We analyzed shifts over time in or near debilitated Chicago neighborhoods that had showed signs of gentrification in 1995. Race and neighborhood reputations turned out to play an important role, as gentrification proceeded more slowly through 2009 in areas with higher shares of blacks and Latinos. Even after we took into account other important factors such as crime, poverty, and proximity to amenities, neighborhoods with more blacks and Latinos were less likely to continue to gentrify or even to reverse course and decline after early signs of\u00a0transformation. Gentrification also tends to slow down in the face of perceptions of disorder in a\u00a0neighborhood, even if the actual level of disorder does not match perceptions. Sometimes gentrification does affect areas with racial and ethnic diversity, but we saw little such change in Chicago neighborhoods where more than forty percent of residents were black. Only neighborhoods that were at least 35 percent white continued to gentrify after 1995.<\/p>\n
The Impact of Asian and Latino Immigration<\/h3>\n
Immigration has increased sharply in recent decades, shifting the ethnic and racial composition of many urban neighborhoods \u2013 sometimes boosting housing demand and creating new local businesses. To look at immigration and gentrification, I tracked demographic and socioeconomic changes since the 1970s in economically struggling neighborhoods identified in 23 large U.S. cities. Tellingly, the neighborhoods that gentrified were overwhelmingly multiethnic in the\u00a01970s, and remained relatively diverse over the next few decades. But the ethnic specifics mattered. An early presence of Asians and rising proportions of Asian residents tended to be positively associated with gentrification, while the same was not true for a growing Hispanic presence. Contrasts were stronger when blacks were a major presence. What is more, in cities where Hispanics had a well-established presence, economically distressed neighborhoods continued to struggle as more Hispanics moved in.<\/p>\n Consider Seattle compared to Chicago. Seattle had a much less diverse population and has only recently become an immigrant destination, while Chicago has served as a major gateway for many decades, particularly for Latinos who make up nearly one-third of its population. Data for Chicago neighborhoods reveal that Latino neighborhoods have experienced little or slowed rates of gentrification. But in Seattle, influxes of immigrants, often Asians, have furthered neighborhood gentrification.<\/p>\n In sum, gentrification in U.S. cities has been problematic for low-income minorities, and not just because new middle-class residents displace poor people. Despite gentrification in some locales, economically blighted black neighborhoods, plus those with growing Hispanic populations, have tended to remain disadvantaged. Some neighborhoods that attracted Asian immigrants experienced ethnic diversification along with gentrification, but the arrival of more Latinos has gone hand in hand with gentrification only in cities where Latinos are not already negatively stigmatized. In many of America\u2019s cities, civic leaders have pinned hopes for urban revitalization on gentrification and efforts to attract immigrants. But facts on the ground show that they need to weigh the probability that these forms of urban change can further isolate poor blacks and Latinos and \u2013 contrary to media claims \u2013 actually increase racial segregation and inequality. Urban policymakers should take note: Fresh thinking is needed to devise targeted, sustained efforts to protect minorities from displacement, ensure affordable housing for those with low incomes, and further the economic revitalization of blighted urban neighborhoods. Gentrification\u00a0and immigration are not panaceas.<\/p>\n —–<\/p>\n![\"Photo](\"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ssn\/files\/2014\/09\/8834068702_cbdb01631d-300x174.jpg\")
<\/a>Implications for Racial Inequality and Urban Policy<\/h3>\n