Remaking South Beach: metropolitan gayborhood trajectories under homonormative entrepreneurialism

Abstract

This paper contributes to research on metropolitan gayborhood trajectories and homonormative urban entrepreneurialism by assessing a South Florida case study. We probe allegations of gay men being displaced from South Beach and the opposing narrative of a sexually-diverse city with undiminished appeal. To that end, we present expert informant interviews, participant observation, media archives, and census data showing that the remade gayborhood coexists and competes with other, more affordable LGBT nodes. While socioeconomic, demographic and cultural characteristics differentiate these clusters, exploratory spatial data analysis indicates that the majority of metropolitan same-sex households reside elsewhere.We acknowledge Miami Beach's recent pro-equality efforts, yet argue that homonormative politics conditions them. Public-private actions adopt corporate formats, prioritizing tourist-oriented initiatives and spectacular events that promote non-threatening, market-friendly forms of sexual dissidence. The conclusion discusses implications for queer community-building in metropolitan regions fragmented by socio-spatial inequality and competitive city-marketing catering to heterogeneous yet exclusive global audiences.

Urban preservation and the queerying spaces of (un)remembering: Memorial landscapes of the Miami Beach art deco historic district

“…Bar, 2017). Yet, following the sale of the building, the bar has been forced to relocate (Flechas, 2017; see also critique of the Ôpost-gayÕ era in Collins and Drinkwater, 2016 Kanai and Kenttamaa-Squires, 2015).…”

“…Although Patron and Forrest (2000) and Kanai and Kenttamaa-Squires (2015) discussed the social transitions of SoBe as gay neighbourhood since the 1980s, the art deco scene, despite its ascribed importance to a thriving local culture, remains under-explored. To this background, I hereinafter consider three intersecting dimensions that are pertinent to contextualising the relationships and tensions between art deco (i.e.…”

Canaries in the mine? Gay community, consumption and aspiration in neoliberal Washington, DC

“…So-called gay villages now have more heterosexual residents (Reynolds 2009;Ghaziani 2014), significant gay venues have closed in many cities (Mattson 2015), there is a growing gay presence in the suburbs (Tongson 2011) and new 'gay-friendly' (though not necessarily gayspecific) neighbourhoods are emerging in urban peripheries (Gorman-Murray and Waitt 2009;Nash and Gorman-Murray 2014;Kanai and Kentamaa-Squires 2015). The 'preferences' of the gay community are often positioned as a causative link in the changing landscape of gay residential and commercial spaces.…”

“…For example, policies and practices that deny permissions for establishing gay festivals, promote 'family-friendly' events, and develop properties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 geared to young families with children are central to the goal of deriving maximum profitability from urban spaces. (Doan and Higgins 2011;Mattson 2015;Kentamaa-Squires 2015). Venues in gay neighbourhoods, including those purchased by heterosexual buyers, may seek to attract whatever group has the most spending power and interest in an area at any given point in time (Binnie and Skeggs;Mattson 2015;Kanai and Kentamaa-Squires 2015).…”

“…(Doan and Higgins 2011;Mattson 2015;Kentamaa-Squires 2015). Venues in gay neighbourhoods, including those purchased by heterosexual buyers, may seek to attract whatever group has the most spending power and interest in an area at any given point in time (Binnie and Skeggs;Mattson 2015;Kanai and Kentamaa-Squires 2015). In other locales, creative city strategies have spurred the development of 'new' (though not necessarily inclusive) gay spaces as a means of 'catching up' with cities where they have developed more organically.…”