The term is a neologism that comes from English. It derives from gentry, a historical English social class with a mixed composition between the low and middle nobility that is equivalent to the Spanish nobility, and commoner landowners. It was used for the first time by the sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964, when studying the social changes that were occurring in London in relation to the territory.

To Spanishize the term, elitisation, aristocratization or gentrification,[11]​ have been proposed although, according to Fundéu, some of these proposed alternatives "do not capture the nuances of this process", nor does the term social requalification.[12]​.

In July 2023, the RAE registered both the verb "gentrify" and the noun "gentrification."

Contenido

La gentrificación comienza cuando un grupo de personas de un cierto nivel económico descubren un barrio de gente pobre que, a pesar de estar degradado y depreciado comercialmente, ofrece una buena relación entre la calidad y el precio y deciden instalarse en él, aprovechando las oportunidades de compras de los precios.

Estos barrios suelen estar situados cerca del centro de la ciudad o contar con determinadas ventajas, como el estar situados cerca de polos de empleo, etcétera.

Purely urban process

It is a purely urban phenomenon and located in the historical stage of post-Fordism,[13]​ despite the fact that similar processes may exist in other spatial and temporal areas.

In this way, the process bears similarities with the new trends in certain rural areas of the Western world, where as agricultural activity disappears they become home to tourist activities and second homes.

Nor should we confuse the term with the urban regeneration processes that occurred in the centers of modern cities with the aim of cleaning up the city or even creating expansions for the urban bourgeoisie, since this occurs in a different historical and economic context, with greater prominence of the public administration, with a less developed private real estate sector and, above all, because they are processes that contribute to creating the configuration of the modern industrial capitalist city, while the gentrification process dismantles it.[14]

Nowadays, gentrification projects are carried out in a more balanced way, allowing inhabitants from social classes with lower economic capacity to remain in the gentrified area (including zoning). Therefore, according to some specialists,[15]​[16]​ gentrification can lead to very positive changes from a social point of view. A good example of positive and inclusive gentrification is the case of Łódź (Poland), whose mayor's office aims to revitalize former industrial areas as part of the largest gentrification program in Europe.

Displacement of the popular classes

The most notable effect of gentrification is the displacement of the popular classes.

The lower classes may reduce their numbers in the area due to the aging of the population, the dilapidated conditions of a building, or the termination of a rental contract and the absence of a rental offer in the area for this social group.

Voluntary displacements are usually due to rejection due to the deterioration of the hamlet, due to the payment of incentives in exchange for its abandonment to tenants with armored contracts, or due to the purchase and sale of the property.

Once this displacement has been carried out, the precious land, commonly residential, is revalued through the rehabilitation of the building (usually reclassified as a high-level residence) or the construction of new homes.

Added to this progressive expulsion of the population is the inability of the evicted or of emancipated young people, originally from the neighborhood, to pay for housing there, as a consequence of the revaluation and increase in prices in relation to housing.

In addition to the displacement and revaluation of the land, other changes common to this type of processes are perceived, such as the reduction in housing occupancy rates (lower number of inhabitants per home) and the population density of the area. Likewise, in areas where renting was common, there will be a progressive transformation towards the property occupation modality.[17]​.

The first reference to processes of social substitution in working-class neighborhoods can be found in the industrial England of the century (Engels, 1865). However, this process is typical of capitalism in the second half of the century. Although the first reference to the term is attributed to Ruth Glass in 1964, regarding a study on London, it was nevertheless Michael Pacione (1990) who defined the concept as it is understood today. Pacione delimited gentrification to processes in which there is a displacement of one group of inhabitants (lower class, generally) by the introduction of another, for its revaluation. It establishes three phases for the process: a phase of abandonment by the lower classes, a phase of repopulation by the upper-middle classes and a phase of economic revitalization. It is necessary to note that, although this sequencing fits most of the cases, the first phase could be completely dispensable, since it refers to a pre-capitalist state of the sector that does not necessarily have to occur. There are gentrified neighborhoods that were originally born as working-class neighborhoods in the capitalist stage of the city and that previously corresponded to demographic voids.

Geographer David Ley, professor of geography at the University of British Columbia, presented the document Inner city resurgence units societal context in 1978, establishing a theory based on demand. In this way, Gentrification would be a consequence of the economic, sociocultural and demographic restructuring of the urban space. The changes in the economic structure of capitalism give rise to a new social group sponsored by the increase in the importance of the service sector and technical and white-collar workers with greater purchasing power than the classic working class. This would be the subject, which could materialize in a new social class, which bids for central residential spaces. The trend within the research established by Law, based mainly on consumption, has its main weakness in the little importance given to the role of supply and promoters. In this case, the supply would be a direct consequence of a pre-existing demand.

In response to D. Ley's proposals, another conceptual approach proposed by geographer Neil Smith, professor and professor of geography at Rutgers University in New Brunswick (New Jersey), emerges. Smith focuses his attention on the production of gentrifiable space, disregarding consumption as the driving force of the process. This author defends that the establishment of a theory on gentrification must include the study of demand and supply, but he gives priority to supply in his explanation, so that structural economic factors are predominant. The agents that act as the driving force of gentrification are those with the capacity to influence the real estate market, credit institutions, large developers, etc. The central point of Smith's theory lies in the rent gap or potential profit difference obtainable through a more lucrative use of the land. This approach is part of the so-called life cycle theory of neighborhoods, according to which neighborhoods experience phases of growth, decline and potential revitalization or renewal.[18]​.

Some scholars have come to describe the gentrification process as a diverse and chaotic phenomenon, difficult to define[19]​ and that can take and has taken many forms. The working-class neighborhood can be transformed into an upper-class neighborhood, but also into a middle-class neighborhood associated with groups of great cultural significance, with a predominance of elements of artistic expression, commercial premises where design and a bohemian atmosphere prevail. The degraded historic neighborhood can be transformed into a historic neighborhood, its rehabilitation focused on its use as a tourist attraction and incentive, in addition to the real estate sector, hospitality and commerce associated with tourism. On the other hand, we have the case of the old working-class industrial area that has remained anchored in the center of the city, with marginal productive activities and numerous premises in a state of abandonment that has become an upper-class residential area.

These types of gentrification may actually appear combined, however, this separation is not real. In all cases of gentrification, even if there is the presence of old industries or a notable historical value of the complex, the fundamental and common factor of the process is the existence of a humble population displaced by another with a higher level of income, that is, an invasion of space by upper-middle classes and the replacement of the population and to a large extent of the original hamlet, as well as a revaluation of previously devalued land.

The historical character and the presence of industry are inextricably associated with the industrial working-class neighborhoods developed in modern cities between the 19th century and the beginning of the 19th century; in the case of Seville, from the last two decades of the . Working-class neighborhoods that at a given moment stop fulfilling their function and are abandoned and degraded. Gentrification in these cases supposes the transition from the city as a support for productive activity, to the city as production, as a commodity. This commodity city responds largely to tourist exploitation, through the use of architecture, historical heritage, design, art, etc. It is the booming urban economy, postmodern and focused on the financial and services sector, which finds as its protagonist a middle class with a high cultural level and sufficient level of income.

It is therefore a question of a substitution of population and activity, of a population and productive activity in sharp decline for another that is booming. The factor that makes them compete for space is the situation of the population and the declining activity in a central space of interest, from which large capital gains can be extracted through its enhancement.

It is therefore a dynamic of capitalism that fits perfectly into the logic of the free market. The separation between different gentrification processes does not seem acceptable; Gentrification is a complex phenomenon that can take different forms, but it is delimitable and unique to the extent that it is produced by structural dynamics of post-Fordist capitalism and plays a fundamental role in the restructuring of urban space as a consequence of the productive and social restructuring of current capitalism.

Se concibe el proceso de gentrificación con base en tres fases dentro del ciclo de vida de un sector urbano. Este ciclo de vida es el que han llevado los barrios industriales tradicionales de ciudades occidentales que se encuentran en desarrollo y expansión en el periodo posfordista. Algunos investigadores como M. Pacione o P. A. Redfern sitúan como primera etapa dentro del ciclo vital del barrio gentrificado una etapa de carácter preindustrial, en la que al no existir una segregación social del espacio el sector en cuestión estaría habitado tanto por clases altas, como por clases bajas precapitalistas (artesanos, servidumbre, etc.). Si bien esto se ajusta a la realidad de muchos casos, se ha considerado esta etapa como despreciable a la hora de establecer una teoría sobre la gentrificación, dado que un sector urbano gentrificable no ha tenido porqué existir en la etapa preindustrial de la ciudad. Muchas de las villas obreras de cualquier ciudad industrial nacen como consecuencia de la industrialización que provoca el crecimiento de la ciudad y la aparición de la clase obrera, por lo tanto en ningún momento han sido pobladas por clases altas, otras son arrabales extramuros donde nunca se han establecido burguesía o nobleza.

Los autores citados se refieren a enclaves obreros, preferentemente los situados en las ciudades intramuros, que han sido habitados por clases altas en convivencia con otras clases incluso durante la consolidación de la zona como enclave obrero. El abandono del sector por parte de estas clases altas para desplazarse a los ensanches de la ciudad o a nuevos desarrollos de la misma más modernos, ha sido a menudo señalado como el inicio de la fase de abandono y desvalorización del barrio gentrificado. Esto puede ser cierto en algunos casos y cuestionable en otros, ya que se considera que el abandono es producto del desplazamiento del capital inmobiliario hacia sectores nuevos de la ciudad, y no la consecuencia de las decisiones individuales de los burgueses. Esta hipótesis vendría apoyada por el hecho anteriormente descrito de que no todos los sectores gentrificables hayan tenido que acoger a las clases altas con carácter previo a su configuración obrera. En estos casos la salida de las clases altas del sector no sería sino la salida de los capitales inmobiliarios de los burgueses propietarios de edificios, sin que estos tengan que vivir necesariamente en la zona en cuestión.

Birth

The first phase of the life cycle that leads an urban sector to gentrification is its configuration as a working-class enclave in the modern capitalist city. The first industrial enclaves are commonly born in the intramural city, within the old pre-capitalist city, giving rise to its transformation and restructuring, which in turn will give rise to the first social segregation of the urban space. Industrialization creates a new configuration of the urban center or part of it due to the presence of the mass of workers and productive activities, at the same time it creates new industrial enclaves that can arise on old suburbs of the city or on demographic voids and highlights new suburban areas where the upper classes move.

Industrialization involves the attraction of large pockets of immigration from rural areas. Logically, the new residents who come to work in the industries, located in the city center and in the port areas, settle around them seeking proximity to the workplace.

Industrialization also has consequences for the property-owning classes, since it changes the urban environment in which they are accustomed to living. On the one hand, the industrialization of cities deteriorates the environment, overcrowds them, creates unhealthiness problems, etc., and the multiplication of the working class in these areas creates a rejection effect for the bourgeoisie and nobles. On the other hand, the transportation revolution (trains, trams, etc.) allows the expansion of the privileged population towards the periphery, towards the suburban area, in modern cities. For the bourgeoisie, the suburban area means large spaces and tranquility, compared to the overcrowding and unhealthiness of the modern center. This establishes a model of spatial social division with the working class around the city center and the upper classes in the suburban area. On the other hand, in modern cities, strong speculative phenomena begin to develop as the pressure of labor immigration and the demand for accommodation grows, speculation and production of housing merchandise in cities becomes an important factor of capital accumulation.[20]​.

The working-class neighborhood gives rise to urban planning and a series of social relations of its own. Typologies of housing, workshops, shops and customs differentiated from bourgeois neighborhoods. Some of its most important characteristics for the topic at hand is precisely the type of housing, with collective rental housing predominating in Andalusian cities.

Abandonment

The second phase is the decapitalization and abandonment of the sector. Following Smith, for the appearance of the potential difference in income that will allow the large capital gains that gentrification produces and that are the main driving force of the process, it is necessary that there be a stage of decapitalization and devaluation of the area that allows large differences between the value of the land in the degraded sector and the potential value that it could have due to its location.

If the sector did not suffer a devaluation and its enhancement occurred gradually, within a different historical context, population replacement would not occur to such a high degree or in such short periods.

This devaluation can find different explanations. The main one is the decapitalization of the area, both of the real estate market and of industrial production, if any. Over a period that may vary depending on the case, real estate capital moves from the city center to the expansion areas first, to new developments in the city and to suburban development later. The times and types of cities produced by the displacement of this real estate capital may vary depending on the city, but what they have in common is the loss of interest in the old industrial neighborhoods and the redirection of investment towards the growth of the city.

Capitalization for suburban urbanization has often been directly related to the decapitalization of old industrial centers. This might be more appropriate to reality in the Anglo-Saxon world. In Spanish cities, investment would have been directed first to expansions of different character, towards growth through apartment blocks of different quality and finally to the development of suburban urbanization in the case of the upper classes.[21] We must also take into account the importance of private capital in the development of the large extensions of industrial estates and blocks that are built for the working classes starting in the 1950s.

Disinvestment will refer to private capital, given that public capital, and depending of course on the different administrations, will either not have made large investments in an area of ​​this type, or they will disappear in parallel with the private disinvestment.

On the other hand, while buildings are decapitalized, the old working-class neighborhood suffers unstoppable decline as a result of historical developments. On the one hand, industry will tend to move to peripheral areas, to industrial estates assigned by urban planning to these tasks, where productive activities will find large areas of land with very low rents and all the infrastructure necessary for their development. Another advantage that they will find in this first relocation will be the privileged location with respect to the transport network. Furthermore, the progressive development of communications and private transportation will no longer make it necessary to locate industries close to their workforce.

Revaluation

The location patterns of social groups change with the development model. After the structural crisis of the 70s, and the dismissal of chain production and heavy industry as the engine of the global economic system, the West entered the post-Fordist era.

The centers of developed cities (deindustrialized or that have not had notable industrialization but that now converge in the New Economic Model) become the main asset for the economic development of the system, this time as financial and service centers, nodes of communication with cities and companies where the most profitable businesses are carried out. The importance of services, tourism and real estate assets in postmodern cities tend to place great value on real estate merchandise, which becomes more and more expensive in city centers. The price becomes a rejection factor for the lower classes, while the proximity to tourist, cultural, financial and commercial centers becomes an attraction factor for the classes with greater purchasing power towards the center. Within this logic, the gentrifiable sectors of the city are revalued.

The large amounts of capital that circulate in the real estate sector seek investment opportunities, and the recapitalization of devalued, as well as central, sectors of the city can represent the most profitable investments in the land market of a given city. Smith relates investments in blighted centers to the falling rate of return on suburban investments. It coincides that this market has already been amply exploited, the best investment opportunities having already materialized, with a change in the subjective valuation of the space by the wealthy classes with a high cultural level who are attracted to neighborhoods of historical character or to the proximities of financial and communications centers.

At any given time, the best real estate investment opportunities in inner cities are not found in the areas with the highest land prices, but in those with the highest potential growth rate. Gentrifiable sectors can go from being the areas with the lowest land prices in the city to reaching the highest prices, so the benefits are maximized.

Because it is a medium-term investment and because there is great competition to acquire these lands, the market will tend to concentrate on the strongest investors capable of making the largest investments and maintaining them for long periods to realize the benefits, which determines the importance of large real estate companies and credit institutions in the process.

However, it is necessary to have a first trigger that attracts the forces of private capital, real estate developers, intermediaries and the middle classes. It is not enough for them to have the possibility of revaluation; often a trigger is necessary, which in the case of many cities, due to the weakness of local private capital, is the administration.

Once the process has started, the contagion effect is responsible for expanding it. Rehabilitation or reconstruction is essential to adapt homes to a high standard of living. The houses are almost or completely demolished, but structurally they still retain their charm, falsifying the heritage or relying on the landscape of the complex. Whether the gentrifier buys the home or rents it makes no difference to the process.

Chapinero, Bogotá and Colombia

Through a case study, a gentrification process is identified in the town of Chapinero. The unequal socioeconomic conditions of the population, found there, on highly profitable land, caused the emergence of a gentrification process, thanks to the scarcity of developable land, in a high-income cone of the city and a wide strip of neighborhoods of informal origin, adjacent to said cone; a situation that begins arduous logistical work, by private developers, for the acquisition of developable land, suitable for densification and development, in those settlements of informal origin, strategically located, next to high-income sectors.

Pressure and real estate speculation, on a large area of ​​popular neighborhoods in the town of Chapinero, has been brewing for 20 years, causing the slow disappearance of multiple settlements, consolidated without discriminating their legal status (whether formal or informal); construction companies and private promoters being the managers of large land acquisitions, at very low cost, which they subsequently develop under conditions of high profitability. This particularity entails an analysis of the social consequences that this urban variation has brought to the society of the neighborhoods of informal origin in the sector, with the desire to demonstrate the social repercussions generated by the development of gentrification that the town of Chapinero is experiencing, showing the socio-spatial changes created by the land market and, consequently, possible social management strategies are proposed that favor the mitigation of said urban phenomenon.[22]​.

Uruguay and Argentina

During the 20th century, Argentina and Uruguay experienced a gradual abandonment of their historic urban centers due to modernization and developmentalism, which devalued their symbolic content. After the post-war period, a functionalist urban renewal was carried out which, in the last decades of the century, began to value the heritage of the central spaces. Simultaneously, since the 1970s, the large Anglo-Saxon cities, having left behind their productive functions, were transformed into financial centers and experienced important processes of urban revitalization accompanied by gentrification, where residential gentrification has been an invariable consequence.[23]​.

In both Buenos Aires and Montevideo, the recent intervention of the historic centers of these two cities has played a role. Social pressures in the face of self-managed changes related to architecture and urban planning. Faced with this, the experiences lived in Montevideo and Buenos Aires have sought the permanence of the popular classes in their historic centers, through housing cooperatives, the actions of popular organizations have been combined with active policies from the administration, at least through favorable legislative changes. To what extent these formulas could turn gentrification into a positive process, or suppose a type of urban revitalization applicable to a variety of cases, thus avoiding the regressive social consequences of gentrification, or to what extent they could end up being converted into an instrument of the latter is something that must be assessed.

Spain

In the case of Spain, this phenomenon is observed associated with the historic centers of certain locations and, within these, it usually occurs in the most popular neighborhoods. But it's not recent. In fact, these places have gone through processes of decline throughout the century and, as Díaz details, "in many cases they became very deteriorated and devalued areas" that, starting in the 80s, with the real estate boom and tourism, "became very desirable for both solvent consumers and tourists."

For his part, Limón assures that some of the most significant examples of gentrification and "urban elitization" are found in Madrid, specifically in the neighborhoods of Chueca, Malasaña, La Latina "Barrio de La Latina (Madrid)"), Lavapiés, Tetuán "Tetuán (Madrid)")[24]​ or Usera;[25]​ as well as in Barcelona, in the areas of Raval or Barceloneta "Barceloneta". (Barceloneta)"). In parallel, it includes as examples of this urban renewal "the Abandoibarra area in Bilbao, Ruzafa in Valencia, the historic center of Seville "Casco Antiguo (Sevilla)"), the interventions in the Casco Vello de Vigo and the modifications to the historic centers of Pontevedra and Zaragoza".[26]

Honduras

Traditionally, the phenomenon of gentrification in Honduras had not been as widespread as in countries with more developed economies, however in the last decade it has begun to manifest exponentially in some urban areas, especially in the main cities of the country, such as Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula. Other tourist areas of the country have suffered this phenomenon such as the islands of Roatán and Útila, Valle de Ángeles, Santa Lucía "Santa Lucía (Honduras)"), and Copán Ruinas.[27]​.

The main reasons for the gentrification of these places are due to real estate companies that attract people with greater purchasing power, hotel companies, foreign investors, expatriates and retirees. It is common to see people, both national and foreign, buying properties to establish second homes or retreats, driving a demand for luxury homes. The case of land purchases by foreigners has been a factor in coastal areas, especially in the department of Bay Islands.[28]​[29]​.

Regarding the urban areas of the country, it is common to see Some traditional areas in the urban area are being revitalized, with the increase in real estate and commercial developments. In the historic center of Teguciglapa, which had always been considered an area where the majority of residents were characterized as people with lower incomes, the phenomenon of revitalizing old buildings to convert them into condominiums has recently been seen, which are usually very low cost for the so-called "digital nomads." As for San Pedro Sula, areas such as the Los Andes neighborhood are an example of this phenomenon in the city.

Mexico

In the Mexican case, this phenomenon is identified in the town of Mexico City, where, due to the great demographic growth and the constant changes in land use during the [30th] century, urbanization in different neighborhoods of the city experienced a transformation that ended up displacing the low-income population from the central area of the city, which led to the abandonment and subsequent deterioration of the homes in those spaces, which added to the earthquake in Mexico in 1985, the impact of the buildings in the The area was estimated at more than 90 thousand homes.[31]​ Based on this situation, the Mexican authorities promoted the creation of the Alameda Project.

It was an urban restoration project focused on the areas surrounding Alameda Central where the authorities of Mexico City created a trust through which various properties on Avenida Juárez were acquired, added to the interest of the Canadian real estate company Reichmann International, which in 1993 formed an investment project, the company investing 4 million dollars in the purchase of seven properties, in this way the real estate reactivation was sought in the area by constructing new residential and commercial buildings that would interest the wealthiest classes. However, one of the reasons for the cancellation of the project was the neighborhood opposition that was experienced against the commercial and office buildings, and that sought to build more housing for low-income people.[30]​.

Currently, the Condesa neighborhood "Colonia Condesa (Mexico City)") is characterized by the growth of commercial establishments and offices, with one- or two-story houses with predominant architectural styles such as art deco or Californian art. However, this is due to the population abandonment that the neighborhood suffered in the eighties, which added to the earthquake in Mexico in 1985, ended up leaving an abandoned neighborhood with very affordable prices for the new people who began to populate the neighborhood. Its transformation occurred in the 2000s, where there was an explosion in the change in land use, with many new commercial establishments and offices arriving, which ended up displacing a sector of the population that, due to the revaluation of the neighborhood with the entry of new residents, saw the need to move to other areas of the city.[30]​.

Resistance to gentrification

Gentrification has generated various neighborhood resistances. One of the most important was the Sevillian experience of the Casa del Pumarejo, a tenement house that was bought by a hotel chain, but where the organized resistance managed to force the expropriation of the building by the city council. In this same city, the case of San Bernardo is also paradigmatic, where a group of older tenants who survived in deteriorated buildings were pressured to abandon them.

In Granada there were neighborhood protests, such as those linked to the Casa del Aire or the Casa Cuna in the El Albaicín neighborhood, which, in addition to making the protest visible. Social networks facilitated the spread of protests.[26]​.

In Mexico, neighborhood resistance to gentrification processes has intensified since the works on Avenida Paseo de la Reforma in 2008, where residents of neighboring neighborhoods highlight the increase in direct displacement of residents and merchants, in addition to the increase in pressure from real estate agents to make the inhabitants of those neighborhoods vacate their homes, with the aim of demolishing them and building new high-rise homes.[32]​ In the period between Between 1992 and 2013, this process of population displacement has been constituted by the construction of 8 million square meters of office space in Mexico City, of which 47.9% were concentrated in Paseo de la Reforma, Insurgentes, Santa Fe and Nuevo Polanco.[32][33]​.

The South Korean television series titled Vincenzo "Vincenzo (TV series)") (Hangul: 빈센조; RR: Binsenjo) broadcast by Netflix in 2021, addresses in its theme an example of the gentrification process that occurs in the urban areas of Seoul, South Korea.

• - Portal:Sociology. Content related to Sociology.

• - Business improvement district.

• - Social stratification.

• - Urban obsolescence.

• - Urban renewal.

• - Urban planning.

• - Urban vitality.

• - , A.: Urban organization. Theories and models, Madrid, 1978, Institute of Local Administration Studies.

• - , O. (2002): Real estate boom and urban speculation. Madrid, El Ecologista Magazine.

• - , M.: Local and global, 1997, Santillana Editorial, Madrid.

• - , M.: The informational city, 1995, Alianza Editorial, Madrid.

• - , M. (1974): The urban question, Madrid, 11th century of Spain Editores S.A.

• - , Richard: Geography and socio-economic models, Madrid, 1971, Institute of Local Administration Studies.

• - , R. (2000): Global financial capitalism and permanent war, Barcelona, ​​Virus.

• - , V.: Modest housing and cultural heritage: The corrals and neighborhood patios in the historic complex of Seville. Scripta Nova. Electronic journal of geography and social sciences. Barcelona: University of Barcelona, ​​August 1, 2003.

• - , J. A. The Postmodern City: A New Urbanization?. Current Sociology, 43 (1), 1995, p. 151-217.

• - , D. (1977): Urbanism and social inequality, México, Siglo XXI S.A.

• - , D.: Spaces of Capital, 2001, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

• - , P. (1994): Urban Social Geography: an introduction, Essex: Longman Scientific & Technical.

• - , Jean-Claude: The ideal salary. The theory of classes and culture in the 20th century, Barcelona: Gedisa Editorial, 2003.

• - , J. (2006): City, heritage and citizenship, Engineering and Territory, no. 75, Barcelona, ​​pp. 96-103.

• - , J. (2006): Historical-artistic heritage and citizen participation. Around the Ciutat Vella of Valencia, Societat i patrimoni, 2, Universitat de València, pp. 91-141.

• - , J. M. (1998): The real estate-financial bubble in the recent economic situation, Madrid, Siglo XXI de España Editores s. to.

• - , M. Urban problems. An Applied Urban Analysis. London: Routledge, 1990.

• - , H. (1975): Economy of urban planning, Madrid, Alianza Editorial.

• - , I. (2001): Housing and real estate development in Madrid, Lleida, University of Lleida.

• - , N. Toward a theory of gentrification: a back to the city movement by capital, not by people. Journal of the American Planning Association, 1979, vol. 45.

• - , N. and , P. Gentrification of the City Boston, Unwin Hyman, 1988.

The term is a neologism that comes from English. It derives from gentry, a historical English social class with a mixed composition between the low and middle nobility that is equivalent to the Spanish nobility, and commoner landowners. It was used for the first time by the sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964, when studying the social changes that were occurring in London in relation to the territory.

To Spanishize the term, elitisation, aristocratization or gentrification,[11]​ have been proposed although, according to Fundéu, some of these proposed alternatives "do not capture the nuances of this process", nor does the term social requalification.[12]​.

In July 2023, the RAE registered both the verb "gentrify" and the noun "gentrification."

Contenido

La gentrificación comienza cuando un grupo de personas de un cierto nivel económico descubren un barrio de gente pobre que, a pesar de estar degradado y depreciado comercialmente, ofrece una buena relación entre la calidad y el precio y deciden instalarse en él, aprovechando las oportunidades de compras de los precios.

Estos barrios suelen estar situados cerca del centro de la ciudad o contar con determinadas ventajas, como el estar situados cerca de polos de empleo, etcétera.

Purely urban process

It is a purely urban phenomenon and located in the historical stage of post-Fordism,[13]​ despite the fact that similar processes may exist in other spatial and temporal areas.

In this way, the process bears similarities with the new trends in certain rural areas of the Western world, where as agricultural activity disappears they become home to tourist activities and second homes.

Nor should we confuse the term with the urban regeneration processes that occurred in the centers of modern cities with the aim of cleaning up the city or even creating expansions for the urban bourgeoisie, since this occurs in a different historical and economic context, with greater prominence of the public administration, with a less developed private real estate sector and, above all, because they are processes that contribute to creating the configuration of the modern industrial capitalist city, while the gentrification process dismantles it.[14]

Nowadays, gentrification projects are carried out in a more balanced way, allowing inhabitants from social classes with lower economic capacity to remain in the gentrified area (including zoning). Therefore, according to some specialists,[15]​[16]​ gentrification can lead to very positive changes from a social point of view. A good example of positive and inclusive gentrification is the case of Łódź (Poland), whose mayor's office aims to revitalize former industrial areas as part of the largest gentrification program in Europe.

Displacement of the popular classes

The most notable effect of gentrification is the displacement of the popular classes.

The lower classes may reduce their numbers in the area due to the aging of the population, the dilapidated conditions of a building, or the termination of a rental contract and the absence of a rental offer in the area for this social group.

Voluntary displacements are usually due to rejection due to the deterioration of the hamlet, due to the payment of incentives in exchange for its abandonment to tenants with armored contracts, or due to the purchase and sale of the property.

Once this displacement has been carried out, the precious land, commonly residential, is revalued through the rehabilitation of the building (usually reclassified as a high-level residence) or the construction of new homes.

Added to this progressive expulsion of the population is the inability of the evicted or of emancipated young people, originally from the neighborhood, to pay for housing there, as a consequence of the revaluation and increase in prices in relation to housing.

In addition to the displacement and revaluation of the land, other changes common to this type of processes are perceived, such as the reduction in housing occupancy rates (lower number of inhabitants per home) and the population density of the area. Likewise, in areas where renting was common, there will be a progressive transformation towards the property occupation modality.[17]​.

The first reference to processes of social substitution in working-class neighborhoods can be found in the industrial England of the century (Engels, 1865). However, this process is typical of capitalism in the second half of the century. Although the first reference to the term is attributed to Ruth Glass in 1964, regarding a study on London, it was nevertheless Michael Pacione (1990) who defined the concept as it is understood today. Pacione delimited gentrification to processes in which there is a displacement of one group of inhabitants (lower class, generally) by the introduction of another, for its revaluation. It establishes three phases for the process: a phase of abandonment by the lower classes, a phase of repopulation by the upper-middle classes and a phase of economic revitalization. It is necessary to note that, although this sequencing fits most of the cases, the first phase could be completely dispensable, since it refers to a pre-capitalist state of the sector that does not necessarily have to occur. There are gentrified neighborhoods that were originally born as working-class neighborhoods in the capitalist stage of the city and that previously corresponded to demographic voids.

Geographer David Ley, professor of geography at the University of British Columbia, presented the document Inner city resurgence units societal context in 1978, establishing a theory based on demand. In this way, Gentrification would be a consequence of the economic, sociocultural and demographic restructuring of the urban space. The changes in the economic structure of capitalism give rise to a new social group sponsored by the increase in the importance of the service sector and technical and white-collar workers with greater purchasing power than the classic working class. This would be the subject, which could materialize in a new social class, which bids for central residential spaces. The trend within the research established by Law, based mainly on consumption, has its main weakness in the little importance given to the role of supply and promoters. In this case, the supply would be a direct consequence of a pre-existing demand.

In response to D. Ley's proposals, another conceptual approach proposed by geographer Neil Smith, professor and professor of geography at Rutgers University in New Brunswick (New Jersey), emerges. Smith focuses his attention on the production of gentrifiable space, disregarding consumption as the driving force of the process. This author defends that the establishment of a theory on gentrification must include the study of demand and supply, but he gives priority to supply in his explanation, so that structural economic factors are predominant. The agents that act as the driving force of gentrification are those with the capacity to influence the real estate market, credit institutions, large developers, etc. The central point of Smith's theory lies in the rent gap or potential profit difference obtainable through a more lucrative use of the land. This approach is part of the so-called life cycle theory of neighborhoods, according to which neighborhoods experience phases of growth, decline and potential revitalization or renewal.[18]​.

Some scholars have come to describe the gentrification process as a diverse and chaotic phenomenon, difficult to define[19]​ and that can take and has taken many forms. The working-class neighborhood can be transformed into an upper-class neighborhood, but also into a middle-class neighborhood associated with groups of great cultural significance, with a predominance of elements of artistic expression, commercial premises where design and a bohemian atmosphere prevail. The degraded historic neighborhood can be transformed into a historic neighborhood, its rehabilitation focused on its use as a tourist attraction and incentive, in addition to the real estate sector, hospitality and commerce associated with tourism. On the other hand, we have the case of the old working-class industrial area that has remained anchored in the center of the city, with marginal productive activities and numerous premises in a state of abandonment that has become an upper-class residential area.

These types of gentrification may actually appear combined, however, this separation is not real. In all cases of gentrification, even if there is the presence of old industries or a notable historical value of the complex, the fundamental and common factor of the process is the existence of a humble population displaced by another with a higher level of income, that is, an invasion of space by upper-middle classes and the replacement of the population and to a large extent of the original hamlet, as well as a revaluation of previously devalued land.

The historical character and the presence of industry are inextricably associated with the industrial working-class neighborhoods developed in modern cities between the 19th century and the beginning of the 19th century; in the case of Seville, from the last two decades of the . Working-class neighborhoods that at a given moment stop fulfilling their function and are abandoned and degraded. Gentrification in these cases supposes the transition from the city as a support for productive activity, to the city as production, as a commodity. This commodity city responds largely to tourist exploitation, through the use of architecture, historical heritage, design, art, etc. It is the booming urban economy, postmodern and focused on the financial and services sector, which finds as its protagonist a middle class with a high cultural level and sufficient level of income.

It is therefore a question of a substitution of population and activity, of a population and productive activity in sharp decline for another that is booming. The factor that makes them compete for space is the situation of the population and the declining activity in a central space of interest, from which large capital gains can be extracted through its enhancement.

It is therefore a dynamic of capitalism that fits perfectly into the logic of the free market. The separation between different gentrification processes does not seem acceptable; Gentrification is a complex phenomenon that can take different forms, but it is delimitable and unique to the extent that it is produced by structural dynamics of post-Fordist capitalism and plays a fundamental role in the restructuring of urban space as a consequence of the productive and social restructuring of current capitalism.

Se concibe el proceso de gentrificación con base en tres fases dentro del ciclo de vida de un sector urbano. Este ciclo de vida es el que han llevado los barrios industriales tradicionales de ciudades occidentales que se encuentran en desarrollo y expansión en el periodo posfordista. Algunos investigadores como M. Pacione o P. A. Redfern sitúan como primera etapa dentro del ciclo vital del barrio gentrificado una etapa de carácter preindustrial, en la que al no existir una segregación social del espacio el sector en cuestión estaría habitado tanto por clases altas, como por clases bajas precapitalistas (artesanos, servidumbre, etc.). Si bien esto se ajusta a la realidad de muchos casos, se ha considerado esta etapa como despreciable a la hora de establecer una teoría sobre la gentrificación, dado que un sector urbano gentrificable no ha tenido porqué existir en la etapa preindustrial de la ciudad. Muchas de las villas obreras de cualquier ciudad industrial nacen como consecuencia de la industrialización que provoca el crecimiento de la ciudad y la aparición de la clase obrera, por lo tanto en ningún momento han sido pobladas por clases altas, otras son arrabales extramuros donde nunca se han establecido burguesía o nobleza.

Los autores citados se refieren a enclaves obreros, preferentemente los situados en las ciudades intramuros, que han sido habitados por clases altas en convivencia con otras clases incluso durante la consolidación de la zona como enclave obrero. El abandono del sector por parte de estas clases altas para desplazarse a los ensanches de la ciudad o a nuevos desarrollos de la misma más modernos, ha sido a menudo señalado como el inicio de la fase de abandono y desvalorización del barrio gentrificado. Esto puede ser cierto en algunos casos y cuestionable en otros, ya que se considera que el abandono es producto del desplazamiento del capital inmobiliario hacia sectores nuevos de la ciudad, y no la consecuencia de las decisiones individuales de los burgueses. Esta hipótesis vendría apoyada por el hecho anteriormente descrito de que no todos los sectores gentrificables hayan tenido que acoger a las clases altas con carácter previo a su configuración obrera. En estos casos la salida de las clases altas del sector no sería sino la salida de los capitales inmobiliarios de los burgueses propietarios de edificios, sin que estos tengan que vivir necesariamente en la zona en cuestión.

Birth

The first phase of the life cycle that leads an urban sector to gentrification is its configuration as a working-class enclave in the modern capitalist city. The first industrial enclaves are commonly born in the intramural city, within the old pre-capitalist city, giving rise to its transformation and restructuring, which in turn will give rise to the first social segregation of the urban space. Industrialization creates a new configuration of the urban center or part of it due to the presence of the mass of workers and productive activities, at the same time it creates new industrial enclaves that can arise on old suburbs of the city or on demographic voids and highlights new suburban areas where the upper classes move.

Industrialization involves the attraction of large pockets of immigration from rural areas. Logically, the new residents who come to work in the industries, located in the city center and in the port areas, settle around them seeking proximity to the workplace.

Industrialization also has consequences for the property-owning classes, since it changes the urban environment in which they are accustomed to living. On the one hand, the industrialization of cities deteriorates the environment, overcrowds them, creates unhealthiness problems, etc., and the multiplication of the working class in these areas creates a rejection effect for the bourgeoisie and nobles. On the other hand, the transportation revolution (trains, trams, etc.) allows the expansion of the privileged population towards the periphery, towards the suburban area, in modern cities. For the bourgeoisie, the suburban area means large spaces and tranquility, compared to the overcrowding and unhealthiness of the modern center. This establishes a model of spatial social division with the working class around the city center and the upper classes in the suburban area. On the other hand, in modern cities, strong speculative phenomena begin to develop as the pressure of labor immigration and the demand for accommodation grows, speculation and production of housing merchandise in cities becomes an important factor of capital accumulation.[20]​.

The working-class neighborhood gives rise to urban planning and a series of social relations of its own. Typologies of housing, workshops, shops and customs differentiated from bourgeois neighborhoods. Some of its most important characteristics for the topic at hand is precisely the type of housing, with collective rental housing predominating in Andalusian cities.

Abandonment

The second phase is the decapitalization and abandonment of the sector. Following Smith, for the appearance of the potential difference in income that will allow the large capital gains that gentrification produces and that are the main driving force of the process, it is necessary that there be a stage of decapitalization and devaluation of the area that allows large differences between the value of the land in the degraded sector and the potential value that it could have due to its location.

If the sector did not suffer a devaluation and its enhancement occurred gradually, within a different historical context, population replacement would not occur to such a high degree or in such short periods.

This devaluation can find different explanations. The main one is the decapitalization of the area, both of the real estate market and of industrial production, if any. Over a period that may vary depending on the case, real estate capital moves from the city center to the expansion areas first, to new developments in the city and to suburban development later. The times and types of cities produced by the displacement of this real estate capital may vary depending on the city, but what they have in common is the loss of interest in the old industrial neighborhoods and the redirection of investment towards the growth of the city.

Capitalization for suburban urbanization has often been directly related to the decapitalization of old industrial centers. This might be more appropriate to reality in the Anglo-Saxon world. In Spanish cities, investment would have been directed first to expansions of different character, towards growth through apartment blocks of different quality and finally to the development of suburban urbanization in the case of the upper classes.[21] We must also take into account the importance of private capital in the development of the large extensions of industrial estates and blocks that are built for the working classes starting in the 1950s.

Disinvestment will refer to private capital, given that public capital, and depending of course on the different administrations, will either not have made large investments in an area of ​​this type, or they will disappear in parallel with the private disinvestment.

On the other hand, while buildings are decapitalized, the old working-class neighborhood suffers unstoppable decline as a result of historical developments. On the one hand, industry will tend to move to peripheral areas, to industrial estates assigned by urban planning to these tasks, where productive activities will find large areas of land with very low rents and all the infrastructure necessary for their development. Another advantage that they will find in this first relocation will be the privileged location with respect to the transport network. Furthermore, the progressive development of communications and private transportation will no longer make it necessary to locate industries close to their workforce.

Revaluation

The location patterns of social groups change with the development model. After the structural crisis of the 70s, and the dismissal of chain production and heavy industry as the engine of the global economic system, the West entered the post-Fordist era.

The centers of developed cities (deindustrialized or that have not had notable industrialization but that now converge in the New Economic Model) become the main asset for the economic development of the system, this time as financial and service centers, nodes of communication with cities and companies where the most profitable businesses are carried out. The importance of services, tourism and real estate assets in postmodern cities tend to place great value on real estate merchandise, which becomes more and more expensive in city centers. The price becomes a rejection factor for the lower classes, while the proximity to tourist, cultural, financial and commercial centers becomes an attraction factor for the classes with greater purchasing power towards the center. Within this logic, the gentrifiable sectors of the city are revalued.

The large amounts of capital that circulate in the real estate sector seek investment opportunities, and the recapitalization of devalued, as well as central, sectors of the city can represent the most profitable investments in the land market of a given city. Smith relates investments in blighted centers to the falling rate of return on suburban investments. It coincides that this market has already been amply exploited, the best investment opportunities having already materialized, with a change in the subjective valuation of the space by the wealthy classes with a high cultural level who are attracted to neighborhoods of historical character or to the proximities of financial and communications centers.

At any given time, the best real estate investment opportunities in inner cities are not found in the areas with the highest land prices, but in those with the highest potential growth rate. Gentrifiable sectors can go from being the areas with the lowest land prices in the city to reaching the highest prices, so the benefits are maximized.

Because it is a medium-term investment and because there is great competition to acquire these lands, the market will tend to concentrate on the strongest investors capable of making the largest investments and maintaining them for long periods to realize the benefits, which determines the importance of large real estate companies and credit institutions in the process.

However, it is necessary to have a first trigger that attracts the forces of private capital, real estate developers, intermediaries and the middle classes. It is not enough for them to have the possibility of revaluation; often a trigger is necessary, which in the case of many cities, due to the weakness of local private capital, is the administration.

Once the process has started, the contagion effect is responsible for expanding it. Rehabilitation or reconstruction is essential to adapt homes to a high standard of living. The houses are almost or completely demolished, but structurally they still retain their charm, falsifying the heritage or relying on the landscape of the complex. Whether the gentrifier buys the home or rents it makes no difference to the process.

Chapinero, Bogotá and Colombia

Through a case study, a gentrification process is identified in the town of Chapinero. The unequal socioeconomic conditions of the population, found there, on highly profitable land, caused the emergence of a gentrification process, thanks to the scarcity of developable land, in a high-income cone of the city and a wide strip of neighborhoods of informal origin, adjacent to said cone; a situation that begins arduous logistical work, by private developers, for the acquisition of developable land, suitable for densification and development, in those settlements of informal origin, strategically located, next to high-income sectors.

Pressure and real estate speculation, on a large area of ​​popular neighborhoods in the town of Chapinero, has been brewing for 20 years, causing the slow disappearance of multiple settlements, consolidated without discriminating their legal status (whether formal or informal); construction companies and private promoters being the managers of large land acquisitions, at very low cost, which they subsequently develop under conditions of high profitability. This particularity entails an analysis of the social consequences that this urban variation has brought to the society of the neighborhoods of informal origin in the sector, with the desire to demonstrate the social repercussions generated by the development of gentrification that the town of Chapinero is experiencing, showing the socio-spatial changes created by the land market and, consequently, possible social management strategies are proposed that favor the mitigation of said urban phenomenon.[22]​.

Uruguay and Argentina

During the 20th century, Argentina and Uruguay experienced a gradual abandonment of their historic urban centers due to modernization and developmentalism, which devalued their symbolic content. After the post-war period, a functionalist urban renewal was carried out which, in the last decades of the century, began to value the heritage of the central spaces. Simultaneously, since the 1970s, the large Anglo-Saxon cities, having left behind their productive functions, were transformed into financial centers and experienced important processes of urban revitalization accompanied by gentrification, where residential gentrification has been an invariable consequence.[23]​.

In both Buenos Aires and Montevideo, the recent intervention of the historic centers of these two cities has played a role. Social pressures in the face of self-managed changes related to architecture and urban planning. Faced with this, the experiences lived in Montevideo and Buenos Aires have sought the permanence of the popular classes in their historic centers, through housing cooperatives, the actions of popular organizations have been combined with active policies from the administration, at least through favorable legislative changes. To what extent these formulas could turn gentrification into a positive process, or suppose a type of urban revitalization applicable to a variety of cases, thus avoiding the regressive social consequences of gentrification, or to what extent they could end up being converted into an instrument of the latter is something that must be assessed.

Spain

In the case of Spain, this phenomenon is observed associated with the historic centers of certain locations and, within these, it usually occurs in the most popular neighborhoods. But it's not recent. In fact, these places have gone through processes of decline throughout the century and, as Díaz details, "in many cases they became very deteriorated and devalued areas" that, starting in the 80s, with the real estate boom and tourism, "became very desirable for both solvent consumers and tourists."

For his part, Limón assures that some of the most significant examples of gentrification and "urban elitization" are found in Madrid, specifically in the neighborhoods of Chueca, Malasaña, La Latina "Barrio de La Latina (Madrid)"), Lavapiés, Tetuán "Tetuán (Madrid)")[24]​ or Usera;[25]​ as well as in Barcelona, in the areas of Raval or Barceloneta "Barceloneta". (Barceloneta)"). In parallel, it includes as examples of this urban renewal "the Abandoibarra area in Bilbao, Ruzafa in Valencia, the historic center of Seville "Casco Antiguo (Sevilla)"), the interventions in the Casco Vello de Vigo and the modifications to the historic centers of Pontevedra and Zaragoza".[26]

Honduras

Traditionally, the phenomenon of gentrification in Honduras had not been as widespread as in countries with more developed economies, however in the last decade it has begun to manifest exponentially in some urban areas, especially in the main cities of the country, such as Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula. Other tourist areas of the country have suffered this phenomenon such as the islands of Roatán and Útila, Valle de Ángeles, Santa Lucía "Santa Lucía (Honduras)"), and Copán Ruinas.[27]​.

The main reasons for the gentrification of these places are due to real estate companies that attract people with greater purchasing power, hotel companies, foreign investors, expatriates and retirees. It is common to see people, both national and foreign, buying properties to establish second homes or retreats, driving a demand for luxury homes. The case of land purchases by foreigners has been a factor in coastal areas, especially in the department of Bay Islands.[28]​[29]​.

Regarding the urban areas of the country, it is common to see Some traditional areas in the urban area are being revitalized, with the increase in real estate and commercial developments. In the historic center of Teguciglapa, which had always been considered an area where the majority of residents were characterized as people with lower incomes, the phenomenon of revitalizing old buildings to convert them into condominiums has recently been seen, which are usually very low cost for the so-called "digital nomads." As for San Pedro Sula, areas such as the Los Andes neighborhood are an example of this phenomenon in the city.

Mexico

In the Mexican case, this phenomenon is identified in the town of Mexico City, where, due to the great demographic growth and the constant changes in land use during the [30th] century, urbanization in different neighborhoods of the city experienced a transformation that ended up displacing the low-income population from the central area of the city, which led to the abandonment and subsequent deterioration of the homes in those spaces, which added to the earthquake in Mexico in 1985, the impact of the buildings in the The area was estimated at more than 90 thousand homes.[31]​ Based on this situation, the Mexican authorities promoted the creation of the Alameda Project.

It was an urban restoration project focused on the areas surrounding Alameda Central where the authorities of Mexico City created a trust through which various properties on Avenida Juárez were acquired, added to the interest of the Canadian real estate company Reichmann International, which in 1993 formed an investment project, the company investing 4 million dollars in the purchase of seven properties, in this way the real estate reactivation was sought in the area by constructing new residential and commercial buildings that would interest the wealthiest classes. However, one of the reasons for the cancellation of the project was the neighborhood opposition that was experienced against the commercial and office buildings, and that sought to build more housing for low-income people.[30]​.

Currently, the Condesa neighborhood "Colonia Condesa (Mexico City)") is characterized by the growth of commercial establishments and offices, with one- or two-story houses with predominant architectural styles such as art deco or Californian art. However, this is due to the population abandonment that the neighborhood suffered in the eighties, which added to the earthquake in Mexico in 1985, ended up leaving an abandoned neighborhood with very affordable prices for the new people who began to populate the neighborhood. Its transformation occurred in the 2000s, where there was an explosion in the change in land use, with many new commercial establishments and offices arriving, which ended up displacing a sector of the population that, due to the revaluation of the neighborhood with the entry of new residents, saw the need to move to other areas of the city.[30]​.

Resistance to gentrification

Gentrification has generated various neighborhood resistances. One of the most important was the Sevillian experience of the Casa del Pumarejo, a tenement house that was bought by a hotel chain, but where the organized resistance managed to force the expropriation of the building by the city council. In this same city, the case of San Bernardo is also paradigmatic, where a group of older tenants who survived in deteriorated buildings were pressured to abandon them.

In Granada there were neighborhood protests, such as those linked to the Casa del Aire or the Casa Cuna in the El Albaicín neighborhood, which, in addition to making the protest visible. Social networks facilitated the spread of protests.[26]​.

In Mexico, neighborhood resistance to gentrification processes has intensified since the works on Avenida Paseo de la Reforma in 2008, where residents of neighboring neighborhoods highlight the increase in direct displacement of residents and merchants, in addition to the increase in pressure from real estate agents to make the inhabitants of those neighborhoods vacate their homes, with the aim of demolishing them and building new high-rise homes.[32]​ In the period between Between 1992 and 2013, this process of population displacement has been constituted by the construction of 8 million square meters of office space in Mexico City, of which 47.9% were concentrated in Paseo de la Reforma, Insurgentes, Santa Fe and Nuevo Polanco.[32][33]​.

The South Korean television series titled Vincenzo "Vincenzo (TV series)") (Hangul: 빈센조; RR: Binsenjo) broadcast by Netflix in 2021, addresses in its theme an example of the gentrification process that occurs in the urban areas of Seoul, South Korea.

• - Portal:Sociology. Content related to Sociology.

• - Business improvement district.

• - Social stratification.

• - Urban obsolescence.

• - Urban renewal.

• - Urban planning.

• - Urban vitality.

• - , A.: Urban organization. Theories and models, Madrid, 1978, Institute of Local Administration Studies.

• - , O. (2002): Real estate boom and urban speculation. Madrid, El Ecologista Magazine.

• - , M.: Local and global, 1997, Santillana Editorial, Madrid.

• - , M.: The informational city, 1995, Alianza Editorial, Madrid.

• - , M. (1974): The urban question, Madrid, 11th century of Spain Editores S.A.

• - , Richard: Geography and socio-economic models, Madrid, 1971, Institute of Local Administration Studies.

• - , R. (2000): Global financial capitalism and permanent war, Barcelona, ​​Virus.

• - , V.: Modest housing and cultural heritage: The corrals and neighborhood patios in the historic complex of Seville. Scripta Nova. Electronic journal of geography and social sciences. Barcelona: University of Barcelona, ​​August 1, 2003.

• - , J. A. The Postmodern City: A New Urbanization?. Current Sociology, 43 (1), 1995, p. 151-217.

• - , D. (1977): Urbanism and social inequality, México, Siglo XXI S.A.

• - , D.: Spaces of Capital, 2001, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

• - , P. (1994): Urban Social Geography: an introduction, Essex: Longman Scientific & Technical.

• - , Jean-Claude: The ideal salary. The theory of classes and culture in the 20th century, Barcelona: Gedisa Editorial, 2003.

• - , J. (2006): City, heritage and citizenship, Engineering and Territory, no. 75, Barcelona, ​​pp. 96-103.

• - , J. (2006): Historical-artistic heritage and citizen participation. Around the Ciutat Vella of Valencia, Societat i patrimoni, 2, Universitat de València, pp. 91-141.

• - , J. M. (1998): The real estate-financial bubble in the recent economic situation, Madrid, Siglo XXI de España Editores s. to.

• - , M. Urban problems. An Applied Urban Analysis. London: Routledge, 1990.

• - , H. (1975): Economy of urban planning, Madrid, Alianza Editorial.

• - , I. (2001): Housing and real estate development in Madrid, Lleida, University of Lleida.

• - , N. Toward a theory of gentrification: a back to the city movement by capital, not by people. Journal of the American Planning Association, 1979, vol. 45.

• - , N. and , P. Gentrification of the City Boston, Unwin Hyman, 1988.