Addressing Green Gentrification: Actions and Recommendations for Global Cities

Cities are major contributors to the climate crisis, and many of them are now taking steps to support the development of healthier, greener, and more sustainable neighbourhoods. Here, an international comparative analysis will form the basis for a series of policy recommendations for local governments for primarily European municipalities but also has applicability in other regional contexts.

Concepts and practices such as the 15-/20-minute neighbourhood, transit-oriented development, school streets, nature-based solutions, and low-traffic neighbourhoods are helping to shape a fresh wave of urban planning policy and urban renewal projects that broadly aim to facilitate the implementation of infrastructure that supports a transition to net zero, improves health and well-being, and makes places safer and more resilient to future climate risks.

While investment in green infrastructure is universally recognized as an essential part of addressing the climate crisis and creating more resilient cities, the literature on green gentrification reveals the significant impacts that this type of infrastructure can have on local gentrification. Anguelovski et al. (2022) observe that “while urban greening has diverse climate, health, and socio-economic benefits, it also contributes to green gentrification processes in a number of circumstances and thus to new social, racial, and health inequalities that eventually undermine climate equity and justice” (p. 9). As cities develop more green infrastructure, there is a real risk that these actions will trigger a process of green gentrification and lead to the displacement of local communities.

This article explores what is meant by the term green gentrification and draws on three European city case studies to understand the key drivers for this type of gentrification. In doing so, it explores actions taken by the city to both implement green infrastructure and mitigate the impacts of green gentrification. Policy recommendations are then provided for local authorities to consider as part of urban development projects that include greening infrastructure measures.

What is green gentrification?

Across the world the distribution of and access to urban green infrastructure (such as green spaces and active travel routes) is highly unequal. There is an established body of urban environmental justice literature that demonstrates significant inequalities by race and class when it comes to the distribution, quality and maintenance of green space and infrastructure (Boone et al., 2019; Liotta et al., 2020; Mavoa et al., 2015; Rigolon, 2016; Wüstemann et al., 2017). Not only is urban green infrastructure unequally distributed, but its expansion and enhancement are exacerbating social, racial, and economic inequalities and leaving lower-income residents at risk of being physically displaced by high-cost real estate that they cannot afford (Checker, 2011; Dooling, 2009; Pearsall & Pierce, 2010). In short, making neighbourhoods greener, healthier, and more liveable also makes them more expensive. Local populations that are displaced have no access to these green neighbourhoods because of costs (Goossens et al., 2020).

These inequalities are evidenced in green gentrification practices in the United Kingdom, where the proximity to an urban green space raised house prices by an average of GBP 2,500 (Office for National Statistics, 2019), and in London the cost of rent is as much as GBP 619 more per month along one of the city’s main cycle routes (Property Reporter, 2022). In the United States, the likelihood of neighbourhood gentrification increased by 200% if it was located within 800 metres (0.5 miles) of a new park (Rigolon & Németh, 2020). In New York City, the completion of the Highline increased local property values by 35% (Black & Richards, 2020), while in Portland the installation of greening measures such as active travel infrastructure significantly contributed to the displacement of local communities (Goodling et al., 2015).

As the climate crisis worsens, cities face increasing pressure to invest in green infrastructure. In doing so, local authorities will have to engage with the green paradox that sustainability interventions may harm the residents and communities they were intended to protect and support. As Anguelovski et al. (2018) observed, “While alliances between municipal planners, elected officials, and developers help greening cities enhance their competitive landscape, this urban “green turn” comes at a cost for minorities and low-income groups” (p. 3). This competitive, growth-driven approach to sustainability is undermining social sustainability and has the potential to derail the transition to a fairer, greener and more resilient society (Anguelovski et al., 2022; Connolly, 2018; Gould & Lewis, 2017; Haase et al., 2017).

While much of the literature on green gentrification is situated in North America, this is a growing trend in cities across the world (Anguelovski et al., 2022; Quinton et al., 2022). Despite this, the mechanisms through which urban greening leads to gentrification remain under-researched and its impacts (particularly displacement) are largely undocumented (Quinton et al., 2022). As a result, further research into urban greening trends and their unequal impacts is needed (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Connolly et al., 2018).

Policy approaches: Case studies from across the world

Case study 1: Barcelona, Spain

From the development of public spaces and services in the aftermath of Franco’s dictatorship to the city’s hosting of the 1992 Olympic Games, Barcelona has a long history of both facilitating and resisting gentrification (Anguelovski et al., 2018). In recent decades, spurred on by the escalating climate crisis and facilitated by sustainability-focused liveability interventions aimed at mitigating environmental harms and attracting green investment (Anguelovski et al., 2022), a new wave of green gentrification has crept across the city.

One example of this is a trend of gentrification catalyzed by the implementation of the now famous Superblock initiative. Conceived in the City’s 2013–2018 Urban Mobility Plan, the Superblocks are designed to prioritize pedestrians, limit traffic flow, and include active travel and parks. These interventions have drawn international attention and have helped to create safer, greener, and more accessible streets (Oscilowicz et al., 2020). However, while there is a high level of local satisfaction with this initiative, there are also growing concerns from residents about future housing availability, loss of community, and neighbourhood displacement resulting from increased global investment. An increasing number of community groups have voiced concerns about real estate development and speculation in Superblock neighbourhoods (Oscilowicz et al., 2020).

Until efforts by the Mayor in 2016, many of Barcelona’s sustainability-focused liveability interventions took place in the absence of formal structures to protect people from the impacts of gentrification, such as social security and housing affordability policies (Anguelovski et al., 2022). Recent efforts have focused on curbing the number of short-term holiday rentals in the city and spreading visitors over the entire city rather than concentrating them in tourist hot spots. In 2017, to ease the pressures of tourism on residents, Barcelona City Council implemented economic measures under the Special Tourist Accommodation Plan (PEUAT) to regulate the introduction of tourist accommodation, youth hostels, and shared homes (City of Barcelona, 2023).

The PEUAT zones the city into four areas, each with distinct regulations based on factors such as the ratio between the number of available tourist places and the current resident population, the scope of local commercial activity, and the impact of tourist activity on public spaces. This place-based approach creates flexibility and accounts for the economic and social profile of the city’s neighbourhoods.

This plan faced significant backlash and legal action from developers and the tourism industry, which led to its temporary annulment by the Superior Court of Catalunya (on the grounds that no economic or financial evaluation of the effects of the plan had taken place). A new PEUAT was drafted and came into force in January 2022.

Barcelona has successfully leveraged its green ambitions to brand the city and attract new investment. While many of the city’s sustainability interventions have led to positive environmental and social benefits, this investment has also brought with it an influx of higher-income skilled workers, as well as an increase in tourism, both of which have put pressure on the already competitive local housing market (Oscilowicz et al., 2021).

By addressing the issue of short-term accommodation, making efforts to disperse tourists across the city, and creating flexible, place-based anti-gentrification policies, the city has curbed the number of short-term rentals. However, a failure to engage with the economic impact of such policies led to significant backlash and delays. While policies to tackle gentrification are vital, cross-sector collaboration and cooperation are important in ensuring successful implementation.

Case study 2: Ghent, Belgium

In Ghent, Belgium, gentrification has been driven primarily by regenerating heavily industrialized areas, fostering urban growth and investment, and designing new areas that enhance the sustainability of new developments (Goossens et al., 2020).

The Ghent local authority had previously introduced a broad environmental strategy in the 1980s entitled Oxygen for Bruges Port, which prioritised urban renewal within the port area, alongside a social and environmental agenda (Goossens et al., 2020). While the strategy paved the way for the development of community parks, cycling infrastructure, and green space, there was little meaningful engagement with local communities. Since the 1980s, the local authority has introduced new social measures and initiatives and sought to work more closely with residents. The recent Living Streets initiative prioritizes rethinking local transport and street design and how they can be reimagined to transition to a climate neutral city by 2050 (Goossens et al., 2020). The initiative is led by community residents who provide ideas on greening, social living, and active travel measures.

As part of the broader development strategy, a large area of terraced housing in a lower-income neighbourhood was demolished to make room for new homes and green space. This gentrification of the area increased housing costs, which priced out local residents and led to conflict with residents who were not consulted on the process and were displaced from their neighbourhood. The environment strategy did improve the housing stock in the area and access to green space and brought benefits such as improved health and better air quality. However, many residents were excluded from accessing the neighbourhood because of high real estate costs. Instead, wealthier people moved into the neighbourhood (Gould & Lewis, 2017).

With the Living Streets initiative, these new residents were then consulted on community-led urban greening initiatives, enabling them to create their own neighbourhood. The initiative was introduced to get buy-in from residents and consult them on the development process. However, consultation with higher-income residents after significant redevelopment (which disproportionately impacted lower-income residents) only further exacerbated economic inequalities in Bruges Port. In Ghent, urban growth and economic development are the primary drivers, while sustainability and community consultations are largely secondary.

First, all urban renewal projects should consider the social and environmental factors at play, and the local community should be consulted to ensure minimal to no displacement occurs (Goossens et al., 2020).

Second, profiling the neighbourhood space provides an identity that locals are proud of and gives them a sense of place.

Third, urban greening and regeneration in low-income neighbourhoods should consider protective measures for residents, such as rent controls, so that they can enjoy the benefits of redevelopment (Goossens et al., 2020). Although urban greening measures provide many benefits for residents, ultimately, they are ineffective if they displace local communities and change the sense of place.

Case study 3: Sarigol, Istanbul

In the 2000s, planned gentrification within Istanbul’s Sarigol neighbourhood was largely driven by economic growth, urban development, and visions of sustainability (Yazar et al., 2020). With the latter, improving the resilience of buildings to earthquakes and enhancing the energy efficiency of housing stock was cited as the main reasons for prioritizing sustainability (Yazar et al., 2020).

The aim of planned development was primarily to attract international capital (through tourism) and drive investment in real estate by creating a more globalized image of the city and developing liveable neighbourhoods. Unplanned and substandard housing was to be replaced by energy efficient new builds as part of the urban renewal project (Yazar et al., 2020). The local authority aimed to take an integrated, strategic, and sustainable approach to renewing the neighbourhood by including environmental measures such as green spaces, increasing access to public transport options and active travel routes, and enhancing the waste management systems (Fitzgerald, 2010).

Despite efforts to make the neighbourhood more sustainable and liveable, the impact of the urban renewal project on residents was perceived as largely negative. Over 600 homes were demolished, with residents forced to sell at low prices and leave the area (Goksin et al., 2016). Lower-income residents in the area were disproportionately affected as they were not consulted on the project plans and could not afford the new housing (Yazar et al., 2020). Where sustainability was considered in the development, it tended to be in high-cost gated communities aimed at higher-income residents.

From the start of the urban renewal project, any consultation that was carried out lacked transparency and the development model prevented lower-income residents from remaining in the Sarigol neighbourhood. Despite a focus on creating a liveable neighbourhood, there was a distinct lack of social justice and equity considerations in the development—large numbers of residents were physically displaced, which exacerbated inequality. The sustainability benefits that were touted as renewing the local area were aimed at wealthy individuals to stimulate economic growth (Yazar et al., 2020). The local population did not benefit from the green space and energy-efficient homes, as the sustainability driver of development increased real estate value and excluded local access.

The development within Sarigol demonstrates how sustainability and greening measures can be used by local authorities to gentrify an area for economic growth, with little consideration for residents. Improving the liveability of a place does not equate to ensuring social equity is embedded in the development. In this instance, little regard was given to policy that preserves and creates affordable housing. This could have been avoided if the local authority had co-designed urban renewal plans and mitigated the negative economic impacts on locals (e.g., investing in affordable housing).

Furthermore, conducting a power analysis1 would have enabled the local authority to address inequality in the development by understanding stakeholder priorities and aligning with the identity and purpose of the place, rather than imposing this on locals. Within urban renewal projects, the local authority must be aware of the potential inequalities that arise from these developments and would benefit from assessing data on this to fully understand their impact.

Analysis

Theme 1: Cross-sectoral collaboration on neighbourhood (re)development

In many cities, successful sustainable urban development initiatives have led to increased global attention and investment. While this has benefits, it can leave local authorities caught in the middle of a conflict between residents concerned about rising house/rent prices and industry stakeholders.

This was the case in Barcelona, where the local authorities’ economic measures to regulate tourist and other temporary accommodation was met with strong resistance from developers and the tourism industry over the plan’s lack of economic impact assessment. This resulted in costly delays for the city while the plan was revised and re-approved.

While the economic impacts of tackling green gentrification should not take precedence over providing secure, affordable housing, to facilitate the smooth implementation of anti-gentrification policies, sustained cross-sector collaboration is vital. In Barcelona, a lack of engagement with the economic impacts of the planned anti-gentrification policies led to significant backlash and delays.

Theme 2: Community consultation in the decision-making process

Community engagement emerged as a common approach taken by local authorities to reduce the likelihood of green gentrification within their respective cities.

While community consultation can help with buy-in for specific greening measures, the timing of engagement is critical. For example, in the Brugse Port neighbourhood in Ghent, Belgium, the local authority implemented social measures and conducted smaller scale consultation with residents before demolishing homes; however, resident concerns on housing costs were largely ignored and thus engagement was perceived negatively by lower-income residents (Goossens et al., 2020).

The local authority then delivered a more coordinated community engagement process with the higher-income residents that could afford to live in the neighbourhood after the new homes had been built. The lack of meaningful community engagement with lower-income residents risks consultation being seen as a token gesture, that is, top-down, with cities pre-planning gentrification under the banner of urban renewal or urban regeneration with no resident buy-in.

Theme 3: Integrated development that considers the social use of the space
Local authorities have started to consider the wider social implications of urban (re)development projects (e.g., the use of space and increasing the liveability of development). However, few meaningfully address the equity considerations—many development sites tend to house lower-income communities and areas with a poor housing stock.

Accordingly, renewal projects are not designed for current residents; they are designed to draw higher-income residents who prioritise sustainable living and green space, and who can afford expensive real estate. This is evident in the Sarigol neighbourhood in Istanbul where local authorities are implementing environmental measures and reducing energy costs by mandating sustainable and resilient buildings but are not considering the accessibility of these spaces to local communities and previous lower-income residents (Yazar et al., 2020).

Policy recommendations