The Effects of Gentrification on the Well-Being and Opportunity of Original Resident Adults and Children

Author: Quentin Brummet & Davin Reed
Year: 2019 (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia / Census Bureau)
Source type: article (empirical paper)
Raw file: raw/articles/gentrification-final.md

Summary

An empirical economics paper providing "the first comprehensive, national, causal evidence of how gentrification affects original neighborhood resident adults and children," using longitudinal census microdata (Census 2000 to ACS 2010–2014) for low-income central-city neighborhoods of the 100 largest US metro areas. It finds that gentrification modestly increases out-migration (but movers are not made observably worse off), that neighborhood change is driven primarily by changes in in-migration rather than direct displacement, and that many incumbent adults and children who stay benefit (reduced poverty exposure, rising house values, improved opportunity for children).

Key Claims

• Modest out-migration with no observable harm to movers: gentrification increases out-migration by ~4–6 percentage points for less-educated renters, but "we find no evidence that movers from gentrifying neighborhoods ... move to observably worse neighborhoods or experience negative changes to employment, income, or commuting distance."
• Benefits for stayers: gentrification reduces the average original resident adult's exposure to neighborhood poverty by 3 percentage points (7 for those who stay), and increases homeowner house values, especially for stayers. Less-educated renters and homeowners (each ~25% of gentrifiable neighborhoods) largely stay and share in these gains.
• Children's opportunity: gentrification decreases children's exposure to neighborhood poverty and increases exposure to neighborhood education/employment (factors correlated with economic mobility, per Chetty et al.); some children of less-educated homeowners are more likely to attend and complete college.
• High baseline mobility: renters' baseline cross-neighborhood migration is 70–80% over a decade; "neighborhoods are far more dynamic than typically assumed," so change is driven "almost entirely by changes to the quantity and composition of in-migrants, not direct displacement."
• Policy implications: weigh the absolute benefits to original residents against harms; accommodative policies — "building more housing (whether market-rate or affordable)" in high-demand areas — could increase opportunity benefits, reduce out-migration pressure, and promote long-term affordability; target inclusionary policies to the most disadvantaged and to low-income families with children.
• The unobserved harm channel: the main remaining channel of harm is "unobserved costs of leaving the origin neighborhood" (community attachment/neighborhood capital), which the authors suggest may be small given high baseline mobility.

Connections

Concepts: Gentrification · Neoliberal Metropolis · Everyday Life
Authors: Quentin Brummet & Davin Reed
Debates: (capitalism, urbanization & gentrification)
Related source notes: The Architecture of the City (Bismarck) · The Age of Spectacle (Dyckhoff)

Direct Quotes

"[T]he highly visible changes associated with gentrification are driven almost entirely by changes to the quantity and composition of in-migrants, not direct displacement."

"[O]ur results suggest that the important inequality effects [noted elsewhere] exist alongside absolute benefits for original residents."

"[P]reserving and expanding the affordability and accessibility of central urban neighborhoods should primarily take a forward-looking approach that seeks to accommodate increasing demand for these areas."

Open Questions

• Does the empirical finding that "movers are not observably worse off" resolve the political question of gentrification, or does it understate non-economic harms (community loss, symbolic displacement) central to critical-geography accounts (Bismarck, Glaeser, Harvey)?