IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v50y2013i11p2293-2310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Superfund Me: A Study of Resistance to Gentrification in New York City

Author

Listed:
  • Hamil Pearsall

Abstract

Municipal governments have incorporated brownfield redevelopment programmes into urban sustainability plans to encourage the redevelopment of these sites into productive uses. The combination of government support and developer initiatives indicates potential for the gentrification of brownfields. However, developer proposals to expedite the conversion of contaminated properties along the Gowanus Canal in New York City into residential and commercial venues resulted in the addition of the canal to the US National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous sites, rendering the site less attractive to developers. It is argued that the listing process became an effective tool in the struggle to resist gentrification in the Gowanus Canal neighbourhood. Place stigmatisation slowed developer-driven redevelopment and the NPL designation allows for a comprehensive remediation approach and increases opportunities for community input. This study provides an interesting case study of resistance to developer-driven ‘smart-city’ planning that represents a meaningful departure from neoliberal urbanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamil Pearsall, 2013. "Superfund Me: A Study of Resistance to Gentrification in New York City," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(11), pages 2293-2310, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:50:y:2013:i:11:p:2293-2310
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098013478236
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098013478236
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098013478236?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alberini, Anna & Longo, Alberto & Tonin, Stefania & Trombetta, Francesco & Turvani, Margherita, 2005. "The role of liability, regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and redevelopment: evidence from surveys of developers," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 327-351, July.
    2. Jason Hackworth & Neil Smith, 2001. "The changing state of gentrification," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 92(4), pages 464-477, November.
    3. Steven C. Bourassa, 1993. "The Rent Gap Debunked," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 30(10), pages 1731-1744, December.
    4. Chris Hamnett, 1996. "Social Polarisation, Economic Restructuring and Welfare State Regimes," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 33(8), pages 1407-1430, October.
    5. Winifred Curran, 2004. "Gentrification and the Nature of Work: Exploring the Links in Williamsburg, Brooklyn," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(7), pages 1243-1258, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ingmar Pastak & Eneli Kindsiko & Tiit Tammaru & Reinout Kleinhans & Maarten Van Ham, 2019. "Commercial Gentrification in Post‐Industrial Neighbourhoods: A Dynamic View From an Entrepreneur’s Perspective," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 110(5), pages 588-604, December.
    2. Kathe Newman & Elvin K. Wyly, 2006. "The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(1), pages 23-57, January.
    3. Tom Slater, 2008. "‘A Literal Necessity to be Re‐Placed’: A Rejoinder to the Gentrification Debate," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 212-223, March.
    4. Miguel de Oliver, 2016. "Gentrification as the appropriation of therapeutic ‘diversity’: A model and case study of the multicultural amenity of contemporary urban renewal," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(6), pages 1299-1316, May.
    5. Chris Hamnett, 2003. "Gentrification and the Middle-class Remaking of Inner London, 1961-2001," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(12), pages 2401-2426, November.
    6. Thomas Maloutas, 2009. "Urban Outcasts: A Contextualized Outlook on Advanced Marginality," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 828-834, September.
    7. Ingmar Pastak & Anneli KÄHRIK, 2021. "SYMBOLIC DISPLACEMENT REVISITED: Place‐making Narratives in Gentrifying Neighbourhoods of Tallinn," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 814-834, September.
    8. Jeffrey Zabel, 2007. "The Impact of Imperfect Information on the Transactions of Contaminated Properties," NCEE Working Paper Series 200703, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Jan 2007.
    9. Ismael Yrigoy, 2019. "Rent gap reloaded: Airbnb and the shift from residential to touristic rental housing in the Palma Old Quarter in Mallorca, Spain," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(13), pages 2709-2726, October.
    10. Winifred Curran, 2018. "‘Mexicans love red’ and other gentrification myths: Displacements and contestations in the gentrification of Pilsen, Chicago, USA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(8), pages 1711-1728, June.
    11. Shenjing He, 2012. "Two Waves of Gentrification and Emerging Rights Issues in Guangzhou, China," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(12), pages 2817-2833, December.
    12. C Hamnett & D Cross, 1998. "Social Polarisation and Inequality in London: The Earnings Evidence, 1979–95," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 16(6), pages 659-680, December.
    13. Zwiers, Merle & Kleinhans, Reinout & van Ham, Maarten, 2015. "Divided Cities: Increasing Socio-Spatial Polarization within Large Cities in the Netherlands," IZA Discussion Papers 8882, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Loretta Lees, 2003. "Super-gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(12), pages 2487-2509, November.
    15. Lynda Cheshire & Robin Fitzgerald & Yan Liu, 2019. "Neighbourhood change and neighbour complaints: How gentrification and densification influence the prevalence of problems between neighbours," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(6), pages 1093-1112, May.
    16. Stuart Cameron & Jon Coaffee, 2005. "Art, Gentrification and Regeneration -- From Artist as Pioneer to Public Arts," European Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 39-58, April.
    17. Whittle, Henry J. & Palar, Kartika & Hufstedler, Lee Lemus & Seligman, Hilary K. & Frongillo, Edward A. & Weiser, Sheri D., 2015. "Food insecurity, chronic illness, and gentrification in the San Francisco Bay Area: An example of structural violence in United States public policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 154-161.
    18. Gila Menahem & Nelly Elias, 2007. "Gendered Occupational Differences and Earnings Gaps in Globalising Urban Economies: The Case of Tel-Aviv," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(11), pages 2211-2229, October.
    19. Wu, Qiyan & Zhang, Xiaoling & Liu, Chunhui & Chen, Zhou, 2018. "The de-industrialization, re-suburbanization and health risks of brownfield land reuse: Case study of a toxic soil event in Changzhou, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 187-194.
    20. Mark Davidson, 2008. "Spoiled Mixture: Where Does State-led `Positive' Gentrification End?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(12), pages 2385-2405, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:50:y:2013:i:11:p:2293-2310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.