On Blindness, Centrepieces and Complementarity in Gentrification Theory

Author(s): Eric Clark

Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers , 1992, Vol. 17, No. 3
(1992), pp. 358-362
Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British
Geographers)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/622886

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers

This content downloaded from

90.183.80.239 on Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
358

Commentary
A section of shorter research notes, comment and debate on papers recently published in Transactions

On blindness, centrepieces and complementarity

in gentrification theory
ERIC CLARK

Associate Professor, Department of Human Geography, School of Cultural and Social Studies,
University of Oslo, Box 1056 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo 3, Norway

Revised MS received 28 January, 1992

'... the notion of complementarity suggests itselfcation

in ourcan alleviate; secondly, the problem of centre-
position as conscious beings and recalls forcefully
pieces...as exemplified in the Hamnett-Smith debate;
that we ourselves are both actors and spectatorsand
in the
thirdly the need for careful consideration of the
drama of existence.' (Bohr 1948, p. 318)
notion of complementarity, both in general and
specifically in the context of gentrification theories.
The recent article by Chris Hamnett in this journal
on 'The blind men and the elephant: the explanation
of gentrification' (Hamnett 1991) and the ensuing
BLINDNESS
discussion with Neil Smith (Smith 1992; Hamnett
1992) left at least this reader with a mixture There are two instances of blindness addressed in
of dis-
appointment over blindness, frustration over this section. The first is a rather simple case of mis-
centre-
understanding and/or carelessness which, though
pieces and encouragement over the common interest
to consider the notion of complementarity in (coming as it does from a leading represen-
disturbing
tative
approaches to gentrification. That we are in a senseof comprehensive knowledge on gentrification
theory),
blind men groping around and feeling different parts is probably of little concern to anyone but
of the gentrification elephant is to a certainmyself.
extent The second instance however is one which
unavoidable - we have no foolproof holistic has been propagated by Smith, Hamnett, Ley and
theory
others
of or methodology for the study of gentrification, since the concept of rent gap saw the light
and
of day
it would be presumptuous to think we ever will. We- I refer to the blindness evident in the
understanding of rent gaps as somehow divorced
specialize to some degree in a division of labour
which bears various forms of fruit. But if there fromisthe aspect of demand. This instance should be of
concern to others than myself, and if my argument
one thing Aesop's fable can teach us, it is the import-
ance of communication, which not only requires below
the(which feels embarrassingly obvious) has any
validity, we may be able to progress beyond the
tedious task of concisely formulating our thoughts,
arbitrarily
our research findings and our interpretations of them, restricted and unnecessarily inadequate
conception of rent gap which has characterized
but also entails the challenge of listening - without
reflexive categorization. thought on gentrification during the eighties.
The focus of my concern here is, as the title Based on my empirical study of rent gaps in con-
suggests, firstly what I perceive as disturbingnection with urban renewal in Malm6 (Clark 1987;
1988) I supposedly argued 'that the rent gap was in
instances of blindness which I hope some communi-

Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. N.S. 17: 358-362 (1992) ISSN: 0020-2754 Printed in Great Britain

This content downloaded from

90.183.80.239 on Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Commentary 359

no sense a determinant of
departure in Hamnett's article and one gentrifica
which would
1991, p. 181). Upon
probably pass amongreading this I
most gentrification researchers
perhaps the study
as a fitting should
description of the 80's andalso
the present have
Braille. For the record, I made
situation. While it is a praiseworthy ambition to criti- no su
argued that the cally reassess both sides of the of
presence divide in order
rent to find gaps
of gentrification, and
points of congruence that
and points where incongruence the
'determinant' should be
is unlikely to be understood
overcome, Hamnett's effort fails to in
non-mechanistic.
fully Hamnett
recognize a much neglected link - found
the demand som
sympathized with - gap
base of rent rejection
explanation. of the
as prime mover andIf we pause the
a moment, stop rent gap as a
throwing rocks from
behind barricades, and contemplate the rent
ism triggering gentrification -gapand ap
bother to read the
concept rest! Early
long enough to consider what it consistsdiscussi
of,
rent gaps in gentrification suffered
rather than reflexively assigning certain 'well-known' fr
interpreting the characteristics
rentto it, gap many may notion
be surprised at what in ov
fashion, but I we find. Those who see
thought we the 'supply
had side' emphasis
progres
already. of rent gap explanation as its major strength or
Then Hamnett emphasizes the previous point by weakness may want to brace themselves. The poten-
explaining that in 'fact redevelopment rather than tial land rent of a site has its foundation in latent
gentrification occurred in all cases in Malm6' (ibid.). demand for 'higher and better uses' of the site. The
Indeed, the study areas were limited to blocks that capitalized land rent of a site on the other hand is
were redeveloped and in which the land use was founded on demand for the present use of the site.
residential both before and after redevelopment. This The latent demand remains latent as long as existing
is a matter of sampling criteria, not research results! buildings on the site and the present use of the site
The findings suggested that rent gaps were essential secure a reasonable capitalized land rent as compared
to the redevelopment process, and that gentrification to the potential land rent which latent demand could
took place in connection with redevelopment. Con- make possible. Speculation (sensitive as it is to the
trary to Hamnett's assumption, redevelopment does unrealized preferences behind latent demand) on forth-
not exclude gentrification - redevelopment is one coming land use change (e.g. from working-class
form in which gentrification takes place. As long as housing to middle or upper-class housing) manifests
we cannot reach such fundamental understandings, itself in dramatic increases in capitalized land rent
we gentrification researchers will probably continue (increased property prices unrelated to building
to be like the blind men in the fable - studying value) and eventually rent gap closure (capitalized
gentrification in accordance with our idiosyncratic land rent reaching the level of potential land rent).
preconceived notions. Gentrification is the outcome of a struggle over
In all probability, no other reader noticed this urban space, a struggle in which effective demand is
case of temporary blindness or carelessness. Sloppy generally considered a legitimate form of wielding
thinking is of course something we must beware of, power.
but in this case it is an uninteresting detail, a bagatelle. Without latent demand, we cannot even begin to
More interesting is the question if there is not an conceptualize potential land rent. Likewise with effec-
epidemic of blindness in the discussion on rent gap tive demand and capitalized land rent. True, there are
explanation of gentrification. builders, developers, landlords, mortgage lenders,
I refer to the prevalent understanding of the rent government agencies and real estate agents involved
gap concept as being unrelated to demand. It is, after on the production and supply side, and their actions
all, a central concept in the 'structural Marxist' and profit motives are essential to the process of rent
explanation of gentrification which, as we all know (we gap expansion and closure. But to continue to place
do, don't we? of course we do!) is lop-sided, stressing rent gap explanation of gentrification squarely outside
'the role of capital, class production and supply' the cosy conceptual box of consumption and demand
(Hamnett 1991, p.174). On the other side of the fence side explanation is to propagate a dichotomy which
we have the liberal humanist camp, in Hamnett's serves no useful purpose other than maintaining
article represented by David Ley, which emphasizes barricades and the comfort of identity they provide.
'the key role of choice, culture, consumption and The insight that rent gaps are essentially based on
demand' (ibid.). This is the self-evident point of demand puts Hamnett's 'Conditions for gentrification

This content downloaded from

90.183.80.239 on Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 360 ERIC CLARK

schema' gentrifiers'1)
(Table and 'no rent
in gap exists'.
a Dallasnew
and l
with some Pheonix, mentioned
of its by Hamnett,
categori are perhaps
interpretation of But others.
examples of this combination. there is an inherent R
on the active expression
contradiction in the notion that gentrification may of
better uses' of a site. If this demand comes from take place where no rent gap exists, simply because
gentrification cannot occur without the demand of
'gentrifiers' (either directly by 'pioneers' or 'occupier
potential gentrifiers (potential land rent) being
developers', or indirectly - counted on by devel-
opers) or from even higher and better uses such as stronger than the demand of present residents
office or retail space is nothing which can be deter-
(capitalized land rent).
mined by the rent gap notion per se. This explains howThe view that demand is excluded from the
conception of rent gap is one which we will have to
a rent gap can lead to something other than gentrifi-
cation (left column of Table 1): the demand behind leave behind us if we are to move in the direction of
rent gap closure (realization of potential land rent)
integration espoused by Hamnett.
simply comes from other quarters than a section of
the 'new class'. It also explains why the assumption
underlying the lower left cell of the table - that CENTREPIECES
the two conditions 'rent gap exists' and 'inner city
How is such blindness perpetuated? Simplifying
preference by potential gentrifiers' will lead to gentri-
perhaps to an extent bordering on psychological
fication - is not entirely accurate. It is possible that
reductionism, one answer which the Hamnett-Smith
stronger competition for the sites in question stymie
potential gentrifiers from actually securing their discussion nevertheless provides reason to entertain
preferences. An implicit assumption of the schema is that infatuation with centrepieces (one's own of
seems to be that 'potential gentrifiers' are in thecourse) is not conducive to openness of mind, not
driver's seat. But in some situations, the end result
only towards others' centrepieces, but towards one's
of 'rent gap exists' and 'inner city preference by own as well. Centrepieces bind our gaze and make us
blind to the centrepiece's surroundings. Elephants,
potential gentrifiers' may instead be office develop-
ment, as in Stockholm during the 1960's and 70's could they speak, would probably be hesitant to
(Clark and Gullberg 1991). say which of their parts they consider to be the
Furthermore, consideration of rent gaps as based centrepiece of their existence.
on demand can answer the question in the lower right In spite of the admirable purpose of integrating
cell of the table. The only way inner city preferencethe Ley and Smith camps and some valuable steps
in this direction, Hamnett's article and the follow-
by potential gentrifiers can coincide with 'no rent gap
ing discussion with Smith falls into the recogniz-
exists' is if in a particular context there is no inner city
land where demand for the present use corresponds able pattern of advancing a new centrepiece or
to a lower capitalized land rent than the land rent reasserting an old one. We are asked to shift our
which could be realized by tapping these preferences gaze from Smith's rent gap centrepiece to a new
centrepiece, 'the conditions for the production of
of potential gentrifiers. In such a case, no gentrifica-
tion takes place because the preferences of potential potential gentrifiers' (Hamnett 1991, p. 187). And
gentrifiers can find no place for their expression again,
as we are asked to 'accept class restructuring as
the centrepiece of any theory of gentrification'
demand. If on the other hand such preferences do find
(Hamnett 1992, p. 117).
places where they can be exerted/tapped, they then
constitute the basis of rent gaps and, in the absence of Rather than blind men unable to understand each
other's findings, perhaps a more apt metaphor for
stronger demand for other uses, lead to gentrification.
But then we have a case for the lower left cell of the
this type of discussion is the children's game 'king
of the mountain'. In spite of its aim to integrate,
table - 'rent gap exists'. Clearly, the lower right cell of
the table must be: No gentrification. For if the demand Hamnett's article unfortunately tends to perpetuate
of potential gentrifiers is stronger than the demand this game. I hope Hamnett's effort in the direction
for existing use - a prerequisite for gentrification of
to elucidating relations of complementarity
take place - then the category 'no rent gap exists' between explanations of gentrification will incite
cannot apply. further efforts. But I fail to see how we can progress
In short, there is no contradiction inherent to the along this path if we continue to talk in terms of
combination of 'inner city preference by potential (replacing) centrepieces.

This content downloaded from

90.183.80.239 on Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Commentary 361
COMPLEMENTARITY fact - of the instruments and apparatus employed to
the observations they yield. The phrase 'instruments
Most encouraging in Hamnett's and Smith's dis- employed' should not be interpreted
and apparatus
course is the common interest in addressing literally.
the issue As Richards points out, 'The most important
of our It
of complementarity in theories of gentrification. instruments
is ... are our concepts' (1976,
p. 112).
in this context important to reach clarity concerning
what is meant by relation of complementarity, innot allow for a more thorough presen-
Space does
order to avoid confusion. Problems of misunder- tation of Bohr's notion of complementarity in this
standing may result from using the concept in an
context, but I would warn against the hasty conclu-
unreflected everyday sense of the word, assuming
sion that this is just an easy way out of conflicting
that we of course all know what complementaritythought. One could argue that the easy way out is to
means. What I had in mind when I wrote the appeal
cling to the comfort of a one-eyed view held up as the
quoted by Hamnett was the sense of the word
centrepiece of truth (see Koch 1981 for a provocative
expounded by Niels Bohr. The only geographer statement
to of this position). Progress in thought
my knowledge who has written on Bohr's concept cannot be obtained without bringing incommensur-
of complementarity is Gunnar Olsson (1980), abilities to the forefront of theoretical analysis.
unfortunately without much apparent impact on his
Only in this way, by distilling and juxtaposing the
colleagues. quintessence of different descriptions and expla-
Very briefly, the notion of complementarity says nations, is it possible to determine if 'the traditional
that even if competing theories are mutually exclu- path of persistently trying to dissolve them into each
sive due to incommensurable abstractions, they other, or to conquer one by means of the other' stands
may both be true and necessary for a thorough a reasonable chance of success, or if it is better to
description of that which the theories are about. In accept as a tentative platform for understanding
McKay's words, we are faced with complementary that both provide 'equally valid but complementary
description when 'accounts of the same happening pictures' (Holton 1988, p. 4).
... make different assertions, in terms of different The notion of complementarity does not ask us
concepts whose preconditions of use are mutually to accept anything and everything with no concern
exclusive' (1958, p. 118). Concerning the particle/ for truth value. It does however ask that we pay
wave paradox, Bohr wrote that it is a matter of attention to the circumstances under which evi-
'complementary aspects in the sense that they dence is obtained, and to recognize that accounts
account for equally important features of the light of the same phenomenon which make different
phenomena which can never be brought into con- assertions in terms of different concepts whose pre-
tradiction with one another, since their closer conditions of use are mutually exclusive 'cannot be
analysis in mechanical terms demand mutually comprehended within a single picture, but must be
exclusive experimental arrangements. At the same regarded as complementary in the sense that only
time, this very situation forces us to renounce on a the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible
complete causal account of the light phenomena' information about the objects' (Bohr 1958, p. 40).
(1958, p. 5). Several explanations may be considered to possess
What Bohr brings our attention to is the realization truth value, even though their standpoints of descrip-
that the only way an observer (including equipment) tion are founded on less than entirely compatible
can be uninvolved is by observing nothing at all. As abstractions.
soon as observation tools are set up on the work-
bench, the system chosen to put under observation
and the measuring instruments for doing the job form CONCLUSION
one inseparable whole (Holton 1970). To avoid any
misunderstanding that this is a problem of mechanical How can Bohr's concept of complementarity info
disturbances of the object under study by the instru- our continued efforts to research the anatomy
ments and apparatus employed, Bohr explicitly gentrification? Each description and explanation m
warns that one must distinguish between mechanical of course be continuously subjected to critical ex
disturbances and influences on the very conditions of ination in its own terms and in the light of alterna
observation. It is the latter which is the centre of explanations. Even if some of this examination
focus in a discussion on the relation of theory to done in the specialized manner of neglecting asp

This content downloaded from

90.183.80.239 on Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
362 ERIC CLARK

other than NOTE

the one in focus (
which questions its
1. A note of self-critique truth
- in Clark (1991) I used the
less valuable than
concept critique
complementarity in the everyday sense ofw
neglect of entirely differen
the word, as suitable addition contributing towards
careful not to read
completeness. in
As defined here, claims
one could argue that
are none. rent gap explanation and value gap explanation
Clarification of are not
nation maycomplementary.
They
some are rather highly meshed
to ext and
compatible, fitting consistently into a single coherent
penetration of one aspect,
view. The preconditions of definition, observation and
continuous consideration o
of use of concepts in each are not mutually exclusive. I
descriptions and explanation
find some comfort then in Bohr's words, immediately
tive to genderfollowing the aspects to
introductory quote: 'to such an utteranceb
assaulted from the
applies ... the recognition that outset
our task can only be to
that aspect? Only
aim at communicating by refinin
experiences and views to others
be fruitfullyby means
contrasted
of language, in which the practical usewit
of every
efforts to word stands in a complementary
integrate them relation to attempts
or of
are its strict definition' (1948, p. 318).
complementary.
Attempts to draw connecti
aspects of REFERENCES
gentrification call
ing with concepts which
BOHR, N. (1948) 'On the notions of causality and comple-m
single model. Sometimes
mentarity', Dialectica 2: 312-19 t
made through an
BOHR, N. (1958) Atomic integratio
physics and human knowledge (John
solves any Wiley & Sons, New York)
previously perc
For instance,CLARK, E.rent
(1987) The rent gap and
gapurban change: case
and studies
in Malmo 1860-1985 (Lund University Press, Lund)
render themselves to highly
CLARK, E. (1988) 'The rent gap and transformation of the
(Clark 1991). Commensurabi
built environment: case studies in Malm6 1860-1985',
of their relation than is c
Geografiska Annaler 70B: 241-54
times integration will not
CLARK, E. (1992) 'On gaps in gentrification theory',
gender aspects of
Housing gentrificat
Stud. 7: 16-26
an altogether different
CLARK, E. and GULLBERG, A. (1991) 'Longpersp
swings, rent
rent theory, gaps
and though
and structures of building provision - thewe
postwar
it is clear that
transformationthe
of Stockholm's same
inner d
city', Int. J. Urb. Reg.
Res. 15: 492-504
between rent gap and va
cannot be HAMNETT, C. (1991) 'The blind men
expected. If and the elephant: the
(how)
explanation of gentrification', Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. N.S.
of complementarity is a que
16: 173-89
the scope of this article. To t
HAMNETT, C. (1992) 'Gentrifiers or lemmings? A
industrial city perspective, c
response to Neil Smith', Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. N.S. 17:
But we should 116-19 not fool ours
certainty and
HOLTON, systematicity
G. (1970) 'The roots of complementarity',
does not reside in
Daedalus 99: 1015-55 simplific
single, directly comprehen
HOLTON, G. (1988) Thematic origins of scientific thought
exhaustive overlay of
(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.) diff
KOCH, S.
incorporate (1981) 'The nature and limits of psychological
apparently c
(Holton knowledge:
1988, p. lessons of a century qua "science "', Amer.
102).
Psychologist 36: 257-69
One fundamental character
McKAY, D. (1958) 'Complementarity', Proc. Aristotelian
such an overlay is that they w
Soc. 32: 105-22
perceptions with regard to
OLSSON, G. (1980) Birds in egg/Eggs in bird (Pion, London)
ag
conflict of truths shines
RICHARDS, I. (1976) Complementarities: th
Uncollected essays
Smith discussion as
(RUSSO, J. P. ed) (Carcanet, well
Manchester) as e
cation. The concept of
SMITH, N. (1992) 'Blind man's bluff, comp
or, Hamnett's philo-
that we are both
sophical individualism in actors an
search of gentrification', Trans.
process of Inst. Br. Geogr. N.S. 17: 110-15
gentrification.

This content downloaded from

90.183.80.239 on Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:51:44 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms