Does Spatial Assimilation Lead To Reproduction of Gentrification in The Global City

Journal of Urban Affairs
ISSN: 0735-2166 (Print) 1467-9906 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujua20
Does spatial assimilation lead to reproduction of

gentrification in the global city?
Richard J. Smith , Theodore Thomas Pride & Catherine E. Schmitt-Sands
To cite this article: Richard J. Smith , Theodore Thomas Pride & Catherine E. Schmitt-Sands
(2017) Does spatial assimilation lead to reproduction of gentrification in the global city?, Journal of
Urban Affairs, 39:6, 745-763, DOI: 10.1080/07352166.2016.1262693
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1262693
Published online: 17 Jan 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 170
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujua20
Download by: [179.105.252.84] Date: 15 August 2017, At: 05:45

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS
2017, VOL. 39, NO. 6, 745763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1262693
Does spatial assimilation lead to reproduction of gentrification in

the global city?
a
Richard J. Smith , Theodore Thomas Prideb, and Catherine E. Schmitt-Sandsa
a
Wayne State University; bOakland University
ABSTRACT
In the political economy of place, cities can be thought of as global
commodities marketed to the creative class and highly skilled immigrants,
while privileged suburban spaces are protected by place stratification. The
spatial assimilation literature shows that assimilated immigrants and mino-
rities move to White, Anglo suburbs, resulting in some White succession. Is
Downloaded by [179.105.252.84] at 05:45 15 August 2017
there a positive association between spatial assimilation and gentrification?

How have populations in gentrifying neighborhoods and those experien-
cing spatial assimilation changed? This study answers these questions using
ecological analysis and propensity score matching to analyze normalized
census tract data from the National Neighborhood Change Database (1970
2010). Gentrification and spatial assimilation are correlated: the former as
increased, whereas the latter has plateaued. Percentage White declined in
both types of neighborhood. Gentrifying neighborhoods see an influx of
Hispanic immigrants but no other immigrant populations. More barriers to
spatial assimilation than to gentrification appear to remain, a finding con-
sistent with place stratification theory.
Over the last 50 years, cities in the United States have experienced disinvestment, middle-class
outmigration, White flight, and deindustrialization that led to the concentration of racial minorities
and poverty in central cities (W. J. Wilson, 1987). However, trends in metropolitan residential mobility
indicate a movement of middle-class racial minorities to the periphery, coinciding with suburban
gentrification of working class and poor areas within the urban core (Glaeser & Vigdor, 2012). In some
metros, racial minority immigrantsmostly Asians and Hispanicsare bypassing cities and settling in
suburban enclaves (J. Wilson & Singer, 2011). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development has been expanding access to vouchers in suburbs (Varady & Walker, 2003), which,
combined with fair housing law, provides some opportunities for mobility.
In response to these urban disruptions, urban policy has experimented with several place-based
initiatives to attract jobs to the inner city with tax incentives (R. Smith, 2015). Some cities have
embraced creative class (Florida, 2002) interventions, intending to encourage gentrification and
make neighborhoods cool for artists, engineers, immigrants, and diverse sexualities, but these
initiatives are often blind to equity concerns (Peck, 2005). The recent spatial reshuffling of race and
class raises questions concerning the push-and-pull mechanisms of metropolitan settlement patterns
and the connection between the entrance of historically marginalized racial minorities into histori-
cally White space and the return of upper- and middle-class residents to the poor urban core. Has
increasing spatial assimilation in the suburbs led to increasing gentrification in primary cities and
inner-ring suburbs? How has this process changed the race, ethnicity, and nativity of these
neighborhoods?
CONTACT Richard J. Smith smithrichardj@wayne.edu School of Social Work, Wayne State University, 5447 Woodward
Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202.
2017 Urban Affairs Association
746 R. J. SMITH ET AL.
First, we review the literature on spatial assimilation and gentrification in the context of the political
economy of place, which informs the neighborhood change literature, regarding invasionsuccession
in particular. Inspired by definitions of gentrification found in the literature, we are the first to
contribute a set of measures to define spatial assimilation at the neighborhood (i.e., census tract)
level and identify how neighborhoods change over time. Next, we show that metropolitan-level
gentrification is associated with spatial assimilation. Finally, we show how gentrifying tracts change.
To see how gentrification and spatial assimilation impact tract composition, we first use propensity
score matching to identify a set of similar comparison tracts and then calculate a difference in means.
We conclude with recommendations for research and policy.
Theoretical framework: Political economy of place

Place stratification
Several scholars have noted that the process of suburbanization and White flight has created a
sociospatial, economic, and racial divide between the urban core and the suburbs extending outside
the central city (Farley, Danziger, & Holzer, 2000; Sugrue, 1996). Our argument that gentrification is
a reaction to spatial assimilation draws from the political economy of place (Logan & Molotch,
1987), which is a framework used to analyze the contradiction between the use value and exchange
value of places. Briefly, privileged classes use political and economic power to ensure that the places
they inhabit are better off than those inhabited by lower classes. For example, racial discrimination
in the housing market led to suburbs being occupied disproportionately by White residents, a
phenomenon called place stratification (Logan & Molotch, 1987; Pais, South, & Crowder, 2012).
Thus, suburbs are typically areas that contain protected and privileged space for middle-class and
affluent White residents, largely excluding lower class and racial minorities (Bates & Fasenfest, 2005).
Roots in ecological theory: From invasionsuccession to ethnic flight

Political economy of place extends ecological theory, which conceptualizes a neighborhood as an
ecosystem that experiences invasions by new entrants (e.g., immigrants or minorities) into a
White, Anglo space that leads to succession of incumbents into newer neighborhoods
(Schwirian, 1983; Temkin & Rohe, 1996). On the other hand, market understandings of neighbor-
hood succession include succession motivated by housing filtering, as produced by the aging of the
housing stock, and bid rent models that assume a world where households make rational tradeoffs
between amenities in central neighborhoods and those further out (Temkin & Rohe, 1996).
Contemporary scholars extend this bid rent model in the context of increasing immigration into a
neighborhood and call it a housing competition model (Crowder, Hall, & Tolnay, 2011).
Our research is primarily motivated by literature about racial and ethnic preferences for
neighbors that lead to residential segregation or neighborhood decline (Card, Mas, & Rothstein,
2008; Denton, 1999; Galster, 1991). Drawing from invasionsuccession, the ethnic flight thesis
(Crowder et al., 2011) suggests that an influx of a different ethnic group into a neighborhood will
prompt incumbent residents to relocate. Recent research suggests that such flight is related to
demand for similar ethnicity and education more so than nativity (Saiz & Wachter, 2011). Other
studies have also complicated the ethnic flight thesis, showing that increases in racial minority and
immigrant populations at the neighborhood level significantly increase the likelihood of White
outmigration, unless desirable destination neighborhoods also have racial minorities and immi-
grants (Crowder et al., 2011; Crowder & South, 2008). This process of ethnic flight, or invasion
and succession, has led to metropolitan areas where immigrants are dispersed in the suburbs
(J. Wilson & Svajlenka, 2014) and almost no all-White neighborhoods or suburbs exist, but all-
Black neighborhoods persist (Glaeser & Vigdor, 2012). The implication of this literature is that
those with preferences for segregation may as well stay put in homogenous neighborhoods to take
JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS 747
advantage of embedded use value and that professionals seeking to maximize exchange increas-
ingly see gentrification as a live option.
Weak place stratification: Spatial assimilation

Historically, restrictive segregationist policies led to the formation of ethnic enclave communities
that provided social, economic, and political resources necessary for well-being (Aldrich &
Waldinger, 1990; Hung, 2007; Portes, 1987). Yet, despite the institutional barriers posed by
place stratification, suburbs are becoming more diverse. Spatial assimilation is defined as the
entry of racial, ethnic, or immigrant minority groups into affluenttypically non-Hispanic
White Angloneighborhoods based on their level of acculturation and upward movement in
socioeconomic status (Alba & Logan, 1991; Charles, 2003; Massey & Denton, 1985; Massey &
Mullan, 1984). Differences in group socioeconomic status help shape patterns of residential
settlement (Alba & Logan, 1991) because fewer racial minoritiesparticularly Blackscan afford
to move into White, affluent, suburban neighborhoods (Alba, Logan, Stults, Marzan, & Zhang,
1999). In the political economy of place framework, racial and ethnic minorities who move to
privileged places (i.e., achieve spatial assimilation) either pay more or get less under weak place
stratification theory (Pais et al., 2012).
In early empirical research on spatial assimilation, neighborhoods that experienced spatial
assimilation of African Americans saw a loss of Whites consistent with succession but those with
Hispanic spatial assimilation less so (Massey & Mullan, 1984). Similarly, Iceland and Nelson (2008)
found that U.S.-born Hispanics were less segregated from Anglos than their foreign-born counter-
parts. In other words, the growth machine may set off a chain reaction of succession that varies
depending on the newcomer and incumbent populations (Logan & Molotch, 1987).
Pais et al. (2012) assessed the relative strength of place stratification in contrast to weak place
stratification (i.e., spatial assimilation). Using 1990 to 2005 data from the Panel Study on Income
Dynamics and the National Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB), they found that the majority
of metro areas experience place stratification, but many also exhibit evidence of spatial assimilation,
depending on the specific racial and ethnic groups examined. The sample size prevented them from
comparing outcomes of foreign-born Hispanics to those of native-born Hispanics, but they found
that metropolitan areas with higher proportions of immigrants had more spatial assimilation.
The spatial assimilation literature provides evidence that increases in socioeconomic status among
racial minorities have translated into greater spatial parity with Whites. Because metropolitan areas
have limits to growth, we propose that spatial assimilation creates opportunities for suburban
residents to interact with minorities moving from cities. Spatial assimilation also creates a disin-
centive for middle-class professionals with preferences for segregation to relocate to elite suburbs.
This in turn may reduce barriers to gentrification through exposure to racial and ethnic minorities
and relative shifts in the expected exchange value of neighborhoods that make the inner city more
attractive. However, scholars have not operationalized spatial assimilation at the neighborhood
(i.e., census tract) level, nor has spatial assimilation been assessed as a determinant of gentrification.
Gentrification
Not only are racial minorities settling in White suburban neighborhoods, but middle-class and
affluent residents, some of whom come from the suburbs, are relocating in low-income and work-
ing-class neighborhoods in the central city. The term gentrification has origins dating back to Ruth
Glasss work in London, which noted the reupgrading of Victorian homes one by one until an entire
neighborhood changed (Lees, Slater, & Wyly, 2008). Some scholars have connected gentrification to
displacement of residents (Atkinson, 1998), whereas others have highlighted place, reinvestment,
blight removal, and community revitalization (Lambert & Boddy, 2002). Despite the divergence in
the literature concerning positive and negative impacts, there is some agreement about gentrification
as a distinct social and spatial occurrence. Hammel and Wyly (1996, p. 250) defined gentrification as
the replacement of low-income, inner-city working class residents by middle or upper class house-
holds. Similarly, N. Smith and Williams (1986, p. 1) defined gentrification as the rehabilitation of
working-class and derelict housing and the consequent transformation of an area into a middle-class
neighbourhood. Most definitions, like the ones above, underscore the process of neighborhood
change that converts relatively lower income, poor, and working-class areas into middle-class or
relatively more affluent space and places.
Who gentrifies, why, and who gets displaced?

Research to quantify gentrification typically operationalizes one of the aforementioned definitions, assesses
characteristics of gentrifiers vs. stayers, or compares neighborhood characteristics over time. Gentrification
is distinguished from other types of neighborhood upgrading in Van Criekingen and Decroly (2003): (a)
gentrification based on population change (e.g., inmigration and outmigration), (b) marginal gentrification
from educated but not affluent entrants; (c) neighborhood upgrading from outmigration or death of elders,
and (d) incumbent upgrading caused by rising incomes of existing residents. Some empirical research
cannot distinguish gentrification from other forms of neighborhood upgrading due to data limitations.
Though gentrification as a change in class occurs against a backdrop of a metropolitan space that is
segregated by race, ethnicity, and class, definitions of gentrification rarely include change in race or
ethnicity as a component, with Galster and Peacock (1986) a notable exception. This choice allows
researchers to assess changes in racial and ethnic composition resulting from gentrification.
Our intuition that increased spatial assimilation can trigger a chain reaction is logical given the
findings about who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods. Scholars in the United States coined this
phenomenon the Back to the City Movement in the mid-1970s (Gale, 1976). However, the term
Back to the City is a misnomer. For instance, Laska and Spain (1979) observed in a case study of
New Orleans that though the majority of home renovators in gentrifying neighborhoods were
White professionals, about half came from the inner city. Furthermore, Bostic and Martin (2003)
challenged the assumption that it is only Whites who gentrify and found that middle-class Black
homeowners significantly contributed to gentrification in the 1970s. To advance this literature,
Freeman (2005) combined census data with Panel Study on Income Dynamics data in order to
analyze characteristics of households and found that movers to gentrifying neighborhoods in the
1990s tended to be higher income and White and that gentrification limited options to move to a
different unit in the same neighborhood.
Conscious of the limitation of public use census population data, others turned to sworn
census microdata1 and the nationally representative American Housing Survey to analyze house-
holds. For instance, from 1990 to 2000, McKinnish, Walsh, and White (2010) found that new
gentrifiers were younger, less likely to be foreign born, and more likely to be childless. They
concluded that the rising incomes in Black neighborhoods reflected changes in quality that were
attractive to Black middle-class gentrifiers. Also using the American Housing Survey, Ellen,
Horn, and ORegan (2011) found that in the 1990s, residents who displaced a low-income
household in a low-income neighborhood were more likely to be renters, first-time homeowners,
childless, and minorities. Residents who displaced low-income households placed more value on
unit quality and cost than on neighborhood characteristics. They concluded that there was no
evidence of change in racial composition or displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods com-
pared to other low-income areas. In other words, this U.S. literature suggests that gentrification
is a cohort effect that is influenced by cohorts of entering and exiting households making
location decisions at specific points of the life course. However, these studies do not speak to
changes after 2000, nor do they assess nativity to distinguish ethnic flight from native flight.
Although U.S. scholars are more optimistic about gentrification, scholars who review work
internationally in the English-speaking world take issue with definitions of gentrification that only
look at income changes and argue that urban inmigration of the last few decades has
predominantly resulted in gentrification with displacement (Atkinson & Wulff, 2009; Atkinson,
Wulff, Reynolds, & Spinney, 2011; Lees et al., 2008). The displacement of lower income residents
can occur directly when residents are forced to move from their homes due to rising costs or
eviction. For example, Lees (2003) showed that supergentrification in Brooklyn Heights, New
York, which experienced a 9.7% population increase in the wealthiest 10% of New York families
from 1970 to 1980, resulted in the inflation of average home prices to approximately $1.5 million.
Even if gentrifying neighborhoods experience the loss of lower income residents through voluntary
moves or death, this results in the loss of affordable housing as housing costs rise, which excludes
and creates locational barriers for poor and working-class populations (Byrne, 2003). In short,
people in poverty could get stuck in place as a neighborhood gentrifies and removes affordable
housing stock (Sharkey, 2013).
Despite disagreement about the magnitude of displacement, there is less debate in the afore-
mentioned studies over the ways in which urban space is transformed. In the process of
relocating to cities, these new urban residents participate in the transformation of impoverished
spaces and places into communities that contain the social and economic dynamics and supports
(i.e., housing, aesthetics, amenities) needed for their desired level of consumption (Lees, 2008).
Changes to the census now allow us to disaggregate immigrants by race and ethnicity at the tract
level, so we can contribute to the literature using ecological analysis. Because attitudes regarding
race and ethnicity may have changed among suburban Whites and inner cities have adopted pro-
gentrification policies, it is plausible that for a subset of the middle class, the inner city may be
more desirable than a new neighborhood on the periphery. As these neighborhoods improve, we
expect that they become attractive to younger suburban Whites, especially those who have been
exposed to spatial assimilation, and highly skilled immigrants recruited by corporations and local
governments seeking talent.
Research questions
Research Question 1: As neighborhoods experience spatial assimilation of Asians, Blacks, and
Hispanics, is there accompanying reduction in the proportions of native-born Whites and
native-born Blacks, and an increase in the foreign-born? Spatial assimilation tracts are experi-
encing weak place stratification, by definition. The ethnic flight thesis implies that native-born
Whites would move to maintain social and physical distance from other ethnic and racialized
groups. Iceland and Wilkes (2006) found that Asians and Hispanics with higher socioeconomic
statuses were significantly less segregated from non-Hispanic Whites.
Hypothesis 1A: Following the ethnic flight thesis, we hypothesize that White outmigration will be
highest in tracts with Black spatial assimilation, then Hispanic spatial assimilation, and then
Asian. We hypothesize that Blacks outmigrate in areas with Hispanic and Asian spatial
assimilation. However, if we see no significant change in native-born Whites and native-born
Blacks after conditioning on rents and home values in spatial assimilation areas, this would
imply that housing competition is the predominant mechanism operating and not ethnic flight.
Hypothesis 1B: We hypothesize that the percentage of foreign born (by ethnicity and recent
mover/stayer) increases in tracts experiencing spatial assimilation.
Research Question 2: Has increasing spatial assimilation in the suburbs led to increasing gentri-
fication in primary cities and inner ring suburbs? Following the political economy of place, new
entrants to suburban areas will bid up exchange values of privileged areas, making relatively
low-income neighborhoods in central cities more attractive to young families starting
households.
Hypothesis 2: As spatial assimilation increases through a process of weak place stratification
decade by decade, so should gentrification.
Research Question 3: Has gentrification changed the relative balance of nativity, race, and
ethnicity? Previous research has suggested that gentrification does not necessarily change racial
composition, but this research covered decades prior to the year 2000.
Hypothesis 3A: Because we expect native-born Whites to outmigrate from neighborhoods with
spatial assimilation, we hypothesize that gentrifying tracts in the most recent two decades will
see an increase in Whites. If we see a decline in Whites, this would indicate that the ethnic
flight thesis is more dominant than the housing competition model.
Hypothesis 3B: Because the massive foreclosure crisis following the Great Recession of 2008 made
inner-city housing available to those with cash, but not with credit, we hypothesize that in
gentrifying neighborhoods, we will see reductions in percentages of Blacks and Hispanics. The
literature does not guide our expectations for Asians.
Hypothesis 3C: We hypothesize that gentrifying tracts will see increases in movers from suburbs
and reductions in persons who have not moved in the past 5 years as a result of spatial
assimilation in the suburbs.
Hypothesis 3D: All things equal, we hypothesize that a gentrifying tract will see a reduction in
those in poverty because gentrifying neighborhoods have increasing incomes and this should
price out those in poverty.
Methods
In conceptualizing the push-and-pull relationship between spatial assimilation and gentrification, we
analyze changes in census tracts within U.S. metropolitan areas from 1970 to 2010. Analyzing census
tracts as discrete, independent units is inherently problematic, but it does provide an opportunity to
summarize general trends. For a summary of limitations related to ecological analysis, defined as
application of multivariate statistics to census tractlevel data as proxies for neighborhoods, see
Massey and Denton (1985).
Measuring spatial assimilation

To our knowledge, no one has constructed criteria to identify neighborhoods experiencing spatial
assimilation. We apply the independent variables measured in past studies as neighborhood-level
indicators of spatial assimilation. In addition, though spatial assimilation theory has been used to
examine the residential patterns of racial/ethnic minorities and immigrants, this study will define
spatial assimilation tracts using changes for three racial/ethnic minorities without regard to their
nativity due to census data limitations. The logic of the measure follows that of tract-level gentrifica-
tion measures explained later.
First, only suburban neighborhoods (Alba et al., 1999) that have the following characteristics
will be considered eligible areas for spatial assimilation: (a) a percentage of Whites in the
neighborhood above the 40th percentile of tracts in the metropolitan area at the beginning decade
of the measured decadal change, (b) an average income higher than the 40th percentile of the
tracts in metropolitan area, and (c) inspired by South, Crowder, and Chavez (2005), a proportion
of adults who speak English only higher than the 40th percentile of the metropolitan areas.
Next, inspired primarily by Iceland and Wilkes (2006), the criteria for neighborhood spatial
assimilation will be that tracts experience decadal increases in the (a) proportion racial/ethnic
minorities (i.e., Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian); (b) proportion non-poor for
the target ethnicity, (c) standardized per capita income for the target ethnicity, and
(d) proportion with some college education for the target ethnicity. Finally, condition
(e) proportion of married racial/ethnic minorities (i.e., Black/African American, Hispanic/
Latino, Asian) higher than the 40th percentile of the metropolitan areas tract populations is
inspired by Ellis, Wright, and Parks (2006). These criteria capture the influx of racial minorities
of high socioeconomic status into White, middle-class, and affluent neighborhoods that are not
declining. This setup allows us to test globally our intuition about succession patterns that may
lead to gentrification.2
Measuring gentrification
We will measure gentrification in two ways typical in the literature: first, a tract-level measure
regarding neighborhood economic characteristics and, second, a measure of socioeconomic
status. Prior to identifying gentrification, we followed the literature by first identifying tracts
eligible to gentrify based on conditions of neighborhoods in the previous decade (Freeman, 2009;
Galster & Peacock, 1986). These criteria include tracts with median household incomes below
the city or metropolitan average and the age of the housing stockwith older homes represent-
ing less affluent areas. Gentrifying tracts are by definition located in central cities or inner-ring
suburbs (Hanlon, 2009).
Following Freeman (2005), we consider a tract eligible for gentrification if at the beginning of the
decade it had an average household income below the 40th percentile of the metropolitan area and
resided in a primary city or inner-ring suburb. We follow Freeman (2005, 2009) to operationalize
achieved gentrification as having an increase in the following measures: (a) median household
income; (b) percentage of college-educated residents; (c) percentage professional, managerial, or
technical occupations (Wyly & Hammel, 2004)3; (d) median owner-occupied housing values; and
(e) median rent. We present data using two definitions of gentrification: using (a) all five criteria
including occupational status (i.e., Wyly & Hammel, 2004) and (b) only the four other criteria
(i.e., Freeman, 2005, 2009).
We did not include other standards used to identify gentrifying neighborhoods such as exclusively
central city location (Freeman, 2009), proximity to central business district (Kolko, 2007), number of
displaced low-income residents (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001), or percentage of Black residents within
the neighborhood (Galster & Peacock, 1986) because we believe that gentrification is relevant to
small and medium cities. For instance, given patterns of suburban decline (Berube & Kneebone,
2006), it is important to track gentrification in inner-ring suburbs. Although the displacement of
low-income residents has been well established (Atkinson & Wulff, 2009), we do not include it in the
definition so that we can observe changes caused by the change in socioeconomic tract character-
istics as a proxy for displacement.
Data
This study uses tract-level data from the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2010 decennial censuses. We use the
NCDB produced by GeoLytics, Inc. (2014) to link census tracts across the decades. GeoLytics created
consistent tract boundaries based on 2010 census boundaries for the earlier censuses. The sample
includes 59,783 census tracts within 366 metropolitan core based statistical areas (CBSAs; Office of
Management and Budget, 2013). These are the current metropolitan regions defined by the U.S.
Census that have replaced the metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).
Analysis
The first and third research questions are answered using a quasi-experimental design (Morgan &
Winship, 2007) that matches treatment to control census tracts. We categorize spatial assimila-
tion tracts and gentrification tracts as receiving a treatment and then estimate the difference in
means, a parameter called the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT). This is interpreted as
the impact of spatial assimilation or gentrification on the tract population. Following the logic of a
quasi-experiment, gentrifying tracts are matched to other gentrification-eligible tracts that are similar
but did not gentrify using a propensity score based on the variables used to define gentrification and
spatial assimilation.4 We use one to two Mahalanobis distance matching with replacement
(Diamond & Sekhon, 2013; Sekhon, 2009).5 Exact matching is enforced to find tracts within the
same metro CBSA. Primary city6 tracts are matched to primary city tracts (Office of Management
and Budget, 2013), and inner-ring suburb tracts are matched to inner-ring suburb tracts. Treated
tracts that cannot be matched are dropped.7 Following Sekhon (2011), the act of dropping the
extreme treatment tracts produces an estimate of the parameter called the local average treatment
effect, which in turn is bias adjusted using regression for variables that do not achieve balance with
Abadie-Imbens standard errors to reflect the matching experiment.8 We analyzed the differences in
differences changes from 1990 to 2000 and from 2000 to 2010.9 Because the NCDB does not
distinguish nativity by race and ethnicity over time, the variable White, for example, includes both
foreign born and native born. We address some intersections of nativity, race, ethnicity, and mobility
using 20062010 American Community Survey (ACS) rolling average data, but these results only
represent a first difference (Treatment2010 Control2010). For example, the variable White foreign
born is the percentage of Whites who are foreign born.
The second research question is analyzed using count data models (see Equation 1) because we
are modeling an outcome that is a count of gentrifying census tracts per year (GENcbsa,t) within each
CBSA offset by the total number of tracts per CBSA.10
GENcbsa;t SAcbsa;t Dt : (1)

The independent variable is the count of spatial assimilation tracts in the CBSA (SAcbsa,t) and a time
dummy, Dt, adjusts for decade-specific effects for 2010, 2000, and 1990, with 1980 as the reference group.
Results
Descriptive statistics
See Table 1 for the number of tracts experiencing gentrification and spatial assimilation.
Gentrification has been increasing by a factor of 21% (Wyly & Hammel, 2004) and 33%
(Freeman, 2005, 2009), respectively. Spatial assimilation has been increasing by a factor of 70%
per decade. However, Figure 1 shows that the number of metros with gentrification doubled from
2000 to 2010. The number with spatial assimilation have almost tripled since 1970 but remained
constant since 2000. A similar pattern exists for total and average number of tracts per metro and
these are available from the authors upon request.
See Table 2 for descriptive statistics of gentrification variables. The average household incomes
are rising over time11 but others, such as the increase in the change in housing stock greater than 20
years old, have fallen. Also declining are the increase in percentage college educated and percentage
Table 1. Tracts eligible and experiencing gentrification and spatial assimilation, 19702010 (N = 59,783).
Variable 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Eligible for gentrification 11,838 14,491 15,564 15,997
Eligible for spatial assimilation 6,794 9,484 11,120 11,891
Experienced gentrification (Freeman, 2005, 2009) 591 551 655 1,648

4.99% 3.80% 4.21% 10.30%
Experienced gentrification (Wyly & Hammel, 2004) 529 518 525 1,185
4.47% 3.57% 3.37% 7.41%
Experienced spatial assimilation 405 1,902 2,670 2,457
5.96% 20.05% 24.01% 20.66%
Black spatial assimilation 81 490 620 529
1.19% 5.17% 5.58% 4.45%
Asian spatial assimilation 27 843 1,347 982
0.40% 8.89% 12.11% 8.26%
Hispanic spatial assimilation 262 767 1,006 1,173
3.86% 8.09% 9.05% 9.86%
Figure 1. Number of metro areas with gentrification and spatial assimilation (19802010).
increase in those with high occupational status. In Table 3, the spatial assimilation indicators, we see
a contraction of the college-educated and non-poor in the recent decade. The proportion of families
that are married for all groups is on the decline.
Research question 1
Hypothesis 1A was partially supported. From 1990 to 2000, the percentage White and non-Hispanic
White fell in tracts experiencing Asian spatial assimilation. Consistent with Massey and Mullan
(1984), spatial assimilation of Blacks also led to reductions of percentage White in 2010 and non-
Hispanic White in both decades. However, spatial assimilation of Hispanics led to an increase in
Whites. Findings for Black outmigration were mixed, with Blacks increasing in Asian areas in 2000
but decreasing in Hispanic areas in 2010.
Hypothesis 1B is not supported, with exceptions. Overall, these tracts saw decreases in the
proportion foreign born, except for tracts experiencing Asian and Black spatial assimilation.
Indeed, the increase in Hispanic foreign born in Asian spatial assimilation areas represented
the largest effect size at almost four percentage points. See Table 4 for a list of complete
results.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of gentrification variables.

Variable Mean SD
Average household income 1970 $9,538 $10,339
Average median home values 1970 $16,206 $59,380
Average median home values 1980 $142,466 $2,178,894
Average rents 1970 $4a $15
Average rents 1980 $268 $108
Point change housing stock > 20 years old 1970 to 1980 49.46% 31.63%
Point change in college-educated 1970 to 1980 6.48% 7.85%

Point change in occupational status 1970 to 1980 4.05% 10.03%
Tracts in inner-ring suburb 2010 6.72% 25.03%
Tracts in primary city 2010 49.10% 49.99%
Note. aRents in 1970 are low because many tracts had no renters.
Source: NCDB 19702010 (GeoLytics, Inc., 2014).
Research question 2: Spatial assimilation and gentrification

Hypothesis 2 is supported by the data. A one-tract increase in spatial assimilation tracts per metro
CBSA per year yields a 1.004 factor increase in gentrification (Freeman, 2005, 2009) tracts and a
1.005 factor increase in gentrification tracts (Wyly & Hammel, 2004). On a practical level, this means
that the average metro CBSA has two gentrifying tracts and 163 tracts total for a rate of 0.012. If in
one decade the number of spatial assimilation tracts increases by 10, then the rate would increase to
0.012 * 1.005 = 0.1206. See Table 5 for more information. Table 6 displays the change in number of
tracts experiencing spatial assimilation and gentrification for each of the top 25 metropolitan areas
by 2010 population. There is substantial regional variation, with a great deal of activity in the larger
metropolitan areas. Only one metro area, St. Louis, saw a reduction in gentrification.
Research question 3: Impact of gentrification on race, ethnicity, nativity, mobility, and poverty of
tract
See Table 7 for statistically significant gentrification results. Hypothesis 3A is not supported in that
the proportion White did not change from 1990 to 2000 and declined from 2000 to 2010. This is
more consistent with an ethnic flight rather than housing competition model. Hypothesis 3B is
partially supported. From 1990 to 2000, the proportion Black decreased in gentrifying tracts. In
contrast, from 2000 to 2010, the proportion Hispanic and Black increased at the expense of a
decrease in the proportion White. From 1990 to 2000, the proportion Asian decreased. The
percentage foreign born did not change in either decade. For the Freeman (2005, 2009) definition
of gentrification, the percentage Hispanic foreign born was greater in gentrifying tracts than in
control tracts. For the Wyly and Hammel (2004) definition, all Hispanics saw an increase in
gentrifying tracts but not foreign born.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for spatial assimilation indicators (tracts = 59,783, CBSA = 366).
Eligibility Mean SD Percentage change MSA Mean SD Decadal percentage MSA Mean SD
White Asian college Asian per capita income
1970 89.68% 21.35% 19801990 27.62% 41.71% 1990 $11,782 $15,573
1980 83.52% 24.20% 19902000 6.89% 42.72% 2000 $59,877 $319,035
1990 79.41% 25.60% 20002010 2.21% 44.55% 20062010 $20,117 $24,948
2000 74.07% 26.40% Black college Black per capita income
Adults speak English 19801990 22.64% 34.82% 1990 $11,020 $12,731
1980 81.21% 26.78% 19902000 6.47% 36.20% 2000 $14,435 $14,563
1990 84.60% 18.60% 20002010 0.43% 38.97% 20062010 $17,371 $18,753
2000 80.55% 20.52% Hispanic college Hispanic per capita income
19801990 18.63% 34.06% 1990 $11,134 $11,350
19902000 2.14% 34.30% 2000 $14,699 $13,771
Percentage change MSA Mean SD 20002010 0.79% 34.54% 20062010 $17,301 $17,626
Asian Asian non-poor % Asian families married
19801990 1.32% 3.47% 19801990 40.83% 51.51% 1980 85.13% 22.96%
19902000 1.47% 3.91% 19902000 3.96% 44.02% 1990 82.59% 26.90%
20002010 1.35% 3.68% 20002010 8.55% 46.52% 2000 81.71% 26.32%
Black 20062010 81.09% 28.97%
19701980 2.71% 10.53% Black non-poor % Black families married
19801990 2.07% 7.84% 19701980 3.60% 22.51% 1970 66.67% 25.53%
19902000 2.08% 7.16% 19801990 24.35% 46.18% 1980 62.06% 29.33%
20002010 1.41% 6.58% 19902000 5.41% 38.18% 1990 57.57% 29.74%
Hispanic 20002010 7.43% 40.19% % Hispanic families 20062010 52.78% 34.46%
19701980 1.83% 7.15% Hispanic non-poor % Hispanic families married
19801990 2.34% 6.09% 19701980 2.38% 49.25% 1980 79.83% 23.03%
19902000 3.67% 7.06% 19801990 18.57% 44.69% 1990 75.70% 26.53%
20002010 3.78% 6.48% 19902000 2.03% 31.70% 2000 71.33% 25.96%
Foreign born 20002010 4.52% 33.11% 20062010 67.45% 30.24%
19701980 2.29% 5.36%
19801990 1.86% 5.16%
19902000 3.33% 5.84%
20002010 1.63% 8.21%
JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS
755
Table 4. Impact of spatial assimilation on tract characteristics (N 2010 = 11,891, N 2000 = 11,120).
Estimate
Dependent variable Type ATT AI SE t Statistic p Value Dropped
ACS FD foreign born stayers 2010-2006 Asian 1.606 0.283 5.674 .000 0
ACS FD Hispanic foreign born 2010-2006 Asian 3.942 1.185 3.327 .001 0
ACS FD native born stayers 2010-2006 Asian 1.092 0.447 2.441 .015 0
ACS FD White foreign born 2010-2006 Asian 1.150 0.226 5.099 .000 0
Black 2000-1990 Asian 0.525 0.244 2.152 .031 9
Non-Hispanic White 2000-1990 Asian 1.136 0.405 2.807 .005 9
Stayers 2010-2000 Asian 1.399 0.553 2.528 .011 0
White 2000-1990 Asian 1.290 0.323 3.989 .000 9
ACS FD native born mover 2010-2006 Black 0.500 0.187 2.679 .007 6
ACS FD native born stayers 2010-2006 Black 1.034 0.400 2.589 .010 6
ACS FD stayers 2010-2006 Black 1.077 0.324 3.324 .001 6
Foreign born 2000-1990 Black 0.709 0.198 3.585 .000 9
Hispanic 2000-1990 Black 0.667 0.203 3.288 .001 9
Hispanic 2010-2000 Black 0.807 0.194 4.162 .000 6
Non-Hispanic White 2000-1990 Black 0.761 0.259 2.935 .003 9
Non-Hispanic White 2010-2000 Black 0.975 0.269 3.632 .000 6
White 2010-2000 Black 0.572 0.216 2.654 .008 6
ACS FD foreign born stayers 2010-2006 Hispanic 0.414 0.199 2.078 .038 11
ACS FD native born stayers 2010-2006 Hispanic 0.660 0.317 2.078 .038 11
Asian 2000-1990 Hispanic 0.345 0.120 2.866 .004 13
Black 2010-2000 Hispanic 0.477 0.153 3.111 .002 11
White 2010-2000 Hispanic 0.544 0.213 2.557 .011 11
ACS FD Asian foreign born 2010-2006 Total 2.472 0.965 2.563 .010 17
ACS FD Black foreign born 2010-2006 Total 1.853 0.566 3.271 .001 17
Foreign born 2000-1990 Total 0.313 0.136 2.300 .021 28
Foreign born 2010-2000 Total 0.285 0.113 2.518 .012 17
Stayers 2010-2000 Total 0.993 0.290 3.428 .001 17
Note. AI = Abadie-Imbens; FD = first difference derived from treatment control in 2010. Only statistically significant changes are
shown. Ten tracts dropped for 2010 outcomes and only one tract dropped for 2000 outcomes that did not have a match within
CBSA and city type (primary city, inner-ring suburb).
Table 5. Association of spatial assimilation and gentrification 19802010.

Confidence interval
Incidence
rate
Variable ratios SE z p>z Low High
Freeman gentrification
Total spatial assimilation 1.004 0.002 2.800 .005 * 1.001 1.007
Year 1990 1.026 0.110 0.240 .812 0.832 1.265
Year 2000 0.666 0.080 3.370 .001 * 0.527 0.844
Year 2010 2.397 0.250 8.400 .000 * 1.955 2.940
Wyly gentrification
Total spatial assimilation 1.005 0.002 3.020 .002 * 1.002 1.008
Year 1990 1.104 0.129 0.850 .397 0.878 1.387
Year 2000 0.606 0.079 3.820 .000 * 0.469 0.784
Year 2010 1.884 0.214 5.580 .000 * 1.508 2.354
Note. General estimating equation with autoregressive correlation structure clustering on CBSA (n = 366). The year 1980 is the
baseline decade.
*p < .05
In terms of mobility, Hypothesis 3C is partially supported. For the Freeman (2005, 2009)
definition of gentrification, those from suburbs in other metro areas and non-metro areas increased
from 2000 to 2010, whereas those from suburbs and other center cities declined. But in the Wyly and
Hammel (2004) definition, those from other suburbs declined from 1990 to 2000. From 1990 to
2000, the percentage of stayers increased. Hypothesis 3D is partially supported. Poverty fell from
1990 to 2000 for Asians, Blacks, Latinos, and all races and ethnicities, ranging from a 3 to 6% drop.
Table 6. Change in number of tracts experiencing gentrification and spatial assimilation from 2000 to 2010 for the 25 largest
metropolitan areas.
Number of GN GN SA SA SA SA
Metropolitan area (CBSA) tracts Wyly free Hispanice Black Asian Total
New YorkNorthern New JerseyLong Island, 4,531 17 42 62 44 60 67
NYNJPA
Los AngelesLong BeachSanta Ana, CA 2,925 44 70 17 9 27 43
ChicagoJolietNaperville, ILINWI 2,210 24 31 6 68 1 43
DallasFort WorthArlington, TX 1,314 11 25 0 19 15 5
PhiladelphiaCamdenWilmington, PANJ 1,475 19 29 4 6 18 22
DEMD
HoustonSugar LandBaytown, TX 1,073 20 29 4 9 6 13
WashingtonArlingtonAlexandria, DCVA 1,347 19 24 11 9 6 6
MDWV
MiamiFort LauderdalePompano Beach, FL 1,215 29 34 1 1 12 8
AtlantaSandy SpringsMarietta, GA 946 13 13 7 18 2 20
BostonCambridgeQuincy, MANH 1,003 5 8 4 10 2 6
San FranciscoOaklandFremont, CA 975 6 8 4 15 1 5
DetroitWarrenLivonia, MI 1,297 18 32 2 11 0 14
RiversideSan BernardinoOntario, CA 822 6 9 3 4 13 8
PhoenixMesaGlendale, AZ 991 26 34 4 2 11 2
SeattleTacomaBellevue, WA 718 11 14 11 8 2 2
MinneapolisSt. PaulBloomington, MNWI 772 4 8 2 7 3 0
San DiegoCarlsbadSan Marcos, CA 627 4 4 0 1 4 0
St. Louis, MOIL 620 1 2 7 3 9 1
TampaSt. PetersburgClearwater, FL 740 15 21 10 25 18 34
BaltimoreTowson, MD 679 13 16 12 2 10 1
DenverAuroraBroomfield, CO 621 5 8 16 8 2 12
Pittsburgh, PA 711 8 9 12 7 0 17
PortlandVancouverHillsboro, ORWA 491 7 8 12 11 4 4
SacramentoArdenArcadeRoseville, CA 484 20 24 2 5 4 9
San AntonioNew Braunfels, TX 457 8 14 11 2 2 10
Note. GN = gentrification; SA = spatial assimilation.
Table 7. Impact of gentrification on tract characteristics (N 2010 = 15,997, N 2000 = 15,564).

Dependent variable Type ATT AI SE t Statistic p Value
Asian DID 19902000 Freeman 0.534 0.264 2.023 .043
Black DID 19902000 Freeman 2.461 0.412 5.966 .000
Black DID 20002010 Freeman 0.738 0.277 2.667 .008
Black poverty DID 19902000 Freeman 5.441 1.317 4.132 .000
From non-metro DID 20002010 Freeman 0.166 0.076 2.174 .030
From other center city DID 20002010 Freeman 0.673 0.322 2.091 .037
From other suburb DID 20002010 Freeman 0.47 0.113 4.153 .000
From suburb DID 20002010 Freeman 0.52 0.164 3.165 .002
Hispanic foreign born FD ACS 201006 Freeman 1.586 0.765 2.074 .038
Hispanic poverty DID 19902000 Freeman 3.848 1.374 2.799 .005
Poverty DID 19902000 Freeman 3.485 0.484 7.202 .000
Stayers DID 20002010 Freeman 0.889 0.354 2.512 .012
White DID 20002010 Freeman 0.993 0.322 3.084 .002
White poverty DID 19902000 Freeman 3.461 1.13 3.064 .002
Black DID 19902000 Wyly 3.183 0.479 6.644 .000
Black poverty DID 19902000 Wyly 5.06 1.35 3.75 .000
From other suburb DID 19902000 Wyly 0.515 0.245 2.103 .035
Hispanic DID 20002010 Wyly 0.614 0.297 2.067 .039
Hispanic poverty DID 19902000 Wyly 5.99 1.456 4.116 .000
Poverty DID 19902000 Wyly 4.774 0.479 9.959 .000
White poverty DID 19902000 Wyly 3.079 1.112 2.77 .006
Note. AI = Abadie-Imbens; DID = differences in differences. Only statistically significant changes are shown. Ten tracts dropped for
2010 outcomes and only one tract dropped for 2000 outcomes that did not have a match within CBSA and city type (primary
city, inner-ring suburb).
These were the largest effect sizes in the study. However, there was no significant difference in
changes in poverty from 2000 to 2010.
Discussion
Prior to 2010, it may have been reasonable to conclude that gentrification was a rare phenomenon and
that spatial assimilation was an inevitable result of social progress. However, these data question these
assumptions and provide some cause for concern, especially in large metros. If existing trends
continue, all metropolitan regions in the United States will experience gentrification pressure by
2020. This pressure may be contained to one or two neighborhoods. Furthermore, if the plateau in
spatial assimilation continues, it is possible that that residential segregation will continue.
These results provide some nuance as to dynamics of race and nativity in metropolitan neighbor-
hoods. There is evidence that succession of Whites occurs in tracts experiencing spatial assimilation, but
this is not necessarily accompanied by an increase in Whites in gentrifying tracts; quite the reverse. In
contrast, in general, foreign born are declining in neighborhoods experiencing spatial assimilation,
though tracts seeing spatial assimilation of Asians and Hispanics are seeing increases in foreign born.
Taken together, these findings are consistent more with ethnic flight or ethnic sorting, than housing
competition. The data show a colocation of Asian and Hispanic foreign born in the same neighborhoods.
Overall, in the past 4 decades, there is a small but positive association between spatial assimilation
and gentrification. These data show that in the 1990s, gentrifying tracts lost Black residents and were
less poor. However, in the 2000s, it appears that, on average, White ethnic flight from gentrifying
neighborhoods has outpaced that of Blacks and Hispanic foreign born in particular, findings
consistent with Bostic and Martin (2003) and Freeman (2002).
These data are also consistent with previous studies that call into question the idea that
gentrification is the result of persons moving into a neighborhood from the suburbs (Ellen &
ORegan, 2011; McKinnish et al., 2010). The percentage of stayers did not change in the 1990s.
The percentage of stayers increased in gentrifying tracts in 2010, and movers from suburbs declined.
The literature has offered two explanations: first, incumbents are staying because theneighborhood is
getting better or, second, poor families are stuck in place (Sharkey, 2013) as the result of increased
demands for units in the neighborhood and because some low-income housing has a place-based
structure (e.g., low-income housing tax credit, public housing). From 2000 to 2010, it is likely that
some were stuck in place due to the collapse of the housing market.
Overall, all immigrants as measured by foreign born are not currently more likely to gentrify, with
the exception of foreign-born Hispanics. Because Hispanics are the largest immigrant group in the
United States, this does provide some evidence that middle-class Hispanics are reproducing gentri-
fication in the global city as they arrive in neighborhoods that would otherwise decline.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, both gentrification and spatial assimilation are concepts that
reasonably could be defined in different ways. In particular, an ideal study would ground-truth the
measures in a representative sample of metropolitan areas to improve validity (e.g., Hwang & Sampson,
2014). Second, neighborhood perceptions may be different than those represented by aggregate census data
at the tract level. For example, Hwang (2016) found that residents engage in boundary work by
constructing the spatial boundaries and identity of their neighborhood along lines of class and race. This
is one of many inherent problems of ecological analysis. Third, the NCDB does not distinguish nativity by
race and ethnicity over time in a way that could answer questions about the intersection of these identities.
We addressed some intersections in the 20062010 rolling average data, but this represents only a first
difference. Fourth, the proportion who stayed or moved is only a global measure of displacement and not
actual flow data on households. Fifth, the 20062010 ACS rolling average tract-level data and normalized
census boundaries are experimental. Sixth, due to lack of covariate balance, some treatment effect estimates
may not be interpreted as causal effects and may be biased. Furthermore, some outcome parameters
represent a local treatment effect because some treatment tracts were dropped to obtain exact matching
within metro. Finally, this study does not speak to ongoing decline in neighborhoods or other kinds of
neighborhood ascent.
Conclusion
Notwithstanding the limitations, this study makes the following contributions: it is the first to
(a) systematically operationalize spatial assimilation at the census tract level; (b) test an associa-
tion between metropolitan-level spatial assimilation and gentrification; and (c) estimate relation-
ships between gentrification and the nativity, race, ethnicity, mobility, and poverty status of
neighborhoods for the 2010 census.
This study has policy implications. The literature has made a case that gentrification exists as a
product of market forces and policy choices by state and local governments to attract capital to their
jurisdictions. One interpretation of the data is that these policies are successful because the number
of gentrifying neighborhoods is increasing. In other words, metropolitan areas competition to
attract human capital disrupts and shifts existing patterns of ethnic and racialized neighborhood
patterns. However, policies promoting spatial assimilation appear to be inadequate nationwide
because the number of tracts experiencing spatial assimilation has been flat in the past decade.
More could be done regarding issues for equal opportunity and fair housing at the regional level.
Historically, housing vouchers were available for use within the jurisdiction of a housing authority
(Varady & Walker, 2003). This appeared to limit the options of low-income families to engage in
spatial assimilation. Yet concerns about affordability, even with a voucher, have led the Department
of Housing and Urban Development to propose a rule to allow the value of a voucher to be pegged
to the median rents of a ZIP code rather than the median rents of a metropolitan area (Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 2015). Better targeted vouchers could encourage spatial assimilation and allow some
families in gentrifying neighborhoods to stay in place if they choose to do so. Likewise, a recent court
decision upholds the ability of federal antidiscrimination law to make findings based on disparate
impact (Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project,
Inc., 2015). This may encourage states to site new affordable housing in privileged neighborhoods,
but it also may lead to some states serving fewer households.
Future research on gentrification and spatial assimilation could take several directions.
Scholars could critically examine definitions of gentrification and spatial assimilation and
compare alternate definitions to see whether the results are sensitive to changes. Researchers
should assess bona fide displacement and tract families as they relocate and the reasons they
move. Restricted census microdata, including the American Housing Survey, could be used to
get a better sense of issues of displacement as well as to tease out the intersection of nativity,
race, and ethnicity, as shown in Ellen and ORegan (2011). Displacement could also be inves-
tigated using other data sets such as the Panel Study on Income Dynamics or administrative data
from telephone records or postal change of address records. Future research should explicitly
link to normative debates about conceptions of society that privilege private property rights, the
collective right to the city, or the right to stay put and enjoy continuity of place.
Notes
1. Sworn census data contain the individual census records for analysis at restricted data centers.
2. In order to assess the plausibility of these measures, we produced maps of each metro area indicating tracts
with gentrification and spatial assimilation. In cases where tracts had extreme values on group quarters and
poverty, we examined satellite imagery from Google Maps to see whether there was a rationale for excluding
them. For example, we removed gentrifying tract 48245011203 because it only contained a prison.
3. The census variables used by Wyly and Hammel (2004) were not intended to be used without additional data
from other sources; indeed, other scholars have augmented the analysis of gentrification using original survey
research or systematic social observation using Google Street View (e.g., Hwang & Sampson, 2014).
4. We also match on tract population to ensure that changes in percentages reflect inmigration and outmigration
and not relative population growth. As noted in research question 1, for the impact of spatial assimilation on
outmigration of Whites and Blacks, we also match on standardized average rents and standardized median
home values. These are part of the definition of gentrification already, so results for the impact of gentrification
already adjust for rising property values.
5. We use GenMatch and Match in the Matching package in R (Sekhon, 2011).
6. The White House Office of Management and Budget (2013) changed the designation of central city to
primary city in 2013. In the discussion of the literature we use the phrase central city as used in given article,
but in our study we use the Office of Management and Budgets current definition of primary city. As a
robustness check, we conducted analyses both ways and found no substantial differences.
7. Ten tracts dropped in the 20002010 period and only one tract in the 19902000 period.
8. The distribution of each variable is graphed using kernel density plots to ensure that the treatment and
comparison areas share a common distribution. Covariate balance was assessed using t tests, Kolmogorov-
Smirnov tests, standardized mean differences, and variance ratios. The variance ratios and standardized
mean differences were within acceptable ranges for total spatial assimilation for both decades and both
kinds of gentrification for 2010. Logistic regression output and matching balance tables are available upon
request.
9. As a robustness check, we smoothed poverty rates using the weighted average of k = 8 nearest neighbors using
the sp package in R (Bivand et al., 2008). Results were not substantially different and are not reported.
10. Count data models are used for outcomes that are whole numbers (i.e., 0, 1, 2, . . ., +), as opposed to logistic
regression, which is for outcomes that are zero or one, or ordinary least squares, which may be used for
outcomes in the set of real numbers. The canonical count data model, Poisson regression, assumes that the
mean equals the variance. The data do not meet this assumption (i.e., they are overdispersed). To account for
this overdispersion, we used a negative binomial model and verified with the Vuong test that the data were not
zero inflated. We use an autoregressive correlation structure in a generalized estimating equation to adjust
standard errors of each metro CBSA.
11. Average household incomes are reported for information, but standardized incomes are used to determine
whether a tract gentrified to adjust for changes in the value of money.
Acknowledgments
This article won the Urban Affairs Associations 2016 Best Conference Paper Award for a paper presented at the 2015
conference in Miami, Florida. This article benefited from the comments of George Galster, Danielle LaVaque-Manty,
and anonymous reviewers.
Funding
This research was supported by the Wayne State University School of Social Work Research Enhancement Program
and the Office of the Vice President for Research.
About the authors

Richard J. Smith is an associate professor of social work at Wayne State University and Chair of the Innovation in
Community, Policy, & Leadership (I-CPL) concentration. His primary line of research seeks to understand the
mechanisms of neighborhood change and impact of interventions to improve community sustainability and well-
being for vulnerable populations (e.g., friendly community initiatives, reduction of concentrated poverty, and spatial
inequality). The Association for Community Organization and Social Administration named him the 2013 Emerging
Scholar. Smith earned a doctorate in social welfare from the University of California, Berkeley. The U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development funded his dissertation research on federal empowerment zones. He has published
in Urban Studies, Economic Development Quarterly, Social Work, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, International
Journal of Social Welfare, Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, and other journals.
Theodore Thomas Pride is a visiting assistant professor of sociology at Oakland University, specializing in urban
political economy and social movements. His current research explores the discourses and dominant practices
associated with urban development and examines their role in the production and reproduction of neoliberal
hegemony, exclusionary urban spatialities, and exploitative capitalist and racist social relations. He is currently writing
(for Brill) Greening the Neoliberal City: Hegemony, Race, and Resistance in the Urban Agricultural Movement.
Catherine Schmitt-Sands is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at Wayne State University. Her
current research examines how democracy and decentralization affect food security in developing countries.
ORCID
Richard J. Smith http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6825-888X
References
Alba, R. D., & Logan, J. R. (1991). Variations on two themes: Racial and ethnic patterns in the attainment of suburban
residence. Demography, 28, 431453. doi:10.2307/2061466
Alba, R. D., Logan, J. R., Stults, B. J., Marzan, G., & Zhang, W. (1999). Immigrant groups in the suburbs: A
reexamination of suburbanization and spatial assimilation. American Sociological Review, 64, 446460.
doi:10.2307/2657495
Aldrich, H. E., & Waldinger, R. (1990). Ethnicity and entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 111135.
Atkinson, R. (1998). Displacement through gentrification: How big a problem? Radical Statistics, 69, 16.
Atkinson, R., & Wulff, M. (2009). Gentrification and displacement: A review of approaches and findings in the literature
(AHURI Positioning Paper No. 115). Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Retrieved from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/ahuri_40548_pp
Atkinson, R., Wulff, M., Reynolds, M., & Spinney, A. (2011). Gentrification and displacement: The household impacts of
neighbourhood change (No. 160). Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Bates, T., & Fasenfest, D. (2005). Enforcement mechanisms discouraging Black-American presence in suburban
Detroit. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29, 960971. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2427.2005.00631.x
Berube, A., & Kneebone, E. (2006). Two steps back: City and suburban poverty trends, 19992005. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2006/12/poverty-berube
Bivand, R. S., Gentleman, R., Gmez-Rubio, V., Hornik, K., Parmigiani, G., & Pebesma, E. J. (2008). Applied spatial
data analysis with R. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-78171-6
Bostic, R. W., & Martin, R. W. (2003). Black home-owners as a gentrifying force? Neighbourhood dynamics in the
context of minority home-ownership. Urban Studies, 40, 24272449. doi:10.1080/0042098032000136147
Byrne, J. P. (2003). Two cheers for gentrification. Howard Law Journal, 46, 405432.
Card, D., Mas, A., & Rothstein, J. (2008). Tipping and the dynamics of segregation. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
123, 177218. doi:10.1162/qjec.2008.123.1.177
Charles, C. Z. (2003). The dynamics of racial residential segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 167207.
Crowder, K., Hall, M., & Tolnay, S. E. (2011). Neighborhood immigration and native out-migration. American
Sociological Review, 76, 2547. doi:10.1177/0003122410396197
Crowder, K., & South, S. J. (2008). Spatial dynamics of White flight: The effects of local and extralocal racial conditions
on neighborhood out-migration. American Sociological Review, 73, 792812. doi:10.1177/000312240807300505
Denton, N. A. (1999). Half empty or half full: Segregation and segregated neighborhoods 30 years after the Fair
Housing Act. Cityscape, 4(3), 107122.
Diamond, A., & Sekhon, J. S. (2013). Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: A general multivariate matching
method for achieving balance in observational studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 932945. doi:10.1162/
REST_a_00318
Ellen, I. G., Horn, K., & ORegan, K. (2011). Urban pioneers: Why do higher income households choose lower income
neighborhoods? Retrieved from http://www.huduser.org/portal/pdf/Ellen_Horn_ORegan.pdf
Ellen, I. G., & ORegan, K. M. (2011). How low income neighborhoods change: Entry, exit, and enhancement. Regional
Science and Urban Economics, 41(2), 8997. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2010.12.005
Ellis, M., Wright, R., & Parks, V. (2006). The immigrant household and spatial assimilation: Partnership, nativity, and
neighborhood location. Urban Geography, 27, 119. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.27.1.1
Farley, R., Danziger, S., & Holzer, H. J. (2000). Detroit divided. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Freeman, L. (2002). Does spatial assimilation work for Black immigrants in the U.S.? Urban Studies, 39, 19832003.
doi:10.1080/0042098022000011326
Freeman, L. (2005). Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods. Urban Affairs
Review, 40, 463491. doi:10.1177/1078087404273341
Freeman, L. (2009). Neighbourhood diversity, metropolitan segregation and gentrification: What are the links in the
U.S.? Urban Studies, 46, 20792101. doi:10.1177/0042098009339426
Gale, D. E. (1976). The Back-to-the-City MovementOr is it?: A survey of recent homebuyers in the Mount Pleasant
neighborhood of Washington. Washington, DC: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, George Washington
University.
Galster, G. C. (1991). Housing discrimination and urban poverty of African-Americans. Journal of Housing Research, 2
(2), 87122.
Galster, G. C., & Peacock, S. (1986). Urban gentrification: Evaluating alternative indicators. Social Indicators Research,
18, 321337. doi:10.1007/BF00286623
GeoLytics, Inc. (2014). Neighborhood Change Database [NCDB] tract data from 1970-2010. Retrieved from http://
www.geolytics.com/USCensus,Neighborhood-Change-Database-1970-2000,Products.asp
Glaeser, E., & Vigdor, J. (2012). The end of the segregated century: Racial separation in Americas neighborhoods,
18902010 (Civic Report No. 66). New York, NY: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Retrieved from http://
www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_66.htm/pdf/cr_66_appendix.pdf
Hammel, D. J., & Wyly, E. K. (1996). A model for identifying gentrified areas with census data. Urban Geography, 17,
248268. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.17.3.248
Hanlon, B. (2009). A typology of inner-ring suburbs: Class, race, and ethnicity in U.S. suburbia. City & Community, 8,
221246. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2009.01287.x
Hung, C. R. (2007). Immigrant nonprofit organizations in U.S. metropolitan areas. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 36, 707729. doi:10.1177/0899764006298962
Hwang, J. (2016). The social construction of a gentrifying neighborhood reifying and redefining identity and
boundaries in inequality. Urban Affairs Review, 52, 98128. doi:10.1177/1078087415570643
Hwang, J., & Sampson, R. J. (2014). Divergent pathways of gentrification racial inequality and the social order of
renewal in Chicago neighborhoods. American Sociological Review, 79, 726751. doi:10.1177/0003122414535774
Iceland, J., & Nelson, K. A. (2008). Hispanic segregation in metropolitan America: Exploring the multiple forms of
spatial assimilation. American Sociological Review, 73, 741765. doi:10.1177/000312240807300503
Iceland, J., & Wilkes, R. (2006). Does socioeconomic status matter? Race, class, and residential segregation. Social
Problems, 53, 248273. doi:10.1525/sp.2006.53.2.248
Kennedy, M., & Leonard, P. (2001). Dealing with neighborhood change: A primer on gentrification and policy choices.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Kolko, J. (2007). The determinants of gentrification (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 985714). Rochester, NY: Social
Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=985714
Lambert, C., & Boddy, M. (2002). Transforming the city: Post-recession gentrification and re-urbanisation (No. 6).
Bristol, England: ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research, University of Bristol.
Laska, S. B., & Spain, D. (1979). Urban policy and planning in the wake of gentrification anticipating renovators
demands. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45, 523531. doi:10.1080/01944367908977000
Lees, L. (2003). Super-gentrification: The case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City. Urban Studies, 40, 24872509.
doi:10.1080/0042098032000136174
Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies, 45, 2449
2470. doi:10.1177/0042098008097099
Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. K. (2008). Gentrification. London, England: Routledge.
Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Oakland: University of
California Press.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1985). Spatial assimilation as a socioeconomic outcome. American Sociological Review,
50, 94106. doi:10.2307/2095343
Massey, D. S., & Mullan, B. P. (1984). Processes of Hispanic and Black spatial assimilation. American Journal of
Sociology, 89, 836873.
McKinnish, T., Walsh, R., & White, K. (2010). Who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods? Journal of Urban
Economics, 67, 180193. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2009.08.003
Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research
(1st ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban
Development. (2015). Establishing a more effective fair market rent (FMR) system: Advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking, 80 Fed. Reg. 31332. (to be codified at 24 C.F.R. 888) 3133231336 (2015). Retrieved from https://
federalregister.gov/a/2015-13430
Office of Management and Budget. (2013). Revised delineations of metropolitan statistical areas, micropolitan statistical
areas, and combined statistical areas (OMB Bulletin No. 13-01). Washington, DC: The White House. Retrieved
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf
Pais, J., South, S. J., & Crowder, K. (2012). Metropolitan heterogeneity and minority neighborhood attainment: Spatial
assimilation or place stratification? Social Problems, 59, 258281. doi:10.1525/sp.2012.59.2.258
Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29, 740770.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00620.x
Portes, A. (1987). The social origins of the Cuban enclave economy of Miami. Sociological Perspectives, 30, 340372.
Saiz, A., & Wachter, S. (2011). Immigration and the neighborhood. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy,
3, 169188.
Schwirian, K. P. (1983). Models of neighborhood change. Annual Reviews in Sociology, 9, 83102.
Sekhon, J. S. (2009). Opiates for the matches: Matching methods for causal inference. Annual Review of Political
Science, 12, 487508. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135444
Sekhon, J. S. (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The
matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 152. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=1009044
Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality (1st ed.).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, N., & Williams, P. (Eds.). (1986). Gentrification of the city. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.
Smith, R. (2015). Empowerment for whom? The impact of community renewal tax incentives on jobs and businesses.
Urban Studies, 52, 702720. doi:10.1177/0042098014528398
South, S. J., Crowder, K., & Chavez, E. (2005). Migration and spatial assimilation among U.S. Latinos: Classical versus
segmented trajectories. Demography, 42, 497521. doi:10.1353/dem.2005.0025
Sugrue, T. J. (1996). The origins of the urban crisis: Race and inequality in postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Temkin, K., & Rohe, W. (1996). Neighborhood change and urban policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
15(3), 159170. doi:10.1177/0739456X9601500301
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., No. 13-1371 (U.S.
Supreme Court June 25, 2015). Retrieved from http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-department-of-
housing-and-community-affairs-v-the-inclusive-communities-project-inc/
Van Criekingen, M., & Decroly, J.-M. (2003). Revisiting the diversity of gentrification: Neighbourhood renewal
processes in Brussels and Montreal. Urban Studies, 40, 24512468.
Varady, D. P., & Walker, C. C. (2003). Using housing vouchers to move to the suburbs the Alameda County,
California, experience. Urban Affairs Review, 39(2), 143180. doi:10.1177/1078087403257952
Wilson, J., & Singer, A. (2011). Immigrants in 2010 metropolitan America: A decade of change. Washington, DC:
Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.refugeehighway.net/downloads/
region-namerica/2010-Brookings-Report-Decade-of-Change-USA.pdf
Wilson, J., & Svajlenka, N. (2014). Immigrants continue to disperse, with fastest growth in the suburbs. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass and urban policy. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Wyly, E. K., & Hammel, D. J. (2004). Gentrification, segregation, and discrimination in the American urban system.
Environment and Planning A, 36, 12151241. doi:10.1068/a3610

Does Spatial Assimilation Lead To Reproduction of Gentrification in The Global City

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Does Spatial Assimilation Lead To Reproduction of Gentrification in The Global City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Urban Affairs

ISSN: 0735-2166 (Print) 1467-9906 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujua20

Does spatial assimilation lead to reproduction of

Richard J. Smith , Theodore Thomas Pride & Catherine E. Schmitt-Sands

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1262693

Published online: 17 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 170

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [179.105.252.84] Date: 15 August 2017, At: 05:45

Does spatial assimilation lead to reproduction of gentrification in

there a positive association between spatial assimilation and gentrification?

Theoretical framework: Political economy of place

Roots in ecological theory: From invasionsuccession to ethnic flight

Weak place stratification: Spatial assimilation

Who gentrifies, why, and who gets displaced?

price out those in poverty.

Measuring spatial assimilation

GENcbsa;t SAcbsa;t Dt : (1)

Experienced gentrification (Freeman, 2005, 2009) 591 551 655 1,648

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of gentrification variables.

Point change in college-educated 1970 to 1980 6.48% 7.85%

Research question 2: Spatial assimilation and gentrification

Table 5. Association of spatial assimilation and gentrification 19802010.

Note. GN = gentrification; SA = spatial assimilation.

Table 7. Impact of gentrification on tract characteristics (N 2010 = 15,997, N 2000 = 15,564).

About the authors

You might also like