Environment and Planning A 2007, volume 39, pages 142 ^ 161

DOI:10.1068/a38476

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers within Britain's

provincial towns and cities: extending the meaning of
gentrification
Darren P Smith

Geography Division, University of Brighton, Brighton BN2 4GJ, England;

e-mail: D.Smith@Brighton.ac.uk

Louise Holt

Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AB, England;

e-mail: L.Holt@Reading.ac.uk
Received 16 November 2005; in revised form 28 June 2006

Abstract. This paper focuses on processes of studentification, and explores the link between higher
education students and contemporary provincial gentrification. The paper provides two main, interconnected, contributions to advance debates on gentrification. First, the discussion appeals for wider
temporal analyses of the lifecourses of gentrifiers to trace the formation and reconfiguration of the
cultural and residential predilections of gentrifiers across time and space. With this in mind, it is
argued that there is a need to rethink the role of students within the constraints of third-wave
gentrification, and to consider how `student experiences' may influence the current and future
residential geographies of young gentrifiers within provincial urban locations. Drawing upon recent
studies of studentification, it is asserted that this profound expression of urban change is indicative
of gentrification. Second, the paper advances Clark's recent call to extend the term gentrification
to embrace the wider dominant hallmarks and tendencies of urban transformations. Controversially,
in light of a deepening institutionalisation of gentrification, we contend that gentrification can be most
effectively employed at a revised conceptual level to act as a referent of the common outcomes of
a breadth of processes of change.

Introduction
One of the distinctive tenets of commentaries on urban gentrification during the last
fifteen years has been a concern with debating and theorising the overarching causes,
and how the generalities of gentrification are translated in contingent ways at an
empirical level (for example, Lees, 2000). This is borne out by discussions of the effects
of globalisation (Atkinson and Bridge, 2005) upon international (Slater, 2004),
national, and local (Robson and Butler, 2001) expressions of gentrification. In an
extraordinary way, the desire to keep abreast of new conditions and expressions of
gentrification has welded a well-defined group of researchers, despite competing and
opposed ontological and epistemological standpoints. In contrast to the exaggerated
claims of the `balkanisation' of studies of gentrification (Wyly and Hammel, 2004), and
that ``gentrification is locked within the zeitgeist of the 1980s'' (Slater, 2004, page 1191),
the fields of gentrification continue to represent a fertile and fruitful terrain (for
example, Davidson and Lees, 2005), which has matured and blossomed over the last
decade. This is demonstrated by the discernment of complexities of gentrification (for
example, Lees, 2003a), and, in part, by the expanding sociospatial remit of gentrification (for example, Atkinson and Flint, 2004; Darling, 2005; Phillips, 2004) which cuts
across and spans many disciplines.
The tendency to extrapolate the root causes of gentrification shows no sign of
abating. As evidenced by recent collections of essays (Atkinson, 2003; Atkinson and
Bridge, 2005; Slater et al, 2004), scholars of gentrification continue to provide
abstractions of the unobservable forces of gentrification from the increasingly diverse

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers

143

observable phenomena within the `material world' (for example, Curran, 2004) now
often captured under the headline banner `geographies of gentrification' (Lees, 2000).
Indeed, this orthodoxy has become more prominent given the seemingly consensual
opinion of the three epochs or `waves' of gentrification (Hackworth and N Smith,
2001). Neil Smith's (2002, page 427) postulation that the `third wave' of gentrification
is distinct from earlier waves of gentrification provides a typical exemplar here, citing
``the central contours of the neoliberal urbanism'': the changing political role of local
government; intensification of social control; new forms of the social reproduction
of the labour force; and the rise in `geobrides'. The major sum of this recent literature
is that gentrification is undergoing dramatic transmutations, and bears limited resemblance to the urban forms associated with its conception in the late 1960s, during the
1970s and 1980s, and arguably into the 1990s. Clark's (2005, page 256) recent discussion of the necessary and contingent conditions of gentrification exemplifies this point,
and usefully advocates ``a broader definition of gentrification than is commonly found
in the literature''. In short, gentrification has become a shifting, complex, and contradictory phenomenon, and scholars are clearly motivated to find new ways to pin down
the `moving target' of gentrification at empirical, conceptual, and theoretical levels.
In this paper we wish to engage with a broader perspective on the meaning of
gentrification, which is tied to a wider sociospatial lens of enquiry. In doing so, we
raise questions about some of the underlying influences and effects of current and
future forms of urban change within provincial urban locations. We do this by focusing
upon the relationships between higher education students and contemporary urban
change in Great Britain, and consider how processes of studentification may be
instrumental to the (re)production of gentrifiers within provincial urban locations
(see Bridge, 2003; Dutton, 2003; 2005). Our focus is not on global cities given the
unique processes of urban transformation unfolding within these locations, and
the distinctive housing and labour markets (Bridge, 2007; Lees, 2003a). The discussion
builds upon D Smith's (2005) pioneering work on studentification, and seeks to extend
the theoretical base by considering more explicitly the interconnections between
studentification and gentrification. In doing so, this discussion unpicks the ways in
which current student geographies may have significant implications for future forms
and expressions of urban transformation, which can be subsumed under the guise of
gentrification.
The rest of the paper is divided into six sections. The next section suggests the need
for a wider lifecourse perspective on gentrifiers, in order to more fully explore the
formative phases of social and cultural preferences of gentrifiers. In sections 3 and 4
the roles of higher education students within the constraints of third-wave gentrification
are reconsidered. Section 5 examines the effects of studentification, and points to some
differences with historical representations of students within studies of gentrification.
Section 6 unpicks the movement of students into manufactured student areas and
linkages to temporal and spatial expressions of cultural capital. Section 7 makes
some connections between the geographies of students and young gentrifiers. The final
section outlines the rationale for rethinking the conceptual framework of gentrification.
A lifecourse perspective on gentrifiers
There is a rich heritage within studies of gentrification which reaffirm that the ``consumer preferences [of gentrifiers] do not emerge out of thin air'' (Hamnett, 1991,
page 179). Much of this recent work focuses on the cultural capital of gentrifiers, and
is inspired by sociological writings, in particular the work of Pierre Bourdieu (Butler,
2003). This strand of research unpicks the processes underpinning the collective
sociocultural attributes of distinct fractions of gentrifiers (for example, Butler, 1997;

144

D P Smith, L Holt

D Smith and Phillips, 2001), and to a lesser extent, how this interconnects with social
and economic capital, as individuals, households, and social groups gentrify. Linked to
this is an increasing scrutiny of the intentional strategies of intermediaries, such as the
media (Phillips et al, 2001), promoters and marketers, and estate agents (Bridge, 2001a;
D Smith, 2002a), who capitalise upon, and seek to manipulate, the collective tastes,
preferences, and cultural consumption practices of gentrifiers. To date, these foci have
tended to place an emphasis on the superlative `moments' surrounding the residential
movement into the gentrified property, and privilege the practices of gentrifiers once in
situ within the gentrified location (D Smith, 2002b). As a result, the analytical category
`gentrifier' is often (re)constructed as being fixed to the time(s) and space(s) of the
gentrified location under investigation, with the unintentional consequence of gentrifiers often being represented as static social groups. The temporal fluidity of the
cultural dimensions of gentrifiers is thus masked, and the infancy and origins of
formative social and cultural processes of gentrifiers are often overlooked. Essentially,
there are limited understandings of how and why the experiences of `apprentice'
gentrifiers may be intrinsically bound up with sociocultural practices and residential
and locational preferences of more mature gentrifiers. This is despite the recognition of
the impacts of intergenerational social class reproduction upon gentrifiers, such as the
importance of schooling and socialisation (for example, Butler and Hamnett, 1994).
One of the most vivid examinations of the lifecourse differentials of gentrifiers is
Bridge's (2003) disentanglement of gentrifiers moving through the housing system in
Bristol, England. This study makes a major input to understanding ``individual lifecourse and housing dynamics of those making a move from and within a gentrified
neighbourhood'' (page 2546) (see also Bondi, 1999). Another notable study is Karsten's
(2003) contention that gentrification is being modified by the lifecycle effect of
`yuppies' evolving into `yupps' (young urban professional parents). Despite contributions to our knowledge of gentrification, such studies are limited to the linkages
between the gentrifier phases of the lifecourse, and do not expose connections, and
overlaps, between early (`apprentice') and more mature phases of gentrifier lifecourses.
We would argue that the narrow temporal view of gentrifiers obfuscates how the
`experiences' of young people and studenthood may be implicated within the (later)
cultural and residential inclinations of gentrifiers. This oversight is manifest in the
underexploration of links between higher education students and gentrification, and
is surprising for two key reasons. First, although commentators repeatedly cite the
importance of changing occupational class structures and employment relations, and
the shifting segmentation of housing markets upon the (re)production of gentrifiers (for
example, Hamnett, 2003), the ways in which expanded systems of higher education
mediate gentrification are generally understated. This is despite the prominence of
higher education as one of the main signifiers of postindustrial societies, and an
integral prerequisite for knowledge-based economies, linked to the growth of financial,
service, and `e-commerce' sectors (Florida, 2005). Indeed, as Ley's (1996, page 179)
landmark research on (first-wave) gentrification indicates, one of the prerequisites for
gentrification was ``the demographic bulge of the baby boom reaching college age in
the 1960s'', and the ``opening of new universities [which] declared the movement of this
cohort into higher education'' (page 211).
Second, Ley's work makes the bold claim, with some elegant empirical justification, that higher education students were at the forefront of the redefinition of the
symbolics and meanings of declining urban places during the early rounds of gentrification. As Ley states: ``emergent youth ghettos nestled symbiotically around inner city
university campuses'', and ``the sheer numbers of students could not help but introduce
a distinctive sub-culture'' (page 181). There are numerous historical accounts which

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers

145

concur with this perspective, and highlight the pioneering role of students as part of a
wider `marginal' group of gentrifiers (Rose, 1984). A typical example is Mills's (1988,
page 172) description of housing being ``converted to rooming houses, occupied
increasingly in the 1960s by artists, hippies, students, and transients who celebrated
communal and countercultural life-styles'' during the early phases of the gentrification
of Fairview Slopes, Vancouver. Crucially, in many of these discussions students and
other marginal groups are portrayed as having a dual role as (re)producer ^ consumer
within the redefinition of urban spaces. Yet how relevant are such cultural and
sociospatial practices for understanding the role of higher education students within
contemporary forms of urban transformation and, in light of the changing structural
conditions associated with third-wave gentrification? As Davidson and Lees (2005,
page 1165) recently state: ``gentrification has matured and its processes are operating
in a new economic, cultural, social and political environment.'' A plausible hypothesis,
therefore, is that the role of students within processes of urban change has been
redefined, when compared with the first and second waves of gentrification.
The role of students within the constraints of third-wave gentrification
Ley's (1996, page 182) assertion that: ``the impact of the youth generation as a migrant
wave [upon gentrification] has scarcely been discussed'', appears to be of relevance a
decade on. Such sentiments may be bound up with the wider long-running neglect of
`other' groups of gentrifiers, such as ethnic minorities (Atkinson, 2003; Lees, 2000),
disabled people, bisexual, transsexuals, and lesbians (D Smith and Holt, 2005), and to
a lesser extent, gay households, within studies of gentrification (see Knopp, 1997). For
endeavours to stimulate deeper understandings of the complexity of gentrification, it is
crucial that outdated historical representations of marginal and `other' gentrifiers and
`classic' trajectories of gentrification are not superimposed on the present. Social
groupings of gentrifiers must be examined within appropriate frameworks that equate
with the contextual conditions of third-wave gentrification.
Recent accounts of urban (for example, Davidson and Lees, 2005) and rural
restructuring (Phillips, 2004) point to more exclusionary dynamics, when compared
with the first and second waves of gentrification. Marginal groups with low stocks of
economic capital are generally prevented from undertaking pioneering roles through
the redefinition of urban and rural space, via their `sweat equity'. The majority of the
commodified spaces of third-wave gentrification, albeit within global cities (for
example, Lees, 2003b), large metropolitan centres (for example, Dutton, 2005), provincial (Lambert and Boddy, 2002) and small towns (D Smith and Phillips, 2001),
and the revitalised countryside (Phillips, 2004), are increasingly becoming the `theatres of consumption' and abode of gentrifiers drawn from high-earner groupings,
who have the purchasing power to consume expensive, `off-the-peg' properties and
services. This is not to suggest that gentrification is specifically tied to the `superrich',
or supergentrifiers (Lees, 2003b). Nonetheless, it is now difficult to identify recent
empirical studies which denote `classical' forms of gentrification; instigated by
individuals and households with relatively low levels of economic capital.
At the same time, a predominant marker of third-wave gentrification is the increasing control, manipulation, and governance of the processes by powerful actors and
institutions from public and private sectors, often via partnership regimes (see Atkinson,
2003; N Smith, 2002). It is well documented that the strategic acquisition of property
and land by powerful networks of institutional actors has been legitimised under
neoliberal, urban policy manifestos to promote the virtues of gentrification as urban
renaissance (Lees, 2003a). For instance, Davidson and Lees (2005, page 1167) state: ``a
`gentrification blueprint' is being mass-produced, mass-marketed, and mass-consumed

146

D P Smith, L Holt

around the world.'' Whilst we would adopt a more conservative reading of the scale of
the global consumption of a `gentrification blueprint', we generally support their interpretation of increasing, manufactured versions of gentrification, as part of orchestrated
urban renaissance policies.
Taking the commodification of gentrification to its extreme, D Smith (2007) illuminates the depth and magnitude of commodified gentrification by identifying
the supply of ready-made `house-boat living' and `penthouse living on water' within
Shoreham-by-Sea and Brighton Marina, southeast England, respectively. This case
study serves to demonstrate the displacement of counter-cultural groups, who previously carved out less-conventional lifestyles within the alternative residential spaces of
converted boats. Both of the examples, tied to the production of `loft-living' waterfront
apartments, clearly show how the ethos of gentrification is increasingly being extended
beyond conventional residential properties and living arrangements and spaces, as
institutional actors strive for innovative ways to stimulate urban transformations and
profit maximisation.
Consequently, in the British context there are few `rent gaps' or `spaces of opportunity' (Vicario and Monje, 2005) which students and other marginal groups can
exploit, with the exception, perhaps, of some declining coastal resorts and industrial
locations, which have witnessed successive decades of social and economic disinvestment. Of course, the shrinking presence of rent gaps within urban land and housing
markets is not specific to higher education students and other social groups with low
stocks of economic capital. Hamnett (2002, pages 2412 ^ 2413) recently notes, for
example, ``the supply of cheap period houses for conversion to single family residences
in the more attractive parts of the inner city dried up rapidly.'' Importantly, we would
argue that the sociospatial expansion of the commodification of gentrification has a
major implication for the conceptualisation of gentrification, and we explore this issue
in the final section.
Rethinking the links between `apprentice' gentrifiers and urban change
Ley's (1996) deconstruction of the stage model of `classic' gentrification provides the
most evocative link between students and gentrification. Tracing back the dynamics of
gentrification processes within Canadian cities to the early 1960s (see also Slater, 2005),
Ley argues that ``the youth culture of the 1960s acted, in important respects, as a
location leader for subsequent gentrification'' (page 175), and that within ``this cadre
is found early recruits for gentrification'' (page 189). This representation casts students
as `apprentice gentrifiers'; a standpoint which we endorse within the following sections.
Of course, the contemporary relevance of Ley's perspective of gentrification can be
questioned in light of the identification of the different trajectories and growing
diversity of geographies of gentrification (Lees, 2000), and as the concept of gentrification is extended to encapsulate a wider range of processes of urban change (N Smith,
2002). Despite the shifting conceptual and theoretical terrain of gentrification, and in
particular the charge of representing an increasingly minor form of gentrification, one
of the main values of Ley's thesis is its emphasis on the tensions between differing
levels of cultural and economic capital at different phases of the gentrification process.
This is particularly important since recent accounts of gentrification suggest that the
role of: ``early gentrifiers ... having large amounts of cultural capital even if their stores
of material capital are small'' (Bridge, 2001b, page 206) are being disrupted by more
exclusionary processes of gentrification.
More recently, Ley (2003, page 2541) has sought to provide ``an extended discussion of the descriptive stage model of gentrification'', and the role of students
and artists; albeit with a slight blurring between the analytical categories of students,

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers

147

artists, and preprofessionals. In this updated version, Ley seeks to extend his thinking
of gentrification ``as a field of relationships, practices and historical traces''
(page 2532). In doing so, it is claimed that ``the gentrification field has a history that
provides precedents and codes that continue to shape the present'' (page 2541). On
the whole, much of this discussion consolidates his earlier standpoint that spaces of
higher education and studenthood are ``the nursery for acquiring cultural capital''
(page 2542). Although we would not refute this important point, it can be argued
that Ley's representation of the role of students within processes of gentrification needs
to be revisited, particularly when transposed to the British context, and given dramatic
transformations to the residential geographies of students.
The effects and politics of studentification
Since the mid-1990s increasing numbers of students have moved into distinct enclaves
of university towns and cities. As figure 1 shows, the 2005 Office for National Statistics
(ONS) area-level classification labels 352 wards as `student communities' (3.5% of

Figure 1. Student communities in Great Britain: Office for National Statistics ward-level
classification.

148

D P Smith, L Holt

all wards). Similarly, analyses of the 2001 GB Census shows that 150 wards have a
student population in excess of 20% of the total population (see also Hubbard, 2008;
Webber, 2007). The concentrations of student populations have been intensified
through the manufacture of `student areas' by private and public sector institutions
(including, property developers, investors and financiers, universities, local government, retail and leisure consortia, and the media), and the intentional gatekeeping
strategies of letting and estate agents (for example, D Smith, 2002a; Van Den Berg
and Russo, 2004), fuelled partly by the wider model of urban renaissance and neoliberal agendas. This intervention by institutional actors has commodified the ways
in which students acquire distinctive social and cultural identities, via the consumption
of student spaces and leisure and retail services. As Chatterton and Hollands (2003)
state in their investigation of student lifestyles and leisure consumption practices in
Leeds, Bristol, and Newcastle, there is a growing ``trend towards a `corporate campus'
in which studentland is increasingly packaged, sold and commodified'' (page 127).
However, as we show in the section below, it is important not to lose sight of the
agency of students within the (re)production of student areas.
It can be argued that the commodification of student spaces and lifestyles is underpinned by specific unfolding structural conditions. Important factors here include: the
state-sponsored expansion of higher education to foster global economic competitiveness and innovation via knowledge-based economies and societies (Cooke, 2004);
decreasing welfare provision for higher education students; raised normative aspirations
and attainment levels of society leading to increased demand for higher education;
deregulation of the private rented housing sectors and an onus on the private sector
to meet current and future housing demands; increased supply, and accessibility to,
economic capital and mortgage finance, in conjunction with relatively low interest rates
and buy-to-let mortgages; and the general rise of `investment cultures' within affluent
sectors of society.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the role of British higher education students within
gentrification has changed over the last decade. This transition is expressed within many
provincial locations witnessing studentification (for a definition see D Smith, 2005). Such
processes of urban change have led to perceptions of overconcentrations of students in
many university towns and cities, and are tied to profound cultural, economic, social,
and physical transformations which can lead to the (dis)replacement of established
residents. The effects of studentification are summarised in table 1, and show some
similarity to Atkinson and Bridge's (2005) diagrammatic representation of the impacts
of gentrification.
On the whole, the effects of studentification have been largely perceived as detrimental, spurring a physical downgrading of the urban environment. In conjunction
with these representations, a highly visible politics of studentification has unfolded at
local, regional, and national levels since the late 1990s. At the national level, a formally
constituted organisation has been established, the National HMO [Houses in Multiple
Occupation] Lobby, which coordinates local community groups within thirty-two
university towns and cities to contest and resist growing concentrations of students.
The issue of studentification has also penetrated discourses of central government, as
exemplified by the commissioning of a national investigation of studentification
(D Smith and Denholm, 2006).
Interestingly, the effectiveness of HMO lobby groups to contest studentification,
particularly within some preexisting gentrified enclaves may point to an unfolding and
distinctive phase of the politics of gentrification (see Ley, 1994). This involves an
increasing (re)deployment of `cultural competences' (see Cloke et al, 1998) and social
capital to activate formalised mechanisms to preserve gentrified neighbourhoods from

The process impacts on the:

social

economic

cultural

physical

Demographic structure of the

local population
Levels of population density
Levels of population stability/
transience
Turnover of residents/property
Cohesion of local community and
community interaction
Levels of neighbourliness
Meaning and symbolism
of location
Supply and demand for schools,
GPs, dentists, and other health
services
Supply and demand for public
transport
Efectiveness of crime prevention
strategies and self-policing
Trends of criminal activity
Levels of electoral voting and
political affiliations
Effectiveness of car parking
schemes and provision
Strength of local voluntary
schemes/sector
Levels of alcohol/drug abuse
Health and well-being of local
population

Supply and demand for housing

Buoyancy of housing market
Portfolio of housing stock
Flexibility of housing stock
Supply and demand for
affordable housing
Condition of housing stock
Spending levels within local
economy
Levels of inward capital
investment
Supply and demand for services
of letting/estate agents, property
maintenance, and building
contractors
Supply and demand for local
retail, leisure, and recreational
services
Seasonality of local economy and
services
Levels of housing abandonment
Supply and demand for domestic
services
Supply and demand for childcare
services
Levels of council tax revenue
Local workforce

Supply and demand for specific

leisure, recreational, and retail
facilities
Levels of antisocial behaviour
Levels of noise nuisance from
households, pedestrians,
taxis/private vehicles
(In)compatibility of lifestyles
Supply and demands for levels of
policing and emergency services

Levels of private vehicle use, and

cycling/walking
Levels of traffic congestion
Levels of visual pollution
(to-let signs)
Effectiveness of refuse and waste
collection
Levels of litter and rubbish
Upkeep of gardens and driveways
Upkeep of external environment
Levels of graffiti and vandalism

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers

Table 1. The effects of studentification.

149
N:/psfiles/epa3901w/

150

D P Smith, L Holt

new forces of urban change. This engagement within local politics may be linked to the
maturity of first-wave and second-wave gentrifiers, and as gentrified neighbourhoods
become `middle-aged' (Butler, 2007); thereby possibly involving the prominence of
intraclass and intergenerational conflicts, as opposed to interclass conflicts, as the basis
for a new politics of gentrification. In this sense, the spaces and places within which
future gentrifiers are (re)produced may yield similar urban transformations to other
forms of gentrification, yet intriguingly are linked to the (re)displacement of mature
gentrifiers in some contexts. It can be further hypothesised that these future waves of
(offspring) gentrifiers, perhaps drawn disproportionately from pools of the fourth,
fifth, and sixth generation (new) middle classes currently residing within the studentified spaces, are ironically (dis)replacing many of the (parent) gentrifiers drawn from
the second-generation middle-class (Butler and Hamnett, 1994).
Such contentions beg questions about the longer term cycles of gentrified neighbourhoods and gentrifiers as they mature, and the overlaps, cross-fertilisation, and
contradictions between the cultural tastes and residential preferences of different generations of gentrifiers. The shifting lifecourse-specific cultural preferences and tastes of
mature gentrifiers is an issue which has clearly been underresearched, and notions
of gentrifiers seeking ``the excitement and difference of living in socially mixed areas
with a cultural infrastructure'' (Butler and Robson, 2003, page 29) may need to be
questioned.
The residential geographies of students
Recent investigations of student geographies within Great Britain reveal that most
students have specific preferences for the types of accommodation, location, and retail
and leisure services that are increasingly being supplied by institutional actors
(Chatterton, 2000). Some authors assert that this is integral to the reproduction of a
student habitus, and facilitates: ``identifiable students' ways of life to be developed
which is internalised and embodied'', and which allows ``a common set of student
dispositions ... thereby setting students apart from the non-student world'' (Chatterton,
1999, page 119). In this section, and drawing upon two recent empirical studies of
studentification within Leeds and Brighton (for fuller discussion see D Smith, 2002c;
D Smith and Holt, 2004), we advance the above interpretation of student geographies
by showing how intrastudent lifecourse phases are tied to specific spatial expressions of
cultural capital, which shift over the three years of the `typical' student experience
within Great Britain. As background, both of the research projects involved questionnaire surveys, semistructured interviews, and focus groups with students and
institutional actors. The main aim of both projects was to explore the social, cultural,
economic, and political processes underpinning the demand and supply of different
types of student accommodation. Of course, we do not claim that our empirical
findings are representative of the wider student population within Great Britain, yet
the findings shed light on some common practices and preferences across British
university towns and cities.
Students and shifting expressions of cultural capital

Within Leeds and Brighton the majority of students buy into a particular student
lifestyle during their first year of study. This involves residence within universitymaintained accommodation, and points to collective self-conscious acts of reflexive
consumption. This cultural predilection is borne out, for example, by over 80% of
first year students of the Universities of Brighton and Leeds noting that universitymaintained property was their first-choice accommodation. This form of student
accommodation is increasingly commodified via partnerships between universities

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers

151

and private sector developers and financiers, as part of Private Finance Initiatives
(PFIs) in Britain.
Importantly, the residential orientation of first-year students is motivated as part
of a wider `coping strategy' [see Butler and Robson (2003) for discussion in relation
to gentrifiers] to overcome anxieties (feelings of homesickness) and traumatic (as well
as exciting) experiences following the movement away from the parental/guardian
home, and in-migration into unfamiliar social and cultural settings. This is not surprising since the entry of young people into higher education in Britain often represents
a transitional stage in their lifecourse, where young people shift from being cast as
`dependent children' (Holloway and Valentine, 2000) to `independent adult' status.
Empirical findings from Leeds and Brighton suggest that many students often have
an ambiguous sense of self as adult or nonadult during this phase of their lifecourse.
Studenthood can therefore be viewed as a liminal period for young people, in which
the boundaries between independent adulthood and dependent childhood meet, mesh,
and often conflict. Within institutionalised spaces perceived as `safe' and `supportive',
students are able to adjust and reconcile `everyday' stresses associated with their
newfound independence, such as time management, control of finances, and personal
space.
Residence within university-maintained accommodation also allows students to
prioritise social aspects during the early phases of studenthood, which is perceived as
the `right thing to do' in accordance with the actions of their peers. This is imperative
to achieve a distinctive social and cultural identity. University-maintained accommodation provides considerable opportunities for social interaction, and the potential to
forge new social relations and establish bonds with other students. Having a large
`pool of peers' on tap, who have collectively bought into the embryonic phases of
the student lifestyle, students are able to trial friendships, and seek out and select
individuals with complimentary cultural values and beliefs, whilst at the same time
(re)forming their individual cultural values and beliefs. At a potentially insecure and
uncertain phase of their lifecourse, this practice is therefore important for students
to consolidate their group membership and belonging to subgroups of students and
the wider student community, and to acquire a sense of `ontological security' within
unfamiliar social, cultural, and spatial settings. Essentially, this practice may signify the
infancy of the predilection to gravitate to `people like us', which, as Butler (1997)
identifies, forms the basis for many of the residential and locational preferences of
gentrifiers. All of these levels are clearly influential to the constitution and formation
of the cultural values and beliefs of students.
At the same time, residence within university-maintained accommodation allows
students to `learn the games' of studenthood, and to recognise the prominent hallmarks and boundaries of the student habitus. These qualities are maintained and
reproduced through taken-for-granted patterns of behaviour and cultural consumption practices, and involve specific expressions of cultural capital. For example,
social and cultural identities are reinforced through collective positive readings of
the constrained `everyday experiences' within the regulated and policed spaces
of university-maintained accommodation, and via redefined meanings of low-quality
standard accommodation. Many respondents in both Leeds and Brighton noted that
the shared experience of residing within `scummy halls' fosters a sense of cohesiveness and sociability between students. Indeed, this quality of accommodation is
ideal for the reproduction of `student parties', since students are less concerned
about damaging accommodation which is already in a bad state of repair. Clearly,
university-maintained accommodation provides students with a `legitimate cultural
arena', where they are able to effectively learn and refine the rituals and rules of

152

D P Smith, L Holt

student life based on the predispositions of a student habitus. As Chatterton (1999,

page 129) asserts these spaces can be viewed as:
`` `pre-constructed cultural discourses'. Experience within, and the use of, these spaces
allows students to embed and reinforce their identity as a student. They act as sites
of `social centrality' within student life in which the rituals of studenthood are
undertaken and the rules of student life are learnt.''
These underlying traits are also prominent throughout the later stages of the
student lifecourse, yet are sociospatially manifest in different ways and fundamentally
underpin the unfolding of studentification. Suffice to say, during the second and third
years of study, many students buy into different, although interconnected, student
lifestyles which place more emphasis upon selective social interaction. This is facilitated by the move into the private rented housing sector, and, in particular, shared
housing with coresidents of their choice. In Leeds and Brighton, for example, the
majority of respondents indicated a predilection to move out of university-maintained
accommodation and into private rented accommodation. Residence within a shared
`student house' is seen as a pivotal predisposition of the student habitus, as illuminated
by a second-year student in Brighton:
``It is part of the student lifeyou wouldn't want to do it after the three years, but
[living in shared houses] is just part of the student life'' (interviewee P1, FG6).
This also signifies a conscious act by students, although it is important to note that
this is increasingly being influenced by the strategies of institutional actors, such as
letting and estate agents, as witnessed by the recent proliferation of `student letting
agents'. The demand for this type of accommodation is also increasingly being catered
for, and exploited, by medium to large-scale private sector institutional enterprises, as
opposed to small-scale, single-property owners.
Other motives include the search for a more independent lifestyle as part of the
pathway to adulthood, and a desire to exercise autonomy. This is linked to the freedom
to undertake particular forms of behaviour within less-regulated spaces; a key factor in
the constitution in the distinctive social and cultural identities of second-year and
third-year students. In a similar vein to first-year students, sociocultural identity is
also established via the lived experiences and `shared hardship' of residing within
relatively low-quality accommodation, enabling particular forms of behaviour to be
viewed as acceptable. This is reflected in, and reproduced by, positive representations
of `student houses' as being unique, not maintained, and including outdated decor and
furniture. Indeed, residing in low-quality private rented housing is an integral component of the student habitus, albeit for a limited (and known) period of time. This
practice points to some similarities between current students and their predecessors,
suggesting that students continue to construct their social and cultural identities
``from a perspective rich in cultural capital but (initially) weak in economic capital''
(Ley, 2003, page 2536), through the redefinition of low-quality housing at all stages of
the student experience.
Moreover, the shifting priorities and forms of behaviour, outlined above, parallel
Chatterton's (1999) interpretation of student lifestyles; whereby students often creatively learn and unlearn the rules of `the student game'. As Chatterton notes, most
students are involved in a ``process [which] represents annual learning of student
rites and a distancing from the student infrastructure as the student is acculturated
into less `typical' student activities within the city'' (page 122). Crucially, this can be
read as students sophisticating their individual and collective social and cultural
identity, and pinning down their membership and belonging to `people like us' (Butler,
1997).

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers

153

Perhaps more importantly, movement into the private rented housing sector allows
students to reaffirm their social and cultural identities by selecting a distinct location,
which has wider social and cultural meaning as a `student area'. In this sense, current
students continue to represent ``a group whose residential location [is] part of the
repertoire of their cultural identity'' (Ley, 1996, page 175). For example, over 85% of
respondents cited locations within the student areas of Leeds (Headingley, Hyde Park,
and Burley), and Brighton (Lewes Road, London Road) when asked to list their
preferred residential location. When questioned about the main appeals of these
locations, the majority of students noted that they were the student areas, and where
students expected to live, for example:
``It is like a student village with friendly pubs and a pleasant atmosphere'' (interviewee 67).
``Headingley is really geared around students with loads of pubs and social activities''
(interviewee 93).
``It's where most students live and has everything you need from pubs to cinema and
plenty of shops over a wide variety'' (interviewee 88).
``Hyde Park's where other students live, near to university, access to facilities ...
cinema, supermarket, restaurants, pubs'' (interviewee 16).
A central theme interwoven into many of these quotes is a predilection for particular types of cultural and entertainment facilities, which are located within student
areas (see Chatterton and Hollands, 2002; 2003), and the migration into student areas
therefore illuminates how students move proximate to these cultural consumption
items, in similar ways to gentrifiers (Ley, 1994; 1996). Such links between expressions
of cultural capital and residential preferences may also be implicated within the emerging geographies of recent graduates and young professionals within provincial urban
locations.
Connecting the geographies of students and young professionals

Studentified spaces have been represented as the `factories' of gentrifiers, or the sociospatial settings in which `apprentice gentrifies' acquire and sophisticate their cultural
capital (D Smith, 2005). This interpretation intersects with Ley's (1996, page 210)
notion that: ``gentrifiers are not only produced; they are also engaged in an active
process of self-production of an identity they claim for their own.'' Clearly, such
arguments hinge on a linear reading of the `student experience' being bound up with
the formative processes of the cultural predilections, and residential and locational
inclinations of gentrifiers.
It is valuable, therefore, to investigate the geographical patterns of recent graduates,
and young professionals, and consider the residential locations, housing, and tenures
which appear to be desirable, in light of bounded choices. Butler and Hamnett (1994)
provide one of the most conspicuous discussions of the links between higher education
and poststudent geographies. Writing in the context of the mid-1990s, it is asserted that
London is a ``magnet for many of those leaving university and attempting to establish
careers in Britain's few growth industries'' (page 483), citing the opportunities for
social and occupational mobility enabled by the `escalator' (Fielding, 1992). Butler
and Hamnett also note the emergence of some `outcrops of gentrification' in the
provincial locations of Bristol, Edinburgh, and Glasgow due to growing financial
and service-based labour markets. The occupational structures and employment
opportunities in Britain have changed profoundly since the mid-1990s, and it is
not only London, Bristol, Edinburgh, and Glasgow which provide ``the opportunity
for cultural consumption and for continuing the conviviality of student life whilst

154

D P Smith, L Holt

Young professionals (%)

< 20
5 20

90

90

180 km

Figure 2. Economically active individuals aged 16 ^ 34 years with higher level qualification as a
percentage of total population, at GB ward level.

setting out on a career'' (Butler and Hamnett, 1994, page 483). For instance, figures 2
and 3 show significant concentrations of recent graduates and young professionals in
other provincial urban locations, such as Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, and
Newcastle, where recent graduates have remained in their place of study and sought
employment within growing (regional) financial, service, and media sectors. Recent
studies of urban change within Leeds (Dutton, 2005) and Bristol (Tallon and Bromley,
2004) suggest that these growing concentrations are linked to new forms of gentrification. Interestingly, the formation of these urban geographies may involve the
(re)displacement of students within particular locales (for example, Chapel Allerton
in Leeds), as recent graduates and young professionals have purchased properties, or
outcompete students in the private rented housing market.
Overall, these unfolding geographies reflect the changing migration flows, commuting patterns, and the wider geographic spread of recent graduates and young
professionals over the past decade (Dorling and Thomas, 2004). Such societal trends

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers

155

Preprofessionals (%)
<5
55

90

90

180 km

Figure 3. Economically active individuals aged 16 ^ 24 years with higher level qualification as a
percentage of total population, at GB ward level.

and sociospatial transformations stress the need to rethink the geographic magnitude
of the `escalator' and the effects of increasing numbers of young gentrifiers upon
particular housing markets, and how these are interwoven within the contemporary
geographies of gentrification. Of course, this is despite the continuing dominance
of London as the major escalator for recent graduates and young professionals
(Hamnett, 2003). As Butler (2003, page 2470) recently notes:
``Many others graduates come to London, having completed their university studies
in towns and cities that do not offer graduate employment in the service industries
at the level to which many ambitious young people aspire.''
Nonetheless, figures 2 and 3 demonstrate that significant numbers of recent graduates and young professionals now settle within other locations after graduation. The
exclusionary nature of the London housing market may be an important factor here,
particularly those areas within London which may appeal to young gentrifiers (Buck
et al, 2002; Hamnett, 2003). A particularly interesting dimension to these new British

156

D P Smith, L Holt

geographies is young gentrifiers who commute into London from gentrified enclaves
within disparate locations, such as Brighton, or commute from small towns and
villages (for example, Hebden Bridge) into expanding regional financial centres, such
as Leeds and Manchester (D Smith, 2002a). The prevalence of such cascading expressions of gentrification may be key here for theorising the ways in which ``gentrification
has rapidly descended the urban hierarchy'' (N Smith, 2002, page 429), and may be
interwoven into the predominance of new urban systems (Amin and Thrift, 2002).
Understandings of how, why, and where these different scales of gentrification have
unfolded, or are interrelated, is unclear and demands more attention (see Dutton,
2005).
The diversification of the geographies of recent graduates and young professionals,
and the impact on gentrification, may be particularly important given the relative
decreasing economic capital of many individuals for long time periods following
graduation. Key factors here include repayments of substantial amounts of borrowed
finance associated with the student lifestyle (student loans, bank overdrafts) (Canny,
2002), coupled with rising accommodation and living costs. Our findings revealed that
recent graduates often coreside with existing students in shared housing within studentified areas in Brighton and Leeds, linked to limited purchasing power. These findings
parallel other studies which chart the increasing numbers of recent graduates and
young professionals residing within shared private rented housing (Kenyon and Heath,
2001). The delayed entry of recent graduates and young professionals into the owneroccupied sector of the housing market may have policy ramifications, such as changing
levels of demand and supply of affordable and key-worker housing (Rhodes, 2006).
This may have a bearing on the conceptual meaning of gentrification, since young
professionals are often viewed as having a propensity to become owner-occupiers, via
marginal forms of gentrification. It is likely that many recent graduates may continue
to deploy their cultural capital, in lieu of economic capital, by carving out distinctive
residential niches, and reproducing the cultural practices of studenthood to maintain
social and cultural identities.
This may have serious consequences for future geographies of studentification and
other processes of urban transformation. First, it is highly probable that there may be
an increasing blurring between student and poststudent lifestyles. This may throw into
doubt the contemporary relevance of the claim that studenthood presents a distinct
period of the lifecourse (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1979; Chatterton, 2000). Second,
students, recent graduates, and young professionals may increasingly compete for
rental accommodation within many studentified areas, and this may give rise to a
gentrification of the private rented housing market. These may have a wider resonance
within many provincial urban locations and warrant further investigation, particularly
as this may lead to a widescale shortfall of accommodation for students and other lowincome groups in the future. Of course, the increasing proportion of recent graduates
and young professionals within shared housing may also be an expression of particular
lifestyle choices, and may be linked to wider societal trends of delaying cohabitation
and family forming (Williams, 2004), and privileging friendship over partnerships and
sexual unions (Roseneil and Budgeon, 2004).
In summary, one of the new arenas of gentrification may be explicitly tied to
studentification, as student experiences provide the benchmark for future forms of
communal living within a gentrified private rented housing sector. It is likely that
residues of student lifestyles, such as an acceptance of `less-traditional' norms of
sexuality, gender, and ethnicity relations, may more fully filter, or trickle down, into
the lifestyles of recent graduates and young professionals. This may have a bearing
on future gentrifiers' decision making about the timing of partnership forming

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers

157

(cohabitation and marriage), and normative ideas and expectations of parenthood,

commuting, and the balancing of home ^ work commitments, and is likely to have
impacts on the types of dwelling, location, and services that are sought by young
professionals. It is also probable that these traits may impact on the particular types
of retail, leisure, and cultural services consumed by recent graduates and young professionals. As Butler and Robson (2003, page 3) note, for example, the strategies of
gentrifiers are often ``embedded in friendships and contacts often made at university.''
Discussion: extending the meaning of gentrification?
This paper has illuminated some of the benefits of a wider temporal perspective on
gentrifiers. Tapping into debates on the diverse geographies of gentrification, the paper
has suggested that the expansion of higher education is a key component for the
(re)production of a pool of gentrifiers within the third wave of gentrification. Within
this context, the manufacture of student areas enables students to buy into specific
types of lifestyles, linked to the consumption of particular forms of accommodation,
housing, and location, and retail and leisure services. These practices are linked to
wider `coping strategies' to identify and establish social relations with `people like us',
and to achieve social and cultural distinction and identity. We postulate that this may
be bound up with the formative phases of the residential and locational preferences
of apprentice gentrifiers, and possibly instrumental to the long-term success and/or
failure of urban renaissance schemes.
Our discussion also raises intriguing questions about the wider meaning of gentrification. These include issues, such as: the most effective way to position processes of
studentification within a framework of gentrification, and the conceptual resonance
of studentification for understandings of contemporary gentrification. In a previous
commentary, for instance, D Smith (2005) argues that studentification can be subsumed under the conceptual umbrella of gentrification, given that both processes
stimulate social segregation and concentration, and the widening sociospatial polarisation of different social groups, via the displacement of established residential groups.
Furthermore, in line with gentrification (for example, N Smith, 1996), studentification
induces territorial claims to space, housing, and public and private services. Indeed,
the `tectonic activity' of studentification would appear to be couched within a new
politics of gentrification, which involves mature gentrifiers within local political arenas.
This new politics of gentrification may have an international dimension. Despite
studentification generally being represented as a British phenomenon, tied to the
long-standing convention of students moving away from the parental home often to
study within a different region, recent evidence suggests that studentification occurs
within other international contexts. The conflicts between students and established
residents within Ontario, Canada, have led to the formation of the Town and Gown
Association of Ontario (see http://www.tgao.ca). Similar movements and issues have
been noted in the United States of America (Steinacker, 2005) and Australia (Fincher,
2004)
The alignment of studentification within a framework of gentrification is, in part,
supported by recent definitional clarifications of gentrification. Most notably, the
core elements of gentrification, as espoused by Davidson and Lees (2005), are
explicitly encompassed within D Smith's (2005) definition of studentification. These
include: ``(1) reinvestment of capital; (2) social upgrading of locale by incoming
high-income groups; (3) landscape change; and (4) direct or indirect displacement of low-income groups'' (Davidson and Lees, 2005, page 1170). Suffice to
say, studentification adheres to the ``fundamental stamp of gentrification'' since it
involves ``the tracking of new settlement patterns of splinters of the middle classes''

158

D P Smith, L Holt

(Atkinson, 2003, page 2344); albeit a relatively young cohort of the middle classes
engaged in the formation of its cultural and social class identity.
Viewing studentification as a component process of gentrification destabilises some
of the taken-for-granted traits of gentrification. Key here is the notion that gentrification can lead to physical downgrading (that is, a hallmark of studentification in some
contexts) of the urban environment, albeit as sociocultural upgrading simultaneously
occurs. This problematises the dominant assumption, particularly within the urban
policy domain, that gentrification is synonymous with physical revitalisation. This
deep-seated positive representation of gentrification is a key aspiration of the institutionalisation of gentrification, and may add substance to critiques of the effectiveness
of urban renaissance policies within some urban contexts (see Atkinson, 2003).
At a conceptual level, simply tacking new and emerging processes of urban change,
such as studentification, super-gentrification (Lees, 2003b) and `greentrification'
(D Smith and Phillips, 2001) onto the `quagmire' (Slater, 2004) of the conceptual
margins of gentrification is likely to generate pandemonium. What is required is a
refocusing of the academic gaze on gentrification, and a redeployment of the gentrification term at a revised conceptual level. Our prognosis is based on the rationale that
the conceptual prowess of gentrification needs to be rethought, in light of the arguably
understated diversification of urban processes that are giving rise to the contemporary
common signifiers of gentrification described by Clark (2005) as: the commodification of space, polarised power relations, and `vision over sight'. As noted above, these
signifiers have been concretised within urban landscapes by the structural imperatives
of neoliberal agendas and models of urban renaissance, and translated in different
ways by institutional actors with varying dynamics and trajectories.
We would therefore espouse a new vantage point which views gentrification as a
macrolevel concept, to act as a referent of the common outcomes of a wider range of
processes of urban transformation. The threefold `signifiers of gentrification' outlined
by Clark, and presented above, could perhaps provide a central plank for scholars to
identify the varied forms of gentrification. This may be the only way to capture the
deepening complexity of gentrification ``without losing sight of the object of study''
(Atkinson, 2003, page 2344).
Although we appreciate that our suggestion to modify the concept of gentrification
may vex some scholars, particularly those who hold deeply entrenched ideas of gentrification, this is ``a risk that we must take''; to paraphrase Davidson and Lees (2005,
page 1168). Of course, this is not intended as a criticism of the use of gentrification as a
conceptual term to make sense of distinct processes of urban change during the latter
part of the 20th century. However, the social, cultural, economic, and political (global)
context has clearly changed, and the previous utilisation of gentrification is increasingly challenged. It is important to make clear here that we are not suggesting the use
of terms such as studentification as alternatives to gentrification. Rather, we are
endorsing the adoption of these terms at a meso conceptual level to emphasise the
diverse ways in which a broader schema of gentrification is inscribed within urban and
rural landscapes.
Our approach, therefore, overlaps with Slater's call for ``less definitional deliberation
and more critical, progressive scholarship'' (Slater et al, 2004, page 1145). Although our
argument may not directly parallel what Slater had in mind, it may stimulate more critical,
progressive scholarship. This may provide a platform to formulate more holistic studies
of contemporary urban transformations. The opportunities would be ripe for scholars of
gentrification to expose the subtleties and interconnections between differential processes
of change and across different spatial scales, and to tease out how diverse geographies of
gentrification may be tied to shifting lifecourse-specific preferences of gentrifiers.

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers

159

Conclusion
It is useful to conclude our main arguments by revisiting one of the starting points of
Atkinson's (2003) recent editorial introduction, which poses the question: ``is the term
gentrification really up to the job after 40 years or is it to be more subtly defined and
discerned in different contexts.'' In this paper we have suggested that the conceptual
prowess of gentrification is weakened by a deepening complexity and diversification of
orchestrated processes of transformation, which can be subsumed under the banner
geographies of gentrification. Key here are the multiple ways in which the ethos of
gentrification is being stimulated and nurtured by networks of institutional actors in
different places. We therefore propose that processes of transformation are more subtly
defined and discerned, by labelling specific processes based on `that' which makes
them discernible. Although this will require a cautious approach to ensure studies of
urban change are not swamped with a melange of new terms, we are optimistic that
clear rationales and substantive justification for embracing new terms will maintain
conceptual order. This may be the most effective way to ``allow the term gentrification
enough elasticity to `open up new insights' and indeed to reflect the mutations in the
21st century'' (Davidson and Lees, 2005, page 1187).
Acknowledgements. Thanks to Craig Rostance for assistance with the production of the figures,
and Andrew Church for comments on a draft of the paper. We are grateful for the valuable
comments of two anonymous referees.
References
Amin A, Thrift N, 2002 Cities: Reimagining the Urban (Polity Press, Cambridge)
Atkinson R, 2003, ``Introduction: misunderstood saviour or vengeful wrecker? The many meanings
and problems of gentrification'' Urban Studies 40 2343 ^ 2350
Atkinson R, Bridge G, 2005, ``Introduction'', in Gentrification in A Global Context: The New Urban
Colonialism Eds R Atkinson, G Bridge (Routledge, London) pp 1 ^ 17
Atkinson R, Flint J, 2004, ``Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and
time ^ space trajectories of segregation'' Housing Studies 19 875 ^ 892
Bondi L, 1999, ``On the journey's of the gentrifiers: exploring gender, gentrification and migration'',
in Migration And Gender in the Developed World Eds P J Boyle, K H Halfacree (Routledge,
London) pp 204 ^ 222
Bourdieu P, Passeron J C, 1979 The Inheritors: French Students and Their Relation to Culture
(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
Bridge G, 2001a, ``Estate agents as interpreters of economic and cultural capital: the gentrification
premium in the Sydney housing market'' International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
25 88 ^ 101
Bridge G, 2001b, ``Bourdieu, rational action and the time ^ space strategy of gentrification''
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers: New Series 26 205 ^ 216
Bridge G, 2003,``Time ^ space trajectories in provincial gentrification'' Urban Studies 40 2545 ^ 2556
Bridge G, 2007, ``A global gentrifier class?'' Environment and Planning A 39 32 ^ 46
Buck N, Gordon I, Hall P, Harloe M, Kleinmann M, 2002 Working Capital: Life and Labour in
Contemporary London (Routledge, London)
Butler T, 1997 Gentrification and the Middle Classes (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
Butler T, 2003, ``Gentrification and its others: some evidence from London'' Urban Studies 40
2469 ^ 2486
Butler T, 2007, ``For gentrification?'' Environment and Planning A 39 162 ^ 181
Butler T, Hamnett C, 1994, ``Gentrification, class, and gender: some comments on Warde's
`Gentrification as consumption' '' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12 477 ^ 493
Butler T, Robson G, 2003 London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Remaking of Inner London
(Berg, Oxford)
Canny A, 2002, ``Flexible labour? The growth of student employment in the UK'' Journal of
Education and Work 15 277 ^ 301
Chatterton P, 1999, ``University students and city centres the formation of exclusive geographies.
The case of Bristol, UK'' Geoforum 30 117 ^ 133
Chatterton P, 2000, ``The cultural role of universities in the community: revisiting the university ^
community debate'' Environment and Planning A 32 165 ^ 181

160

D P Smith, L Holt

Chatterton P, Hollands R, 2002, ``Theorising urban playscapes: producing, regulating and

consuming youthful nightlife city spaces'' Urban Studies 39 95 ^ 116
Chatterton P, Hollands R, 2003 Urban Nightscapes: Youth Cultures, Pleasure Spaces and Corporate
Power (Routledge, London)
Clark E, 2005, ``The order and simplicity of gentrification a political challenge'', in Gentrification
in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism Eds R Atkinson, G Bridge (Routledge,
London) pp 256 ^ 264
Cloke P, Goodwin M, Milbourne P, 1998, ``Inside looking out: outside looking in, different
experiences of cultural competence in rural lifestyles'', in Migration into Rural Areas: Theories
and Issues Eds P J Boyle, K H Halfacree (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 134 ^ 150
Cooke P, 2004, ``Life science clusters and regional science policy'' Urban Studies 41 1113 ^ 1131
Curran W, 2004 ``Gentrification and the nature of work: exploring the links in Williamsburg,
Brooklyn'' Environment and Planning A 36 1243 ^ 1258
Darling E, 2005, ``The city in the country: wilderness gentrification and the rent gap'' Environment
and Planning A 37 1015 ^ 1032
Davidson M, Lees L, 2005, ``New build `gentrification' and London's riverside renaissance''
Environment and Planning A 37 1165 ^ 1190
Dorling D, Thomas B, 2004 People and Places: A 2001 Census Atlas of the UK (Policy Press, Bristol)
Dutton P, 2003, ``Leeds calling: the influence of London on the gentrification of regional cities''
Urban Studies 40 2557 ^ 2572
Dutton P, 2005, ``Outside the metropole: gentrification in provincial cities or provincial gentrification'',
in Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism Eds R Atkinson, G Bridge
(Routledge, London) pp 209 ^ 224
Fielding A J, 1992, ``Migration and social mobility: South-east England as an `escalator' region''
Regional Studies 26 1 ^ 15
Fincher R, 2004, ``Geography and futures'' Australian Geographical Studies 42 299 ^ 306
Florida R, 2005 Cities and the Creative Class (Routledge, London)
Hackworth J, Smith N, 2001, ``The changing state of gentrification'' Tijdschrift voor Economische
en Sociale Geografie 92 464 ^ 477
Hamnett C, 1991, ``The blind men and the elephant'' Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers: New Series 16 173 ^ 189
Hamnett C, 2002,``Gentrification, postindustrialism, and industrial and occupational restructuring
in global cities'', in A Companion to the City Eds G Bridge, S Watson (Blackwell, Oxford)
pp 331 ^ 341
Hamnett C, 2003, ``Gentrification and the middle class remaking of inner London, 1961 ^ 2001''
Urban Studies 40 2401 ^ 2426
Holloway S L, Valentine G, 2000 Children's Geographies: Playing, Living, Learning (Routledge,
London)
Hubbard P, 2008, ``Regulating the social impacts of studentification: a Loughborough case study''
Environment and Planning A 40 forthcoming
Karsten L, 2003, ``Family gentrifiers: challenging the city as a place simultaneously to build a career
and to raise children'' Urban Studies 40 2573 ^ 2584
Kenyon E, Heath S, 2001, ``Choosing this life: narratives of choice amongst house sharers'' Housing
Studies 16 619 ^ 635
Knopp L, 1997, ``Gentrification and gay neighborhood formation in New Orleans: a case study'',
in Homo Economics: Capitalism, Community and Lesbian and Gay Life Eds A Gluckman,
B Reed (Routledge, London) pp 45 ^ 63
Lambert C, Boddy M, 2002,``Transforming the City: post recession gentrification and re-urbanisation'',
ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research, Bristol
Lees L, 2000, ``A reappraisal of gentrification towards a `geography of gentrification' '' Progress
in Human Geography 24 389 ^ 408
Lees L, 2003a, ``Policy (re)turns: gentrification research and urban policy urban policy and
gentrification research'' Environment and Planning A 35 571 ^ 574
Lees L, 2003b, ``Super-gentrification: the case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City'' Urban Studies
40 2487 ^ 2510
Ley D, 1994, ``Gentrification and the politics of the new middle class'' Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 12 53 ^ 74
Ley D, 1996 The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City (Oxford University Press,
Oxford)
Ley D, 2003, ``Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification'' Urban Studies 40 2527 ^ 2544

Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers

161

Mills C A, 1988, `` ``Life on the upslope'': the postmodern landscape of gentrification'' Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 6 169 ^ 189
Phillips M, 2004, ``Other geographies of gentrification'' Progress in Human Geography 28 5 ^ 30
Phillips M, Fish R, Agg J, 2001, ``Putting together ruralities: towards a symbolic analysis of rurality
in the British mass media'' Journal of Rural Studies 17 1 ^ 27
Rhodes D, 2006 The Modern Private Rented Sector (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York)
Robson G, Butler T, 2001, ``Coming to terms with London: middle-class communities in a global
city'' International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 70 ^ 86
Rose D, 1984, ``Rethinking gentrification: beyond the uneven development of marxist urban
theory'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2 47 ^ 74
Roseneil D, Budgeon S, 2004, ``Cultures of intimacy and care beyond the `family': personal life
and social change in the early 21st century'' Current Sociology 52 135 ^ 159
Slater T, 2004, ``North American gentrification? Revanchist and emancipatory perspectives
explored'' Environment and Planning A 36 1191 ^ 1213
Slater T, 2005, ``Gentrification in Canada's cities: from social mix to `social tectonics' '', in
Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism Eds R Atkinson, G Bridge
(Routledge, London) pp 39 ^ 56
Slater T, Curran W, Lees L, 2004, ``Gentrification research: new directions and critical scholarship''
Environment and Planning A 36 1141 ^ 1150
Smith D P, 2002a, ``Rural gatekeepers: closing and opening up `access' to greentrified Pennine
rurality'' Social and Cultural Geography 3 445 ^ 461
Smith D P, 2002b, ``Extending the temporal and spatial limits of gentrification: a research agenda
for population geography'' International Journal of Population Geography 8 385 ^ 394
Smith D P, 2002c,``Processes of studentification in Leeds'', report presented to the City and Regional
Office, University of Leeds, Leeds
Smith D P, 2005, `` `Studentification': the gentrification factory?'', in Gentrification in a Global
Context:The New Urban Colonialism Eds R Atkinson, G Bridge (Routledge, London) pp 72 ^ 89
Smith D P, 2007, ``The buoyancy of `other' geographies of gentrification: going back-to-the-water
and the commodification of marginality'' Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
98 53 ^ 67
Smith D P, Denholm J, 2006, Studentification: A Guide to Challenges, Opportunities and Practice
Universities UK, Woburn House, 20 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9HQ
Smith D P, Holt L, 2004, ``Processes of studentification in Brighton and Eastbourne'', report
presented to the Vice-chancellors Office, University of Brighton, Brighton
Smith D P, Holt L, 2005, `` `Lesbian migrants in the gentrified valley' and `other' geographies of
rural gentrification'' Journal of Rural Studies 21 313 ^ 322
Smith D P, Phillips D, 2001, ``Socio-cultural representations of greentrified Pennine rurality''
Journal of Rural Studies 17 457 ^ 469
Smith N, 1996 The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City (Routledge, London)
Smith N, 2002, ``New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy'' Antipode
34 427 ^ 450
Steinacker A, 2005, ``The economic effects of urban colleges on their surrounding communities''
Urban Studies 42 1161 ^ 1175
Tallon A R, Bromley R D F, 2004, ``Exploring the attractions of city centre living: evidence and
policy implications in British cities'' Geoforum 35 771 ^ 787
Van Den Berg L, Russo A, 2004 The Student City: Strategic Planning for Student Communities
in EU Cities (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
Vicario L, Monje P, 2005, ``Another `Guggenheim effect'? Central city projects and gentrification
in Bilbao'', in Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism Eds R Atkinson,
G Bridge (Routledge, London) pp 151 ^ 167
Webber R, 2007,``The metroplitan habitus: its manifestations, locations, and consumption profiles''
Environment and Planning A 39 182 ^ 207
Williams F, 2004 Rethinking Families (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London)
Wyly E, Hammel D, 2004, ``Gentrification, segregation, and discrimination in the American urban
system'' Environment and Planning A 36 1215 ^ 1241

2007 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain

Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal research
by members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or other
online distribution system) without permission of the publisher.