Great piece! Gentrification is a complex and well-studied phenomenon that goes far beyond wealthier foreigners moving into cheaper countries. David Ley’s cultural approach describes it as an organic process seen in cities worldwide, where neighborhood demographics shift in stages: first come artists, drawn by low costs and uniqueness; then middle-class professionals seeking cultural capital; and finally, higher-income professionals, bringing reinvestment. In Mexico, this process in neighborhoods like Roma and Condesa began long before digital nomads arrived. The original gentrifiers were, in fact, Mexican.
Economists like Neil Smith and Tom Slater offer another view, focusing on cycles of urban valuation and devaluation. Investment in a neighborhood is only profitable up to a point. Once returns decline, capital moves elsewhere, allowing the area to devalue until reinvestment becomes attractive again. In Mexico City, central neighborhoods declined in the late 20th century due to rent control, decentralization, and the 1985 earthquake. By 2000, reinvestment began, marking the start of today’s gentrification cycle in the boroughs you mentioned.
As you point out, this reflects a broader crisis in urban planning. The shortage of housing is a key issue, but I believe it’s not just about quantity. It’s about building homes where people can actually live without extreme commutes. Solving this will require a restructuring rooted in what, as you’ve shown, has long been missing: a coherent vision for a livable, inclusive city. This is such an important issue, and more people should be engaging with it in all its complexity. Kudos to you for doing just that.
Great piece! Gentrification is a complex and well-studied phenomenon that goes far beyond wealthier foreigners moving into cheaper countries. David Ley’s cultural approach describes it as an organic process seen in cities worldwide, where neighborhood demographics shift in stages: first come artists, drawn by low costs and uniqueness; then middle-class professionals seeking cultural capital; and finally, higher-income professionals, bringing reinvestment. In Mexico, this process in neighborhoods like Roma and Condesa began long before digital nomads arrived. The original gentrifiers were, in fact, Mexican.
Economists like Neil Smith and Tom Slater offer another view, focusing on cycles of urban valuation and devaluation. Investment in a neighborhood is only profitable up to a point. Once returns decline, capital moves elsewhere, allowing the area to devalue until reinvestment becomes attractive again. In Mexico City, central neighborhoods declined in the late 20th century due to rent control, decentralization, and the 1985 earthquake. By 2000, reinvestment began, marking the start of today’s gentrification cycle in the boroughs you mentioned.
As you point out, this reflects a broader crisis in urban planning. The shortage of housing is a key issue, but I believe it’s not just about quantity. It’s about building homes where people can actually live without extreme commutes. Solving this will require a restructuring rooted in what, as you’ve shown, has long been missing: a coherent vision for a livable, inclusive city. This is such an important issue, and more people should be engaging with it in all its complexity. Kudos to you for doing just that.