Why Gayborhoods Matter: The Street Empirics of Urban Sexuali - PMC

Contents:

• THE 'GAYTRIFITN' EFFECT: WHY GAY NEIGHBOURHOODS ARE BEG PRICED OUT
• BETWEEN “GHETTOS”, “SAFE SPAC” AND “GAYTRIFITN”
• WHY GAYBORHOODS MATTER: THE STREET EMPIRICS OF URBAN SEXUALI
• LIST THREE (3) CHARACTERISTICS OF 'GAY VILLAG' ACRDG TO...
• THE ENOMIC BENEFS OF GAY MARRIAGE
• POLIL AND ENOMIL BENEFS OF GAY MARRIAGE
• THE LIFECYCLE OF THE GAY VILLAGE
• GAY MOSW MOSW CY GUI

THE 'GAYTRIFITN' EFFECT: WHY GAY NEIGHBOURHOODS ARE BEG PRICED OUT

Affluent and unhampered by children – or so the myth go – this group is always the g vanguard of gentrifyg areas, pricg out long-term lols and leavg behd a trail of look-but-don’t-touch furnure shops and overpriced are urban gay people who are watchg their stutns and neighbourhoods disappear merely reapg what they sowed?

Those wh the means were th more likely to look for hog that was cheap enough to buy outright: for example, 1950s Soho (for gay men) and the Hebn Bridge, Wt Yorkshire, of the 1960s and 70s (for lbians). Florida’s theory placed gay people at the heart of urban regeneratn, part of a gentrifyg vanguard along wh creative and tech workers and “high bohemians”, who together helped to repopulate and refurbish prevly ndown urban areas.

Acrdg to soclogy profsor Am Ghaziani, who rearched the subject extensively while wrg his book, There Go the Gayborhood?, there is evince om North Ameri to back up assumptns that LGBT rints boost property pric. Even s ndown phase, London’s Soho was too expensive and domated by mercial property to attract a massive ncentratn of gay ’s still a pattern clearly regnisable the UK to the procs Ghaziani scrib. The muny anisatn LGBT Detro has been tryg to enurage the (unofficial) foundg of a gay village the cy, as a way of providg more solidary and support for a muny that’s weaker for beg geographilly the anisatn’s director Curtis Lipsb explas: “We had a few areas where LGBT people moved to after the send world war, but they lasted only until the last major whe flight, when a large number of whe gays and lbians moved to the northern suburbs.

BETWEEN “GHETTOS”, “SAFE SPAC” AND “GAYTRIFITN”

So while you might have some [straight] rints who bee terted a [gay-iendly] neighbourhood once starts showg visual improvements, you still have people wh strong negative feelgs about LGBT people. In fact, the strong mercial, rintial and symbolic prence of LGBT muni duc a phenomena that has been ed as “gaytrifitn”, due to the material and the symbolic chang they perform the neighbourhoods. 3Many thors argue that this mol of the “Gay Village”, often centred on the realy of Anglo-Saxon ci (and particularly north Amerin, or eventually European s), do not ver or reprent the plexy of practic, attus and reprentatns that embodi the spatiali of LGBT life those ci - which naturally do not rtrict to the areas - neher acplish the diversy and plexy of inti herent to them.

WHY GAYBORHOODS MATTER: THE STREET EMPIRICS OF URBAN SEXUALI

6The rearch hypoth we are assumg are the followg: (i) there may be nsirable differenc our se studi relatn to those other s; (ii) there may be evince of important specifici that uld reprent a "South European" approach to the realy of "Gay Villag". 11This is particularly important when the terrori face the challeng related to the procs of gentrifitn, massifitn and touristifitn, which are spreadg the ntemporary urban doma, also affectg gay villag and LGBT muni a siar way. Another important aspect that is also seen the analysis of cultural quarters and LGBT neighbourhoods is related to their own terrorial characteristics, which are sential the nurturg of creative terrorially-embedd dynamics (such as the existence of ndns of openns, tolerance, diversy, limaly), which are also fundamental for the settlement and velopment of “gay villag” and “queer terrori”.

12In what ncerns to the send stream, the analysis of "gay neighbourhoods", a wi range of lerature n be found recent s the fields of geography, soclogy, urbanism or cultural and queer studi, standg out the broar amework of the analysis of LGBT and queer geographi wh urban space.

LIST THREE (3) CHARACTERISTICS OF 'GAY VILLAG' ACRDG TO...

14From classil studi on muny-based movements and the spatializatn of “gay villag” (Castells and Murphy, 1982; Castells, 1983; Lria and Knopp, 1985; Bell and Valente, 1995; Knopp, 1995) to a wi diversy of empiril work on the LGBT and queer spatial patterns, multiple analys have drawn attentn to a diversy of spatial practic (and reprentatns) - the cy, the neighbourhood, or even at home - and to the plex mechanisms of permanent negotiatn of inti the urban sphere, both public and private space (Bnie and Valente, 1999; Bnie, 1995, 2004; Bell and Valente, 1995; Hanhardt, 2013, 2016; Giekd 2013, 2016; Sprgate, 2016; L et al, 2014; Chisholm, 2005; Pilkey, 2013, Brown et al, 2004; Vieira, 2011).

THE ENOMIC BENEFS OF GAY MARRIAGE

16In this work - for pragmatic reasons and assumg that, at least to some extent, “quarterg fix queer place” (Bnie, 2004) – special attentn is paid to the work done by Col Gird (2014) parg two other “gay villag” ntexts different om ours. The diversy of dimensns vered by this thor’s tensive work the two neighbourhoods - cludg aspects related to the velopment of gay villag, the unrstandg of material and symbolic aspects related to the mercial and rintial trajectori the neighbourhoods, as well as the practic of daily life, the mechanisms of socializatn and sociabily gay villag, or the relatns of ‘gaytrifiers’ wh their neighbourhoods - allows to aspire to have a parative perspective a realy that may not be so far om the Iberian ntext where we nducted our analysis.

22But as other s of gentrifitn, the ma qutn is about the drivers of this “gaytrifitn” procs, and to what extent leads to social, cultural, and enomic chang (not ntrolled or foreen) the terrori. As Gird's work, the aim is to look at the two gay neighbourhoods and explore their siari and dissiari wh the analys of other se studi rried out by other thors, wh different methodologil procr. Chue has faced a nsirable velopment gay life, pecially sce the 1970’s and 1980’s, and is still marked by a strong LGBT prence, clearly visible public space, lol merce and servic, and the appropriatn that the queer muny mak through s daily practic.

The LGBT muny the area is noted has havg grown the 1980’s and 1990’s, but the area do not rrpond precisely to what is ually lled a “gay village”, as the visibily of this muny to external ey is still prevalent, and the marks the public space (sentially related to bars and nightlife or sporadic specialized tra) are not so equent. - Chue was very important for most of the sample, due to the gay movement durg the 80s (they uld kiss, hold hands, etc., si the neighbourhood; no longer the se, sce outsi is now also normal to do ).

POLIL AND ENOMIL BENEFS OF GAY MARRIAGE

This district (wh a strong prence of rints, but also wh a variety of LGBT merce and servic) is currently facg the challeng related to the staabily as a gay "village", beg affected by strong forc towards a procs of terrorial spreadg or even relotn (to nearby lotns). 43In the se of Príncipe Real is much more difficult to e the label of "gay village" of the cy, regardls of s strong weight Lisbon's LGBT activi, the stcturg of muny inti and llective reprentatns.

THE LIFECYCLE OF THE GAY VILLAGE

Comparg the characteristics and ntgenci of the areas wh other s prevly studied the lerature, namely the analysis nducted by Col Gird (2014) two other LGBT neighbourhoods (Marais Paris and Village Montreal), we n nsir that is possible to intify the existence of substantial differenc relatn to them and suggt the evince of some specifici that uld reprent a “South European” approach to the realy of the “Gay Villag”. In other perspective, the realy of the Chue and Príncipe Real neighbourhoods uld be more easily pared to the other two s through a (much more flexible and fluid) queer-oriented approach than wh a tradnal "gay village" amework. From the perceptns of the LGBT muny members terviewed, their role the early stag of the procs is not directly exprsed ( is not assumed as many other "gay villag" around the world), even if is clearly admissible.

It is important to note that the same-sex soc-sexual behavr observed the study is distct om homosexual behavr bee s motivatn and purpose are social, said Jean-Baptiste Le, who studi primate behavr at the Universy of Lethbridge Canada and was not volved the new rearch. Gut Edor (s): Alex Bterman17 and Daniel Baldw Hs1817Department of Archecture and Dign, Aled State Universy of New York, New York, USA 18Department of Urban and Regnal Planng, Universy at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY USA AbstractUrbanists have veloped an extensive set of proposns about why gay neighborhoods form, how they change, shifts their signifince, and their spatial exprsns. By shiftg the analytic gaze om abstract ncepts to teractns and embodied perceptns on the ground—a “street empirics” as I ll —I challenge the claim that gayborhoods as an urban form are outmod or obsolete.

GAY MOSW MOSW CY GUI

Keywords: Urban sexuali, Technology, Gay neighborhoods, LGBTQ+ safe spacIntroductn: Gayborhood StudiThe associatn between sexualy and the cy is as tablished experientially as is affirmed the amy—om sexologil unts of sexual practic to thick ethnographic scriptns of the moral regns of urban sexual worlds (Ksey et al. Scholars ask why gayborhoods first formed (Castells and Murphy 1982; Knopp 1997; Lewis 2013), how they have changed over time (Kanai and Kenttamaa-Squir 2015; Rhbrook 2002; Stryker and Van Bkirk 1996), their cultural signifince for queer people (Doan and Higgs 2011; Greene 2014; Orne 2017), why they appeal to heterosexuals (Brodyn and Ghaziani 2018; Ghaziani 2019d), and their diverse spatial exprsns ( Brown-Saraco 2018; Ghaziani 2019a; Whtemore and Smart 2016).

This prompted follow-up qutns about whether gay districts remble ethnic ghettos (Leve 1979; Wirth 1928) and if gay bars are better nceptualized as private (Weightman 1980) or closet-like spac (Brown 2000). Some rearchers show that people e technology creatively to image new spac away om the gayborhood (Wu and Ward 2017), while others argue that apps reproduce equali (Conner 2018) than origs, anizatns, and technology, rearchers who work a fourth stream of gayborhood studi document mographic chang (Moral 2018; Sprg 2013) and nsir their effects on muny-buildg and placemakg efforts ( Brown-Saraco 2011; Casey 2004; Ghaziani and Stillwagon 2018; Rennger 2019).