Unravelling false choice urbanism

Tom Slater

City, 2014, vol. 18, issue 4-5, 517-524

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.

Date: 2014
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13604813.2014.939472 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:cityxx:v:18:y:2014:i:4-5:p:517-524

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CCIT20

DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2014.939472

Access Statistics for this article

City is currently edited by Bob Catterall

More articles in City from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().