An official website of the United States government
This paper analyzes the geography of super-gentrification in US cities, the further intensification of class upgrading after a neighborhood has already gentrified. Building a national longitudinal tract database of gentrification intensity indicators, we analyze where this process has occurred across the 45 most populous metropolitan regions. We develop a method for quantifying metro-specific gentrification indices, then compare the class and racial demographics of super-gentrified tracts against other kinds of affluent places. We also interpret these national patterns with a case study of gentrification’s broader geographies in greater New York City. While super-gentrification is most commonly researched in global mega-cities, we found a wider geography including substantial suburban and smaller city patterns. We also found that super-gentrified neighborhoods are less racially diverse than other gentrified neighborhoods, and are more demographically similar to historically affluent (but not recently gentrified) neighborhoods. The study contributes a national comparative analysis of gentrification intensity patterns, and a longitudinal analysis of what happens after a neighborhood has already gentrified.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on July 18, 2026
Mapping super-gentrification in large US cities, 1990–2020
This paper analyzes the geography of super-gentrification in US cities, the further intensification of class upgrading after a neighborhood has already been gentrified. Building a national longitudinal tract database of gentrification intensity indicators, we analyze where this process has occurred across the 45 most populous metropolitan regions. We develop a method for quantifying metro-specific gentrification indices, then compare the class and racial demographics of super-gentrified tracts against other kinds of affluent places. We also interpret these national patterns with a case study of gentrification’s broader geographies in the New York City metropolitan region. While super-gentrification is most commonly researched in global mega-cities, we found a wider geography, including substantial suburban and smaller city patterns. We also found that supergentrified neighborhoods are less racially diverse than other gentrified neighborhoods, and are more demographically similar to historically affluent (but not recently gentrified) neighborhoods. The study contributes to a national comparative analysis of gentrification intensity patterns, and a longitudinal analysis of what happens after a neighborhood has already been gentrified.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2306194
- PAR ID:
- 10642151
- Publisher / Repository:
- Urban Geography
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Urban Geography
- ISSN:
- 0272-3638
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 24
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This article develops and assesses the concept of triple neighborhood disadvantage. We argue that a neighborhood’s well-being depends not only on its own socioeconomic conditions but also on the conditions of neighborhoods its residents visit and are visited by, connections that form through networks of everyday urban mobility. We construct measures of mobility-based disadvantage using geocoded patterns of movement estimated from hundreds of millions of tweets sent by nearly 400,000 Twitter users over 18 months. Analyzing nearly 32,000 neighborhoods and 9,700 homicides in 37 of the largest U.S. cities, we show that neighborhood triple disadvantage independently predicts homicides, adjusting for traditional neighborhood correlates of violence, spatial proximity to disadvantage, prior homicides, and city fixed effects. Not only is triple disadvantage a stronger predictor than traditional measures, it accounts for a sizable portion of the association between residential neighborhood disadvantage and homicides. In turn, potential mechanisms such as neighborhood drug activity, interpersonal friction, and gun crime prevalence account for much of the association between triple disadvantage and homicides. These findings implicate structural mobility patterns as an important source of triple (dis)advantage for neighborhoods and have implications for a broad range of phenomena beyond crime, including community capacity, gentrification, transmission in a pandemic, and racial inequality.more » « less
-
Xu, Gang (Ed.)Recent advances in quantitative tools for examining urban morphology enable the development of morphometrics that can characterize the size, shape, and placement of buildings; the relationships between them; and their association with broader patterns of development. Although these methods have the potential to provide substantial insight into the ways in which neighborhood morphology shapes the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of neighborhoods and communities, this question is largely unexplored. Using building footprints in five of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles) and the open-source R package,foot, we examine how neighborhood morphology differs across U.S. metropolitan areas and across the urban-exurban landscape. Principal components analysis, unsupervised classification (K-means), and Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis are used to develop a morphological typology of neighborhoods and to examine its association with the spatial, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics of census tracts. Our findings illustrate substantial variation in the morphology of neighborhoods, both across the five metropolitan areas as well as between central cities, suburbs, and the urban fringe within each metropolitan area. We identify five different types of neighborhoods indicative of different stages of development and distributed unevenly across the urban landscape: these include low-density neighborhoods on the urban fringe; mixed use and high-density residential areas in central cities; and uniform residential neighborhoods in suburban cities. Results from regression analysis illustrate that the prevalence of each of these forms is closely associated with variation in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics such as population density, the prevalence of multifamily housing, and income, race/ethnicity, homeownership, and commuting by car. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and suggesting avenues for future research on neighborhood morphology, including ways that it might provide insight into issues such as zoning and land use, housing policy, and residential segregation.more » « less
-
The social integration of a city depends on the extent to which people from different neighborhoods have the opportunity to interact with one another, but most prior work has not developed formal ways of conceptualizing and measuring this kind of connectedness. In this article, we develop original, network-based measures of what we call “structural connectedness” based on the everyday travel of people across neighborhoods. Our principal index captures the extent to which residents in each neighborhood of a city travel to all other neighborhoods in equal proportion. Our secondary index captures the extent to which travels within a city are concentrated in a handful of receiving neighborhoods. We illustrate the value of our indices for the 50 largest American cities based on hundreds of millions of geotagged tweets over 18 months. We uncover important features of major American cities, including the extent to which their connectedness depends on a few neighborhood hubs, and the fact that in several cities, contact between some neighborhoods is all but nonexistent. We also show that cities with greater population densities, more cosmopolitanism, and less racial segregation have higher levels of structural connectedness. Our indices can be applied to data at any spatial scale, and our measures pave the way for more powerful and precise analyses of structural connectedness and its effects across a broad array of social phenomena.more » « less
-
Neighborhood ethnicity is related to mammal occupancy and activity across a desert metropolitan areaAbstract Cities support abundant human and wildlife populations that are shaped indirectly and directly by human decisions, often resulting in unequal access to environmental services and accessible open spaces. Urban land cover drives biodiversity patterns across metropolitan areas, but at smaller scales that matter to local residents, neighborhood socio‐cultural factors can influence the presence and abundance of wildlife. Neighborhood income is associated with plant and animal diversity in some cities, but the influence of other social variables is less well understood, especially across desert ecosystems. We explored wildlife distribution across gradients of neighborhood ethnicity in addition to income and landscape characteristics within residential areas of metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Utilizing data from 38 wildlife cameras deployed in public parks and undeveloped open spaces within or near suburban neighborhoods, we estimated occupancy and activity patterns of common mammal species, including species native to the Sonoran Desert (coyote [Canis latrans] and desert cottontail rabbit [Sylvilagus audubonii]), and non‐native domestic cat (Felis catus). Neighborhood ethnicity (percentage of Latino residents) appeared to exhibit a negative relationship with occupancy for coyotes and cottontail rabbits. Additionally, daily activity patterns of coyotes occurred later in the evenings and mornings in neighborhoods with higher proportions of Latino residents, but activity was unaffected by differences in neighborhood income. This study is one of the first to show that social‐ecological mechanisms associated with patterns of neighborhood ethnicity as well as income may help to shape wildlife distribution in cities. These findings have implications for equitable management and provisioning of ecosystem services for urban residents and highlight the importance of considering a range of social covariates to better understand biodiversity outcomes in urban and urbanizing areas.more » « less
