CHAPTER 27

Urbanism and Urbanization

Ranita Ray and Michael Ian Borer

Abstract
The social problems that arise specifically from the way people live in cities (i.e.,
urbanism) and the ways that cities grow (i.e., urbanization) echo many of the
same issues that concern scholars of social problems in general. What makes “the
city” unique, however, is that it plays host to many social problems that overlap,
that merge, and that are connected within and between specific geographical
places. The shift from rural, traditional human settlements to increasingly urban,
industrial ones generated a great deal of fear and anxiety in both early urban
studies scholars and early urban inhabitants. Here, we focus on a few of the
main contemporary urban social problems related to race relations and other
inequalities. Of particular interest to students and scholars investigating today’s
cities in the United States and around the world are the changing built environ-
ments and their urban populations. As such, we explore the role of gentrification
and its effects on neighborhood demographics and the consistently shifting
urbanism.

Introduction life that is impersonal, transient, contrac-

tual, and based on principles of anonymity
Cities have been a part of human life and division of labor. Of course, urbanism
for thousands of years, but their massive looks different across places and times, but
global expansion means that they are now there are some similar features that can be
a dominant part of many people’s every- problematic for various populations living,
day lives. The process by which cities, working, or recreating in or near cities.
suburbs, and metropolitan areas develop In 1800, a mere 3 percent of the world’s
and grow over time is called urbanization. population lived in cities. In 2007, half the
This long-term development is coupled world’s population lived in cities. More-
with urbanism – the ways of life within over, demographers estimate this number
cities. Louis Wirth (1938) of the seminal will increase to 75 percent by 2050. Impor-
early-twentieth-century Chicago School of tantly, this boom in urbanization will not
Sociology described urbanism as a way of be evenly distributed across the globe. For
475
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
 476 ranita ray and michael ian borer
example, since the early twenty-first cen-
tury the percentage of people living in cities
in less developed regions of the world – in
parts of Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and
Latin America – has been growing closer
to that of more developed countries in
North America and Europe. Since the mid-
twentieth century the number of people
in less developed regions living in cities
has outpaced more developed regions, and
this trend is expected to continue indefi-
nitely into the future. This global demo-
graphic shift is quite evident in the United
States. In 1860, 20 percent of the US popula-
tion resided in urban areas. Fifty years later
that number doubled to 40 percent. By 2014
more than 250 million Americans – nearly
80 percent of the population – lived in cities
(Monti et al. 2014).
A salient feature of most cities is het-
erogeneity. In most cities individuals with
varying economic and political powers,
racial and ethnic identities, sexual identities,
beliefs, and interests, establish residency
and go to work in close proximity to one
another. The spatial integration of a diverse
range of individuals into compressed envi-
ronments has implications for how commu-
nities are imagined, formed, and threatened.
Problematizing urbanization means think-
ing about how heterogeneity and its accom-
panying inequalities impact our lives and
society as a whole. A number of social prob-
lems occur in cities, partly because a large
proportion of the world population lives
there. One way to problematize urbaniza-
tion is to understand how the uneven dis-
tribution of power influences how differ-
ent groups experience urbanism and how
various inequalities shape the process of
urbanization.
In this chapter, we discuss urbaniza-
tion and urbanism through three broad
categories of inequalities: race, class, and
sexuality. Though our discussions and
examples focus primarily on US cities,
similar outcomes are found in many cities
in so-called developed societies. We begin
by looking at how racial inequalities shaped
the formation and development of Amer-
ican cities. Next, we discuss how class
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
inequalities influence the urban experience
through gentrification, urban poverty, food
insecurity, and the urban labor market. Last,
we end with a discussion of the rise and fall
of Gayborhoods as an urban phenomenon.
We hope to show how different forces
affect the formation, growth, and decline
of American cities, and the power relations
embedded in them.
Racializing American Cities
and Suburbs
The Legacy of Residential Segregation
The shifting color line in the United States
is one of the more apparent ways to see and
understand the historical transformation
of American cities (Charles 2003). Neigh-
borhoods are frequently residentially and
racially segregated. This is largely due to
past racist national practices that had lasting
effects through the decades. For example,
in 1934 President Franklin D. Roosevelt
enacted the National Housing Act to help
the country economically recover from the
ruins of the Great Depression. Homeown-
ership was used as a means to attain and
cultivate wealth through assets. The Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) originated
from within this Act and fostered a program
for government-issued loans for homebuy-
ers in order to encourage homeownership.
These loans, backed federally, had rela-
tively low and fixed interest rates, which
could be paid off over an extended period
of time.
However, instead of granting approval
to all loans, Roosevelt asked banks to only
approve loans in specific areas of various
American cities. Communities inhabited
mainly by black citizens or by people from
various racial/ethnic backgrounds (inte-
grated neighborhoods), were excluded from
obtaining these loans. This practice, known
as “redlining,” deemed some neighborhoods
as too risky an investment, thus banks
wouldn’t approve loans in these areas. Over
the next four decades, white homebuyers
received 90 percent of the loans through the
 urbanism and urbanization
FHA. Besides influencing the massive accu-
mulations of wealth among white Ameri-
cans and withholding the same from black
Americans, redlining began a powerful pro-
cess of residential segregation in American
cities that continues today. As white resi-
dents moved out of cities and into suburban
homes – a phenomenon known as “white
flight” (Johnson 2011; US Census Bureau
2014) – that were financed in large part with
FHA loans, blacks and Hispanics remained
in the cities and outside of the mortgage
market.
After redlining became illegal in the
1970s, blacks and other racial minorities fol-
lowed their white counterparts by moving
into suburban neighborhoods in large num-
bers. Instead of integrating these neighbor-
hoods, however, many whites abandoned
their neighborhoods to move into more
racially homogenous white neighborhoods.
Real estate agents preyed on the racial anxi-
ety and prejudice of the white homeowners,
encouraging them to sell their houses before
the newcomers would supposedly lower the
value of their house. Many white people
sold their houses, which were then resold
to minorities at inflated prices.
Although racial segregation became ille-
gal in the 1960s, it persisted in practice. For
example, experiments conducted by social
justice organizations reveal that banks, real
estate agents, and landlords continued to
discriminate against prospective renters and
homeowners based on their race (Massey
and Denton 1993; Massey and Lundy 2001;
Oliver and Shapiro 1995; Roscigno, Karafin,
and Tester 2009; Yinger 1995). Persistent
racism and prejudice by bankers, realtors,
and landlords influenced and perpetuated
potential residents’ anxiety about living in
cities. This, in turn, regulates who lives
in which parts of the city and how cities
develop.
Many of America’s largest cities experi-
enced white depopulation due to natural
decline and relocation to the suburbs. While
white flight along with deindustrialization
influenced the decay of some US cities –
Detroit is a stark example – poverty has also
seeped into suburban neighborhoods. Many
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
477
people of color and recent immigrants move
to suburban areas close to the central city
and to poor and working-class communities
with subpar infrastructures and older hous-
ing stocks. In the late-twentieth-century
suburban communities started experiencing
higher rates of poverty due to the migration
of historically marginalized racial and ethnic
minorities into what was once white subur-
bia (Howell and Timberlake 2014). Subur-
ban poverty has become an intriguing topic
for social scientists, in part, because it is
a contemporary trend that debunks many
early theories about suburban life.
Neighborhood Integration
Since the late twentieth century there has
been a decrease in the overall level of
racial and ethnic segregation in US cities
(Rugh and Massey 2013). More specifically,
black and white neighborhood segregation
decreased between 1970 and 2010 in about
fifty major cities (Logan and Stults 2011).
The decline in black and white neighbor-
hood segregation and overwhelming white
flight have been occurring simultaneously.
The story of racial and ethnic desegrega-
tion is by no means a simple one. As blacks
and Hispanic and Asian immigrants moved
into large cities during the early twenty-first
century, whites moved to the suburbs and
beyond. In 1950, Detroit had a population
of 1.5 million white residents. In 2010, only
around 76,000 whites still lived in Detroit.
Even as neighborhoods became more inte-
grated, some of the largest cities, like
Los Angeles and Atlanta, remain majority-
minority populations. In 2011 Detroit was
80 percent black – an increase from 62 per-
cent in 1980 (Logan and Stults 2011). While
black and white segregation has slightly
decreased in some urban neighborhoods,
other cities remain racially homogenous.
Research shows that although isolation of
black residents declined, it is not primar-
ily due to black-white integration. Rather,
black residents continue to remain segre-
gated from whites, especially in comparison
to Asian and Hispanic populations (Logan
and Stults 2011; Tienda and Fuentes 2014).
 478 ranita ray and michael ian borer
Hispanic segregation presents a unique story
of its own. While there has been a decrease
in Hispanic segregation at the neighborhood
level, it has been offset by the movement
of Hispanics into non-metropolitan desti-
nations that, in turn, maintains persistent
patterns of segregation (Fischer and Tienda
2006; Hall 2013). Similarly, new Asian eth-
noburbs – suburban districts and commer-
cial regions with a high ratio of any specific
ethnic minority population – have emerged
outside cities since the early twenty-first
century (Li 1998). While some cities have
become increasingly diverse – producing
“global communities” – other places have
become racially homogenous (Logan and
Zhang 2010).
Several suburban neighborhoods also
have majority-minority populations
(Lichter 2013) – majority black, majority
Asian, or majority Hispanic (Lee, Iceland,
and Farrell 2014; Logan and Zhang 2010).
For example, Dover, New Jersey, about
thirty miles from New York City, has a
population of about 18,000. Hispanics made
up 25 percent of its total population in
1980, but in 2015 Dover was 70 percent
Hispanic. Similarly, Milpitas, a community
outside San Jose, California was 62.2 per-
cent Asian (Lichter et al. 2015). Moreover,
as minorities move into white neighbor-
hoods, white residents are moving further,
often to places that are majority white and
mainly located in the fringes of metropoli-
tan areas while abandoning cities like
Detroit, Cleveland, and Houston (South
et al. 2011). Thus, integration of whites and
people of color is happening concomitantly
with the larger spatial isolation of whites,
especially of wealthier whites, who are relo-
cating to places like all-white affluent gated
communities.
A 2015 study conducted by social sci-
entists from Cornell and Mississippi State
University challenges the general trends
of racial integration in US metropoli-
tan areas observed over the previous
decades (Fischer et al. 2004; Parisi et al.
2015). This study demonstrates that while
neighborhood-to-neighborhood segregation
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
may have declined, suburb-to-suburb and
city-to-city segregation was on the rise.
This new trend in neighborhood for-
mations signaled a new type of macro-
segregation where racial segregation within
cities exists at higher geographic levels. This
means that neighborhood-to-neighborhood
differences that point to micro-segregation
(Lee et al. 2008; Reardon et al. 2008) have
been replaced by racial differences between
central cities and suburban and fringe areas
such as housing developments that are unin-
corporated or gated communities (Lichter
et al. 2015). For example, white, black,
Asian, and Hispanic residents live in close
proximity to each other in some neighbor-
hoods in Las Vegas (one of the most diverse
cities in America), yet large numbers of
affluent whites increasingly move into gated
communities and unincorporated housing
developments (Hall 2013). The main point
is that segregation between city and suburb
is accelerating while neighborhood segrega-
tion within cities is declining.
Urban areas continue to remain segre-
gated even though they grew as a mosaic
of cultures, races, ethnicities, and sexual
orientations. One account is that when
making residential choices, neighborhoods
with majority white residents tend to be
most preferred and neighborhoods with
a high proportion of black residents are
least favored, while Latino and Asian
neighborhoods are somewhere in between
(Charles 2000). One study conducted in
2000 shows that after controlling for socio-
economic status, quality of schools, home
value, and crime rates, whites preferred
to live apart from black and Latino resi-
dents. Rather than demonstrating obvious
racial prejudice, whites regard integrated
neighborhoods as less desirable due to their
perceived low quality (Ellen 2000). White
people tend to want to live in exclusively
white neighborhoods, which explains resi-
dential segregation significantly more than
any other racial groups’ wish to reside in
areas with people of similar racial/ethnic
backgrounds (Krysan et al. 2009; Lewis et al.
2011).
 urbanism and urbanization
Furthermore, the deep legacy of
antiblack racism and racial stereotypes
in the United States continue to fuel per-
vasive urban segregation. For instance, a
neighborhood that may not be majority
black due to the influx of recent immigrants
continues to be viewed as a “black ghetto”
(Anderson 2012). Moreover, perceptions
rather than objective indicators charac-
terize neighborhoods and this influences
neighborhood outcomes. Scholars call this
definitional phenomenon the “looking-glass
neighborhood” because people abandon
neighborhoods they regard as risky and
blighted, thus causing them to further dete-
riorate. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
(Sampson 2012).
Urbanization and Class Inequality
Urban Poverty as a Persistent
Social Problem
Urban poverty, as a distinct phenomenon,
has historically been central to the study
of urbanization. American cities that
developed rapidly as a consequence of
industrialization deteriorated with dein-
dustrialization and the disappearance of
the manufacturing sector. Consequently,
this led to the exodus of whites from cities
into the suburbs. The tax base and infras-
tructures of cities deteriorated significantly.
The urban ghetto, with its concentration
of multiple forms of inequality, grew as a
symbol of urban poverty. In ghettos, more
than 40 percent of residents were econom-
ically and racially marginalized (Jargowsky
2007). Various urban scholars have theo-
rized about the perseverance of poverty in
these neighborhoods.
Two of the most popular sociological
perspectives that explain why some urban
neighborhoods remain poor across genera-
tions are social disorganization theory and
social isolation theory. Social disorganiza-
tion theory states that absence of social
resources combined with neighborhood
instability in marginalized neighborhoods
shapes weaker social ties which then result
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
479
in decreased social control (Park, Burgess,
and McKenzie 1925; Shaw and McKay 1969).
This reduced social control shapes the
lack of resourceful local institutions, which
lessens opportunities for success (Sampson
et al. 1999). Social disorganization theo-
rists argue that residents of poor urban
neighborhoods do not have strong familial
bonds, and that these neighborhoods lack
collective efficacy and community organi-
zations. Because residents do not feel tied
to their neighbors or their neighborhoods,
these neighborhoods have higher rates of
street crimes. Recent scholars argue that
mass incarceration of poor black and Latino
men have further deteriorated conditions
in these communities (Western 2006). By
contrast, others argue that residents of poor
urban neighborhoods, in fact, have stronger
ties to their neighbors and families, and that
these ties enable them to overcome the lack
of resources through a system of exchange
where family members, friends, and neigh-
bors often depend on one another to fulfill
everyday needs (Stack 1974; Newman
1999).
Social isolation theory states that eco-
nomically marginalized neighborhoods are
detached from the middle class and hence
do not have access to societal resources or
middle-class networks (Wilson 1987). For
example, poor urban neighborhoods may
have schools lacking in books, computers,
or college access programs that facilitate
academic success. Additionally, high school
students in a poor urban neighborhood who
desire to attend college may not know influ-
ential and resourceful professionals who can
guide them through the college application
process, connect them to college alumni, or
offer them an internship to help with col-
lege admission. Social connections and net-
works are helpful in navigating institutions
such as schools, colleges, and work places.
The lack of these connections is a major
obstacle. It must be noted, however, that
while structural conditions impede mobil-
ity, several studies demonstrate that poor
individuals also manifest different outcomes
(Newman 1999; Elliott 2007; Ray 2015).
 480
While structuralists focus on organiza-
tions and networks, cultural theorists of
urban poverty seek to uncover the lived
realities of social phenomenon. The “culture
of poverty” debate, which occurred during
the 1950s and 1960s, alleged that poverty was
transmitted from one generation to another.
But scholars disagreed among themselves on
whether this was due to structural imped-
iments and discrimination the urban poor
faced or because of their “cultural inadequa-
cies” that lead them to disvalue education
or become parents early on in their lives.
Proponents of the culture of poverty thesis
claimed that the poor had a common cul-
ture that differed from that of the middle
class and that was “familial and intergener-
ational” (Patterson 1986, 119). Oscar Lewis
(1968, 50) noted that “once it [the culture
of poverty] comes into existence, it tends
to perpetuate itself from generation to gen-
eration because of its effects on children.”
Others, like Eliot Liebow (1967), denounced
the culture of poverty notion and demon-
strated how limited opportunities and racial
discrimination affected poor individuals in
each new generation. Still others argued for
the presence of a “ghetto specific” culture in
poor neighborhoods as a means of reacting
to the constraints of poverty (Hannerz 1969;
Ogbu 1974, 1978, 1988). Prevalent are such
myths and stereotypes as the lazy urban
poor who depend on welfare despite having
access to employment opportunities and the
Welfare Queen who wastes the taxpayer’s
resources.
Arguments over the intergenerational
transmission of poverty subsided when
quantitative studies found negligible evi-
dence supporting a vicious cycle of poverty
(Blau and Duncan 1967). But the issue sur-
faced again when scholars began focusing on
the emergence of an underclass and on inter-
generational welfare dependency (e.g., Wil-
son 1987; Jencks and Peterson 1991). William
Julius Wilson’s structural model of neigh-
borhood isolation gained popularity owing
to the fact that it identified key structural
factors that restricted upward mobility. Wil-
son states that a decrease in the number of
blue collar or manufacturing positions com-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
ranita ray and michael ian borer
bined with the flight of the middle class
from cities led to the development of an
“underclass.” This created a smaller pool of
marriageable men, which in turn led to sin-
gle parent households, and out-migration
weakened important socializing institutions,
like the church, thus isolating the poor from
the networks of the middle class. Wilson’s
model allows for structure and culture to
intersect. Demographic changes isolate the
inner-city poor and, in turn, tend to affect
the organization of their family and com-
munity life.
In 2010 The New York Times featured the
article “Culture of Poverty Makes a Come-
back” (Cohen 2010). Culture is indeed back.
A new generation of urban poverty scholars
has begun to explain variations in educa-
tional and occupational outcomes as well
as parenting practices among the poor by
focusing on culture (e.g., Small 2004; Carter
2005; Harding 2007; Small et al. 2010). These
scholars propose sophisticated definitions
of culture to understand diverse responses
to poverty; at the same time, they dis-
tance themselves from the victim-blaming
theories. They view culture and structure
as interactive in explaining outcomes of
poverty. Within this theoretical model,
culture is not an umbrella concept used to
explain poverty, rather it is a measurable
and falsifiable concept (Small et al. 2010).
Drawing on conceptualizations of culture
from social scientists such as Ann Swidler
(1986), these urban theorists view culture
as “tool kits” or “repertoires” of available
resources required to enact a particular edu-
cational or occupational trajectory, rather
than as a cohesive system of values (Borer
2006). For example, they might argue that
if students from urban schools don’t apply
to college it is not because they don’t value
education, but because they lack the tools –
such as knowledge about the admission
process, computers, resources to prepare
for Standardized Aptitude Tests – needed
to understand the value of education, to
form higher educational goals, or to apply
to college.
Further, studies have established the
presence of distinct “street” and “decent”
 urbanism and urbanization
cultures in urban neighborhoods (Anderson
1999). While there are some “street” resi-
dents who do not work or attend school,
and who belong to gangs, the majority of a
neighborhood’s members are “decent”; they
go to work, attend school, and avoid gangs
or violence. Additionally, scholars have cri-
tiqued this dichotomy between two types of
culture. In fact, the presence of an oppo-
sitional culture is questionable since inner-
city residents receive a steady influx of
mainstream American values having to do
with consumerism, violence, and masculin-
ity (Nightingale 1993; Carter 2005). Most
importantly, scholars argue that inner-city
residents are confronted with multiple cul-
tural frames (Swidler 1986; Duneier 1992;
Newman 1999; Harding 2007).
The Urban Labor Market
Since the late twentieth century the wealth-
iest Americans have become richer while
the income of those at the bottom has
plunged and conditions of the urban
poor worsened. Deindustrialization (Wil-
son 1996), decline in the number of labor
unions and their membership (Milkman and
Voss 2004), and tax policies benefiting the
wealthy (Krugman 2003) are some reasons
for the worsening conditions of the urban
poor. William Julius Wilson’s (1987) argu-
ment about the shift from manufacturing
to service industry leading to a decline in
the demand for low-skilled jobs is one of
the most influential explanations for the
growing unemployment of urban residents.
He maintained that racial segregation as
well as the disappearance of manufactur-
ing jobs led the middle class to abandon
inner-city neighborhoods thus leaving the
economically marginalized without middle-
class resources or networks (Massey and
Denton 1993; Wacquant 2008). Traditional
families were dismantled and the drug trade
provided an avenue and model for economic
success.
The global recession of 2007 saw the col-
lapse of the stock market and declining real
estate values together with rising unemploy-
ment rates. Wage growth and labor mar-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
481
ket conditions were also adversely affected.
The number of Americans in poverty rose
from 32 million in 2000 to 46.2 million
in 2010 (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2011). At
about 15 percent, the United States expe-
rienced the highest rate of poverty since
the early 1990s, with about 58 percent of
the poor being racial and ethnic minori-
ties (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2011). Simultane-
ously, there were also substantial cut backs
in public assistance to the needy (Wacquant
2008) combined with rising rates of eviction
and incarceration (Western 2006; Desmond
2012). This means that the urban poor
were struggling like never before to remain
employed.
The decline of work opportunities does
not mean that poor urban residents depend
solely on welfare. Most of them compete
aggressively for limited jobs in the low-
wage labor market because they connect
economic independence to dignity and
personal responsibility (Edin and Lein 1997;
Newman 1999). For example, Katherine S.
Newman (1999) explains that the working
poor of Harlem live on a minimum wage
and are required to balance school with
work. They depend on a web of social and
familial support to make ends meet. Edin
and Lein (1997) elaborate how and why
single mothers move in and out of welfare.
Mothers who rely either on work or on
welfare alone face hardships in providing
for their families. As a result, some women
resort to illegal and semilegal ways of earn-
ing money while receiving welfare. Sudhir
Venkatesh (2009) explains how residents
in a Chicago neighborhood attempt to
make ends meet within an underground
economy consisting of illegal and semilegal
jobs (see also Anderson 1999; Duneier 2000
for other examples of how urban residents
subsist in the face of economic and racial
marginalization).
Urbanization and Food Insecurity
Access to food is another issue that is sig-
nificant and unique to understanding urban-
ization and urban development. Although
not as pronounced as in the developing or
 482 ranita ray and michael ian borer
underdeveloped parts of the world, food as
a cause of concern is rising in the global
north, especially in cities. In 2009 there were
35 million food insecure households in the
United States (BFW 2009). The food cri-
sis is especially apparent among low-income
people of color living in inner-city neighbor-
hoods. There is a high prevalence of food
insecurity in these neighborhoods due to
poverty and lack of access to grocery stores
and farms (Gottlieb 2001; Poppendieck 1998;
Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999). Since the
early twenty-first century, many urban com-
munities have become food deserts due to
middle-class families moving to the suburbs
and the subsequent abandonment of inner-
city neighborhoods by supermarket chains
(Short et al. 2007). Several researchers have
documented both the paucity of supermar-
kets and higher prices of food in poor
urban areas compared to suburban areas
and wealthier neighborhoods (Hendrickson
et al. 2006). Additionally, urban residents
are isolated from fertile land. This is par-
ticularly the case with people with lower
incomes or who live in apartment buildings;
they do not have access to land to grow
their own food. Given soaring fuel and food
prices and with approximately 80 percent
of the US population living in urban areas
(Community Food Security Coalition 2003),
it is critical to analyze food access and avail-
ability as an urban social problem.
How do the urban poor overcome per-
vasive food insecurity? Urban sociologists
have begun to recognize the significance
of local organizations – including non-
profits, churches, after-school care cen-
ters, and community supported agriculture
coops – in the study of urban food insecurity
and urban poverty (Small 2004; McQuar-
rie 2007). Local organizations are signif-
icant since they often provide resources,
either directly or indirectly, to economi-
cally marginalized urban residents. More-
over, they also offer access to connections
and networks through their organizational
ties (Chaskin et al. 2001). For instance, a
local church may have ties to an after-school
care center that is connected to a college
admission program.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
Gentrifying Cities
While impoverished communities repre-
sent the ugly face of urbanization, several
blighted neighborhoods have undergone
economic rejuvenation. For example, in
Washington, DC, San Francisco, and New
York, affluent young white residents have
moved into poor neighborhoods, forcing
their residents to move out into even poorer
neighborhoods. These cities rebuild some
of their infrastructure through a process
of urban renewal. Though landowners and
developers often claim that urban devel-
opment and renewal projects are essential
for the welfare of city residents, growth
does not affect all city residents in the
same way. For example, working-class and
poor underclass residents of neighborhoods
that are demolished and replaced with
highways, malls, and luxury condominiums
are routinely displaced from their homes.
Families who rely on social services suffer
when these services are eliminated due to
changes in tax-structures that are intended
to help some city dwellers.
Social scientists call this profound trans-
formation of cities gentrification – a process
that involves the investment of capital in
dilapidated inner-city neighborhoods to ren-
ovate them for the upwardly mobile middle
class. Gentrification has costs and bene-
fits for neighborhoods and their residents.
Though difficult to quantify and identify,
gentrification generally involves the reno-
vation of the visible urban landscape, an
increase in median household income, and
the displacement of poor and working-class
residents. Neil Smith (1998, 198) describes
gentrification as “the process by which
central urban neighborhoods that have
undergone disinvestments and economic
decline experience a reversal, reinvestment,
and the in-migration of a relatively well-off
middle- and upper middle-class popula-
tion.” When neighborhoods transform due
to reinvestment, neighborhood identities
shift as they become more palatable to the
middle class. Irrespective of whether neigh-
borhood revival is steered by individual
residents, large corporations, developers, or
 urbanism and urbanization
policies, it has significant implications for a
neighborhood’s life.
In the beginning stages the gentrifiers
tend to be young white, upwardly mobile
professionals who are more tolerant toward
racial integration and are culturally attracted
to so-called bohemian settings (Zukin 1987;
Brown-Saracino 2009). They are members
of what Richard Florida has called the “cre-
ative class.” People of color prefer to settle
in gentrifying neighborhoods because, at
least initially, these neighborhoods tend to
be more racially diverse. White gentrifiers,
however, tend to be attracted to housing
aesthetics and the physical proximity to
cultural amenities over racial integration
(Bader 2011). As a whole gentrifies are not
a homogenous group. There are different
kinds of gentrifiers – those who desire
racially integrated neighborhoods, those
who intend to revitalize neighborhoods that
may displace its economically marginalized
residents, and those who intend to preserve
the culture of the neighborhood they move
into (Clay 1979; Brown-Saracino 2009).
In general, the process of gentrification
involves the moving of middle- and upper-
middle-class whites into poor and racially
diverse neighborhoods.
Gentrification, Gayborhoods, and
Urban Sexuality
Cities have long been a destination for
sexually marginalized populations because
they allow for the expression of new social
and cultural identities and possibilities. In
this section, we look at the rise and fall of
American “Gayborhoods” – neighborhoods
that have a large number of queer residents
or are frequented by queer people. Gaybor-
hoods emerged as a response to post-1960s
sexual liberation in the United States (Harry
1974). Martin P. Levine (1979) characterized
“gay ghettos” as the special clustering of
gay residents, the institutions serving them,
and cultural zones. This spatial cluster
shaped both community and identity and
guaranteed some degree of safety for the
sexually marginalized (Miller 2005). The
visible presence of Gayborhoods as part
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
483
of the urban mosaic challenged the almost
complete absence of nonheteronormative
identities (Binnie 2004). Gayborhoods rose
as visible neighborhoods that included
financial, political, and social activities for
their inhabitants (Hindle 1994).
British sociologist Alan Collins (2004)
provides a four-step explanation of how
Gayborhoods become part of the urban
mosaic. First, a gay bar may emerge in a
blighted neighborhood. This neighborhood
may then draw other services such as con-
venient stores, hotels, or restaurants that
attract more gay customers. Consequently,
the services further grow to meet the needs
of the customers, which encourage gay
residents to move into the neighborhood.
Eventually, more heterosexuals start to
patronize these services and integrate the
Gayborhoods. This may then cause gay
residents to move out.
Some scholars understand gayborhoods
as a case of gentrification. When the sexu-
ally marginalized residents moved in, they
pushed working-class and poor residents
out of the neighborhoods (Bouthillette
1997) leading to displacement of its res-
idents (Knopp 1997). Gay settlers either
rose in social class, or upper-middle-class
and upper-class gay men moved into Gay-
borhoods. This raised rents and housing
prices and displaced the poor and work-
ing class. The historical Gayborhoods in
New York and San Francisco started as a
gay-friendly space, but have become some
of the most expensive places to live in,
thus often excluding certain populations
such as working-class lesbians (Adler and
Brenner 1992; Taylor 2008). Scholars have
documented how the class inequality and
patriarchal structuring of queer-friendly
urban environments exclude trans folks and
queer people of color (Doan 2007). Owing
to the gentrification of Gayborhoods and
the rise in housing costs, LGBTQ residents
have been pushed out and dispersed. Soci-
ologist Amin Ghaziani (2014) argues that
gay and lesbian couples now feel safe and
comfortable in various neighborhoods and
are integrating into heterosexual suburbs
and rural neighborhoods.
 484
The loss of community ties has also
impacted sexual minorities living in cities.
Urban sociologist Japonica Brown-Saracino
(2011) finds that even though a large num-
ber of queer women lived in Ithaca, New
York, many of them reported that they
did not feel a sense of community based
on their political identity as queer women.
Instead, they developed ties based on shared
tastes and activities, such as music or pol-
itics, with both heterosexual and queer
residents.
Conclusion
While the urban population in less devel-
oped regions of the world grows at rates
much higher than in more developed
regions, rural populations will be larger in
less developed regions. Whereas in more
developed regions urbanization was accom-
panied by an overall drop in population
growth, in less developed regions, urban
populations continue to boom. This will
have a major impact on how cities grow in
these regions, and it will also affect their
ability to accommodate the increasing num-
bers of urban residents. Under these con-
ditions, if the history of urbanization in
more developed regions is similar to that
in less developed regions, the policies estab-
lished to address problems associated with
growth will need to be applied faster and
more broadly to urbanizing less developed
regions.
Globalization describes the uneven devel-
opment of social, political, and economic
relationships across the globe. The accel-
erated flow of capital across international
borders is the defining attribute of glob-
alization. In an increasingly global econ-
omy, some cities fare better than others, and
the most successful are those with finan-
cial institutions (e.g., financial trading and
international banking headquarters) criti-
cal for the functioning of the global econ-
omy, advanced telecommunication infras-
tructures, and a good business climate (e.g.,
low real estate, payroll, revenue, and other
taxes) (Friedmann 1986). These global cities
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
ranita ray and michael ian borer
become central organizing nodes of the
global economy (Sassen 2010). As central
locations within the global economy, global
cities attract high numbers of people from
their poorer hinterlands and from develop-
ing countries. Accordingly, multiculturalism
is as much a part of globalization as the flow
of capital (Sassen 2010). As such, the social
problem of heterogeneity is now a global
phenomenon, and the effects of heterogene-
ity on inter- and intrarace relations, housing
and labor markets, and the disinvestment
and redevelopment of urban neighborhoods
will continue.
Glossary
Food desert A geographic area that lacks
grocery stores and supermarkets that sell
fresh produce and healthy food options.
Gentrification A process of community and
neighborhood change where housing in
older neighborhoods is restored, often
resulting in higher rents and the displace-
ment of previous tenants who can no
longer afford to live there.
Globalization The often uneven develop-
ment of extensive worldwide patterns of
economic, political, and cultural relation-
ships between nations.
Residential segregation The practice of
physically separating the occupants of
some social statuses from the occupants
of others.
Urbanism The ways of life or cultures of
people in cities; the myths, symbols, and
rituals of urbanites.
Urbanization The movement of popula-
tions from rural to urban areas; the
growth and development, and redevelop-
ment, of cities.
References
Adler, Sy, and Johanna Brenner. 1992. Gender
and space. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 16(1):24–34.
Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class,
and Change in an Urban Community.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 urbanism and urbanization
1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and
the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York:
W. W. Norton.
2012. The iconic ghetto. Annals of American
Academy of Political and Social Science
642(1):8–24.
Bader, Michael D. 2011. Reassessing residential
preferences for redevelopment. City and
Community 10(3):311–37.
Binnie, Jon. 2004. Quartering sexualities. In City
of Quarters: Urban Villages in the Contempo-
rary City, edited by D. Bell and M. Jayne,
163–72. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Blau, Peter M., and Otis D. Duncan. 1967. The
American Occupational Structure. New York:
Free Press.
Borer, Michael Ian. 2006. The location of cul-
ture: The urban culturalist perspective. City
& Community 5(2):173–97.
Bouthillette, Anne-Marie. 1997. Queer and gen-
dered housing. In Queers in Space, edited
by G. B. Ingram, A. M. Bouthillette,
and Y. Retter, 213–32. Seattle, WA: Bay
Press.
Bread for the World (BFW). 2009. Hunger facts,
Bread for the World Institute. www.bread
.org/learn/hunger-basics/.
Brown-Saracino, Japonica. 2009. A Neighborhood
That Never Changes: Gentrification, Social
Preservation, and the Search for Authenticity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2011. From the lesbian ghetto to ambient com-
munity: The perceived costs and benefits of
integration for community. Social Problems
3(58):361–88.
Carter, Prudence L. 2005. Keepin’ It Real: School
Success beyond Black and White. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Charles, Camille Z. 2000. Neighborhood racial-
composition preferences: Evidence from
a multiethnic metropolis. Social Problems
47(3):379–407.
2003. The Dynamics of racial residential seg-
regation. Annual Review of Sociology 29:
167–207.
Chaskin, Robert J., Prudence Brown, Sudhir
Venkatesh, and Avis Vidal. 2001. Building
Community Capacity. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Clay, Phillip L. 1979. Neighborhood Renewal:
Trends and Strategies. Lexington, MA: Lex-
ington Books.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
485
Cohen, Patricia. 2010. “Culture of poverty”
makes a come back. New York Times.
October 17. www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/
us/18poverty.html.
Collins, Alan. 2004. Sexual dissidence, enterprise
and assimilation.Urban Studies 41:1789–806.
Community Food Security Coalition. 2003. www
.foodsecurity.orig/viewscfsfaq.html.
DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, D. Proctor Bernadette,
and Jessica C. Smith. 2011. Income, poverty,
and, health insurance coverage in the United
States: 2010. P60−239. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Desmond, Matthew. 2012. Disposable ties and
the urban poor. American Journal of Sociol-
ogy 117(5):1295–335.
Doan, Petra L. 2007. Queers in the American
city. Gender, Place and Culture 14(1):57–74.
Duneier, Mitchell. 1992. Slim’s Table: Race,
Respectability, and Masculinity. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
2000. Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Edin, Kathryn, and Laura Lein. 1997. Making
Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Wel-
fare and Low-wage Work. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould. 2000. Sharing America’s
Neighborhoods: The Prospects for Stable
Racial Integration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Elliott, Delbert. 2007. Good Kids from Bad Neigh-
borhoods: Successful Development in Social
Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fischer, Claude S., Gretchen Stockmayer, Jon
Stiles, and Michael Hout. 2004. Distinguish-
ing the geographic levels and social dimen-
sions of U.S. metropolitan segregation, 1960–
2000. Demography 41(1):37–59.
Fischer, Mary J., and Marta Tienda. 2006.
Redrawing spatial color lines: Hispanic
metropolitan dispersal, segregation, and
economic opportunity. In Hispanics and the
Future of America, edited by M. Tienda
and F. Mitchell, 100–137. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Friedmann, John. 1986. The world city hypothe-
sis. Development and Change 17:69–83.
Ghaziani, Amin. 2014. There Goes the Gaybor-
hood? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
 486 ranita ray and michael ian borer
Gottlieb, Robert. 2001. Environmentalism
Unbound. Boston: MIT Press.
Hall, Matthew. 2013. Residential integration on
the new frontier: Immigrant segregation in
established and new destinations. Demogra-
phy 52(5):1873–96.
Hamnett, Chris. 1991. The blind men and the
elephant: The explanation of gentrification.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geogra-
phers 16(2):173–89.
Hannerz, Ulf. 1969. Soulside: Inquiries into
Ghetto Culture and Community. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Harding, David. 2007. Cultural context, sex-
ual behavior, and romantic relation-
ships in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
American Sociological Review 72:341–
64.
Harry, Joseph. 1974. Urbanization and the gay
life. Journal of Sex Research 10(3):238–
47.
Hendrickson, Deja, Chery Smith, and Nicole
Eikenberry. 2006. Fruit and vegetable access
in four low-income food deserts communi-
ties in Minnesota. Agriculture and Human
Values 23(3):371–83.
Hindle, Paul. 1994. Gay communities and gay
space in the city. In The Margins of the City,
edited by S. Whittle, 7–25. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
Howell, Aaron J., and Jeffrey M. Timberlake.
2014. Racial and ethnic trends in the sub-
urbanization of poverty in U.S. metropoli-
tan areas, 1980–2010. Journal of Urban Affairs
36(1):79–98.
Iceland, John, Gregory Sharp, and Jeffrey M.
Timberlake. 2013. Sun belt rising: Regional
population change and the decline in black
residential segregation, 1970–2009. Demogra-
phy 50(1):97–123.
Jargowsky, Paul. 2007. Poverty and Place: Ghettos,
Barrios, and the American City. New York:
Russel Sage Foundation.
Jencks, Christopher, and Paul E. Peterson, eds.
1991. The Urban Underclass. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution.
Johnson, Kenneth M. 2011. The continuing inci-
dence of natural decrease in American coun-
ties. Rural Sociology 76(1):74–100.
Knopp, Lawrence. 1997. Gentrification and gay
neighborhood formation in New Orleans.
In Homo Economics, edited by N. Gluckman
and B. Reed, 45–64. New York: Routledge.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
Krugman, Paul R. 2003. The Great Unraveling:
Losing Our Way in the New Century. New
York: Norton.
Krysan, Maria, Mick P. Couper, Reynolds Farley,
and Tyrone A. Forman. 2009. Does race mat-
ter in neighborhood preferences? Results
from a video experiment. American Journal
of Sociology 115(2):527–59.
Lee, Barrett A., John Iceland, and Chad R.
Farrell. 2014. Is ethnoracial residential
integration on the rise? Evidence from
metropolitan and micropolitan America
since 1980. In Diversity and Disparities:
America Enters a New Century, edited by
J. Logan, 415–56. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Lee, Barrett A., Sean F. Reardon, Glenn
Firebaugh, Chad R. Farrell, Stephen A.
Matthews, and David O’Sullivan. 2008.
Beyond the census tract: Patterns and deter-
minants of racial segregation at multi-
ple geographic scales. American Sociological
Review 73(5):766–91.
Levine, Martin P. 1979. Gay ghetto. In Gay Man,
edited by M. P. Levine, 182–204. New York:
Harper & Row.
Lewis, Oscar. 1968. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Fam-
ily in the Culture Of Poverty: San Juan and
New York. London: Panther.
Lewis, Valerie A., Michael O. Emerson, and
Stephen L. Klineberg. 2011. Who we’ll
live with: Neighborhood racial composition
preferences of whites, blacks, and Latinos.
Social Forces 89(4):1385–407.
Li, Wei. 1998. Anatomy of a new ethnic settle-
ment: The Chinese ethnoburb in Los Ange-
les. Urban Studies 35(3):479–501.
Lichter, Daniel T. 2013. Integration or fragmen-
tation? Racial diversity and the American
future. Demography 50(2):359–91.
Lichter, Daniel T., Domenico Parisi, and Michael
C. Taquino. 2012. The geography of exclu-
sion: Race, segregation, and concentrated
poverty. Social Problems 59(3):364–88.
2015. Toward a new macro segregation?
Decomposing segregation within and
between metropolitan cities and suburbs.
American Sociological Review 80(4):843–73.
Liebow, Eliot. 1967. Tally’s Corner: A Study of
Negro Street Corner Men. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Logan, John R., and Brian J. Stults. 2011. The
Persistence of Segregation in the Metropolis:
 urbanism and urbanization
New Findings from the 2010 Census. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation and Brown
University.
Logan, John R., and Charles Zhang. 2010. Global
neighborhoods: New pathways to diversity
and separation. American Journal of Sociology
115(4):1069–109.
Marwell, Nicole. 2007. Bargaining for Brook-
lyn: Community Organizations in the
Entrepreneurial City. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton.
1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and
the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Massey, Douglas S., and Garvey Lundy. 2001. Use
of Black English and racial discrimination in
urban housing markets: New methods and
findings. Urban Affairs Review 36(4):452–69.
McQuarrie, Michael. 2007. From backyard revo-
lution to neoliberalism: Community devel-
opment, civil society, and the American
third way. PhD diss., New York University.
McQuarrie, Michael, and Nicole P. Marwell.
2009. The missing organizational dimen-
sion in urban sociology. City & Community
8:247–68.
Milkman, Ruth, and Kim Voss. 2004. Rebuild-
ing Labor: Organizing and Organizers in the
New Union Movement. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Miller, Vincent. 2005. Intertextuality, the refer-
ential illusion, and the production of a gay
ghetto. Social and Cultural Geography 6:
61–79.
Monti, Daniel J., Michael Ian Borer, and Lyn
Macgregor. 2014. Urban People and Places:
The Sociology of Cities, Suburbs, and Towns.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newman, Katherine S. 1999. No Shame in My
Game: The Working Poor in the Inner City.
New York: Knopf and the Russell Sage
Foundation.
Nightingale, Carl. 1993. On the Edge: A History
of Poor Black Children and Their American
Dreams. New York: Basic Books.
Ogbu, John. 1974. The Next Generation: An
Ethnography of Education in an Urban Neigh-
borhood. New York: Academic Press.
1978. Minority Education and Caste. New York:
Academic Press.
1988. Class stratification, racial stratification,
and schooling. In Class, Race, And Gender
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
487
in American Education, edited by Lois Weis,
163–82. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro.
1995. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New
Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York:
Routledge.
Parisi, Domenico, Daniel T. Lichter, and Michael
C. Taquino. 2015. The buffering hypothe-
sis: Growing diversity and declining black-
white segregation in America’s cities, sub-
urbs, and small towns? Sociological Science
2(March):125–57.
Park, Robert E., Ernest W. Burgess, and Roder-
ick. D. McKenzie. 1925. The City. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Patterson, James T. 1986. America’s Struggle
against Poverty, 1900–1985. Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press.
Poppendieck, Janet. 1998. Sweet Charity? Emer-
gency Food and the End of Entitlement. New
York: Penguin Books.
Pothukuchi, Kameshwari, and Jerome L. Kauf-
man. 1999. Placing the food system on the
urban agenda: The role of municipal insti-
tutions in food systems planning. Agriculture
and Human Values 16: 213–24.
Ray, Ranita. 2015. Exchange and intimacy in the
inner city: Rethinking kinship ties of the
urban poor. Journal of Contemporary Ethnog-
raphy 44:1–22.
Reardon, Sean F., Stephen A. Matthews, David
O’Sullivan, Barrett A. Lee, Glenn Fire-
baugh, Chad R. Farrell, and Kendra Bischoff.
2008. The geographic scale of metropolitan
segregation. Demography 45(3):489–514.
Roscigno, Vincent J., Diana L. Karafin, and Griff
Tester. 2009. The complexities and processes
of racial housing discrimination. Social Prob-
lems 56:49–69.
Rugh, Jacob S., and Douglas S. Massey. 2010.
Racial segregation and the American fore-
closure crisis. American Sociological Review
75(5):629–51.
2013. Segregation in post-civil rights Amer-
ica: Stalled integration or end of the seg-
regated century? Du Bois Review: Social
Science Research on Race 10(2):1–28.
Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American City:
Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood
Effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Fel-
ton Earls. 1999. Beyond social capital: Spatial
 488 ranita ray and michael ian borer
dynamics of collective efficacy for children.
American Sociological Review 64:633–60.
Sassen, Saskia. 2010. Cities in a World Economy.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
Shaw, Clifford, and Henry McKay. 1969. Juve-
nile Delinquency and Urban Areas: A Study
of Rates of Delinquency in Relation to Differ-
ential Characteristics of Local Communities
in American Cities. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Short, A., J. Guthman, and S. Raskin. 2007. Food
deserts, oases, or mirages? Small markets and
community food security in the San Fran-
cisco bay area. Journal of Planning Education
and Research 26: 352–64.
Small, Mario Luis. 2004. Villa Victoria: The Trans-
formation of Social Capital in a Boston Barrio.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Small, Mario Luis. David Harding, and Michèle
Lamont. 2010. Reconsidering culture and
poverty. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 10: 6–29.
Smith, Neil. 1998. Gentrification. In The Encyclo-
pedia of Housing, edited by W. V. Vliet, 198–
99. London: Taylor and Francis.
South, Scott J., Kyle Crowder, and Jeremy Pais.
2011. Metropolitan structure and neighbor-
hood attainment: Exploring intermetropoli-
tan variation in racial residential segregation.
Demography 48(4):1263–92.
Stack, Carol B. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies for
Survival in a Black Community. New York:
Harper & Row.
Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols
and strategies. American Sociological Review
51:273–86.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. [Faculty of Law] Universitas Indonesia, on 06 Dec 2019 at 13:11:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108550710.028
Taylor, Yvette. 2008. That’s not really my scene.
Sexualities 11:523–46.
Tienda, Marta, and Norma Fuentes. 2014. His-
panics in metropolitan America: New real-
ities and old debates. Annual Review of
Sociology 40:499–520.
US Census Bureau. 2014. American factfinder.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/
pages/index.xhtml.
Venkatesh, Sudhir. 2009. Off the Books: The
Underground Economy of the Urban Poor.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wacquant, Loïc. 2008. Urban Outcasts: A Com-
parative Sociology of Advanced Marginality.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequal-
ity in America. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged:
The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Pol-
icy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1996. When Work Disappears: The World of
the New Urban Poor. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Wirth, Louis. 1938. Urbanism as a way of life.
American Journal of Sociology 44(1):1–24.
Yinger, John. 1995. Closed Doors, Opportuni-
ties Lost: The Continuing Costs of Hous-
ing Discrimination. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Zukin, Sharon. 1995. The Cultures of Cities.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
1987. Gentrification: Culture and capital in
the urban core. Annual Review of Sociology
13:129–47.