Gentrification and its Effects on Minority Communities – A Comparative Case Study of Four Global Cities: San Diego, San Francisco, Cape Town, and Vienna

Gentrification and its Effects on Minority Communities – A Comparative Case Study of Four Global Cities: San Diego, San Francisco, Cape Town, and Vienna
Gentrification and its Effects on Minority Communities –
A Comparative Case Study of Four Global Cities: San
Diego, San Francisco, Cape Town, and Vienna
*1Mark Enmeier, 2Orly Romero Sevilla
1,2University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA, 92093
This paper does a comparative analysis of four global cities and their minority districts which
have been experiencing the same structural pressure of gentrification. The main contribution of
this paper is providing a detailed comparison of four micro geographies worldwide and the
impacts of gentrification on them: Barrio Logan in San Diego, Bo-Kaap in Cape Town, the Mission
District in San Francisco, and the Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus District in Vienna. All four cities have
been experiencing the displacement of minority communities due to increases in property values.
These cities were chosen because their governments enacted different policies to temper the
gentrification process. It was found that cities which implemented social housing and cultural
inclusionary policies were more successful in maintaining the cultural and demographic make-
up of the districts.
Keywords: gentrification, minorities, poverty, inequality, property price increase, social housing, community activism,
displacement
I. THE CAUSES OF GENTRIFICATION
At its root, gentrification is defined as “…the transformation of a working-class or vacant area of the central city into middle-
class residential and/or commercial use” (Lees xv.). For some, it signifies the redevelopment of dilapidated communities.
Old buildings are repaired, new businesses move in, more jobs are created, and the area is revitalized with an influx of
capital. For others, it is a process whereby long-term residents are uprooted due to increased property values. When this
occurs, not only are individuals uprooted, but the structure of a community is fundamentally altered. This can have
profound effects especially on minority communities. The culture that is sown into the fabric of their society is in danger of
being supplanted. Some cities across the world are beginning to respond to this threat of displacement to their culturally
rich communities. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain what the effects of gentrification are on a city’s population and
culture and analyze the effectiveness of policies in trying to mitigate displacement due to gentrification.
To understand the effects of gentrification, one must also examine its causes. This paper explores three arguments
concerning the gentrification process. First, as cities shifted from historically industrialized urban centers, dominated by
manufacturing activities, to areas focused on providing specialized services, mostly for firms rather than individuals, this
has altered the type of employment available to city residents, leading to a transition from low-skilled manual labor to jobs
requiring highly specialized skills and expertise (Sassen 96-97). These urban centers or hubs have created specialized
service cities, such as the tech industry in San Francisco or the Financial industry in New York. As this occurs, blue-collar
neighborhoods have transitioned to white-collar neighborhoods, and the new residents bring in capital and demand more
amenities, thereby raising property values.
Second, cities have suffered significant federal funding cuts since the 1980s, which have affected the provision of social
services, such as public housing, anti-poverty programs, and public transit. This has driven municipal governments to
chase mobile capital, leading to competition with other jurisdictions for residents. The theory is that if cities pursue
development and market-friendly policies, firms will be drawn to their cities, and a new service class will follow them,
thereby increasing the tax base (Schragger 44). The main advocate of this process is Richard Florida who implores cities
to enact policies that entices text savvy, talented, and LGBTQ creative types. As artists and musicians move in, they tend
Vol. 5(1), pp. 067-090, March, 2021. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 3219-2781
Research Article
International Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research

Enmeier and Sevilla 068
to rehabilitate run-down properties, create a bohemian culture, and more creative types will be drawn to the urban area
(7). This will then create a ripple effect whereby property values will begin to rise, businesses will see the opportunity to
invest, and a positive feedback loop is created (Moskowitz 6). Wealthier cities will be drawn to the redeveloped area, and
city centers will continue to prosper economically as amenities are created to draw those citizens in.
The third argument is based on a “rent gap” policy, meaning, the more disinvested a space becomes, the more profitable
it is to gentrify. The higher the expected value of a property is after it gentrifies is what draws investors in (Moskowitz 37).
Capital will be invested in areas the rate of return is greatest. Investors find areas where real estate can be bought at a
low market value and made more expensive in a short period by renovating property and adding social amenities; this will
determine the neighborhood that will be gentrified next. The larger the rent gap, the higher the probability of gentrification.
Oftentimes this has encouraged developers to charge higher rents and neglect building maintenance to displace lower-
income residents. Once the tenant is removed, the developer will renovate the property to try and attract higher-income
residents.
II. The Debate over Gentrification
Richard Florida, as the main proponent of the gentrification process, advises cities across the world through his company,
“The Creative Class Group”, on where to find the creative class and how to attract them to their cities and firms. He argues
that in developing and gentrifying urban areas, a strong creative class will be drawn to the city and new capital will be
infused into dying cities. This process has been replicated in cities across the world, including San Diego and Cape Town,
two cities that are the focus of this paper.
Saskia Sassen, however, directly links the issue of gentrification as a cause for the inequality and poverty that global cities
are facing. In her chapter on Class and Spatial Polarization, one of her main arguments is that rising housing prices in
New York, Tokyo, and London, have led to a class polarization in the city as well as homelessness. In New York
specifically, she attributes this to, “...the growth in low-income households, the sharp reduction in government subsidies
for housing due to conversions, and high-income gentrification” (268). This ultimately led to New York having the worst
income inequality in the US in 2000 (Sassen 270). While the upper class was able to afford new luxury apartments, the
middle class either had to spend more of their income on housing, become a dual-income household, or be displaced.
Those on the lower social-economic spectrum were pushed out of their subsidized housing and either left the community
or became homeless. “It (gentrification) has engendered an ideology of consumption that is different from that of the mass
consumption of the middle classes in the postwar period, which was centered around the construction and furnishing of
new suburban housing and the associated infrastructure. Style, high prices, and an ultra-urban context characterize the
new ideology and practice of consumption, rather than functionality, low prices, and suburban settings” (323). This
competition between consumption and functionality underscores the root problem of gentrification, that is, if the city
emphasizes luxury development over functionality, it will ultimately lead to a growing upper class and spatial polarization.
As mentioned earlier, gentrification tends to adversely affect minority communities. In How to Kill a City, P.E. Moskowitz
focused his research on minority communities in New Orleans, Detroit, New York City, and San Francisco. In all of them,
long-established cultural communities are being uprooted due to gentrification. City policies that were enacted to bring
capital to a district, as Florida advocated for, consequently increased property values. This in turn raised rents for the
community members who were traditionally lower-income minorities. Landlords wanting to capitalize on the gentrification
process sought ways to evict their lower-income tenants, remodel their apartments, and replace them with more lucrative
tenants. As the traditional members of the community were pushed out, the essence of that community (culture, history,
appeal) was lost and replaced by modern commercialization which appealed to the wealthier elites (34).
In City Power, Richard Schragger describes gentrification as the process of induced displacement of residents from the
inner city towards the outskirts (160). Those in the inner city tended to be marginalized in that city. Instead of urban
redevelopment creating a more culturally rich and diverse area, he argues that it is rather the continuation of segregation
policies that favor the wealthy over the poor. It pushes a city's most vulnerable citizens to the margins of society, into
suburbs and away from communities, public services, and public transportation. Distinctive cities and cultural centers that
define neighborhoods are being crushed by their rents. The people that make the city function (i.e. waiters, taxicab driver,
sanitation, etc.) and who would most benefit from the development of their areas, can no longer afford to live there.
Lees and Phillips expand the notion of gentrification further by looking at the relationship between growing tourist markets
and its relationship to displacement of communities. Once an area begins to gentrify, this in turn attracts tourists, and a
positive feedback loop ensues. “…I suggest that the attraction of visitors accelerates the pressure of gentrification as the
intensification of land use pushes up the value of commercial and residential properties.” The new capital from tourists

infuses an area with a consumption economy. Traditional societies switch their focus in order to pander to outsiders. New
commercial businesses that are tourist friendly will spring up, seasonal residents buy up cheap property, revitalize historic
homes, and property values rise. Lees and Phillips conclude that this process not only leads to physical displacement of
residents, but “place-based displacement”. This is when residents that remain in the community no longer feel that the
community belongs to them. In essence, the culture has changed so much that it is no longer reflective of their own. This
process has manifested itself in areas such as Lisbon, where residents complain of the “Disneyfication” of their city center
(Minder). Most pronounced may be the development of Rio De Janeiro ahead of the Olympic Games. Residents of Favelas
(Brazilian shanty towns) were systematically uprooted in order to gentrify the areas for athletes and tourists (Griffin).
This pattern of gentrification, that is, finding underdeveloped cultural minority communities and transforming them into
affluent areas thereby pushing out traditional residents, is a global occurrence. Montreal; Mexico City; Callao, Peru; Paris;
Buenos Aires; Newcastle; Amsterdam; Portland, Oregon; and many more across the world are experiencing this same
phenomenon (Perry). Even though it is recognized as a growing problem worldwide, there is still not a clear answer on
how to address it. Mainly, how can a city develop and invest in a historically neglected area without displacing the residents
and culture of the community?
III. Theories on Slowing Displacement
There are numerous recommendations on how to mitigate the displacement of communities due to gentrification. These
include utilizing local activism and community organizing, creating cultural-historical zones, working with members of the
private sector who have a vested interest, and creating ordinances and opportunities that allow for affordable housing.
One of Moskowitz’s main arguments is that communities need to fight for their say in city governance. Residents needed
to be made aware of the power that they have in city planning and zoning ordinances. For example, Prospect Lefferts
Gardens in Brooklyn, NY, was able to ward off the city planning commission to create an inclusionary zoning area. This
change had the potential to displace as many as 50,000 people. They were successful because local activists continually
disrupted the planning commissions meetings. In advocating for civil protest, Moskowitz makes a plea to a larger issue of
creating stronger democratic institutions and communities stating, “Community control is connected to a global struggle
to put everyday working people’s decisions at the heart of community building” (Moskowitz 207).
While local activism might hold off development for a time, others proposed creating a bridge between the developers and
the community. In City Power, Richard Schragger advocated for the use of Community Benefits Agreements (CBA). In
exchange for government subsidies or tax incentives, developers must agree to certain guidelines. “In exchange for
community political support, the developer might commit to limiting displacement of current residents or providing
resettlement support of specified units of low-income housing.” (Schragger 155-160). By having local community
organizers who are separate from the city municipality, they will then be able to bargain for assistance in meeting certain
public interest goals, such as affordable housing or hiring opportunities. The hope is that they will also have a say in what
is built in regard to maintaining the culture of the city.
Larger business entities can also be a part of the solution. In, The New Localism, Katz, and Novak recommended utilizing
employer-assisted housing. This was implemented at the University of Pennsylvania where the university was looking to
expand into an impoverished neighborhood. The university was encouraged by the city to create a partnership with the
surrounding community. Through help with credit counseling, grants, and second mortgage loans, the university was able
to elevate local minority and women-owned companies. In creating a partnership with the community, it alleviated the “us
vs them” mentality, maintained by the culture of the surrounding area. It also circumvented the displacement process that
usually coincides with gentrification (152-155).
In terms of maintaining and creating affordable housing, several options were put forth. The first was to substantially
increase housing regulation. For instance, Maryland created a by-law that 15% of dwellings in every subdivision, in every
part of the county, must be suitable for people of low or moderate-income (Montgomery 246). This had the added benefit
of intermixing socio-economic classes. Vancouver also implemented intermixed housing types that had apartments for
upper-scale condominiums, singles, and subsidized family housing. Maintaining affordable housing can also be done
through rent control. In How to Kill a City, Moskowitz explained how in 1979 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
approved one of the most stringent rent control laws in the country. The bill froze rent increases in any apartment built
before 1979 to yearly inflation. The bill also made it relatively hard to evict tenants (Moskowitz 130). However, those who
lived in single-family homes, or an apartment built after 1979, were excluded from the rent control policy.
IV. METHODS
The literature shows that there are numerous propositions and solutions put forth to help curb the detrimental side effects
of gentrification. However, little research has been done on the effects of these policies in terms of the ability to retain the

culture and residents of the communities where they were enacted. This paper will study and compare four cities and
their unique districts: San Diego (Barrio Logan); Cape Town (Bo-Kaap); San Francisco (Mission District); and Vienna
(Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus or 15th District). All four cities are similar in that they are, or have been, in the process of being
gentrified, they have minority communities that are being adversely affected by gentrification, and they have all tried
various approaches to address gentrification and/or displacement. We will look at how gentrification has affected them,
what policies they have enacted, and determine if they were effective.
To conduct this research, we use a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) approach. This method is preferred as it allows
us to use a case-based study approach. Since each city has its own unique systems of government and policies, and
each city addressed the issue of gentrification in different ways, the QCA will allow us to make generalizations between
cities through both quantitative and qualitative measurements (Simister and Scholz). The policies enacted are the
independent variables: (1) rent control, which is a government-mandated price control mechanism that sets a maximum
price (i.e. rent ceiling) on what landlords can charge their tenants; (2) social housing, also known as affordable housing,
which is housing that is deemed affordable by those with or below the median household income in an area; (3) investment
in cultural identity to preserve a neighborhood’s character through grassroots community organizing; and (4) policies
aimed at maintaining the physical environment of the district.
While gathering data, we were able to comparatively look at the policies cities repeated, and which ones were unique to
those cities. From there we needed to discern whether the data showed that they were effective or not. We decided to use
Sassen’s observations of rent hikes and income inequality along with Moskowitz’s and Lees’ emphasis on ethnic and
cultural displacement to determine whether detrimental effects of gentrification were occurring or not. The three dependent
variables are: (1) average income variance; (2) housing or rental price variance; and (3) ethnic diversity variance. All four
of the districts chosen met the criteria of gentrification and displacement of traditional residents. The hope is that in
following these communities the data would show whether the changes in those variables would match that of the larger
city. If the deviation was not significant, then it would show that policies and actions taken to mitigate gentrification and
displacement were effective. Adding to this assessment, qualitative research was conducted to look at the cultural
displacement represented through newspaper reports.
Average income was the first dependent variable chosen because as an area gentrifies, wealthier residents begin to move
into that area. Consequently, this will raise the mean and median income, even though long-term residents may see their
wages remain stagnant. On its own, this data would be inconclusive, as it could mean that all residents saw an increase
in their wages. Therefore, it must also be measured against housing prices. If housing prices in an area, which were
historically lower than its surrounding areas, begin to rise at a higher rate than its surroundings, this shows that the area
is gentrifying due to property price increases. Again, this could be good news for the residents, especially if they are
property owners. However, in most low-income residential zones residents tend to be renters, and this would adversely
affect them.
This brings about the last key to the puzzle in trying to measure displacement. In all four cities, there is a minority population
trying to maintain their foothold in the community. For Barrio Logan and the Mission District there is a Latino minority, in
Vienna’s 15th there is a predominant migrant Middle Eastern community, and in Bo-Kaap, there is a long-established
African Muslim/Malay community. By measuring ethnic variance across time, we expect to find whether certain
communities have been or are being displaced. All three variables are a component of gentrification and displacement
which when looked at holistically can tell us how development and policies have impacted different areas.
V. THE FOUR GLOBAL CITIES OF STUDY
San Diego
Resting on both the edge of the Pacific Ocean and the border with Mexico, San Diego is a unique global city due to its
geographic location and its cultural diversity. Through its universities, medical and technological industry clusters it caters
to a growing global citizenry. To retain those specialists as well as grow its tax base, the city has worked and partnered
with businesses to revitalize the Downtown area. San Diego was one of the first cities in the U.S. to create a Business
Improvement District (BID). As new development brought in more capital, a new organization was formed, the Downtown
San Diego Partnership. This organization, run by business owners in Downtown, has worked to promote San Diego as a
place to do business, live, and vacation. Their goal has been to “...attract the dreamers, the thinkers, the doers, the makers”
(Imagine Downtown: Downtown San Diego Partnership). This correlates directly with Florida’s “Creative Class” approach.
Over the past twenty years, it has revitalized its downtown area. Projects have included a new stadium, expanding the
convention center, and building light rail.

Int. J. Public Admin. Pol. Res. 71
This revitalization has also coincided with an increase in the cost of living for San Diegans. From 2014-2017, rental prices
rose by 13.66%, compared to 11.48% in CA and 5.86% in the US (Table 1). During that year out of 100 cities in America,
San Diego had the 10th highest rent. From 2006 - 2017 residents spent an extra 2.38% more of their income on rent
(Table 2). (“Residential Rent Statistics for San Diego California | Department of Numbers”). At the same time San Diego
saw an influx of luxury apartment complexes throughout the city. In 2018 an estimated 2,000 new luxury apartments were
developed in downtown with average rents at $2, 489 a month, $868 more than the average in the rest of the county
(Molnar). One might assume that by building more high-end apartments that this would help to level the housing market.
Unfortunately, of the 4% vacancy rate reported in apartments in San Diego (Table 3), it is estimated that nearly ¼ of them
are from empty luxury apartments downtown. Moreover, Units costing $2,200 to $2,299 a month were the least in demand,
having a vacancy rate of 34.6 percent. (Molnar).
As the price of rent has gone up relative to a person's income, long term residents of Downtown have found the cost of
living too expensive and have moved out of the area. This created a ripple effect in the housing market, pushing mid-
income level housing down to lower income, and those at the bottom level will have trouble finding any affordable housing,
thus increasing homelessness. The consequence of this pushing down the ladder effect is most noticeable in the closest
affordable housing area to Downtown, the Barrio Logan (BL) District. Although causation is not established, there is a
correlation between the rising housing prices in downtown and gentrification in Barrio Logan.
Barrio Logan
Located four miles south of Downtown, the predominantly Hispanic community of Barrio Logan was created in 1963, when
the I–5 freeway split the Logan Heights community. The area was again impacted in 1967, when the Coronado Bay Bridge
was constructed. Many homes and businesses were demolished without notification, and the Barrio’s population dwindled
to 4,000 residents (Manson 2009). Three years later, on April 22, 1970, residents awoke to state bulldozers in their
community. They were not there to build the park that they were promised, but rather a parking lot for the new Highway
Patrol Headquarters. Residents organized and occupied the land to negotiate with state officials. Community leaders
formed the Chicano Park Steering Committee and refused to give up their land. Enthusiasm for the movement grew and
after 12 days of occupation, Assistant City Manager Meno Wilhelms agreed to negotiate. The protestors were successful
and halted the construction of the headquarters and the land was designated as Chicano Park (Delgado 1998). This area
is known for its eccentric culturally themed art expressed in graffiti murals (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Barrio Logan Art, San Diego
The district has a unique culture and history that differentiates it from the rest of San Diego with approximately 80% of
residents claiming to be of Hispanic descent compared with 25% of residents citywide (ERA 2008). Historically, Barrio
Logan is also one of the lowest income areas in San Diego. As of 2017, 14% of the people in San Diego live below the

poverty level (San Diego County, Demographic Profiles 2017, 2019). Yet this low-income sector of the population is
packed in the outskirts of San Diego’s Downtown, since approximately 70% of the population living in Barrio Logan are
under the poverty level (Voice of San Diego, 2016). In 2008 the median household income in Barrio Logan was around
$24,000, half of the San Diego average of $49,000 (Manson 2009). Another important problem related to inequality and
marginality is that only 20% of the people in Barrio Logan own the property they live in (Voice of San Diego, 2016).
Figure 2: Barrio Logan Neighborhood, San Diego
In the early 2000s, over 30 years after Chicano Park was conceived, galleries, performance spaces and dining destinations
began to pop-up in what had long been vacant storefronts and dilapidated factories. While some of the new spaces were
run by creative types attracted to the low rents and the untapped potential of the neighborhood, others were managed by
longtime residents. The early 2010s also saw an influx in artistic spaces in refurbished warehouses, with rented out artist
studios, and communal spaces (Figure 2). Many galleries placed an emphasis on showcasing local artists whose work
was authentic to the Barrio (Combs). As more residents were being pushed out of downtown due to rising housing prices,
they were drawn to Barrio Logan by its distinct culture and low housing prices. City planners and developers also felt that
there was enough affordable housing and began prioritizing market-rate housing while simultaneously looking to expand
East Village for higher income residents. Some even wanted to change the name from Barrio Logan to South of
Commercial (Soco) (Manson).
The City Responds: The Barrio Logan Community Plan
In 2013, the San Diego City Council voted to enact a new community plan for Barrio Logan. This plan was created in
conjunction with policy makers and city organizers. One of the main points of the plan was the rezoning of the area. The
district is a mixed residential, commercial, and industrial area. Oftentimes there are houses adjacent to industrial buildings,
which lead to environmental health hazards. Residents of the Barrio therefore have much higher occurrences of asthma
than the surrounding area. The conclusion was that separation of these zones would be a priority. Proponents of the plan
also emphasized affordable and subsidized housing units, pedestrian friendly areas, easy commuting for the lower income
residents, and maintaining the cultural identity of the area (Figure 3). The new land use constitution called for a new
“community village”, which would include mix-use commercial and residential complexes, more pedestrian walkways, and
boost density through affordable housing units. With the transit line already in place, the new area was hailed as an
“extension of Downtown.” (Keatts). However, this new zoning would come into direct conflict with the San Diego maritime
industry, which saw the new residential area as an encroachment to their business interests. Their fear was that these

improvements would lead to the displacement of the entire shipyard. Despite these concerns the Council voted to enact
the plan.
Figure 3: Mercado Apartments, Barrio Logan
The following year, multiple ballot initiatives were introduced to repeal the Plan, leading to a successful referendum. The
ballot initiatives were designed to put multiple roadblocks to the Plan. (San Diego Voter Information Guide, June 2014). It
was supported primarily by the business and shipyard community. Millions of dollars were spent in campaign funds. The
initiative passed and the community plan was shelved.
This plan could be viewed both as pro-gentrification and anti-gentrification. On the one hand, the policies in the plan call
for increased social housing and the celebration of Barrio Logan’s culture and heritage. It was made with the residents in
mind so that they would not be displaced. On the other hand, the revitalization and creation of a new Barrio Logan
Downtown would cause middle-income residents seeking cheaper rent than what is offered Downtown to move to the
area. This could potentially lead to increased rents and displacement. If the shipping area were also to be displaced by
the new commercialized zone, all the people in Barrio Logan dependent on those jobs would also be displaced.
Barrio Logan exemplifies the conundrum of gentrification. How can a city enact improvements for its citizens that don’t
also create the conditions that disperse them? The other question is, without the Plan in place, would the community be
strong enough on its own to mitigate the gentrification and displacement process in a laissez faire government
environment?
Findings for Barrio Logan
Barrio Logan continues its strong determination to maintain its character and legacy of community activism. In 2017 a
white female tried to raise money through a Kickstarter campaign in order to establish her own frutería in the district. In
her promotional video she walks around the Barrio completely oblivious to her cultural insensitivities. (Sen). The video and
its maker, Jenny Niezgoda, have come to exemplify gentrification and the appropriation of culture. The community was up
in arms, taking to social media to lambast the frutería as “cultural appropriation” and “gentrification.” Miss Niezgoda
abandoned her idea shortly thereafter. This is an example of community activism successfully working to stop the
gentrification process
Seeing as there were no policy changes to mitigate the gentrification process in Barrio Logan, the independent variable
for this case study is community activism. Unfortunately, even though there are instances of success such as with the
failed frutería, our findings show that volunteer community action on its own has not been enough to stop the process of

gentrification and displacement. Looking at data comparisons over the last 20 years, the trend of gentrification has
continued. The demographics of Barrio Logan are still changing. In terms of ethnic make-up from 2000-2010, the
percentage of Hispanic residents dropped from 86% to 71% while white residents rose from 10% to 16% (Population of
San Diego County, CA - Census 2010 and 2000). This is made even more staggering when considering that San Diego
County saw an increase of 32% of the Hispanic demographic.
In terms of housing prices, the area saw an increase of 40% from 2015-2020, 6% higher than the average for all of San
Diego (Zillow). We can presume that this translates into rent increases as well, as only 20% of residents own property.
Meanwhile, the average median income has almost doubled from 2008-2016. (San Diego California Household Income |
Department of Numbers, 2019) While this may seem like a positive at first, it is indicative of a rapid increase of outside
capital. In combination with the other data it paints a picture of higher income individuals moving in, property values and
rents increasing, and community members being displaced (Table 4).
Cape Town
The capital of South Africa is a growing metropolis. Its geographic position on the southern tip of South Africa, connecting
the Pacific and Indian Oceans, enticed Dutch explorers in the 17th century to create a rest stop in its natural harbor. Their
seaport is still the main source of industry and trade to this day. Cape Town also has a thriving service sector as it is the
center for the oil and insurance companies’ services. It also has a robust tourist industry as it has vestiges of colonial
history and beautiful natural scenery and beaches.
Cape Town also wants to attract members of the professional service industry in order to be competitive as a global city.
This pursuit has led to the gentrification process in the city. Since the 1990’s there have been calls for the renewal and
regeneration of urban centers in South Africa. Seen to stymie the poverty of a post-Apartheid South Africa, the
development of Central City Improvement Districts (CCID) were created to carry out the same purpose as San Diego’s
BID (Vizzer and Kotze). Cape Town specifically created the “Cape Town Partnership.” Within seven years of its founding,
over $2 BIL (US) had been invested into the city’s center. Most of this development has materialized in the form of luxury
apartments and hotels.
From 2000-2007 the city center saw property values triple in price (Vizzer and Kotze). As this process ensued, the middle
and upper class moved in, and the poorer residents were displaced. Since then, nearly all neighborhoods next to Cape
Town’s Central Business District (CBD) have been gentrified. The Western Cape province, which includes the City Center
and the Bo-Kaap area, has faced a 2.6% population growth rate each year from 2001 to 2011, which is faster than the
country's average growth rate. This can be attributed to the growing economy and job opportunities in the area that is
associated with better living conditions. The average income as of 2020 in Cape Town is 47,442 USD or 40,207 Euros;
South African residents spend approximately 34.6% of their income on rent. However, the cost of living in Cape Town is
100% higher than the national average.
Bo-Kaap District: History and Demographics
Bo-Kaap, also known as the Malay District, is a significant cultural heritage area of Cape Town. Dating back to the 1760’s,
the district is known for its rental houses built and leased to predominantly Muslim slaves by the Dutch Colonists. The
area incorporates a mix of Cape Dutch and Gregorian Architecture, as well as cobblestone streets. It was able to maintain
its unique place in Cape Town due the apartheid-era Group Areas Act, which separated communities based on race.
During the Apartheid period, by law all houses had to be white. As a celebration of the end of Apartheid, the houses in
Bo-Kaap were painted with various bright colors to symbolize freedom (Figure 4). In 2019 it was declared a National
Heritage Site. Throughout its history the area has remained a predominantly Muslim neighborhood, maintaining 10
separate mosques as well as projecting daily calls to prayer.
Like Barrio Logan, Bo-Kaap sits on the periphery of the city center as well as the main port. Many residents can walk to
work from their homes. It has also maintained its identity as a majority minority population with a distinct culture and history
that differentiates it from its surroundings. According to the 2011 census, Bo-Kaap’s population is 95% colored or Black
African. In comparison Cape Town is roughly 75% colored or Black African. Roughly 60% of its population is Muslim,
compared to roughly 8% in the city at large (Farrar et al, 2019). This distinction allowed it to survive Apartheid South Africa,
where other merely “colored” communities were demolished and relocated. (Kotze, 2013) This neighborhood is home to
approximately 10,000 people, residing in 750 buildings of varying sizes (Figure 5). Income levels vary dramatically, but
on average amount to R1,800 per capita per month (Park et al. 2011). The average median income in Cape Town by
comparison is R4,775 (Wazimap). This also shows a similarity with Barrio Logan as the general population of this district
has an income well below the city average.

Figure 4: Bo-Kaap or Malay District, Cape Town
Figure 5: Bo-Kaap District, Cape Town
As property prices increased in Cape Town, many sought out the lower priced rents and proximity to the city that Bo-
Kaap offered. As they did so, they brought capital with them, fixed up the properties, and housing prices began to rise.
Bo-Kaap began the gentrification process. Over the past two decades the Bo-Kaap district has seen property values
increase by over 1,000%. This can be seen as a good thing to the many original property owners, except that property
taxes have also risen. Also, as the older generations pass away their children will sell the property to outsiders instead of
to those in the community. If that occurs in high numbers, there is potential that the culture of the community will be
displaced, not just it’s people. Other signs of gentrification include the construction of nearby hi-risers, a Hilton Hotel,
alcohol and pork are being served in some restaurants, and there are calls for the imams to lower the volume of their
prayers (Allie).
In terms of public policy there have been two schools of thought on how to protect Bo-Kaap. One is to focus on the tangible
heritage. By focusing on preservation of the buildings, the intention was that it will attract tourism and promote economic
growth for the area. The other one hopes to conserve the culture and heritage in order to secure the recognition and
prevalence of a post-Apartheid ethnic identity. In order to address the fears that the district would be lost to new
development, the National Governments proclaimed it a Provincial Heritage Area in 1999 (Spencer and Bassadien). This

effectively preserved the houses and tangible heritage from being demolished, or the outside being renovated in a way
that would unauthenticate the character of the community.
Findings for the Bo-Kaap
Just like Barrio Logan, Bo-Kaap has had limited government intervention and has relied primarily on community activism
to confront the effects of gentrification on its residents and culture. The main difference is that the government proclaimed
the area a cultural heritage sight in 2001, thereby maintaining the physical structures of the area. This will act as the
independent variable when assessing whether it had an impact on the displacement of a community due to gentrification.
To measure displacement of the Bo-Kaap is difficult as there are varying definitions of ethnicities and Capetonians have
changed what they self-identify as due to the legacy of Apartheid. Therefore, instead of ethnicity, we thought to use religion
as a key dependent variable along with average income and housing price variance. However, there is no recent statistical
data to show the current religious demographic (Only data set is from 2011). There was also limited data on median
income for the area as Bo-Kaap statistics have been grouped together with the city center data.
The one area that showed stark variance was in property values. From 2001 to 2020 the average property price increased
from R282,633 to R3,130,800, or roughly 1,009%. From 2011 to 2020 alone it increased 357%. To put this in perspective
Cape Town City Center from 2011-2020 increased from R1,088,929 to R1,678,281 or 54%. It is now more expensive to
live in Bo-Kaap than in the City Center. That has created numerous ramifications for the residents and culture of Bo-Kaap.
As the older generation passes away, younger generations are selling the property to outsiders and leaving the community.
A 2011 study showed that there are numerous other changes to the community. For instance, there is a lower number of
married people, which shows a decrease in family community, and a definite increase in unmarried couples who live
together, which goes against Muslim social norms. Concurrently there was also a decline in the number of people per
household and an increase in the educational levels of the population (Donaldson). By proclaiming the area, a cultural
heritage site, it has now become a popular tourist attraction. Coffee houses, restaurants, and museums were erected in
order to draw in more tourist capital and create a “staged authenticity” for the visitors. (Spencer and Bassadien, 2016).
Furthermore, Over the last decade there has been a trend of wealthy Europeans buying property in the district and then
leaving it vacant for ten months of the year. This has the two-fold effect of limiting housing supply as well as destabilizing
the fabric of the society. Coffee houses and yoga studios continue to turn up to cater to the new tourist clientele. There
are even calls for the imams to turn down the volume of their prayers. Residents that stay meanwhile are also heavily
burdened with new property taxes that are based on the value of their home (“Cape Town Anger over Slave Quarter
Gentrification”). Malay residents are becoming increasingly agitated at the gentrification process taking place, increasing
their protests as they become more organized. All of this is indicative of a neighborhood undergoing gentrification at a
rapid speed leading to displacement of its traditional population and culture (Table 5). By proclaiming Bo-Kaap as a cultural
heritage the city has been successful in maintaining the architectural character of the district, but it has failed in protecting
the people or the culture of the Malay.
San Francisco
San Francisco (SF) is another port city with a growing professional class of what Sassen would call the “Producer
Servicers.” Due to the growth of Silicon Valley, young professionals have moved to the city in droves. However, the city
has not met the increases of population with supply in housing. This has caused housing prices in SF to increase by 90%
from 2009-2019 (In, July 2019). Also like the other cities, as developers transformed areas into luxury apartments, middle
income residents went in search of cheaper housing in historically impoverished districts of the city, driving up rent in those
areas as well. Hence, minority communities are being uprooted by developers, and white middle-class young professionals
working in the tech industry are taking their place. SF has distinct cultural districts where most residents are a minority. In
recent years, the city has enacted policies in order to protect these neighborhoods. SF also passed a rent control law in
1979. This law created limits on how much landlords can increase rent for units built before June 13, 1979, established
rules for when landlords can lawfully evict, and established a Rent Arbitration Board to implement the law (SF Housing
Data Hub 2014). The Board provides counseling and information to residents about the Rent Ordinance, conducts
arbitration rental hearings, and investigates alleged wrongful evictions. San Francisco also enacted an Inclusionary
Housing Program, also known as affordable housing, in 2002. This requires new residential projects of 10 or more units
to pay an Affordable Housing Fee, or meet the inclusionary requirement by providing a percentage of the units as "below
market rate" (BMR) units at a price that is affordable to low or middle income households, either "on-site" within the project,
or "off-site" at another location in the City (San Francisco Planning 2020).
Mission District

One of the distinct cultural districts in San Francisco is The Mission District (MD). Like the previous cities, it is close to the
center of the city, has historically been home to minority communities, and has become a cultural icon of the City. Built by
the Spaniards in 1776, the Mission would serve as a place to convert local Indians and use them for cheap labor. Over
time it would serve as a residential hub for numerous immigrant groups. Some were migrant workers from central
California, others were refugees from Central and South America, and still others were displaced due to rising rents in
other parts of the city. For many years the MD has maintained its identity as a minority majority district. They also
developed a profound cultura, which can not only be seen through the murals displayed throughout the district (Figure 6
and 7), but also heard through the styles of Latin Rock artists.
Figure 6: Mission District, San Francisco
Trying to save their community from gentrification is not new to the MD. Throughout the years, community members have
used such tactics as scaring away white patrons from taquerias and to parading in low riders to scare off potential white
property buyers. In the 1960’s urban renewal plans were drafted by the city that would have demolished hundreds of
apartments and replaced them with high density luxury apartment towers. The community rallied together and was able
to successfully stop the development and create the Mission Coalition Organization. While community organizations
stopped the process of redevelopment and gentrification in the 20th century, the area could not escape it during the tech
boom of the 2000s.
In 2015 SF ran an analysis of 2009-2013 housing trends in the MD to determine the effects of the housing crisis on the
area and to make projections for the future based on current trends shown in Table 7. Their findings confirmed the process
of rapid gentrification. Overall population increased in SF, while the MD saw a 9% decrease. The Hispanic population saw
an even larger disparity, where SF saw a 13% increase, the MD saw a 27% decrease. This also corresponded with
decreases in household size and houses with children (Table 6). The MD also saw a rapid increase in households making
over $150,000, which saw an uptick of 65%, compared to 10% in the rest of the city. Conversely, there was a decrease
by 13% from middle income households ("CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS").
This data points to the detrimental effects of gentrification and displacement. The plan continued with making forecasts
based on the current projection, estimating that there would be an 83% increase in price to all housing in the MD by 2025.
In response, the San Francisco Planning Department established cultural districts throughout the City to safeguard cultural
heritage, sustain traditions, businesses, arts, and practices that construct the City’s unique social and economic fabric
(San Francisco Planning, 2020). In 2014, the Calle 24 Latino Cultural District was formally recognized in the Mission
District. One of the advantages of these districts is that it creates a formal relationship with City agencies to implement
economic, zoning, education, and planning regulations. Supervisor Ronen stated, “Cultural Districts are one of the most

important tools we have to proactively strengthen the cultural identities of neighborhoods and communities that face the
pressures of gentrification and displacement” (Keeling).
Figure 7: Mission District Architecture, San Francisco
In 2015 a new umbrella coalition was created called United to Save the Mission which uses a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to create a relationship between the community and new businesses. “By drafting commercial
MOUs, the organization helps incoming businesses provide local jobs, bilingual menu and signage, low-cost items, and
services that meet the needs of the predominantly Latinx community.” (Bishari, 2019) It also advocates for commercial
and residential tenants who are facing eviction.
Findings for the Mission District
San Francisco enacted four separate policies that impacted the gentrification process in the Mission District. They are (1)
the establishment of rent control and a corresponding rent arbitration board, (2) The Inclusionary Housing Program or
affordable housing, (3) implementation of cultural districts, and (4) community organization through the Memorandums of
Understanding. Since there are multiple variables influencing gentrification in this district, we will have to take them as a
whole to analyze their impact.
The data from the MD at this point is a mixed bag. It is also inconclusive as some of the data transcends the time period
from before the 2013 report was issued and therefore a correlation will be hard to discern. When the 2020 census is
released it should illuminate some of the missing pieces of the data. There are some key findings which should be
mentioned. In terms of average income, the Mission District was able to reverse the trend of higher income residents
moving in, dropping by 4.8% even as SF remained steady at a 0.7% increase. (San Francisco Planning Department, 2017)
Also, even though housing prices rose at a staggering 36%, that is only a 1% difference in comparison to SF. It seems
that the housing policies were successful in mitigating the cost of gentrification on residents compared to the greater
metropolitan area.
The cultural makeup of the area is at this point also inconclusive. While wealthier residents may have stopped moving in,
middle income white millennials have been drawn to the more affordable housing as well as the cultural scene (Table 8).
What remains to be seen is whether the new demographic will adapt to and celebrate the culture of the district, or will it
change it as businesses try to cater to them thereby supplanting local shops? (Berman) In terms of the Hispanic
demographic there is a significantly smaller percentage change than Barrio Logan, with a loss of only 3.1%. At this point
it is difficult to decipher how much of the change came before the Policy Analysis Report on the Mission District of 2015
and how much came after. It is also hard to discern what direct effect local activism and MOUs had on mitigating
displacement. Even though cause and effect cannot be determined as there are too many variables, it is evident that the
actions taken between local government and community organizers has created a significant impact in slowing the process
of cultural and demographic displacement.

Vienna
The city of Vienna maintains a strategic location in Central Europe as well as on the Danube, which has made it a central
location for trade and business. Their professional service industry, mainly bankers, constitutes half of their labor force
(Holzner and Ehrlich). Like the other cities, it also has many cultural and leisure tourist attractions. Vienna is also a melting
pot of European culture and ethnicity. At the end of the Cold War many Eastern Europeans immigrated to Vienna. During
the last two decades the origin of immigrants shifted to Northern Africa and the Middle East.
The city boasts features such as attractive environments to do business, quality of living, excellent infrastructure, efficient
public transport networks, first class healthcare, cultural facilities, leisure activities, low crime rates, and high-quality
housing (Figure 8). For ten years in a row it has been ranked as the best city in the world to live in according to the Mercer’s
21st Quality of Living Ranking. The annual Mercer study compares life quality in over 450 cities around the world based
on 39 indicators organized in six categories, which include economic situation, political stability, education system, health
standards, housing market, and environmental quality.
Figure 8: Social Housing in the Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus District (15th)
Vienna is especially known for its achievements in social housing. This started during the “Red Vienna” period between
1919-1934 in which the city was governed by social democrats. (Ball, 2019) As a part of their social project they invested
in creating a large share of social housing, constituting 25% of the total housing market. In addition, approximately 62%
of Viennese live in houses subsidized by the government (Forester, 2018). To maintain this, Vienna instituted a policy in
which a percentage of each worker’s wage is deducted every month from their paycheck and goes to a housing-specific
fund. The median gross annual income is €31,500. However, anyone earning up to €53,225 a year after taxes is eligible
for a subsidized apartment. Therefore, on average each citizen spends €475-600 a month on rent, equivalent to 27% of
their monthly income. Furthermore, the city of Vienna designed a plan which intended not only to provide affordable
housing for the low and middle-income classes, but also to increase their living standards (Figure 9). As a resident
improves their economic position, they are still eligible for social housing. This way they are not punished for being
successful. Moreover, during the 1980s the Viennese government implemented the Soft Urban Renewal Program, which
has strict rules to avoid resident displacement and eviction by yearly rent control contracts.
The Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus District (15th):
Similar to the previous districts in the paper, the Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus, or Vienna’s 15th district, is an area with a lower
income average than the rest of the city, it is known for being “migratory districts” or districts with a larger concentrated
minority group than in the rest of the city, it constitutes the lowest income area of the city; and it is rich in cultural amenities
(Some of the housing areas of the 15th, known as Gründerzeit structures, date back to the turn of the 20th century). The
15th was formerly known as a working-class area. After World War II many people from Turkey and former Yugoslavia
migrated to Vienna and settled in the district since it was characterized by small run-down affordable apartments. Today,
the 15th district still has the highest proportion of non-Austrian residents; therefore, it is known as a “migratory district” and
has had a negative image of high crime rates, prostitution, and illegal distribution and use of narcotics. In 2011 the

government passed an anti-prostitution bill, and this had a positive and significant effect on the district. On the one hand,
the sense of safety increased, and younger well-educated people started to move in. With this, more restaurants, bars
and shops opened. However, this effect increased property values and rents, leading to possible evictions and
displacement.
The City Responds
Vienna is one of the cities with the most affordable housing due mainly to its social housing policy. Overall, 26.2% of
housing in Vienna is social housing; 10% of which is concentrated in the 15th district. (Forster) Furthermore, approximately
26% of housing in the 15th district is under rent control (Beyond Gentrification: Vienna). This does not consider the rent
control of Gründerzeit apartments (19th Century style apartments). The residences are owned by non-profit housing
associations of the Municipality of Vienna. The social housing sector decreases the rents significantly because there are
no major structural differences compared to the other districts. This means that housing in the 15th district is comparably
affordable to the rest of the city (Im 9). However, this does not apply to the newly built rental sector (which is not rent-
controlled) nor to the real estate property market.
Vienna’s large stock in social housing has stabilized rent and property prices across the city. However, these prices are
increasing. Therefore, the Viennese government came up with an affordable housing plan to meet the city’s demand in
the specific areas with the most housing demand. Vienna has approximately 20,000 newcomers per year, which would
require approximately 10,000 apartments needed per year, however, only 7,500 units were being built (Emerald Insight).
The Viennese government detected the problem and adjusted the housing plan to meet the demand by calculating a
yearly estimate of the city’s housing demand and building accordingly. Moreover, the social housing complexes that are
built aren’t drab soviet-socialist style apartments, or even those reminiscent of the cold and depressing Projects of New
York. Rather, they are built by sought after architects and display creativity and warmth (Figure 9). Also, because medium
and lower classes live together, there is no way to differentiate socio-economic class based on one’s address (Byrne,
2019).
Figure 9: Karl Marx – HOF, Social Housing Complex in Vienna
Findings for the 15th
District
For this comparative analysis we needed to determine what the variables were that Vienna and the 15th district had that
the other cities did not. The main difference was their robust use of social housing policies geared toward the middle class
and lower, as well as their proactive approach to building new housing units. In addition, the city of Vienna successfully
implemented a housing-specific fund destined to build affordable housing for low and middle-income families by deducting
a portion of their paycheck each month.
From 2009-2019 Vienna’s population has grown by 217,356 (“Vienna Population 2020 (Demographics, Maps, Graphs)”).
Despite this growth, Vienna has maintained its lead as the most livable city in the world. In researching the differences
between the 15th district of Vienna as opposed to the city at large, it is apparent that the district was able to maintain their
distinction from the larger metropolis. This is particularly apparent when looking at non-Austrian migrants in comparison
to the rest of the city. The data will be partly skewed due to the migrant crisis of 2012, but it shows that the 15th district
was able to maintain its identity as a migrant district amid its development. From 2011 to 2019 Vienna saw an increase of

8.9% in their migrant population. In comparison the 15th saw an increase of 8.3% (Beyond Gentrification: Vienna, 2016).
Where other gentrifying areas such as Barrio Logan or the Mission District saw decreases in their minority demographic,
the 15th saw an increase.
Their average income is also comparatively low. Where Vienna’s mean income was €23,365 in 2019, the 15th’s was
€17,893 (Riedl et al. 2019). This shows that even amid gentrification of the area, it did not lead to displacement of the
population. Furthermore, even with an increased population, over the last five years Vienna’s housing prices increased at
a rate 4% less than the rest of Austria (Delmendo, 2018). While the data for the 15th district in this regard is forthcoming,
it still shows that as a city Vienna was able to mitigate the negative effects of gentrification such as rising housing cost
and displacement even during a population surge.
The policies that Vienna implemented weren’t focused on reversing social and ethnic diversity nor restoring antique
buildings. Instead, their emphasis was on increasing living conditions, counteracting urban decay, and increasing the
quality of the apartments. It appears that through those policies segregation tendencies, displacement, and increases in
rents have been reversed or diminished. Vienna’s effective and innovative model for affordable social housing has allowed
it to develop a minority community without displacing its residents.
VI. QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (QCA)
Each city was slightly unique in their approach to gentrification and displacement. In order to determine the differences,
we used a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) approach. The table below (Table 10) allowed us to organize, analyze,
and evaluate multiple independent variables and how they interact and combine to generate various outcomes related to
preventing displacement and helping communities that are negatively impacted by gentrification.
A “1” means that the strategy was implemented, and a “0” means that it was not. Based on the chart, all cities used some
form of subsidized housing, although of varying degree. Also, all 4 cities had some sort of community participation, whether
that be through protest, grassroots campaigns, or some sort of activism.
Our analysis shows that Vienna differed in its use of affordable subsidized housing for middle income residents and below.
Furthermore, Vienna has a progressive housing tax and rent control, which has dissuaded developers from creating high
end apartments, coincidentally lowering the price of land, and allowed Vienna to purchase land cheaply and develop their
own affordable housing. San Francisco was also unique in their use of Memorandums of Understanding in order to try
and maintain cultural businesses.
Table 11 examines the variance in three outcomes between four global cities. Changes in average income (<5%), changes
in demographics (i.e. ethnic diversity) (<5%), and changes in average housing and rental prices relative to the rest of the
City. These outcomes are widely attributed to displacement and gentrification and were therefore selected as measurable
indicators that can be used to evaluate the various policy proposals.
It is apparent that Vienna had the most favorable results when it came to effective government intervention to combat the
negative effects of gentrification and prevent displacement. This can be attributed to their progressive social housing
policies as well as their increase in mid-range housing units, which kept the cost of living low for long term residents. While
San Francisco was able to keep the rental prices low in comparison to the rest of the city, what remains to be seen is how
the younger generations who move into the Mission District maintain or transform its cultural identity. What is also apparent
is that San Diego, which inadvertently took a laissez faire government approach, and Cape Town, which only focused on
the physical qualities of a community, were also the areas most affected by gentrification.
VII. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
In our comparative analysis, we examined various policies that have been enacted in San Diego, San Francisco, Vienna,
and Cape Town. While each city is unique in regard to their relationship with their minority communities, these are the key
recommendations for how to support those communities from the detrimental impacts of gentrification.
1. Increase Housing Supply and Subsidized Housing Units: New housing units should prioritize mid to low-income
residents. To do this, there must be a moratorium on the development of luxury apartments, or at the very least a
progressive tax rate on rental units put into place. This would not only provide renters an option for a newer and
affordable housing with all the necessary amenities, but would also increase the apartment supply, lowering rental
costs across the board. These housing complexes would ideally be designed by creative architects that provide more
than just a place to live, but also a place to build community. They can also incorporate multiple socio-economic
classes that will enhance the diversity of the community.

2. Create a Housing Specific Contribution Fund: A housing-specific contribution policy should be incorporated in the law,
where a percentage of each worker’s income goes to a housing fund that would be used for building and maintaining
social housing. This fund would be an efficient mechanism for lower income residents to be able to own an affordable
apartment in the medium to long term. This may or may not be feasible due to a lack of political will in the region
toward social housing.
3. Rent Control and Arbitration Board: Rent control stops landlords from arbitrarily increasing rents by exorbitant amounts
as older low-income areas become developed. Residents should have a safe place to go that offers free legal advice
and arbitration. Therefore, it is recommended that cities create a Rent Arbitration Board similar to San Francisco.
Some investors may also see opportunities to create vacation rentals, such as in Bo-Kaap, which will lower the supply
of houses and increase rents. Taxing short-term rentals will help to mitigate the increase of housing prices. This new
revenue stream could be used to pay for the implementation and administration costs for the new Rent Arbitration
Board.
4. Invest in cultural Identity. A community’s culture is an expression of a way of living. This can be developed through
traditions, art, and cultural spaces. It inspires community pride and awareness and strengthens a sense of identity
and responsibility to society. Cities must protect the historical. social, and economic value of its diverse communities.
Focus should be on enhancing the characteristics of the neighborhood while also providing economic opportunities
for the community.
5. Adopt a Legacy Business Registry. The registry works to save longstanding, community-run businesses that serve as
cultural assets. This could be used as a tool to provide educational and promotional assistance to continue the viability
and success of businesses. It specifically targets businesses that are more than 20 years old and at risk of
displacement (San Francisco Planning, 2020). These businesses have contributed to the neighborhood’s history and
identity and are committed to serving the residents and maintaining the physical features and traditions that define the
business.
6. Develop MOUs between Businesses and Community Activists. When businesses and activists are pitted against each
other, both sides lose. Instead, cultural communities should create MOUs that explain what the expectation is for new
businesses in order to enhance a cultural district and its community, not supplant it.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Gentrification can incorporate some of the best components of capitalism as investors seek to capitalize on apparently
dilapidated neighborhoods in order to seek returns. Potentially, it can lead to the revitalization of districts and a stronger
tax base for the city. However, when implemented without regard to the citizens it is going to affect the most, it can also
lead to the displacement and replacement of entire communities and their cultures. Our research has shown that despite
the best efforts of community organizations and activists to mitigate the effects of gentrification, they cannot do it alone.
The municipal governing body must come alongside the communities that are going to be impacted by that process and
implement policies that allow those residents and the culture to not just remain, but also to thrive.
There is no “silver bullet” that can stop the displacement of communities due to gentrification. Every tool in the toolbox
must be used. It should also be noted that there is not a one size fits all solution as the recommendations may not be
conducive to certain geopolitical areas, federal regulations, or other mitigating factors. That being said, cities should
strongly consider expanding the use of social housing, rezoning districts to encourage affordable housing (not luxury
apartments), creating rent arbitration boards, rent control, and cultural zones that protect the unique character of minority
communities. While these policies will help to mitigate displacement, cities can do more outside of the realm of this paper
to create growth from within as opposed to capital investment from without. This may include more investment into
education and after school programs. Or it may involve using local banks backed by the city to allow long term businesses
in the community to take out loans so that they can buy a building as opposed to renting it. It may come in the form of
partnering with larger business organizations in the city that create links and sponsorships to individuals in the district.
Finally, it may involve the expansion of public transportation which will interconnect the city and allow for more job
opportunities for the residents. There is so much potential within low-income, culturally rich districts, it just needs to be
cultivated.
Furthermore, gentrification and displacement doesn’t necessarily start in the minority communities, but trickles down from
policies enacted in the surrounding metropolis. Middle class city refugees are pushed out of their own residents due to
high rents, and simultaneously drawn to the more affordable housing and culture of these districts. Maybe the city is
approaching how to draw in capital backwards. Instead of trying to “revitalize” the underserved communities, maybe the
city should be trying to emulate them. Subsidized housing need not be relegated to low income communities but should
be interspersed throughout the city. Subsidized housing also doesn’t need to be just for the lower class, but can also
include the middle class, especially for civil servants such as firefighters, healthcare workers, and teachers. The city

doesn’t need more luxury apartments that sit half empty, it needs housing for the residents that are here already. Residents
who work hard to make the city great.
In short, if a city's motivation is to draw in capital by appealing to those outside the city, it will lead to the displacement of
the very community it is meant to represent. Alternatively, the city can choose to invest in the people that make up the
fabric and culture of the society, make it more livable, and allow its citizens to thrive.

Appendix
Table 1 Residential Rent Statistics for San Diego California | Department of Numbers

Table 4 Comparative Data Between San Diego and Barrio Logan
Comparative Data Between San Diego and Barrio Logan
Measurement San Diego Barrio Logan
Median Income Change From 2008-2016
(San Diego California Household Income | Department of Numbers, 2019)
+ .005 + 86.4%
Ethnic Demographic Change from outside Majority (white, non-Hispanic)
(“Population of San Diego County, CA - Census 2010 and 2000 Interactive Map,
Demographics, Statistics, Quick Facts – Census Viewer”)
+ 5.86% + 6%
Ethnic Demographic Change from original minorities (Hispanic/Latino)2000-2010
(“Population of San Diego County, CA - Census 2010 and 2000 Interactive Map,
Demographics, Statistics, Quick Facts – Census Viewer”)
+ 32% - 15%
Rent Change
(Zillow, 2020)
+ 34% + 40.5%
Table 5 Comparative Data Between Cape Town and Bo-Kaap
Comparative Data Between Cape Town and Bo-Kaap
Measurement Cape Town Bo-Kaap
Religious (Muslim) Demographic
(Farrar, Mebaley, Moya, & Rudolph, 2019)
8%
(2015)
56.9%
(2011)
Ethnic Demographic Change of Black Africans and Colored as portion of the
population from 2001-2011
("City of Cape Town - 2011 Census - Cape Town", 2012)
- 1.2% - 8%
Housing Price Change from 2011-2020
(Kotze, 2013)
("Property24", 2020)
+ 54% + 357%
Table 6: Demographic Comparison of San Francisco and the Mission District
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET AND LEGISLATIVE ANALYST Policy
Analysis Report To: Supervisor Campos From: Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office Re: Displacement in the Mission
District Summary of Requested Action. 2015.
Table 7 Comparative Data Between San Francisco and the Mission District
Comparative Data Between San Francisco and the Mission District
Measurement San Francisco Mission District
Median Income Change
From 2016-2018
+ 0.7% - 4.8%
Ethnic Demographic Change from outside Majority (white)
2010-2017
- 8.3% + 10.8%
Ethnic Demographic Change from original minorities (Hispanic)2010-
2017
+ .2% - 3.1%
Housing Price Change
January 2015- January 2020
+ 37% + 36%

Table 8 San Francisco Demographics, (Berman, 2019)
Table 9 Comparative Data Between Vienna and the 15th District as well as Austria and Vienna
Comparative Data Between Vienna and the 15th District
as well as Austria and Vienna
Measurement Vienna 15th District
Average Income €23,365 €17,893
Minority/Migrant Population Change from 2011-2019 +8.9% +8.3%
Austria Vienna
Housing Prices change 2015-2020 +24% 20%
Table 10 Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) Table
Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) Table
Cities
Independent Variable San Francisco,
Mission District
San Diego,
Barrio Logan
Cape Town,
Bo-Kaap
Vienna,
15th District
Government Policies on Housing
Rent control 1 0 0 1
Subsidized Housing for residents below the
poverty line
1 1 1 (There is a
20-year waiting
list)
1
Middle income and below subsidized housing 0 0 0 1
Increasing construction rate of mid-range
housing units
0 0 0 1
Prohibition or progressive taxation on luxury
apartments
0 0 0 1
Community Organizing
Active community-based organizations, non-
profits, and NGOs
1 1 1 0
Use of Memorandums of Understanding or
Community Benefit Agreements
1 0 0 0
Cultural/Ethnic Diversity
Laws to preserve neighborhood character and
culture
1 0 1 1

Table 11 QCA Dependent Variable Table
QCA Dependent Variable Table
Dependent variable San Diego,
Barrio Logan
San Francisco,
Mission District
Cape
Town,
Bo-Kaap
Vienna,
15th
District
Average income change in comparison to the
surrounding area
⇧ ⇩ ❔ ⇨
Minority Demographic Change ⇩ ⇩ ⇩ ⇨
Housing/rental Price increase compared to
greater regions.
⇧ ⇨ ⇧ ⇩
Key: ⇧ = Increase; ⇩ = Decrease; ⇨ = Stayed the same; ❔ = Inconclusive
REFERENCES
Allie, M. “Cape Town anger over slave quarter gentrification”. 2018, August 05. Retrieved August 8, 2020, from
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-44777755
Ball. Jonny. “Housing as a basic human right: The Vienna model of social housing.” Global Current Affairs, Politics &
Culture. September 3, 2019, https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/housing/2019/09/housing-basic-human-
right-vienna-model-social-housing
Barrio Station. 2020.https://www.barriostation.org/BarrioStationOverview.pdf
Berman, Annie. “In This Mission District Neighborhood, the Millennials Have Taken Over.” Mission Local, 26 July 2019,
missionlocal.org/2019/07/in-this-mission-neighborhood-the-millennials-are-taking-over/. Accessed 9 June 2020.
Bishari, Nuala Sawyer. “Can the Mission Save Itself from Commercial Gentrification?” SF Weekly, 13 Feb. 2019,
www.sfweekly.com/topstories/can-the-mission-save-itself-from-commercial-gentrification. Accessed 10 June
2020.
Blau, Anna. Detail Magazine of Architecture and Construction Details. Social Housing: A Viennese Tradition.
https://www.detail-online.com/article/social-housing-a-viennese-tradition-31928/ (Figure 9).
Bo-Kaap, Cape Town, South Africa. Most Colorful Cities in the World. https://www.popsugar.com/smart-living/photo-
gallery/41502736/embed/41503186/Bo-Kaap-Cape-Town-South-Africa (Figure 4).
Buntin, John. “The Gentrification Myth.” January 14, 2015, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/01/the-gentrification-
myth-its-rare-and-not-as-bad-for-the-poor-as-people-think.html
Byrne, D. “100 Years of Urban Housing Success”. 2019, December 20, https://reasonstobecheerful.world/100-years-of-
urban-housing-success/
California Arts Council. “California Cultural Districts.” 2020, https://www.caculturaldistricts.org/about-the-districts
“Cape Town Anger over Slave Quarter Gentrification.” BBC News, 5 Aug. 2018, www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-
44777755. Accessed 28 Dec. 2020.
Cape Town, Mountains, South Africa, Table Mountain, Bo Kaap, City, Building HD Wallpaper. Bo Building Cape Town city
Kaap mountains. https://wallup.net/cape-town-mountains-south-africa-table-mountain-bo-kaap-city-building/
(Figure 5).
Capps, Kriston. “Blame Zoning, Not Tech, for San Francisco's Housing Crisis”. 2016, https://www.citylab.com/
equity/2016/03/are-wealthy-neighborhoods-to-blame-for-gentrification-of-poorer-ones/473349/
City of Cape Town. “2011 Census - Cape Town”. 2012, December, http://resource.capetown.gov.za/documentcentre/
Documents/Maps and statistics/2011_Census_Cape_Town_Profile_Change_from_2001-2011.pdf
City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analyst. “Policy Analysis Report To:
Supervisor Campos From: Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office Re: Displacement in the Mission District
Summary of Requested Action”. 2015.
City and County of San Francisco. “Rent Board.” Overview of Just Cause Evictions. 2020, https://sfrb.org/topic-no-201-
overview-just-cause-evictions.
City and County of San Francisco. “Rent Control.” SF Housing Data Hub. 2014, https://housing.datasf.org/policies/rent-
control/.
City of San Diego. “Barrio Logan.” Sandiego.org. 2020. Barrio Logan, https://www.sandiego.org/articles/downtown/barrio-
logan.aspx. Accessed 10 June 2020.
City of San Diego. Sandiego.gov. 2020. “City Of San Diego Awarded State Grant To Expand Housing Opportunities
Through Community Plan Updates.” Mayor Kevin L. Faulconer,
https://www.sandiego.gov/mayor/news/releases/city-san-diego-awarded-state-grant-expand-housing-
opportunities-through-community-plan. Accessed 10 June 2020.
City of San Diego. “General Plan: Housing Element 2013 - 2020”. Sandiego.gov. 2020,
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy//planning/genplan/heu/pdf/housingelementfull.pdf. Accessed
10 June 2020.

City of Vienna. “Vienna in Figures 2019 - Statistics.” www.Wien.Gv.At, 2019, www.wien.gv.at/english/administration/
statistics/vienna-in-figures.html#:~:text=Growing%20city%20with%20high%20quality. Accessed 9 June 2020.
Co-housing Vienna https://www.pinterest.com/pin/172544229458352185/ (Figure 8).
Combs, Seth. “Moving out and moving on: Recent closures of art spaces worry longtime Barrio Logan residents.” 2019,
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/entertainment/visual-arts/story/2019-12-29/moving-out-and-moving-on-
recent-closures-of-art-spaces-worry-longtime-barrio-logan-residents
Delgado, Kevin. “A Turning Point.” 1998, https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/1998/january/chicano-3/
Delmendo, Lalaine. “Residential Property Price Index, Vienna, Austria.” Global Property Guide, 1 Apr. 2018,
www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Austria/Home-Price-Trends. Accessed 9 June 2020.
Department of Numbers. “Residential Rent Statistics for San Diego California”, www.deptofnumbers.com. 2018.
www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-diego/. Accessed 9 June 2020.
Department of Numbers. “San Diego California Household Income”, www.deptofnumbers.com/income/california/san-
diego/.
Donaldson, Ronnie, An Uneasy Match: Neoliberalism, Gentrification and Heritage Conservation in Bo-Kaap, Cape Town,
South Africa https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12132-012-9182-9.pdf
Downtown San Diego Partnership. “Imagine Downtown” Retrieved May 5, 2020, https://downtownsandiego.org/imagine-
downtown/
Economic Research Associates. “Barrio Logan Market Analysis”. 2008, https://www.sandiego.gov/sites
/default/files/legacy/planning/community/cpu/barriologan/documents/pdf/barriologanmarketanalysis1208.pdf
Esri. Barrio Logan Story Map. 2009, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=
90626481dedf47838175ae5721fdda7b
Farrar, T. J., Falake, K. A., Mebaley, A., Moya, M. D., & Rudolph, I. I. (2019). “A mall intercept survey on religion and
worldview in the Cape Flats of Cape Town, South Africa”. Journal for the Study of Religion, 32(1), 5–6,
https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3027/2019/v32n1a3
Flatio. “Short term rentals in Vienna. A few-month-long accommodation”. 2020, https://www.flatio.com/short-term-rentals-
vienna
Florida, R. L. (2019). “The Rise of the Creative Class: Revisited”. New York: Basic Books.
Forrest, Adam. “The city that's built an affordable housing paradise.” HuffPost. 2019,
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vienna-affordable-housing-paradise
Forster, Wolfgang. “The Vienna Model of Social Housing, University of Calgary”, 2018.
Franz, Yvonne. “Gentrification in neighborhood development: case studies from New York City, Berlin and Vienna.” V&R
unipress GmbH, 2015.
Franz, Yvonne. “Gentrification trends in Vienna”. (n.d.). Academia.edu - Share research.
https://www.academia.edu/3879114/Gentrification_Trends_in_Vienna
Gelinas, Nicole. “Why America’s Cities are Becoming More Economically Segregated.” The New York Times. June 26,
2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/books/review/the-new-urban-crisis-richard-florida.html
“Gentrification”. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/gentrification. Accessed 4 Aug. 2020.
Griffin, Jo. “Olympic exclusion zone: the gentrification of a Rio favela.” The Guardian. June 16, 2016, Olympic exclusion
zone: the gentrification of a Rio favela | Cities | The Guardian.Holzner, Lutz, and Blake Ehrlich. “Vienna.”
Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica, inc., April 23, 2020,
https://www.britannica.com/place/Vienna/The-economy.
Huber, Florian J. "Chapter 10–Sensitive urban renewal or gentrification? The case of the Karmeliterviertel in Vienna.
Everyday Life in the Segmented City”. Bingley. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 2011, 223-
239.https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S1047-0042(2011)0000011013/full/html
Im, Jimmy. “If You Bought a House in San Francisco 10 Years Ago, Here's How Much It Could Be Worth Now,” July 2,
2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/01/how-much-a-san-francisco-house-bought-10-years-ago-could-be-
worth-now.html.
Ippolito, Lucia. “Mission Makeover”. 2012, www.ipernity.com/doc/jonathan.cohen/36840602.
Intersectional Health Project San Diego (IHPSD) Investigative: All Stories, Barrio Logan. https://ihpsd.github.io/stories.html
(Figure 1).
Katz, Bruce. “New Localism: How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism”. Brookings Institution Press, 2018.
Keatts, Andrew. “Everything You Need to Know About the Barrio Logan Community Plan.” Voice of San Diego, 16 Sept.
2013, www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-barrio-logan-community-
plan/. Accessed 9 June 2020.
Keeling, Brock. “San Francisco to Create American Indian Cultural District.” 2019,
https://sf.curbed.com/2019/11/19/20972933/san-francisco-native-american-indian-cultural-district-
sfktv_fbiechele.

Kotze, N. “A community in trouble? The impact of gentrification on the Bo-Kaap, Cape Town”. Urbani Izziv, 2013, 24(2),
124-132. doi:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2013-24-02-004
Lees L. and Philips, M., “Tourism gentrification”, Centre of Geographical Studies, University of Lisbon.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323696032_Tourism_gentrification
Lees L., Slater T, and Wyly Elvin, “Gentrification”, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, New York and London, 2008.
Lopez-Villafana, Andrea. “Barrio Logan community members discuss gentrification.” 2019.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/san-diego/story/2019-09-28/barrio-logan-residents-discuss-
gentrification
Lopez-Villafania, Andrea. “Barrio Logan Affordable Housing Tenants Object to Rent Hike.” San Diego Union-Tribune.
March 29, 2020, www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/san-diego/story/2020-03-29/tenants-in-barrio-
logan-affordable-housing-complex-demand-owner-reconsider-rent-hike.
Lopez-Villafania, Andrea. Groups work to revive Barrio Logan community plan update. San Diego Union-Tribune. March
4, 2020, https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/san-diego/story/2020-03-04/groups-work-to-revive-
barrio-logan-community-plan-update
Manson, Bill. “Soon There Won’t Be a Barrio Logan.” 2009, https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2009/sep/30/cover/
Makris, Sohphie. Phys.org. “Urban Planners Look To Vienna To Solve Housing Crises.” 2020. https://phys.org/news/2018-
12-urban-planners-vienna-housing-crises.html. Accessed 10 June 2020.
Mayor Ed Lee. City and County of San Francisco. “First Source Hiring Program.” Office of Economic Workforce
Development. 2006, http://mission.sfgov.org/oca_bid_attachments/fa22336.pdf.
Mercado Apartments. “Fact Sheet” Sandiego.gov. 2020, https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy
/redevelopment-agency/pdf/affhousing/mercadoaptsfactsheet.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2020.
Minder, Raphael. “Lisbon Is Thriving. But at What Price for Those Who Live There?”. The New York Times, May 23, 2018.
Lisbon Is Thriving. But at What Price for Those Who Live There? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)Molnar,
Phillip. “More than 2,000 New San Diego Apartments to Open This Year.” San Diego Union-Tribune, 9 Mar. 2018,
www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/real-estate/sd-fi-new-apartments-multifamily-20180309-story.html.
Accessed 9 June 2020.
Molnar, Phillip. “San Diego Average Rent up to $1,887, Breaking Record. Will It Last?” San Diego Union-Tribune, 4 Apr.
2018, www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/real-estate/sd-fi-rent-vacancy-20180403-story.html. Accessed 9
June 2020.
Molnar, Phillip. “San Diego Will Soon Have Rent Control. What Renters and Landlords Need to Know.” San Diego Union-
Tribune, 25 Oct. 2019, www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/real-estate/story/2019-10-25/san-diego-will-
soon-have-rent-control-what-renters-and-landlords-need-to-know. Accessed 9 June 2020.
Montgomery, Charles. “Happy City: Transforming Our Lives through Urban Design”. Anchor Canada, 2014.
Moskowitz, P. E. “How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood”. Nation Books, 2018.
NBC 7. “San Diego City Council Votes to Adopt Affordable Housing Study.” June 3, 2020.
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-city-council-votes-to-adopt-affordable-housing-
study/2339229/.
Population of San Diego County, CA - “Census 2010 and 2000 Interactive Map, Demographics, Statistics, Quick Facts –
Census Viewer.” Census viewer. Com, 2010, censusviewer.com/county/CA/San%20Diego. Accessed 9 June
2020.
N.D. “Property values in Bo Kaap”, Retrieved August, 2020, https://www.property24.com/property-values/bo-kaap/cape-
town/western-cape/9136
Perry, Francesca. “'We Are Building Our Way to Hell': Tales of Gentrification around the World.” The Guardian. Guardian
News and Media, October 5, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/05/building-way-to-hell-readers-
tales-gentrification-around-world.
Price, David. Shelterforce. “7 Policies That Could Prevent Gentrification.” Shelterforce. 2020,
https://shelterforce.org/2014/05/23/7_policies_that_could_prevent_gentrification/. Accessed 10 June 2020.
Property Shark. “San Francisco Median Home Sales Map”. 2004-2014, https://www.propertyshark.com/mason/ca/San-
Francisco-County/Maps?map=ca_sanfrancisco&x=0.50625&y=0.43875&zoom=0&basemap=
gentrification&tab=themes&ll=37.7795460412266,-122.441370584653.
Rendon-Alvarez, M. R. “Barrio Logan residents, activists protest rent hike”. NBC 7 San Diego. March 3, 2020,
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/barrio-logan-residents-activists-protest-rent-hike/2277168/
Riedl, Daniel, et al. “First Vienna Residential Market Report”. 2019, residentialmarketvienna.at/links/pdf/
BUWOG_WMB19_EN.pdf.
Riegler, Johannes. “Competitiveness VS. Social Balance: Gentrification as Urban Policy in Cases in Budapest and Vienna”
[Master's thesis]. 2011, https://www.4cities.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/MAthesis_4CITIES_RIEGLER_
JOHANNES_Cohort2.pdf
Safdie Rabines Architects, Mercado del Barrio, San Diego, CA, Shea Properties with San Diego Redevelopment Agency.
https://www.safdierabines.com/portfolio/mercado-del-barrio/ (Figure 2).

Safdie Rabines Architects, Mercado del Barrio, San Diego, CA, Shea Properties with San Diego Redevelopment Agency.
https://www.safdierabines.com/portfolio/mercado-del-barrio/ (Figure 3).
San Diego County Data Portal, “2017 Demographic Profiles”. November 2019,
https://data.sandiegocounty.gov/browse?category=Demographics
San Francisco Community Land Trust. “SFCLT Overview”. 2020, https://sfclt.org/SFCLT_Overview
San Francisco Housing Coalition. “Affordable Housing Trust Fund”. 2020, https://www.sfhac.org/policy-
advocacy/affordable-housing-trust-fund/.
San Francisco Planning Department. “Cultural Heritage.” 2020, https://sfplanning.org/cultural-heritage
San Francisco Planning Department. “Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program.” San Francisco Planning. 2020,
https://sfplanning.org/project/inclusionary-affordable-housing-program.
San Francisco Planning Department. “San Francisco Neighborhoods Socio-economic Profiles”, 2017.
San Francisco Planning Department. “Short-Term Rentals.” San Francisco Planning. 2020. https://sfplanning.org/short-
term-rentals.
Sassen, Saskia. “The Global City: Introducing a Concept’. Second Edition. Princeton University Press, 2001.
Schragger, Richard. “City Power: Urban Governance in a Global Age”. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Sen, Mayukh. “Wellness Blogger Abandons Plans for ‘Modern Mexican Frutería’ After Backlash.” Vice, 2 Nov. 2017,
www.vice.com/en_us/article/wjggjn/wellness-blogger-abandons-plans-for-modern-mexican-fruteria-after-
backlash. Accessed 9 June 2020.
Simister, Nigel, and Vera Scholz. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” INTRAC for Civil Society, INTRAC for Civil Society,
www.intrac.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Qualitative-comparative-analysis.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct.
2020.
Spencer, J.P, and M. Bassadien. Gentrification and Cultural Tourism in the Bo-Kaap, Cape Town. African Journal of
Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure, 2016, ajhtl.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/article_14_vol_5__1_.pdf. Accessed
July 2020.
Stephen Jang. Retreners, The Art of the Mission District. December 29, 2011. https://retrenders.com/2011/12/29/the-art-
of-the-mission-district/ (Figure 6).
The City of San Diego. “Barrio Logan Community Plan and Local Coastal Program”. 2013,
https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/cpu/barriologan/
Urban Displacement Project. “Anti-Displacement Policy Case Study: San Francisco’s Chinatown.”, University of California
Berkeley. March 2016, https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/urbandisplacementproject_
policycasestudy_chinatown_april2016.pdf.
Urban Displacement Project. “SF Bay Area Gentrification and Displacement Map”. 2020.
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/map/sf.
Urban Europe. “Beyond Gentrification: Vienna.” Beyond Gentrification, 2016, www.beyondgentrification.com/vienna/.
Accessed 9 June 2020.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Huduser.gov. 2020. “Vienna’s Unique Social Housing Program”.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_featd_article_011314.html. Accessed 10 June 2020.
“Vienna Population 2020 (Demographics, Maps, Graphs).” Worldpopulationreview.com,
worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/vienna-population.
Visser, Gustav, and Nico Kotze. "The State and New-build Gentrification in Central Cape Town, South Africa." Urban
Studies 45, no. 12 (2008): 2565-593. Accessed August 4, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/43197726.
Wachunas, John, Spinlister. Balmy Alley: Bike Tour Through San Fancisco’s Mission District Murals.
https://www.spinlister.com/blog/balmy-alley-bike-tour-san-franciscos-mission-district-murals/ (Figure 7).
Wazimap profile: City of Cape Town, Western Cape. (n.d.). Wazimap. Retrieved August 11, 2020,
https://wazimap.co.za/profiles/municipality-CPT-city-of-cape-town/?release=2011.
Zillow. “Barrio Logan San Diego CA Home Prices & Home Values.”, www.zillow.com/barrio-logan-san-diego-ca/home-
values/. Accessed 9 June 2020.
Accepted 23 December 2020
Citation: Enmeier M, Sevilla OR (2021): Gentrification and its Effects on Minority Communities – A Comparative Case
Study of Four Global Cities: San Diego, San Francisco, Cape Town, and Vienna. International Journal of Public
Administration and Policy Research, 5(1): 067-090.
Copyright: © 2021: Enmeier and Sevilla. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are cited.

Gentrification and its Effects on Minority Communities – A Comparative Case Study of Four Global Cities: San Diego, San Francisco, Cape Town, and Vienna

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Gentrification and its Effects on Minority Communities – A Comparative Case Study of Four Global Cities: San Diego, San Francisco, Cape Town, and Vienna

Similar to Gentrification and its Effects on Minority Communities – A Comparative Case Study of Four Global Cities: San Diego, San Francisco, Cape Town, and Vienna (20)

More from Premier Publishers

More from Premier Publishers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Gentrification and its Effects on Minority Communities – A Comparative Case Study of Four Global Cities: San Diego, San Francisco, Cape Town, and Vienna