Gentrification and Cultural Homogeneity in Davis Square

1

Gentrification  and  Cultural  Homogeneity  in  Davis  Square      

Finn  Gardiner

Qualitative  Research  Methods

20  June  2014

2

Abstract  

This   study   investigated   the   ways   in   which   a   square   in   an   ethnically   and   economically  

diverse  city   in  New  England   failed   to   reflect   the  diversity  of   that   city,  and  was   instead  a  

homogeneously  white  and  middle-­‐‑class  area,  despite  being  surrounded  by  nearby  districts  

that  were  far  less  homogeneous.  This  was  a  qualitative  ethnographic  study,  making  use  of  

field   observations,   interviews   with   community   leaders   and   a   review   of   the   sociological  

literature.   The   field   observations   were   compiled   and   analysed,   looking   for   themes   that  

arose   throughout   the   course  of   the   study.   I   found   that  various   themes  and  processes   are  

related  to  the  homogeneity  of  the  square:  urban  gentrification  (caused  by  the  extension  of  

the  T  subway  system   into  Davis  Square,  and   the   influx  of  Tufts  University  students)  and  

complicated   spatial   relationships   that   lead   people   of   colour   to   avoid   ‘white’   spaces.   By  

understanding   some  of   the  ways   in  which  Davis   Square  has   become   such   a   racially   and  

socioeconomically  homogeneous  place,  researchers  and  urban  planners  can  find  strategies  

to  foster  more  community  integration.  

Introduction

Cultural   forces   can   lead   to   the   isolation   of   different   socioeconomic   and   cultural   groups,  

despite  them  ostensibly  coexisting  in  the  same  space.  This  study  aims  to  investigate  how  a  

neighbourhood   in   a   statistically   diverse   city   fails   to   reflect   that   diversity,   and   is   instead  

predominantly   white   and   middle-­‐‑class,   despite   the   presence   of   a   large   population   of  

immigrants,  working-­‐‑class  and  poor  people,  and  people  of  colour  within  the  city  itself.  

For  this  study,  I  observed  the  Davis  Square  neighbourhood  in  Somerville,  MA,  which  

3

is  an  extremely  white  and  middle-­‐‑class  area  in  a  statistically  diverse  city  (‘State  and  County  

Quick   Facts’,   2010),  with   a   higher   proportion   of   Blacks   (6.8%  v.   6.6%),   Latinos   (10.6%  v.  

9.6%)  and  other  non-­‐‑white  ethnic  and  racial  groups  than  the  Massachuse[s  state  average.  

There  is  also  a  larger  number  of  foreign-­‐‑born  people  in  Somerville  (25.5%  as  opposed  to  the  

state  average  of  14.8%),  and  its  median  household  income  is  somewhat  lower  than  the  state  

average   ($64,203   per   annum   v.   $66,658),   with   a   higher   percentage   of   people   below   the  

poverty   line   (15.9%   v.   11%).  While   Somerville   does   have   regions   that   reflect   its   greater  

racial  and  economic  diversity  like  Union  Square  and  to  a  lesser  extent,  Porter  Square,  Davis  

Square  is  overwhelmingly  white  and  middle-­‐‑  to  upper-­‐‑middle-­‐‑class,  and  does  not  have  the  

same   cultural   variability   that   other   areas   have.   My   goal   in   conducting   this   study   is   to  

understand  some  of   the  problems  related  to  Davis  Square’s   lack  of  diversity  and  some  of  

the  factors  that  have  contributed  to  it.

I  myself  have  a  complicated  relationship  to  Davis  Square  and  its  demographics.  As  a  

Tufts   student,   it   is  very  easy   for  me   to  find  other   students   there  and  people  with   similar  

educational   histories,   but   as   a   person   of   colour   who   does   not   quite   fit   into   the  

socioeconomic   category   dominant   in   Davis   Square,   there   is   the   occasional   sensation   of  

being   an   outsider,   though   I   spend   enough   time   there   to   not   be   one.   Though   this  

relationship  was  not   the   impetus   for   the  study  –  rather,   it  was  an   interest   in  how  macro-­‐‑

level  sociological  phenomena  can  be  observed  within  a  small  space  –  it  became  increasingly  

important   as   I   conducted  field   research   in   the   square,   conducted   interviews  with  people  

with   a   professional   interest   in   how   the   square   has   developed   over   time,   and   read   the  

relevant  literature.  

4

Review  of  the  Literature  

Questions   about   diversity   –   and   the   lack   thereof   –  have   been   a   problem   investigated   by  

sociologists  for  quite  some  time.  The  phenomenon  of  gentrification,  or  the  repurposing  of  

formerly  poor  and  working-­‐‑class  spaces  into  ones  frequented  by  those  of  relatively  higher  

social  status,   is  common  in  modern  cities,  especially  ones  undergoing   ‘urban  renewal’.   In  

many   American   cities,   gentrification   and   economic   segregation   have   been   a   continuing  

consequence  of  the  changes  that  urbanisation  and  suburbanisation  have  wrought  on  cities.  

Dreier,  Mollenkopf  and  Swanstrom  (2011),  in  ‘Metropolitics  for  the  Twenty-­‐‑First  Century’,  

emphasise  the  importance  of  place  and  spatial  organisation  in  cities,  even  in  a  post-­‐‑digital  

era   where   such   distinctions   are   ostensibly   meaningless.   In   fact,   they   note   that   spatial  

relationships  have  intensified  over  the  past  few  decades,  and  gentrification  and  municipal  

policies   have   led   to   ‘economic   segregation,   concentrated   urban   poverty   and   suburban  

sprawl’  (Dreier,  Mollenkopf  &  Swanstrom,  2001).  Davis  Square  itself  is  an  example  of  how  

these   forms   of   geographic   inequality   have   arisen   in   Somerville;   despite   Somerville   itself  

being   a   diverse   city   –  its   racial   diversity   is   higher   than   the  Massachuse[s   state   average,  

especially   for   Latino   and   Asian   populations   –   Davis   Square   itself   is   heavily  White   and  

middle-­‐‑   to   upper-­‐‑middle-­‐‑class.   Administrative   changes   led   to   the   repurposing   of   the  

formerly  working-­‐‑class  Davis  Square  into  a  ‘favoured  quarter’  (an  area  that  ‘houses  upper-­‐‑

income  people  and  businesses  that  pay  taxes  but  do  not  demand  many  services  and  do  not  

lessen  the  quality  of  life’)  through  the  extension  of  the  Red  Line  train,  which  drew  higher-­‐‑

income   people   to   Davis   Square   who   would   have   not   otherwise   used   the   space,   and  

businesses  capitalised  on  this  change  (Dreier,  Mollenkopf  &  Swanstrom,  2001).   ‘Favoured  

5

quarters’  reinforce  social  hierarchies  through  the  ways  in  which  people  make  use  of  public  

space,  even  if  it  is  technically  open  to  them:  they  are  seen  as  being  ‘for’  a  preferred  class  of  

people,   and  have  been  a   source  of  direct  displacement  of  poor  and  working-­‐‑class  people  

from  an  area  that  was  once  considered  them  through  a  process  of  revalorisation.  

Betancur   (2011),   in   ‘Gentrification  and  Community  Fabric   in  Chicago’,  discusses   the  

effect   displacement   and   segregation   have,   particularly   on   poorer   communities   of   colour.  

Some  of  the  results  of  this  gentrification  process  in  the  Chicago  districts  discussed  included  

the  separation  from  valuable  jobs  and  services  for  the  displaced  communities,  in  favour  of  

community   resources   that   reflected   the   cultural   capital   of   the  more   affluent   people  who  

moved  into  those  neighbourhoods  after  the  areas  had  become  gentrified.  In  Davis  Square,  

this  has   resulted   in   the   removal  of   labour   and  daytime  work   from   the   area,   in   favour  of  

nightlife,   restaurants  and  stores   targeted   towards  young,  affluent   residents.  Davis  Square  

includes  many  restaurants   (particularly  ethnic  or   independently  owned  ones,  as  opposed  

to  popular  national  chains  like  McDonald’s  and  Taco  Bell;  the  only  chain  restaurants  there  

are   ones   associated   with   gentrification,   like   Starbucks),   banks,   an   independent   movie  

theatre,  a  cluster  of  consignment  stores  and  ‘boutique’  clothing  and  stationery  stores.  There  

are  very  few  offices  and  no  government  service  buildings,  in  comparison  to  other  areas.  As  

a  ‘favoured  quarter’,  Davis  Square  can  draw  income  through  people’s  leisure  activities,  and  

residents  can  pay  higher  rents  -­‐‑  which  give  more  property  taxes  to  the  city  government’s  

coffers   -­‐‑  while  using  comparatively   few  government  services.  Betancur  also  discusses   the  

importance   of   a   ‘sense   of   place’   deriving   from   community   supports   and   services  within  

neighbourhoods  that  causes  people  to  feel  rooted  to  a  particular  area,  and  the  deleterious  

6

effects  gentrification  has  on  social  organisation  and  the  maintenance  of  that  sense  of  place  

after  ‘urban  renewal’  has  happened  to  a  particular  region,  especially  displacement  and  the  

removal  of  vital  services  the  poorer  residents  depended  on  before  the  influx  of  gentrifiers  

into  the  area.  

Like   the   Chicago   neighbourhoods   depicted   in   Betancur’s   article,   Davis   Square   has  

undergone   significant   ‘urban   renewal’   –  or  gentrification  –  since   the   extension  of   the  Red  

Line  T  station  into  the  area.  Before  this  change,  Davis  Square  was  primarily  a  working-­‐‑class  

region,  and   there  are   still   a   few  vestiges  of   this  older  heritage:   the  Mike’s   restaurant,   the  

Family  Dollar,  the  Goodwill  and  the  now-­‐‑defunct  McDonald’s  franchise.  Afterwards,  Davis  

Square   was   transmogrified   into   an   area   where   white,   non-­‐‑immigrant,   middle-­‐‑class   and  

affluent   people   congregated,   primarily   to   participate   in   leisure   activities.   Lees   (2000)  

describes  gentrification  as  a  ‘cyclical  process’  that  is  ‘driven  largely,  but  not  completely,  by  

investment  flows’,  and  the  construction  of  the  Red  Line  stop  in  the  square,  along  with  the  

efforts  of  Somerville  politicians  and  business  owners,  would  have  stimulated  investment  in  

the   area   -­‐‑   and   in   turn  would   have  made   the   neighbourhood  more   desirable   to   potential  

residents  and  visitors,  thus  raising  the  rents  and  forcing  previous  working-­‐‑class  and  poor  

residents  –  and  services  devoted  to  them,  like  the  welfare  and  Social  Security  office  –  once  

they  could  no  longer  afford  to  live  there.  

Though   there   has   been   extensive   research   about   the   effects   gentrification   and  

economic  segregation  exert,  most  analyses  in  the  literature  are  focused  on  larger  cities  like  

New   York,   London,   Los   Angeles   and   Rio   de   Janeiro,   as   opposed   to   medium-­‐‑sized   or  

smaller  cities  like  Somerville,  a  problem  which  Lees  (2000)  notes,  though  Lees  notes  this  in  

7

the  context  of  policymaking  by  the  cities  themselves,  rather  than  analyses  of  gentrification  

generally.  The  changes   that   lead   to  gentrification   in   smaller   cities  may  not  be  exactly   the  

same  as  those  which  drive  the  process  in  larger  cities;  for  example,  Lees  (2000)  mentions  a  

process   called   ‘financification’,   in   which   financial   services   are   the   driving   force   behind  

urban  gentrification  in  global  cities  like  New  York  and  London.  

The  Davis  Square  Red  Line  project  itself  and  its  effects  on  Somerville,  incidentally,  are  

examined   in   the   Project   for   Public   Spaces’   (1997)   case   study,   though   this   study   is  

uncritically   favourable   of   the   project,   neglecting   to   mention   the   detrimental   effects   that  

‘urban  renewal’  has  had  on  working-­‐‑class  people  and  communities  of  colour.    

Though  Somerville  is  seen  as  being  part  of  the  Greater  Boston  area,  the  city  itself  has  

its   own   particular   set   of   social   problems,   including   gentrification,   which   may   take   a  

different  shape  from  the  kinds  of  social  problems  that  occur  in  Boston  proper.  As  a  smaller  

city,   ‘financification’   and   other   issues   specific   to   larger   cities   will   not   be   what   draws  

‘gentrifiers’  into  the  city;  rather,  an  analysis  of  gentrification  in  Somerville  should  examine  

the   specific   social   changes   that   lead   to   the   influx   of  middle-­‐‑class   or   affluent   people   into  

traditionally   working-­‐‑class   spaces.   Though   processes   like   gentrification   in   ‘satellite’   or  

secondary  cities  may  not  be  as  publicly  visible  as  they  are  in  larger  cities  like  New  York,  Rio  

or  Chicago,  that  does  not  mean  the  analysis  is  without  merit.  

Additionally,   many   studies   of   gentrification   analyse   it   from   a   conflict   perspective,  

focusing   on   the   adversarial   relationship   between   the   ‘gentrifiers’   (white,   middle-­‐‑class  

newcomers)  and  the  people  they  displace  (working-­‐‑class  or  poor,  often  people  of  colour),  

rather   from  a  symbolic-­‐‑interactionist  perspective   that  draws   inferences  about  macro-­‐‑level  

8

phenomena   through   the   individual   interactions  observed   through  ethnographic   research.  

Though  there  is  nothing  qualitatively  wrong  with  the  conflict  approach,  the  emergence  of  

gentrification  arises  from  various  complex  processes  that  occur  in  tandem;  it  cannot  always  

be   generalised   as   calculated   ‘class  warfare’   as   it  might   be   characterised   in   some   conflict-­‐‑

theoretical   literature,   or   as   ‘revanchist   cities’,   as   Lees   (2000)   describes   this   theoretical  

standpoint.  

Methods  

Field  research

Over   the   course   of   six   weeks   (22   September   to   5   November   2013),   I   conducted   an  

observational   study  of   various  parts   of  Davis   Square:   the   central   square   itself,   as  well   as  

various   shops   and   restaurants.   The  majority   of   the   observations  were   held   in   September  

and  October.    At  the  beginning,  I  visited  sites  for  either  one  hour  twice  a  week,  or  for  two  

hours   once   a   week,   though   as   the   study   continued,   the   visits   tended   to   be   for   longer  

periods  of  time,  but  over  a  more  diffuse  time  period,  like  two-­‐‑hour  visits  every  two  weeks.  

These  observations  were  assembled  into  a  set  of  coded  field  notes,  providing  the  date,  time  

and   location   of   each   of   the   sites   I   observed,   along   with   pertinent   sociological   themes   I  

noticed  within  these  observations.  I  visited  each  site  for  one-­‐‑  and  two-­‐‑hour  periods,  paying  

particular   a[ention   to   the   way   people   used   the   space,   and   pa[erns   present   within   the  

environment  itself,  like  the  way  different  stores  were  arranged.  

Because  Davis  Square  is  a  public  site,  I  did  not  experience  any  restrictions  on  gaining  

entrée  to  the  site  and  was  able,  therefore,  to  start  my  observations  immediately.  

9

To   provide   a   site   of   contrast   to  my   observations   in  Davis   Square,   I   visited  Central  

Square   in   Cambridge   over   a   period   of   two  weeks,   observing   behaviour   and   the   general  

arrangement  of  shops  and  restaurants.  Like  the  Davis  Square  observations,  I  compiled  the  

Central  Square  observations  into  a  set  of  coded  field  notes,  though  they  are  shorter  than  the  

Davis  Square  ones  because  Central  Square  was  used  as  a  means  for  comparison,  not  as  the  

primary   observation   site.   I   also   made   some   cursory   observations   of   Union   Square   in  

Somerville  for  similar  purposes,  and  did  a  final  observation  of  Davis  Square’s  T  station  on  

19  June  2014.  

Interviews

After   I   concluded   my   direct   observations   of   Davis   and   Central   Squares,   I   conducted  

interviews  with  three  people  associated  with  the  community:  Stephen  Mackey,  CEO  of  the  

Somerville  Chamber  of  Commerce,   Jeff  Mansfield,  associate  pastor  of   the  First  Church  of  

Somerville  and  Lisa  Davidson,  Director  of  Programs  at  the  Somerville  Homeless  Coalition.  

All   three   people   belonged   to   organisations   tied   to   the   Davis   Square   Neighbourhood  

Association   (Mansfield   and   Davidson),   or   had   some   relationship   to   the   business  

community   in   Davis   Square   (Mackey).   Each   interview   was   recorded   on   an   iPod   Touch  

using  the  Sound  Recorder  application.  I  held  the  interviews  with  Mackey  and  Mansfield  at  

the  Diesel  Café,  and   the  one  with  Davidson  at  her  office.  After   they  were  completed,   the  

interviews  were  transcribed  with  the  assistance  of  a  transcriptionist,  though  I  started  work  

on   the   transcriptions   for   Lisa   Davidson   and   Stephen   Mackey   (roughly   half   the  

transcriptions  for  both  interviewees)  by  listening  to  the  audio  files  in  iTunes,  and  copying  

10

down  what   speakers   said,   repeating   the  MP3   files   as   necessary   to   catch   difficult-­‐‑to-­‐‑hear  

words.  

Themes  and  Coding  

I   examined   the  field  notes  and   interview   transcriptions   for   recurring   themes.  These  were  

‘grounded  codes’  -­‐‑  that  is,  the  themes  and  codes  arose  from  the  data  themselves;  I  did  not  

try  to  impose  a  particular  interpretation  on  them.  While  analysing  the  data,  I  found  three  

common  themes  throughout  the  field  notes  and  interview  transcripts:  a  continual  process  

of   gentrification   that   pushes   lower-­‐‑income   people   and   their   concerns   out   of   the   district,  

replacing   them   with   businesses   and   social   nexuses   that   are   geared   towards   middle-­‐‑   to  

upper-­‐‑middle-­‐‑class  people,   racial  uniformity  or   cultural  homogeneity,   and   the  effects   the  

student  population  exerts  on  the  composition  of  Davis  Square.  Many  of  these  themes  were  

mentioned  explicitly  by  respondents  in  the  interviews,  especially  economic  gentrification.  I  

used   a   colour-­‐‑coding   system   to   mark   the   themes   in   the   field   notes   and   the   interview  

transcripts;   notes   related   to   racial   and   cultural   homogeneity   are   purple,   ones   about  

gentrification   are   yellow-­‐‑orange   and   ones   related   to   the   student   population   in   particular  

are  blue.  

Findings  and  results    

Though  Somerville   is   a  diverse   city   statistically,  various   factors   seem   to  be   related   to   the  

overwhelming   white,   middle-­‐‑class   nature   of   Davis   Square:   socioeconomic   gentrification  

and   racial   uniformity   or   cultural   homogeneity,   expressed   through   the   revalorisation   of  

11

Davis  Square  as  a  trendy,  modern  place  for  young  professionals’  and  students’  leisure,  the  

fraught   spatial   relationship  people  of   colour  have  with  predominantly  white   spaces,   and  

the  influx  of  Tufts  students  into  a  formerly  working-­‐‑class  area.  

In  my  meeting  with  Mackey,  he  suggested  that  one  of  the  reasons  why  Davis  Square  

manifests  less  diversity  than  other  regions  of  the  city  -­‐‑  East  Somerville  in  particular  -­‐‑  is  that  

economic   changes   over   the   past   decade   have   changed   the   nature   of   the   neighbourhood,  

and   the   decline   of   a   daily   working   population   has   led   the   area   to   become   a   primarily  

leisure-­‐‑centric  region,  with  a  focus  on  on  restaurants  and  nightlife  as  opposed  to  offices  and  

factories.  Davis  Square  is  a  popular  social  destination  amongst  students  at  Tufts  University,  

a  campus  associated  with  its  white,  middle-­‐‑  to  upper-­‐‑middle-­‐‑class  student  population  and  

similar  social  homogeneity  to  the  square  itself.  Similarly,  Davidson  noticed  these  changes  

as  well,  as  a  lifelong  resident  of  the  Somerville  area.  She  also  noted  that  people  tend  to  stay  

within  their  own  specific  neighbourhoods,  and  a  post-­‐‑gentrification  Davis  Square  may  not  

draw  other  communities   into   the  area,  despite   the  presence  of  mass   transit.  Even   though  

the   physical   accessibility   may   exist,   people’s   relationship   to   a   particular   space   is  

complicated,   and   a   strong   sense   of   place   that   ties   them   to   their   usual   area  may   prevent  

them  from  venturing  out  further.  to    Mansfield  had  similar  remarks;  he  said  that  though  his  

church  had   tried   to  a[ract  more  diverse  groups  of  people   to   its   congregation,  his   church  

remained  primarily  white,  despite  the  presence  of  two  nearby  Haitian  churches.  According  

to  him,  the  Haitians  who  a[ended  churches  near  Davis  Square  would  go  to  church  only  to  

return  to  their  own  districts,  without  spending  much  time  in  Davis  Square  itself.  

In  the  course  of  this  study,  I  have  identified  three  ways  in  which  Davis  Square  fails  to  

12

reflect   the   diversity   of   Somerville:   economic   gentrification   driven   by   administrative  

changes  like  the  introduction  of  the  Red  Line,  the  influx  of  upper-­‐‑middle-­‐‑class  students  to  a  

previously  working-­‐‑class   area   and   lack  of   racial   integration.  These  findings   come   from  a  

combination  of  my  own  direct  observations  of  Davis  Square  and  its  constituent  businesses,  

and  from  the  three  interviews  I  conducted,  two  of  which  were  with  long-­‐‑term  residents  of  

Somerville  who  have  seen  the  city  change  throughout  their  lifetimes.  

Economic  gentrification  

Though   Davis   Square   is   associated   with   middle-­‐‑class   establishments   now,   this   was   not  

always   the   case;   before   the   1980s,   the   square  was   a   site   of   urban   decay   and   commercial  

decline.   During  my   interview  with   Lisa  Davidson,   a   lifetime   resident   of   Somerville,   she  

mentioned   that   there   were   a   number   of   government   offices   in   Davis   Square   near   the  

current  location  of  the  Somerville  Homeless  Coalition,  including  the  Social  Security  office,  

the   former   Department   of   Retardation   building   (the   former   name   for   services   serving  

people   with   intellectual   and   developmental   disabilities)   and   the   Department   of   Mental  

Health.   None   of   these   government   offices   are   there   any   longer,   an   indication   of   the  

‘favoured   quarter’   in   which   residents   are   able   to   bring   in   income   without   relying   on  

government  services.  

Davidson   told  me   that  when   she  was   growing   up,   she  was   told   not   to   visit   Davis  

Square,  under  the  impression  that  it  was  a  ‘dangerous’  place  to  be.    This  is  a  far  cry  from  

the   current   condition   of  Davis   Square,  which   is   seen   as   a   hip   place   for   young  people   to  

hang  out,  rather  than  a  crime-­‐‑ridden  emblem  of  decline.  

13

One  change  that  led  to  the  gentrification  of  Davis  Square  was  the  extension  of  the  Red  

Line   underground   train   to   the   square   in   1980,   which   prompted   a   push   for   the  

‘revitalisation’  of  the  area  to  coincide  with  the  arrival  of  the  station.  The  Somerville  Office  

of  Planning  and  Community  Development  (OPCD)  created  an  urban-­‐‑design  and  business-­‐‑

planning  study  that  engaged  consultants  and  analysts  to  assess  the  community’s  needs  and  

desires   (‘Role   of   Transit’,   1997).   Some   changes   that   occurred   after   OPCD’s   interventions  

during   the   1980s   and   1990s   include   modifications   to   the   local   streets   with   the   help   of  

federal  funding,  the  construction  of  the  Davis  Square  plaza,  renovation  of  storefronts  and  

business   areas,   the   arrival   of   community   events   like   ArtBeat,   the   renovation   of   the  

Somerville  Theatre  and  the  arrival  of  more  private  business  into  the  revitalised  square.  The  

transformation   of   Davis   Square   from   a   decrepit,   crime-­‐‑ridden   district   into   a   community  

developed   to   be   friendlier   towards   residents   and   local   business   alike   has   led   to   the  

increasing   valorisation   of   the   square,   which   has   further   led   to   gentrification,   which   has  

pushed  lower-­‐‑income  residents  out  of  the  square  as  it  continues  to  be  ‘revitalised’  through  

the   efforts   of   local   government   and   private   business.   Davis   Square   has   become   one   of  

Betancur’s   ‘favoured   quarters’,   where   administrative   decisions   have   led   to   the  

transformation   of   a  working-­‐‑class   area   in   decline   to   a  more   economically   desirable   area  

tailored  to  the  new  middle-­‐‑class  residents  and  visitors  of  the  square.  

Signs   of   continuing   gentrification   continued   to   occur   even   as   I  was   conducting  my  

field   research   over   the   course   of   two   months.   After   I   started   my   observations   in   Davis  

Square,   the  McDonald’s   franchise  had  closed  down,  even  as  more  businesses  entered   the  

area.  The  McDonald’s  had  been  an  outlier  in  a  neighbourhood  dominated  by  independent  

14

local  restaurants  and  ‘fast  casual’  chains,  and  seemed  rather  incongruous  in  comparison  to  

the  other  businesses  surrounding  it.  It  was  part  of  a  cluster  of  businesses  on  Elm  Street  that  

seemed  different  from  the  other  stores  and  restaurants  occupying  it:  a  pawn  shop,  a  Family  

Dollar  branch  and  a  pizza  restaurant.  The  other  businesses  there  seemed  more  typical  for  a  

predominantly   white   and   middle-­‐‑class   area   populated   by   students:   the   Diesel   Café,  

Pinkberry  Yogurt,  Boston  Burger  Company  and  bars  like  The  Burren  and  the  Joshua  Tree,  

as  well  as  the  slightly  more  distant  Dave’s  Fresh  Pasta.

Racial  and  cultural  homogeneity  

Though   Somerville   is   somewhat  more   racially   diverse   than   the   state   average,   this   is   not  

reflected   in   Davis   Square.   Davis   Square   is   overwhelmingly   white   and   non-­‐‑immigrant  

American,  and  the  businesses  there  reflect  that  demographic.  There  are  no  ethnic  stores  and  

no   signs   wri[en   in   languages   other   than   English,   not   even   the   commonest   foreign  

languages   encountered   in   Somerville,   Portuguese,   Haitian   Creole   and   Spanish.   Though  

Davis   Square  does  have   some   ‘ethnic’   restaurants   like   the  Burmese   and   Indian  ones,   the  

majority   of   the   clientele   seems   to   be   white,   and   there   are   not   clusters   of   specific   ethnic  

groups  near  these  restaurants.  The  way  in  which  Davis  Square  is  used  seems  to  imply  that  

it   is   an   implicitly   ‘white’   space,   even  without   the   force  of   legal   segregation   in  place.  The  

spatial  relationship  non-­‐‑white  Somervillians  have  with  Davis  Square  may  be  adverse,  or  at  

the  very  least,  distant,  because  of  ingrained  reactions  to  racism  that  cause  people  of  colour  

to   avoid   spaces   that   are   dominated   by   white   people.   For   example,   you   may   see   larger  

numbers   of   Blacks   and   Latinos   waiting   for   the   bus   outside   the   T   station,   but   very   few  

15

within  the  neighbourhood  itself.  This  was  in  fact  the  case  during  my  observation  on  19  June  

2014,  when   I   saw   several  Hispanic   and  Black   people  waiting   for   buses   and   trains   at   the  

station,   but   a   group   of   mostly   white   people   si[ing   in   the   plaza   area   across   the   street.  

Despite  the  plaza  being  right  next  to  the  station,  the  diversity  of  people  passing  through  the  

station   is  not  reflected   in  the  plaza.  People  of  colour  seem  to  be  a   transient  population   in  

Davis  Square,  rather  than  an  integrated  part  of  the  community.  They  may  use  Davis  Square  

as  a  transfer  point  to  visit  a  different  part  of  the  Boston  area,  but  they  don’t  actually  use  the  

square  for  leisure.  

Within   the   primary   area   of   Davis   Square   itself,   the   few   Blacks   and   Latinos   I   saw  

outside  –  with  the  exception  of  some  Hispanic  restaurant  employees  –    the  T  station  seemed  

to   be   concentrated   in   ‘lower-­‐‑end’   stores   and   restaurants,   like   the   Dollar   General   or   the  

erstwhile  McDonald’s  franchise.  I  rarely  saw  Black  or  Latino  people  inside  other  stores  or  

restaurants  who  were  not  at  work.  There  were  very  few  Black  and  Latino  people  walking  

around   the   square,   simply   browsing   in   stores   or   eating   in   restaurants;   the   average  

passersby  were  nearly  always  white,  or  occasionally  East  Asian.  

One  can  contrast  the  presence  of  East  Asians,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  South  Asians,  who  

could  be  seen  spending  time  in  the  plaza  or  visiting  local  businesses,  with  the  absence  of  

Blacks  and  Latinos.  Though  East  Asians  were  still  a  distinct  minority  compared  to  whites,  

their   behaviour   within   public   spaces   suggested   that   they   were   more   integrated   in   the  

community   than  were  Blacks   and  Latinos.   This  may  be   because   out   of   all   the  non-­‐‑white  

populations   in   the   country   at   large,   Asian   immigrants   are  more   likely   to   be  middle-­‐‑   or  

high-­‐‑income  than  Black  Americans,  Haitian  immigrants  or  Latinos.  

16

Even  the  Somerville  Homeless  Coalition,  whose  offices  are  in  Davis  Square,  primarily  

serves  a  white,  non-­‐‑immigrant  population,  despite  efforts  by  the  organisation  to  serve  other  

clients  by  providing  services  in  Spanish,  Portuguese  and  Haitian  Creole.  The  Coalition  has  

staff  members  that  speak  these  languages  -­‐‑  as  of  January  2014,  Haitian  Creole  and  African  

Portuguese  –  and  offers  wri[en  pamphlets  in  various  languages,  but  this  has  not  changed  

the   composition   of   the   people   who   use   their   services,   with   the   exception   of   the   rapid-­‐‑

response  and  prevention  programmes.  Housing  assistance,  however,   is  primarily  used  by  

white   clients.   This   difference   in   how   different   populations   use   the   services   of   the  

Somerville  Homeless  Coalition  may  be  connected  to  how  Davis  Square  in  particular  seems  

to  be  a  ‘white  space’,  as  opposed  to  a  culturally  integrated  space.  It  may  be  that  people  of  

different   communities   may   not   feel   comfortable   approaching   an   organisation   that   is  

situated   in   such   a   white   area,   which   is   both   detrimental   to   potential   clients   and   the  

Coalition   itself,   because   of   the   efforts   it   has   made   in   trying   to   a[ract   clients   of   various  

ethnicities,   races   and   nationalities.   The   fact   that   people   of   colour   do   not   seek   services  

through  the  Somerville  Homeless  Coalition,  despite  outreach  efforts,  might  be  connected  to  

the  idea  that  they  may  not  perceive  Davis  Square,  and  services  coming  from  that  area,  as  

being  ‘for  them’,  but  rather  for  white  people,  and  may  seek  assistance  through  programmes  

within  their  local  communities  as  opposed  to  making  use  of  a  space  in  such  a  ‘white’  area  

as  Davis  Square.  Their  roots  are   in  communities   that  reflect   their  culture  and  values,  and  

despite  the  existence  of  a  service  that  is  ostensibly  for  all  people  in  Somerville  who  are  too  

poor  to  access  housing,  the  square  is  disconnected  from  the  identities,  symbols  and  people  

that  give  them  a  sense  of  place  and  belonging.    

17

Similarly,   Jeff   Mansfield   of   the   First   Church   of   Somerville   has   discussed   his  

congregation’s   efforts   to   a[ract  more  people   of   colour   into   the   fold,   but  despite   a   recent  

increase   in   more   diverse   participants,   the   church   remains   overwhelmingly   white.   The  

majority  of  non-­‐‑white  congregation  members  tend  to  visit  his  church  for  a  specific  purpose:  

they  are  multiracial  and  are  more  integrated  with  white  communities  than  are  non-­‐‑mixed  

people   of   colour,   or   they   are   lesbian,   gay,   bisexual   or   transgender   and   seek   a   religious  

community   that  will   accept   their   sexuality   or   gender   identity  without   the   condemnation  

associated  with  more  conservative  Christian  congregations.  

Though   there  are   two  Haitian  churches  –  one  Baptist  and  one  Assemblies  of  God  –  

within   short   walking   distance   of   Davis   Square,   it   appears   these   churches   are   their   own  

separate   entities   apart   from   the   community   at   large.   Though   Mansfield’s   church   has  

collaborated  with   the   pastor   at   the   Baptist   church   in   the   past,   the   congregations   of   First  

Church   Somerville   and   the   Église   Baptiste   have   not   mixed.   During   my   interview   with  

Mansfield,  he  also  noted  that  many  of  the  people  visiting  the  Haitian  churches  seemed  to  

be  coming  in  from  elsewhere;  they  were  not  local  residents  of  Davis  Square  or  the  nearby  

Powderhouse  Square  visiting  the  church.  This  dovetails  with  my  own  observations;  though  

there  are  those  two  Haitian  churches,  the  Haitians  themselves  seem  to  go  to  church  during  

the  weekends   and   go   back   to   their   own   areas,   rather   than   staying   around   the   square   to  

visit.   Perhaps   the   Haitian   churches   are   an   extension   of   the   community   the   parishioners  

belong  to  –  a  small  enclave  in  a  distinctly  different  district  –  while  the  surrounding  area  is  

not.  

Again,  this  indicates  that  there  may  be  a  prevailing  notion  that  this  area  of  Somerville  

18

is   strictly   a  white   space,   rather   than   a   space   that   can   be   used   by   people   of   all   different  

ethnic  groups,  despite  the  existence  of  small  enclaves  –  like  the  Haitian  churches  –  that  are  

occupied  by  people  of  colour.  Even  in  a  city  in  a  presumably  liberal,  progressive  region,  the  

forces   of   spatial   segregation   are   still   at   work,   driving   wedges   between   people   and  

reinforcing  sociocultural  hierarchies.  Haitians,  Brazilians,  Dominicans  and  other  immigrant  

communities  may  also  feel  more  rooted  in  spaces  that  are  more  connected  to  their  groups,  

obviating   the   need   for   them   to   visit   Davis   Square,   which   harks   back   to   Betancur’s  

discussion  of  how  sense  of  place  is  vital  to  communities  composed  of  immigrants  or  people  

of   colour.   Pre-­‐‑existing   spatial   relationships   may   make   it   difficult   for   people   to   find  

community   in   an   area   that   is   not   composed   of   people   whose   experiences   match   theirs  

closely.      

Student  population

Students  of  Tufts  University  –  which  is  very  close  to  Davis  Square  –  have  also  exerted  some  

influence   over   the   development   of   Davis   Square.   Tufts   is   an   institution   that   has   a   large  

number   of   students   who   come   from   medium-­‐‑   or   high-­‐‑status   backgrounds,   and   the  

socioeconomic  status  of  Tufts  students  may  have  been  another  catalyst   for  the  continuing  

gentrification  of  the  Davis  Square  area.  The  Tufts  student  shu[le,  the  ‘Joey’,  includes  Davis  

Square  amongst  its  stops,  which  makes  the  square  an  easily  accessible  place  for  students  to  

socialise  and  explore.

Stephen  Mackey,   the  CEO  of   the  Somerville  Chamber  of  Commerce,   suggested   that  

one  of  the  problems  preventing  Davis  Square  from  being  a  more  socioeconomically  diverse  

19

area  was  the  lack  of  work  activity  during  the  day,   in  comparison  to  other  places.  Though  

Mackey  may  not  have  said   it  outright  as  Davidson  had   in   the   later   interview,   there   is  an  

implication   that   the   lack   of   a   steady  working   population  might   be   a   result   of   the   large  

student  population  in  Davis  Square.  

Davidson,   too,   remarked   that   the   student  population  may  have  had  some   influence  

over  the  way  gentrification  has  altered  Davis  Square.  When  students  start  making  use  of  a  

space,   the   businesses   change   to   support   their   needs,  which   can   be   significantly   different  

from  the  ones  of  a  community  that  is  driven  by  the  needs  of  a  daytime  labour  force.  There  

will  be  more  focus  on  entertainment,  reasonably  trendy  shopping  areas  and  eating,  rather  

than  more  practical  concerns.  For  example,  Davis  Square  lacks  a  full-­‐‑service  supermarket,  

which  may  be  a  consequence  of  the  large  student  population,  but  it  has  a  large  number  of  

restaurants   at  varied  price  points,   three   thrift   or   consignment   stores,  places   to  buy  quick  

snacks  and  a  handful  of  convenience  stores  like  CVS  and  the  Tedeschi’s  franchise.  There  is  

also   a   reasonable   selection   of   bars   like   The   Burren   and   Joshua   Tree,   which   are   also  

frequented   by   students.   The   influx   of   students   also   increases   rents   as  well,   as  more   and  

more  people  start  to  live  within  Davis  Square  and  its  surrounding  area.  

Comparison  and  Contrast:  other  local  squares  

Other  districts  in  the  Somerville  and  Cambridge  area  can  serve  as  a  counterpoint  to  Davis  

Square’s   gentrification   and   lack   of   diversity.   When   observing   Central   Square,   a   major  

thoroughfare  in  neighbouring  Cambridge,  I  noticed  immediately  that  there  was  a  striking  

difference   between   the   way   both   areas   were   composed   both   racially   and   economically.  

20

Central   Square   was   far   more   diverse   than   Davis   Square,   with   large   numbers   of   Black  

people   in   particular.  A  discount   shoe   store   had   signage   in   both   English   and   Spanish   (at  

Christmastime,  there  was  a  ‘Christmas  Sale’  or  Venta  Navideña),  an  indicator  that  there  may  

be  a  larger  Latino  market  in  the  area,  in  comparison  to  Davis  Square,  in  which  non-­‐‑English-­‐‑

language  material  was  nearly  non-­‐‑existent.  There  was  an  Indian  market  there,  while  ethnic  

markets   were   absent   in   Davis   Square.   Some   time   after   my   initial   observations,   a   large  

Korean-­‐‑American  supermarket  and  food  court  called  H-­‐‑Mart  opened  up  in  April  of  2014,  

which  sells  a  variety  of  East  Asian  products  and  serves  Japanese  food  like  ramen,  sushi  and  

Japanese-­‐‑style  curry  in  its  food  court.  

Though  my  observations  of  these  other  districts  were  not  as  comprehensive  as  those  

of  my  primary   site   or  Central   Square,   I   did   look   at   other   districts   as   a   further  means   of  

comparison  to  Davis  Square.  Union  Square  boasted  an  Asian  market  specialising  in  Korean  

and  Japanese  items,  stores  with  signs  wri[en  in  Portuguese,  a  Greek-­‐‑American  Social  Club,  

a  Haitian   church  with  a   sign  wri[en  entirely   in  French  and  a  nearby   church  with  a   sign  

wri[en   completely   in   Portuguese.   The   sheer   number   of   businesses   catering   to   different  

cultural   groups   and   the   presence   of   storefronts   with   non-­‐‑English-­‐‑language   signage  

indicates   that  Union   Square  may  have   a   larger   number   of   recent   immigrants   from  Latin  

America  and  the  Caribbean.  There  were  also   indicators  of  a  slightly   lower  socioeconomic  

bracket   in  Union   Square,   like   a   large   sign   advertising   the  Massachuse[s   State   Lo[ery,   a  

business  dedicated  to  sending  money  (with  a  Spanish  sign,  Envíos  de  dinero)  and  a  cheque-­‐‑

cashing  office  that  also  claimed  to  buy  gold  and  sell  lo[ery  tickets.  This  is  in  sharp  contrast  

to   Davis   Square,   whose   only   ‘low-­‐‑income’   businesses   were   the   pawn   shop   and   Family  

21

Dollar,  and  was  almost  entirely  devoid  of  non-­‐‑English-­‐‑language  material.  

Improving  Davis  Square  

During  the   interviews,  some  of   the  participants  offered  suggestions  regarding  how  Davis  

Square’s  overwhelming  white  and  middle-­‐‑class  community  could  be  made  more  reflective  

of  Somerville’s  ethnic  and  socioeconomic  diversity.  For  example,  Mansfield  and  the  other  

leaders  at  the  First  Church  of  Somerville  have  been  trying  to  a[ract  a  more  diverse  group  of  

people   to   their   congregation.   Though   the   church   remains   largely  white,   there   have   been  

some  encouraging  developments  that  suggest  that  they  might  start  having  a  higher  level  of  

diversity   in   their  congregation;   they  have  been  holding   ‘sacred  conversations’  about  race,  

and  there  have  been  some  people  of  colour,  primarily  from  the  LGBT  community,  visiting  

the  church  to  find  a  congregation  that  is  open  to  their  sexuality  and  gender  identity  without  

the  judgement  they  might  experience  from  a  congregation  that  is  predominantly  composed  

of  their  ethnic  group.  When  I  spoke  to  Davidson,  she  thought  that  creating  more  businesses  

in   Davis   Square   targeted   towards   different   ethnic   groups  might   draw   them   there;   right  

now   there   is   ‘no   reason   for   them   to   come’   to   the   square,   simply   because   of   its   lack   of  

diversity   and   overwhelming   whiteness,   both   culturally   and   demographically.   She   also  

suggested  that  the  language  barrier  that  recent  immigrants  encounter  might  also  be  a  factor  

in   the   homogeneity   of   Davis   Square;   if   there   are   no   Spanish-­‐‑,   Haitian   Creole-­‐‑   or  

Portuguese-­‐‑speaking   staff   or   informational   material   and   people   have   limited   English  

proficiency,   they  might   have   a   difficult   time   communicating  with   store   staff.   Essentially,  

both   Davidson   and   Mansfield   have   suggested   changing   the   commercial   or   social  

22

environment  of  Davis  Square  to  change  the  spatial  relationship  that  people  of  colour  and  

working-­‐‑class  people  have  with   the  square   to  make   it  more  hospital   to   them,  rather   than  

the  ‘favoured  quarter’  that  draws  in  white,  middle-­‐‑class  people  and  very  few  others,  apart  

from  the  occasional  East  Asian  visitors  to  the  square.  

Conclusion  

In  conducting  this  study,  my  goal  was  to  understand  how  a  district  in  a  diverse  city  could  

manifest   such  racial  and  socioeconomic  homogeneity,  especially  when   there  were  several  

nearby   areas,   like   Union   Square   and   Central   Square,   that   were   much   more   culturally  

integrated.   Through   the   study,   I   found   that   the   socioeconomic   and   ethnic   uniformity   of  

Davis   Square  was  manifested   through   economic  gentrification,   racial   homogeneity   and  a  

student  population   that   contributed   to  both   the  gentrification  and   the  homogeneity.   I  do  

not  think  the  creation  of  a  homogeneous  space  was  a  deliberate  act  by  any  urban-­‐‑planning  

organisation   or   government   authority;   rather,   it   is   an   unintended   process   of   a   series   of  

events   that   caused   various   authorities   and   interested   actors   to   revive   a   declining   area  

without   necessarily   being   aware   of   the   effects   uncontrolled   gentrification   has   on  

marginalised  communities.  

Similarly   to   Lees   (2000),   I   examined   the   process   of   gentrification   and   the   economic  

processes  that  can  cause  it  to  occur  in  cities,  though  Lees’  analysis  is  centred  on  larger  cities    

with   large-­‐‑scale   financial   services,   while   mine   focuses   on   a   smaller   city   and   the   rise   of  

smaller  businesses  and  national  chains  that  appeal  to  the  middle-­‐‑  and  upper-­‐‑middle-­‐‑class,  

rather   than   the   unambiguously   rich   and  upper-­‐‑class   people   Lees   discusses   in   her   study.  

23

Like   Betancur   (2011),   Dreier,   Mollenkopf   and   Swanstrom   (2001),   I   considered   the  

importance   of   the   idea   of   ‘sense   of   place’   amongst   people   of   colour   and   immigrant  

communities,  though  my  analysis  was  focused  on  the  white  and  gentrified  neighbourhood  

that  such  people  avoided,  rather  than  the  communities  in  which  these  marginalised  people  

live.  Much  of  the  literature  regarding  spatial  relationships  amongst  subaltern  communities  

seems   to   be   focused   on   the   communities  where   they   themselves   live,   as   opposed   to   the  

areas   they   are   less   connected   to,   and   some   analyses   of   gentrification   and   urban   renewal  

uncritically  praise  the  process  without  considering  how  these  changes  affect  marginalised  

groups   of   people.   This   alternative   approach   allows   for   different   perspectives   regarding  

how  racial  homogeneity  is  reified  within  the  confines  of  gentrified  neighbourhoods  with  a  

focus   on   the   way   the   gentrified   neighbourhood   itself   is   structured,   without   proffering  

uncritical  paeans  to  the  effects  urban  renewal  has  had.  

Though   this   study  did   illuminate  many  aspects   of   the  ways   in  which  gentrification  

and  other  forms  of  social  inequality  play  a  role  in  how  Davis  Square  is  an  overwhelmingly  

white  and  middle-­‐‑class  space,   there  were  limitations  to  my  research.  My  schedule  during  

the  course  of  the  study  limited  the  amount  of  time  I  could  visit  the  site;  with  more  time,  I  

would  have  been  able   to  develop  a  more  comprehensive  view  of  how  people  used  Davis  

Square.  The  study  could  have  benefited  from  a  clearer  focus  during  the  observation  period;  

at  the  outset,  I  was  unsure  what  to  look  for  when  observing  people  at  the  Davis  Square  site,  

with   the   themes   of   gentrification   and   racial   homogeneity   emerging   rather   later   after  

multiple  visits  to  the  site.  

In  order  to  counter  these  limitations,  there  are  many  ways  in  which  the  study  could  

24

have  been  improved  or  extended.  For  example,  the  observation  period  could  be  extended  

to  a  longer  period  of  time  to  see  if  the  pa[erns  of  behaviour  observed  during  the  initial  six-­‐‑

week   period   continued   to   hold   over   six   months,   or   a   year.   This   would   be   even   more  

effective  in  recognising  whether  the  pa[erns  observed  in  the  square  were  actual  common  

occurrences,  as  opposed  to  mere  flukes.  Another  way  of  extending  the  study  would  be  to  

hold   more   interviews,   perhaps   with   more   long-­‐‑term   residents   of   nearby   areas   –   or  

Somerville  generally   –  who   could  draw  comparisons  between  Davis  Square  as   it   is  now,  

and  Davis  Square  as  it  was  before  gentrification  really  started  to  take  hold  in  the  area.

25

Bibliography  

Betancur,  J.  (2011).  ‘Gentrification  and  Community  Fabric  in  Chicago’.  Urban  Studies  2011,  

48,  pp.  383-­‐‑406.  

Dreier,  P.,  Mollenkopf,  J.  and  Swanstrom,  T.  (2001).    ‘Metropolitics  for  the  Twenty-­‐‑First  

Century’.  In  The  Urban  Sociology  Reader,  Second  Edition.  J.  Lin  &  C.  Mele,  editors.  

London:  Routledge,  2013,  pp.  149-­‐‑156.  

Lees,  L.  (2000).  ‘A  reappraisal  of  gentrification:  towards  a  “geography  of  gentrification”.’  

Progress  in  Human  Geography,  24,3,  pp.  389-­‐‑408.  

Project  for  Public  Spaces  (1997).  The  Role  of  Transit  in  Creating  Livable  Metropolitan  

Communities.  New  York:  National  Academy  Press,  pp.  39-­‐‑42.  

US  Census  Bureau  (2010).  ‘State  &  County  Quick  Facts’.  Retrieved  from  h[p://

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/2562535.html,  1  June  2014.