Abstract
We investigate the urban transformation strategies of major developers and other key actors in the context of neoliberalism and its influence on politics, including urban development governance. Drawing primarily on interviews with corporate developers operating in the downtown areas of Oslo, Norway, we show how these influential actors with little formal political responsibility not only shape the physical structures but also significantly influence the social, economic and cultural fabric of the city. While they do not have a coordinated strategy, private developers do aim to transform urban areas to fit the preferences of the middle and upper classes. However, the situation is not as negative and predetermined as many critiques of gentrification processes assume. Besides demonstrating some positive outcomes of local transformation processes, our study shows that a fully gentrified downtown, along with the social exclusion mechanisms, has not been implemented yet.
Highlights
Scholars have pointed out that urban transformations follow an entrepreneurial logic (Dobson, 2015; Harvey, 1989)
In Oslo, the neighbourhoods undergoing gentrification can be found in the Inner East, a large area of downtown Oslo that includes the district named Gamle Oslo, which has traditionally consisted of ethnically mixed working-class neighbourhoods
Wessel noted that the ‘gentrification’ of the larger area locally known as the Inner East, to which Gamle Oslo belongs, ‘is not a new phenomenon, but it has never been more visible than now’ (Wessel, 2000: 1955)
Summary
Scholars have pointed out that urban transformations follow an entrepreneurial logic (Dobson, 2015; Harvey, 1989). In Oslo, the neighbourhoods undergoing gentrification can be found in the Inner East, a large area of downtown Oslo that includes the district named Gamle Oslo (literally ‘Old Oslo’), which has traditionally consisted of ethnically mixed working-class neighbourhoods Scholars studying how these neighbourhoods are changing, or why they are changing, have emphasised ‘gentrification’ (Holgersen, 2020; Huse, 2014). Inspired by scholars such as Elliott-Cooper et al (2020) and Maloutas (2018), we argue that in order to conceptualise the many changes taking place in Oslo’s ‘zones of transition’ (Park et al, 1984), other concepts and theories are useful This is not to say that ‘gentrification’ does not fit the empirical reality of the Inner East; rather, we find this catch-all term unwieldy when analysing social, cultural, material and spatial changes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
