Shops as Sites of Change and New
Consumption Preferences
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Social Sciences (GSSS) MSc Urban & Regional Planning
Shops as Sites of Change and New Consumption
The Effect of Residential Gentrification on the Retail Supply in Four
Amsterdam Neighborhoods.
Author: Jesse Eradus, MSc.
Supervisor: Dr. H. Kok
Second Reader: Dr. F. Savini
Date: 11-06-2019
Word count: 20.007
This thesis is the end-product of the master’s program Urban & Spatial Planning at the University of Amsterdam. It’s subject: one of the most shaping forces within contemporary cities worldwide: gentrification. Since the term was coined by Ruth Glass in 1964, the scholarship of gentrification has developed itself greatly with many contributions. It is a process that unfolds within the socio-spatial fabric of urban areas, greatly affecting the societal and economic character of neighborhoods worldwide. Now as the framework of residential gentrification has been developed to a robust level, scholars are turning to other niches that are part of the process. One of these is commercial gentrification, the process of gentrification that unfolds in commercial establishments rather than in homes. It concerns the change in commercial structure by which old shops are replaced or ‘upgrade’ to cater to the change imposed by residential gentrification. Commercial spaces form the ‘third spaces’ behind the home and the workplace. They are places where we buy our daily and non-daily necessities. More importantly however, they also form sites of social interaction with peers.
Researching commercial gentrification was a process of reflection. The characteristics of gentrifiers include that they are highly-educated, relatively young, earning a higher income than their counterparts, and enjoying living in the heart of cities worldwide. This thesis shows that they exert influence upon the commercial space in which they live, making use of consumption spaces and giving meaning to identity through the purchase of goods or services. They are a group that enjoys going to a local coffee place, drinking a cappuccino with soy-milk whilst working on MacBooks. Or enjoying craft-beers in one of the café’s that the city of Amsterdam is rich. This raised the question: am I part of this process? I too have enjoyed a higher-education, will hopefully make a relatively stable income, and are younger than the average city-dweller. Furthermore, I only moved to Amsterdam for my studies, registering after my 18th birthday and enjoy living in the throbbing urban heart of Amsterdam. I’ve worked on my thesis in the coffee places that were the subject of my research. In the spare free-time that I had left, I would visit local popular cafés and drank craft-beers with my girlfriend or my friends. Have I become what has been the subject of my study?
The end-product of this period of interest into commercial gentrification is one that I am proud of. In the process, it has become abundantly clear how difficult researching not only residential gentrification is, but commercial gentrification as well. Conclusions require
I would like to thank Dr. Herman Kok for being my thesis supervisor and for the assistance during the process of writing this thesis. His guidance included timely meetings, sharp comments, and helpful insights for the development of the thesis. This included changing the location of our two-weekly meetings to a coffee-place that was close by my home, which included grilled cheese sandwiches and big mugs of coffee which I greatly enjoyed. He furthermore assisted by providing great connection that allowed this thesis to research the total retail supply in a quantitative manner. My gratitude extends to Prof. Dr. T. Tasan-Kok for inspiring me greatly in her class “Contemporary Approaches in Property-Led Urban Planning” that was able to sharply analyze the current state of the planning tradition and how it relates to the economy in which it operates. This was one of the many subjects that came to mind thanks to the framework that she provided in class. Furthermore, she helped guide me through the thesis preparation process including establishing a scope and a research question. Furthermore, thanks to Locatus for providing me with access to their rich data source on the commercial fabric. Without this, a statistical analysis of the retail landscape of Amsterdam would not have been possible.
A last word of gratitude is to my family, friends and especially my girlfriend for assistance during the process and helping me overcome the challenges associated with it.
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables ... 7
1. Introduction ... 9
2. Theoretical Framework ... 14
2.1. Context: Financialization ... 15
2.2. Developments and Challenges of Retail within the Netherlands ... 18
2.3. Location Theory and its Role in Retail Planning ... 21
2.4. Residential Gentrification ... 23
2.4.1. The Economic Aspect of Gentrification: Economic Revitalization ... 24
2.4.2. The Social Aspect of Gentrification: Displacement ... 25
2.4.3. The Role of various levels of Government ... 26
2.4.4. Residential Gentrification in Amsterdam ... 27
2.4.5. Operationalizing Gentrification: Three Types of Indicators ... 28
2.5. Commercial Gentrification ... 30
2.6.1. Operationalizing Commercial Gentrification ... 32
2.6.2. Where does Commercial Gentrification occur? ... 33
3. Methods ... 35
3.1. Conceptual Framework ... 35
3.2. Measuring Residential and Commercial Gentrification ... 37
3.3. Case Selection ... 39
3.4. Data Selection & Methods ... 40
3.5. Hypotheses ... 43
4. Gentrification in the Four Cases ... 44
4.1. Social Indicators of Gentrification ... 44
4.2. Physical Indicators of Gentrification ... 48
4.3. Economic Indicators of Gentrification ... 50
4.4. Classifying Gentrification in the Four Neighborhoods. ... 52
5. Results ... 54
5.1. Total Retail Supply Distribution... 55
5.1.1. Share of Chain Stores ... 57
6.1 External Upgrading ... 59
6.2. Quantitative Robustness Tests ... 61
6.3. Internal Upgrading ... 63
7. The Retail Supply ... 65
7.1. Robustness Tests ... 66
8. The Leisure Supply ... 68
8.1. Distribution of the Leisure Supply ... 68
8.2. Leisure Robustness Tests ... 69
8.3. Popular Cafés and Restaurants: Qualitative Change ... 71
8.4 High-End Fitness: Qualitative Change ... 72
9. The Service Supply ... 74
9.1. Robustness Tests & Geographic Distribution ... 75
10. Conclusion & Discussion ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 10.1 The Effect of Gentrificiation on the Total Retail Supply ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 10.2. Implications ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 10.3 Limitations ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. 10.4. Recommendations ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Literature ... 81
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Map of Included Neighborhoods. Source: QGis, Municipality of Amsterdam. ... 13
Figure 2: Development of Retail Space Prices in Amsterdam between 2005 and 2018. Source: Cushman & Wakefield, 2018. ... 20
Figure 3: Development of the Revenue-index of F&B and Retail in Amsterdam. Source: CBS, 2017. 21 Figure 4: Central Places Theory. Source: Adaptation by Evers et al 2005; of Christaller, 1933. ... 23
Figure 5: Rent Gap Theory. Source: Smith, 1987. ... 25
Figure 6: Neighborhoods of Amsterdam classified alongside axis of upgrading. Source: Hochstenbach, 2017. ... 27
Figure 7: Conceptual Framework. ... 37
Figure 8: Indicators of Residential and Commercial Gentrification. ... 38
Figure 9: Ethnicity in Amsterdam 2008-2018. Source: BBGA, 2019... 46
Figure 10: Shares of "New City-Dwellers". Source: BBGA, 2019. ... 47
Figure 11: Education Level 2010-2016. Source: BBGA, 2019. ... 48
Figure 12: Tenure Distribution. Source: BBGA, 2019. ... 49
Figure 13: Buildyear. Source: Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018. ... 50
Figure 14: Procentual change in value per square meter 2014-2018 vs. MSA average. Source: BBGA, 2019. ... 51
Figure 15: Amsterdam Neighborhoods per initial status (2004) and upgrading or downgrading. Source: Hochstenbach & Van Gent, 2014. ... 53
Figure 16: Total Retail Distribution. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 56
Figure 17: Change in Total Retail Distribution. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 57
Figure 18: Share of Individually Owned Stores. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 58
Figure 19: Distribution of Specific Stores as Share of the Total Daily Supply. From top-left to bottom-right (1) delicatessen, (2) wine-stores, (3) mini-markets and (4) vegetables/fruit. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 62
Figure 20: Distribution of Differentiated Supermarkets. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 64
Figure 21: Distribution of Four Types of Retail Stores. From top-left to bottom-right: (1) second-hand clothing, (2) second-hand stores, (3) hobby stores and (4) living-stores. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 67
Figure 22: Distribution of F&B Instagram Popularity. ... 72
Figure 23: Differentiation in Fitness Establishments. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 73
Figure 24: Distribution of a Selection of Service Stores on City-Level. ... 77
Table 1: Retail Challenges and their Impact on Shopping Areas. Source: Platform 31, 2014. ... 19
Table 2: Variables and Indicators of Gentrification. ... 30
Table 3: Earlier work on commercial gentrification and where it might manifest. Source: Authors. ... 34
Table 4: Quantitative and Qualitative Change in the Total Retail Supply. ... 39
Table 5: Case Selection. ... 40
Table 6: Hypotheses of the Effect of Residential Gentrification. ... 43
Table 7: Population, Households, and Age. Source: BBGA, 2019. ... 45
Table 8: Housing Supply and Change 14-18. Source: BBGA, 2019; CBS, 2017. ... 49
Table 9: Value per square meter. Source: BBGA, 2019. ... 51
Table 10: Income. Source: CBS, 2005; 2010; 2015; 2017. ... 52
Table 11: Classification of Neighborhoods. ... 54
Table 12: Selection of Observations of share of stores of total daily composition in 2019. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 60
Table 13: Selection of observations of change in the share of stores in the total daily supply 2005-2019. Source: Locatus, 2005-2019... 61
Table 14: Spearman Correlation Test for the effect of Residential Gentrification on amount of selling points and store surface of selected daily stores. (* = significant at 0.010 level, ** = significant at 0.05 level, *** = signficant at 0.001 level). Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 62
Table 15: In-Category Differntiation of Supermarkets. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 64
Table 16: Selection of Observations from Distribution of Retail Stores. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 65
Table 17: Selected Observations of Change in Retail Supply 2005-2019. Source: Locatus, 2019. .... 66
Table 18: Spearman correlation test for effect of residential gentrification on amount of selling points and store surface of selected daily stores (* = significant at 0.010 level, ** = significant at 0.05 level, *** = significant at 0.001 level). ... 67
Table 19: Selection of Observations in Leisure Supply. Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 68 Table 20: Observations of Change in Leisure Establishments 2005 to 2019. Source: Locatus, 2019. 69
Table 21: Spearman Correlation Test for Effect of Residential Gentrification on Selected Leisure-Oriented Establishments. (* = significant at the 0.010 level, ** = significant at the 0.05 level, *** = significant at the 0.001 level). ... 70 Table 22: Results of Instagram Scraping. Source: Instagram, Phantombuster.com... 72 Table 23: Selection of Observations in the Service Supply. Source: Locatus, 2019... 75 Table 24: Selection of Changes in the Service Supply. Source: Locatus, 2019.Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Table 25: Spearman Correlation Test for Relationship between Gentrification and The Service Supply. (* = significant at the 0.010 level, ** = significant at the 0.05 level, *** = significant at the 0.001 level). Source: Locatus, 2019. ... 76
ABSTRACT
The process of residential gentrification is increasingly shaping the socio-spatial fabric of neighborhoods in Western cities in Europe and America alike. The process instigates
socio-economic change, but this is not limited to the residential areas alone. A new niche within gentrification literature focuses on the role of business premises in the process, and outcome, of residential gentrification. These ‘third spaces’ can potentially play a role in forming amenities upon which household residential patterns are based, as well as providing novel consumption spaces. This research maps the effect of residential gentrification on business premises, through a quantitative multiple case study (N=4) of four Amsterdam neighborhoods that show various degrees of residential gentrification. It researches to what extent gentrification affects the daily goods, retail, food and beverages, and service supply. For each category, a frequency analysis is conducted, tested through a Spearman’s correlation test, and the distribution is shown geographically. For daily goods and leisure, extra analysis is conducted for in-category differentiation. We find that in Amsterdam, neighborhoods that are gentrified show concentrations of wine-stores, deli’s, secondhand clothing, massage parlors, and a decrease of grillrooms. In the selected gentrified neighborhoods, we see that there are more biological supermarkets, high-end gym establishments and popular cafés and restaurants, but we remain unable to test this on the city-level. Our conclusions indicate that residential gentrification does share a relationship with the total commercial supply of Amsterdam.
1. Introduction
Residential gentrification, ‘the back-to-the-city movement’ or ‘the renaissance of the city’ is perhaps one of the most shaping forces behind the structure and character of contemporary Western cities (Doucet, 2013). The socio-economic process by which residential areas undergo economic upgrading and concurrent societal change has transformed urban inner-city neighborhoods that were characterized by a downturn into vibrant and popular places. Areas of economic disinvestment become sites of economic reinvestment, resulting in ‘upgraded’ housing stock in economic terms. Concurrently, a societal change occurs within the residents of these areas. De Pijp, a neighborhood within the urban area of Amsterdam, is a prime example of such a transformation which has changed from a no-go zone to a robust economic area within Amsterdam with many shops, restaurants, cafés and service providers being popular amongst mostly younger, higher-educated inhabitants of the city. It signifies a broader process however, by which urban neighborhoods previously deemed unworthy of living undergo a specific type of urban ‘renaissance’. The residential aspect of this development, with particular focus upon the societal changes through displacement and replacement of the original inhabitants, has been studied intensively in gentrification literature. Now scholars turn to other niches of gentrification that have a
part in both the process and the outcome of the development. One of such a niche is commercial gentrification that shifts focus upon the role of business premises within the process of gentrification.
Commercial spaces and business premises play a sustaining role within the urban structure and peripheral areas alike. It sustains daily necessities through supermarkets and pharmacies, offers consumer services such as clothing reparation or hairdressers, enables buying other products such as clothing and household goods, and provides consumption spaces destined for social interaction in the form of food and beverages establishments. These commercial spaces and the variety of services and consumer goods they provide might be considered to be a critical urban amenity, which are increasingly crucial within metropolitan areas as these are also centers of consumption, besides being a center of production (Glaeser, Kolko & Saiz, 2001). Other amenities include aesthetics and physical setting, good public services and speed which together provide an interesting theory for why the demand for living in cities has risen – noticeably from the increasing price of inner-city areas - beyond simple explanations of production. Commercial spaces as amenities supply the needs of the metropolitan inhabitants. Yet it remains challenging to make long-term assessments of the commercial space, especially when it comes to commercial dynamics by which some business premises leave or locate commercial property in specific neighborhoods. Research remains mainly limited to single time-points, which has resulted in the absence of analyses that aim to discern to the specific trend of commercial space dynamics on the neighborhood level, except for trend analysis. Seeing commercial spaces as a type of urban amenities forms a bridge between the residential and commercial gentrification processes.
Commercial gentrification, or “the gentrification of business premises, which leads to consumption spaces for the middle-classes, even if this group does not represent the entire neighborhood” is a niche within gentrification literature that shifts focus towards the role of commercial space within both the process and the outcome of residential gentrification (Bridge & Dowling, 2001; Lees et al., 2008; Ernst & Doucet, 2013). These business premises concern the “mixture of shops, restaurants, and services
that attract people to, and surround, the lifestyle of the gentrifiers” (Bridge & Dowling, 2001). Borrowing from residential gentrification literature, a distinction is possible between two types of business premises: (1) those that serve the original populace and (2) ‘upgraded’ premises that serve the material and social needs of the gentrifiers. Similar to the amenity’s perspective, commercial gentrification literature also acknowledges that gentrification is not solely a process of production (residential gentrification and workplaces), but also a story of consumption. After all, in the post-modern capitalist economy, consuming certain types of products and services play a role in the construction of identity (Bridge & Dowling, 2001). If commercial spaces are seen as urban amenities, they play a role within the process of residential gentrification as they can form a reason for the popularity of a specific metropolitan area for the incoming gentrifying populace. Through residential gentrification and the societal change accompanied by changing consumption practices, the commercial space might also be the subject of cultural, economic, and societal change. As an outcome, the commercial space and business premises would then show adaption to these now consumption practices that might become apparent from different compositions of the retail landscape. Commercial gentrification is, therefore, similar to residential gentrification, a narrative of various types of change and ‘upgrading’.
The observation that business premises tend to change through the gentrification induced socio-economic developments in geographic areas remains largely undisputed in commercial gentrification literature. Bridge & Downling (2001) were among the first to incorporate a focus upon the retail landscape as a form of consumption that was mostly absent in the debate of gentrification. They conduct a study of four Melbourne neighborhoods that show different “micro-geographies of retailing and gentrification” (2001). Zukin (2009) incorporates a focus upon the change in retail with a shift from ‘local retail capital’ to multinational and chain-forming within gentrified streets. Meltzler (2015) adds on this and researches the effect of gentrification on small-town businesses, finding that some cases illustrate retention while others show disruption. Since then, more recent publications concern the role of pubs in spaces of gentrification (Ernst & Doucet, 2013), the increase of family-related consumption spaces (Karsten, 2013), the role and use of local specialty stores and their effect on the
quality of the living environment (Verwaaijen, 2013). This literature offers a plethora of new, mainly qualitative, insights into the processes associated with commercial gentrification and helps broaden understanding of how and why these developments occur. It seems that a quantitative perspective is as of yet lacking in commercial gentrification literature, however.
Research on change and trends within the commercial structure of metropolitan areas remains limited mainly to broad trend analyses, which compose the meta level. This meta-focus is partially due to the absence of accurate data on the commercial space that enables taking a more in-depth focus upon changes on the micro level. This micro-level is where the societal and economic change manifests itself within residential gentrification. Gentrification occurs on the individual ground level, with economic reinvestment in property and subsequent societal change in the composition of households. In that sense, gentrification on the broader level remains a sum of its parts. The processes of gentrification and an analysis thereof is best studied on the level of small geographically bounded neighborhoods, streets, postal codes, or wards. Essential to the process of gentrification, and a question to which no definitive answer has as of yet been formulated is why some neighborhoods gentrify while others do not. Differentiation amongst urban inner city-area is, in this case, more rule than the exception within gentrification processes. Subsequently, as Bridge & Dowling (2001) also argue in their seminal work on commercial gentrification by showing the role of micro-geographies, the change and trends within commercial gentrification should also be studied on the micro-level of individual business premises and neighborhoods. Similar to how residential gentrification is a narrative of change on the household level, commercial gentrification is the same but on the business premises level.
This research contributes to the commercial gentrification literature by providing an empirical, quantitative, micro-level analysis of the effect of residential gentrification on the commercial structure in Amsterdam. We aim to answer the question “how does
residential gentrification affect the daily, retail, leisure, and services supply in Amsterdam neighborhoods that show various degrees of gentrification dynamics?”. This
neighborhoods that show various degrees of gentrification, displayed in figure 1. These neighborhoods are selected on showing various degrees of gentrification that allows for a comparison between the cases: De Pijp (gentrified), Rivierenbuurt (gentrified), Bos & Lommer (gentrifying) and Osdorp (no-gentrification). Data to analyze this has been provided by the Municipality of Amsterdam, the Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS), and retail data-specialist Locatus.
Figure 1: Map of Included Neighborhoods. Source: QGis, Municipality of Amsterdam.
The structure of this thesis follows a deductive approach. In chapter two, literature that is concerned with the financialization of property, the financialization of retail, residential gentrification, and commercial gentrification. Based on this literature, criteria of residential gentrification are established and expectations as to how they might affect the total retail supply in areas discussed. A conceptual framework is constructed, which is discussed in chapter three, amongst other methodological choices as well as formulating hypotheses that we test. In chapter four, the question to what extent residential gentrification is present in the four selected cases is discussed leading to a categorization of the various degrees of gentrification. The main research question composes of the effect of residential gentrification on four categories of the total retail supply: daily stores, retail stores, leisure establishments, and service stores. For each of these categories, the effect of residential gentrification is assessed in the
results section: chapter five to nine. In chapter ten, the results are reiterated the results from the conducted analysis and conclude the effect of residential gentrification on the various aspects of the retail supply. Chapter seven provides recommendations and directions for future research into the subject of commercial gentrification.
2. Theoretical Framework
The question that is addressed within this research is related to spatially bounded retail spaces, and the changes of and within these spaces through processes of gentrification. To be able to answer to what extent gentrification has affected the
retail, food and beverage and services supply within specific neighborhoods, a framework is required that outlines various aspects. First, literature about the development, financialization, and professionalization of all types of commercial amenities is described to provide the broader context and account for the potential effects resulting from it. This describes the broader developments that have occurred within the various commercial markets and how the property market on which it is based has developed. Second, the Dutch method of planning and steering commercial spaces is discussed, which is primarily based on modern adaptations of the influential location’s theory of Christaller (1933). Third, literature concerning residential gentrification and displacement is disseminated to obtain a working definition of the concept. Such literature is focused on how and why these processes occur and why neighborhoods undergo change. This is followed by a literature review on the novel research and methodologies of commercial gentrification, as this allows a framework through which we can understand and research commercial space gentrification that also signifies the importance of the commercial space within residential neighborhoods. Before concluding the framework, the current state of gentrification within Amsterdam and the role of the state and municipality within it is provided. Together these insights provide the grander framework from which we aim to approach and research the changes within commercial spaces in Amsterdam.
2.1. Context: Financialization
Both residential and commercial property markets are increasingly becoming financialized and thus gaining interest from both national and international investors. Since 1982, the amount of indirect real estate investments by Dutch institutional investors rose from being almost non-existent towards roughly 72 billion euros in 2012, a 17-fold increase (Van Loon & Aalbers, 2017:228). This is a relatively new development, as the Dutch property market historically was primarily dominated by large national ‘players’. The Dutch property market, similar to others, however, now shows a movement by which real estate is considered by investors to be just another investment asset that has liquidity. However, this is not entirely the case, as real estate’s asset categorization is limited by two reasons. One is that investments in real estate are spatially fixed. This is most likely due to the belief that real estate property
can be disinvested and invested in easily, which might only be the case for derivatives of these assets (Van Loon & Aalbers, 2017:234). Secondly, “real estate increasingly
becomes the spatial fix for the over-accumulation of capital. It is one of the contradictions of capital that in order to find a fix, in the sense of a ‘solution’ to over-accumulation, real estate, the ‘spatial’ fix, needs to be treated as if it is not spatially fixed but liquid” (Van Loon & Aalbers, 2017:234). The authors note that this is problematic, as
the intrinsic value of buildings and their inhabitants disappears in favor of measuring success through profits and increases in value (Van Loon & Aalbers, 2017:234). And as capital enters the ‘stage’ of the property markets, it also becomes susceptible to economic growth and downturn and it thus becomes speculative. Regarding both residential and commercial real estate increasingly as an investment asset, partially explains why increasingly investments occur within the property markets worldwide.
Increasingly, foreign investments are also able to find Amsterdam as a suited city to invest funds in. The property market in Amsterdam, as well as of other major cities on the global scale, is booming which is why foreign investors are increasingly interested in such cities for doing investments. Within Amsterdam, this phenomenon of increasing foreign investments is relatively new, leading Floor Milikowski to ponder the question ‘who owns the city’ in her influential book trying to explain recent issues within Amsterdam regarding the housing and property market. Medio 2012 was the turning point where the number of foreign investments caught up and overtook the number of national investments (PBL, 2016). In the period between 2009 and 2015, foreign investments increased to roughly 50% of all national property transactions (PBL, 2016). This is not strange as currently, Amsterdam ranks as 9th regarding the attractivity of the property investment markets due to a stable political-economy, relatively cheap property and a good perspective. (PWC, Milikowski, 2018:221). The affordability of property however is declining as investors increasingly find Amsterdam as a suitable investment. On the national level, investments in commercial property rose with 40% between 2016 and 2017. The retail market attracted 20%. For both of these markets, half of the investments are being done by foreign investors. More than 75% of these are located in the US, UK, Germany and France (NVM, 2017). Generally speaking, retail is not the category that attracts the most investments. This is primarily
office space (43%), followed by industrial/logistic spaces (14%), residential property (12%) and last retail (9%) (PBL, 2016). Most foreign investments however, roughly 30%, of the 50%, is situated within Amsterdam.
Both the financialization of the property market, the residential property market and the increased foreign investment seem to be the result of a new national policy that effectively promoted these types of investments within the Netherlands. After the crisis, at the time Minister Stef Blok of the department of housing strongly restructured the Dutch housing and property markets through a series of policies. With the ‘Woningwet 2015’, the minister aimed to reduce the social housing corporations back to their core task: that of persons with a low income being able to find suited and affordable housing, rather than adopting speculative projects beyond this (Rijksoverheid, 2015). Much of the social housing stock, especially in Amsterdam, has been sold off and therefore liquidated through selling to private investors in order to recover some debt that was accumulated during the financial crisis of 2008 (Hochstenbach et al, 2018). Furthermore, the policy incorporated more space for the market and less risk within the buying sector of the housing market (FD, 2017). Minister Blok advertised the Dutch property market on international property investment conferences for its stability, affordability and the shortage of the housing market (Milikowski, 2018:221). For his reforms in the housing market, the minister could use foreign investments (FD, 2017). In sum, the recent housing and real estate market policies spearheaded by a liberal minister (VVD) was aimed at internationally generating attention for the Dutch property market, easing restrictions for investments, and generating more foreign investments (Hochstenbach et al, 2018). Illustrative of this is the English version of the Dutch website of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, marketing the rental sector in the Netherlands as an ‘excellent
2.2. Developments and Challenges of Retail within the Netherlands
Retail spaces and property within the Netherlands are subject to several challenges that affect their spatial distribution. As consumer behavior is constantly changing, this significantly affects retail spaces which are therefore also subject to rapid change (Platform 31, 2014:3). This is also one of the reasons residential and commercial gentrification share a relationship, as through residential gentrification the population changes that brings with it a shift in consumer behavior of residents that affect the commercial spaces. In order to isolate the effect of residential gentrification on the retail landscape, an understanding of what other broader economic and consumer behavior changes have occurred and are expected to occur is necessary. In the publication Winkelgebied van de Toekomst of Platform31, eight challenges of the retail landscape are discussed and what their implications are for the shopping streets in Dutch municipalities. These are displayed in table 1. This table explains vacancy rates, increased chain forming of brands and stores, changes in zoning functions, increased attractiveness of urban areas, and new F&B concepts.
Challenge Relationship Impact on Shopping Areas
Economic Stagnation
Retail developments move according to economic growth. The revenue of shops follows the growth and decline of the economy and especially the native consumption statistics.
The bankruptcy of stores and chains, resulting in vacant commercial spaces.
Revenue-shifts in Offline and Online Brands
Retail revenue has declined with 9% from 2008-2013. Shifts have occurred between food and non-food shops, between chains, and between offline and online stores.
In international perspective, Dutch online retail purchases are relatively low.
Increased chain brands and stores, especially in A1, A2 locations. Vacant buildings are assigned new functions, such as F&B, pop-up stores and small-scale services
Increased Store Vacancy
Not autonomous but result of other developments and among more mature markets. Since 2006 vacancy rates are increasing, which affects the functionality of shopping streets.
Increased vacancy rates.
Digitalization of Society
The rise of online shopping is not autonomous, but part of the ongoing digitalization of society. This entails technological developments such as usage of mobile internet and the creation of big databases.
Will affect orientation and
purchasing processes of
consumers. Travel agencies, photo shops, music stores, video rentals and consumer electronic stores have disappeared through this. Demographic
Transitions
Increased changes in age distribution, knowledge drain in peripheral areas,
Presence of yuppies increases the demand for neighborhood facilities
households and inhabitants. In the ‘Randstad’, increasing growth of inhabitants. In Amsterdam, increasing capital powerful households defined as ‘yuppies’.
such as public schools, playing gardens, F&B and retail (Karsten, 2014).
Comeback of the Inner-city
Instead of focusing on the outer areas of the city, increasingly developments occur within existing urban areas. Residential areas, public transport areas and inner-city industrial areas are being redeveloped.
Will positively affect retail in bigger urban areas (type ‘binnenstad’). For smaller and more peripheral shopping areas it will become harder to compete.
Developments in F&B
Increases in F&B supply, in contrast to a decline in selling points of retail. Decline in nightly shops such as clubs and bars, but increase in day-shops (coffee concepts, lunchrooms, ice-cream parlors).
Demand for bigger surfaces for F&B
New F&B concepts that require fluid zoning plans.
In areas with a decrease and/or ‘greying’ of the population, the amount of F&B is declining. Elderly are less likely to spend much in F&B.
Table 1: Retail Challenges and their Impact on Shopping Areas. Source: Platform 31, 2014.
Similar to nation-wide trends, retail spaces within Amsterdam and their composition are largely being determined by the consumption practices of inhabitants. Within the developments of retail spaces within the city, a distinction can be made between the supply and demand side. Regarding the former, there are five relevant trends; (1) shops in Amsterdam show characteristics of scaling-up as the absolute amount decreases but the store surface increases, (2) vacancy rates have declined from 4,4% to 3,6% with the lowest rates in the Centrum district and the highest in the Zuid-Oost area, (3) some areas show pressure on the retail space rental prices, whilst others show increase, (4) the added value and revenue of retail has increased with 11% between 2013-2016, (5) the amount of jobs has increased with 7% between 2014-2016, and (6) there is a strong increase in tourist-oriented shops within the Centrum district. The development of rent of retail spaces between 2005-2018, development three, is displayed in figure 2. This distribution and change in the rent of retail spaces shows that most increases concentrate within the inner-ringroad areas, whilst decreases or no-change is mostly observed outside of this boundary.
Regarding the demand-side of retail, another trend is visible regarding ‘koopkrachtbinding’, or the binding of purchasing power. This is an instrument of
measuring the extent to which inhabitants do their purchases in their respective neighborhood, ward or city-region. This shows that: (1) koopkrachtbinding of non-daily purchases has declined from 78 to 70% with an increase in online from 11% to 20%, and (2) that the koopkrachtbinding of daily purchases has remained constant with 95%. (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2016). These conclusions show even with the increase of online shopping, the number of inhabitants purchasing within their own neighborhoods and city-regions is high. This in turn means that the social composition of neighborhoods is important for the purchases done within the retail landscape.
Figure 2: Development of Retail Space Prices in Amsterdam between 2005 and 2018. Source: Cushman & Wakefield, 2018.
The development of ‘horeca’ within Amsterdam, or F&B, show two important developments: (1) there is an increase city-wide in the number of F&B establishments and (2) the overall revenue of these establishments is increasing. Between the eight-year period of 2010-2018, the number of F&B establishments in Amsterdam increased with 44,9% to 5760 in total (BBGA, 2018). This includes hotels, restaurants, cafés and other F&B establishments. Simultaneously, between the period of 2011 and 2017 the
revenue index of F&B increased to 129,6 showing a steady increase especially from 2014 onward. The revenue index of Amsterdam based retail increased to 116,9, showing a dip up until and including 2013 but afterwards showing increases (CBS, 2017). This development is displayed in figure 3. With regards to the increase in F&B and their spatial distribution, Van der Groep (2016) notes how: “the extra F&B establishments
have located themselves primarily within the 19th-century belt (+140 establishments) and the outer peripheral areas (+100). This fits with the image that neighborhoods such as the Westerpark, Oud-West, de Pijp and others have undergone a process of upgrading. The new inhabitants within these neighborhoods bring with them new lifestyle- and consumption patterns. (…) Where F&B and other novel shopping formulas thrive on these income-powerful inhabitants, this is not the case for older shops such as clothing and appliances stores. This is because a large share of the social and cultural capital is generated in the F&B, whilst a large share of the financial capital is being spent in online stores”. F&B is therefore highly interesting for analyzing commercial gentrification, as
the decline of stores and the increase of F&B in specific neighborhoods might signify processes of gentrification.
Figure 3: Development of the Revenue-index of F&B and Retail in Amsterdam. Source: CBS, 2017.
2.3. Location Theory and its Role in Retail Planning
The retail landscape and its spatial structure within the Netherlands, and the city of Amsterdam in particular, is largely planned on the concept of functional hierarchy that
90 100 110 120 130 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Development Revenue-index F&B and Retail
is derived from the central place theory by Kristoffer Christaller in 1933 (Evers et al, 2005; Evers et al, 2011). With this influential theory, Christaller aimed to describe and explain the distribution of settlements in the southern part of Germany. However, this theory also has explanatory power for describing the distribution of retail landscapes. Naturally, some locations will emerge that have a central position and a large catchment area. Within this area, smaller locations and smaller catchment areas will emerge that service a smaller geographical area. This leads to a natural emerging hierarchy between these areas that resembles a beehive, displayed in figure 4 (Evers at al, 2011:58-60). Whilst initially only devised to describe reality, this theory was quickly within the Dutch retail planning tradition (Evers et al, 2011:59). Such a hierarchical structure is also evident within the city of Amsterdam, where the inner-city is the central location with several supporting hierarchical subordinate areas. The inner-city of Amsterdam is the central location, with various types of other supporting areas surrounding it that have different catchment areas for neighborhoods. Roughly all neighborhoods that we are interested in are either a ‘binnenstedelijke winkelstraat’ (De Pijp, Rivierenbuurt, Bos & Lommer) or ‘wijkcentrum klein’ (Osdorp). More on this later in the description of our cases. On the basis of this theory, a typology of commercial areas on size and function is possible that incorporates the hierarchical aspect. This typology is displayed in Appendix 2.3a. It shows by which standard shopping areas can be categorized according to this, as well as the nation-wide average of chains that are located there, to which we can compare the shopping areas in our cases.
Figure 4: Central Places Theory. Source: Adaptation by Evers et al 2005; of Christaller, 1933.
2.4. Residential Gentrification
Residential gentrification is a socio-spatial process by which neighborhoods undergo significant spatial, economic, and social restructuring (Sassen, 1991:225). Much research has gone into the causes, processes and outcomes of gentrification. Ruth Glass first coined the term when she described the “the movement of the gentry,
affluent inhabitants, from the suburbs back to the city” (Glass, 1964:xviii-xix; Taggart,
2009). Other scholars have labeled gentrification a process of the “renaissance of the
city” (Karsten, 2013). In practice, gentrification is the renewed interest in specific
disinvested neighborhoods that receive economic stimulation through reinvestment, that results in a renewed attractiveness of the neighborhood through which there is an influx of new inhabitants and an outflux of the original populace. Gentrification is thus a simultaneous process of economic revitalization and societal change in a spatially bounded neighborhood. Both the economic and the societal change that occurs in gentrifying neighborhoods is limited to an upwards movement, by which buildings and rents significantly increase in value and the original populace is replaced by those with higher incomes and education levels (Boterman, 2016). In practice, gentrification is characterized but not limited to by four types of phenomena (Urban Displacement, 2019):
I. Real estate speculation, with investors flipping properties for large properties, high-end development, and landlords looking for higher-paying tenants (Smith, 1987).
II. Increased investments in neighborhood amenities, like transit and parks (Zuk et al, 2017).
III. Changes in land use, such as industrial to restaurants and storefronts (Hamnett & Whitelegg, 2007).
IV. Changes in the character of the neighborhood, as community-run businesses are replaced by business catering to new residents (Chapple & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2017; Zukin et al, 2009).
There are structural and material explanations for gentrification. Structural explanations focus on the logic underpinning gentrification that emphasize the broader political economy. These explanations place emphasis on in what conditions gentrification might occur. A material explanation however “places stronger emphasis on how gentrification processes unfold in space and over time, highlighting how different population groups shape and are shaped by gentrification” (Abbot, 2004; Hochstenbach, 2017:16). This approach places importance on issues such as “distinctive consumption practices, the value attached to residential spaces with an ‘authentic’ appeal, time-space management, and the preference to live amongst peers with similar consumption patterns” (Hochstenbach, 2017:17). This research is such an approach, as it is directly aimed at describing and explaining how residential gentrification processes have shaped the retail landscape in specific neighborhoods within Amsterdam, in order to distill the potential relationship between the two.
2.4.1. The Economic Aspect of Gentrification: Economic Revitalization
Through economic reinvestment, neighborhoods often are revitalized through which buildings, public space, and neighborhood amenities are improved. The economic aspect of gentrification is explained by the rent-gap theory (Smith, 1987). This theory states that when the gap between potential rent when a building or area is upgraded and the current capitalized rent increases over time, this will spur investors to do these economic investments as to increase their capitalized rent over time (Smith, 1987). It is
therefore argued that gentrification is the result of a rule-free housing and land market (Smith, 2007). This theory is displayed in figure 5. Through these reinvestments, the value of the property and land increases which allows for higher rents than previously possible due to the state of the asset.
Figure 5: Rent Gap Theory. Source: Smith, 1987.
2.4.2. The Social Aspect of Gentrification: Displacement
Gentrification is a janus-faced concept, as in contrast to the economic revitalization and neighborhood improvement is a societal change that can result in the displacement of the original populace that is often characterized as the downside of the process. Similar to gentrification itself, much research has gone into the social implications for spatial areas resulting from the process of economic revitalization. Many authors have placed emphasis on the negative consequences for primarily lower income and minority residents due to displacement (Sakizlioglu & Uitermark, 2014). The reinvestment in neighborhoods and economic revitalization results in land- or property-owners being able to increase their rents and property values up to their prospects as displayed in figure 5. The economic investment thus directly results in an increase of building value and accordingly the rent that is asked from tenants. The downside of this is that ‘current residents are forced to move because they can no longer afford to reside in the gentrifying neighborhoods’ (Freeman, 2005). This results in the displacement, primarily of working-class residents (Slater, 2006:740). Freeman (2005) adds to this that in-movers are more important than out-movers for the process as “people are likely to be more sensitive to neighborhood characteristics when choosing what neighborhood to move into rather than whether they should move at
all”. This process of displacement might be considered as the negative consequences of gentrification, with the economic improvement in neighborhood structure being the positive consequence.
Gentrifiers differ from the original populace in neighborhoods through several characteristics: (1) they generally are younger often under 40 years old, (2) they have consumption-oriented lifestyles, (3) ignoring gender gentrifiers relatively occupy professional-managerial occupations with high incomes, (4) they are highly educated with most having one university degree, (5) they are often unmarried and have no children and (6) they move into low-income housing in gentrifying neighborhoods which they renovate (Verwaaijen, 2013). Bridge & Dowling (2001) state how buying commodities is increasingly determinative for the identity that people have. Retailing plays an important role in consumption practices and reserves a role within the gentrification process. Specialty stores seem to reflect lifestyles and identities of gentrifiers (Bridge & Dowling, 2001). Especially through characteristics one, three and four the displacement resulting from residential gentrification can be seen in the societal structure of a neighborhood.
2.4.3. The Role of various levels of Government
Public bodies that possess planning authority, in the case of Amsterdam the municipality, might strive and assist gentrification processes through various policies. Within Amsterdam, policymakers explicitly discuss gentrification as being a positive policy instrument that might assist with revitalizing specific neighborhoods (Hochstenbach, 2017:36). Some authors provide a more radical account of the process and conceptualize gentrification in the case of Amsterdam as “a means through which governmental organizations and their partners lure the middle classes into disadvantaged areas with the purpose of civilizing and controlling these neighborhoods” (Hochstenbach, 2017:12). Authorities can and do play an important role in the process, through various policy options. Some of these include (1) subsidizing middle class amenities, (2) upgrading or privatizing public space and (3) housing policies (Hochstenbach, 2017:21-22). The latter, housing policies, primarily occur through housing liberalization: the process of selling social or public housing
accompanied with regulatory reforms that are aimed to facilitate gentrification in specific authority-selected neighborhoods (Hochstenbach, 2017:21-22).
2.4.4. Residential Gentrification in Amsterdam
Residential gentrification in Amsterdam occurs roughly alongside the boundary between Amsterdam’s gentrifying central city (Centre, East, West and South boroughs) and the urban peripheral boroughs (North, New-West and Southeast) Hochstenbach, 2017:42). This corresponds to a certain extent to the ring road A10 that runs through Amsterdam (Milikowski, 2018). A typology of neighborhoods characteristics and how this relates to gentrification processes might be classified alongside the distinction of downgrading and upgrading. Downgrading is when the growth of income level or real estate value is a standard deviation below from the average city level (Teernstra & Van Gent, 2012). Upgrading is a similar development, but with upwards growth in income level or real estate value. Within Amsterdam, high-status upgrading neighborhoods are located in the city centre and southern boroughs. Low-status upgrading is found in the nineteenth-century belt around the central city. Downgrading is found in the outer-ring neighbourhoods (cf. Hochstenbach, 2017). This division is displayed in figure 7.
Figure 6: Neighborhoods of Amsterdam classified alongside axis of upgrading. Source: Hochstenbach, 2017.
2.4.5. Operationalizing Gentrification: Three Types of Indicators
Being a socio-economic spatial process of change, residential gentrification can be measured through three types of indicators: social, economic, and physical. A gentrification label might be applied when “the temporal change in a series of variables increases concurrently” (Tierney & Petty, 2018:452). As residential gentrification is a process of change, gentrification manifests itself in the developments within these indicators. Social indicators include age, ethnicity, and education level. Age is “often implicitly acknowledged in gentrification processes” and Hochstenbach & Boterman argue for the “emergence of gentrification as a multi-generational process” (2018:1). Different age cohorts (young people, families, and older people) are associated with different forms of gentrification and life-course transitions (studentification, rental gentrification, family gentrification and rural gentrification) (Hochstenbach & Boterman, 2018). The second social indicator is ethnicity, of which the relationship it has with gentrification remains ambiguous. Within literature, gentrification has often been described as a process whereby “white gentrifiers displace black and non-white ethnic minority populations” (Lees, 2016). Such a view however is stereotypical and surpasses nuances and the role of black and non-white ethnic minorities as agents of gentrification themselves (Lees, 2016:208). Moreover, the relationship between both is different in the Western European contexts. In the Dutch context, an interesting indicator that relates to gentrification is the share of “new city-dwellers” that each neighborhood has. This indicator measures the number of inhabitants with a Dutch or Western migration background (not including Eastern-Europe), aged 18 to 54, that have first registered within the municipality of Amsterdam after their 18th birthday (BBGA, 2018). Being highly selective, this measure is associated with gentrification which becomes clear from policy documents viewing higher shares of this population as positive for a neighborhood (DirkMJK, 2015). Education level has been and might be applied as surrogate for ‘class’, and gentrifiers typically have higher education levels than those whom they displace (Smith, 1987). Education level is therefore widely used as an indicator in analyses of gentrification processes (Wyly & Hammel, 2004; Freeman, 2006; Martin, n.d.)
Economic characteristics are perhaps mostly used within empirical studies of residential gentrification as they are indicative of economic revitalization and include value and income. Economic indicators can provide the nearest approximation of gentrification through statistics (Martin, n.d.). Dwelling values are indicative of reinvestment, attractiveness, and demand for houses in the neighborhoods they are located in. As neighborhoods gentrify, gaining attractiveness and demand, housing prices often increase. The second economic indicator is income and to some extent forms a proxy for economic class. Neighborhoods that gentrify often increase in value and through the process of displacement, higher-income replaces lower-income inhabitants. In synthesis, both indicators have been used for a typology of ‘upgrading’ and ‘downgrading’ neighborhoods, shown in figure 7 (Hochstenbach & van Gent, 2014; Hochstenbach, 2017).
Relating to economic revitalization of neighborhoods are physical indicators. These include tenure shifts and increasing or upgrading existing housing stock. Increases in the housing stock might be indicative of ‘new-buit-gentrification’, a form of gentrification that occurs through residential development (Davidson & Lees, 2009). In order for developments to qualify as such, it would entail that the new built dwellings are aimed to accommodate gentrifiers. The second physical indicator is ownership distribution and tenure shifts. On a policy level, these might be considered to be part of state-led gentrification (Hochstenbach, 2016). Historically Amsterdam had high shares of social housing within the tenure composition. Since 1990 however, urban policies that favor homeownership at the cost of social-renting have been a structural force, and often promoting gentrification (Hochstenbach, 2016). Especially in the more centrally located boroughs, housing-association dwellings are in decline (Hochstenbach, 2016).
Gentrification Variables Indicators Social Displacement Social - Age - Ethnicity - Education Level Economic Revitalization
Economic - Dwelling Value
- Income
Physical - Building Developments/Upgrading
- Tenure Shifts Table 2: Variables and Indicators of Gentrification.
2.5. Commercial Gentrification
Commercial gentrification is gaining novel scholarly attention and research into it is aimed at understanding the role of retail landscapes within both the process and outcome of residential gentrification (Bridge & Dowling, 2001; Zukin et al, 2009; Karsten, 2013; Ernst & Doucet, 2013; Hochstenbach, 2017). Commercial gentrification research recognizes that as a neighborhood gentrifies, the change is not solely limited to the residential aspects but also exerts change on the commercial structure (Ernst, 2013). Slater (2006:738) captures this shift nicely by signaling how gentrification is no longer only about residential aspects such as rent increases, landlord harassment and working-class displacement, but increasingly about commercial aspects such as trendy bars and cafés, social diversity and clothing outlets. The commercial and public spaces in a neighborhood form the so-called ‘third spaces’ in neighborhoods besides respectively the social environments of the home and work (Oldenburg, 1989; 1991). Such places are of significant importance to neighborhoods as much of life besides living and working occurs here which generates much of the social and cultural capital of areas (Oldenburg, 1991). The commercial space within neighborhoods are therefore strongly connected to the residential aspects, and local businesses are tied to their communities in physical, economic and cultural ways (Meltzler, 2015). Bridge & Dowling (2001) have shown how the structure of micro retail landscapes are of importance as they show what types of amenities are situated in specific locations and how this reflects demographic characteristics. Empirical evidence confirms that as demographics of an area change, so do the business that serve and operate within it (Metlzler, 2016). Commercial spaces are important as not only is gentrification a process of production (housing, amenities) but also consumption by the novel
populace. More affluent users and newcomers need new consumption spaces to supply the material needs, as well as also generating social and cultural capital (Bridge & Dowling, 2001:93; Zukin, 2009:47). Commercial gentrification is in this case a representation of the lifestyle and value of its users, the new populace (Bridge & Dowling, 2001; Zukin, 2009; Ernst & Doucet, 2013).
Commercial gentrification literature therefore acknowledges that the retail landscape takes up a central component within both the process and outcome and might be considered a niche within the broader residential gentrification literature. The retail landscape is a term used to describe the “mixture of shops, restaurants and services that attract people to, and surround, the lifestyle of the gentrifiers” (Bridge & Dowling, 2001). In the process, the retail landscape might act as a catalyzer through offering or upgrading their stores that is catered to providing amenities for the new residents. In the outcome, it is then expected that as neighborhoods are fully gentrified and have undergone socio-economic transformation, the stores will reflect this and the lifestyles of the new inhabitants. Thus as the demographics of an area change through residential gentrification, this will also affect the retail landscape in various ways which has often been labelled as commercial gentrification which is “the gentrification of business premises, which leads to consumption spaces for the middle-classes, even if this group does not represent the entire neighborhood” (Bridge & Dowling, 2001; Lees et al, 2008; Ernst & Doucet, 2013). It signifies the change and the upgrading of the commercial space to provide for the new social class that has manifested itself within a given neighborhood. It is about the change from a café to a coffee-corner, the cheap dining restaurants to delis and foreign cuisines, and the change from independent local cornerstones to chains.
As commercial gentrification is a novel field of study, it does not yet provide a thorough or refined methodological and theoretical that this study can borrow from. Nonetheless, reviewing what is already known about the subject and how we might approach our study assists in providing a more detailed account. The first of these is provided by Bridge & Dowling (2001), whom highlight the importance of ‘microgeographies’ of retailing and gentrification. Such geographies represent
“increasingly localized consumption landscapes in terms of the production relations of retailing”. In their Australian based research, they focus on the retailing fabric of four inner Sydney neighborhoods. In order to do so, they have provided selected socio-economic characteristics of the neighborhoods, documented the retail establishments in these cases, and classified term along type of service of retail that is provided. In the second part, they have gathered information on the menu details, food styles, shop names, advertising strategies and architectural styles to gather more insight into the symbolic dimension of commercial gentrification. Through doing so, they have been able to compare these microgreographies to the consumption practices of gentrifiers.
2.6.1. Operationalizing Commercial Gentrification
The economic and societal change that is initiated by residential gentrification is expected to share a relationship with commercial gentrification. Especially the influx of new inhabitants, which are often richer and higher-educated, is likely to facilitate the need for new consumption spaces in the commercial fabric. This societal change in the neighborhood composition spurred by residential gentrification affects the commercial fabric, leading to “upgrading”. Commercial gentrification has been defined as “the gentrification of business premises, which leads to consumption spaces for the middle-classes, even if this group does not represent the entire neighborhood”. As of yet, this definition is not suited for analyses for two reasons: (1) it includes the word gentrification of which it remains unclear as to how the process of gentrification regarding business premises plays out and (2) it remains unclear what exactly defines a consumption space. A more fine-grained definition is necessary in order to be analyzed. Verwaaijen (2013) offers this through a synthesis of Zukin et al (2009) and Ernst (2011), stating that “as the result of the arrival of gentrifiers, trendy and authentic
boutiques, pubs, restaurants and other leisure related supply are established (…) commercial gentrification focuses on services and facilities in the area of retail, pubs, restaurants and other leisure related supply, like gyms, cinemas and other cultural facilities” (Doucet, 2013; in Verwaaijen, 2013:3).
The consumption spaces and the change within it through residential gentrification are relevant as they cater to the demands of the gentrifiers since consumption is
increasingly important in the construction of identities (Bridge & Dowling, 2001; Verwaaijen, 2013). Gentrifiers differ from the original populace in neighborhoods through several distinctive characteristics: (1) they generally are younger often under 40 years old, (2) they have consumption-oriented lifestyles, (3) ignoring gender gentrifiers relatively occupy professional managerial occupations with high incomes, (4) they are highly educated with most having one university degree, (5) they are often unmarried and have no children and (6) they move into low-income housing in gentrifying neighborhoods which they renovate (Verwaaijen, 2013). Bridge & Dowling (2001) state how buying commodities is increasingly determinative for the identity that people have. Retailing plays an important role in consumption practices and reserves a role within the gentrification process. Specialty stores seem to reflect lifestyles and identities of gentrifiers (Bridge & Dowling, 2001).
A working definition that we use based on a syntheses of the theoretical framework and the above mentioned additional definitions is “the social, cultural and economic
changes in the retail landscape - which includes retail, leisure, and services -, (1) changing the composition of stores, (2) that reflect new consumption patterns (3) which is reflected amongst others in price and reinvestment in amenities. The commercial
space and change that occurs within it can be approached in a qualitative and a quantitative manner. The former change might manifest itself within establishments, in the upgrading to a new clientele, changing appearance and serving or delivering other ‘upgraded’ products. Measuring such a change would require a qualitative approach. The latter type of change manifests itself in the change in the absolute numbers of specific stores in the retail, services and food and beverages.
2.6.2. Where does Commercial Gentrification occur?
Earlier work on commercial gentrification offers some directions as to where the process might manifest itself. This work, with their main recommendations as to the location of commercial gentrification is displayed in table 3. The first direction is that commercial gentrification likely focuses on individualized consumption, manifesting through a decline of chain-stores in favor of local independent-run stores (Bridge & Dowling 2001; Ernst & Doucet 2013; Chapple & Loukaitou-Sideris 2013; Verwaaijen,
