In a recent conference paper Lambert and Boddy (2002) questioned whether new-build residential developments in UK city centres were examples of gentrification. They concluded that this stretched the term too far and coined ‘residentialisation’ as an alternative term. In contrast, we argue in this paper that new-build residential developments in city centres are examples of gentrification. We argue that new-build gentrification is part and parcel of the maturation and mutation of the gentrification process during the post-recession era. We outline the conceptual cases for and against new-build ‘gentrification‘, then, using the case of London's riverside renaissance, we find in favour of the case for.

Over the past decade, policy-makers have introduced social mixing initiatives that have sought to address urban social problems by deconcentrating poor and workingclass communities through attracting the middle classes back to the city. Such a policy objective clearly 'smells like gentrifi cation'. However, some commentators have warned against being critical of these policies, pointing out that the types of innercity redevelopment generated by them is different from classical gentrifi cation and that state-led gentrifi cation offers benefi ts for many working-class communities. This paper draws upon research conducted in London to demonstrate how, despite having many commendable aspects, these policy agendas carry with them signifi cant threats of displacement for lower-income communities. The paper also argues that, due to the mutating nature of gentrifi cation, these threats are increasingly context-bound. In conclusion, the paper argues that those state mechanisms which might manage the unjust aspects of gentrifi cation are inadequate.Whether gentrifi cation is urban, suburban, or rural, new-build or the renovation of existing stock, it refers, as its gentri-suffi xes attest, to nothing more or less than the class dimensions of neighbourhood change-in short, not simply changes in the housing stock, but changes in housing class (Slater et al., 2004(Slater et al., , p. 1144.

New‐build gentrification has been the subject of renewed attention of late. The impetus was Lambert and Boddy, who asserted that inner‐city new‐build developments in British city centres should not be viewed as a form of gentrification. While the term has long been generally accepted, Lambert and Boddy, and, more recently, Boddy, argue that the demographic transformations stimulated by city centre new‐build developments are relatively innocuous. They do not cause population displacement, and are not associated with the rent‐hike and eviction processes of gentrification proper. Indeed, within a move to rethink the workings and consequences of gentrification more generally (e.g. Butler), there has been a new questioning of whether this, or any, contemporary form of gentrification produces significant displacement concerns. In this paper, we address these new debates. We begin by tracing the histories of new‐build gentrification, highlighting its long‐standing presence, and then we move on to look at its trajectories, focusing our lens on London to demonstrate the diversity and complexity of this process in just one city. We outline the presence of displacement – both direct and indirect – as a complex and nuanced process (not just a spatial moment), but one that has nevertheless had a real‐life impact on real people. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This paper is concerned with the conceptualisations of space which underlie debate of gentrification-related displacement. Using Derrida's concept of the spatial metaphor, the paper illuminates the Cartesian understandings of space that act as architecture for displacement debate. The paper corrects this through arguing that the philosophy of Heidegger and Lefebvre better serves to understand displacement. Emphasising the topology of Heidegger's Dasein and, following Elden, relating this to Lefebvre's understanding of space, the paper 'constructs' displacement in a way that avoids the abstraction of displacement-as-out-migration and instead emphasises the lived experience of space.

Schools of graduate education in the United States continue to be challenged to attract and retain students of color. We argue that effective mentoring within a department can improve multicultural students' graduate school experience and better position them for success in their postdoctoral careers. To be an effective mentor, a faculty member must cultivate understanding of the experience of students from various cultural backgrounds. This task is especially challenging for White faculty members because of societal dynamics involving race and ethnicity. We propose actions to help faculty members enhance their multicultural competence in mentoring.