Los Angeles Arts District-Losing Creative Vitality?

By Tess Regan

The central area in Los Angeles known as the Arts District has undergone a regeneration process since the 1970’s which has transformed the area from a place of “no mans land”-illegally occupied by artists into a flourishing, creative and economically appealing destination. Darchen’s case study, highlights the significance of looking towards Los Angeles as “an ideal context to study the production of contemporary urbanity” due to both an adaptive re-use live/work ordinance and a growing status as a place for ‘creatives in America’. In this particular study, adaptive reuse is defined as, “a process to ameliorate the financial, environmental and social performance of buildings…that changes a disused or ineffective item into a new item that can be used for a different purpose”. The article gathered information on the history of the Arts District via press articles and official planning documents to analyse how planning policies related to the adaptive reuse in Los Angeles. It is important to visualize and understand Los Angeles as a ‘network society’. In other words social structures are impacted by other factors. ‘Network societies’ serve as, “a new paradigm in the field of urban planning” because social, economic, and cultural structures are codependent on one another- each needing to be considered in collaboration with one another. Network societies, like Los Angeles, therefore provides opportunity for the promotion of innovation. Innovation, in this context is defined to be, “a process of translation by which an initial idea is shaped, diverted and consolidated to build up a network of allies…who test and carry forward the development of the innovation.” Therefore, it is imperative to consider how the innovation will apply across all aspects of the ‘network society’. That is why urban regeneration is an important challenge in all contemporary cities. Urban regeneration is more than just a physical change, but rather seeks to implement lasting improvement across the network: economically, socially, environmentally, etc.

Regeneration in the Arts District utilized a bottom-up and grassroots approach.This approach is a spontaneous regeneration fueled by artists and ‘cultural entrepreneurs who enable non-creative cultural consumers to enter the neighborhood’, often resisting neoliberal globalisation. The bottom-up process of regeneration has therefore brought attention to the ‘Right to the City idea’, discussed by French philosopher Henri Lefebvre. This idea raises the question of, “shifting control away from capital and the state and toward urban inhabitants.” In contrast, the Barcelona model” known in literature as a successful model or urban regeneration, “promoted social cohesion and a sense of belonging in the city.”

The Arts District is located on the Eastern side of Downtown Los Angeles, East of Little Tokyo and West of the LA River. Before artists started to transform the Arts District in the 1970’s, the area consisted of the working class and industry. It was previously labeled as an industrial district. However, after World War II, the rapid expansion of the truck industry forced the District to become obsolete as a result of its narrow roads serving inaccessible for trucks; companies needed to move away to more sensible areas. After being priced out of Venice and Hollywood’s expensive art scenes, artists began to illegally migrate toward and settle into the vacant industrial buildings left behind in the wake of the 1970’s industrial expansion. The new artist-inhabitants began opening art galleries, thus reopening the area and igniting life back into it. A massive influx of artists resulted in 1981, as the LA area became more renowned as a reinvigorated Art District. As a result, the Artist-in-Residence (AIR) programme was established. The policy allowed legal residential use of the industrial buildings- a rather strategic and stealthy development scheme by the artists to obtain occupancy within these buildings. It wasn’t until the late 90’s that the area was deemed the ‘Arts District’. By this point, live/work projects for artists was widely promoted. In 2006, Linear City Inc., a developer specializing in adaptive reuse projects, converted the Toy Factory into lofts. This was a monumental conversion which kick-started a trend in L.A. targeting wealthy buyers from the entertainment industry. The perception of the area transformed into one of economic opportunity or gentrification, even. Today, many would even argue that the Art District has been too reinvented to the point that it struggles to preserve the creative community identity which it originally re-invented to embody. One business owner commented on the future of the neighborhood: “if there were not an element of art and creativity in the neighborhood that would be terrible gentrification…[But we can] pass the history/spirit of the neighborhood…Do good work ourselves and attract new artists.” In other words, the only way gentrification could pass as accessible here is if the spirit of creativity is upheld in the process. There must be a balance between economic opportunity and artistic fervor. 1

The Arts District continues to thrive by attracting new residents and businesses in from creative industries. The Director of Creative Space has played a major role in establishing these connections. For instance, he put the owner of the building on Mateo Street in contact with Handsome Coffee company. Tyler, the CEO of Creative Space recognized the potential of the wasteland existing on Mateo street and appreciated the concept behind this single origin coffee company, so he connected the two owners in the spirit of regeneration. Additionally he aided ‘Retina’ a prominent street artist, to find a new studio in the area. “He defines his company as a ‘profit-earning business that considers what is best for the neighborhood’.Through his efforts, the initial artists who first brought artistic zeal to the area, and the wealthy who caught on to the aesthetic appeal and brought their money the Arts District has transformed from an failing industrial area to a desirable and creative hub.

Such artistic transformations also exist within Dublin. On a small scale, The Icon Factory, located within Temple Bar is an example of this. When the owner first bought her art studio she was shocked to witness the homeless and drug-addicts selecting that particular alleyway as a secluded place to do their drugs and openly defecate- an acceptable alternative setting in a city devoid of public restrooms they’d otherwise be. The owner was appalled as she had to clean human feces away from her store/studio front each morning. She was determined to solve this issue. As a solution she developed The Icon Factory Initiative. Now the area attracts more tourists which brings in money as well as populating the area, forcing the unwanted company to take care of their business elsewhere. The question then, like most regeneration projects which inevitably lead to gentrification, it is arguably problematic that the initiative did not solve a problem [totally], but rather relocated it out of sight-pushing the issue elsewhere.


In conclusion, cities commonly will recognize a need to reinvigorate itself, to revamp its’ economic, social, political and/or environmental realms. Transforming in a creative city is a common urban restructure and regeneration method called upon to solve these issues. However, a fine line develops between creative reinvention and capitalistic gentrification and in many cases, as in the Los Angeles Art District, this line has been starkly crossed.

Darchen, Sébastien. “Regeneration and networks in the Arts District (Los Angeles): Rethinking governance models in the production of urbanity.” Urban Studies 54, no. 15 (September 27, 2016): 3615-635. doi:10.1177/0042098016669917.


Degen, Mónica, and Marisol García. “The Transformation of the ‘Barcelona Model’: An Analysis of Culture, Urban Regeneration and Governance.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 36, no. 5, Feb. 2012, pp. 1022–1038., doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01152.x.

“Icon Factory & Dublin & Icon Walk Dublin.” Icon Factory Dublin & Icon Walk Dublinhttps://iconfactorydublin.ie

Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (2016) Available at: http://ladbs.org/ docs/default-source/publications/ordinances/ boundary-of-the-adaptive-reuse-ordinance. pdf?sfvrsn=7 (accessed 9 September 2016).


Devil’s Advocate

By Sean Barnes-Auld

Gentrification is a word that carries controversy.  It’s reputation has become a shroud, blackening out all possible good intentions.  This negative strain has developed through gentrification’s past failings, but perhaps its time for a defence. Perhaps its time to shine a light on the effect gentrification has had on a global city: New York.

Firstly, one must have an understanding of what gentrification is, and for the purpose of this article,  J. Peter Bryne’s definition that “gentrification is the process by which people of higher incomes move into lower income urban areas and seek to change its physical and social fabric to better meet their needs a preferences.” will be used (2003, 406).

For a detailed explanation of gentrification and more information click here.

Displacement: Gentrification or Natural Development?

Displacement has become a staple of argument against gentrification, holding up a light to the hideous reflection of what gentrification can do to communities. It paints a picture of gentrifiers forcing their way in, moulding areas to their preference, and removing those who don’t belong. Can it truly be that simple?

There have been a great number of studies in New York on the relationship between gentrification and displacement. Lance Freeman and Frank Braconi conducted a survey of people residing in new units who previously were located in areas that were being gentrified in New York. They discovered that only 5.47% could be considered displaced (2004, p.149) Freeman and Braconi then monitored the movement pattens of low-income households in gentrifying areas and compared it to that of non-gentrifying areas. Close examination showed that lower income households were less likely to move from gentrifying areas compared to non-gentrifying areas (2004, p.149). These findings are supported by Jacob Vigdor who conducted a study monitoring the movements of less educated households in New York in which it was found that less educated residents were more likely to remain in gentrifying neighbourhoods (2002, 160). The reason for this lack of movement according to J. Peter Byrne is because low income owners are less likely to move or be displaced from a gentrifying area as they believe it warrants the rising price (2003, p.421). This is because of the increased economic, social, and political benefits made available to them. These studies show that displacement of low income residents by gentrification is severely overstated. Gentrification does not disincentive working class residents to leave, but in fact the opposite, acts as a reason to stay.


Could it be argued that displacement and transformation is a natural process?  Originally Harlem was a Jewish and German neighbourhood that was founded by the Dutch. These communities were uprooted during the period between 1920 and 1970 when the black population moved into the area (Byrne, 2003, p.410). Harlem is now home to 135,000 African-Americans and has long been considered the centre of ‘Black Culture’. This is a prime example natural cultural development that an area has experienced without the presence of gentrification. Perhaps gentrification can provide benefits to both existing and new residents and in turn create a new culture, rather trying to forcefully preserve another.

Benefits of Gentrification

The benefits of Gentrification can be broken down into three categories: Economic, Social, and Political.



In order to undergo gentrification an area must go through a period of disinvestment which equals to lower average incomes, poor infrastructure, and unemployment. Gentrification pumps investment into these areas increasing the average income, creating more services, and creating job opportunities. These economic benefits become available to the existing residents as well as the gentrifiers. The influx of stores and services leads to an increase in low level, low education job opportunities for existing residents. A study on gentrified areas by J. Peter Byrne found that new residents generally don’t compete with existing residents for these low level jobs (2003, p.421). While it is commonly believed that gentrification brings in niche market shops which are over priced and service extremely precise needs, J. Peter Byrne states that this is not an effect of gentrification but of changing market demands (2003, p.423). Brooklyn has become the fastest growing borough of New York with the GDP growing 40% since 2001. To see the rapid effect gentrification has had on Brooklyn look no further than Wired.  Brooklyn’s job creation market is more than double that of Manhattan, with growth sitting at 2.3% annually (Kopf, 2017). This has led to all time low unemployment levels and a increase in income per head annually for over 10 years.



As seen in Harlem and Brooklyn, historically have been populated solely by poor minorities.  Since gentrification took hold poverty has dropped massively both areas and has led to the less social isolation of the poor (Byrne, 2003). Harlem now has a more diverse population with 13,800 non-hispanic white residents in 2008 compared to 672 in 1990 (worldpopulationreview.com). Brooklyn has become extremely diverse due to gentrification with both non-hispanic whites and African Americans sharing the same figure of 35.8% of the population each and Asians making up 11.3%. According to Byrne, mixing of middle class and working class families has proven to be positive on children from poorer families, increasing the rate at which they attend school and move out of poverty (2003, p.423). Crime in New York is at an all time low as recorded in February 2017 by the New York Post. This also can be attributed somewhat to gentrification, as areas such as Harlem have had large crime rate reductions since the 1990’s, the same year as the start of the gentrification process (New York Post, 2017).


Area’s of economic hardship and high density of minorities have infamously been ignored by politicians. It has been proven that gentrification benefits existing residents by giving them a political stage. By mixing these societies it creates a democratic process in which the working class holds some power (Freeman and Braconi, 2004, p.160). This happens because of the increase in the number of people paying taxes which encourages political figures to focus more effort into these communities which leads to increased infrastructure and services.


Gentrification often is touted as an unforgiving process that elevates the white middle class over working class minorities. This article attempts to shed light on a controversial topic and show some kind of a defence for the devil, by showing it is not only the gentrifiers who gain from the process. Gentrification is without a doubt, flawed, but it is not evil.


Bryne, J. (2003). Two Cheers for Gentrification. Howard Law Journal, 46(405), pp.405-432.

Ettlinger, N. and Wilson, W. (1989). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Geographical Review, 79(2), p.239.

Freeman, L. and Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification and Displacement New York City in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), pp.39-52.

Kopf, D. (2017). The economic rise of Brooklyn, in charts. [online] Quartz. Available at: https://qz.com/940705/brooklyn-has-the-fastest-growing-labor-market-of-new-yorks-boroughs/ [Accessed 12 Nov. 2017].

New York Post. (2017). NYC’s low crime rate just got even lower. [online] Available at: http://nypost.com/2017/03/01/nycs-low-crime-rate-just-got-even-lower/ [Accessed 12 Nov. 2017].

Vigdor, J. (2002). Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 2002(1), pp.133-182.

Worldpopulationreview.com. (2017). Cite a Website – Cite This For Me. [online] Available at: http://worldpopulationreview.com/boroughs/brooklyn-population/ [Accessed 12 Nov. 2017].

Www1.nyc.gov. (2017). NYC Population. [online] Available at: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population.page [Accessed 12 Nov. 2017].

Picture 1 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/13/harlem-gentrification-new-york-race-black-white#img-1

Picture 2 https://www.brownstoner.com/development/brooklyn-gentrification-mit-streetchange-map-changing-borough/

Picture 3 https://www.pinterest.ie/victoriaj1908/old-harlem/

Feature Photo https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/gentrification-and-ghost-towns-6b2856dd41e1

Barcelona- The Role of Culture

By Jenny Luke

Barcelona- a thriving, bustling city, famous for its architecture, revelled for its art, and an excellent example of a city where urban planning and regeneration have enabled it to become a cultural jewel and economic triumph. When I think of this Catalonian capital, all that comes to mind is a seductive blend of sun, sea and sangria. It is rich in cultural history, evident in the well-preserved medieval quarters of the city, which were built on an old Roman settlement, with perpendicular Roman streets visible beneath the buildings in this area in what is the largest underground excavation of a Roman site in Europe. This area within the medieval city is not only an excellent example of historic continuity, but shows that the city of Barcelona has always been an urban hub, for people to live, work and trade. However, Barcelona has not always been the modern, trendy, architecturally rich city we know it as today. In fact, not too long ago, it was defined by unattractive features of city life, such as urban congestion, poor infrastructure and high residential densities.

The historical grid-iron pattern of the Barcelona’s layout, once used to facilitate the easy passage of steam trams, in modern times produced a large number of traffic intersections creating serious urban congestion. With a population that grew larger and larger each day, apartment blocks shot high into the skyline in parts of the urban periphery to accommodate for immigrants from other parts of the country seeking work. A string of social issues underpinned this time frame from the mid 1940’s to the late 1970’s, as these areas became home to gypsy communities and were defined by high levels of social deprivation. Nonetheless, Barcelona had its turning point in the late 1970’s with the administrative decision to promote democratic planning and civic design, and the Olympic Games nomination in 1986 was the main stimulus for change in the spheres of redevelopment and culture, enabling Barcelona to undergo potentially the most radical transformation in its history.

The Olympic Games nomination kickstarted Barcelona’s redevelopment, providing the necessary public resources to finance the city’s large scale public works. City authorities incorporated a range of different approaches in order to tackle all problematic spheres within the city, which was done by integrating urban design and cultural planning with the redevelopment of areas in economic, social and environmental decline. This time marked a change in perspective, in how the citizens of Barcelona viewed their city, and how they wish to present it to the world. Instead of being characterised by social differences, the people and authorities of Barcelona decided that the future success of their city relies on collective, communal and creative action. This philosophy is carried through in the extensive urban design and architectural strategies used to ensure redevelopment and regeneration stretched to all corners of this evolving city.

Selective conservation schemes were brought in to protect and renovate historical buildings which authorities felt reflected true, local, Catalonian culture. The development of flagship urban regeneration projects in order to create cultural spaces, host events, and rebrand the city of Barcelona, not only intensified the feeling of shared identity and culture among citizens, but allowed this European city to capitalise on tourist markets, and make its mark on the map. Flagship architectural projects created opportunities for young, innovative, Spanish architects to make their imprint on their city, and over time, public art and architecture became and emblematic feature of urban politics. Redevelopment projects reached most aspects of the city, and the introduction of new infrastructure projects was a welcome one, with a transportation system in much need of modernization to reduce congestion and increase liveability. Both the physical and cultural transformations in the city of Barcelona reflected the efficacy of combining the two realms of urban regeneration and cultural identity.

Politics also played an important role during the period of regeneration within the city. In 1997, Mayor Joan Clos was elected, whose presence on an administrative level provided the necessary momentum to maintain the competitive drive of city authorities. Clos recognized the need for financial aid for urban redevelopment and ambitious flagship projects, and to renovate the industrial base of the city while regenerating the local economy. Public-private partnerships were consolidated by integrating the entrepreneurial role of companies with public management bodies, making the approach that Barcelona took in redevelopment one of the first that highlights successful urban entrepreneurialism- a method of promoting economic growth through enabling the private sector to flourish. Effective decision-making on an administrative level, combined with a hunger from the citizens of Barcelona to establish an identity, allowed the lens of culture to widen, creating a unique society combining Mediterranean lifestyle, innovation, and urban design.

The success of the urban and cultural redevelopment in Barcelona is undeniable, however it hasn’t come without its challenges. Due to the fact the regeneration process began back in the 80’s, we are now able to see the long-term effects that this process has had on the city, and contrary to popular belief, it’s not all good news. Barcelona is quickly becoming one of the most popular tourist destinations for traveller’s from all over the world, and there have been increasing tensions between the city’s aims of global competitiveness and that of ensuring social justice and democratic governance. Members of the public along with the local press are arguing that tourism, which has been mainly generated by the urban redevelopment projects, has encouraged gentrification in the Old City, while creating unaffordable housing in the periphery. Which begs the question- who truly benefits from the regeneration of this great city? Its citizens? Its visitors? Or its government?


Lawrenceville: Protecting Neighbourhoods Facing Gentrification

By Daniel Kardish

Ever since the decline of the steel industry began in the 1970’s Pittsburgh, along with other manufacturing dependent cities in the Rust-Belt, has been searching for a new economic identity. It appears as though they have found their answer in an emerging tech sector, but what are the costs to the local communities?

Modern urban development seems evermore focused on developing what appears to be the keys to a successful 21st century city: Cultural influence, economic growth, and investment opportunities. There is little doubt that these factors might lead to some identifiable economic growth, but the externalities of such a development focus should not be ignored. The obvious side effect of bringing in a completely new class and population to a city in an attempt to build upon economic growth is gentrification. The origins of this now widely used development plan is clearly linked to Richard Florida’s Cities and the Creative Class. Not only did he define the characteristics of the desired class that cities want to attract, but he also coined the term to label them: “the creative class”. The basic logic for the plan goes as follows: as investment increases and a creative citizen base immigrate in, the city can simultaneously achieve a strong cultural identity and achieve expansive economic growth (Florida, 2004). This has to a degree proven true, as cities like Pittsburgh have gained recognition for a blossoming creative centre and healthy job market. The essential nature of drawing in the creative class is not without its issues though. Whether it be through direct displacement or an uneven distribution of services and facilities, eventually some population of a city will suffer when this brand of urban regeneration becomes a city’s focus. That is unless local government and the city provide extensive measures to support such a population. These conflicts between growth and protection of long term residents is what makes Lawrenceville such an intriguing place to study. In this Pittsburgh neighbourhood even though there has been aggressive re-branding and investment, the original tenants have welcomed reinvention as the city surrounding them continues to grow.

Photo by Maya Henry (Henry, 2016b)

Lawrenceville, like many of the neighbourhoods in Pittsburgh, features a historically blue collar community that primarily served the long gone steel industry. Although the jobs have left, the ties to factory work and working class culture remain strong to this day.  This blue collar culture clearly comes into contention with the city’s movement to modernize, as tech giants like Google and Uber make their homes in the communities that once served the mills (Kurutz, 2017). Pittsburgh’s landscape has begun to shift towards a new tech era with highly educated members of the creative class, and as those new citizens try to make the city their new home they replace both the people and culture that the city is known for.

Conflicting characteristics between two populations is often where the issues associated with gentrification begin. Lawrenceville however does not fit into the stereotypes of American gentrification. Unlike many instances of gentrification in the United States there is no racial aspect to the displacement of citizens, as Lawrenceville is a historically white neighbourhood (Brown, 2016, p. 4). This means that the contention between the two classes within the neighbourhood have nothing to do with the common notion of whites displacing blacks once they have deemed an area desirable enough for racial reconstruction. In Lawrenceville, rather than going through the typical discussions of “Who can count as the subject who can claim home and land?” focusing on race and colonialism, issues can be viewed through a predominantly classist lens (Roy, 2017). Due to this distinguishable attribute, Lawrenceville has become subject to widespread analysis. The lack of race issues in the neighbourhood is especially interesting, because the integration policy used by the city has resulted in one of the more satisfied populations of original tenants in gentrified neighbourhoods. In fact, in interviews conducted by Brown many original tenants remarked that the policies and business programs provided by the city have prevented almost any atmosphere of political displacement in the neighbourhood (Brown, 2016, p. 40).  These results have left many wondering if the working class residents of Lawrenceville have benefited specifically due to their race. It is very possible that policies enacted by the city government were so generous to the original tenants due to their race, or that the use of similar policies in racially divided communities would not work as well due to the stigma attached with whites entering black neighbourhoods. In either racial process of gentrification some level of displacement occurs due to influxes in investment and pricing the former locals out.

In 2017 the displacement of the working class residents had only begun at low levels, but without serious protections for the long term residents this is likely to get much worse (Jones, 2016). As in most gentrified neighbourhoods, displacement begins to come through an increase in taxes and rents because of the incursion of development investment. With incoming residents with greater fiscal means comes general improvements to the physical space of the neighbourhood. Then, these improvements invite more investors and wealthier residents, which will eventually outbid the original tenants. This process that will likely engulf Lawrenceville is truly unfortunate, because by most accounts the relationship between original residents and those who have begun to gentrify has been a beneficial symbiotic relationship.

Long term Lawrencevillians have enjoyed both the renovations to the formerly struggling neighbourhood, and the new cultural events that the creative class has brought with them. All the while, the gentrifiers have enjoyed the authenticity and cultural diversity offered by the community (Brown, 2017, p. 17-8). In fact when interviewed Vanessa Nolan, a local resident, stated that she “believes that the hipsters who came into the neighbourhood played a large role in making the neighbourhood what it is today” (Brown, 2017, p. 17). The level of cohesion between the old and the new here is largely uncommon. Even still Lawrenceville is no utopia, as the shift in population has still brought investors and developers to this Pittsburgh neighbourhood like seagulls to breadcrumbs. Opportunity for investment is of course supported by the city, as it will provide new attractive façades as well as tax income. To combat this complete restructuring of the neighbourhood by yuppies institutional support such as forced public housing on new developments seem to mark a real fight against all out gentrification.


            For reference to what the new construction might look like see the image above which features the plans for new construction by private developer Milhaus. This new development does claim to offer mixed-income housing within the 243 incoming residential units, which is due to incentives and policy enforced by the city government (Henry, 2016a).

The work of the Lawrenceville Corporation is largely what has made for this rare pleasant process of gentrification. This local institution both offers assistance and listens to the demands of the neighbourhood has been essential in both the economic development and protection of affordable housing in the area. The balanced nature of this corporation becomes abundantly clear when examining the main principles of the organization. These principles include engaging in visionary and participatory planning, preserving authenticity, and marketing the community’s assets (Lawrenceville Corporation). Lawrenceville residents are obviously very fortunate to have those in control of their local society be so level-headed in regards to growth. Unlike many communities facing gentrification, Lawrenceville’s community leaders have the opportunity to plan cultural events with their planning corporation rather than plan protests against it. This type of policy although effective, is used irregularly when looking at the grand scheme. More often than not harmful policy is in place to regenerate and gentrify neighbourhoods.

This plan for redevelopment in Lawrenceville is obviously something that many cities would like to recreate, but regeneration is hardly ever that simple. For example, in another Pittsburgh neighbourhood East Liberty, the reinvention of the local economy to serve tech companies has led to widespread displacement of the local black community. Braiding salons have been replaced by unaffordable housing and hipster coffee shops, as noted by local East Liberty resident Ua Hayes (2017). Clearly difficult decisions must be made here. Attempting to balance affordable housing for long term residents while also maintaining the unparalleled growth experienced by cities like Pittsburgh is nearly impossible. Pittsburgh’s economic growth should truly not go unstated here, as it is the only major Rust-belt city to achieve income growth in both the lower and upper halves of earners since 1970 (Hartley, 2013). Those leading Pittsburgh such as Mayor Bill Peduto recognize that they have found a rare momentum in the region, and they will not let the economy fall apart again. The question is will the city protect its long term citizens equally, as it continues to grow and attract migration.



To look further into the more common practice of gentrification in American cities watch this clip from East of Liberty: The story of gentrification in Pittsburgh by Chris Ivey. This video discusses the issues of gentrification found the Pittsburgh neighbourhood of East Liberty (Tedx Talks, 2017).

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isalnlNABL4



For further information regarding the restructuring Pittsburgh as a whole, as well as Lawrenceville here are some valuable readings:

Diana Nelson Jones – ‘New’ Lawrenceville is coping with its own success


John Russo – The Pittsburgh Conundrum: Can you have a model city in a left behind region?


The Lawrenceville Corporation website:


Steven Kurutz – Pittsburgh gets a tech Makeover





Brown, C. (2016). When hipster meets history: Businesses and gentrification in the

                       lawrenceville  neighborhood of pittsburgh (Order No. 10104483). Available

from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1789614328).

Florida, Richard. Cities and the creative class. City & Community, 2 (1), pp. 3-19

Hartley, D. (2013, May 20). Urban Decline in Rust-belt Cities. Retrieved November 08,

2017, from  https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-



Hayes, U. (2017, February 25). First Person: The East Liberty I Know. Pittsburgh Post-

                       Gazette. Retrieved November 7, 2017, from http://www.post-



Henry, M. (2016, June 07). Milhaus Ventures to build 243 apartments, public park and

more in Lawrenceville. Retrieved November 08, 2017, from



Henry, M. (2016, August 30). Famed artist Dan Kitchener does first US mural for New

Amsterdam. Retrieved November 08, 2017, from


Jones, D. N. (2016, September 26). ‘New’ Lawrenceville Is Coping with Its Own

Success. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved November 7, 2017.

Kurutz, S. (2017, July 22). Pittsburgh Gets a Tech Makeover. The New York Times.

Retrieved November 7, 2017, from


Lawrenceville Corporation – About. (n.d.). Retrieved November 08, 2017, from


Roy, A. (2017). Dis/possessive collectivism: Property and personhood at city’s

end. Geoforum, 80, A1-A11. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.12.012

Russo, J. (2017, June 22). The Pittsburgh Conundrum: Can You Have a Model City in a Left-

Behind Region? The American Prospect. Retrieved November 8, 2017, from


TEDx Talks. (2017, June 17). East of Liberty: The story of gentrification in Pittsburgh

                         | Chris Ivey | TEDxYouth@Shadyside. Youtube, from


Urban Farming, a tool for regeneration?

By David Ulijn

Today humanity stands for more global challenges than ever. According to the World Economic Forum, food security is at the top of the biggest challenges we face. By 2050, the global population increases to 9 billion people, with 85% of them living in a city. With this increase in population and other factors such as climate change, the demand for food by 2050 will be 60% greater than today.

The traditional way we cultivate our fruit and vegetables won’t be sufficient to fulfill this demand. So instead of cultivation on farms in rural areas, the alternative way is to implement agriculture into the city, this is called urban agriculture (UA).

But UA is not only an alternative way to cultivate our food, it is also a good alternative way to use space in a city. The use of UA in the city can differ and the main uses for it are community gardens and urban farms.

Bringing UA into the city in the form of community gardens can be a good strategy for more social integration and poverty alleviation. People who are involved in community garden projects tend to feel more involved in the community because they constructively work together to produce food for consumption and for sale. For areas in the city where people have a lower income, UA can help them eat healthier. Since they don’t have to buy vegetables anymore, this helps them save money as well. For people in more wealthier areas, the community gardens may provide for physical and psychological relaxation.


Community gardens are good ways to reoccupy abandoned places in the city. Detroit is a good example of this. Between 2000 and 2010, 25% of the population fled the city because of the collapse of the car industry, leaving a lot of houses and buildings empty. With all this empty space and food insecurities the city was facing, urban gardeners began planting the seeds for the recovery of the city. Tyson Gersh founder of the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative (MUFI) started in 2011 with the idea of an urban farming project in Detroit. Now he produces more than thousands of kilos of organic products each year. His projects take advantage of the existing infrastructure in the city. In his projects, he makes use of a rainwater cistern which is made by waterproofing the foundation of an abandoned house. He also sells added value products like tomato sauce, in a retail store which was a former commercial building. The MUFI started the first year with building a big volunteer presence, to build a good relationship with the existing community. This caused a lot of people in the neighborhoods to get involved, which helped to make the existing community stronger. The story of Tyson Gersh is a good example of UA in the form of community gardens done right. His projects are a catalyst for increased property value, higher demand and they are the driving force of the development of the area. MUFI is in a big way positioning green infrastructure as the main driver of urban development. This initiative is now even called the first truly agri-hood model.

The community gardens are very focused on the community and volunteering as a non-profit organization. But there are UA uses who want to gain more profit of the new trend of producing food in the city. These are the urban and entrepreneurial farms, where the projects go beyond home food consumption and grow produce for the market. These farms are more focused on mass production and growing fruit and vegetables in the most efficient way. One of the biggest entrepreneurs in this form of UA is Kimbal Musk, yes it is the younger brother of Elon Musk. With his company Square Roots, he made a platform for entrepreneurs in urban farming, in whom he invested a fair amount of money. The idea of this platform is to bring entrepreneurs, researchers, and engineers together to try to find the best way of cultivating fruit and vegetables with the most advanced techniques. So this can be transferred into large-scale production and implemented in multiple cities. The farms are located in old industrial areas in Brooklyn, New York. At the moment they are experimenting in containers but the idea is to bring the farms to the larger industrial buildings. This initiative is an example of giving the creative class, in this case, the entrepreneurs, engineers, and researchers an incentive to move to the particular city. And to give old empty buildings a new purpose.

Inside the container of Square Roots

But UA has its shortcomings. Most projects around UA have a social component that meant to benefit the public. Most of them are located in low-income areas and are mostly non-profit. But because of the class and race-based inequalities of the gardeners and farmers in lower-income communities, fundraising, grants, and the information for funding are not easy to access. Actually, the culture around healthy and local food is mostly associated with people who have a higher education and higher income. And most of the projects are implemented from that point of view. Therefore lower-income communities where food access is limited are most of the times not considered and do not always benefit from these projects. But when the strategy of implementation is more focused on cultural preferences and needs of the local community these barriers can be overcome. Also, the products of the larger urban farms are still very expensive due to the technologies that are used. But with the fast progress in technology, there is a good chance these products will become cheaper

But despite the shortcomings, urban farming can be a good tool for regeneration. UA creates more liveability in the city, communities and whole neighborhoods are based on this. Which causes neighborhoods to flourish again as in the case in Detroit. Also has the innovation UA an attractive force on the creative class which gives the city a competitive advantage.


Wold economic forum on biggest challenges  humanity (2016)


Turning Derelict Buildings into an Urban Farm in Detroit, Lauren Rothman (2017) https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/aea7za/turning-derelict-buildings-into-an-urban-farm-in-detroit 

America’s first sustainable urban agrihood is growing in Detroit, Robin Runyan (2017)  https://detroit.curbed.com/2016/12/1/13807672/urban-agrihood-detroit-mufi

Urban Agriculture as creative city politics in the city of Rotterdam, Merging neoliberal and radical agendas, Stella Bünger (2014). http://edepot.wur.nl/309151

Elon Musk’s brother is building vertical farms in shipping containers, Leanna Garfiel. (2016) http://www.businessinsider.com/kimbal-musk-vertical-farms-shipping-containers-2016-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Urban agriculture, what and why? RUAF Foundation. http://www.ruaf.org/urban-agriculture-what-and-why

Urban Agriculture Impacts: Social, Health, and Economic: A Literature Review, Sheila Golden (2013). http://asi.ucdavis.edu/programs/sarep/publications/food-and-society/ualitreview-2013.pdf

Dublin Docklands Development: Regeneration or Relocation?

By Aoibhín O’Connell

The Dublin Docklands in recent years has seen some of the most modern architectural design in the county, with a stream of business locating in the financial sector. But is this investment benefiting the existing surrounding communities? The derelict sites and neglected communities adjacent to the thriving economic hub seem to have been overlooked in the rapid development process. This post will attempt to investigate the reasons, and potential solutions, for the rapidly polarising inequality in these areas.

Photo courtesy of Henry J Lyons Architects: http://hjlyons.com/projects/barrow-street/

The Docklands prior to development

Prior to development, the Dublin Docklands was considered to be a problem area of the city centre. The area was once home to the intense manual labour of the port industry, but this quickly began to spiral with the increase of mechanisation and containerisation from the 1960s, making the majority of dockland workers redundant, giving rise to ongoing social problems of crime and drugs (Reflecting City, 2008). Due to this decline in traditional work and the rapid suburbanisation of Dublin from the 1970s onwards, Inner City Dublin also suffered massive decrease in population of 50% by 1991 (Haase, 2009). This destabilisation of the dockland communities is what spurred on the action plan of the 1990s for the redevelopment of the derelict area by Dublin City Council, formerly known as the Dublin Corporation at the time.

Governmental “Masterplan”

As a response to the hardships faced by the dockland communities, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 established the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) who proposed a ‘masterplan’ which has since been updated on a 5 year basis. This plan aimed to tackle the socio-economic problems faced by the docklands, focusing on maximising the productivity of the area by promoting an ambitious local working population and developing attractive and sustainable architecture and design for potential public and private investment. Furthermore, the socio-economic objectives of the city supposedly intended to maximise local community involvement and the provision of new opportunity for the local people, while attracting business and employment to the area in sectors of finance, law, and technology (Reflecting City, 2008).

These sectors tend to seek employees of higher education and skill, and attracting such investment and job opportunity to an educationally disadvantaged area seems to portray the governmental plan as one with investment opportunity as priority over the local struggling people. The lower levels of education and unemployment combined with the introduction of predominantly professional work opportunity is a recipe for polarising a community rather than advancing it. Acknowledging this, the plan generally suggests the support of initiatives to overcome disadvantage in the area, however, to date this mainly includes a mere tax incentive for employers to hire people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more (Citizens Information, 2016).

The masterplan also highlights the DDDA’s intention of providing various amenities to aid the implementation of a cohesive community (Reflecting City, 2008). This included the development of the Point Village, which to date is home to a shopping centre predominantly comprising of empty rental units and a cinema, leaving the skeletal building of what was meant to be the ‘community enhancing’ source of amenities.

Development in Action: Has the Community Benefited?

Today, the Dublin Docklands Development Authority advertise their social project as one of success. On their official website, they proudly state how the project has succeeded since 1997, creating 40,000 new jobs, and 11,000 new homes; 20% of which is social and affordable housing. However, have they aided the original struggling inhabitants or simply replaced them with highly educated, working professionals? According to Haase (2009), although the level of higher education in the docklands spiked from 1.0% of the population in 1991 to 46.6% in 2006, this is not a major applause to the DDDA for helping a struggling community, but merely shining a bright light on the displacement of these struggling communities, and replacing them with an inward migration of a more affluent population. In 1991, social housing in the dockland areas accounted for 74.4% of households in the area, which dramatically dropped to 26% in 2006. However, this was not due to over 52% of households quickly benefitting from development and suddenly privatising their homes. When the Sheriff Street flats had been cleared, the majority of the tenants were relocated out of the area to other areas including Coolock, Darndale, Ballymun and other areas which are still facing the ongoing issues of education and unemployment (Haase, 2009).

Towards a Better Future: the Mulvey Report

A recent report, carried out by Kieran Mulvey in the area of the North East Inner City (NEIC), was requested by Taoiseach Enda Kenny to be reported to the Ministerial Taskforce. The study was initiated in response to a rise in social crime in the area including gangland murders and aimed to assess the true social issues currently facing the communities, despite the supposedly ‘positive’ development statistics provided by the DDDA.

According to Mulvey, over a third (26) of the small areas in the NEIC are considered to be classified as disadvantaged or very disadvantaged and a further 19 areas are marginally below average. In some of the very disadvantaged small areas, up to 50% of the population have only attained primary school education and less than 5% attained third level education. This is then compared to the notable difference in other smaller areas still within the NEIC, where over 62% of the population have attained third level education. This inequality in education within such closely situated areas is typical of the gentrification of the docklands, where the original inhabitants are left behind while the newly attracted young professionals benefit from the local development, and Mulvey predicts this to worsen with further dockland development plans.

Fig. 1: Mulvey, K. (2017). Dublin North East Inner City: Creating a Brighter Future, page 15

As outlined in Figure 1, Mulvey continues to highlight the overlooked potential of the NEIC, and suggests various development programmes to replace the existing ones as they are described by the locals as poorly managed and implemented. Also, there is a key fear that reoccurs throughout the study of the local communities; the fear of false promises of development. The unequal development between the IFSC and the long-standing residential areas creates a possibility of ghettoisation in the future, and to deter from this, Mulvey supports the idea of a locally respected representative of the NEIC communities to be heavily involved in further development plans of the disadvantaged areas.


Governmental Response to Mulvey Report

As a response to the comprehensive report by Kieran Mulvey, Taoiseach Enda Kenny, along with the support of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, allocated a further €5 million for the implementation of effective regeneration programmes in the NEIC going forward. The progress on the previously existing development programmes worth €4.7 million can be found here, and an additional €5m would surely make an impact in the reform of the social issues within the NEIC, but will not compare to NAMA’s €1.9 billion investment in the DDDA (MerrionStreet.ie, 2015).


In conclusion, in order for the long-term regeneration and development of the NEIC areas, there needs to be a convergence between the disadvantaged long term residential areas and the heavily invested areas of the IFSC. The rigid implementation of the governmental aims is vital for the reform of tackling the issues of education and crime in the disadvantaged areas, bridging the two worlds through the accessibility of opportunity.

by Aoibhín O’Connell



  1. Citizens Information (2016). JobsPlus. [online] Citizensinformation.ie. Available at: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/employment_support_schemes/jobsplus.html [Accessed 4 Nov. 2017].


  1. ie. (2017). Urban Dereliction | Dublin Docklands. [online] Available at: http://www.dublindocklands.ie/about-us/docklands-history/history-and-heritage/urban-dereliction [Accessed 5 Nov. 2017].


  1. Haase, T. (2009). The Changing Face of Dublin’s Inner City. [online] Dublin: Dublin Inner City Partnership. Available at: http://trutzhaase.eu/wp/wp-content/uploads/R_2009_Divided-City.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2017].


  1. ie (2015). NAMA to invest €7.5 billion in Commercial and Residential Development Programme. [online] Available at: https://merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/News/NAMA_to_invest_%E2%82%AC7_5_billion_in_commercial_and_residential_development_programme.html [Accessed 4 Nov. 2017].


  1. ie (2017). Government Responds Comprehensively to Mulvey Report Recommendations for North East Inner City. [online] Available at: https://merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Releases/Government_Responds_Comprehensively_to_Mulvey_Report_Recommendations_for_North_East_Inner_City.html [Accessed 4 Nov. 2017].


  1. Mulvey, K. (2017). Dublin North East Inner City: Creating a Brighter Future. [online] Available at: https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/20170218MulveyReport.pdf [Accessed 3 Nov. 2017].


  1. Reflecting City (2008). Docklands: A History | The Reconstruction of Dublin. [online] Reflectingcity.com. Available at: http://www.reflectingcity.com/docklands/history/docklands-potted-history/ [Accessed 4 Nov. 2017].


  1. Reflecting City (2008). Masterplan 1997 | Docklands | Reflecting City: Dublin. [online] Reflectingcity.com. Available at: http://www.reflectingcity.com/docklands/planning/masterplan-1997/ [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017].


The Existence and Persistence of Urban Sporting Spaces in a Neoliberal Dublin

By Jack Dolan

As cities have become the focal point of modern society in the post-industrial age, it is unavoidable that different interest groups will clash over the allocation of finite space in urban centres. In using the examples of urban sport spaces in Dublin, both new and old, the relationship between both culture and neoliberalism will be examined. It will also be asked, can the two coexist? Two spaces will be examined to demonstrate this peculiar relationship. The first being an AstroTurf football pitch on Digges Street, and the second, a newly opened skating area and public park in Weaver square.

Map of Dublin: The red circles indicate the location of Weaver Park and Digges Street Football pitch Source: Google maps

Digges Street Football Pitch

View from Aungier Street
View from Aungier Street


Rules of Pitch

Rules of Pitch

On January 30th, 2009, the Lord Mayor of Dublin officially opened Digges Street Football pitch (Construction Ireland, 2009). It is a bizarre space. Although planning began before the economic crash, the fact it was completed is astounding, considering the broader context of Irish society at this time, as the effects of the recession were being felt nationally (The Irish Times, 2009). Digges Street shares a corner with Aungier Street in Central Dublin, and is quite literally across the street from DIT Aungier Street. The pitch remains currently open, despite the recovery of the Irish construction market and consistent rising rent prices in Central Dublin (Hearne et al. 2018) that has made the space particularly profitable.

View from
The view highlighting proximity to DIT Aungier Street


Diggs park
This shows the size of Digges Street Park


Weaver Park

On October 2nd, 2017, a new communal space was opened in Weaver Square (Dublin City Council, 2017). Located mere minutes from such inner-city landmarks as St. Patricks Cathedral and DIT Kevin Street. The park “features a lawn, for games and activities and [an] enclosed play area, a skateboarding terrace, benches and a pergola” (Dublin City Council, 2017). The aim of such a plan was to provide “a meeting place of new and existing residents of Dublin’s exciting quarter for living and work” (Dublin City Council, 2017). It was said the park “reflects Dublin City Council’s ambition to ensure that every community has access to a quality park” (Dublin City Council, 2017). The question remains how did this space come into existence? Considering the recent “housing crisis” that has gripped Ireland and, more specifically Dublin, this would make this space allocation contentious (Hearne et al. 2018).


Weaver park.jpg
Weaver Park on Cork Street

Weaver Park can be considered contentious when one considers the condition of its establishment. This park came into existence after the demolition of the Weaver Square flat complex as well as Chamber Court  in 2009 (Dublin City Council, 2017). It was initially designated to be used for redeveloped apartments and social housing, that would be developed under a Public Private Partnership agreement (Hearne, 2011). However, due to the 2007 financial crisis, the space was left derelict. The idea of creating a park came as a result of “city councilors [passing] a motion not to dispose (pass the site to private developers) of the site in 2013 after local groups and individuals within the area campaigned for the development of the park” (Caspelich, 2014).


parks main attraction.jpg
The Parks Main attraction is the Skating area

Neoliberalism and Sport: opposites?

Whilst neoliberalism has become the guiding ideology of modern Ireland, this does not mean these sporting spaces should not exist. Considering a neoliberalist perspective, spaces such as these would generally be sold to private interests under PPP (Hearne, 2011), with the association of the pursuit of profit and neoliberalism. With the bailout debt still hanging above Ireland and the position of the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA) (Hearne et al., 2018), it is surprising these spaces have not been used to regain revenue.

But, sporting spaces and neoliberalism are not opposites. The introduction of this sporting space has been seen pushed as an expansion of culture. Indeed, “in conceiving of the city as a purely physical space, sport can be said to have had a significant impact upon moulding the structural and spatial constitution of the urban environment” (Wilcox, Andrews, Pitter, & Irwin, 2003, p. 3), giving the city life, so to speak.  Sport has become a major “element in city marketing”. The introduction of “sport facilities may be seen as triggers to further growth” (Gratton & Henry, 2001, p. 4) as the area becomes more appealing to the public as “high-quality amenities, such as bars, restaurants and good quality public space” have become major selling points in cities (Lawton, Murphy, & Redmond, 2014, p. 189).

inside the digges street.jpg
A view from inside Digges Street Football Pitch

Sport For All?

Socially, the benefits of sporting spaces such as these, according to former Lord Mayor Byrne, is that “football [pitches] [and other sporting facilities] like this offer local people, especially children and young people, the opportunity to exercise, play sport and, most importantly, spend time outdoors and meet each other” (Construction Ireland, 2009). Gratton and Henry refer to Sport as a “welfare service” (2001, p. 4), a means of improving a region. Similarly, the area of Weaver Park, the Liberties, “has not enjoyed the benefits of benevolent green spaces on any significant scale” (Dublin City Council, 2014).

waver park 2
Weaver Park offers an open space to residents of Dublin 8.


However, is this sport for the described social benefits, or as a tool of gentrification? Critics of redevelopment, who simply rebrand it gentrification argue that these changes only occur with an influx of new residents into a previously rundown area. Notably, director Spike Lee famously commented how conditions and facilities improve only after certain new, more affluent groups moved into an area (Micheal & Bramley, 2014). It is fair to say that this criticism is founded in some fact. When examining Weaver Square, an area initially proposed for social housing, it should be noted that the area was left empty for nearly 8 years. It was only upon significant reinvestment in the region, as an attractive and up and coming neighbourhood, that it became a park. By this time The Liberties had undergone significant changes in the residency and had become significantly wealthier since the 1990s. This suggests that these sporting spaces, despite their social benefits, exist only as an extension of gentrification.

a view through the railings.jpg
A view through the railings

A Final Thought

This case highlights the perplexity of space allocation in a city as small as Dublin. In a neoliberal environment, it would be assumed these spaces wouldn’t be used socially for sport, but sold for profit. The reality, in these cases, is the opposite. This shows that these spaces can coexist with a neoliberal agenda. Whilst alleviating debt seems logical economically, it does not mean it is logical socially. These spaces may be seen as an extension of gentrification, only arising after a significant change in residency. Despite this critique, these spaces provide children of the city an area in which they can play, where previously, there have not been areas for children to play sport. Reintroducing sport to the centre of the city improves these regions,  as reintroducing culture makes it more appealable for further investment.  Despite the apparent contradiction of their existence, this does not mean these sport spaces should not exist.



Caspelich, S. A. (2014, January 31). The Liberty. ie. Retrieved November 11, 2017, from The Liberty.ie: http://www.theliberty.ie/2013/01/31/community-garden-flourishes/

Construction Ireland. (2009, January 30). Construction Ireland. Retrieved November 9, 2017, from Construction Ireland.ie: http://www.constructionireland.ie/construction-news/88685/mayor-opens-new-dublin-pitch

Dublin City Council. (2014). Liberties Greening Strategy. Dublin City Council. Dublin: Dublin City Council. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RecreationandCulture/DublinCityParks/Documents/liberties%20greening%20strategy.pdf

Dublin City Council. (2017, October 2). Dublin City Council. Retrieved November 12, 2017, from Dublin City. ie: http://www.dublincity.ie/weaver-park-opens-dublin%E2%80%99s-cork-street

Gratton, C., & Henry, I. (2001). Sport in the City: The role of sport in economic and social regeneration. New York: Routledge.

Hearne, R. (2011). Public Private Partnerships in Ireland: Failed Experiment or the Way Forward for the State? Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Hearne, R. O’Callaghan, C., Di Feliciantonio, C., Kitchin, R. (2018). The relational articulation of housing crisis and activism in post-crash Dublin, Ireland in, editor(s)Gray, N , A Century of Housing Struggles: From the 1915 Rent Strikes to Contemporary Housing Activisms, Boulder, Roman and Littefield

Kelly, O. (2017, May 22). The Irish Times. Retrieved November 12, 2017, from The Irish Times Online: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/new-dublin-urban-quarter-will-have-more-than-1-000-homes-1.3091208

Lawton, P., Murphy, E., & Redmond, D. (2014). Neoliberalising the City ‘Creative-Class’ Style. In A. McLaren, & S. Kelly (Eds.), Neoliberal Urban Policy and Transformation of the City: Reshaping Dublin (pp. 189-202). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Micheal, C., & Bramley, E. V. (2014, February 26). The Guardian. Retrieved November 12, 2017, from The Guardian Online: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/feb/26/spike-lee-gentrification-rant-transcript

Moran, J. (1998, April 14). The Irish Times. Retrieved November 9, 2017, from The Irish Times Online: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/an-irishman-s-diary-1.141960

The Irish Times. (2009, May 20). The Irish Times. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from The Irish Times Online: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland-technically-in-depression-1.840821

Wilcox, R. C., Andrews, D. L., Pitter, R., & Irwin, R. I. (2003). Sporting Dystopias: The Making and Meaning of Urban Sport Cultures . New York : State University of New York Press.