Gentrification, Social Character, and Personal Identity

Dados Bibliográficos

ID4491815
AutoresDavid B Cole (autor correspondente)
Ano1985
Volume75
Fascículo2
Páginas142
Data de publicação1985-04-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoGeographical Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0016-7428 • E-ISSN: 1931-0846
EditoraJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/214465
OpenAlexW2323650839
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas11

Gentrification is under way in parts of the inner city of Melbourne, Australia. Although the process is similar in various areas, differences in architectural styles, demographics, and lifestyles create images and reputations that are distinct to a neighborhood. This study focuses on three neighborhoods: North Carlton, North Fitzroy, and Middle Park. The residents there do not recognize these differences in social character, and they do not manifest personal identification with their residential area. GENTRIFICATION has been an active process for two decades in innercity neighborhoods of Australian cities, particularly Sydney and Melbourne. Although the process is sometimes called trendification, the consequences are alike. Young middle-class professionals, single or married but usually childless, move into a lower-class neighborhood. Housing stock is upgraded by renovation and land values rise sharply. The number of blue-collar and ethnic-group residents declines, while the total of owners who occupy housing increases. With these changes there is a transition of social character in a neighborhood.' The character of a neighborhood represents the values and lifestyle of its residents.2 The achieved social character of a neighborhood then attracts new residents who perceive it as a place for them to live. The reputation of the area is thus reinforced as identities of residents and social distinctiveness of a neighborhood mutually interact to perpetuate an area's reputation. Often a type of self-identity is formed by residents because of the distinctive social character of a neighborhood. Upward mobility is frequently reflected in the choice of a residential area by persons who select a district that represents who they are, what they earn, and who they hope to become.3 Many gentrifled neighborhoods satisfy these aspirations, but socioeconomic status is not the sole motivating factor in the revitalization of many areas. The purpose of this article is to examine the relationships among gentrification, social character, and personal identity in three inner-city areas of Melbourne. An inner-city area of Sydney, Paddington, was a leader in the Australian gentrification process. Paddington has become a classic example of the creation of a fashionable symbol of urbane lifestyles, community diversity, and 1 C. A. Maher, The Changing Residential Role of the Inner City: The Example of Inner Melbourne, Australian Geographer, Vol. 14, 1978, pp. 112-122; W. S. Logan, Gentrification in Inner Melbourne: Problems of Analysis, Australian Geographical Studies, Vol. 20, 1982, pp. 65-95; and David Ley, A Social Geography of the City (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), pp. 45-46. 2 Christopher Winters, The Social Identity of Evolving Neighborhoods, Landscape, Vol. 23, 1979, pp. 8-14, reference to p. 8. 3 Ley, footnote 1 above, p. 162. * DR. COLE is an associate professor of geography at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80639. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.27 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 04:29:39 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms GENTRIFICATION IN MELBOURNE architectural charm by young middle-class professionals. The image of selfexpression associated with living in an area like Paddington is quite different from that of an outer suburb.4 This generalization is applicable to revitalized areas of Melbourne where new residents have successfully created an environment that is an alternative to the Australian suburban norm. Some of the areas are not classified as gentrified because they do not display the three crucial territorial indicators: rising occupational status, proportional increase of Australian-born residents, and higher proportion of homeowners than renters. The study of North Carlton, East Melbourne, and Kensington, on which these conclusions were based, nevertheless, asserted that very tangible social and environmental changes had created a distinctive character for inner-city residence.5 My analysis of three inner-city areas of Melbourne-North Carlton, North Fitzroy, and Middle Park-focuses on social identification that may be evolving as persons voluntarily select and move into a rejuvenated inner-city area. I examined factors that indicate gentrification such as occupation, occupancy, ethnic status, age, family structure, and marital status of residents to develop a profile of the population in each area. My exploration of social identity, however, was based on less easily measured factors such as an area's reputation, degree of self-identity that residents gain, expression of a particular lifestyle, and social character, if any, associated with an area. A study of sections of Australian cities is easier than a similar undertaking for American cities because local government areas (LGAs) provide precise boundaries and census data for inner-city districts. For metropolitan Melbourne, the federal Department of Urban and Regional Development has listed eight LGAs as an inner-city grouping. They are the municipalities of Melbourne, Port Melbourne, South Melbourne, Collingwood, Fitzroy, Richmond, St. Kilda, and Prahran (Fig. 1). Almost all gentrification in Melbourne has occurred in these LGAs. Because of the existence of previous investigations that provided a foundation for my work, I initially selected the LGAs of Melbourne, Fitzroy, and South Melbourne for my study.6 Other factors in the selection included proximity to the central business district, recent residential history, types of housing in the LGA, and stage of gentrification. The choice gave a locational distribution: Melbourne and Fitzroy lie north of the Yarra River, and South Melbourne to the south of it. Some residential areas of Melbourne have undergone varied degrees of character transformation. Fitzroy and South Melbourne have not had a similar level of transformation, but each has experienced a significant increase in the number of white-collar, Australianborn, middle-class residents. Substantial variations in population size for the 4 H. Kendig, New Life for Old Suburbs (Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 1979), p. 126. 5 Logan, footnote 1 above, p. 84. 6 Logan, footnote 1 above; and The Displaced: A Study of Housing Conflict in Melbourne's Inner City (Melbourne: Center for Urban Research, 1977). 143 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.27 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 04:29:39 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE GEOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

Aesthetics · Art · Character (mathematics · Economic geography · Economic growth · Economics · Genealogy · Gentrification · Geography · Identity (music · Social character · Sociology · Anthropology · History · Mathematics · Rural development and sustainability · Urban Planning and Governance