This study examines the process of housing redevelopment, using data of single-family residential redevelopment that occurred in all 128 inner-ring suburbs of Chicago, USA, located in Cook County, between 2000 and 2010. Using exploratory spatial data analysis techniques, I identify the magnitude and the spatial locations of redevelopment, revealing the different types of suburban neighbourhoods in which redevelopment occurs. I then examine how the location and extent of redevelopment changed between 2000 and 2010 and how the physical manifestation of redevelopment varied across different types of suburban neighbourhoods. Findings reveal that redevelopment is spatially clustered, occurring in a variety of places ranging from modest middle-income neighbourhoods to very highly affluent neighbourhoods. Redevelopment often began in areas with high property values, and as house prices rose rapidly through the first half of the decade, it expanded into adjacent, less affluent neighbourhoods, retracting again at the end of the decade.
AnselinL (1988) Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Boston MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2.
AnselinL (1995) Local indicators of spatial association – LISA. Geographical Analysis27(2): 93–115.
3.
CarisP (1996) Declining suburbs: Disinvestment in the inner suburbs of Camden County New Jersey. PhD Dissertation. Rutgers University.
4.
CharlesS (2013) Understanding the determinants of single-family residential redevelopment in the inner-ring suburbs of Chicago. Urban Studies50(8): 17.
5.
ClayP (1979) Neigborhood Renewal: Middle-class Resettlement and Incumbent Upgrading in American Neighborhoods. Lexington MA: DC Heath.
6.
DyeRFMcMillenDP (2007) Teardowns and land values in the Chicago metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Economics61: 45–63.
7.
FineASLindbergJ (2002) Protecting America’s Historic Neighborhoods: Taming the Teardown Trend. Washington DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
8.
GetisA (2010) Spatial autocorrelation. In: FischerMMGetisA (eds) Handook of Applied Spatial Analysis: Software Tools, Methods and Applications. 1st Edition. New York: Springer, pp. 255–278.
9.
HackworthJ (2002) Postrecession gentrification in New York City. Urban Affairs Review37(6): 815–843.
10.
HackworthJ (2007) The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
11.
HammelD (1999) Gentrification and land rent: A historical view of the rent gap in Minneapolis. Urban Geography20(2): 116–145.
12.
HanlonB (2010) Once the American Dream: Inner-ring Suburbs of the Metropolitan United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
13.
HanlonBShortJRVicinoTJ (2010) Cities and Suburbs: New Metropolitan Realities in the US. New York: Routledge.
14.
HelmsA (2003) Understanding gentrification: An empirical analysis of the determinants of urban housing renovation. Journal of Urban Economics54(2): 474–498.
15.
HelmsA (2012) Keeping up with the Joneses: Neighborhood effects in housing renovation. Regional Science and Urban Economics42: 303–313.
16.
HirsheyG (2008) Today a house, tomorrow a teardown. The New York Times23November.
17.
HoytH (1933) One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago: The Relationship of the Growth of Chicago to the Rise in Its Land Values, 1830–1933. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
18.
KendigL (2004) Too big, boring, or ugly: Planning and design tools to combat monotany, the too-big house and teardowns. In American Planning Association (ed.) Planning Advisory Service, Report Number 528. Chicago IL: American Planning Association.
19.
LucyWPhillipsDL (2000) Confronting Suburban Decline: Strategic Planning for Metropolitan Renewal. Washington DC: Island Press.
20.
McMillenDP (2009) Teardown Clusters: GMM Spatial Probit with Sample Selection. Urbana IL: University of Illinois.
21.
MoranPAP (1950) Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika37(12): 17–23.
22.
NasarJLEvans-CowleyJSManteroV (2007) McMansions: The extent and regulation of super-sized houses. Journal of Urban Design12(3): 339–358.
23.
OrfieldM (2002) American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
24.
PinnegarSFreestoneRRandolphB (2010) Suburban reinvestment through ‘knockdown rebuild’ in Sydney. Research in Urban Sociology10: 205–229.
25.
RandolphBFreestoneR (2012) Housing differentiation and renewal in middle-ring suburbs: The experience of Sydney, Australia. Urban Studies49(12): 2557–2575.
26.
RosenthalSHelsleyRW (1994) Redevelopment and the urban land gradient. Journal of Urban Economics35(2): 182–200.
27.
SmithN (1979) Toward a theory of gentrification: A back to the city movement by capital, not people. Journal of the American Planning Association45: 538–548.
28.
SmithN (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York: Routledge.
29.
SmithNCarisPWylyE (2001) The ‘Camden syndrome’ and the menace of suburban decline: Residential disinvestment and its discontents in Camden County, New Jersey. Urban Affairs Review36(4): 497–531.
30.
SzoldT (2005) Mansionization and its discontents. Journal of the American Planning Association71(2): 189–202.
31.
WeberRDoussardMBhattaSD. (2006) Tearing the city down: Understanding demolition activity in gentrifying neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Affairs28(1): 19–41.
32.
WieselIFreestoneRRandolphB (2013) Owner-driven suburban renewal: Motivations, risks and strategies in ‘knockdown and rebuild’ processes in Sydney, Australia. Housing Studies28(5): 701–719.
