Geographies of Studentification and Purpose-Built Student Accommodation: Leading Separate Lives?

Hubbard, Phil

doi:10.1068/a4149

Cited by 163 publications

(256 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

230

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In such a set-up, students usually have their own individual rooms and share communal facilities such as the kitchen, bathroom, and living-room (Garmendia et al, 2011). It is generally argued that the impact of HMOs on host neighbourhoods is far greater than is the case with PBSA (Hubbard, 2009). The presence of students makes HMOs distinct from that of normal family homes, with untended gardens, the accumulation of household refuse, excessive indulgence in parties, and phenomena such as vandalism, excessive noise and hooliganism (Garmendia et al, 2011;Kenna, 2011;Sage, Smith, Hubbard, 2013;Smith, 2008).…”

Section: House In Multiple Occupancymentioning

confidence: 99%

Studentification in Bloemfontein, South Africa

Ackermann

Visser

2016

Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Studentification is a global phenomenon that has been prominent in urban geographical discourse since the large-scale expansion of higher education in the early 1990s. In many developed and developing world countries, expansion in student enrolment has outstripped the ability of institutions of higher learning to provide adequate accommodation. Similar trends have been recorded in South Africa. The task of this paper is to investigate studentification as experienced in one of South Africa's secondary cities. The paper draws attention to the economic, socio-cultural, and physical characteristics of this form of student housing on host locations. It is argued that studentification holds both positive and negative impacts for the host communities of Bloemfontein. Finally, it is suggested that studentification in South Africa requires greater research attention.

show abstract

Section: House In Multiple Occupancymentioning

confidence: 99%

Studentification in Bloemfontein, South Africa

Ackermann

Visser

2016

Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, it can produce new forms of social exclusion, new patterns of segregation by lifestyle, life-cycle, tenure type, economic capital (Smith, D.P. 2008;Fincher, R. and Shaw, K. 2009;Hubbard, P. 2009;Chatterton, P. 2010), or even by activity and consumption types (Chatterton, P. 1999;Chatterton, P. and Hollands, R. 2002). On the other hand, it is also worth mentioning that students can significantly contribute to local communities.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, regarding the physical dimensions, it is often argued that studentification leads to an initial upgrading of the urban environment because of the investment of landlords, local authorities and other actors. However, this upgrading is usually followed by a downgrading process because of the lack of further investment which is often reflected by the decline of property prices (Kenyon, E.L. 1997;Hubbard, P. 2009).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Studentification, diversity and social cohesion in post-socialist Budapest

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the literature studentification is closely associated with gentrification. Many authors consider the mass invasion of students to inner-city neighbourhoods as a type of gentrification, some of them even use the two terms interchangeably. Regardless of theoretical considerations, it seems that there is a consensus on the significance of studentification in contemporary urban transformations. Recent studies demonstrate that the appearance of students as 'transient' inhabitants in inner-city neighbourhoods, accompanied by growing differences in lifestyles and socio-cultural attitudes weakens social cohesion in the affected neighbourhoods Haase, A. et al. 2012). This study focuses on the interplay between studentification, socio-cultural diversity and social cohesion in an inner-city district of Budapest, Józsefváros. The district has been characterised by several waves of urban rehabilitation and subsequent gentrification since the transition of [1989][1990]. Studentification has also become dominant phenomenon in the area due to the settling of new higher education institutions, the concomitant influx of students, as well as low rent and dwelling prices providing a niche for the spontaneous movements of a new generation of urbanites (Grabkowska, M. 2011;Bernt, M. et al. 2015). The main research questions we intend to answer in this paper are as follows. Firstly, what is the relationship between studentification and gentrification in Józsefváros? Secondly, what kinds of effects has the influx of students on the social cohesion of the district? According to our findings, studentification in Józsefváros is not the pioneer phase of gentrification, but -especially in the rehabilitation areas -it runs more or less parallel with it. Most of the students use the place as a springboard in their career, and after graduation most of them leave. The attitude of students is, however, very much resembles those of the young, highly educated newcomers, i.e. early gentrifiers. The impacts of studentification on the social milieu of Józsefváros are contradictory. On the one hand, the inflow of students and young intellectuals increases the socio-cultural diversity of the district, contributing to the recognition of diversity in a post-socialist context, and fostering tolerance and the acceptance of different cultures and lifestyles. On the other hand, it seems that the ongoing population change hampers the establishment of strong social ties at the neighbourhood level and leads to certain conflicts.

show abstract

“…When students chose to live in neighborhoods outside a university campus it becomes important to understand what the ensuing impact is on local communities. Research into this phenomenon demonstrates two extremes: either students mix with the local community or live apart together [12][13][14][15][16]. Processes of studentificationas it is coined -go together with what Atkinson [11] calls 'the tracking of new settlement patterns of splinters of the middle-class'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradoxes of Studentification: Social Mix versus Gentrification in a Disadvantaged Neighborhood in Amsterdam East

Boersma¹

2013

TOUSJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studio K, a relatively new quasi-public space in a gentrifying multi-ethnic neighborhood in Amsterdam East, is a prime example of the growing urban reinvestment within the area. The basic idea behind the by students managed Studio K is to create a cultural centre as an open place, including a cinema, restaurant, bar and club, where all visitors feel at home. It is the form and content that renders neighborhood relations relevant, not the physical proximity. Our paper involves a critical discussion of what can be understood as 'community commitment' and how the organizational identity of Studio K responded to the needs and expectations of the community in relation to the gentrification debate, and in particular studentification. Our analysis suggests that neighborhoods do not indicate the potential for social identification and shared community experience.

show abstract

Geographies of Studentification and Purpose-Built Student Accommodation: Leading Separate Lives?

Cited by 163 publications

References 28 publications

Studentification in Bloemfontein, South Africa

Studentification in Bloemfontein, South Africa

Studentification, diversity and social cohesion in post-socialist Budapest

Paradoxes of Studentification: Social Mix versus Gentrification in a Disadvantaged Neighborhood in Amsterdam East

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About