The Back-To-The-City Movement: Neighbourhood Redevelopment and Processes of Political and Cultural...

http://usj.sagepub.com/Urban Studies

http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/07/17/0042098014539403The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0042098014539403

published online 18 July 2014Urban StudDerek Hyra

political and cultural displacementThe back-to-the-city movement: Neighbourhood redevelopment and processes of

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Urban Studies Journal Foundation

can be found at:Urban StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jul 18, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at American University Library on September 26, 2014usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from at American University Library on September 26, 2014usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Article

Urban Studies1–21! Urban Studies Journal Limited 2014Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0042098014539403usj.sagepub.com

The back-to-the-city movement:Neighbourhood redevelopment andprocesses of political and culturaldisplacement

Derek HyraVirginia Tech, USA

AbstractWhile certain US cities are still depopulating, others have experienced a reversal of aggregateout-migration patterns. Some scholars, politicians and real estate boosters celebrate this urbanpopulation influx, as it will likely increase property values and municipal tax bases; however, weknow little about the social costs associated with the back-to-the-city movement. This studyinvestigates the consequences of the back-to-the-city movement through a four-year (2009–2012) ethnographic case study of the revitalisation of Washington, DC’s Shaw/U Street neigh-bourhood. The redevelopment of this African-American neighbourhood is associated with thecity’s 5.2 percent population increase, which occurred between 2000 and 2010. While affordablehousing efforts help to keep a portion of long-term, low-income residents in place, political andcultural displacement is occurring as upper-income newcomers flock into this neighbourhood.This article contributes to the urban literature by highlighting that population influx, and associ-ated neighbourhood revitalisation, can have important social implications.

Keywordsback-to-the-city movement, gentrification, mixed-income neighbourhoods, political and culturaldisplacement

Received September 2013; accepted May 2014

Introduction

The pattern of urban flight and disinvest-ment witnessed in several US cities between1960 and 1990 reversed itself in the last twodecades as population and capital invest-ments arrived in certain urban cores atunprecedented rates (Birch, 2005, 2009).This trend has been called the back-to-the-city movement (Sturtevant and Jung, 2011),the urban turnaround (Simmons and Lang,

2003), the fifth migration (Fishman, 2005),the great inversion (Ehrenhalt, 2012) and thenew urban renewal (Hyra, 2012). Someurban scholars, political figures and realestate boosters celebrate this phenomenon,as it will likely increase property values and

Corresponding author:Derek Hyra, Virginia Tech, Urban Affairs and Planning,1021 Prince Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA.Email: [email protected]

at American University Library on September 26, 2014usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

broaden municipal tax bases (Logan andMolotch, 2007; Peterson, 1981); however,one unresolved puzzle of the back-to-the-city movement is the primary consequencesof population influx to cities and theirneighbourhoods.

Neighbourhood revitalisation and gentri-fication has been widely documented in sev-eral cities that have experienced thisturnaround (e.g. Bennett et al., 2006;Freeman, 2006; Gibson, 2007; Grogan andProscio, 2000; Modan, 2007; Podagrosi andVojnovic, 2008; Sassen, 2012; von Hoffman,2003). A controversial topic has beenwhether the back-to-the-city movement andassociated neighbourhood redevelopment isrelated to forced residential displacement(Davidson, 2008; Freeman, 2005; Freemanand Braconi, 2004; Newman and Wyly,2006; Slater, 2009; Vigdor, 2002). Ratherthan focusing on longtime resident displace-ment, this study addresses a gap in the litera-ture by understanding some socialconsequences for low-income residents ableto remain in place as more affluent popula-tions enter their community.

The back-to-the-city movement literaturehas given residential displacement muchgreater attention than political and culturaldisplacement (Fraser, 2004; Knotts andHaspel, 2006). Political displacement refersto when a long-standing racial or ethnicgroup ‘become(s) outvoted or outnumberedby new residents’ leading to the loss ofdecision-making power by the former group’(Martin, 2007: 605). Political displacementmight occur in redeveloping areas when low-income people remain but become overpow-ered by upper-income newcomers (Hyra,2008).

There are at least four reasons why scho-lars should be concerned with political dis-placement. First, evidence suggests thatlong-standing residents withdraw from pub-lic participation in gentrifying neighbour-hoods (Knotts and Haspel, 2006), and little

is known about why this occurs. Second,decreased civic engagement among long-term residents may make it more difficultfor them to form bridging relationships withnewcomers which might benefit them eco-nomically (Chaskin and Joseph, 2011;Granovetter, 1983; Putnam, 2000; Tach,2009). Third, prior studies suggest that long-standing residents sometimes resent newneighbourhood amenities (Curley, 2010),and an investigation of political displace-ment might explain the onset of resentmentfor amenities that, on the surface, seem to becommunity improvements.

Fourth, political displacement mightrelate to cultural displacement. Cultural dis-placement occurs when the norms, beha-viours and values of the new resident cohortdominate and prevail over the tastes andpreferences of long-term residents (Zukin,2010). While there can be points of commonground between old and new residents inredeveloping neighbourhoods, often newco-mers seek to establish new norms, beha-viours and amenities that align with theirdesires (Brown-Saracino, 2009). If thisoccurs long-term residents may find theircommunity does not resemble the place theyonce knew and may no longer identify withtheir neighbourhood (Abramson et al.,2006). With decreased attachment to place,low- and moderate-income residents mightopt to leave economically transitioningneighbourhoods, converting them rapidlyinto homogenous enclaves, instead of inte-grated, mixed-income neighbourhoods(Maly, 2005).

This investigation deploys an ethno-graphic approach to detail and explain theprocesses, and some consequences, of politi-cal and cultural displacement. Through acase study of Washington, DC’s Shaw/UStreet neighbourhood, I argue that commu-nity revitalisation, linked with the back-to-the-city movement, is connected withdecreased political power among long-term

2 Urban Studies


residents.1 This process of political displace-ment relates to cultural displacement, engen-dering feelings of alienation among somelong-term residents.

Research background

Defining the back-to-the-city movement

The back-to-the-city concept became popu-lar in the academic literature in the late1970s; however, there has never been con-sensus on the phrase’s definition. Some scho-lars have defined it as the movement ofupper-income suburban populations to thecity center (Laska and Spain, 1980). Anothercamp of scholars defines the back-to-the-citymovement as the relative net migration flows(in-migration minus out-migration) amongmetropolitan sub-regions (Kasarda et al.,1997; Sturtevant and Jung, 2011). Otherslink the term with population increases incities (Glaeser and Shapiro, 2003a, 2003b;Simmons and Lang, 2003) and their down-towns (Birch, 2005, 2009; Simmons andLang, 2003), regardless of where the inhabi-tants previously lived.2 Still others see theterm as merely ‘optimism about the possibleresidential resurgence of America’s older cit-ies’ (Zavarella, 1987: 376). In this article, theback-to-the-city movement refers to popula-tion influx to the city, regardless its origina-tion, that is associated with neighbourhoodrevitalisation.

The back-to-the-city movement,neighbourhood revitalisation and socialconsequences

It is still controversial to claim the existenceof a robust US back-to-the-city movement;however, in the last two decades many urbanareas irrefutably experienced an influx ofpeople coinciding with widespread neigh-bourhood revitalisation. In the 1990s and2000s citywide or downtown population

increases were associated with the revitalisa-tion of low-income, mainly minority com-munities in Boston, New York, Philadelphia,Pittsburgh, Chicago, Washington DC,Durham, Charlotte, Atlanta, Minneapolis,Houston, Los Angeles and Portland(Bennett et al., 2006; Boyd, 2008; Ehrenhalt,2012; Freeman, 2006; Fullilove and Wallace,2011; Gibson, 2007; Goetz, 2003; Groganand Proscio, 2000; Hackworth, 2007; Hyra,2008, 2012; Moore, 2009; Pattillo, 2007;Podagrosi and Vojnovic, 2008; Ruble, 2010;Vale, 2002, 2013; von Hoffman, 2003).3

Whether the back-to-the-city movementand associated neighbourhood redevelop-ment is linked with forced residential displa-cement is debated. Several quantitativestudies claim that low-income residents inredeveloping neighbourhoods have an exitrate similar to those in non-redevelopingneighbourhoods (e.g. Freeman, 2005;Freeman and Braconi, 2004; McKinnish etal., 2010); however, other qualitative investi-gations have documented forced residentialdisplacement in revitalising neighbourhoodsof repopulating cities (e.g. Hyra, 2008;Podagrosi and Vojnovic, 2008; Taylor,2002). While residential displacement is anextremely important topic, much less atten-tion has been placed on understanding thesocial consequences to long-term, low-income residents who remain amongst aninflux of upper-income people to theirneighbourhood.

Neighbourhood research suggests thatwhen upper-income people move into a low-income community, poor people mayultimately benefit through a variety ofmechanisms. First, more affluent newcomers,through their cultural consumption patterns,will likely demand different types of neigh-bourhood businesses and services comparedto the existing lower income population(Lloyd, 2010). With more aggregate income inthe community, local grocery stores areexpected to upgrade and diversify their

Hyra 3


products and provide more purchasingoptions. Second, newcomers will likely bolsterthe political infrastructure and demand greaterlevels of city funding for improved servicesand amenities, such as greater police presence(Joseph, 2006). Third, more middle-incomepeople may facilitate increased informal socialinteractions across race and class, helping low-income people tap into the social capitalwithin upper-income networks. By formingweak social ties with upper-income residents,low-income individuals might make employ-ment contacts (Granovetter, 1983). Lastly,newcomers might help establish new neigh-bourhood norms, such as the expectation ofstable work (Wilson, 1996).

However, whether middle-income resi-dents actually facilitate mechanisms of bene-fit for the poor is a debated topic. Severalrecent studies indicate that in mixed-incomedevelopments meaningful interactionsamong middle- and low-income residentsoccur less frequently than expected (Curley,2009, 2010; Davidson, 2010). Further, whenthey happen, they rarely seem to lead togreater economic opportunities for low-income people (Chaskin and Joesph, 2011;Tach, 2009). In terms of the political infra-structure, several studies demonstrate thatthe arrival of the middle class can bolster acommunity’s political infrastructure (Hyra,2008; Martin, 2007; Pattillo, 2007); however,evidence also suggests that upper- andmiddle-income people often have differentpriorities than their low-income neighboursand advocate for amenities which are not apriority for many existing residents (Maly,2005; Modan, 2007). Lastly, when new ame-nities and services, such as upscale restaurants,organic grocery stores and increased policepresence, appear, resentment among long-term residents can sometimes occur (Freeman,2006). This article unpacks a potential set ofrelated processes explaining resentment amongsome longstanding residents.

Methods

Washington, DC resurgence

Washington, DC is a strategic site to investi-gate the larger national pattern of theback-to-the-city movement, neighbourhoodredevelopment and its associated social con-sequences. In 1950, Washington, DCreached its population peak with just over800,000 residents and from that time until2000 it continually lost population (seeTable 1). This depopulation trend reverseditself in the 2000s. Between 2000 and 2010,the city’s population increased by 5.2 per-cent, going from 572,059 to 601,723. Whilethe population of many US cities during the2000s saw an influx of Asians and Hispanics,DC was one of the few cities that experi-enced an increased population primarily dueto whites (Morello and Keating, 2011a).Between 2000 and 2010, whites in DCincreased nearly 50,000. The Hispanic andAsian populations also increased, but by amuch smaller amount, to almost 10,000 and6000 respectively (Center for RegionalAnalysis, 2011).

By 2010, this once solid majority blackcity had a black population barely over 50percent (see Table 2).4 Between 2000 and2010, the city lost more than 39,000 African-American residents (Center for RegionalAnalysis, 2011). The influx of whites andexodus of African Americans made DCyounger, more racially diverse, educated and

Table 1. DC population change, 1950–2010.

Year DC population Percent change

1950 802,178 21.01960 763,956 –4.81970 756,510 –1.01980 638,333 –15.61990 606,900 –4.92000 572,059 –5.72010 601,723 5.2

Source: US Census.

4 Urban Studies


affluent. These demographic changes coin-cide with the gentrification of some of thecity’s low-income African-American neigh-bourhoods including Shaw/U Street (Galsterand Tatian, 2005; Ruble, 2010).5

The Shaw/U Street neighbourhood

No community symbolises Washington,DC’s pattern of demographic shift betterthan Shaw/U Street (see Table 3 for demo-graphic shift and Figure 1 for communityboundaries).6 Shaw/U Street was once the‘Harlem of DC’ and in the early part of the20th century the community was the centreof black business, entertainment, educationand religion in DC (Crew, 1996; Holloway,2002; Moore, 1999; Williams, 2002). Shaw/U Street experienced a period of self-relianceduring the era of legalised segregation, fol-lowed by a monumental decline between the1960s and 1980s. Community sections weredevastated by the 1968 riots followingMartin Luther King Jr’s assassination. Assubsidised housing was built in this neigh-bourhood, the black middle class fled toemerging black suburbs in Maryland’sPrince George’s County (Cashin, 2004;Lacy, 2007). By the late 1960s, the oncevibrant community was known as ‘ShamefulShaw’ as drugs, crime and poverty took oversections of the neighbourhood (Hannerz,1969; Liebow, 1967). In the 1980s Shaw/U

Street had some of the highest concentra-tions of poverty, subsidised housing andcrime in DC (Dash, 1997; Robinson, 2010).However, in the 1990s the neighbourhoodbegan to experience a revival.

In the 1990s Shaw/U Street became amixed-income, mixed-race community withan influx of a diverse set of upper- andmiddle-income newcomers. According to theUS Census, between 1990 and 2000 the per-cent of households earning over $75,000increased 55 percent, 71 percent and 233 per-cent for whites, Hispanics and blacks respec-tively. During the same period, thecommunity gained 330 black, 477 Hispanic,and 1208 white, middle-income households(those earning between $25,000 and$74,999). While the community receivedmore affluent residents, it still had a sizableamount of low-income households; in 2000,37 percent of the community’s African-American households earned below $15,000.In the 2000s, as the community gained pop-ulation and property values skyrocketed theneighbourhood’s racial demographicsshifted. Between 2000 and 2010, Shaw/UStreet experienced a 17 percent populationincrease, outpacing the city’s 5.2 percentgain. With this population increase, whitesbecame the dominant racial group at 55 per-cent of the community’s population, whileblacks and Hispanics stood at 30 percentand 15 percent respectively.

The ethnographic approach and datacollection

This study sheds light on the social conse-quences of the back-to-the-city movementthrough an ethnographic case study ofneighbourhood change (Yin, 2013). I spentfour years, between 2009 and 2012, studyingShaw/U Street’s redevelopment. I deployeda variety of qualitative data collection tech-niques, including participant observation,interviews and archival records. Many

Table 2. Percent of select DC racial and ethnicgroups over time, 1950–2010.

Year White Black Asian Hispanic

1950 65 35 0.4 -1960 45 54 0.6 -1970 28 71 0.7 -1980 27 70 1.0 2.81990 30 66 1.8 5.42000 31 60 2.7 7.92010 39 51 3.5 9.1

Source: US Census.

Hyra 5


observations were made while I served asa community organiser with a localadvocacy organisation, Organizing for

Neighbourhood Equity (ONE DC).Additionally, I attended civic associationand Advisory Neighbourhood Commission(ANC) meetings. I also engaged in commu-nity life by regularly observing and partici-pating in social interactions in parks,recreation centers, restaurants, bars andnightclubs. This information was supple-mented with data from 60 interviews withkey community stakeholders, including oldand new residents, civic association leaders,

Figure 1. The Shaw/U Street neighbourhood.

Table 3. Percent black, 1970–2010.

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

DC 71 70 66 60 51Shaw/U St. 87 81 67 53 30

Source: US Census.

6 Urban Studies


political officials and city planners.7

Participants were asked about their percep-tions of redevelopment dynamics and theirconsequences. Lastly, an array of archivalrecords (US Census data on DC populationand income patterns, civic association meet-ing minutes, newspaper articles and Internetblogs) complemented direct observationsand interviews.

Findings

This section is organised in the followingmanner. I first describe how some low-income people are able to remain in Shaw/UStreet despite gentrification pressures. I thenillustrate certain differences in the tastes andpreferences among newcomers and long-term residents, and show that newcomerdesires relate to the community’s changingpolitical structure. Finally, I outline the rela-tionship between political and cultural dis-placement, which culminates in feelings ofresentment, alienation and civic withdrawalamong some long-standing residents.

Staying in place

While some forced residential displacementoccurred in Shaw/U Street, a number oflow-income residents were able to remainamidst mounting gentrification pressures.Many low- and moderate-income familieslive in the community’s church-ownedaffordable housing projects. During the1968 riots, storefronts along 14th Street, UStreet and especially along 7th Street wereburned. In the years that followed, African-American area churches, such as NewBethel Baptist Church, United House ofPrayer and Lincoln Temple United Churchof Christ, built affordable housing to replacethese burntout structures.8 This affordablehousing stock has allowed thousands of low-income people to remain despite the commu-nity’s escalating property values.9

Theresa Sule, an affordable housingleader, explained:

I think that people want a certain level of[upper] income in this community, but it’s notgonna happen. And one of the reasons it’s notgonna happen is that fortunately the staplelow-income buildings in this community,they’re not owned by private owners. They’reowned by institutions. Lincoln Westmorelandis owned by a church. Gibson Plaza is ownedby a church. I mean this building, we’re ownedby the tenants association and non-profits. So,I mean, to maintain affordability, more thanlikely we’ll renew our contracts because Iknow the church has no interest in marketfinances. And our building, we have at least 20more years on our HUD [US Department ofHousing and Urban Development] contract.

Jim Graham, one of Shaw/U Street’s CityCouncil representatives, stated, ‘By and largethe gentrification impact was there, [but] noton the big apartment buildings.’ He notedShaw/U Street’s affordable housing kept‘thousands of people who would have beenput out.’ Both Sule and Graham’s state-ments underscore the importance of afford-able housing as a mechanism that ensuredthe community remained mixed-income as itredeveloped.

Distinct tastes and preferences

In Shaw/U Street, like many revitalisingcommunities, newcomers and long-term resi-dents often have different tastes and prefer-ences. Geovani Bonilla, a newly elected civicassociation president and newcomer,explained how economic and age differencesrelate to distinct desires between newcomersand longtime residents:

You had a lot of old neighbors that boughthere years ago and lived here for 30 years whobought homes for $80,000 and now you’ve gotthe new neighbors that are coming in buyinghomes for $500,000 [and] $600,000 .. The

Hyra 7


older residents, and I guess primarily becausemuch of them are mostly retired, they arelooking more towards senior centers. Theywant arts and crafts .. The newer folks wantmore of the retail . the sit down restaurants.Uh, you know more of the local nightlife,which is some of the things that older residents. don’t necessarily want.

Many newcomers, like Geovani, advocatefor different amenities than their long-termneighbours, a fact clearly recognised byShaw/U Street’s black civic leaders.Reverend Hicks, a local black church leaderfor over 30 years, bluntly noted:

While the influx of well-off, mostly whiteurban pioneers and carpetbaggers into inner-city communities might improve their socioe-conomic status and raise property values,there is a danger in the notion that these newresidents share the values, interests and con-cerns of their older, mostly African Americanneighbors. (quote from Gaines, 1999; see alsoGore, 2005)

Geovani and Rev. Hicks’ comments illus-trate a perception that newcomers’ tastes,values and interests do not always align withlong-term residents. In redeveloping commu-nities it is not uncommon for gentrifiers andlong-terms residents to have different prefer-ences and values (Brown-Saracino, 2009;Maly 2005), but in Shaw/U Street newco-mers express their community preferencesthrough political displacement.

Political displacement

From the mid-1970s through most of the1980s and 1990s, African Americans heldalmost all of Shaw/U Street’s formal andinformal political positions. As more upper-and middle-income whites, blacks andHispanics, both straight and gay, movedinto the neighbourhood, the long-standingblack population began to lose political

power at multiple levels. A sketch of thecity’s political structure helps to contextua-lise this community-level political transition.

Since the enactment of Home Rule in1973, Washington, DC residents haveelected a mayor, eight city council ward rep-resentatives, four citywide council membersand a city council chair, for four-year terms(Fauntroy, 2003). Two city council seats(Wards 1 and 2) represent most of Shaw/UStreet.10 The home rule legislation, and a sub-sequent referendum, also set up 37 sub-district political areas, known as AdvisoryNeighbourhood Commissions (ANCs). TheseCommissions are supposed to promote publicparticipation in decisions affecting neighbour-hood areas. For instance, ANCs make recom-mendations to the city council and cityagencies on matters such as zoning, liquorlicensing and small grant making in their sub-district area. The residents of each sub-districtelect ANC Commissioners for two-yearterms. Shaw/U Street has five ANCs.

Shaw/U Street’s shifting political struc-ture is exemplified by the changing represen-tation in Ward 1 and ANC 2C. DavidClarke, who was white, was the first Ward 1council member and Frank Smith, anAfrican American, followed him whenClarke was elected city council chair (Ruble,2003). Smith held the Ward 1 seat for 16years until Jim Graham, a white challenger,defeated him in 1998.

Smith and Graham represent the commu-nity’s old guard and newcomers, respec-tively. Smith was born in Georgia in 1942,attended Morehouse College and was afounding member of Student Non-ViolentCoordinating Committee (SNCC). He cameto DC in 1968 to work at the Institute forPolicy Studies, a 1960s leading antiwar andcivil rights think tank (Jaffe and Sherwood,1994). Throughout his career Smith wascommitted to black political empowerment.In contrast, Jim Graham spent most of hischildhood in the DC suburbs. He received a

8 Urban Studies


college degree from Michigan State and alaw degree from the University of Michigan.He came back to the DC area to work in thefederal government. In 1979 he became aboard member, and in 1984 the executivedirector of Shaw/U Street’s Whitman-Walker Clinic. Under Graham’s 14 years ofleadership, the clinic became one of thecountry’s leading HIV/AIDS medical facili-ties. Graham, who is openly gay, has been aprominent gay rights and HIV/AIDS acti-vist. Demographic shifts contributed toGraham’s defeat of Smith. Shaw/U Street’searly gentrification involved gay men whorehabilitated beautiful Victorian homes nearthe Whitman-Walker Clinic. This constitu-ency supported Graham in his takeover ofWard 1.

With the 2000s back-to-the-city move-ment, Shaw/U Street’s ANC commissionstransitioned from being dominated by long-time African Americans to newcomer con-trol. One of the most contentious politicaltransformations occurred in ANC 2C. Sincethe 1980s this ANC has been controlled by acontroversial figure, ‘Mahdi’ Leroy JosephThorpe, Jr. For over 20 years, Thorpe hasattempted to keep the community’s streetssafe by trying to stop the gang drug trade(Fekeiki, 2007 and Wemple, 2007). Thorpe isan incredibly outspoken African-Americanleader who occasionally uses inflammatorylanguage. For instance, he called the city’sformer interim police chief, ‘a house Negro’;openly gay city council member DavidCatania, a ‘faggot’; and Jack Evans, thewhite Ward 2 city council member, ‘a pale-skinned, blond-haired cracker’ (Silverman,2001). While some people disagree withThorpe’s views and governing tactics, hedoes, to a certain extent, represent the com-munity’s low-income African American pop-ulation and their redevelopment concerns.

Alex Padro, a Hispanic gay man, movedto the community in 1994 and is one ofThorpe’s biggest critics. Since moving to the

community, Padro has been very engaged inlocal politics and in 2001 he was elected toANC 2C. Padro also directs Shaw MainStreets, an initiative to stimulate Shaw busi-ness development, and many residents seehim as a pro-growth proponent. Padroexplained:

For decades our ANC unfortunately has beenone of the most dysfunctional ones in the cityand we really just had folks that didn’t havegood qualifications, good backgrounds, wer-en’t reasonable and as a result . the neigh-borhood has lost out on a lot of [development]opportunities . that would definitely havebenefited the community at large and those oflow- and moderate-income who some of thesepast elected officials claimed to be the focus oftheir interests.

Once elected to the ANC, Padro, along withother pro-development newcomers, beganplotting Thorpe’s ousting from the ANC. In2006, Padro, and other recent communityarrivals, encouraged Kevin Chapple, anAfrican-American newcomer, to the runagainst Thorpe. In this fiercely contestedelection, Chapple defeated Thorpe by fivevotes.

Thorpe, an 18-year veteran of the ANCsystem did not easily give up his power andcontrol (Jones, 2006). First, as a lame duckANC chair in December 2006, he resigned aschair and appointed Doris Brooks andBarbara Curtis, both representatives of thelong-term, African-American faction, to theANC chair and vice chair positions respec-tively. This move was very strategic. Thorpeunderstood that without him the four-personANC was split: two newcomers (Padro andChapple) and two long-standing residents(Brooks and Curtis). According to the ANCrules, if the ANC cannot elect a new chair,the former chair serves. Thorpe’s movehelped ensure that Brooks would remainchair in 2007, since there would likely be asplit vote for the new chair. Brooks, as ANC

Hyra 9


chair, then named Thorpe her executiveassistant and parliamentarian. Those whowanted to do business with the ANC had tocontinue to contact Thorpe to get on theANC agenda. One community bloggernoted, ‘Laugh or cry about it, you gottaadmit the man [Thorpe] has a pair’ (Fifthand Oh, 2006).

Despite these efforts, as more upper-income residents moved into the area,Thorpe’s reign, and the low-income faction’spolitical power, began slipping away. In the2008 ANC 2C election, Theresa Sule, along-term resident, ran against Curtis. Sulehad Padro’s and the other newcomers’ back-ing because they thought she would supportpro-growth development issues. Suledefeated Curtis by 50 votes and Padro andhis supporters believed they had brokenthe ANC 2-2 voting tie. However, duringthe first ANC meeting of 2009, when theCommissioners vote on the new chair, Sule,an African American resident of subsidisedhousing, nominated Brooks, the long-termresident and previous ANC chair, instead ofPadro. Padro was furious and claimed whatSule did was ‘a complete reversal and a stabin the back’ (DeBonis, 2009). Padro and thenewcomer faction waited patiently for thenext election to retaliate. In the 2010 ANC2C, Sule lost convincingly to newcomer,Rachelle Nigro. With three of the four com-missioners being newcomers, the politicaltakeover was complete, and Padro wasfinally appointed as the ANC 2C chair.

Sociologist William Julius Wilson (1996)predicted that the influx of upper-and mid-dle-income residents would strengthen alow-income neighbourhood’s political infra-structure. He hypothesised that newcomerswould bolster the social structure of low-income communities, increasing the oppor-tunity structure for disadvantaged residents.However, he did not predict that newcomerswould take over critical political positionsand advocate for new amenities, entirely

transforming the cultural settings of urbanAfrican-American communities.

Cultural displacement: Catering tonewcomers’ tastes and preferences

Shaw/U Street’s changing political circum-stances relate to the community’s alteringcultural landscape. In the late 1990s and2000s, some newcomer-dominated ANCsand civic associations engaged in politicalactions to push out black institutions sym-bolising the old neighbourhood, while advo-cating for new neighbourhood amenities,such as bike lanes and dog parks, perceivedby some long-time residents as signs of gen-trification and the manifestations of newco-mer dominance.

Displacing a black church? Both Shaw/UStreet’s changing resident population andthe altering political landscape impactedsome neighbourhood black institutions,including Metropolitan Baptist Church.Metropolitan Baptist Church, an AfricanAmerican institution, was founded in theShaw/U Street area during the Civil War.During black suburbanisation of the 1970sand 1980s, many of Metropolitan’s membersmoved to Maryland and commuted eachSunday into the community to attend ser-vices. This pilgrimage by African-Americansfrom the suburbs to historic black churchesin low-income inner city communities iscommon in other metropolitan regions(Hyra, 2008; McRoberts, 2003), but inShaw/U Street this situation led to a contro-versy. The Metropolitan situation highlightshow the neighbourhood’s changing prefer-ences and political structure relate to thedeparture of one of the community’s iconicAfrican-American institutions.

In 1999, a mainly white faction of newresidents had concerns with Metropolitan’suse of a nearby school playground as a

10 Urban Studies


parking lot. Rev. Hicks of Metropolitanexplained:

Our particular conflict came about because ofthe community’s interest in what they call pre-serving the school and its schoolyard. Foryears before I got there, for years, the churchhad been using that schoolyard for parking onSunday .. Not only had we been using it, wehad been maintaining it and we had been pay-ing for the privilege .. But our new neighborssaw the parking in the area as somehow anti-whatever purposes they may have had. So wewere even taken to court to prevent us fromusing it.

He continued:

Before Mr. Graham came to the Council,Frank Smith and I had several meetings alongwith Walter Fauntroy [former Rev. of Shaw/U Street’s New Bethel Baptist Church and DCCongressional Representative] . about waysto develop the Garrison Schoolyard .. Wewere offering to the city and the School Boardto actually take that schoolyard and put atwo- or three-story parking garage on it andincluded in it would have been a playgroundthat would have been incorporated into theparking structure itself along with someopportunities, retail opportunities, along thatcorner. That’s what Frank Smith and I wereworking on.

I asked what happened to the plan. Hereplied:

Oh it died! I mean you know Jim Grahamcame in and nobody wanted to hear thatbecause that would have solidifiedMetropolitan’s place in the community. Wesubmitted to the District plans to expandMetropolitan in its location, adding anotherstory onto it and then going around 13thStreet which was property we already owned.And of course it was killed.

The church was prevented from using theschoolyard to park and some members

started to double park on Sundays, blockingin other cars (Ruble, 2010). Newcomers werefurious and, working through one of thearea’s ANCs, demanded police ticket thedouble parked cars.

Rev. Hicks recalled that the majority ofthe church members would have preferredthat the church remained in Shaw but thatthe lack of political support by the commu-nity’s new political representation catalysedtheir decision to move elsewhere (Hicks,2004). ‘With the changing of hands of prop-erty and others moving in, there was not theappreciation for the church, its mission, itsvalues .. And so it set up a kind of, I don’thow I’m supposed to say,’ Hicks paused andthen continued, ‘an unnatural kind of tug ofwar between the church and these new neigh-bors, and that was unfortunate.’ A blackinstitution that was founded during the CivilWar by former slaves was now absent, inpart due to political pressures stemmingfrom the community’s new population.

As Metropolitan left, the ANC 2Fdebated a new function for the Garrisonplayground. New, mainly white, residentswere advocating for a dog park. At theJanuary 2008 ANC 2F meeting, the DogOwners of Logan Circle reported that theywere working with the city staff to identifyan appropriate field to be converted into adog park. Four community sites were dis-cussed, including the Garrison Elementaryschool playground. Apparently, even thoughthe city had not decided on the location ofthe dog park, some residents were using theGarrison playground as an unofficial dogpark. At the April 2008 ANC 2F meeting, thepolice reported receiving complaints fromparents of school children, almost all African-American and Hispanic, that sections of thefield were covered with dog excrement.

Go-go, gone. Black Washingtonians foundedgo-go music in the 1970s (Hopkinson, 2012;

Hyra 11


Lornell and Stephenson, 2009). Go-go com-bines jazz, funk, R&B, hip-hop andCaribbean sounds and is recognisable by itsrepetitive beat and improvisation. Go-gomusic used to be quite popular on U Streetas late as the 1990s; however, with the com-munity’s redevelopment and political shifts,many of U Street’s go-go clubs were shutdown.

Jim Graham, supported mainly by Shaw/U Street’s new resident population, led theeffort to close local go-go clubs. The politicalcrusade to rid the community of go-go clubswas controversial. Jim Graham recalled:

There were people who said I was anti-go-goand you know, actually I know nothing aboutgo-go .. It’s not about the music, it’s aboutthe people who are attracted and then actedout from being there, it was about people. Sowe worked very hard . to close . a good halfdozen really bad businesses.

Christine, a white newcomer and Presidentof the U Street Civic Association, said:

I remember one day getting off the metro andwalking down the street and I saw a flier hang-ing out that had a white man hanging by anoose and I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, where am Iliving?’ Until I saw it was about Jim Grahamand the go-go [controversy].

Christine, who has been extremely active inlocal politics, understood that long-term res-idents were resentful of their diminishedpolitical power. She stated:

I can understand why people are upset. Thatyou take an area that even though it had beencompletely depressed, but has a history ofbeing African American, and then all of a sud-den all these outsiders are running it.

Ironically, several middle-income newco-mers claim that they chose Shaw/U Streetover other DC neighbourhoods because ofits racial diversity and black history. Ralph,

an openly gay white male lawyer in his 30s,who blogs about Shaw/U Street states,‘There are a lot of great things about theneighbourhood . that drew me to Shaw. Ilove our diversity and rich history’.11

However, many engage in local politics togain political power and advocate for changesthat make it more difficult for African-American institutions to remain. DominicMoulden, a longtime community organiser,expresses feelings several longtime residentshave when newcomers describe how theirattraction to Shaw/U Street was based on itsracial diversity and black history: ‘Don’t tellme that you moved to this neighbourhoodbecause you wanted diversity. No, you movedhere because you realised you got the num-bers to change the culture.’

With go-go gone, part of Shaw/U Streetand DC’s black history and culture has beenerased from its streets. Author NatalieHopkinson, a DC go-go historian, wrote,‘Go-go may be invisible to much of whiteWashington, but it’s as much a part of thecity as pillars and monument of its federalface .. Go-go is Washington’ (Hopkinson,2010; see also Lornell and Stephenson, Jr.,2009 and Hopkinson, 2012). With council-member Graham and his supporters’ effortsto rid Shaw/U Street of go-go, listeners ofthis musical genre must head to the DC sub-urbs to attend live performances of thisAfrican-American form of cultural expres-sion that originated in the District.

Biking for whom? In the 2000s DC’s MayorsAnthony Williams and Adrian Fenty, bothAfrican American, significantly improvedDC’s bike infrastructure. In 2000 the Districtonly had three miles of street bikes lanes; by2009 that number increased to 60 miles(Buehler et al., 2012). This type of supple-mental transport system has been greatlysupported by DC’s mayors, newcomers, realestate developers and the urban planningfield as both a sustainable mode of

12 Urban Studies


transportation and as an economic develop-ment tool. It has been quite controversial inDC, however, since DC’s bike infrastructurewas disproportionately located in redevelop-ing low-income African-American neigh-bourhoods, primarily Shaw/U Street andCapitol Hill East.

The implementation of the biking infra-structure has been a contentious issue in DC.Ralph Buehler and colleagues (2012: 14)noted, ‘The construction of the bike laneswas not uncontroversial. In some neighbour-hoods bike lanes have become associatedwith redevelopment, rising property values,and resulting economic pressure on poorerhouseholds.’ Chris, a white DC transporta-tion planner for the Shaw/U Street area,said, ‘There seems to be this idea that . pro-moting biking is just one more form of gen-trification.’ He mentioned that he receivespushback from some long-term African-American residents because they perceive

that bike lanes will limit the amount of avail-able parking.

However, the bike infrastructure issuegoes beyond parking availability. SomeAfrican Americans perceive the bike infra-structure as an amenity being used to attractwhite gentrifiers and promote gentrification.In DC, whites bike much more than AfricanAmericans. The Capital Bikeshare (CaBi) isthe system of bikes accessed for a fee by DCresidents and tourists (see Figure 2). TheCaBi system has been contracted by the DCDepartment of Transportation since 2010.While DC’s black population was 51 percentonly 5 percent of CaBi riders were AfricanAmerican (Buehler, 2011).12 Yet the city gov-ernment spent ample resources to put thisamenity and other bike-related infrastructureinto economically and racially transitioningAfrican-American neighbourhoods.

Some newcomers have moved to the areabecause of its robust bike infrastructure.

Figure 2. One of Shaw/U Street’s new bike share stations.Source: Author.

Hyra 13


Paul, a recent arrival, stated, ‘A large part ofthe reason I moved to Shaw and pay D.C.’shigher taxes was because of the ability tobike or walk to work’ (Halsey, 2009). AWashington Post article stated, ‘Growth ofcycling culture in the D.C. area and othercities has awakened the real estate industryto its potential as a fresh sales tool’(Dietsch, 2010). DC area real estate develo-pers are designing luxury condominiumbuildings with bike racks. While the cityand real estate developers construct bikeinfrastructure to attract new city residents,some long-term African-American resi-dents resent the bike infrastructure becausethey view it as an amenity they did notrequest. In fact some view this amenity as asymbolic message they are no longerwanted in the neighbourhoods where bikeinfrastructure is being placed.

Yappy hour. Bike lanes are not the only recentShaw/U Street amenity that has sparkeddebate. In November 2008 the communitybecame the first DC area to have an officialoff-leash dog park (Wilson, 2008). The dogpark is a 15,000 square feet fenced enclosurewith pea gravel and small stone surfacesfloor where dogs can roam off their leashes.It likely cost the city well over a half a mil-lion dollars to construct.13

Shaw/U Street’s dog park resulted froman extensive advocacy effort by newcomers,mainly white middle- and upper-income resi-dents. With political pressures from ANCsand civic associations that were once domi-nated by African Americans, the city agreedto build the dog park, an amenity that hasbecome part of the changing landscape ingentrifying areas (Tissot, 2011). The MidcityDog Park Committee helps provide fundingfor the park’s upkeep and sets the park’srules, even though it is a publicly-owned cityspace (see www.shawdogs.org). On any givenevening, the dog park is filled with newco-mers. The dog park construction has been

associated with other subsequent communitychanges such as nearby bars and hotels host-ing yappy hours, where individuals show offtheir dogs while enjoying a drink.14

Very few long-time African-Americandog owners use the park and there is a per-ception that this newcomer amenity hasbeen preferred over other local recreationalspaces.15 The school playground, where thenew dog park is located, also contains bas-ketball courts and a soccer field. At the timeof the dog park’s construction, no resourceswere dedicated to other playground ame-nities, which were in need of desperateupgrading. The soccer goals were askew andthe field was mainly dirt. The basketballcourts had not been renovated since at least1995 when DC’s professional basketballteam changed their name from the Bullets,as indicated by the faded ‘Bullets’ on thecourt’s worn surface.16 While soccer fieldsand basketball courts, which are often usedby Hispanics and African Americans, areneglected, newcomer amenities are devel-oped and upgraded. The physical juxtaposi-tion of these amenities symbolises politicalpower and cultural shifts occurring in theneighbourhood.

Alienation, resentment and withdrawal

Some long-term DC residents resent newinfrastructure, such as bike lanes, bikesharesand dog parks. Marshall Brown, a politicalstrategist and father of former DC CityCouncil Chair, Kwame Brown, stated, ‘They[the new white residents] want doggie parksand bike lanes. The result is a lot of tension.The new people believe more in their dogsthan they do in people .. This is not theDistrict I knew. There’s no relationship withthe black community. They don’t connect atthe church, they don’t go to the same cafes,they don’t volunteer in the neighbourhoodschool, and a lot of longtime black residentsfeel threatened.’17

14 Urban Studies


The feeling of being threatened is com-pounded by a sense of detachment and disil-lusionment that sets in when people do notfeel comfortable in neighbourhood spaces.For instance, Gloria Robinson, an African-American affordable housing communityorganiser who used to live in the Shaw/UStreet area, stated, ‘I just feel like, and thiscould be my own paranoia, . when I’mwalking through there, especially when thestreet sidewalks are bustling, it’s like folksare looking at me as if I don’t belong there.I’m serious! It may be my paranoia, but .that’s the feeling I get.’ This feeling of notbelonging anymore can lead to greater civicparticipation, such as in Gloria’s case, but itcan also lead to withdrawal. WalterFauntroy, lifelong community resident andformer Rev. of New Bethel Baptist Church,noted, ‘I can’t be caught up fighting wherethe cards are stacked against you. [Shaw/UStreet] should be a place where . peoplecan all live together, but I gave up, quitefrankly’ (Abrams and Lightman, 2008: 33).This pattern of neighbourhood change, asso-ciated with the back-to-the-city movement,represents the demise of black politicalpower, which relates to the onset of resent-ment and political withdrawal among somelong-term African-American residents.

Discussion

This investigation reveals important politicaland cultural consequences associated with theback-to-the-city movement in Washington,DC, through an ethnographic case studyfocused on the redevelopment of the historic,African-American Shaw/U Street neighbour-hood. The new, mainly white, populationmoving into DC has helped to stimulate theredevelopment of this low-income blackneighbourhood. For scholars, such as Wilson(1996) and others (Freeman, 2006; Joseph,2006), the movement of the middle class todisadvantaged black neighbourhoods had the

promise of improving the life chances and cir-cumstances of low-income people. In fact,Shaw/U Street’s redevelopment has beenassociated with less crime, greater aggregatecommunity income, higher property valuesand increased social diversity.

However, there appears to be socialcosts for low-income residents: politicaland cultural displacement and feelings ofcommunity loss. As new upper- andmiddle-income residents have come intothe community, some have joined civicassociations, seized political power andhave advocated for policies, including lim-ited parking, the removal of go-go clubs,bikes lanes and dog parks, which cater totheir tastes and preferences. The combina-tion of the political takeover and develop-ment of new amenities is associated withfear, resentment and civic withdrawalamong some long-term, African-Americanresidents. These findings coincide with andextend the works of Knotts and Haspel(2006) who demonstrate that gentrificationcan lead to political destabilisation throughlower longstanding resident voter turnout,and Freeman (2006) who highlights thatlong-term residents often resent new ame-nities in redeveloping communities. Thisresearch elaborates on these studies’ find-ings by detailing and linking the politicaldestabilisation process and cultural changebrought on, in part, by newcomer politicalaction, to certain feelings of resentmentamong some longstanding residents.

For urban scholars and policy makersconcerned with producing inclusive, equita-ble and sustainable mixed-income commu-nities, this study has two importantimplications. First, this investigation sug-gests that political and cultural displace-ments are important interrelated communityprocesses associated with the back-to-the-city movement. Second, it highlights thatmaintaining political equity and power bal-ances between longstanding and new

Hyra 15


residents in transitioning neighbourhoodsmight be important to ensuring that long-term residents benefit and thrive as theirneighbourhood revitalises around them.

While this study uncovers important rela-tionships among population movement,neighbourhood revitalisation and social con-sequences, the results might not generalise toother cities and neighbourhoods for at leasttwo reasons. First, DC experienced a back-to-the-city movement comprised of a largenumber of new white residents, nearly50,000 between 2000 and 2010, which mightrelate to a particular type of neighbourhoodredevelopment and resulting social conse-quences. For instance, both New York Cityand Chicago experienced the back-to-the-city movement in the 1990s but some of thesecities’ redeveloping neighbourhoods, such asHarlem and Bronzeville, experienced blackgentrification (Hyra, 2008). While somepolitical displacement occurred at the infor-mal civic association level in these neigh-bourhoods, it rarely affected the formallyelected city council positions. Furthermore,the resulting cultural displacement did nottake place to the same extent. For example,many iconic black churches remain inHarlem and Bronzeville and these institu-tions did not face as much newcomer opposi-tion as those in Shaw/U Street.

Second, DC is unique as the home to thefederal government. This function might berelated to the lack of political representationthat DC residents, compared to other US cit-ies, face. After almost a century withoutelected city representation, DC residentsfinally attained the privilege to vote locallyafter the enactment of Home Rule in 1973(Harris, 1995). Since that time many locallyelected officials have been African American.This unique DC political context might relateto why the movement of middle-incomewhites to low-income African-Americancommunities and the ensuing political shiftsare so contentious. For these reasons, the

political and cultural displacement uncoveredin Washington, DC might not generalise tothe same extent in other cities experiencingthe back-to-the-city movement and resultingneighbourhood development.

Conclusion

The back-to-the-city movement is occurringin urban America. The past 20 years haveseen a surge of people to longtime, depopu-lating cities. This recentralisation is associatedwith the redevelopment of low-income, pri-marily African-American neighbourhoods.While some celebrate the back-to-the-citymovement and its associated neighbourhoodrevitalisation, urban planners and federal andlocal policy makers have often overlookedimportant social consequences related to thispopulation growth. Some low-income peoplein redeveloping neighbourhoods are losingtheir political power and feelings of commu-nity attachment. This, in some circumstances,leads to resentment and alienation amonglong-standing residents, who feel powerless, astheir community improves economically.Understanding the processes of political andcultural displacement, and attempting to mini-mise their effects, is critical to ensuring the sus-tainability of inclusive, diverse, mixed-incomecommunities.

Funding

This article was funded by the Institute forSociety, Culture and Environment, USA.

Notes

1. This article is part of a book on the redeve-lopment of the Washington, DC Shaw/UStreet neighbourhood.

2. Others associate the back-to-the-city move-ment with increased urban capital invest-ments and not with increased populationinflows (e.g. Smith, 1979; Wyly et al., 2004).

3. While this study does not focus on whatlured individuals to urban areas, other

16 Urban Studies


studies suggest that suburban saturationand traffic congestion, high-wage centralcity jobs, lower urban crime rates, urbanentertainment amenities, and city and fed-eral investments relate to the back-to-the-city movement and associated gentrification(e.g. Birch, 2009; Clark, 2011; Ehrenhalt,2012; Grogan and Proscio, 2000; Hyra,2008, 2012; Simmons and Lang, 2003; vonHoffman, 2003).

4. See Morello and Keating (2011b, 2011c). In1970, 70 percent of DC’s population wasAfrican American. The decrease in the city’sproportion of black residents was due to theinflux of whites in the 2000s but also the exo-dus of African Americans, a trend that hadbeen occurring in DC since the 1970s (Gale,1987; Lacy, 2007).

5. Morello et al. (2011). The gentrification ofDC’s low-income black neighbourhoods hasa long history and includes Georgetown,Foggy Bottom and Southwest in the 1930s,1940s and 1950s (Gale, 1987; Gillette, 1995),sections of Capitol Hill, Dupont Circle andLogan Circle in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s(Gale, 1987; Lee et al., 1985) and parts ofdowntown, Adams Morgan and MountPleasant in the 1980s and 1990s (Gale, 1987;McGovern, 1998; Modan, 2007; Williams,1988).

6. Shaw/U Street is bounded by 15th Street, NWto the West, Florida Avenue to the North,North Capitol Street to the East and M Streetto the South. This is the designated area in the1966 DC Shaw urban renewal plan.

7. My interview sample was not randomlyselected; I developed a snowball sample byasking people I interacted with to recom-mend others.

8. Unlike several inner city communities thathave high-rise public housing managed bylocal public housing authorities, a large pro-portion of Shaw/U Street’s affordable hous-ing is owned and managed by area churches(Gillette, 1995).

9. Boorstein (2007) and Clabaugh (2011).There are also several affordable housingcooperatives including the Capital ManorCooperative, the Martin Luther King, Jr.Latino Cooperative, the Second Northwest

Cooperative Homes and the NorthwestCooperative, which provide moderate-income people housing in Shaw.

10. The very eastern part of the community isin Ward 5 but it is a very small slice of thecommunity.

11. Ralph, from his blog Renew Shaw, 6February 2007.

12. Another 2008 survey commissioned by theMetropolitan Washington Council ofGovernments showed that in the DC regionwhites account for 88 percent of all biketrips (see Buehler et al., 2012).

13. The cost of the Shaw dog park was esti-mated based on that fact that a similar butsmaller 10,000 square feet dog park cost thecity $400,000 to build (see Wiener, 2010).

14. See http://washingtondc.citysearch.com/list/196451 and http://diningindc.net/2011/06/29/dog-friendly-happy-hours-for-the-dog-days-of-summer-in-washington-dc/ (accessed 9September 2013).

15. Alcindor (2009); Ricard (2009); and http://friendsofbundy.wordpress.com (accessed 5March 2012).

16. The name change from the Bullets to theWizards occurred in 1995.

17. Fisher (2011). Other scholars have notedhow dogs can become a controversial issuein gentrifying neighbourhoods (e.g. seeDrew, 2011).

References

Abrams A and Lightman A (2008) The changingfaces of Shaw. IDCNORTH, December.

Abramson D, Manzo L and Hou J (2006) FromEthnic Enclaves to Multi-Ethnic TranslocalCommunity: Contested Identities and UrbanDesign in Seattle’s Chinatown-InternationalDistrict. Journal of Architectural and PlanningResearch 23(4): 341–360.

Alcindor Y (2009) Parking lot plan for Shaw sur-prises neighbors. The Washington Post, 13 July.

Bennett L, Smith JL and Wright PA (eds) (2006)Where Are Poor People to Live? TransformingPublic Housing Communities. Armonk, NY:M.E. Sharpe.

Birch EL (2005) Who Lives Downtown. Washing-ton, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Hyra 17


Birch EL (2009) Downtown in the ‘New Ameri-can City’. The ANNALS of the AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science 626:134–153.

Boorstein M (2007) Putting faith in affordablehousing: Activists, entrepreneurial pastorspush renewal of D.C. churches’ efforts. TheWashington Post, 23 June.

Boyd MR (2008) Jim Crow Nostalgia: Recon-structing Race in Bronzeville. Minneapolis,MN: The University of Minnesota Press.

Brown-Saracino J (2009) A Neighborhood ThatNever Changes: Gentrification, Social Preserva-tion, and the Search for Authenticity. Chicago,IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Buehler R (2011) Capital Bikeshare Study: ACloser Look at Casual Users and Operations.Alexandria, VA: Virginia Tech Urban Affairsand Planning.

Buehler R, Hamre A, Sonehklar D, et al. (2012)Cycling trends and policies in the Washington,DC region. World Transport, Policy & Practice18(2): 1–38.

Cashin S (2004) The Failures of Integration: HowRace and Class Are Undermining the AmericanDream. New York: PublicAffairs.

Center for Regional Analysis (2011) Update fromthe 2010 Census: Population Change in the Dis-trict of Columbia. Arlington, VA: George MasonUniversity Center for Regional Analysis.

Chaskin RJ and Joseph ML (2011) Relationalexpectations and emerging reality: The natureof social interaction in mixed-income develop-ments. Journal of Urban Affairs 32(2):209–237.

Clabaugh J (2011) Jair Lynch closes on Dunbarapartments. Washington Business Journal, 5July.

Clark TN (ed.) (2011) The City as an Entertain-ment Machine. Lanham, MD: LexingtonBooks.

Crew SR (1996) Melding the old and the new:The modern African American community,1930–1960. In: Cary FC (ed.) WashingtonOdyssey: A Multicultural History of theNation’s Capital. Washington, DC: Smithso-nian Books, pp. 208–227.

Curley AM (2009) Draining or gaining? Thesocial networks of public housing movers in

Boston. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-tionships 26(2–3): 227–247.

Curley AM (2010) Relocating the poor: Socialcapital and neighborhood resources. Journalof Urban Affairs 32(1): 79–103.

Dash L (1997) Rosa Lee: A Mother and Her Fam-ily in Urban America. New York: Plume.

Davidson M (2008) Spoiled mixture: Where doesstate-led ‘positive’ gentrification end? UrbanStudies 45(12): 2385–2405.

Davidson M (2010) Love thy neighbour? Socialmixing in London’s gentrification frontiers.Environment and Planning A 42: 524–544.

DeBonis M (2009) Clinical depression. Washing-ton City Paper, 30 January.

Dietsch DK (2010) Getting home on two wheels.The Washington Post, 2 October.

Drew EM (2011) ‘Listening through white ears’:Cross-racial dialogues as a strategy to addressthe racial effects of gentrification. Journal ofUrban Affairs 34(1): 99–115.

Ehrenhalt A (2012) The Great Inversion and theFuture of the American City. New York: Knopf.

Fauntroy MK (2003) Home Rule or House Rule?Congress and the Erosion of Local Governancein the District of Columbia. New York: Univer-sity Press of America, Inc.

Fekeiki O (2007) Muslim patrol quiets crime inShaw. The Washington Post, 28 August.

Fifth and Oh (2006) Powerplays. 13 December.Available at: http://fifthandoh.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html (accessed 8 Septem-ber 2013).

Fisher M (2011) Does culture follow the census?The Washington Post, 11 April.

Fishman R (2005) Longer view: The fifth migra-tion. Journal of the American Planning Associ-ation 71(4): 357–366.

Fraser JC (2004) Beyond gentrification: Mobiliz-ing communities and claiming space. UrbanGeography 24(5): 437–457.

Freeman L (2006) There Goes the Hood. Philadel-phia, PA: Temple University Press.

Freeman L and Braconi F (2004) Gentrificationand displacement. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 70(1): 39–52.

Freeman L (2005) Displacement or succession?Residential mobility in gentrifying neighbor-hoods. Urban Affairs Review 40(4): 463–491.

18 Urban Studies


Fullilove MT and Wallace R (2011) Serial forceddisplacement in American cities, 1916–2010.Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the NewYork Academy of Medicine 88(3): 381–389.

Gaines P (1999) The cast and their lot; Against abackdrop of gentrification, a land dispute isplayed out among a black church, its newwhite neighbors and D.C. officials. Washing-ton Post, 7 December.

Gale DE (1987) Washington, D.C.: Inner-cityRevitalization and Minority Suburbanization.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Galster G and Tatian P (2005) Modeling housingappreciation: Dynamics in disadvantagedneighborhoods. Journal of Planning Educationand Research 27: 7–22.

Gibson KJ (2007) Bleeding Albina: A history ofcommunity disinvestment, 1940–2000. Trans-forming Anthropology 15(1): 3–25.

Gillette H Jr (1995) Between Justice and Beauty:Race, Planning, and the Failure of Urban Policyin Washington, D.C. Philadelphia, PA: Univer-sity of Pennsylvania Press.

Glaeser EL and Shapiro JM (2003a) Urbangrowth in the 1990s: Is city living back? Jour-nal of Regional Science 43(1): 139–165.

Glaeser EL and Shapiro JM (2003b) City growth:Which places grew and why. In: Katz B andLang RE (eds) Redefining Urban and SuburbanAmerica: Evidence from Census 2000, Volume I.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press,pp. 13–32.

Goetz E (2003) Clearing the Way: Deconcentrat-ing the Poor in Urban America. Washington,DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Gore D (2005) Metropolitan Baptist church hostsgentrification roundtable. Washington Infor-mer, 13 July.

Granovetter M (1983) The strength of weak ties:A network theory revisited. Sociological The-ory 1: 201–233

Grogan PS and Proscio T (2000) Comeback Cit-ies: A Blueprint for Urban Neighborhood Revi-val. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Hackworth J (2007) The Neoliberal City: Govern-ance, Ideology and Development in AmericanUrbanism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Halsey A III (2009) No doubt about it – This laneis for bike traffic. The Washington Post, 14November.

Hannerz U (1969) Soulside. Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Harris CW (1995) Congress and the Governanceof the Nation’s Capital: The Conflict of Federaland Local Interests. Washington, DC: George-town University Press.

Hicks HB (2004) On Jordan’s Stormy Banks.Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Holloway JS (2002) Confronting the Veil: AbramHarris, Jr., E. Franklin Frazier, and RalphBunche, 1919–1941. Chapel Hill, NC: TheUniversity of North Carolina Press.

Hopkinson N (2010) Missing a beat. WashingtonPost, 11 April.

Hopkinson N (2012) Go-Go Live: The MusicalLife and Death of a Chocolate City. Durham,NC: Duke University Press.

Hyra DS (2008) The New Urban Renewal: TheEconomic Transformation of Harlem and Bron-zeville. Chicago, IL: The University of Chi-cago Press.

Hyra DS (2012) Conceptualizing the new urbanrenewal: Comparing the past to the present.Urban Affairs Review 48(4): 498–527.

Jaffe HS and Sherwood T (1994) Dream City:Race, Power, and the Decline of Washington,D.C. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Jones J (2006) Thorpe thumped. Washington CityPaper, 10 November.

Joseph ML (2006) Is mixed-income developmentan antidote to urban poverty? Housing PolicyDebate 17(2): 209–234.

Kasarda JD, Appold SJ, Sweeney SH, et al.(1997) Central-city and suburban migrationpatterns: Is a turnaround on the horizon?Housing Policy Debate 8(2): 307–358.

Knotts HG and Haspel M (2006) The impact ofgentrification on voter turnout. Social ScienceQuarterly 87(1): 110–121.

Lacy KR (2007) Blue-Chip Black: Race,Class, and Status in the New Black MiddleClass. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Laska SB and Spain D (eds) (1980) Back to theCity: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation. NewYork: Pergamon Press.

Lee BA, Spain D and Umberson DJ (1985)Neighborhood revitalization and racialchange: The case of Washington, D.C. Demo-graphy 22(4): 581–602.

Hyra 19


Liebow E (1967) Tally’s Corner. Boston, MA: Lit-tle, Brown and Company.

Lloyd R (2010) Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce inthe Postindustrial City. New York: Routledge.

Logan JR and Molotch HL (2007) Urban For-tunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berke-ley, CA: University of California Press.

Lornell K and Stephenson CC Jr (2009) The Beat!Go-Go Music from Washington, D.C.: Jackson,MS: University Press of Mississippi.

Maly MT (2005) Beyond Segregation: Multiracial;and Multiethnic Neighborhoods in the UnitedStates. Philadelphia, PA: Temple UniversityPress.

Martin L (2007) Fighting for control: Politicaldisplacement in Atlanta’s gentrifying neighbor-hoods. Urban Affairs Review 42(5): 603–628.

McGovern SJ (1998) The Politics of DowntownDevelopment: Dynamic Political Cultures inSan Francisco and Washington, D.C. Lexing-ton, KY: The University Press of Kentucky.

McKinnish T, Walsh R and White K (2010) Whogentrifies low-income neighborhoods? Journalof Urban Economics 67: 180–193.

McRoberts OM (2003) Streets of Glory: Churchand Community in a Black Urban Neighborhood.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Modan GG (2007) Turf Wars: Discourse, Diver-sity, and the Politics of Place. Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishing.

Moore JM (1999) Leading the Race: The Trans-formation of the Black Elite in the Nation’sCapital, 1880–1920. Charlottesville, VA: Uni-versity of Virginia Press.

Moore KS (2009) Gentrification in black face?The return of the black middle class to urbanneighborhoods. Urban Geography 30:118–142.

Morello C and Keating D (2011a) Asians, Hispa-nics tip urban growth. The Washington Post, 6April.

Morello C and Keating D (2011b) Blacks’ major-ity status slips away. The Washington Post, 25March.

Morello C and Keating D (2011c) Census con-firms skyrocketing Hispanic, Asian growth inU.S. The Washington Post, 25 March.

Morello C, Keating D and Hendrix S (2011) Cap-ital hip: D.C. is getting younger. The Washing-ton Post, 5 May.

Newman K and Wyly EK (2006) The right to stayput, revisited: Gentrification and resistance todisplacement in New York City. Urban Studies43(1): 23–57.

Pattillo M (2007) Black on the Block. Chicago, IL:The University of Chicago Press.

Peterson PE (1981) City Limits. Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Podagrosi A and Vojnovic I (2008) Tearing downFreedmen’s Town and African American dis-placement in Houston: The good, the bad, andthe ugly of urban revival. Urban Geography 29:371–401.

Putnam RD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapseand Revival of American Community. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Ricard M (2009) In D.C., kicking inclusion up anotch. The Washington Post, 3 September.

Robinson E (2010) Disintegration: The Splinteringof Black America. New York: Doubleday.

Ruble BA (2003) Creating Diversity Capital:Transnational Migrants in Montreal, Washing-ton, and Kyiv. Washington, DC: WoodrowWilson Center Press and Baltimore: The JohnsHopkins University Press.

Ruble BA (2010) Washington’s U Street: A Bio-graphy. Washington, DC: Woodrow WilsonCenter Press and Baltimore: The Johns Hop-kins University Press.

Sassen S (2012) Cities in a World Economy. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Silverman E (2001) Bad company: Shaw refor-mers can’t cope with ‘Mahdi’ Leroy JosephThorpe. Washington City Paper, 16 March.

Simmons PA and Lang RE (2003) The urbanturnaround. In: Katz B and Lang RE (eds)Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evi-dence from Census 2000, Volume I.Washington,DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 51–61.

Slater T (2009) Missing Marcuse: On gentrifica-tion and displacement. City 13(2–3): 293–311.

Smith N (1979) Toward a theory of gentrification:A back to the city movement by capital, notpeople. Journal of the American Planning Asso-ciation 45(4): 538–548.

Sturtevant LA and Jung YJ (2011) Are we movingback to the city? Examining residential mobilityin the Washington, DC metropolitan area.Growth and Change 42(1): 48–71.

20 Urban Studies


Tach L (2009) More than bricks and mortar:Neighborhood frames, social processes, andthe mixed-income redevelopment of a publichousing project. City and Community 8(3):273–303.

Taylor MM (2002) Harlem: Between Heaven andHell. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minne-sota Press.

Tissot S (2011) Of dogs and men: The making ofspatial boundaries in a gentrifying neighbor-hood. City & Community 10(3): 265–284.

Vale LJ (2002) Reclaiming Public Housing: A HalfCentury of Struggle in Three Public Neighbor-hoods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Vale LJ (2013) Purging the Poorest: Public Hous-ing and the Design Politics of Twice-ClearedCommunities. Chicago, IL: The University ofChicago Press.

Vigdor JL (2002) Does gentrification harm thepoor? Brookings-Wharton Papers on UrbanAffairs, 134–173.

von Hoffman A (2003) House by House: Block byBlock. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wemple E (2007) Making the rounds: TheWashington Post fails to complete check on

Shaw activist. Washington City Paper, 7September.

Wiener E (2010) Newark St. dog park opensamid protests. The Northwest Current, 15September.

Williams B (1988) Upscaling Downtown: StalledGentrification in Washington, D.C. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.

Williams PK (2002) Greater U Street. Chicago,IL: Arcadia Publishing.

Wilson T (2008) Shaw exercises its dog parkrights: Neighborhood area is first in D.C. TheWashington Post, 20 November.

Wilson WJ (1996) When Work Disappears: TheWorld of the New Urban Poor. New York:Knopf.

Yin RK (2013) Case Study Research. ThousandOaks, CA: SAGE.

Wyly EK, Atia M and Hammel DJ (2004) Hasmortgage capital found an inner-city spatialfix? Housing Policy Debate 15(3): 623–85.

ZavarellaMD (1987) The back-to-the-city movementrevisited. Journal of Urban Affairs 9(4): 375–390.

Zukin S (2010) Naked City: The Death and Lifeof Authentic Urban Places. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hyra 21


The Back-To-The-City Movement: Neighbourhood Redevelopment and Processes of Political and Cultural...

Documents

Transcript of The Back-To-The-City Movement: Neighbourhood Redevelopment and Processes of Political and Cultural...