On this episode, my guest is Leslie Kern, PhD, the author of three books about cities, including Gentrification Is Inevitable And Other Lies and Feminist City: Claiming Space in a Man-Made World. Her work provokes new ways of thinking about and creating cities that are more just, equitable, caring, and sustainable. Leslie was an associate professor of geography and environment and women’s and gender studies at Mount Allison University from 2009-2024. Today, she is a public speaker, writer, and career coach for authors and academics.
Show Notes
* Gentrification and touristification
* Naturalization of gentrification
* The new colonialism
* Intersectionality
* Who’s to blame: renter or landlord?
* The hipster and the safety net
* The invisible face behind gentrification and touristifcation
* Transactionality or hospitality? The case of Airbnb
* Commercial gentrification
* The right to stay put
Homework
Leslie Kern - Website - Instagram
Gentrification Is Inevitable and Other Lies - USA - Canada
Feminist City: Claiming Space in a Man-Made World - USA - Canada
The Tenant Class by Ricardo Tranjan
Transcript
Chris: [00:00:00] Welcome, Leslie, to the End of Tourism Podcast. Thank you for taking time out of your day, to speak with me. Thank you. To begin, I’m wondering if you’d be willing to tell us where you find yourself today and what the world looks like there, for you.
Leslie: Sure. I find myself in Cambridge, Ontario.
It’s a city of about 130,000 people. If I looked out my window right now, I would see a lot of blowing snow. It’s about minus 27 Celsius with the windchill, or something hideous like that today, so taking the time to talk to you this morning means I don’t have to go out and shovel anything just yet. So.
Chris: Well, thank you. Thank you for joining us. it’s a great honour and I’m really looking forward to this conversation that bears a great deal of complexity. So, I had invited you on the pod in part to explore your book, Gentrification is Inevitable and Other Lies. And [00:01:00] in it, Leslie, you write that
“Gentrification has come to be used as a metaphor for processes of mainstreaming, commodification, appropriation, and upscaling that are not necessarily or directly connected to cities. In this story about gentrification, gentrification stands in for any sort of change that pulls a thing or a practice out of its original context and increases its popularity, priciness, and profit-making potential.”
Given that some of our listeners might not have heard of the term “gentrification” before, although I doubt it, but given that those who have heard it might understand it also to be what you and others refer to as a “chaotic concept,” I’m wondering if you’d be willing to take a stab at defining it for us today?
Leslie: Yeah, absolutely. If we [00:02:00] look to, I guess, a kind of typical scholarly definition of gentrification, it would be describing an urban process in which middle or upper class, or in some other way, privileged households start to move into a neighbourhood or area of the city that has historically been more working class, or perhaps an immigrant neighbourhood, perhaps more industrial, and begin to remake that neighbourhood, kind of in their own image, thus driving up housing prices both in the rental and ownership markets, driving up the cost of living in the area, and critically, as part of the definition, resulting in some level of displacement of the older inhabitants of that neighbourhood. “Displacement” meaning they’ve been kind of priced out or otherwise pushed directly or indirectly to leave and [00:03:00] move to some other neighbourhood.
So, typically with gentrification, the definition is centred around it being a class-based process, but in more recent decades, many scholars, myself included, have wanted to broaden that and to acknowledge that other axes of power and privilege, for example, race, gender, ability, age, sexuality, and so on, also play a role in contributing to the kinds of forces that propel gentrification. And we can maybe get into some of that later.
So for myself, in the book, I talk about gentrification as “any kind of process of taking over claiming space and remaking it in the image and for the interests and benefit of a more powerful group of people, or perhaps even corporations, to some extent.” So, [00:04:00] gentrification is really the process of taking and claiming space. And I also do include displacement as part of that process, although I also acknowledge that sometimes people can be kind of psychologically displaced, even if they aren’t necessarily physically pushed out of their neighbourhoods.
Chris: Mean it’s something that I was noticing in Toronto before I left and moved and migrated here to Oaxaca. It’s something that I think in the last five or ten years has become an unfortunate mainstay of city life in the vast majority of places, of urban places in the world.
And this is also something that I’ve seen quite a bit here in Oaxaca, Mexico in a somewhat prolific tourist destination. And so, in places that have [00:05:00] been deemed “destinations” in this way, there’s often a kind of reductionism, here anyways, and in other tourist destinations in which gentrification and what’s sometimes called touristification is confused.
And so one definition of “touristification” is simply “the process of transformation of a place into a tourist space and its associated effects.” So a kind of very vague and broad definition. But we also understand that gentrification can happen in places that aren’t necessarily tourist destinations.
And so, we’ve also discussed in the pod the possibility that a place doesn’t necessarily need tourists in it to have touristic qualities or context what we might say. [00:06:00] And so I’m curious for you, do you think it’s important to distinguish the two concepts, gentrification and touristification? And if so, why?
Leslie: Yeah, great question. I think a distinction, to some extent, is important in that, yeah, there may be elements of touristification, for example, that are somewhat unique to that process, especially in terms of the kind of impact that it might have on local inhabitants who may not necessarily be displaced, but who may see their everyday lives kind of radically altered by the touristification of an area.
And as you say, gentrification happens in all kinds of areas, many of which are not geared to tourism, although sometimes that is a kind of later effect of gentrification, is that tourists might be drawn to certain neighbourhoods or places that they would not have otherwise gone to in the past.
As [00:07:00] you mentioned in your earlier question, there’s been some concern in the gentrification literature that it’s a bit of a chaotic concept, by which it is meant that it’s maybe too broad of an umbrella [term], and so many different kinds of processes are kind of lumped together under that umbrella. I think it’s a useful umbrella, but under that umbrella, we can try to be clear about what we’re talking about when we look at particular locations, and try to articulate the impacts that these processes are having on the local community, economy, environment, and so on.
Chris: Thank you, Leslie. Thank you for that. So your book is broken up into chapters that reveal the deeper realities behind the tropes or lies sometimes spouted about gentrification. And there are often many. And so I’m curious if after having done the research and writing for this book, and it was published in [00:08:00] 2022, so perhaps there’s been some deeper reflection in that regard, I’m curious what you feel might be the most important lie about gentrification that requires our attention and why?
Leslie: Ooh, really putting me on the hook to like pick a favorite child there. No, I’m joking. Ultimately, I mean, I guess the most straightforward answer would be the first one that I discuss in the book, which is right there in the book’s title, which is the idea that gentrification is inevitable. And we can kind of unpack that a little bit further, as I do in the kind of first main chapter of the book, which is to say that in some accounts of gentrification, it’s presented as a sort of natural process, right? As something that is just akin to evolution, for example. So there’s this idea that if you kind of start with, for example, a working class or immigrant [00:09:00] neighbourhood, lower income community, with some other kinds of attributes that might not make it seem wealthy or desirable, that over time, just through, I don’t know, a kind of mystical series of properties, the way that species evolve or human beings develop from fetus and baby to an adult through this series of difficult to trace impacts, that somehow it just happens. Right. And of course, the problem with that, again, is that if we think it’s natural, then we don’t really think there’s any way to stop it.
And also when we describe something as “natural,” we often imbue it with positive qualities. Well, if it’s “natural,” it’s just meant to happen. It’s just the way things are. And why would we want to stand in the way of that process? From a kind of political standpoint, it becomes very problematic, because it means that there’s not really a [00:10:00] willingness perhaps on the part of those who have some power and influence to slow down gentrification, to pause it, to use whatever tools they might have in their kind of legislative toolbox to create guardrails around the process happening or to try to prevent it altogether. And from a kind of community response standpoint, it can be very disempowering to believe that gentrification is inevitable, unstoppable, that once you see those first, white, middle-class families move into your neighbourhood, “boom, you’re done. It’s over. The clock is counting down to the time when it’s not your neighbourhood anymore and you’ll just have to leave, so why bother to do anything about it?”
And as I also try to show in the book, you know, it’s hard to fight gentrification, but there are examples around the world of communities that have pushed back and kind of “pumped the brakes on gentrification,” as one [00:11:00] activist described it to me. So, we, I think, don’t want to fall into this trap of believing that communities themselves are powerless, or that our politicians and policy-makers have absolutely no tools that they can use to change this.
So I would say that is probably the most important kind of first line myth or lie that we need to challenge. And then we can kind of go down the line and pick apart some of the other ones, which is how I’ve structured the book as you point out. Yeah.
Chris: Thank you, Leslie. Yeah, I mean, that was a really jarring chapter for me, in part because of this notion that not only is quote gentrification inevitable or natural, but that the city is, according to different philosophers and thinkers, imbued with this kind of biological life and [00:12:00] and that it follows as you were mentioning certain processes that are “ natural” as far as evolution is concerned.
And imediately, this brought me back to my research on what’s often referred to as 19th century social evolutionist thought, these notions that were often created or maintained by kind of, elite, wealthy, white men in the 19th century, not all of whom were academics, some of them were bankers, for example, among other things, but essentially promoting this notion that certain races or genders or types of people had evolved along the natural processes of evolution either faster than others or got ahead in certain ways, and that, of course, this was a way for those people, not only the non-academics, but those in academia [00:13:00] to employ hypotheses theories as a way of justifying colonial histories and the ongoing conquests of different people around the world. And so, in that context, I’m curious if you imagine or think that gentrification understood or described as “natural” in this way is a kind of extension, a historical extension of that kind of colonial power play of the 19th century.
Leslie: Yeah, I absolutely do. And there are many ways in which the power dynamics and even the language or the vocabulary around gentrification mirrors that around colonialism with all of the problematic tropes there of neighbourhoods or areas of the city being taken over where “there’s really nothing there,” right?
[It’s the] same kind of justification for colonialism. “There’s nothing there. [00:14:00] There’s nobody there that we need to care about,” so European colonizers are entitled to this land. Similarly, with the way that many developers, for example, I think, rationalize or justify the kind of projects they engage in.
“Oh, there’s nothing really happening in that part of the city. There’s not really a community there. It’s just a space of problems or deviation from the norm or disorder. And so we, as developers, as city planners, we’re going to bring order and light and civilization, quite frankly, to these neighbourhoods.”
So I’m sure you’re hearing in this, all those echoes around colonialism. And this point around the social evolution part of it, I think that is the kind of darker, maybe less acknowledged side of gentrification, is that when we start to talk about neighbourhoods as “nothing’s happening there, there’s nobody there.” [00:15:00] Who’s “nobody,” right? Who falls into that category of “nobody,” right? It’s poor people. It might be unhoused people, working-class people, people of colour, queer people, disabled people, sex workers, right?
“All people who we don’t really think of as kind of counting as citizens, people who we don’t think have a legitimate voice in the city, people who we don’t think have a right to the city or a claim on the city.” And they’re just seen as disposable, as easily displaceable, as not really contributing anything to the community or to the city at large. So I think there’s definitely a sense of kind of hierarchy in terms of, “who are the seemingly new people who are coming in, right?” And they’re viewed as “bringing all of these kind of gifts and benefits to the neighbourhood, and in some ways, perhaps even uplifting the poor [00:16:00] or downtrodden inhabitants of the ghetto or the barrio or whatever. And the locals should somehow be grateful to receive gentrification similarly to the way that people were, say, ‘oh, you should be grateful to receive an education if you’re from the lower-classes or working-classes.’”
So, yeah, I think there’s definitely echoes and traces of that same kind of logic, right? It’s a logic of superiority, a logic of dominance, a logic of control that resonates, whether it’s colonialism or social evolutionism. Um, yeah.
Chris: Wow. Fascinating. Fascinating stuff. I mean, this is, I think, to a large degree culture or what we call culture or what culture might be is made on the tongue, and that the, the kind of unacknowledged ways in which we speak the world into being [00:17:00] is something that’s been direly overlooked in our time. So thank you for speaking to that in that way. And I think it’s something that we would properly kind of continue to wonder about as we speak and as we think, and perhaps before we speak as well.
You know, you mentioned in there the different types of people that are often displaced as a result of gentrification. And this shows up quite a bit in your book. So I wanted to ask you about what you refer to as “intersectionality,” an intersectional approach to gentrification.
Some of the conventional critiques that you mentioned in the book, including the economic critique (kind of follow the money), the aesthetic critique (the kind of clean lines and fancy bakeries that show up), as well as the class critique, which you mentioned kind of upward mobility, among others.
That said, you focus a good portion of the book, I think, on this neglected importance of intersectionality. And so I’m curious, why do you think an intersectional approach has been ignored in the [00:18:00] past, and why might it be crucial for a cohesive or integral analysis of gentrification?
Leslie: Hmm. I think an intersectional approach has been kind of sidelined, if you will, in part because most of the key kind of prominent gentrification scholars of the late 20th century and into the 21st century have been, honestly, white men probably themselves from middle-class backgrounds, or obviously university educated scholars and they’ve been, like neo-Marxist, or Marxist. That’s their theoretical perspective. That’s their training. They come from a kind of Marxist, political economy, background. That’s the lens of analysis that they bring to whatever kind of problem they’re looking at in the world, including gentrification.
And they’ve done brilliant work, right, and created a lot of really foundational [00:19:00] concepts, gone and done really important empirical work so that we can actually see what the impacts of these processes are. And there’s nothing I want to take away from that being a key voice within the field of gentrification studies, but I think too often either there’s been kind of minimal lip service paid or kind of outright pushing to the side of feminist perspectives, anti-racist perspective, anti-colonial perspectives and more, because it’s sort of seemed like, well, “class is the main driver and anything that maybe disproportionately impacts women or people of colour, or queer folks or elderly people, that’s like a side effect, right? Like the main driver is class and those people are simply impacted because they also happen to fall into lower income brackets.”
So it’s a pretty neat and tidy [00:20:00] story and you can kind of see why it has some appeal. So I think, you know, those political economy, neo-Marxist scholars is not that they don’t care about race or gender or other factors. They’re just like, “well, it’s all really rolled up under the umbrella of ‘class.’ And if we just figure out the ‘class’ piece, then those other things will kind of fall into place.” But for feminist scholars, critical race scholars, anti-colonial scholars and so on, they’ve wanted to point out that assuming that class is the primary driver behind things is maybe an assumption that we’ve held onto for too long without questioning it. And instead of seeing racial impacts and so on as something that’s just happening off to the side through a class process, maybe we want to also look, especially in something like an American context, but in other places as well, at the deeply foundational layer of race to the development of cities, to the development of the [00:21:00] nation, and we can’t kind of sideline the impacts of racial discrimination and the kind of hierarchy of race that has developed over many centuries in these locations and say, “oh, well it’s a secondary factor.”
For myself, I’m a feminist scholar. My background is in women’s and gender studies before I kind of accidentally stumbled into being an urban geographer. And to me it was always kind of obvious, but I think I’ve had to argue this point so often that processes like gentrification, neoliberalism, urban revitalization, as it’s called, doesn’t just kind of impact women as a tangential side effect, but that gender inequality or assumptions about gender roles and so on are like part of what drives the process. And so I try to bring that out in the book by looking at different kinds of examples of the ways in which different sorts of [00:22:00] communities or people are impacted to hopefully show, to hopefully make a case for this idea that taking an intersectional perspective doesn’t deny the class factor at all, but that it allows us to look at gentrification through a more nuanced lens and one that respects the fact that class is not the only, and not always the most salient marker of hierarchy and status in our societies.
Chris: Hmm, hmm. Yeah, I did go to university a long time ago, and it seemed that what was offered up on the proverbial, kind of conceptual, bill, politically speaking was, here are your five major theories or perspectives and kind of like choose one and decide what you like the best and then argue for it or against it.
But it does seem that the more apertures that we have onto the world, without necessarily needing [00:23:00] to collapse our considerations into a single one can broaden our understanding of the world deeply, right? Deeply, deeply. And it’s something that I see anyways less and less of.
I think there’s more and more possibilities for experiencing that in our time, but I think there’s a lot of processes that are happening in which there’s less and less of it that’s actually occurring - a kind of collapse of maybe ontological diversity or philosophical diversity.
I don’t know what to call it, but seems prevalent and at least from this little aperture. So.
Leslie: Yeah, I would agree with that, as someone who, just in my own little brief lifetime here on this earth has been peddling my little feminist arguments for 30-plus years. And then we add on to that, the 30 years before that and 30 years before all of the previous generations. It seems like we are, [00:24:00] not just from a feminist perspective, but we are kind of constantly having to make these arguments for that ontological diversity, as you put it, or even just the idea that, oh, you can view things through different lenses and learn different things about whatever kind of process or force or issue that you’re interested in.
Chris: Hmm. Well, thank you for that. I’d like to, if I can, Leslie, there was something I’ve been wrestling with for a while and it was very much front and centre, this kind of inner wrestling when I was reading your book.
And so, I’d like to share that with you at the moment if I can, and we’ll see where it takes us. So part of the reason that I left Toronto a decade ago was that the housing crises, that perhaps for some wasn’t yet a crisis in Toronto, has of course ballooned. But in the past five years I’ve watched that same housing crisis play out here in Oaxaca.
[00:25:00] And what arose almost immediately in the, we’ll say media sphere, the online world and certainly on the streets as well, was a kind of xenophobic campaign or campaigns blaming tourists, digital nomads, and “expats” for the rising cost of rentals and housing. Now, while not entirely misguided, the percentage of such people is insignificant in comparison to the total population of renters and homeowners here.
And then I ask myself, well, “why isn’t anyone questioning the role of homeowners and landlords, those who actually decide the price of rental units, those who decide to turn long-term rentals into Airbnbs, and those who are, some of them anyways, more often than not, part and parcel of the political ruling class in many places?” Why not blame them?
And so, if you think about this enough, you can [00:26:00] begin to imagine that the willingness to blame specific people, types, classes, races, et cetera, can ignore the cultural, economic and structural elements of society that allow and encourage such dynamics to emerge. And it seems to me that you speak to this, to some degree, in your book writing, how
“it is not helpful in a critique of gentrification to get overly stuck on the styles and preferences of a group, when, for many decades now, gentrification has been propelled by much stronger forces than aesthetic trends.”
And in another part of the book, you write that “cultural factors cannot be hastily dismissed, not when their power is easily co-opted by capital. Trends in denim and facial hair are not responsible for gentrification, but when large groups of people are redefined as a class based on their tastes, occupations, and aesthetics, they become a market and a justification for urban [00:27:00] interventions.”
And so my question has to do with what I might call, I don’t know if this is something that shows up in your work or in your research, but a kind of “ecological analysis,” one that doesn’t necessarily separate people into essentialist categories, but contends with how maybe the rules of the game produce the player’s behaviour and beliefs.
And so I’m wondering, you know, in your research, is that something that is tended to, a way of, “okay so, we’re not going to only blame or ask the tourists to take responsibility or the digital nomads, et cetera, and we’re not only gonna blame or ask the landlords to take responsibility, but understand that they live and inhabit a kind of web of relations that has, for a long time, created the context that allows them or even [00:28:00] encourages them to proceed in a particular way?
Leslie: Yes, a hundred percent. I really love the way that you put that there and giving it that kind of label of like an ecological perspective there. I think it’s so important to do in the book. You know, the first quote that you read there, I think has to do with this idea that, “oh, you know, hipsters were causing gentrification” kind of thing.
And I wanted to kind of, not defend the hipster per se, but to just say, well, in a city like New York, for example, the takeover of midtown Manhattan and the absolute sort of pricing out of regular people, well, from Manhattan as a whole in many cases is not to do with artists and yoga teachers moving into those neighborhoods. It has to do with massive multinational corporations buying up housing, developing condos, like all of these other things that [00:29:00] are going on. And as you say, I mean, I think it is useful to question and critique landlordism for example, and even home ownership itself, but there’s a reason why people engage in these practices and as you say, it’s because of these all sorts of other like prior sort of conditions and causes this kind of web of possibilities that so much of our... the policy, the legislative world, our national context shapes for us.
Like in Canada for example, home ownership is, as you well know, sort of seen as the ultimate goal in the housing market. Renting is seen as very much a kind of transitional stage for people. And the idea is to eventually, sooner rather than later, own your own home.
And of course there’s all kinds of cultural myths around that, of homeowners being like responsible people and better citizens and all this kind of stuff that is, maybe like [00:30:00] largely nonsense. But why, in this context, do people become homeowners? Well, this is the way that we’ve been told “you secure your retirement in the absence of a truly kind of robust old age security net.” Yes, we have some. We have pension, old age pension, but for many people, the home is ultimately their social safety net, and government policy has very much been set up to encourage us to treat our homes in that way and to rely on paying off a mortgage and having that home to be the basis of survival into our old age.
Right. And there are many other things. That’s just one example. So I think, as you say, it’s really important to kind of look at that whole ecosystem. And that doesn’t mean that we don’t say, “well, okay, what are homeowners doing that might be potentially problematic and contributing to the problem?”
Well, that could include things like turning units into Airbnbs or acting in NIMBY-ish (Not In My Backyard), kind of ways that limit, for example, the amount of affordable housing that might go up in their neighbourhood and other things. Of course, all of those dynamics have to be critiqued, challenged, pushed back against. But, keeping, at the same time that kind of zoomed out perspective of like what’s going on on a larger scale, in the kind of corporate and investment world and the government policy-making world, I think at least helps us to understand why these different groups are kind of positioned in the way that they do and the kind of range of possibilities that they see for themselves within that web.
Chris: Mm mm Yeah. Yeah. That reminds me of a moment that I had here in Oaxaca, maybe three or four years ago. There was a student group that had come down from a Canadian university, and they were here for a couple weeks, and I was having dinner with them. Not all of them, but there was maybe four of the women from the student group that I was having dinner with.
And one of them was probably in her, I would say [00:32:00] mid-fifties, an indigenous woman from Ontario. And the other three were much younger, probably in their early twenties. And they were suddenly talking about the sudden or at least recent kind of housing crisis in their university town, we’ll call it, maybe a small city, but big town. And how in previous years they could afford the rent, but suddenly, and of course this was 2021-2022, when a lot of these dynamics started changing extremely rapidly. And I was kind of moderating the conversation at first. And then it turned out, she wasn’t so quick to out herself as a landlord. But the indigenous woman, the 55-year-old kind of alluded to it and then said, “well, you know, for a lot of people, it’s a pension plan. “It’s my retirement plan, essentially.” And it was this really interesting dynamic about how these four women, who had come to this place and were in the same program, studying the [00:33:00] same thing, that one of them had to perhaps, unbeknownst to her, undermine the economic life and possibilities of those younger women by virtue of requiring a retirement plan.
Right. And I think at least in Canada, in countries that are very much still welfare states, that it speaks to a, the incredible degree in which the care that’s offered, especially to the elderly, is almost entirely top-down. There’s so little, if any, community care.
And, you know, of course this is a very kind of small example, a very kind of minute example. I think maybe a common one. But of course you also have other examples of, as you mentioned before, corporations... is it BlackRock this massive mutual fund that I know in, in Europe and places like Barcelona and the major cities there end up buying entire apartment buildings or blocks even, and evicting [00:34:00] the residents and then setting up Airbnb buildings, essentially. So, I mean, there’s this incredible kind of degree of difference and diversity in terms of how, as you mentioned landlordism and rent is affecting people.
But I just wanted to mention that. It was a really kind of interesting moment for me to see this dynamic and the young women kind of complaining about, you know, I guess the future, the present and the future of their economic lives. And then, this older woman also not necessarily complaining, but very much concerned about her ability to live as well, economically and to thrive economically into her older age.
Leslie: Yeah. And there’s these kind of ironic situations popping up all over the place where so for example, someone might have a public pension. And as you point out, many public pensions are deeply invested in real estate income trusts. This is like a huge piece for example, in Ontario, of [00:35:00] Ontario public workers’ pensions, but around the world as well, and I don’t have the details, but a story that was in the news several years ago about a man somewhere in Europe who was being evicted from his apartment because that one of these real estate investment corporations was taking it over and was gonna redevelop it in some way. But his public pension was invested in that very same company. Right?
So many people are kind of caught in these loops where it’s like, we would very much like to not be like, displacing ourselves or our neighbours or community members, but we don’t necessarily have control over how our pension funds are invested, right? Like you might have a choice like, “oh, I’d like to divest from fossil fuels, for example, or from tobacco or military, like arms deals.” Like, sometimes, you can opt out of those things in your pension funds, but there’s not really a way to like opt out of real estate investment.
My substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It’s such a huge part of those things now. So I think that’s an area where there’s increasing kind of research and critical perspectives on that in gentrification scholarship and so on that I think is really important to look at, because it’s also very hidden, right? This is another aspect I think of contemporary kind of gentrification touristification even, is that there’s no face to it, right? There’s no face to this process. And maybe that’s why it’s tempting to take, as you put it a minute ago, that kind of like xenophobic perspective or to blame “expats” in the case of Oaxaca and touristification or in cities to be like, “oh, it’s these urban hipsters, maybe these like trust fund kids” or whatever label people might want to put on someone, because there’s a face, right? There you can look and be like, “that’s the problem.” But the reality is there is no face, right? There’s no individual or even group of individuals that’s easy to identify. And people doing [00:37:00] research into some of this pension fund stuff that I’m talking about, they hit very opaque walls, even just trying to get the information about how these companies work, the kinds of decisions they make, what their rubrics are around what they call “socially responsible investing.”
So it’s very deliberately mystified and hidden from us, and I think that is part of the challenge now is like, how do you fight this monster that you can’t see, that you can barely name?
So yeah, that is I think one of the kind of frightening things, if you will, about, whether we call it “gentrification,” or we think about it in this broader sense of the housing crisis, who’s the face of that, the cause of that crisis? Very hard to say in many cases.
Chris: Wow. Yeah, I know that these mutual fund companies that end up buying, you know, whole city blocks or buildings, apartment buildings, and then tending to renovictions or whatever they [00:38:00] might use in order to get people out. Once the buildings are “ renovated” as Airbnbs, what happens is those corporations end up outsourcing all of the operational and cleaning duties to companies that they’re not involved with at all. So, again, you could have this person who’s in front of you, who might be a cleaner or who comes ou in and out of the building or who might run the reservation books or something like that, but they’ve never met anyone from that mutual fund company. Right. They just get a paycheck.
Leslie: Yeah. And it’s happening on this kind of global level. The people behind the company that’s investing in that building in Oaxaca, like they may have never set foot there, and they may never set foot there. Right? So it’s happening from around the world, from thousands of kilometers away from behind these kind of screens of, as you said, these kind of shell companies and these subcontracted, property management companies.
I mean the story you were just telling about the woman who’s a landlord, like on that small scale, not that [00:39:00] there’s nothing problematic about it, but it is also like, you know, she’s probably met her tenants, right? She probably occasionally sets foot in the property that she owns and that she rents out, and there’s like some aspect of a relationship there. It’s still, you know, a problematic power dynamic and all of that, but it’s on a very different scale than the investor from London who’s has a stake in a condo in Oaxaca. Like, it’s a very different web of of relations that goes into that.
Chris: Yeah. And even if someone like that, and I’ve had many, many landlords over the years and I’ve been blessed to have a number of them who are really incredible people and really incredible in terms of showing up when they’re needed in that regard. But it’s something, I discussed on a previous episode regarding the Airbnb-ization of the world, a couple years ago. And one of the themes that came up was around hospitality, right? [00:40:00] And even if you have people who are kind of really engaged and really excited and responsible about having a tenant in their home or in a particular building, the kind of transactional nature of that rent almost (and then of course the history of it) precludes, almost by default, the possibility of there being a kind of host-guest relationship, right? Instead of that we are “clients” and and, and “salespeople,” businesspeople to some degree.
Right. So another layer of it is this question of like, “well, is it even possible within the dynamic or structure that renting implies and incurs, is it even possible to create a dynamic wherein a person can be understood as a guest in another person’s home, and another person can be understood as a host to people who are coming to live in their home? Right? That that same [00:41:00] woman, the 55-year-old landlord said that she had tenants who refused to leave for, I dunno, a year and a half or two years, and once they finally did, left her with a $40,000 damage bill. So, I think there’s just layers and layers that are extremely difficult to kind of get into, I shouldn’t say in terms of dialogue, in terms of investigation, but in terms of the possibility of creating different dynamics that would maybe represent or produce the kinds of dynamics and worlds that, I think, a lot of people would want to live in.
Leslie: Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, I think in a lot of cases, and you honestly don’t have to dig very deep, you can open up CBC News and see some poor, sad landlord story most days of the week or listen to kind of corporate or larger scale landlords talk and they often see tenants as a nuisance.
“The tenants themselves are a problem,” and if they could invest in real estate and still make [00:42:00] these returns without actually having tenants, that would probably be ideal. And I think that is also part of the push to an Airbnb is that with a temporary guest, you know, a week, a weekend or whatever, you don’t have the same responsibility to them as you do to someone with a year lease or perhaps the right to stay there for a longer period of time. So, all you have to do is kind of provide this very basic amenity of the space. You can even impose all these rules on them that you maybe otherwise wouldn’t be able to do if it was a longer-term rental.
You know, the people who check-in have many fewer rights than actual tenants do. And so in some ways it makes that relationship even more transactional and even more hands off in many cases. And of course there’s the quicker profit motive is really the main driving force behind that. But I think there’s also this piece of it where it’s like, “well, how can I maximize the profit potential of this space with as little actually dealing with other human beings and their needs [00:43:00] as human beings as possible.
And yeah, I think that is really, again, from my kind of feminist perspective, that is also interested in thinking about how do we create systems of care in our cities, and what does “care” mean, and what are our responsibilities to one another that, when we look at something like Airbnbification and the touristification and gentrification more generally, those things, in many cases kind of act against the possibility of creating more caring and careful spaces.
Chris: Hmm, hmm. Yeah. Thank you for that, Leslie. I have a couple more questions for you, if that’s all right?
Leslie: Yes, go ahead. Yeah.
Chris: All right. Wonderful. So this next question maybe requires a bit of imagination, which I think you have a good amount of, and it has to do with rent.
And so one of the lies that you highlight in your book is the belief that gentrification is natural and hence forth inevitable. [00:44:00] And of course, as we’ve been discussing, nothing is natural nor inevitable and you make an excellent case for that throughout the book. And I feel that there is an equally and perhaps more subtle incarnation of this myth, of this inevitability, in regards to rent, that we as urban people or modern people who grow up in contemporary societies often reinforce and even naturalize a kind of rent slavery that most people rarely see, that most people rarely see their lives as indentured to their landlords.
And so, when we talk about gentrification, does this show up at all? Should it? You know, this notion that, “well, if we can come to gentrification and understand that it’s in fact not natural and it’s not inevitable, can we do the same thing for rent? Because, maybe I haven’t read much of the research, but it doesn’t seem to be something that [00:45:00] people are so quick to aim their arrows at, we’ll say.
Leslie: Yeah. I love that question. And I think A, you’re right that there hasn’t been enough conversation about that. There has not been nearly enough attempts to kind of denaturalize this and B, that that perspective is emerging and growing. If I could recommend a book called The Tenant Class by Ricardo Tranjan. It’s also a Toronto-based author, and he does an amazing job in this very short book of basically laying out the case against landlordism, and it totally, as you say, kind of denaturalizing and pushes back on this idea that it’s inevitable that there are a class of people that own property and a class of people that rent property, and that this is not inherently a deeply problematic relation. You know, this idea that it’s not in some way akin to some kind of indentureship. And he really asks us to look deeply again at this [00:46:00] idea that, if you’re a landlord, “well, I have a mortgage to pay, so it’s somehow natural that this other person will pay my mortgage for me,” which, when you start to think about it, like it’s really messed up in a way. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it. So yeah, I think looking more closely at some of these ideas, these kind of statements that come out, and again, you can see it in news articles, these kind of horror stories, and not to diminish, I’m sure, what are very real, like economic and psychological impacts of the so-called kind of nightmare tenant and all of those kinds of things.
But you’ll hear those kinds of statements: “you know, I have a mortgage to pay.”
Well, why is this other person paying your mortgage, then?
And then we could probably take a step back and be like, “why do we have mortgages to pay?” But that’s maybe another conversation.
But yeah, so I definitely recommend that book, The Tenant Class, as a really quick, easy to read, and kind of unforgettable primer on this question. And [00:47:00] I really appreciate you asking it, and I hope your listeners will be like, “oh, yeah, I gotta dig into that a bit more too.”
Chris: Yeah.
Yeah. I mean, you know, in part because, as prices have risen in most western countries in the last four or five years, there’s of course, of course, protests and backlash among people, and “oh, this bakery raised their prices” or “ my rent’s going up,” and all these things. But specifically in terms of products and services, you know, people complain or they just accept the fact that prices have risen to a degree that’s pricing a lot of people out of their lives, really. But, you know, in the conversations I’ve had with people and in the literature that I’ve read, there’s no consideration, I think, that the businesses who are raising their prices have had their rents raised, that so much of a business’ costs include rent, right? And that very few businesses actually [00:48:00] own the building that they’re working out of.
Leslie: Yeah, commercial rent is a whole other story because, you know, the protections on residential rent are not what they could be in most places around the world, but there’s no protections on commercial rent, like no limitations there. So it’s entirely possible that local bakery, their rent could go up by, like double. It could go up from $20,000 a year to $60,000 a year. There’s no restrictions on that. There’s nowhere to appeal that. There’s nothing. So, they are, in some ways, even those small businesses, especially, independent businesses and so on, are very at risk of this. And there’s a whole branch of kind of retail gentrification studies as well that kind of looks at the impacts on the local economic landscape of things like this as well. Yeah.
Chris: Hmm. Wow. Thank you for unveiling that for us. I mean, uh, so much.
So my last question, Leslie, has to do [00:49:00] with what is mentioned in your book, what you refer to as “the right to stay put.”
And so,
“the right to stay put is a common rallying cry in response to the dangers of displacement. Drawing inspiration from the broader notion of the right to the city, the right to stay put insists that communities are entitled to remain in the places they have contributed to. Furthermore, the right to dwell extends beyond simply having a home in an area, encompassing the right to continue using commercial, community, and public spaces and institutions, as well as the dignity of defending such rights. Importantly, it recognizes that agency is a critical factor. People do not want to be forced to move, nor do they want to be forced to stay in place. Rather, people value choice, the ability to participate in [00:50:00] decisions that affect their communities and the right to resist when they need to.”
And so I’m curious what you think it would take for people, say, in urban environments to achieve or enshrine the right to stay put or the right to dwell in their places.
Leslie: Yeah, I think we could talk about kind of two main avenues. One would be more of the top-down approach, which is to work to enshrine anti-displacement measures in neighborhoods, which can include everything from rent control or rent stabilization, to the right to return when there are redevelopment projects going on, to deeply affordable housing in new developments, to communities themselves taking on the role of becoming developers, but creating housing within the community for the [00:51:00] community. Not to draw in new residents or not to primarily draw new residents. Again, we’re not trying to like, build a fortress around communities or anything, but rather to say, “this is housing that we’re earmarking for people from the local community who are struggling with their rent or struggling to find housing, or who need perhaps entry-level home ownership opportunities and to kind of provide that.
So there’s the kind of top-down approach, really pushing our local governments to have things like community benefit ordinances when new developments are happening that force developers to actually pay attention to what the community needs and to provide those benefits and such.
And then, from the kind of ground-up or more grassroots piece, the right to stay put is the the willingness, the ability to organize and come together in some of the places that I mentioned throughout the book. You know, it really [00:52:00] is community-level organization where people have really rallied to make it deeply difficult for planners or developers to kind of roll in and roll out their vision without any pushbacks, to the extent that their neighbourhoods become less of a target for gentrification, because it’s like, “oh yeah, we wanna build something there. Oh, that’s gonna be a real pain in the butt. The community is not gonna let us get away with what we wanna do.” And that means really making it possible for people to come out to meetings, organizing protests, that kind of right to resist. Sometimes taking... You know, we have long histories in many cities of squatters movements and perhaps we need to revitalize some of that old energy, as well. A kind of refusal to leave. And to find ways, you know, perhaps they don’t always have to be kind of in-your-face protest ways, but what are ways to mobilize things like mutual aid to help make sure that our [00:53:00] neighbors are supported, for example, if they have to go before a landlord-tenant board, how can we use community resources and knowledge to actually support one another to stay in place?
And that can be everything from addressing food insecurity to having a local rent bank, to partnering with nonprofits, churches, other religious institutions that may have an interest in building social and nonprofit housing to create some of those options.
So I think it’s about looking at the kind of wide range of alternative forms of housing and housing provision, looking at community mobilizing, community resources, and also tackling the local policy agenda to make staying put as possible, or to enshrine it as a right at a kind of higher level, as well.
Chris: Hmm, hmm. Yeah, you go into [00:54:00] great detail about this in the book, and I’m very grateful for that. And the right to stay put kind of jumped out, the text jumped out of the page at me, because living here in Oaxaca, I came to know about this declaration that was created in 2009 by people in a number of communities here in the Mixteca region of Oaxaca who were meeting with their migrant kin who had gone to work in California and the people who had stayed in the community.
And the declaration is literally translated as “the right to not migrate.” The way it was translated in English by the author of the book of the same name, was “The Right to Stay Home.” And so while there’s a lot of differences between these contexts in terms of rural, indigenous communities here in Mexico and modern urban communities in the global north, there is this sense, [00:55:00] this kind of perhaps shared context wherein the ability to to stay in a place in order so that community can be conjured and maintained and of course enjoyed and lived in, seems to thread its way through these different social movements from the global north into the global south.
So, I’m really grateful to see that and to know that there’s similar understandings, of course not the same, but similar understandings that are even somewhat unorthodox and unexpected given the political context that sometimes challenge them or preclude something like that from coming up.
So that’s a little way of saying thank you for your time today, Leslie. On behalf of our listeners, I’d like to thank you for your willingness to join me and to speak to these often complex issues. And on behalf of them, I’d also like to ask you how they might find out more about [00:56:00] your work and your books: Gentrification Is Inevitable And Other Lies, Feminist City: Claiming Space In A Manmade World, and finally Higher Expectations: How To Survive Academia, Make It Better For Others, And Transform The University.
Leslie: Yeah, thank you so much for this conversation. People can find out about me and my work at my website, which is just lesliekern.ca.
If you just google my name, it will come up easily enough. Feminist City and Gentrification Is Inevitable And Other Lies. For an international audience, you can find those books through Verso books in the US and UK. There’s also many translations of both of those books, so you may have the opportunity to read it in your local language if you want to do that as well.
The more recent book, Higher Expectations is available from my Canadian publisher Between the Lines Books and in the US [00:57:00] from AK Books, as well. And there’s also Epub versions and for the first two books, audiobook versions as well. And I’ve written lots of articles on these topics as well, in the Guardian and other places.
So you can get a little snippet of my thoughts if you, again, Google my name and all of these things will come up in short order. So thank you for letting me share that as well.
Chris: Yeah, of course. I’ll make sure that the links to all those pages that you mentioned are available on the End of Tourism website and the Substack when the episode launches.
And once again, Leslie, a really beautifully revealing conversation today. I think it’s something that will not just provoke generally, but provoke a willingness in our listeners to reconsider some of the assumptions that they’ve had about gentrification.
So, once again, thank you for your time today.
Leslie: Thank you for having me. I really enjoyed the conversation. Appreciate it.
