Background
Marxist theory draws a distinction between the use value and exchange value of an item. The use value is based on the physical properties of the item, while the exchange value is simply what that item can be sold for as a commodity. A fundamental contradiction arises from this cleavage, as the prioritization of exchange values under capitalism has a tendency to undermine the use value (Harvey 2014). For this analysis, I posit a similar distinction between use value and abstracted value, in order to analyze relative private prioritization of these two values. In the context of transit and gentrification, this abstracted value involves the symbolic value attached to (usually rail) transit as a brand.
Most of the neoclassical literature on the relationship between transit and land value uplift assumes the relationship to is due to the added utility accruing from transit provision (Higgins and Kanaroglou 2016). This framework is insufficient, however, for understanding the current streetcar renaissance, as mixed-traffic streetcars provide essentially no mobility benefits over a bus running on the same route (Walker 2011). Nevertheless, streetcars projects have been initiated across the US., justified on the basis of redevelopment potential. Heterodox approaches leave room for interpreting the influence of transit beyond that pertaining to the strict benefits from added mobility. Reinventing the city to cater to the consumption desires of the “creative class” has been identified as the dominant urban capital accumulation strategy (Zukin 2009; Peck 2005; Lees 2000; Smith 2002). Investing in symbolic, quaint transit is a potential way to (attempt to) remake the city in the image of gentrification.
Research Question
What is the relative influence of the use and symbolic value of transit on development and gentrification in major Pacific Northwest cities?
Methodology
- Analyze municipal planning documents for rail investments to assess the stated justification for rail investments.
- Create an isochrone-based map of the transit network in Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver, to find the number of jobs accessible within a 30 minute transit trip by block and census tract, running it with new rail investments included and excluded.
- Conduct a linear regression to test for the relative effect of the job accessibility and simple proximity to new rail infrastructure on change on land value and land value appreciation, dollar value of and number of units in recent real estate developments, a measure of displacement over time, and a gentrification index, based on the z-scores of key socioeconomic variables.
References
- Harvey, David. 2015. Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism. Reprint edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Higgins, Christopher, and Pavlos Kanaroglou. 2016. “Forty Years of Modelling Rapid Transit’s Land Value Uplift in North America: Moving Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg.” Transport Reviews.
-
Lees, Loretta. 2000. “A Reappraisal of Gentrification: Towards a ‘geography of Gentrification.’” Progress in Human Geography 24 (3): 389–408.
-
Peck, Jamie. 2005. “Struggling with the Creative Class.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29 (4): 740–70.
- Smith, Neil. 2002. “New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy.” Antipode 34 (3): 427–50. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00249.
- Walker, Jarrett. 2011. Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives. Washington, DC: Island Press.
- Zukin, Sharon. 2009. “Destination Culture: How Globalization Makes All Cities Look the Same.” Center for Urban and Global Studies Series 1 (1): 1-26.
Leave a Reply