Formulation and Evaluation of Two Citywide Gentrification Measures
Alexander Mozell (University of Massachusetts Amherst)
Americans are exasperated by expensive goods and services. From gas to groceries, the public is angry. Donald Trump won his second term largely by lambasting high inflation that occurred during the Biden Administration. Presently, Democrats are successfully attacking Republicans for high prices, which the Trump Administration has fueled through tariffs, deficit expansion, deportations, the Iran war, and economic uncertainty. In America and abroad, recent history has proven that rising prices can depose incumbents and elevate challengers. Astute politicians must improve affordability, lest voters sack them.
One national concern is the lack of affordable housing. Among other challenges (such as homelessness), this deficiency encourages gentrification, a process entailing affluent newcomers flowing into lower-income, disinvested neighborhoods. These districts are often initially dominated by minority populations, while gentrifiers are usually White. Encroaching residents raise rents through their demand for homes, and increased rents financially encumber the incumbent, more resource-limited denizens. Additionally, many scholars, journalists, and activists assert that rising rents displace economically disadvantaged occupants. Gentrification also inhibits the entrance of lower-income households, a less visible but more pervasive concern. Furthermore, shifting neighborhood demographics can dilute or disperse tight-knit communities, undermining original residents’ social capital. Across the United States, gentrifiers are improving their own amenities and public services, but the socioeconomic transition limits universal access to these provisions.
Policymakers can mitigate the adversity of gentrification by enhancing housing affordability. Mayors and other elected officials have many different tools at their disposal. They can fund, subsidize, and encourage affordable housing development; deregulate construction; zone or rezone neighborhoods to allow multifamily units; authorize homeowners to build accessory dwelling units; control rents and restrict evictions; and tax vacant units, second homes, and speculative investment. All these initiatives could improve affordability. However, class struggle brews within cities. Homeowners often endorse higher housing prices, while renters usually seek lower rents. The struggle is not only local; it has become national: President Trump recently stated that he wants housing prices to rise. In contrast, advocates of the abundance agenda, such as Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, champion streamlining all manner of construction to improve affordability across multiple spheres.
To address gentrification, scholars, policymakers, and advocates must understand it. In this pursuit, both qualitative and empirical research is necessary. Anyone who uses statistics to study gentrification must first quantify it. How should gentrification be qualitatively defined, so that empirical representations reflect these characterizations? What are gentrification’s most important elements? Should assessments emphasize shifts in demographics, housing, or other factors? Which variables should be included, and which should be excluded? How can it be discerned whether a measure actually works? Which research topics could a particular assessment best address?
“Formulation and Evaluation of Two Citywide Gentrification Measures” (Mozell 2025), proposes two quantitative gentrification assessments and seeks to answer these questions. The metrics are called the Dynamic Measure of Citywide Gentrification and the Cross-Sectional Measure of Citywide Gentrification. The two measures differ in construction methods, thus serving distinct realms of inquiry. Therefore, depending on the avenue of investigation, an analyst may wish to use one but not the other. Alternatively, both measures may be employed to test the robustness of findings.
Although many gentrification measures have previously been devised for the level of the neighborhood, these two assessments appraise gentrification instead for cities. The two indicators are the first citywide gentrification measures to be rigorously defended, and for which data are provided. This geographical innovation can benefit researchers comparing quantifications of gentrification to other variables available only at the citywide level. Researchers can also test neighborhood-level findings to determine if these discoveries also manifest for municipalities holistically. The goal of this paper is to expand a researcher’s toolkit.
The Dynamic Measure produces a cross-sectional and panel dataset for 161 U.S. cities and the Cross-Sectional measure produces a cross-sectional dataset for 177 U.S. cities. These datasets also list cities that these measures determine to be most gentrified. The Dynamic Measure also identifies least-gentrified cities. These data, as well as construction methods, are publicly available (Mozell 2025). The accompanying paper provides an in-depth examination of these two assessment strategies, to address how they were devised, why they were chosen, and where they may be employed.
Whether renting a residence or purchasing it with a mortgage, families often struggle to sustain stable housing. Thus, rapidly rising home prices diminish overall affordability. Ensuring reasonable property values would dramatically reduce financial strain on renters and young people. Policymakers who promise affordability should seize the opportunity to encourage low-cost housing. Other governmental strategies to improve living standards are less likely to be successful. Politicians will certainly fail to lessen the nominal price of groceries. In most cases, policymakers possess only tenuous control over the cost of gasoline. Supply shocks are largely unpredictable and unavoidable. Deficit reduction remains broadly unpopular. Artificial intelligence will provoke economic uncertainty. However, officials can indeed help their constituents obtain homes. To fulfill their promise of “lowering prices,” public officials should prioritize housing accessibility, which would accordingly abate gentrification, encourage social mixing, and enhance livability. How might policymakers discern the best strategies? The two gentrification assessment methods provided in the accompanying paper can help answer this question.
Read the full UAR article here.
References
Mozell, Alex. Dynamic and Cross-Sectional Citywide Gentrification Data. figshare, October 3, 2025. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.30275926.v1.
Alex Mozell holds a PhD in economics from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research examines the relationship between gentrification and the criminalization of homelessness, emphasizing political and economic structures.