The Back-To-The-City Movement Revisited

Abstract

Mounting evidence of residential neighborhood revitalization in the early to mid-1970s and impressions that such acriviry was based on a back-to-the-city movement promoted optimism about thefuture of ciries. However, studies conducted during the late 1970s to evaluate this phenomenon questioned its existence. This not only had a chilling effect on the belief in the renaissance of cities, but also undermined concern about the major liability that had become associated with the back-to-thecity movement: residentiul displacement. An evaluation of these studies indicates that their findings and concluswns about the buck-to-the-city movement were not justifid The results of this study show that many home buyers are moving into cities from non-city areas. It also shows that this migration causes considerable displacement problems. This article is organized into two sections. The first presents a background for the buck-to-the-city movement including an evaluation of the previous studies. The second describes a study of two neighborhoods undergoing revitalization in the city of Hartford Connecticut, which attempts to address the questions raised about the previous studies and presents its findings. BACKGROUNDThe roots of the back-to-the-city movement are found in a variety of economic, social, and demographic trends. Several factors combined to increase housing demand and costs, and to render the less costly, existing in-city housing an attractive alternative to the more expensive new construction in the suburbs (Clay, 1979). In addition, rapid increases in energy and transportation costs and a shift in the employment patterns within cities from manufacturing to office jobs served to further stimulate professionals and other white-collar workers to seek in-city living (Black, 1978).In the mid-1970s, the effects of these demographic and socioeconomic forces became evident. In selected urban neighborhoods, middle-income people, through privatemarket rehabilitation, sought to upgrade and renovate existing housing stock. It was during this time that neighborhood revitalization became an increasingly attractive prospect among those seeking an urban lifestyle. Indeed, many social commentators believed a widespread trend might be emerging in the nation's cities. Thus, the term

The back-to-the-city movement: Neighbourhood redevelopment and processes of political and cultural displacement

“…Others link the term with population increases in cities (Glaeser and Shapiro, 2003a, 2003b; Simmons and Lang, 2003) and their downtowns (Birch, 2005, 2009; Simmons and Lang, 2003), regardless of where the inhabitants previously lived. 2 Still others see the term as merely ‘optimism about the possible residential resurgence of America’s older cities’ (Zavarella, 1987: 376). In this article, the back-to-the-city movement refers to population influx to the city, regardless its origination, that is associated with neighbourhood revitalisation.…”

Distinguishing city and Suburban Movers: Evidence from the American housing survey

“…Case studies of individual cities experiencing gentrification estimated that 48 to 100 percent of central-city in-migrants have moved from another location within the same city (LeGates and Hartman 1986). Zaravella (1987) provided a counterargument and suggested that the magnitude of urban in-migration trends may actually be understated by aggregate data, because researchers often ignore a significant class of in-migrants: once-rural residents who have relocated to the city. If early researchers had examined the total number of central-city inmigrants from adjacent suburbs, rural areas, and the suburbs of other metropolitan areas, Griffith (1996) felt that these early studies would likely have reported substantial increases in net urban in-migration.…”

Political Power, Collective Memory, and American Central Cities: The Discourses of the Conservative Elite`s Counter-Memory of the City

“…Studies show that residents of gentrified properties are, more often than not, already city dwellers, merely relocating to better accommodations [56,59,[62][63]. In more than half the cases, the gentry are middle-class Blacks, immigrants from Asia and Latin America, gays, liberal academics, artists/bohemians, or others who are critical of the status quo [4,61,[64][65][66].…”