are touted as evidence that the constraints ofphysical space are eroding. The emergence of a global network of personsreferred to as the transnational elite further supports these popular perceptions.Characterised as highly educated professionals employed in globally alignedindustries, the transnational elite seemingly construct their individual and groupidentities beyond the scale of the local. However, research undertaken inNewcastle and Sydney with gentrifiers actively constructing their ‘global perso-nas’ problematise popular discourses of globalisation as contributing to thedecline of space as fundamental to identity construction. As an emergent éliteglobal community, the gentrifiers create complex cognitive maps of spatial desir-ability reinforcing the significance of specific places. Through this process, placesare ranked according to their global significance forming complex spatial hierar-chies. Consequently, some places are cast as global and hence desirable, whileothers are stigmatised as undesirable non-global spaces.

KEY WORDS globalisation; gentrification; transnational elite; global; local

The paradox of globalisationNotions of a borderless world loom large in themodern imagination. Fuelled by the processesand discourses of globalisation, an explicit beliefhas emerged that the constraints of physicalspace are collapsing. Indeed, globalisation is pur-ported as a process ‘. . . in which the constraintsof geography on economic, political, social andcultural arrangements recede’ (Waters, 2002, 5.original emphasis). This erosion arguably liber-ates social relations from the bounded geographyof the local. So pervasive have these viewsbecome that Kelly (1999, 379) has argued that‘. . . the word globalization has become the new

mantra of our times’. As a ‘mantra’, the‘. . . ideals of globality pervade the language ofjournalists, politicians, bankers, advertisers, offi-cials and researchers the world over’ (Scholte,1996, 45). This saturation is instrumental in cre-ating and perpetuating the belief in the collapseof spatial significance. However, there exists afundamental paradox in popular notions of glo-balisation. While numerous commentators cel-ebrate globalisation’s victory over space, specificplaces, epitomised by New York and London forexample, have been enshrined as vital to thearticulation of the global system. This is mostapparent in studies examining the emergence of

292

Geographical Research • September 2009 • 47(3):292–305doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2009.00574.x

what has been termed the ‘new metageography’of the global city network (Beaverstock et al.,2000). The global city literature both embodiesand reflects upon the local/global paradox inher-ent in many globalisation studies.

Emerging from the globalisation and globalcities literatures is a body of work examiningthe emergence of a transnational élite social class(Friedmann and Wolff, 1982). This group is‘. . . explicitly constructed as a nationally disem-bedded group whose members are globallyaligned’ (Rofe, 2003, 2519). The emergence oftransitional élite communities has assumed aprominent position within examinations of thesocial changes wrought by global processes(Hannerz, 1992; Wallerstein, 1993; Gamble,1996). The transnational elite, characterisedas highly educated, white-collar professionalsengaged in globally-oriented employmentsectors, increasingly embody the cosmopolitanface of the global city. Recent research has posi-tioned the gentrifying class as constituting onemanifestation of a transnational élite community(Rofe, 2001; 2003).

Gentrification studies have long recognised,not just the cosmopolitan nature of the gentrify-ing class, but also the very specific spatial mani-festation of this form of inner city residentialupgrading. Gentrification is here defined as theeconomic and social upgrading of inner cityenvironments, facilitated by a transition in theirresidential profile. In essence then, the gentrify-ing class are perceived to be a local élite groupactive in the reconstruction of both the built formand the discourse of specific inner city areas. Asa transnational élite community, the gentrifyingclass are both locally linked and globally aligned.Rofe (2003) argues that this allows members ofthe gentrifying class who are ‘going global’ toescape the ordinariness of the local by imagina-tively and symbolically accessing the extraordi-nariness of the global. Central to this spatialtransition in identity is an implicit belief thatthe global embodies the ‘glamorous sibling’ ofthe local (Raffles, 1999, 323). However, theconstruction of a cosmopolitan global personais largely imaginative. In ‘. . . teasing out thecomplexities inherent in community formationbeyond the scale of the local’, Rofe (2003, 2512)demonstrates that ‘[g]entrifying landscapes con-stitute a territory from which some gentrifiersconstruct an imagined sense of global commu-nity development’ (Rofe, 2003, 2524). Beingboth local and global calls into question theunique and complex webs of spatial interactions

that such a group create and negotiate on a dailybasis. This paper examines these relationshipsand processes.

According to several authors (Harvey, 1989;Giddens, 1990; Scholte, 1996; Douglas, 1997),globalisation heralds the decline of spatial dis-tinction, particularly at the local scale. Problema-tising this view, it is asserted that the emergenceof the gentrifying class as an élite global com-munity reifies the significance of local spaces.Examination of this assertion involves unravel-ling the complex spatial systems constructed bythe gentrifying class. Drawing upon fieldworkwith gentrifiers self-identifying as ‘being global’(Rofe, 2001; 2003), this paper proposes twocore arguments. First, that, despite the popularassertion that globalisation marks the declineof spatial significance for those gentrifiers ‘goingglobal’, the importance of specific spaces isenhanced. Those spaces cited as being mostimportant in the articulation and projection of aglobal persona have come to be designated as‘global places’ of crucial significance in identityconstruction beyond the scale of the local. Con-versely, places not considered to be of globalsignificance have come to be cast as ‘non-globalspaces’. Within this schema, space is not aneutral medium of declining significance butrather a vital territory through and within which aglobal identity is articulated and projected.

The second argument is that global places donot occur in isolation. Rather, they are linkedimaginatively across space forming an integratedglobal network. This network provides a globalterritory for the transnational élite. However, notall global places are perceived to be of equalsignificance. This perception leads to the devel-opment of a complex spatial hierarchy amongstthose places considered to be global. Within thisspatial hierarchy, some places are considered to bemore global than others. Those places consideredto be at the pinnacle of this spatial hierarchy areregarded with a sense of spatial longing as poten-tial future residential locations. Global places andthe discourses constructed around them, whichwill be discussed in this paper, embody whatMichael Smith (2001) refers to as ‘translocalism’.As translocal spaces, these places enable thetransnational élite to symbolically ‘jump scales’(Smith, 2001, 5), bridging the spatial gap betweenthe local and the global. Gentrifying areas, astranslocal spaces, form a conduit through whichthe gentrifiers, as a transnational élite, escape theordinary nature of the local and gain access to theextraordinary scale of the global.

M.W. Rofe: Globalisation, Gentrification and Spatial Hierarchies in and beyond New South Wales 293

© 2009 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2009 Institute of Australian Geographers

The research presented in this paper was gath-ered using three interrelated methods. Question-naire sampling of a total of 700 (350 in eachstudy site) randomly selected households wasundertaken in gentrifying areas within the citiesof Sydney and Newcastle. The sample frame wasdrawn from current electoral rolls for the relevantlocal government areas. As noted by Duncan(1998) electoral rolls, in most circumstances,represent the best source of resident informationgiven the lack of suitable alternatives in Austra-lia. For each of the 26 alphabetical entry pointsinto the electoral rolls, a sample of 14 mailingaddresses was compiled using a random numberchart. This provided a total of 364 targetedmailing addresses, from which 14 were randomlyremoved to provide the sample frame of 350.Overall, a response rate of 45% (n = 315)was achieved (Glebe 42.3%, n = 148; InnerNewcastle 47.7%, n = 167). The questionnairecollected a range of information about issuespertaining to gentrification, globalisation, globalcommunity formation and global city devel-opment. Questionnaire respondents willing toparticipate further in the research were asked toprovide contact details and a preferred contacttime. Respondents willing to participate furtheraccounted for 13% of the total questionnairesample (Glebe 12.1%, n = 18; Inner Newcastle16.7%, n = 28). Following statistical analysis ofquestionnaire results a telephone survey wasdesigned. Phone interviews were consideredadvantageous in the conduct of this research fortwo key reasons: first they enabled the clarifica-tion of ambiguities and the exploration of keyissues that had arisen from the questionnaire;while second phone surveying offered consider-able time and cost efficiencies while maintain-ing high response rates and data reliability (seeFrey, 1989). Following the phone survey, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10key informants. Phone surveys identified apool of potential subjects from each site. Thoserespondents targeted all fitted the socio-demographic profile of the gentrifying class anddemonstrated a high degree of articulation andengagement with the research. Each of the tar-geted respondents considered themselves notonly to be local gentrifiers, but also to be inte-grated within a gentrification-oriented globalcommunity. Of the final interview respondents, 3were female and 7 male. All interview respon-dents were employed in high-status white-collaroccupations, predominantly within the finance/business sector and the real estate industry.

Information on age was requested to be kept con-fidential either explicitly or implicitly by declin-ing to answer such questions. Interviews wereconsidered crucial due to their ability to fillknowledge gaps inherent in more quantitativesampling techniques such as questionnaires. Thecomplex and diverse opinions collected throughthese interviews provided a more holistic imageof the complex spatial relationships emergingbetween the local and the global.

Sydney and Newcastle: local study sitesin a global contextThe two study sites examined in this researchwere the suburb of Glebe in Sydney and thesuburbs of Cooks Hill and Newcastle Eastin Newcastle, hereafter referred to as InnerNewcastle unless otherwise specified. Thesestudy sites were selected on the grounds that bothhave well documented gentrification histories(see Horvath and Engels, 1985; Engels, 1999;Rofe, 2000; 2003; 2004; Bridge, 2001). This isimportant because the aim of the broader researchagenda was to study the emergence of the gentri-fying class as an élite global community and notto study the gentrification process per se.

The suburb of Glebe is located on a westernarm of Sydney Harbour some two kilometresfrom the CBD (see Figure 1). Originally an areadeveloped by colonial Sydney’s increasinglyaffluent merchant class, Glebe was subdividedinto allotments for working class families duringthe early 1900s. This subdivision, combined withthe devastating impacts of the Great Depressionfrom the late 1920s, saw Glebe’s standing as aprestigious area rapidly decline. Dilapidation ofthe area’s housing stock, aligned with increasingpoverty, resulted in Glebe coming to be per-ceived as an inner city slum. Following theSecond World War, the area began to experiencea resurgence of its economic and social vitalitydue to the settlement of European migrants inSydney’s inner western suburbs. This reclama-tion paved the way for gentrification to occur asearly as the 1960s (Horvath and Engels, 1985), aprocess that has continued unabated. Today,Glebe is considered to be a highly desirable placeof residence and is one of the most ‘mature’ ofSydney’s gentrified areas.

The city of Newcastle is located some 150kilometres to the north of Sydney (Figure1). Established as a penal colony in 1801,Newcastle’s identity became synonymous withsteel making during the twentieth century. Withthe onset of industrial restructuring during the

294 Geographical Research • September 2009 • 47(3):292–305


0 metres 500

Sydney OperaHouse

Darling HarbourUltimo

Balmain

Annadale Glebe

Pyrmont

SydneyCBD

Darlinghurst

Sydney Harbour

Redfern

City West Link

Victoria Rd.

Glebe P

t. Rd.

Parramatta Rd.

City

Rd.

William St.

SydneyHarbourBridge

Sydney Harbour Tunnel

Bridge

Rd.

CarringtonStockton

Newcastle East

The HillCooks

Hill

Bar BeachThe Junction

Wickham

Hamilton Newcastle

West

Thros byC

ree

Lee Wharf

New

castleHarbour Nobbys

Beach

Pacific H

wy

To Sydney

Tudor St.

.tS t

no

mu

ae

B

.e

vA

no

dro

G

Pac

ific

H

wy.

Uni

on

St.

Dar

by

St.

Hannell S

t.

King St.

Parkway Ave.

Parry St.

Bull St.

Hunter St.

Tynell St.

Scott St.

Glebe Rd.

to Brisbane

Mem

orial Driv

Pyrmont

Leichardt

Cleveland St.

Anzac P

ara

de

Kings Cross

CircularQuay

NSW

QldNT

WA

SA

Vic .

Tas.

0 km 1

NEW SOUTH WALES

Newcastle

Sydney

Figure 1 Study site locations: Glebe and Inner Newcastle.



1980s, Newcastle’s identity changed from ‘steelcity’ to ‘problem city’ (Dunn et al., 1995).Ongoing heavy industry downsizing into the1990s reinforced this discourse, culminating inthe closure of BHP’s main steel making blastfurnace in early 1999. However, while someparts of Newcastle were becoming derelict, InnerNewcastle was experiencing gentrification (Rofe,2000). The occurrence of gentrification withinthese areas suggested the emergence of a moreoptimistic discourse for Newcastle. Despitethe resilience of the problem city narrative,Newcastle is increasingly being recognised asa cosmopolitan ‘promise city’ (Rofe, 2004).

Sydney and Newcastle are cities enmeshedin the processes and flows of globalisation.However, they are not recognised equally asglobal cities. Sydney is privileged as Australia’spremier global city. Objectively, Sydney’s globalintegration is evident in its economic and profes-sional significance as a Beta class global citywithin the Asia Pacific Region (see Connell,2000). Subjectively, Sydney’s global position isdiscursively reinforced through images of thecity’s skyline as a landscape of power and vital-ity, while Sydney Harbour provides a cosmopoli-tan vista upon which many tourism campaignsare constructed. Thus, when asked in the ques-tionnaire Do you think your city of residenceis globally significant?, it was not surprisingthat 89% of Glebe questionnaire respondentsaffirmed Sydney to be a city of global signifi-cance. None of the Glebe sample responded thatSydney was not globally significant, while 10%responded Unsure and 1% made No Response.Sydney’s global significance was also espousedby numerous telephone and interview respon-dents. Encapsulating this trend, one interviewrespondent enthused:

Sydney will always be Australia’s global city. . . Sydney is not a town. Sydney is a big citylike New York or London. Yeah, I thinkSydney is Australia’s New York. It’s too bigfor Australia . . . There’s an energy here thatyou can’t find . . . anywhere else in Australia.Sydney’s tense, it has something about it . . . Ican’t put my finger on it . . . but Sydney hasgot it and that’s what makes it global.

Contrasting with these responses, only 39% ofthe Inner Newcastle sample believed Newcastleto be of global significance. Despite 59% ofInner Newcastle questionnaire respondentsclaiming that Newcastle is not globally signifi-cant, the city is a crucial centre in global flows of

primary and manufactured goods. Newcastle is,for example, one of Australia’s largest bulkexport harbours handling an estimated 82.7million tonnes of trade during the 2003–2004financial period (Day, 2004, 21). However,Newcastle’s symbolic landscape is somewhatimpoverished. Stigmatised as ‘. . . a twentiethcentury update on Dickens dark satanic mills’(Hammond, 1997, 386), Newcastle has struggledunder the weight of its industrial heritage. Thedearth of skyscrapers and, until recently, of cos-mopolitan landscapes visually mark Newcastle’slandscape as non-global. Lacking the globallyemblematic landscapes of cosmopolitan refine-ment, the global significance of Newcastle seem-ingly escaped the attention of the majority ofrespondents.

Globalisation, global city networksand fragmentationInvestigating globalisation is inherently com-plex. Theorists are divided as to the origins,mechanisms and ultimate consequences of thisprocess. For some, the origins rest within mod-ernism (Giddens, 1990; Robertson, 1992), forothers, globalisation is inherently postmodern(Harvey, 1989; Appadurai, 1990; Smart, 1993).Despite crucial theoretical differences, bothpositions accept that ‘[g]lobalization . . . impliesgreater connectedness and de-territorialization’(Waters, 2002, 192). Globalisation, withinthis paper, is defined as the intensification offlows across space and between places. As glo-balisation accelerates, seemingly further col-lapsing time and space, the notion of an aspatialworld takes greater hold upon the popularimagination.

The ‘. . . eradication of space through thedomestication of time’ (Douglas, 1997, 168)argument draws its primary evidence from theemergence of sophisticated, high-speed commu-nication technologies. Rosenau (1990, 17) arguesthat technology has ‘. . . profoundly altered thescale on which human affairs take place’. Thisimpact has both spatial and temporal implica-tions. Numerous works exist documenting theimpact of computer-based technologies, such asthe Internet and email, on social interactions andcommunity structures (Loader, 1998; Bell andKennedy, 2000; Smith and Kollock, 2000).These works emphasise how technology is dis-embedding ‘. . . social relations from local con-texts of interaction’ (Giddens, 1990, 21). Theinferred logic of such theorisation is that, through



technology, the constraints of physical space andtime have been overcome enabling people toexist in a truly aspatial global world. Thisinferred logic has become an article of faithwithin the cyberspace and cyber-community lit-eratures (Bell and Kennedy, 2000; Smith andKollock, 2000). Liberated from the local, it hasbeen touted that cyber-community members‘. . . can assert victory in humanity’s strugglewith nature by overcoming the constraints’(Jones, 1997, 39) of their physical reality.However, while cyberspace reduces the con-straints of physical space, it cannot eliminatethem as a major determinant in social existence.Cyberspace’s spatial victory is restricted to theelectronic realm alone. This realisation empha-sises that cyberspace is an imaginative/electronicconnection between physical and often spatiallyremote localities. Thus, these technologiesprovide a pseudo-global context. Use of theprefix ‘pseudo’ is important given that, whilecommunication technologies may enable ‘realtime’ interactions across vast spatial scales, theydo not collapse space in a physical sense.

However, the rhetoric of technology’s con-quest of space is compelling. Societies areincreasingly bombarded with images anddiscourses concerning the erosion of space asa significant determinant in social experience.Indicative of this, advertising campaigns areincreasingly replete with aspatial representa-tions of the globe. Exploring this phenomenon,McHaffie (1997, 77) asserts that ‘. . . the imageof a borderless world . . . without the restrictionsimposed by national boundaries is a major com-ponent of globalist ideology’. At best, thesecampaigns employ global fragments, withoutnational boundaries and often lacking referenceto complete countries, particularly those withinthe developing world. Such representationscreate an imagined global space, devoid of spe-cific nations and/or places not considered to beglobally significant. The rhetoric of incomplete,aspatial cartographies creates a fragmentednotion of global integration, uniting places ofglobal significance while excluding spaces ofnon-global otherness.

Doreen Massey’s (1993) discussion of globali-sation as a form of ‘power geometry’ is instru-mental in understanding the fragmented nature ofglobal integration. Massey (1993), in critiquingthe orthodoxy of time-space compression theory,argued that global flows extended unevenlyacross space and between different social groups.In essence, ‘. . . different social groups and

individuals are placed in very distinct ways inrelation to . . . [global] flows and connections’(Massey, 1993, 61). This aptly demonstrates that,despite living in a technologically augmentedglobal age, the flows, benefits and impacts ofglobalisation are uneven. Evidence of the frag-mented nature of globalisation is nowhere moreapparent than within the global city literature. Itis within this literature that the paradox of glo-balisation studies is most evident.

Global city research has come to occupy acentral position within globalisation theory. Yet,despite the proliferation of this literature, Taylor(2000, 7) has commented that ‘[w]orld cityresearch is strong on ideas, but weak on evidence’.In response, Taylor and his colleagues at theGlobalization and World Cities Study Group(http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/) have sought toformalise techniques through which a city’s‘global capacity’ may be quantified. This end-eavour is founded upon the development of aroster of world cities based upon the location ofadvanced global producer services (Beaverstocket al., 1999). Crystallised in Taylor (2004), theoutcome of this project is the identificationof a new ‘metageography’ of global cities. Bymetageography, Taylor (2004, 185) highlightshow the ‘spatial premises’ of the global citynetwork ‘. . . enter the realm of “commonsense” where interrogation is deemed whollyunnecessary’. Avoiding the ‘common sense’approach, Taylor (2004) critically engageswith the processes and mechanisms that shapeand guide the global city metageography. Impor-tantly, in identifying the parameters of thismetageography Taylor (2004, 132) acknowl-edges that this reflects ‘multiple globalizations’.These ‘multiple globalizations’ represent thefractured nature of global flows that are manifestthrough the connections between global cities asphysical sites.

While global cities are undeniably crucialplaces in the articulation of globalisation, it is amisnomer to refer to cities as entities in their ownright. As Marcuse and van Kempen (2000, 265)observe:

A ‘city’ is not global; some of those doingbusiness in it are, but others very like themwill do business very similar to that in other‘non-global’ cities. Those doing business on aglobal scale will have a similar impacton the spaces of the cities in which they dobusiness, wherever they are. That impactmay be concentrated in some cities, but that is



because of what these actors do in them, notbecause that ‘city’ has done something(emphasis added).

The city then provides a landscape upon andthrough which human agents articulate and directthe various flows and exchanges of globalisation.This resonates with Smith’s (2001, 49) belief that‘. . . there is no solid object known as the “globalcity”. . . only an endless interplay of differentlyarticulated networks, practices, and power rela-tions’ (original emphasis). This is not to constructthe city as a passive space devoid of some formof global agency. Previous research has indicatedhow the discourse of specific cities, shapedthrough their social, economic and political his-tories, positions them more directly in relation toglobal flows and interactions (Sassen, 1991;Abu-Lughod, 1999). Those cities best positionedand most able to exploit their position, such asNew York and London, have been able to attracta greater number of industries, activities andindividuals emblematic of the globalisationprocess. In this way, global cities provide a syn-ergistic landscape reifying their position as‘global places’.

Just as the flows of globalisation betweencities are fragmented, so are they within cities. Itis a further misnomer then to refer to cities intheir entirety as being ‘global’. As a physicalterritory, cities span the perceived distancebetween the scales of the local, the national andthe global. Cities operate simultaneously at allthree scales. Further, global cities contain spacesthat are more locally aligned and, as such, maybe considered as being ‘non-global’. As citedabove, Marcuse and van Kempen (2000, 265)tacitly acknowledge this by asserting that thoseactors engaged in global activities do so inspecific urban spaces thereby connecting thesespaces with the scale of the global. While centralbusiness districts within global cities obviouslyconstitute a global place, other, less obvious,localities may also be considered as beingglobally integrated. The following discussionexamines gentrifying landscapes as global placesproviding a conduit through which those gentri-fiers constructing a global persona imaginativelyalign themselves to the scale of the global.

Gentrifying landscapes as global placesGentrifying landscapes have long been recogn-ised as local spaces of professional residency.Essentially, the gentrifying class utilise specificdwelling types and areas of the inner city to

articulate a new class position (Jager, 1986).Drawing upon ‘[f]eatures of the landscape. . . [as] a means for fixing social position’(Mills, 1993, 157), gentrifying areas constitutea physical territory. Symbolic meanings areinscribed upon and represented through theseterritories creating a discourse of prestige andaffluence. However, gentrifying landscapes arebecoming increasingly desirable and are hencebeing commodified. Responding to an erosion ofthe symbolic significance of the lifestyle andresidential practices they themselves pioneered, asignificant proportion of gentrifiers within bothstudy sites are positioning themselves as thelocal manifestation of a global élite community(Rofe, 2003). This spatial re-orientation does notinvolve an abandonment of their present place ofresidency. Rather, these individuals are imagina-tively re-orienting the spatial discourses of theirplaces of residence from the local to that of theglobal.

The interview responses indicated that theconcept of a global place was inherently tied tothe inner city. In the minds of many respon-dents, the inner city provides a space exposingthe individual to international opportunities andexperiences. Reflecting the prevalence of thisattitude, specific inner city property develop-ments are being marketed as being global ratherthan local places. Figure 2 exemplifies thisglobal marketing trend. This particular develop-ment, le Cirque in Surry Hills, exhorts the innercity as the space where the globally ‘astute’ can‘think globally’ while they ‘live locally’ (CityProject Marketing, 2001). This marketingstrategy is not isolated. A proliferation of glo-bally aligned marketing strategies position innerSydney and inner Newcastle as simulacra ofmore emblematic global landscapes such asManhattan for example. One recent develop-ment in Inner Newcastle has even been touted asa ‘mini-Paris’ with Throsby Creek (see Figure 1)being recast as the River Seine (Scanlon, 1999,14). These trends are indicative of Smith’s(2001) discussion of translocal spaces and echothe position of Madon and Sahay (2001, 274)that ‘. . . place has . . . become a particularinstance in the networks of social relationswhich form the link between the local and theglobal’. While these marketing strategies relateto specific property developments, they epito-mise the explicit construction of the inner city asa spatial conduit through which the gentrifiers,as an emergent transnational élite, gain access tothe scale of the global.



Figure 2 Marketing the Local/Global Nexus.Source: City Project Marketing (2001: 29A).



Areas beyond the inner city, such as thesuburbs and rural areas, were stigmatised byrespondents as being primarily non-global.One respondent argued that suburban dwellerslacked any form of diverse social interaction andsimply lived in culturally myopic communities,which revolved around local organisations suchas Workers Clubs and Returned Service LeagueClubs (RSLs)1. Continuing, this respondentlabelled the suburbs as ‘. . . places of uniformityand drudgery’. Lacking cosmopolitan vibrancy,the suburbs are cast as the natural domain of a‘mainstream’ Australian society that is exclu-sively oriented to the scale of the local. The inter-section of the non-global with suburban and/orrural identities reflects the naturalised belief thatthe inner city is the residential domain of a moreglobally aligned professional élite.

Inner city residency therefore is a centraltheme in the distinction between the global andthe non-global. Illustrating this, one telephonerespondent asserted that inner city professionalsare ‘. . . the country’s [Australia’s] global citi-zens’. As global places, inner city gentrifyingareas are primarily networked through theactions and lifestyles of their residents. Reflect-ing this, one interview respondent stated ‘[t]hepeople here in Glebe . . . they are the global ones.People here are at the centre of things, they makeit happen rather than sit back and watchit go by’. Similarly, another Glebe respondentstated:

‘I live here because it offers me so much, whywould I live anywhere else? Some people saythe inner city is dirty and dangerous, but it’sthe pulse of Sydney. For that matter it’s theglobal pulse’ (emphasis added).

Yet another respondent observed:

Inner Sydney, particularly Glebe, is a vibranthappening place which is going global. Thepeople, the lifestyle, the attitudes mark Glebeas a global suburb. The same type of lifestylescan be found in NY, London or LA. Peoplefrom Glebe could go these places and feel athome, that is what being a global member isall about, being comfortable in other placesdue to similar lifestyles – a frame of reference(cited in Rofe 2003, 2521).

This comment encapsulates the significance thatspace plays in the perceptions of those gentrifiersseeking to articulate a global persona. Heregentrifying landscapes are spatial frames ofreference enabling the individual to relocate

internationally with little disruption to their life-style practices or sense of belonging. This beliefin a global landscape of similar lifestyle practicesand values echoes King’s (1993, 152) commentthat the transnational élite truly ‘. . . believe theylive in a world culture’ (original emphasis).

The strength of this association is demon-strated by the significant number of telephonesurvey respondents claiming that, were they toreside outside a designated global place, thiswould hinder their personal global integration.Table 1 demonstrates that residing in a non-global space was considered as a hindrance toglobal integration by 72% of Glebe and 54% ofInner Newcastle respondents. The proportion ofrespondents believing this not to be the caseaccounted for 22% and 29% of the Glebe andInner Newcastle samples respectively. Respon-dents were also asked if moving from a globalplace to a non-global place would have animpact upon an individual’s degree of globalintegration (see Table 2). Reflecting the uncer-tainty previously demonstrated, only 50% ofInner Newcastle respondents believed this wouldbe the case. Those disagreeing with this questionaccounted for 21% of the Inner Newcastlesample; the remaining 25% were unsure. It ispossible that the lower affirmation rates of theInner Newcastle respondents is related to theirperception of their city of residence as beingglobally insignificant. Despite numerous com-ments casting Newcastle as being globally insig-nificant, as reported in Rofe (2003), a significantproportion of these respondents still claimed tobe globally integrated. Consideration of thesepoints suggests that, because of Newcastle’s per-ceived global insignificance, inner Newcastlerespondents are more aware of the potential forpersonal global integration beyond residencywithin a readily definable global place. Over-whelmingly, 89% of the Glebe sample believedmoving from a global place to a non-globalplace would be disastrous for their personalglobal integration (see Table 2). Only 11% ofGlebe respondents argued that such a move

Table 1 Does residing within non-global places hinderglobal integration?

Yes No Unsure NA

Glebe 72% 22% 6% 0%Inner Newcastle 54% 29% 14% 4%

Source: Glebe and Inner Newcastle Telephone Survey.



would not hinder their personal global integra-tion. Encapsulating the belief of the majority ofGlebe respondents, one individual argued ‘. . . Iwouldn’t jeopardise that [his personal globalintegration] by moving to some shit-hole placein the suburbs or country. Global people needand want to be at the heart of the action’(emphasis added). For this respondent both the‘need’ and the ‘want’ to be ‘at the heart of theaction’ are inherently tied to the territory of gen-trifying landscapes and to the global conduitsthey represent. The casting of the inner city as‘. . . where the city is truly global’ maps the innercity as the logical and natural residential domainof the gentrifiers as an élite global community. Ineffect, the desire to ‘. . . be at the centre ofthings’ dictates where these individuals willreside and socialise in order to articulate theirglobal identities.

Spatial hierarchiesDespite popular belief, globalisation is not a uni-fying, aspatial process. Rather, as demonstratedby Massey (1993) and Taylor (2004), it is afragmented process linking some places whilebypassing others. These connections and theirrelative strengths create an unequal hierarchy ofnetworked places that has assumed the positionof a new global metageography. The imaginativetransformation of gentrifying landscapes withinAustralian cities is further indicative of the frag-mented nature of globalisation as perceived byits adherents. In order to further unravel thecomplex spatial relationships created by respon-dents, an examination of their notions of spatiallonging beyond the local was undertaken. Spe-cifically, questionnaire respondents were asked ifresiding in another city would better assist themin their quest for personal global integration (seeTable 3). In response, 66% of the Glebe and 62%of the Inner Newcastle samples agreed that resid-ing in another city would assist them in further-ing their global integration. Those personsresponding in the negative accounted for 32%and 36% of the Glebe and Inner Newcastle

samples respectively. The motivation for thisdissent is likely to lie within either a satisfactionwith the individuals’ current degree of globalintegration or the belief that global integration isnot totally constrained by spatial parameters.Indicative of this, one Inner Newcastle telephonerespondent stated ‘global integration is a state ofmind’, while a Glebe respondent argued ‘globali-sation is in your head’. These comments implythat, for some respondents, global integration is apersonal process beyond the limits of space andthe occupation of specific places.

Nevertheless, the majority of respondentsbelieved that residing in another city wouldbetter enhance their global aspirations. Theplaces identified as their preferred global placesformed a complex spatial hierarchy. The termspatial hierarchy is used to denote a systemwhereby places are ranked according to theirglobal significance and desirability. Thoseplaces higher up the hierarchy than the individ-ual’s current place of residence are consideredto offer better opportunities for global integra-tion. Conversely, places lower down the hierar-chy offer fewer global opportunities. Theidentification of such a hierarchy reveals the sig-nificance of specific places to an emerging éliteglobal community.

The broad parameters of a global spatial hier-archy are visible within the spatial attitudes ofthe respondents. Those respondents stating thatresiding in another city would better enhancetheir global opportunities were asked to nametheir ideal city of residence (see Figure 3 andTable 4). Data analysis revealed that 95% ofGlebe respondents naming a preferred city ofresidence identified a city outside Australia.New York’s position as arguably the world’smost prominent global city was supported; 51%of respondents identified it as their preferredcity of residence. London was the next city ofpreference being named by 26% of the sample.Additional international cities named includedLos Angeles (10%), Paris (1%) and a range ofcities such as Tokyo, Berlin and Washington or

Table 2 Does moving from a global to a non-global placehinder integration?

Yes No Unsure NA

Glebe 89% 11% 0% 0%Newcastle 50% 21% 25% 4%

Source: Glebe and Inner Newcastle Telephone Survey.

Table 3 Would residing within another city assist your per-sonal global integration?

Yes No Unsure

Glebe 66% 32% 2%Inner Newcastle 62% 36% 2%

Source: Glebe and Inner Newcastle Questionnaire Sample.



combinations of multiple cities that have beencategorised as ‘other’ (7%) (this category is notdepicted in Figure 3. See Table 4). The identifi-cation of New York, London and, to a lesserextent, Los Angeles as the three most preferredcities of residence is not surprising given thesaturation of images depicting these cities as thepinnacle of inner city sophistication. This is par-ticularly true for New York.

The proliferation of New York images withinthe mass media, according to one interviewrespondent, ‘. . . is where the whole New Yorkimage and reputation comes from, we are satu-rated with it, we see New York everywhere’. Thisconstant bombardment of New York imagesfunctions to create a powerful sense of globaldesirability. This image saturation has a profoundimpact upon the imagination of individualsbeyond New York:

I’m certain that if you showed people aroundAustralia pictures of prominent buildingsfrom NewYork and say Sydney or Melbourne,they’d pick the ones from New York butthey’d have trouble with the rest. It’s all a

matter of what you see often and I don’t seethat many images of Sydney or Melbourne inthe same sense that I see about New York.New York is presented as the place to be, themost fashionable and successful city in theworld (emphasis added).

While subjective, this assertion does emphasisethe disproportionate attention that New Yorkreceives from the mass media. Consequently,‘. . . New York is seen as the place tolive . . . even if for a short period of time’. Foranother respondent, New York functioned as aglobal incubator and transmitter of style andtaste. In his own words ‘. . . definitely in NewYork . . . that’s where all the fashion trendsstart . . . and it all sort of spokes out from there’.Much of the global city literature similarly privi-leges New York as the pinnacle global city. Abu-Lughod (1999, 320), from an economicposition, has observed that ‘[g]lobalisation hasenhanced New York’s role as “the capital ofcapitalism” ’. From a cultural perspective, Zukin(1995) notes New York as a global culturecentre. Thus, New York is at the pinnacle of theglobal spatial hierarchy.

For some London and not New York was‘. . . the place to be’. One respondent, who hadnever been to London, drew her notion ofLondon as the most globally desirable city fromthe experiences and attitudes of friends and col-leagues. Drawing upon these experiences, thisrespondent asserted that, by living in London,she would become ‘. . . more international’.Referring to friends and colleagues who haveworked in London, this respondent noted thecomparisons they drew between Sydney andLondon. Upon returning to Sydney ‘. . . they raveabout the things they did . . . how theylived . . . all they seem to talk about is whatLondon has . . . well Sydney is never as good.

64%

4%

10%

5%

51%

10%1%

New York

Melbourne

Sydney

Newcastle

Paris

London

Los Angeles

7%

26%

Figure 3 Trajectories of a Global Spatial Hierarchy.Source: Glebe and Inner Newcastle Questionnaire Sample.

Table 4 Cities identified as providing greater opportunitiesfor personal global integration.

Glebe Inner Newcastle

New York 51% Sydney 64%London 26% New York 10%Los Angeles 10% Sydney/Melbourne 7%Melbourne 5% London 7%Paris 1% Melbourne 4%Other 7% Anywhere Else 2%

Not In Australia 1%Other 5%

Source: Glebe and Inner Newcastle Questionnaire Sample.



London is always better . . . Some of themsay . . . “that was better in London” or “I wish Iwas in London” ’. The process of comparingSydney’s lifestyle with that available in Londonimplicitly privileges London over Sydney,thereby positioning it higher up the spatialhierarchy.

Only 5% of Glebe respondents named anAustralian city, that being Melbourne, as theirpreferred city of residence. This is not surprisinggiven the privileging of Sydney as Australia’spremier global city over Melbourne:

Sydney is Australia’s global city, it links uswith the word. Some people would say Mel-bourne is the same but it’s not. Melbournemay have a lot of culture but that’s about all.Sydney has more culture and more interna-tional business relations. People who want tobe [Australia’s] global members have to eitherlive in Sydney or never be fully integrated.

While Melbourne is recognised as a cultural city,Sydney eclipses its global significance. Privileg-ing Sydney as being more globally significantthan Melbourne is a reflection of the deeplyentrenched rivalry between these cities. Cast asAustralia’s global city, the gaze of Sydney’sinner city élite is firmly directed to the scale ofthe global rather than the scale of the national.

Inner Newcastle respondents displayed amore national focus in their spatial hierarchy(Figure 3). Only 10% and 7% named New Yorkor London respectively. This lack of global ori-entation is further emphasised by the 64% whoidentified Sydney as their preferred city of resi-dence. Lagging behind, Melbourne was identi-fied by 4%, while 7% cited a preference to residewithin Sydney or Melbourne. The overwhelmingorientation of Inner Newcastle respondents to thenational as opposed to the global scale, positionsNewcastle as being lower than Sydney in theurban hierarchy. Newcastle respondents tendedto define Newcastle’s global integration asdependent upon the city’s proximity to Sydney.For some, Sydney assumes the repositoryof cultural services underrepresented withinNewcastle, such as art galleries and the theatre.As depicted in Table 4, a small proportion ofrespondents cheekily declared Anywhere Else(2%) and Not In Australia (1%) as non-specificspaces in which they could better globally inte-grate. The other category for Inner Newcastlerespondents included cities such as Canberra,Toronto, Edinburgh and Beijing and accountedfor 5% of the sample (see Table 4).

Occupying a lower level in the spatial hierar-chy than does Sydney positions Newcastle asbeing less globally significant. Emphasising this,one Inner Newcastle questionnaire respondentwrote ‘. . . I think Newcastle . . . lacks culturalmaturity. It can’t provide what it doesn’t yetpossess’. This comment taps into a vein ofthought amongst respondents characterisingNewcastle as a globally immature city whencompared with other, more significant, globalcities. Thus, when compared with cities suchas Sydney or New York, Newcastle is imma-ture. However, if compared with other cities,Newcastle could conceivably be classified asbeing more mature. Hence the perceived globalmaturity of a given city impacts directly uponits relative desirability as an emergent globalcommunity to the gentrifiers.

Inner Newcastle’s subordinate position toSydney as a globally desirable place was com-mented on by several interview respondents.According to one Glebe resident who owns asecond home in inner Newcastle, despite thefact that ‘. . . inner Newcastle has everythinginner Sydney has . . . that doesn’t matterbecause it [Newcastle] hasn’t got the reputationor the image’. This lack of image impacts sig-nificantly upon Newcastle’s discourse as a desir-able global city. Despite attempts to explain towork colleagues about Inner Newcastle’s cos-mopolitan nature, this respondent lamented that‘[t]o them Newcastle is the sticks, they’d nevereven visit’ the city. Similar assertions were madeciting Newcastle’s industrial heritage as themost significant hindrance to the city beingrecognised as a global, cosmopolitan city. Theresilience of Newcastle’s industrial discoursehas left the city with a ‘. . . dirty, stinking. . . 1950s identity’. In this light the image andreputation of Newcastle is not conducive tomaking the city desirable to Sydney’s emergingtransnational élite.

Space mattersThis paper has examined the significance ofspace to those members of the gentrifying classwho perceive themselves as forming part of anélite global community. For the gentrifying class,space is a significant influence in shaping theiridentity. The continued entrenchment of spatialsignificance in the lives of these respondentsrefutes the populist claims that globalisationheralds the decline of spatial significance. Thus,it is the conclusion of this paper that, for those



gentrifiers seeking to articulate a global personaat least, space, rather than collapsing, is becom-ing increasingly important.

Gentrification has long been recognised as aspatially specific process. It has been argued thatthose gentrifiers actively constructing a globalpersona draw upon specific spaces which theyconstrue to be emblematically global. Conse-quently, respondents displayed a spatial map ofglobal desirability/undesirability. In unravel-ling this projection this paper has examined thedegree to which respondents cast some places asbeing global and others as non-global. Thoseplaces cast as global corresponded with theglobal longings of the respondents. The longingor desire to live within a more global place, otherthan the respondent’s current locality, is associ-ated with notions of becoming more globallyintegrated.

The manifestation of these spatial longingsvaried between the two study sites. The Gleberespondents’ spatial orientation was firmly fixedupon the scale of the global, whereas InnerNewcastle respondents’ were oriented towardsthe scale of the national. Accounting for thesespatial differences, this paper has proposed theemergence of a spatial hierarchy positioningvarious places according to their degree ofglobal connectivity and significance. Within thisschema Sydney is considered to be more glo-bally significant than Newcastle. Consequently,despite pursuing the same lifestyle forms anddisplaying a strikingly similar socio-economicprofile, Glebe’s gentrifiers are cast as beingbetter globally integrated than their InnerNewcastle counterparts. In a social sense thisframe of distinction is extremely important. Thepositioning of Inner Newcastle as being lessglobal than Glebe therefore taints that city’s gen-trifiers as being less global than their Glebe coun-terparts. Place of residence then continues to befundamentally important for those gentrifiersseeking to project their identity onto the scale ofthe global. Space therefore is revealed, not asbeing eroded, but as being enshrined as a vitalcomponent in identity formation both at andbeyond the scale of the local.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI should like to thank the numerous respondents who assistedin the research phase of this paper. I am also grateful for theconstructive comments provided by two anonymous referees,Ms Jennifer Lock for comments on an initial draft and toProfessor Hilary Winchester for ongoing mentorship andsupport.

NOTES1. Workers Clubs and RSLs are a significant factor in the

social, political and economic fabric of many Australiancommunities. This is particularly the case in New SouthWales. For many people, such organisations constitutethe primary focus of community interaction and devel-opment. The linking of these organisations with subur-ban and rural places and identities alone is problematic.Such community-based organisations are present withinboth study sites and are well represented within otherinner city areas of Sydney and Newcastle.

REFERENCESAbu-Lughod, J.L., 1999: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles:

America’s Global Cities. University of Minnesota Press,Minneapolis.

Appadurai, A., 1990: Disjuncture and difference in the globalcultural economy, Public Culture 2, 1–24.

Beaverstock, J.V., Smith, R.G. and Taylor, P.J., 1999: A rosterof world cities, Cities 16, 445–458.

Beaverstock, J.V., Smith, R.G. and Taylor, P.J., 2000:World-city network: a new metageography? Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers 90, 123–134.

Bell, D. and Kennedy, B.M. (eds), 2000: The CyberculturesReader. Routledge, London.

Bridge, G., 2001: Estate agents as interpreters of economicand cultural capital: the gentrification premium in theSydney housing market. International Journal of Urbanand Regional Research 25, 87–101.

City Project Marketing 2001: le Cirque apartments advertise-ment. Domain, The Sydney Morning Herald (10 March),29A.

Connell, J. (ed.), 2000: Sydney: The Emergence of a WorldCity. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Day, S., 2004: Newcastle Prospectus. Newcastle CityCouncil, Newcastle.

Douglas, I.R., 1997: Globalisation and the end of the state?New Political Economy 2, 165–177.

Duncan, C.J., 1998: Making space for the victim: A studyof the spatial and social dimensions of victimisation innon-metropolitan Australia. Unpublished PhD Thesis, TheUniversity of Newcastle, Australia.

Dunn, K.M., McGuirk, P.M. and Winchester, H.P.M., 1995:Place making: the social construction of Newcastle,Australian Geographical Studies 33, 149–167.

Engels, B., 1999: Property ownership, tenure, and displace-ment: in search of the process of gentrification. Environ-ment and Planning A 31, 1473–1495.

Friedmann, J. and Wolff, G., 1982: World city formation: anagenda for research and action. International Journal forUrban and Regional Research 6, 309–344.

Frey, J.H., 1989: Survey Research by Telephone. Sage,London.

Gamble, A., 1996: Embedded statism. Environment andPlanning A 28, 1933–1936.

Giddens, A., 1990: The Consequences of Modernity. PolityPress, Cambridge.

Hammond, V., 1997: A visitor’s gothic tale. In Walsh, P.F.(ed.) Novocastrian Tales. Elephant Press, Newcastle, 385–401.

Hannerz, U., 1992: Cosmopolitans and locals in worldculture. In Featherstone, M. (ed.) Global Culture: Nation-alism, Globalism and Modernity. Sage, London, 237–251.

Harvey, D., 1989: The Condition of Postmodernity. BasilBlackwell, London.

Horvath, R. and Engels, B., 1985: The residential restructur-ing of inner Sydney. In Burnley, I. and Forrest, J. (eds)



Living in Cities: Urbanism and Society in MetropolitanAustralia. Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 143–159.

Jager, M., 1986: Class definition and the aesthetics ofgentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne. In Smith, N.and Williams, P. (eds) Gentrification of the City. Allen andUnwin, Boston, 78–91.

Jones, S.G. (ed.), 1997: Virtual Culture: Identity and Com-munication in Cybersociety. Sage, London.

Kelly, P.F., 1999: The geographies and politics of globalisa-tion. Progress in Human Geography 23, 379–400.

King, A.D., 1993: The global, the urban and the world. InKing, A.D. (ed.) Culture, Globalization and the World-System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representationof Identity. MacMillan, London, 149–154.

Loader, B.D. (ed.), 1998: Cyberspace Divide: Equality,Agency and Policy in the Information Society. Routledge,London.

Madon, S. and Sahay, S., 2001: Cities in the developingworld: linking global and local networks. InformationTechnology and People 14, 273–286.

Marcuse, P. and van Kempen, R. (eds), 2000: GlobalizingCities: A New Spatial Order? Blackwell, Oxford.

Massey, D., 1993: Power-geometry and a progressive senseof place. In Bird, J., Curtis, B., Putnam, T., Robertson, G.and Tickner, L. (eds) Mapping the Futures: Local Cul-tures, Global Change. Routledge, London, 59–69.

McHaffie, P., 1997: Decoding the globe: globalism, advertis-ing and corporate practice. Environment and Planning D:Society and Space 15, 73–86.

Mills, C.A., 1993: Myths and meanings of gentrification.In Duncan, J. and Ley, D. (eds) Place/Culture/Representation. Routledge, New York, 149–169.

Raffles, H., 1999: Local theory: nature and the making of anAmazonian place. Cultural Anthropology 14, 323–360.

Robertson, R., 1992: Globalization: Social Theory andGlobal Culture. Sage, London.

Rofe, M.W., 2000: Gentrification within Australia’s ‘problemcity’: Inner Newcastle as a zone of residential transition.Australian Geographical Studies 38, 54–70.

Rofe, M.W., 2001: I want to be global’: theorising the gen-trifying class as an emergent élite global community.Unpublished PhD Thesis, The University of Newcastle,Australia.

Rofe, M.W., 2003: I want to be global: theorising the gentri-fying class as an emergent élite global community. UrbanStudies 40, 2511–2526.

Rofe, M.W., 2004: From ‘problem city’ to ‘promise city’:gentrification and the revitalisation of Newcastle.Australian Geographical Studies 42, 193–206.

Rosenau, J., 1990: Turbulence in World Politics. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton.

Sassen, S., 1991: The Global City: New York, London andTokyo. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Scanlon, I., 1999: Paris in the making. The Newcastle Herald.(25 August), 14.

Scholte, J.A., 1996: Beyond the buzzword: towards a criticaltheory of globalization. In Kofman, E. and Youngs, G.(eds) Globalization: Theory, Method and Practice. PinterNew York, 43–57.

Smart, B., 1993: Postmodernity. Routledge, London.Smith, M.A. and Kollock, P. (eds), 2000: Communities in

Cyberspace. Routledge, London.Smith, M.P., 2001: Transnational Urbanism: Locating Glo-

balization. Blackwell, Oxford.Taylor, P.J., 2000: World cities and territorial states under

conditions of contemporary globalization. Political Geog-raphy 19, 5–32.

Taylor, P.J., 2004: World City Network: A Global UrbanAnalysis. Routledge, London.

Wallerstein, I., 1993: The national and the universal: canthere be such a thing as world culture? In King, A.D. (ed.)Globalization and the World System. Macmillan, NewYork91–105.

Waters, M., 2002: Globalization. Routledge, London.Zukin, S., 1995: The Cultures of Cities. Blackwell,

Cambridge.



Rofe, M.W. (2009) Globalization, Gentrification and Spatial Hierarchies in and beyond New South...

Documents

Transcript of Rofe, M.W. (2009) Globalization, Gentrification and Spatial Hierarchies in and beyond New South...