The process of gentrification is often seen as having winners and losers; the debate frequently is centred on the gentrifiers and those being displaced by them. However, the process appears to be more complex, and in many gentrifying neighbourhoods, there are residents who do not fit into these categories. This paper explores the subjective experiences of those who have lived through the process of gentrification. By using interviews with local residents in a gentrifying neighbourhood in Edinburgh, Scotland, a new viewpoint has been uncovered that found residents who were simultaneously embracing of and cautious about the rapid changes taking place in their gentrifying community. This paper examines three elements: housing, amenities and social interactions, and how local residents, who are not incoming gentrifiers, perceive these changes in their neighbourhood. While many residents welcomed some of the changes, there also appeared to be a 'not for us' sentiment. This research sheds new light on an important element of the population involved in the process, and suggests that gentrification is more complex and nuanced than often portrayed.

Flagships, also referred to as megaprojects, and frequently involving waterfront regeneration, are a common form of urban redevelopment. Their goals are often aimed at an outside audience of tourists, investors and potential (high income) residents. While the target may be external, the ways in which these spaces are perceived by the local population is an important, and, as yet, under-researched, area. Many scholars suggest that flagships have a negative impact on cities, but their research stops short of asking local residents what they think themselves. This paper attempts to redress this imbalance in the literature by analysing a survey of residents' perceptions towards the Kop van Zuid in Rotterdam, a large waterfront regeneration project. The survey included residents in different neighbourhoods across the city to determine the roles played by spatial proximity, and socio-economic and demographic variables. Responses were more positive than expected, particularly among poorer residents in the vicinity of the flagship. We argue this has to do with the quality of life enhancements which the Kop van Zuid has brought. This can offer some insightful lessons when regenerating brownfield sites in the future.

Gentrification is a process of social and spatial change, but it is also a changing process. This special issue aims to better understand new forms of gentrification, policies and experiences which have emerged since the year 2000. Specific emphasis has been given to the Netherlands, a country where the strong role of the state and more than two decades of pro-gentrification policy have created a unique context where gentrification is pursued, implemented and experienced in different ways than in the Anglo-Saxon world. Research into Dutch gentrification has led to new theoretical insights in the past and the papers in this special issue should present international readers with new and alternative perspectives towards contemporary gentrification, thereby contributing to a wider understanding of the 'geography of gentrification'. This introduction will examine new spatial and social manifestations of gentrification over the past decade, examine what binds them together as part of the gentrification process, introduce Dutch gentrification and outline the papers featured in this special issue.

Introductioǹ`T he problem with Rotterdam is that it's a rich city with poor people.'' This quotation, taken from a civil servant working with the city's department of housing and urban development, illustrates a major challenge facing Rotterdam and other older industrial cities. These once wealthy cities have lost much of their affluent population and have become home to high concentrations of poverty and social deprivation. It also alludes to the idea that gentrification policies encouraging`rich' people to settle in the city can be an appealing solution to this problem.Gentrification is now seen to have moved beyond its original definition of the effects of individual household decisions, as first coined by Glass (1964), to being part of a much larger class remake of the inner city, and part of a wider strategy for urban redevelopment and regeneration (

Both Rotterdam's Kop van Zuid and the Glasgow Harbour waterfront developments are examples of different forms of European urban entrepreneurial megaprojects. They are both situated on formerly vacant land in older industrial cities. In Rotterdam, the municipality has taken the initiative in planning and developing the megaproject, while in Glasgow, this task has been left to the private sector, with the City functioning as a facilitator. While urban entrepreneurialism and megaprojects have been discussed in academic literature for almost three decades, there are too few case studies which delve into the specific visions guiding these projects, the goals which they are meant to achieve and the positions which different actors play. The aim of this article is to analyze the relationship between these visions, goals and positions of actors in megaprojects and whether these relationships can explain how the different outcomes are produced. What we see is that in municipally‐led projects, entrepreneurial goals are more easily formed and implemented than when the public sector acts only as a facilitator to private developers. It will also argue that it is not only structural contexts which are important in determining the types of megaprojects which get built and the success which they achieve, but also the specific values, visions and goals that different stakeholders have.