See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352838164

On the recursive relationship between gentrification and labour market

precarisation: Evidence from two neighbourhoods in Athens, Greece

Article in Urban Studies · July 2021

DOI: 10.1177/00420980211031775

CITATIONS READS

12 218

4 authors, including:

Kostas Gourzis Andrew Herod

University of the Aegean University of Georgia
32 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS 119 PUBLICATIONS 3,396 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ioannis Chorianopoulos
University of the Aegean
64 PUBLICATIONS 793 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kostas Gourzis on 30 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 On the recursive relationship between gentrification and labour market
precarisation: Evidence from two neighbourhoods in Athens, Greece

Gourzis Konstantinos1, Herod Andrew2, Chorianopoulos Ioannis1, and Gialis Stelios1

1
Department of Geography, University of Aegean, Greece
2
Department of Geography, University of Georgia, USA

Abstract

Gentrification and labour precarisation constitute prominent responses to urban capitalist crises. They have
typically been addressed in the literature as distinct processes. Even though they can indeed occur
independently of one another, here we argue that they are also often deeply interconnected. To do so, we
utilise a mix of fieldwork and secondary data to investigate how gentrification has both fostered labour
precarisation but also how it has been supported by it, within a context of economic recession yet growing
tourist inflows into two neighbourhoods (Koukaki and Kerameikos) in central Athens, Greece. Our findings
show that the growth of precarious labour in construction has facilitated the development of several
gentrification loci whilst, in turn, gentrification’s consolidation has encouraged the growth of poor working
conditions in local lodging, hospitality/catering, and creative activities. Ultimately, in highlighting the role
of labour precarisation in gentrification, the paper argues that these processes are more than mere parts of
an opportunistic conjuncture. Instead, their interconnectedness constitutes an integral part of the city’s
contemporary urbanisation, being a continuation of the crisis-struck, construction-driven economic models
that have historically characterised much of the Mediterranean European Union.

Keywords: Mediterranean EU, labour precarisation, touristification, displacement, short-term rentals

1
Introduction
The past few decades have seen two crucial processes affect myriad cities across the Global North and
beyond: gentrification and labour precarisation. To date, they have largely been discussed as separate
phenomena, leaving a significant void in the literature regarding how they might be mutually supportive of
one another. Given this, here we present an empirical study of the relationship between gentrification and
labour precarisation in the context of crisis-ridden Athens, Greece. Specifically, we use a mix a qualitative
and quantitative methods to show how gentrification has played an important role in spurring—and,
simultaneously, has been incited and sustained by—precarisation in two central Athenian neighbourhoods
(Koukaki and Kerameikos). Ultimately, we argue, the gradual revaluation of the urban core’s built
environment through gentrification and the simultaneous devaluation of work have not merely coincided
but, instead, have fueled each other as integral parts of Athens’s growth machine. As part of this
relationship, we consider growing tourist inflows and the resulting touristification of much of Athens’s
urban core to be functioning as a catalyst for both phenomena: on the one hand, they stimulate gentrification
whilst, on the other, they are being a central factor in the precarisation of the city’s labour force.

Athens serves as an excellent location to explore the connections between gentrification and labour
precarisation. Before the onset of the 2008/09 crisis, the city enjoyed an economic boom closely associated
with the construction fever prior to, and shortly after, the 2004 Olympic Games. Large infrastructure and
beautification projects carried out during that period opened up rent gaps and propelled gentrification
tendencies across the city’s urban fabric (Alexandri, 2018). However, the sovereign debt crisis that struck
Greece in 2009 impacted both the country’s cities and its labour markets dramatically (Hadjimichalis,
2017). Athens saw a particularly deep recession setting in as austerity policies helped increase the city’s
poverty levels to an unprecedented extent, touching one-third of its inhabitants and stalling the unravelling
of gentrification in most cases (Chorianopoulos and Tselepi, 2019). Since 2013, however, austerity
urbanism has been complemented by the booming of urban tourism. Numerous neighbourhoods in central
Athens received much of the inflow of these (mostly international) visitors, with the result that their
economic base has been extensively ‘touristified’ (Balampanidis et al., 2019). Retail, recreation, and
hospitality absorbed large chunks of the previously unemployed labourforce, but under precarious terms
(Mavroudeas, 2014). At the same time, short-term rentals, arranged via online platforms such as Airbnb,
have expanded at the expense of residential uses. This has contributed to increases in land prices and has
set the groundwork for further gentrification (Balampanidis et al., 2019).

Whilst the literature in Greece has addressed gentrification, we note two things about it. First, its volume
remains rather limited, perhaps because gentrification, in the forms it takes in North American and northern
European cities, appears incompatible with Athens’s ‘Mediterranean’ urbanisation (Maloutas, 2017).
However, recent studies have identified specific forms of gentrification that reflect the economic framework
and urbanisation patterns of Mediterranean Europe (Tulumello and Allegretti, 2021; Cocola-Gant and
Lopez-Gay, 2020). Second, what little gentrification literature there is has not been linked with labour
market precarisation, despite the evident unravelling of both phenomena in central Athens. Our paper, then,
is the first to link gentrification to labour precarisation in a systematic manner, not just for Greek cases but
beyond.

The paper is structured as follows. We begin with an observation that research on gentrification and the
growth of labour precarisation have developed largely independently and provide an overview of the
Athenian context of urbanisation. We then lay out our methodology before proceeding with our two case

2
studies. There, we point out that gentrification in Koukaki and Kerameikos can be closely associated with
poor working conditions in construction, hospitality/catering and creative activities. From these case studies
we then draw out three significant findings: first, that the growth of precarious labour in construction has
facilitated Athenian gentrification in general; second, that the informal nature of work in short-term rentals
has both helped to anchor touristification but has also been fueled by it, with this mutual reinforcement
having further galvanised gentrification; third, that gentrification-induced displacement exacerbates the
precarious state of the urban workforce. We end with a conclusion, where we briefly discuss our findings
within the context of Mediterranean European urbanisation.

Gentrification and labour precarisation as a response to urban crisis

On the paucity of links between gentrification and labour precarisation in the literature: A brief account
The term gentrification was first used in the 1960s to describe a notable influx of middle/upper-class people
into working-class neighbourhoods. At the time, it was a localised and marginal phenomenon seen only in
a few global cities, pushed by small-scale landlords and banks. After the 1973 economic crisis, however,
the phenomenon spread, as many segments of capital sought to tackle crises of accumulation by switching
from manufacturing to speculative investments in the built environment (Harvey, 2017). Gradually,
gentrification has grown into a global urban strategy mobilising large financial institutions and developers.
Indeed, the new millennium saw huge levels of speculative investment funneled into gentrification projects,
with such speculation eventually contributing to the 2008 global economic meltdown (Smith, 2011). This
meltdown, however, merely stalled gentrification in most places.

Although writing on gentrification has largely focused upon what/who drives the process, a strand in the
relevant research has sought to link housing and labour markets within gentrifying areas. Hence, Marcuse
(1989) pointed out that gentrification reflects changes in downtown areas’ productive basis, whereas Smith
(2011) described how rent levels shape the professional composition of neighbourhoods. For his part, Stein
(2015) described how the displacement of the urban precariat through gentrification reinforces the same
tendencies by allowing landlords to increase rent between tenants. Rose (1984) noted that gentrifiers
themselves work under precarious conditions, whilst Ley (2003) suggested that these groups perceive their
work ethos as a core aspect of their lifestyle and it partially shapes their choice of residence. Another part
of the literature has examined the direct impact of gentrification upon labour markets. Specifically,
positivist accounts from the US argued that, in gentrifying areas, low-paying jobs in goods-producing
sectors decrease but this decline is outweighed by increasing numbers of positions opening in restaurants
and retail services (Lester and Hartley, 2014; Meltzer and Ghorbani, 2017). Other approaches have gone
beyond total employment and attempt to decipher the quality of emerging jobs. Of these, Sassen (1997)
detailed the involvement of reserve labourforce in construction and renovation carried out in sweat-equity
gentrification whilst Curran (2007) argued, that, in displacing urban manufacturing, gentrification has
stripped the urban working class of a source of stable employment. Lastly, Authors (2019) presented a
largely theoretical argument that gentrification and labour precarisation come as mutually reinforcing
responses to crises of overaccumulation—the former as a spatial fix and the latter as an organisational fix
to waning profitability in manufacturing. Hence, gentrification often spawns worksites with poor
employment conditions in retail and hospitality (‘gentrification-fostered precarity’), whilst capitalizing on
such conditions in construction for its swift and costless materialisation (‘gentrification-supporting

3
precarity’). To our knowledge, though, the research presented here is the first to explore the relationship
between gentrification and labour precarisation in much empirical depth.

The Athenian context

Greek cities share many key urbanisation traits with their Spanish and Portuguese counterparts, exhibiting
what we might call a Mediterranean-EU archetype. Two main characteristics differentiate such cities from
the dominant northern European examples of urbanisation and socio-economic restructuring. First,
‘Mediterranean’ cities’ centres have predominantly been residential areas, as industrialisation historically
largely took place in their urban outskirts (Leontidou, 1990). Therefore, the widespread deindustrialisation
of the 1970s and 1980s left them largely unscathed (Chorianopoulos, 2010). Second, ‘Mediterranean’ cities
have developed in generally organic fashion, based upon small-scale, self-financed property development
schemes with limited public expenditure for infrastructure. In the case of Athens, much of the city’s post-
war urban housing was built via the practice of ‘antiparochi,’ in which a landowner conveys a plot of land
to a (usually) small-scale developer in exchange for a number of apartments in the new building. Pushed
by the state in the context of a virtually non-existent government housing policy, this practice reduced
building costs and addressed housing shortages. It also led to high population densities in the urban core
and a multitude of property owners of various socio-economic profiles within single apartment blocks. This
‘cohabitation’, however, does not mean there was an absence of residential segregation. Rather, ‘vertical’
forms of social differentiation prevailed, with residents sorted socio-economically by storey, with wealthier
households typically occupying the higher floors (Leontidou, 1990). Significantly, planning authorities
largely turned a blind eye towards irregularities around antiparochi, perceiving the rapid urbanisation it
fostered to be a shortcut to economic expansion (Maloutas, 2020). It is these features that have led some to
doubt whether changes in the urban fabric of Athens might be properly called gentrification or whether the
concept is too tied to the experiences of the ‘industrial city’ (Maloutas, 2017).

Despite such questions, however, the literature has identified cases of ‘gentrification’. One of the earliest
instances occurred circa 1990 in the Plaka area, located by the Acropolis Hill, which was a degraded quarter
that gentrified after hefty state investment and imposition of a tight regulatory framework for land uses and
building preservation (Alexandri, 2018).1 Subsequent cases mostly resulted from the neoliberal turn of
urban planning objectives as Athens prepared to host the Olympic Games in 2004, when, supplemented by
a fragmented urban policy framework, growth was encouraged ‘at any cost’ (Economou et al., 2007).
Athenian urban redevelopment during the years immediately prior to the economic crisis was characterised
by the combination of Olympics-related large-scale infrastructure, such as the metro network, and targeted
interventions in the historic centre (Beriatos and Gospodini, 2004). As a result, key urban core
neighbourhoods attracted investment in hotels and hospitality facilities, with segments of their population
being displaced and an increasing number of local residencies being renovated and used by more affluent
social strata (Alexandri, 2018). Redevelopment was shaped without respect to an overall plan and unraveled
spontaneously block-by-block (Leontidou, 1990). In the frame of a loose and overtly enabling policy
framework, specific areas were reshaped by the actions of a handful of developers; one such case was
Kerameikos, the redevelopment of which was essentially orchestrated by a single company (Oliaros).

1 E.g., L.567/D/1979 for historic districts, Athens’s Master Plan (L.1515/1985), and General Urban Plan (L.80/D/88).

4
The speculative aura of the Olympic Games created a bubble of property transactions, one that lasted past
2004 (Alexandri, 2018). Even though building volume remained low in comparison to other Mediterranean
EU countries, housing and other construction occupied a large share of total investments. Eventually, 2007
marked an abrupt ending of the Olympic building boom whilst the sovereign debt crisis shattered the
national and local economies shortly afterwards. Between 2009 and 2014, Athenian residential property
prices almost halved and real estate transactions sank due to an almost complete absence of demand. This
resulted in the collapsing of the construction sector, both in terms of output as well as workforce numbers,
with remaining jobs becoming highly insecure (Gourzis and Gialis, 2019). In a largely construction-driven
economy that had relied upon mega-projects and antiparochi, the collapse of this sector soon impacted
others, with manufacturing, commerce, and parts of the knowledge economy going through a similar
restructuring. Working conditions reflected the above especially after the 2012 abolition of national
collective agreements (Mavroudeas, 2014).

Amidst recession, however, tourist flows started expanding, especially after 2013, as European and other
overseas visitors saw crisis-ridden Greece as a cheap and safe holiday destination. With the country having
its manufacturing mostly dismantled under recessionary pressures, it gradually became overly dependent
upon tourism (Gourzis and Gialis, 2019). Athens received large proportions of these flows and, as an urban
tourism industry increasingly flourished, it caused the ‘touristification’ of many Athenian neighbourhoods,
meaning that their economic base took a sharp turn towards tourism-oriented retail and hospitality. Even
the housing stock was converted accordingly, as tourists were accommodated, apart from in the city’s
hotels, by an emerging short-term rentals market (STRs). Initially, most STRs were located in the historical
neighbourhoods of the central core, particularly in close vicinity to the Acropolis. Already-gentrified areas,
such as Plaka and Psirri, hosted most of this early increase, as their amenities were more appealing to
international visitors. After the government’s 2015 rescinding of the requirement that STR operators have
a license from the Greek National Tourism Organisation, however, the market exploded, and a multitude
of renovated residencies started being uploaded in large numbers to online platforms like Airbnb. As a
result, the market has saturated in many central areas and STRs have gradually expanded outwards into
poorer neighbourhoods, with even low-income households choosing to rent space in their homes as an
additional source of money. At the same time, global capital has been actively engaged through a lucrative
Golden Visa residence-by-investment program designed to attract foreign investment (Balampanidis et al.,
2019). This process has rejuvenated gentrification in numerous neighbourhoods across Athens’s inner core,
even in cases where such tendencies remained latent during the years of deep recession (approximately
2009-13). This, though, has not been the case only in areas where gentrification has already consolidated,
since other parts of the city centre have also started seeing their previous population leaving because of rent
jumps and being replaced by a blend of temporary visitors and more affluent permanent residents
(Balampanidis et al., 2019).

Research operationalisation
Definitional issues
Before proceeding into our empirics, some definitional clarity is required. As a way to avoid the pitfall of
perceiving every urban regeneration project to be a case of gentrification (Maloutas, 2017), we argue that
gentrification involves four specific processes, these being: 1) land uses are brought to their ‘highest and
best’ function in terms of income generation; 2) there is a channeling of capital, either public or private,

5
into the built environment so as to upgrade it; 3) rent increments and land-use conversions lead to a
displacement of the extant resident population and its gradual replacement by more affluent residents and
visitors; and 4) there is a notable change in the character of affected neighbourhoods. In contrast, although
touristification also entails land uses being converted to a more profitable function, conversions do not end
up as residences for higher social strata but, instead, as lodging and tourism-orientated recreation.
Moreover, the end-user is different—the tourist instead of the gentry. This means that, instead of class
replacement, touristification typically causes depopulation (Sequera and Nofre, 2020). However, the
literature has unveiled cases where the two processes coexist, especially when place-dependent populations
get displaced by a blend of transnational transient gentrifiers—students, remote workers, expats—and
tourists (Cocola-Gant and Lopez-Gay, 2020).

Similarly, whilst flexibility and precarity are often used interchangeably in the literature, we view the
former as referring to malleability in things like contract duration, working hours, workdays per month, and
place of work, whereas the latter refers to a work-related insecurity either at present (e.g., due to low
income) or in the future (e.g., lack of retirement plans). Consequently, flexibility and precarity can be
concurrent for an individual but are not necessarily so. Nevertheless, in the Greek context, flexibility and
precarity are often two sides of the same coin—flexible labour is commonly associated with low wages
(often less than €500 monthly) and limited social security, with more than 60% of part-time and temporary
work performed by workers involuntarily (Gourzis and Gialis, 2019).

Methodology
Our analysis uses a mixed-methods approach to examine the relationship between gentrification and labour
precarity in the two neighbourhoods we studied (Koukaki and Kerameikos), relying mainly upon primary
data obtained through fieldwork and secondary data gathered for each neighbourhood from
insideairbnb.com2 (position, type, and prices of STRs), ReMax Hellas3 (rent levels), and the application
‘Panorama of Greek Census Data’4 (census data). Fieldwork was conducted between June 2018 and October
2019. We started with mapping all land uses in both research areas. Then, we administered 126 structured
questionnaires to three groups—residents, employees, and business owners—with a minimum of 20
respondents per group in each research area. Respondents were chosen on the basis of being familiar with
living, working, and economic conditions in the research areas. Questionnaires comprised open- and closed-
ended questions, partially adjusted for the particularities of each group,5 and processed through thematic
content analysis of open-ended questions and statistical analysis of closed-ended ones. We then conducted
17 one-hour-long semi-structured interviews with key informants (labelled KI-1 to KI-17 in what follows)
to probe into aspects of questionnaire findings. Informants were chosen for having lived experiences in the
research areas and expertise on the city’s real estate, STR, and labour markets.6 We conducted narrative

2 Web scraping and analysis of Airbnb data: http://insideairbnb.com/get-the-data.html

3 Retrieved from surveys conducted by the Greek branch of the international real estate agency ReMax.
4 A joint project by the National Research for Social Research and the Greek Statistical Authority.
5 Questions posed to all groups were: age, area of residence, income, view on neighbourhood threats/opportunities and changes (in public space,

architecture, rents, displacement, overall character), P2P impact. To residents: settling motives, displacement pressures, tenure status. To
employees: place and type of current and previous jobs, job satisfaction, contract type and duration. To business owners: size and type of staff,
clientele, entrepreneurial satisfaction, relocation thoughts/pressures.
6 Key informant (KI) number and capacity: 1. Current resident, Koukaki; 2. Former resident, Koukaki; 3. Current resident, Kerameikos; 4. Current

resident, Kerameikos; 5. Former resident, Kerameikos; 6. Former bar worker, Koukaki; 7. Supermarket worker; 8. Owner of STR management
company; 9. Entrepreneur in STR market, former resident (Koukaki & Kerameikos), and former bar worker (Koukaki); 10. Researcher on STRs in
Athens; 11. Real estate broker; 12. Notary public; 13. Head of Athens’s Shops and Offices Workers’ Association; 14. Head of Panhellenic

6
analysis on interview transcripts. All participants were told about the purpose of the research and consented
willingly to participate. Questionnaires and interviews K1-K12 were anonymous.

Research areas
The central Athenian neighbourhoods of Koukaki and Kerameikos served as research areas. As such, they
were delimited following the Airbnb platform’s definition of their boundaries, as shown in Map 1.7 Both
have experienced significant touristification recently (Balampanidis et al., 2019), although each followed
distinct trajectories of urban change. Therefore, the two areas separately provide particular insights into
Athenian urbanisation whilst, combined, they cover a substantial part of Athens’s urban core, thereby
offering a comprehensive view of its transitions.

In terms of their characteristics, Koukaki (Map 1a) has a longstanding history as a socially-mixed residential
neighbourhood. The area found itself at the epicentre of the STR explosion after 2014, mainly thanks to its
key location (right under the Acropolis Hill) and enhanced accessibility (having two metro stations and one
tram stop, with an adjacent freeway connecting the area to Piraeus port and the southern suburbs). Although
its northern part has traditionally been very touristy and more expensive, recent developments have put
pressure upon rent levels and reorientated much of the economic base towards tourism across the whole
neighbourhood (Stergiou and Farmaki, 2020). Kerameikos (Map 1b), on the other hand, is a former
working-class neighbourhood which underwent successive rounds of gentrification beginning in the mid-
1990s, when incoming higher-income urban dwellers renovated many of the area’s neoclassical buildings
and artists opened up theatres and galleries (Avdikos, 2015). During the following decade, developers
bought up many of the area’s numerous vacant buildings and initiated a rebranding campaign through
artistic events around Avdi Square (Alexandri, 2018). At the same time, the area facing Gazi turned into a
place of mass recreation, following the conversion of an old factory into a space for events. Overall,
Kerameikos constitutes a longstanding and characteristic case of Athenian gentrification and today hosts
some of the priciest STRs in the city.8

Gentrification and labour market precarisation in two Athens neighbourhoods

In what follows, we scrutinise each neighbourhood’s gentrification and touristification tendencies,
following the parameters set out above, highlighting how these processes and labour precarisation have
buttressed one another. Map 1 shows active STRs9 and the gentrified loci within each neighbourhood whilst
Table 1 summarises key questionnaire findings.

Federation of Workers in Catering and Tourism; 15. Head of Attica’s Union in Catering, Tourism and Hotels; 16. Head of Athens’s Builders
Union; 17. Head of Attica’s Association of Cleaners.
7 In this typology, Kerameikos includes several blocks in the Gazi area.
8 http://insideairbnb.com/athens/
9 Those with a last review not before February 2019. Shown through density clouds.

7
Map 1: The study area of (a) Koukaki, and (b) Kerameikos
(a)

(b)

Source: fieldwork, www.insideairbnb.com

8
Table 1: (a) View of all groups on neighbourhood changes, and (b) key findings from employees’ questionnaires
(a) (b)
Koukaki Kerameikos Koukaki Kerameikos
Sample size (all groups) 64 62 Sample size (employees' group) 20 21
Q1: Have you seen significant improvements in public spaces? Q1*: Is your employment status atypical and/or your contract breached?
Atypical employment
Yes 12 18 13 11
(not full-time & permanent)
No 52 43 Contract breaching 12 3
N/A 0 1 Q2*: If looking for another job, why?
Q2: Have you seen significant upgrading in the building stock? More hours/full-time 8 3
Yes 28 29 Other sector/type of job 9 2
No 36 33 Something closer to my studies 3 1
N/A 0 0 Q3: Are you satisfied with your job and conditions?
Q3: Are you aware of significant rent increments? Satisfied 4 11
Yes 61 48 Indifferent 11 9
No 2 8 Dissatisfied 5 1
N/A 1 6 Q4*: Job-wise, do you perceive P2P accommodation as:
Q4: Are you aware of significant displacement of residents? Opportunity 7 10
Yes 46 25 Threat 11 9
No 14 22 No impact 3 6
N/A 4 15 N/A 1 3
Q5: Have you noticed a significant shift in neighbourhood's character? Q5*: Where do you live?
Yes 43 36 In the neighbourhood or close by 13 13
No 18 22 Far from my work 5 8
N/A 3 4 N/A 2 0
Q6*: For the area, do you perceive P2P accommodation as: Q6*: Your previous job, was:
Opportunity 32 32 Close to where I live/lived 10 8
Threat 43 32 Far from where I live/lived 6 10
No impact 5 9 N/A 4 3
N/A 2 8

*Total responses may differ from number of respondents as multiple answers were allowed.
Source: Fieldwork

Koukaki
Fieldwork indicated that the area’s transformation accelerated around 2014. Specialty food and drink
businesses opened in spaces previously used by car garages and workshops, as a result of planning
restrictions aimed at upgrading the area (KI-11/Realtor). Some of the new establishments, like the Bel Rey
bar and Avli restaurant, acted as urban pioneers, generating a ‘hipster boom’ (KI-6/Worker) and ‘pushing
[the area] to become what it is today’ (KI-8/STR entrepreneur). Settling mostly along the neighbourhood’s
pedestrianised streets (Stergiou and Farmaki, 2020), these and other establishments eventually helped
transform the latter into vibrant recreational zones (Map 1a). The municipality responded by beautifying a
few squares and removing prostitutes from nearby spots. However, these were limited actions and almost
all questionnaire respondents denounced the municipal authorities’ longstanding lack of interest in the area.
Whilst, then, most respondents noted there had been negligible enhancements in public spaces (Table 1a,
Q1), many did observe substantial architectural improvements (Table 1a, Q2), carried out especially after
2014 (KI-1/Local). We ourselves mapped numerous recently-opened boutique hotels, small gourmet delis,
breakfast-orientated bakeries, specialty-coffee places, and avant-garde bars operating in newly renovated
buildings. Additionally, many respondents also noting the influx of affluent dwellers and artists, the
renovated residences and workshops of which we identified during our fieldwork. Specifically, artists, set

9
up their workshops mainly around the National Museum of Contemporary Art that opened in 2016 (KI-
8/STR entrepreneur).

Tourist flows into central Athens generally, and Koukaki in particular, were observed to increase after 2009,
crucially boosted by the New Acropolis Museum that opened that year (Stergiou and Farmaki, 2020). Many
respondents suggested that tourists could not be accommodated by local hotels and had to stay elsewhere.
An emerging local STR market from 2013 onwards covered part of this demand, although it was really only
with the 2015 abolition of the requirement that STR operators be licensed10 that there was a rush to convert
spaces into such listings. Whilst this legal change applied nationwide, it ‘brought havoc’ to Koukaki in
particular (KI-8/STR entrepreneur), and a 2016 article on Airbnb.com listed the area amongst the most
dynamic STR markets globally.11 Listings’ numbers kept growing, so that whereas in July 2015 there were
115 Airbnb listings in Koukaki, by May 2019 there were some 850. With almost 1,000 listings/km2 (0.54
per housing unit), Koukaki became the densest STR market in Athens, surpassing even the traditionally
touristy adjacent Plaka (Gourzis, Alexandridis, Gialis and Caridakis, 2019). The market in Koukaki is now
considered to be saturated, as, especially closer to the Acropolis ‘everything will be surely taken’ (KI-
9/STR entrepreneur; see Map 1a). As a result, land values have inflated sharply, with rents jumping by
more than 75% between 2014 and 2020, from €4/m2 to €7/m2 (ReMax, 2020). Most respondents noted these
rises (Table 1a, Q3). In this context, all renters were affected, but especially students at nearby universities
and immigrants living in the southern part of the neighbourhood, with both groups eventually leaving en
masse (KI-2/Local, KI-8 and 9/STR entrepreneurs). Most respondents were aware of this displacement
(Table 1a, Q4) and directly associated it to STRs, which they widely perceived as a threat (Table 1a, Q6).
Combining all of the above, most respondents remarked that Koukaki’s character has profoundly changed
(Table 1a, Q5).

In summary, we found that gentrification is evident in various parts of Koukaki. It appears to be largely
stemming from touristification trends after 2014-15, although the northern part of the neighbourhood had
already been overly touristy and expensive before that. One important catalyst for Koukaki’s gentrification
was a series of pedestrianisation projects carried out in the early 2000s, as the ‘hipster boom’ that occurred
almost simultaneously to the explosion of STRs largely took place around these streets. Having identified
the district’s gentrified areas, we then examined instances of labour precarisation.

Significantly, multiple employees noted in their questionnaires work intensification as a result of

gentrification/touristification, remarking that it was common for business owners to expand responsibilities
for existing staff rather than to hire more (KI-14/Union Head). For instance, employees in up-market food-
and-drink establishments described growing pressure coming from owners after foot traffic increased:
‘when starting in 2014, we could just leave an order on the table, but soon we had to do it in a specific way,
to be perfect’ (KI-6/Worker). Similarly, at the numerous supermarkets that turned to 24/7 ‘shop-and-go’
operations to better serve the increasing tourist numbers (KI-13/Union Head), workers soon had rotating
schedules, late-night shifts, and fewer days off without any pay raises (KI-7/Worker).

Beyond work intensification, the pressure exerted upon businesses by gentrification/touristification has
impacted many employees. For one thing, multiple owners noted that they had lost their clientele—longtime
residents—to displacement, with those unable to cater to tourists facing difficulties. Most owners also
remarked that skyrocketing commercial rents were forcing businesses to close or relocate, whilst those

10 Law 4336/2015
11https://news.airbnb.com/be-the-first-to-uncover-the-next-local-gem-visit-the-top-16-trending-neighborhoods-on-airbnb-in-2016/.

10
remaining operated on slim profit margins. Additionally, increasing numbers of similar ventures opening
next to one another has increased competition significantly. All of the above have resulted in businesses
constantly recycling, a phenomenon noted by multiple respondents. Amid this environment, working
conditions have deteriorated, as, for one, ‘the closer a business gets to closure, the worse it gets for its staff’
(KI-15/Union Head). However, such opportunistic practices are adopted even by profitable businesses,
which take advantage of this management ethos’s growing normalcy in the area (KI-6/Worker). Most
employees reported that they do not have a typical employment status—some work without a contract,
whilst for those who do have one, it is breached regularly, mainly in the form of unpaid overtime (Table
1b, Q1). As a result, job satisfaction levels were found to be low (Table 1b, Q3) and many workers were in
search of another job outside hospitality and with more regular schedules (Table 1b, Q2). Consequently,
even though STRs are still perceived as generating jobs, most employees consider them a threat to their
working conditions (Table 1b, Q4).

Kerameikos
Residents and key informants indicated that gentrification in Kerameikos was initially spawned by several
recreational and cultural developments already underway in the early 2000s (KI-3-5/Locals). The relocation
of several theatres from the adjacent area of Psirri, the arrival of several avant-garde bars like Anthropos or
Astari, as well as the opening of the private, multi-use space BIOS (comprising a rooftop bar, restaurant,
basement club, and art-house cinema), attracted a certain crowd of ‘alternative’ and artistic urbanites (KI-
3/Local; Avdikos, 2015). Crucial was the activity of the state, which converted two old factories into
cultural spaces: the municipal exhibition space Technopolis and the Municipal Art Gallery (Map 1b).
Moreover, a gastronomic scene emerged around the Funky Gourmet restaurant, which opened in 2009 (KI-
5/Local). Over time, the neighbourhood developed two sides, each with a different feel: ‘mass recreation
took over blocks next to Gazi [whilst] spaces promoting the good side of culture [emerged] towards
Metaxourgeio’ (KI-5/Local). Despite the area’s transformation, still, most respondents noted that its public
spaces are despoiled (Table 1a, Q1). Instead, they viewed architectural upgrades as far more significant
(Table 1a, Q2), pointing to the renovations of old neoclassical or industrial buildings and the erection of
luxury apartment complexes (KI-3 & 4/Locals).

Kerameikos’s shift towards tourism had already become visible by 2013, even before Koukaki, largely
because the area’s already-gentrified landscapes have appealed to visitors (KI-3/Local). Although 2011-13
saw a hiatus in gentrification tendencies and real estate activity virtually halted, afterwards renovations to
harness urban tourism were carried out with vigour (KI-11/Realtor). However, whilst STR listings exploded
after 2015 (from 60 in 2015 to 250 in 2019), they never reached the numbers of Koukaki (compare listing
densities in Maps 1a and 1b). Nevertheless, Kerameikos’s STR market has gradually become one of
Athens’s priciest12, with key informants attributing this to the area’s renovated historical architecture and
clubbing scene (KI-8 & 9/STR entrepreneurs). The above led to steep rent hikes after 2018 (ReMax, 2020).
The majority of respondents noted this rent inflation (Table 1a, Q3), although answers were mixed
regarding population displacement (Table 1a, Q4). Nevertheless, key informants agreed that local Roma
and Greek Muslims had already begun to be displaced during the 2000s (KI-3 & 5/Locals), whilst census
data also confirm the gradual replacement of working-class dwellers, such as craftsmen/labourers, by
managers and freelancers between 2001 and 2011 (EKKE-ELSTAT, 2020). Moreover, first-wave

12 Data on numbers and prices of listings from http://insideairbnb.com/athens/

11
gentrifiers admitted, that, during later phases of Kerameikos’s gentrification (after 2013), they themselves
felt displacement pressures due to an inflow of people able to afford much pricier houses than them (KI-3
& 5/Locals). Interestingly, many of these newcomers are expats or remote workers from Global North
countries, who see Kerameikos as a vibrant habitus (KI-3 & 4/Locals). Not unexpectedly, most respondents
stated that the neighbourhood’s character has substantially changed (Table 1a, Q5). Unlike Koukaki,
however, views regarding STRs were more balanced, with a key informant noting they generate ‘interesting
interactions with visitors from abroad’ (KI-3/Local), and half of questionnaires’ respondents seeing them
as an opportunity rather than a threat.

Overall findings suggest that Kerameikos has exhibited various forms of gentrification over the past almost
25 years, even as renovated blocks stand next to ‘dilapidated buildings, prostitution, and drug use’ (KI-
3/Local). Whilst wholesale warehouses—mostly operated by Chinese migrants—are still to be found in
rundown parts, Kerameikos’s economic base has shifted towards boutique hotels, organic/specialty grocery
stores, STRs, and diverse recreation outlets, including large clubs, sophisticated and mainstream bars,
gourmet restaurants, and ‘neokafeneia’—novel, Greek-style cafés/taverns. This has resulted in the western
part of the neighbourhood being mostly orientated towards mass entertainment whilst the eastern favours a
more avant-garde clientele (KI-3/Local).

Within Kerameikos’s zones of intense economic activity, business owners indicated a slower recycling of
ventures compared to Koukaki, especially in the eastern part. However, employees revealed multiple
aspects of labour precarisation related to Kerameikos’s status as a gentrified area. In numerous local
businesses like restaurants and neokafeneia—which are drawn by, but also reinforce, gentrification and
touristification tendencies—our fieldwork documented poor labour conditions. As in Koukaki,
precarisation does not stem solely from employers reducing labour costs so as to avoid being outcompeted,
but also seems to reflect a spillover of management practices from neighbouring businesses and within
areas and sectors (KI-6/Worker). For instance, in gourmet restaurants, we found that workers are divided
into a core (mostly chefs, assistants, and first waiters) and a pool of disposable workers, who are responsible
for cleaning and washing under poor employment conditions (echoing Zukin, 2008). However, even core
employees denounced irregular schedules, low pay, and meagre provisions, and it is indicative that many
young chefs accept to work under unpaid internships, ‘just so as they can put it on their résumé’ (KI-
15/Union Head).

Employees hinted at further links between the gentrification of Kerameikos and wage reductions, as
businesses tend to capitalise on tipping by rich customers who visit the area precisely for its gentrification-
related amenities. Also, despite the generation of jobs and the higher economic status of tourists in
Kerameikos, half of employees still perceived STRs as a threat (Table 1b, Q4). Similarly, many small-
business owners feared being squeezed out by higher commercial rents and losing their clientele—often
comprising first-wave gentrifiers—to displacement. As a result, employees in small, avant-garde cafés were
more likely to suffer shrinking wages, flexibilised employment, and contract breaching (Table 1b, Q1).
However, fieldwork found most of them ruling out searching for another job (Table 1b, Q2), as many
already have one as actors or musicians at the numerous local theatres and live music clubs. Taking up a
side gig as staff at a café or a restaurant has constituted a necessity for most of them after the casualisation
of work in the arts sector at the onset of the 2009 crisis (Avdikos, 2015). In seeing themselves primarily as
artists, however, they have tended to let the poor working conditions they experience as waiting staff ‘slide’.
Hence, we suggest, artists’ (and other marginal gentrifiers’) cheap ‘dual’ labour has not only helped rebrand
Kerameikos as a ‘jazz neighbourhood’, as noted by multiple residents’ questionnaires and key informants

12
(KI-3 & 5/Locals), but has also allowed for the mushrooming of small businesses that would otherwise be
facing profound problems, even with minimum labour costs.

Linking gentrification and labour precarisation as solutions to urban capitalist crisis

Having detailed some of the urban and labour transitions specific to Koukaki and Kerameikos, here we
want to draw back a little from the specificities of each neighbourhood to consider what our findings mean
for linking gentrification with labour precarisation in the wider context of Athens. In addition to the above,
then, our research revealed three important general relationships between these two processes.
First, construction and renovation work carried out for refurbished residences, housing-turned-STRs, and
recreation/hospitality businesses (such as tiling, painting, roofing, glasswork, and plumbing) have relied
heavily upon precarious labour arrangements (KI-8/STR entrepreneur, KI-10/Researcher, KI-16/Union
Head; also see Balampanidis et al., 2019). This situation was not initiated by the crisis, as such arrangements
pre-existed it despite the sector’s robustness—however, it worsened considerably after 2007/08 (KI-
16/Union Head). Non-existent contracts, half-insured work, unpaid overtime, and unrestricted hiring/firing
are now the norm, especially in interior renovation work, which, because it is generally less noticeable from
the street, usually means fewer labour inspections (KI-16/Union Head). Lowering labour costs has helped
reduce overall building costs, thereby encouraging Airbnb hosts and other entrepreneurs (KI-
10/Researcher), as well as many homeowners to improve their properties (as stated in residents’
questionnaires, especially in Kerameikos).

Second, STR operations themselves are quite dependent upon precarious labour. For one thing, tasks like
check-ins/outs, cleaning, or guests’ transportation are often informally carried out by hosts’ family members
or acquaintances, who get paid cash-in-hand and are required to be on standby 24/7 (KI-8 & 9/STR
entrepreneurs; also, see Baber, 2019). Such practices are adopted not only by small-scale owners, who find
it unprofitable to hire staff formally and often overwork themselves, but also by companies
managing/owning multiple listings (KI-8/STR entrepreneur, KI-10/Researcher; also, see Kerzhner, 2019).
Even when cleaning and transportation are formally subcontracted, contractors adopt rotating schedules
and 7-day workweeks and breach contracts regularly (KI-15 & 17/Union Heads). Office workers in STR-
management companies are affected, too, as one key informant commented that labour conditions
substantially worsened when transnational companies ‘realised how the game is played in Greece’ (KI-
10/Researcher). Overall, squeezing labour costs has facilitated STR operations, whilst the growth of listings
has spread these conditions to a wider segment of the labourforce. Indirectly, the STR market has also
affected labour conditions in hoteling. Even though the sector has profited significantly from booming
urban tourism, competition with STRs has been used as an excuse for cuts in labour costs, and nowadays,
most hotels in Athens resort to subcontractors for cleaning and kitchen staff (KI-15 & 17/Union Heads).

Third, it must be noted that, ultimately, residential displacement induced by gentrification and
touristification has exacerbated the overall precariousness of a labourforce which traditionally lived close
to its place of work (Maloutas, 2020). During our fieldwork, many employees (Table 1b, Q5 and Q6) and
residents replied they work close to home, although with rents rising it has become harder to continue to do
so. Those displaced are therefore often forced to commute longer distances, increasing their expenses and
leaving them with less personal time, whilst those ‘unable to adapt…have lost their job’ (KI-7/Worker).

13
What the observations laid out here and in the analysis above suggest, then, is that, at least in Koukaki and
Kerameikos, gentrification has increasingly been supported by precarious labour but also that gentrification
has fostered labour precarity. This means that gentrification and labour precarisation are not just parallel
processes but, rather, enjoy a reciprocal relationship in this part of Athens. These findings have resonance
for linking two sets of literature—on gentrification and on labour precarisation—that have largely gone
unconnected to date. At the same time, though, rather than claiming a universalism for our argument about
gentrification’s and precarisation’s mutual constitution, it is important to place our findings within the
context of Greece’s position on the semi-periphery of European capitalism. In particular, as recounted
above, the economy of Athens is one that largely lacks heavy industry but which in recent years has seen
capital increasingly invested speculatively into the built environment, fueling a real estate boom that was
exacerbated by preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games (Gourzis and Gialis, 2019). Several parts of
Athens’s core were redesigned during that period through beautification schemes, pedestrianisations, and
infrastructure projects like transit stations (Beriatos and Gospodini, 2004). This led to gentrification
tendencies, which, albeit initially fragmented (Maloutas, 2017), kept expanding across blocks. Besides
Koukaki and Kerameikos, many other neighbourhoods (e.g., Psirri, Gazi, and Metaxourgeio) exhibited
similar propensities at that time (Alexandri, 2018).

When the real estate bubble burst in 2008, however, investment patterns altered profoundly. Construction,
traditionally a mainstay of the domestic economy, saw most projects halted, its workforce halved, and
remaining workers largely flexibilised (Gourzis and Gialis, 2019). The collapse in labour’s position was
confirmed a few years later with the 2012 abolition of the national collective agreement as part of the
government’s response to international creditors, who perceived labour market rigidity as causing the
nation’s economic woes (Mavroudeas, 2014). Daily wages in construction fell from €52 to €19 almost
overnight (KI-16/Union Head). Similar developments were also felt in retail, hospitality and catering, with
monthly wages falling from €800 to €550 gross, whilst part-time positions multiplied, paying salaries as
low as €380 (KI-13 & 15/Union Head).

From 2013 onwards, however, Athens started experiencing an urban tourism ‘renaissance’ (Gourzis,
Alexandridis, Gialis S and Caridakis, 2019). In response, small-scale construction projects carried out by
local unemployed/underemployed people—echoing Sassen (1997)—started to upgrade and enhance the
city’s aged stock to host tourist-orientated businesses. Demand for such work soared after 2016, as the
dynamic entrance of transnational capital boosted the Greek STR market (KI-12/Notary). However, poor
labour conditions persisted—one key informant estimated that almost all workers in STR-related
renovations had no contract (KI-8/STR entrepreneur). Similar conditions applied in the renovation of cafés,
bars, clubs, and restaurants (KI-16/Union Head). Within a few years, numerous zones of intense
recreational activity and high STR concentration consolidated across Athens’s core (Balampanidis et al.,
2019). As suggested by key informants, precarity in construction played a central role in such swiftness
(KI-10/Researcher, KI-16/Union Head).

Our research confirmed that gentrified areas have attracted high levels of tourists, with touristification
initially blooming around significant cultural landmarks like the Acropolis (Balampanidis et al., 2019; for
similar tendencies in Barcelona, see Cocola-Gant and Lopez-Gay, 2020). The already-gentrified Plaka was
one of the first areas where land uses shifted almost entirely towards tourism, exerting pressure upon some
nearby blocks in the northern part of Koukaki too (Gourzis, Alexandridis, Gialis and Caridakis, 2019).
However, touristification took over less-gentrified neighbourhoods as well, as in the case of the rest of
Koukaki, which saw rents jump 75% between 2014 and 2020 (ReMax, 2020). There, despite little to no

14
prior gentrification tendencies, apartments were still being converted en masse into STRs (KI-1 &
2/Locals). Similarly, in Exarcheia, an area that cannot be described as being as heavily gentrified, the
extensive expansion of STRs still contributed to a 35% surge in rents between 2017 and 2018 (ReMax,
2020). Collectively, these rent hikes resulted in the displacement of many residents across central Athens
(Alexandri and Janoschka, 2020). Importantly, it was not only tourists who replaced local residents but also
other, richer Athenians and expats from various EU countries. The inflow of migrants from developed
countries has not been the case solely in our research areas (KI-1-5/Locals), but in other parts of Athens too
(Lilius and Balampanidis, 2020; Alexandri and Janoschka, 2020).

Thus, touristification appears to have not only reinforced ongoing gentrification processes, as in the case of
Kerameikos, but it has also spawned such tendencies, even when they were latent or fragmented, as in the
case of Koukaki. As a result of such gentrification, many older businesses lost segments of their traditional
clientele and respondents noted that deregulated labour was utilised extensively in tackling falling demand.
At the same time, casualised labour allowed ‘many new businesses to settle in areas like Koukaki…where
otherwise they would not have opened’ (KI-15/Union Head). Whilst sustaining micro-entrepreneurship,
these precarisation practices seemingly became a generalised tactic within local gentrification-centred
economies, beyond being just a way to cope with competition, rising rents, and falling demand (KI-13 &
15/Union Head). This is particularly evident in the operation of STRs, where deregulated labour was utilised
as much by casual hosts working with a single listing, often as a means to retain their position within a
tightening housing market, as by professional hosts who might be managing multiple listings (KI-8 &
9/STR entrepreneurs, KI-10/Researcher). It is noticeable, that, despite ‘multi-listings’ dominating Athens’s
market, indicating the activity of professional hosts (in Koukaki and Kerameikos shares are 60% and 70%
respectively13), informal labour is the norm (Balampanidis et al., 2019). Thus, as two local trade union
leaders have put it, in a context where ‘the whole centre is becoming a tourist resort’ (KI-13/Union Head),
labour precarity appears to be penetrating ‘all of central Athens’ (KI-14/Union Head).

Conclusions
Our fieldwork identified four key and interrelated aspects of recent transformations in the nature of Koukaki
and Kerameikos. First, deteriorating labour conditions in construction have facilitated the work needed for
gentrification. Second, the worsening of conditions in retail and hospitality has been partially due to
increased operating costs and competition driven by gentrification. Third, STR conversions, which are
closely associated with gentrification and touristification, have spurred precarious/atypical labour
arrangements, regardless of individual businesses’ performances. Finally, displacement pressures have
increased the precarity of a labourforce that has traditionally lived close to its place of work. In sum, the
availability of precarious labour has facilitated gentrification, which, in turn, has fostered precarity. Within
this context, touristification has worked as a catalyst for both, reinforcing or activating gentrification
processes and causing a spillover of informal/precarious practices.

Although Athenian gentrification has largely been driven by private capital, it is important to recognise that
it has also been actively promoted by state agents so as to initiate redevelopment in central Athens. The
state has intervened either directly, through zoning regulation and crucial cultural investments, or indirectly,
through laissez-faire policies in construction and the STR market (Alexandri, 2018). In this context, post-

13 http://insideairbnb.com/athens/#

15
recession touristification, anchored through the engagement of transnational capital, has fostered new and
more intense forms of gentrification. The intensity of these recent waves of gentrification is such, that, it
threatens to upend the longstanding social structure of vertical differentiation manifested inside the multi-
storey apartment blocks, and triggers multifaceted displacement pressures across the whole Athens’s core
(Pettas et al., 2021).

Our findings raise three matters of wider conceptual significance. First, despite differences in character and
timing in the transitions experienced in the neighbourhoods being ‘upgraded’, we argue that redevelopment
has come hand-in-hand with precarious labour growth, not as an opportunistic conjuncture but as an integral
part of Athens’s idiosyncratic type of gentrification. Although there were hints of this co-constitution before
the crisis’s onset, it has become especially noticeable in the post-2008 period. There has been, in other
words, a historical evolution in the gentrification-precarisation relationship, which has important
implications for how we theorise it, both in the Athenian context but also in many other cities undergoing
similar transformations.

Second, the struggle of insecure working-class segments—including marginal gentrifiers—to retain their
vital space in the urban core, all whilst serving wealthy consumers of gentrification, whether more affluent
residents or sojourners, has profound implications for class politics in Athens (echoing Rose, 1984). This
is especially so under the current conjuncture, where the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the terms
under which real estate and labour markets are articulated (Alexandri and Janoschka, 2020). Again,
working-class people face similar issues in many other cities beyond Athens that are experiencing
touristification and what it brings.

Third, Athens’s hyper-tertiarisation and heavy dependence upon urban tourism constitutes a continuation
of a longstanding construction-driven growth model. Similar trajectories are evident in other Mediterranean
cities, where the succession of crisis, austerity, and mild recovery, triggered by the EU’s bailout terms and
in conjunction with an anaemic industrialisation and overt focus upon services, are generating a distinct
form of urbanisation (Tulumello and Allegretti, 2021). In this paradigm, ‘foreigners-only’ enclaves for
tourists and workers from Global North countries have consolidated at the centre of cities like Barcelona,
Lisbon, Madrid, Seville (see Cocola-Gant and Lopez-Gay, 2020; Sequera and Nofre, 2020), and lately
Athens (Lilius and Balampanidis, 2020). ‘Digital nomadism’, which, as a practice, has surged during the
current COVID-19 pandemic, has furthered the formation of such enclaves (Alexandri and Janoschka,
2020). The interplay of labour precarisation and transnational gentrification in the Mediterranean city, then,
calls for further analysis.

16
References list
Alexandri G (2018) Planning gentrification and the ‘absent’ state in Athens. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 42(1): 36-50.
Alexandri G and Janoschka M (2020) ‘Post-pandemic’ transnational gentrifications: A critical outlook.
Urban Studies 57(15): 3202-3214.
Avdikos V (2015) Processes of creation and commodification of local collective symbolic capital: A tale
of gentrification from Athens. City, Culture and Society 6(4): 117-123.
Baber A (2019) The ‘sharing economy’? Precarious labor in neoliberal cities. Planning Theory & Practice
20(3): 435-438.
Balampanidis D, Maloutas T, Papatzani E, and Pettas D (2019) Informal urban regeneration as a way out
of the crisis? Airbnb in Athens and its effects on space and society. Urban Research & Practice 1-20. DOI:
10.1080/17535069.2019.1600009.
Beriatos E and Gospodini A (2004) ‘Glocalising’ urban landscapes: Athens and the 2004 Olympics. Cities
21(3): 187-202.
Chorianopoulos I (2010) Uneven development and neo-corporatism in the Greek urban realm. Análise
Social XLV(197): 739-756.
Chorianopoulos I and Tselepi N (2019) Austerity urbanism: Rescaling and collaborative governance
policies in Athens. European Urban and Regional Studies 26(1): 80–96.
Cocola-Gant A and Lopez-Gay A (2020) Transnational gentrification, tourism and the formation of ‘foreign
only’ enclaves in Barcelona. Urban Studies 57(15): 3025–3043.
Curran W (2007) ‘From the frying pan to the oven’: Gentrification and the experience of industrial
displacement in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Urban Studies 44(8):1427–1440.
Economou D, Petrakos G and Psycharis Y (2007) National urban policy in Greece. In: van der Berg L,
Braun E and van der Meer J (eds) National Policy Responses to Urban Challenges in Europe. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate, pp. 193-217.
EKKE-ELSTAT (2020) Panorama of Greek census data 1991–2011. Available at
https://panorama.statistics.gr/en/ (accessed January 2020).
Gourzis K and Gialis S (2019) Dismantled spatial fixes in the aftermath of recession: Capital switching and
labor underutilisation in the Greek Capital Metropolitan Region. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 43(4): 741-759.
Gourzis K, Alexandridis G, Gialis S and Caridakis G (2019) Studying the spatialities of short-term rentals’
sprawl in the urban fabric: The case of Airbnb in Athens, Greece. In IFIP International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations. Cham: Springer, pp. 196-207.
Hadjimichalis C (2017) Crisis Spaces: Structures, Struggles and Solidarity in Southern Europe. London:
Routledge.
Harvey D (2017) Marx, Capital, and the Madness of Economic Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kerzhner T (2019) Labour, gender and making rent with Airbnb. Planning Theory & Practice 20(3): 428-
431.
Leontidou L (1990) The Mediterranean City in Transition: Social Change and Urban Development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17
 Lester T and Hartley D (2014) The long term employment impacts of gentrification in the 1990s. Regional
Science and Urban Economics 45(March): 80-89.
Ley D (2003) Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification. Urban Studies 40(12): 2527-2544.
Lilius J and Balampanidis D (2020) Live Like a Lifelong Tourist? The Contradicting Realities of Finnish
Offshore Service Workers in Athens. Urban Planning 5(3): 177-188.
Maloutas T (2017) Travelling concepts and universal particularisms: A reappraisal of gentrification’s global
reach. European Urban and Regional Studies 25(3): 250-265.
Maloutas T (2020) Vertical social differentiation as segregation in spatial proximity. In: S Musterd (ed)
Handbook of Urban Segregation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 325-345.
Marcuse P (1989) Gentrification, homelessness, and the work process: Housing markets and labor markets
in the quartered city. Housing Studies 4(3): 211-220.
Mavroudeas S (ed) (2014) Greek Capitalism in Crisis: Marxist Analyses. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Meltzer R and Ghorbani P (2017) Does gentrification increase employment opportunities in low-income
neighborhoods? Regional Science and Urban Economics 66(September): 52-73.
Pettas D, Avdikos V, Iliopoulou E and Karavasili I (2021) ‘Insurrection is not a spectacle’: experiencing
and contesting touristification in Exarcheia, Athens. Urban Geography, DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2021.
1888521.
ReMax (2020, September) Panhellenic survey for property rentals in 2019. Report, ReMax, Greece (in
Greek).
Rose D (1984) Rethinking gentrification: Beyond the uneven development of Marxist urban
theory. Environment and planning D: Society and Space 2(1): 47-74.
Sassen S (1997) Informalization in Advanced Market Economies. Discussion Paper No. 20, Development
Policies Department, International Labour Office, Geneva.
Sequera J and Nofre J (2020) Touristification, transnational gentrification and urban change in Lisbon: The
neighbourhood of Alfama. Urban Studies 57(15): 3169-3189.
Smith N (2011) The evolution of gentrification. In: J Berg, T Kaminer, M Schoonerbeek and J Zonneveld
(eds) Houses in Transformation: Interventions in European Gentrification. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, pp.
15-26.
Stein S (2015) Precarity and gentrification: A feedback loop. Metropolitics. Available at
https://metropolitics.org/Precarity-and-Gentrification-A.html (accessed January 2021).
Stergiou D and Farmaki A (2020) Resident perceptions of the impacts of P2P accommodation: Implications
for neighbourhoods. International Journal of Hospitality Management 91: 1-10.
Tulumello S and Allegretti G (2021) Articulating urban change in Southern Europe: Gentrification,
touristification and financialisation in Mouraria, Lisbon. European Urban and Regional Studies 28(2): 111-
132.
Zukin S (2008) Consuming authenticity: From outposts of difference to means of exclusion. Cultural
Studies 22(5): 724-748.

18

View publication stats