Unravelling false choice urbanism

Abstract

Numerous scholarly and journalistic commentaries on gentrification succumb to an analytically defective formula: weigh up the supposed pros and cons of gentrification, throw in a few half-baked worries about threats to ‘diversity’ and housing affordability, and conclude that gentrification is actually ‘good’ on balance because it represents the reinvestment that stops neighbourhoods from dying during a financial crisis. In this paper, I unravel such ‘false choice urbanism’ by arguing that disinvestment and reinvestment do not signify a moral conundrum, with the latter somehow better than the former. It is argued that gentrification and ‘decay’ are not opposites, alternatives or choices, but rather tensions and contradictions in the overall system of capital circulation, amplified and aggravated by the current crisis. Keeping the focus on gentrification as a political question (rather than a moral one), I offer some thoughts on some strategies of revolt concealed by purveyors of false choice urbanism.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.