Neil Smith’s Argument of Gentrification

639 WordsJan 28, 20183 Pages
Neil Smith’s argument of gentrification as a global strategy looks at two different arguments based on the shift from an urban scale defined according to the conditions of social reproduction to one in which the investment of productive capital holds definitive precedence. Richard Florida’s arguement is based on the concept of a new “Creative Class” that has developed and is continuing to develop due to powerful and significant shifts in values, norms and attitudes, of which he catagorizes along three basic lines, that of individuality, meritocracy, and diversity. On a basic level, both believe that theories of neo-urbanism have to shift to adapt to new models based on changes they have seen. Smith’s first argument deals with this observation. In the argument, he challenges the assumption that global cities should be defined according to command functions rather than by their participation in the global production of surplus value due to his belief that this latent viewpoint stems from Eurocentrism. His defending argument to his theory is that contrary to this Eurocentric belief, his observations have shown that as the neoliberal state develops it moves from a position of regulation within the market to a masterful agent of the market. With this shift, Smith hypotisizes that liberal urban policy in cities are replaced with a new model of revanchist urbanism; this, in turn, expresses the vagarious shift to capitalist production rather than social reproduction. In a similarly
Open Document