Gentrification of peri-urban spaces in France: The surroundings of Nancy

Marchal, Hervé; Stébé, Jean-Marc; Weber, Florian Article Gentrification of peri-urban spaces in France: The surroundings of Nancy Raumforschung und Raumordnung / Spatial Research and Planning Provided in Cooperation with: Leibniz-Forschungsnetzwerk "R – Räumliches Wissen für Gesellschaft und Umwelt | Spatial Knowledge for Society and Environment" Suggested Citation: Marchal, Hervé; Stébé, Jean-Marc; Weber, Florian (2019) : Gentrification of periurban spaces in France: The surroundings of Nancy, Raumforschung und Raumordnung / Spatial Research and Planning, ISSN 1869-4179, Sciendo, Warsaw, Vol. 77, Iss. 3, pp. 257-271, https://doi.org/10.2478/rara-2019-0013 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/222192 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning, 2019; 77(3): 257–271 Beitrag / Article Open Access Hervé Marchal, Jean-Marc Stébé, Florian Weber* Open Access. © 2019 Hervé Marchal, Jean-Marc Stébé, Florian Weber published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. Gentrification of peri-urban spaces in France ‒ the surroundings of Nancy Gentrifizierung in periurbanen Räumen Frankreichs – am Beispiel des Umlandes von Nancy https://doi.org/10.2478/rara-2019-0013 Eingegangen: 17. Juni 2018; Angenommen: 6. Februar 2019 *Corresponding author: Jun.-Prof. Dr. Florian Weber: Universität des Saarlandes, Fachrichtung Geographie, Am Markt, Zeile 2, 66125 Saarbrücken, Deutschland, E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Hervé Marchal: Centre Georges Chevrier, Université de Bourgogne, BP 27877, 21078 Dijon Cedex, France Prof. Dr. Jean-Marc Stébé: Université de Lorraine (Pôle Nancy), Département de sociologie, 23, boulevard Albert 1er, BP 60446, 54001 Nancy Cedex, France Abstract: The process of gentrification in the peri-urban districts of French cities has scarcely been touched upon in recent research, which has hitherto seen the phenomenon as typically associated with core urban areas. The tendency has been to view the periphery through the lens of the social crisis of the banlieues. In contrast, the present article focuses on gentrification in the metropolitan area of Nancy (Grand Est region) as a development that also plays a role in municipalities around major cities and especially around regional metropolitan centres. Starting with a survey of current research approaches, the article first pinpoints some gaps and methodological imbalances that need to be tackled, before embarking on the case study of peri-urban Nancy. Statistical data and empirical surveys in the form of qualitative interviews indicate how Nancy’s peri-urban districts have developed a logic of separation, exclusion and social decoupling ‒ typical features of gentrification ‒ particularly in connection with the construction of new single-family houses as a supplement to existing residential stock. Key questions here concern individual motives for choosing a particular residential location, and the creeping “segregation from above” that accompanies this process. The image of France’s peri-urban spaces that arises from this study stands in explicit contrast to the received, markedly negative connotations of the “urban periphery”. Keywords: Peri-urban spaces, peri-urban gentrification, heterogenization, metropolitan area of Nancy (Lorraine), qualitative approach Zusammenfassung: Gentrifizierungsprozesse in periurbanen Räumen Frankreichs fanden in der Forschung bisher kaum Beachtung; sie wurden als naheliegende Prozesse in Kernstädten verstanden und untersucht. Zudem wurde eher die Krise der Vorstädte, der banlieues, beachtet, womit Stigmatisierung und Ausgrenzung analyseleitend wurden. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird nun hingegen am Beispiel des Umlandes der Metropole Nancy (Region Grand Est) Gentrifizierung als Entwicklung herausgestellt, die sich ebenfalls als konstitutiv für periurbane Räume und damit kleinere Umlandgemeinden von Städten bzw. insbesondere Metropolen andeutet. Vor dem Hintergrund einer Beleuchtung bisheriger Forschungszugänge werden zunächst Forschungslücken herausgearbeitet. Anhand der Auswertung statistischer Daten und empirischer Erhebungen mittels qualitativer Interviews im Umland von Nancy wird im Anschluss fallstudienbezogen gezeigt, wie sich periurbane Gemeinden, insbesondere in Verbindung mit dem Bau neuer Einfamilienhäuser in Ergänzung zu bestehender Bausubstanz, in eine Gentrifizierungslogik der Ab- 258 Hervé Marchal, Jean-Marc Stébé, Florian Weber 1 Introduction: Gentrification in peri-urban spaces Whether in politics, the media or scientific research, any consideration of French cities beyond their core urban areas has tended to highlight the problematic socioeconomic and spatio-geographical developments in recent decades. Uncontrolled use (or misuse) of space, infrastructural shortfalls, high population concentrations, social inequalities ‒ all this has fed into what has become known as the crise des banlieues (see e.g. Le Goaziou/Mucchielli 2006; Body-Gendrot 2007; Glasze/ Weber 2014; Dikeç 2016). In particular, the nationwide unrest of 2005 drew the attention of researchers, both in France and beyond, to the “decoupled” settlements of the banlieues and wider peri-urban1 ring (see e.g. Avenel 2004; Balibar 2007; Dikeç 2007; Wacquant 2007; Donzelot 2009; Kirkness 2014; Weber/Kühne 2016). The Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan and Stade de France attacks caused an association of the “urban periphery” with terrorism. Since then, research activity, outside France, has quietened down. International attention is targeted at suburbia and edge(less) cities, with a special focus on the USA and also Europe (McManus/Ethington 2007; Hanlon 2008; Gallagher 2013; Hesse 2014; Hesse 2016; Weber/Kühne 2017; Hesse/Polívka/Reicher 2018), and apart from publications in French (Damon/Marchal/ Stébé 2016; Marchal/Stébé 2018), suburban France has rather disappeared from the menu. To date, gentrification and urbanization as well as peri-urbanization tendencies in France have scarcely featured in research, although significant changes – issuing by no means only in decline – have taken place in these areas over recent years. These changes, embodying a transformation of received socio-spatial relationships, can be seen terms 1 Périurbain has established itself in French planning and academic research as a designation for the spaces between the banlieues and the rural areas. This usage, rather than the English terms “suburbs” or “suburban”, is reflected in the present article. For a detailed discussion see Cusin/Lefebvre/Sigaud (2016) and Marchal/ Stébé (2018). of the genesis of urban/rural hybrids (Weber/Kühne 2017; Kühne 2018). Against this background, this article aims to establish an analytical link between two socio-urban phenomena usually isolated from each other in research: on the one hand, the process of gentrification, designating a movement of displacement of the working and/or lowermiddle by upper-middle and upper social classes2, accompanied by changes in housing, or more generally changes of a neighbourhood or even an entire city (Glass 1964; Hamnett 2003; Bridge 2014; Doucet 2014; Lagendijk/van Melik/de Haan et al. 2014); on the other hand, the process of peri-urbanization, which goes hand in hand with urbanization encroaching ever further on rural territories through the paradigmatic residential type of the (detached) single-family house with garden (Jaillet 2004; Bretagnolle 2015; Cusin/Lefebvre/Sigaud 2016; Marchal/Stébé 2018). Our article focuses on the connection between residential choices made by wealthy households wishing to live in single-family houses surrounded by large wooded grounds and the form taken by gentrification in peri-urban areas. Taking the example of the metropolitan area of Nancy (Eastern France), we examine the complex relation between gentrification and residential location choices in peri-urban spaces. In the French context, this approach opens up a new research perspective. Peri-urban areas have at least in some cases become the stamping ground of a specifically bourgeois logic. Nevertheless, the relationship between gentrification and peri-urbanization may at first sight seem paradoxical, since the “urban peripheries” have often been associated with poverty or even in some cases with “relegation zones” (Delarue 1991), and the centre-periphery dualism is, in fact, proving highly resistant, as evidenced by Guilluy (2014, 2016). The forms of gentrification that we have identified in the peri-urban area of Nancy do not, of course, possess 2 We take up here the concept of “classes” as commonly used in gentrification research (see e.g. Hackworth/Smith 2001; Hamnett 2003; Doucet 2014). We do not intend this usage in the sense of a classical “class system”: our interest is in social differentiations, intrinsically varied and changeable, that serve analytic purposes. und Ausgrenzung einschreiben, welche individuellen Beweggründe Wohnstandortwahlen beeinflussen und wie sich eine ‚Segregation von oben‘ immer mehr ausbreitet. Es entsteht so ein verändertes Bild periurbaner Räume, das im expliziten Kontrast zu einer eher negativ konnotierten ‚urbanen Peripherie‘ steht. Schlüsselwörter: Periurbane Räume, Periurbane Gentrifizierung, Heterogenisierung, Großraum Nancy (Lothringen), Qualitativer Zugang Gentrification of periurban spaces in France ‒ the surroundings of Nancy Gentrifizierung in periurbanen Räumen Frankreichs – am Beispiel von Nancy 259 all the characteristics of the gentrification of more central city areas. In particular, we do not find the social pattern highlighted by Pattison (1977: 168 ff.), who distinguished different populations involved in gentrification and saw these as the result of successive waves of influx by various distinct middle class segments. Initially launched by a small group of intrepid people (the “invaders”), then carried forward by a more risk-conscious clientele (“pioneers/newcomers”), and finally taken over ‒ in some cases after the intervention of public authorities e.g. in labelling “invaded” territories “historic” ‒ by upwardly mobile members of the middle classes (“yuppies”), gentrification in its classic and exemplary form could thus be described as a progressive phenomenon that is at the same time individual, cultural and political. Peri-urban gentrification is a specific process, if only because in peri-urban spaces gentrification rarely translates into the rehabilitation of the existing built framework (Stébé/Marchal 2017), but more often into the construction of new, detached, luxury houses on large plots. A link can possibly be seen here with the construction of housing for the upper-middle classes, particularly in the case of the demolition/reconstruction or regeneration of urban wastelands, which some commentators call “new-build gentrification” (Davidson/Lees 2005; Davidson/Loretta 2010; Rérat 2012). The research issue, then, is to adapt the concept of gentrification to today’s peri-urban realities. In other words, it is a question of revisiting the concept in order to investigate its role and that of other, similar developments in the current sociourban evolution of peri-urban spaces. In pursuit of this goal we first look briefly at the current state of research on gentrification both in innercity areas of France and in the banlieues, taking account of wider peri-urban developments, in particular the role of the single-family house in this context (Section 2). After explaining the empirical methodology to be applied in a case study of the metropolitan area of Nancy (Section 3), we go on to investigate how rural districts become absorbed in processes of gentrification that cause farreaching change in peri-urban social and physical environments (Section 4). A concluding summary (Section 5) highlights the main results of the inquiry. 2 State of the art and conceptual approaches: staking out the new research field of gentrification and peri-urbanization 2.1 Gentrification of cities and banlieues For more than thirty years certain old city-centre districts of France have witnessed the increasing incursion of members of the middle and upper-middle classes (see Préteceille 2007; Pattaroni/Kaufmann/Thomas 2012). Already observed in an isolated and fragmented way in the 1960s in London, this population and socioeconomic movement became known as “gentrification”, a neologism invented by the Marxist sociologist Glass (1964). But gentrification has increasingly spread from run-down central areas to other urban and even rural spaces (see e.g. Phillips 1993; Smith/Phillips 2001; Atkinson/Bridge 2005; Lees/Ley 2008; Stockdale 2010; Smith/Higley 2012). And the gentrification process has at the same time evolved in its forms and concomitant research approaches (see Hackworth/Smith 2001; also e.g. Bridge 2003; Doucet 2014; Lagendijk/van Melik/de Haan et al. 2014). The concept has been extended to other elite-forming processes involving many different actors and including multiple forms of transformation of used space over and above traditional working-class residential areas. From this point of view, gentrification results from a complex “social game” in which sedentary and mobile populations live side by side, where population movements, planning decisions, stakeholder strategies, political aims and specific ways of living and cohabiting between different social groups are intertwined and analysed (Ley 1986; Smith 2002; Bidou-Zachariasen 2003; Uitermark/Duyvendak/Kleinhans 2007). While gentrification mechanisms are undoubtedly complex – today one would speak analytically of a “broader concept” (Clark 2005; Slater 2006) – many researchers agree on two underlying elements. Gentrification is increasingly seen both as a transformation of the social composition of the residents of a neighbourhood ‒ more precisely the replacement of working classes by salaried upper and middle-income layers (Glass 1964; Pattison 1977; Dansereau 1985; Doucet 2014) ‒ and as a hybrid process combining the rehabilitation and appropriation of (and coterminously investment in) housing across entire working-class neighbourhoods by these new population 260 Hervé Marchal, Jean-Marc Stébé, Florian Weber categories3 (Hamnett 1991; Hamnett 2003). As Clark (2005: 258) has put it: “It does not matter where, and it does not matter when. Any process of change fitting this description [of population shift] is, to my understanding, gentrification”. In France, the concept of gentrification has so far been used to study transformations of working-class areas of inner cities, and more recently of communes (municipalities)4 in the banlieues (Préteceille 2007; Pattaroni/Kaufmann/Thomas 2012; Chabrol/Collet/ Giroud et al. 2016). Gentrification can also affect a whole city, for example Paris, which is gradually undergoing gentrification across its entire administrative limits (Clerval 2010; Clerval 2013). And, by a contagious logic, this process has now extended to the first ring of banlieues, starting with the communes of LevalloisPerret, Montreuil and Pantin (Collet 2008; Marchal/ Stébé 2012; Albecker/Fol 2014; Albecker 2015; Marchal/ Stébé/Bertier 2016; Weber/Kühne 2017). In this article we apply the concept of gentrification to peri-urban spaces as instances or pastiche-like complexes of the urban/ rural hybrid (Weber/Kühne 2017; Kühne 2018). This fills a gap, as French research on gentrification has not yet considered the peri-urban dimension, nor (conversely) has research on peri-urbanization incorporated the aspect of gentrification. 2.2 The single-family house in France as the motor of peri-urbanization Social science research tends to see peri-urbanization as rooted among other things in the middle class desire for home ownership (Lambert 2015; Hesse/Siedentop 2018: 101). In France, too, this is a continuing success story. Today 59% of French households own their homes, compared with 35% in 1954 and 50% in the early 1980s; in absolute figures, among France’s 34.5 million homes, 19.3 million are owned and lived in by a single family (Marchal/Stébé 2018: 42). Moreover, in 2016 singlefamily houses represented 41% of new construction. 3 “Gentrifiers” in “trendy” cities and suburbs (banlieues) have, in France, often been called bobos (bourgeois-Bohemians) or hipsters by the media. 4 The French term commune has been retained throughout this article: as the smallest autonomous local government body, the commune is managed by a maire (mayor) and a conseil municipal (municipal council), and hence translates roughly as “municipality”. It can vary widely in size and is in many cases far smaller than municipalities (or other small local government entities) in Englishspeaking countries. Thus over the past fifty years many French families have acquired ownership of their own house and garden. Moving ever further away from the cities, single-family houses have spread to rural areas previously spared by urbanization, but which have now, in the course of this development, undergone profound changes (see Jaillet 2004; Bretagnolle 2015; Damon/Marchal/Stébé 2016). There are many reasons why the French are attracted to the single-family house. For half a century, many studies have examined the motivations put forward for attachment to the idea of individual home ownership (e.g. Bourdieu 2000; in summary Stébé/Marchal 2007: 51 ff.; Donzelot 2009: 65 ff.; Vieillard-Baron 2016: 82). As early as the 1960s, the Institute of Urban Sociology highlighted the extent to which the pavillon de banlieue (single-family suburban house) was explicable in terms of a cultural habitus rather than of individualist ideologies (Raymond/Dezès/Haumont et al. 1966). Later, in the early 2000s, Jaillet (2004) argued that the peri-urban single-family house is like a “mosaic space” in which the different socio-professional strata that comprise the intermediate layers of society settle in order to benefit from attractive land prices combined with a tranquil living environment and visible social success. In the same vein, Rifkin (2000) underlined the extent to which the purchase of a single-family house in the suburbs is an “entry ticket” to a residential club, a group that benefits from a social universe whose features range from a specific physical landscape to the promise of security this entails. Based on research conducted in France, Charmes (2005, 2011) has similarly shown that living in a private housing development means above all inhabiting a social space with discreet neighbours and enhanced well-being and security. In this context, he uses the metaphor of the “closed club”. More recently, on the basis of perspectives inherited from the study of social stratification, Cartier, Coutant, Masclet et al. (2008) have highlighted how access to a peri-urban single-family house, in the eyes of people rooted in the working class, substantiates a distance from their modest social origins and at the same time allows them the opportunity to live “like everyone else”. For Donzelot (2009) this indicates the extent to which the single-family house supports self-assertion and social distinction. Among other things, Donzelot (2009) notes that the owners of single-family houses, anxious to defend their tranquillity, their neighbourhood and, by extension, their quality of life, keep their distance from other residents – especially those from impoverished social housing estates – who they fear may invade and disturb their “little happiness”. Other authors (e.g. Gentrification of periurban spaces in France ‒ the surroundings of Nancy Gentrifizierung in periurbanen Räumen Frankreichs – am Beispiel von Nancy 261 Marchal/Stébé 2017; Maumi 2008) have shown that the choice of a house in the peri-urban ring is also based on the proximity of nature and the countryside (on the significance of “landscape” see Kühne 2018; Kühne/Weber 2018). The ideal sought in many cases corresponds to that of a city set in the countryside – or at least a residential environment, if not in harmony, then as close as possible to nature. A fundamental point in this context is that although the socio-economic profiles of inhabitants of peri-urban areas have diversified (Keil 2018), the “home of one’s own” can be regarded as a common anchor. The research carried out over the past fifty years has provided a number of interesting insights into gentrification processes, as well as into the global dynamics of peri-urbanization (for post-suburbia in Europe see also Bontje/Burdack 2011, for urban peripheries Harris/Vorms 2017), but it has not yet (in the French context) established links between residential choices in peri-urban space and the logic of gentrification (see Damon/Marchal/Stébé 2016). In fact, on closer examination, only the rare authors who worked during the 1960s and 1970s on processes of “rurbanization” highlighted the displacement of rural populations by new middle-class homeowners (Chamboredon 1985). But this is not, strictly speaking, a matter of gentrification, since the urbanization of the countryside at that time was part of a reconfiguration of French society that saw the middle classes and part of the working class settling in villages located on the outskirts of cities (Kayser 1981). 3 Methodological choices: the case study of Nancy For the analysis of gentrification processes in the periurban spaces of France, we will focus here on the metropolitan area of Nancy. Situated in Eastern France, the city of Nancy, with its suburbs, has 220,000 inhabitants. Its aire urbaine – an INSEE5 category comprising the city centre, the banlieues and the peri-urban ring – has 445,000 inhabitants. 50% of the population of Nancy’s aire urbaine lives in a peri-urban area, which makes it an exemplary French city in terms of peri-urbanization. By explicitly not focusing on the Greater Paris area, we also avoid the challenge of the French special case and the 5 INSEE (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques): National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies. dominance of Paris in the context of the centralist state (Nappi-Choulet 2016; Albecker/Fol 2014; Gilli 2014). Our corpus consists of 32 peri-urban communes6 (first and second ring of peri-urbanization) located beyond the banlieues7 but whose centres are not more than 11 km from the city centre of Nancy (“périurbain proche”) – a firmly applied selection criterion tailored to the situation under analysis (see Figure 2)8. The largest of these communes, Essey-lès-Nancy, has just over 8,500 inhabitants and the smallest, Dommartin-sousAmance, 250. Our methodology is organized around two central components. The first, based on INSEE statistics9 relating to the 32 communes, consists of isolating two potential indicators of gentrification over the period 1999201410: (1) the evolution of socio-professional categories (INSEE PCS); (2) development in the number of higher education graduates. The second component inquires into the residential aspirations and justifications of upper and upper-middle class residents who have chosen to settle in one of the communes where the gentrification process is more advanced. Nine such communes in the process of advanced gentrification have been identified in the course of our statistical analysis: Bouxières-auxChênes, Cerville, Chaligny, Eulmont, Fléville-devantNancy, Lenoncourt, Lupcourt, Pulnoy, and Velaine-enHaye (see Figure 2). In order to grasp the (gentrifying) motives of their owner-occupiers within the overall context 6 The 32 communes in our corpus are (in alphabetical order): Agincourt, Amance, Art-sur-Meurthe, Bouxières-aux-Chênes, Bouxières-aux-Dames, Cerville, Chaligny, Champigneulles, Chavigny, Dommartemont (already for a long time a richer and gentrified commune), Dommartin-sous-Amance, Essey-lès-Nancy, Eulmont, Fléville-devant-Nancy, Frouard, Heillecourt, Houdemont, Laîtresous-Amance, Laneuvelotte, Laneuveville-devant-Nancy, LaySaint-Christophe, Lenoncourt, Liverdun, Ludres, Lupcourt, Maron, Pompey, Pulnoy, Saulxures-lès-Nancy, Seichamps, Velaine-enHaye, and Velaine-sous-Amance. 7 We refer to the banlieues of Nancy as defined by INSEE: all communes directly adjacent to the city centre of Nancy. 8 We chose this perimeter in order to conduct our research in the first peri-urban ring, which is also the oldest, and which is now subject to strong land pressure. 9 Our reference statistical population does not include persons under 15 years of age, or students in secondary or tertiary education. Our interest is in people in gainful employment likely to settle in peri-urban Nancy. However, in order to understand the overall dynamics of these peri-urban communes we have included retired people in our sample, as they form an important population segment (for a comprehensive study of this segment in France see Berger/Rougé/Thomann et al. 2010). 10 Our focus is on working-class districts engaging in or on the way to gentrification, which explains our decision not to go back beyond 20 years. 262 Hervé Marchal, Jean-Marc Stébé, Florian Weber of residential and life trajectories (Authier/Bonvalet/Lévy 2010), we conducted eighteen semi-structured one-anda-half hour interviews at the household homes, i.e. two interviews per commune. The households were chosen using first contacts in the snowball principle, supported by the local administrations, and were characterised by having settled in the peri-urbain area near Nancy after 1999. 4 Gentrification of urban peripheries: Nancy’s first and second peri-urban rings What connections can be established between gentrification, peri-urbanization and the spread of owner-occupied single-family houses, and what characterizes local environments that are undergoing such a development? Beginning with a quantitative survey, we will go on to present a qualitative analysis of the motivations underlying processes of peri-urban gentrification. With the greater Nancy area, we are looking at an area in the Lorraine strata in a wide valley basin along the Rivers Meurthe and Moselle, as well as the Rhine-Marne Canal – and thus a landscape that is usually regarded as particularly scenic. 4.1 Gentrification processes traced by statistical data (INSEE): growth in density of management staff and higher education qualifications If we look at the evolution of the population of executives and higher professionals (cadres et professions intellectuelles supérieures) within our corpus, we note that 26 of the 32 analysed communes recorded an increase in this official INSEE category between 1999 and 2014.11 Some communes have seen their professional and managerial populations double or even quadruple during this period. In Lay-Saint-Christophe, for example, the ratio of senior managers rose from 8.1% in 1999 to more than 14% in 2014, Laître-sous-Amance grew from 9.3% to nearly 19%, Lupcourt recorded an increase from 4.9% to 9.2% over the same period. But 11 All the statistical data cited in the text comes from the French population censuses (Recensements généraux de la population, RGP) conducted in 1999 and 2014. the commune with by far the strongest increase in its population of executives and higher professionals was Lenoncourt, where this group grew from 5.1% to 19.8% over the same period. By way of comparison, it should be recalled that during this period the increase in the professional/executive category within both the former Lorraine region12 and metropolitan France was only 4 points, rising from 10% to 14% and from 13.1% to 17.1% respectively (Berrard 2013; INSEE 2016). Turning to the statistical category of mid-range professions (professions intermediaries), we note that nine communes of the 32 recorded a consistent decrease in this category. This was due to two phenomena: first of all, a strong increase of executives and higher professions in communes where land and property prices were increasing (as in Laître-sous-Amance and Dommartemont); secondly a marked aging of the population, as in Dommartin-sous-Amance and even more so in Fléville-devant-Nancy. This was reflected in a marked increase in the number of pensioners who still occupied their own homes and thus did not allow other population categories, particularly the middle classes, to settle in higher numbers. The statistics are revealing: in 2014 Dommartin-sous-Amance recorded 35% retirees and Fléville-devant-Nancy nearly 40%. During the period 1999-2014, when these two communes saw their number of retired people strongly increase, they also experienced a fall in their economically active middleclass populations (Dommartin-sous-Amance 11% to 7% and Fléville-devant-Nancy 17% to 14.5%). At the same time, other communes such as Agincourt, Cerville, Chaligny, Eulmont, Lupcourt and Velaine-enHaye continued their process of gentrification with a different dynamic. These six communes experienced a simultaneous increase in the categories “mid-range” and “executive and higher” professions (see Figure 1). Compared with the statistics for Lorraine (+1.5 points: 23% to 24.5%) and France as a whole (+2.5 points: 23.1% to 25.6%) over the same period, the consistent increase in the “mid-range professions” category in periurban Nancy is remarkable. If we observe the evolution of the category of semiskilled employees (employés) the results of our statistical analyses again reveal a process of gentrification in many communes situated in Nancy’s first and second periurban rings. Generally speaking, 23 communes have 12 The four departments of the former Lorraine region are: Vosges, Meuse, Meurthe-et-Moselle and Moselle. On 1 January 2016, Lorraine was integrated into the Grand Est region covering the former Champagne-Ardenne, Alsace and Lorraine regions. Gentrification of periurban spaces in France ‒ the surroundings of Nancy Gentrifizierung in periurbanen Räumen Frankreichs – am Beispiel von Nancy 263 seen a decline in this category, six have stabilized, and three have seen a slight increase. Among the communes with the largest decreases are Lupcourt, which recorded a drop of 9 points (from 19.7% to 10.7%), Cerville (down 8.8 points from 27.9% to 19.1%), Bouxières-aux-Chênes (down 8.5 points from 21% to 12.5%), and Fléville-devantNancy (down 8 points from 20.7% to 12.7%). These statistical trends are all the more interesting in terms of the problem of gentrification in Nancy’s peri-urban areas, since during the same period Lorraine experienced a 1.5 point increase in the semi-skilled employee category (from 23% to 24.5%), while in France as a whole the general trend was towards stability. Finally, the development of the statistical category of unskilled employees (ouvriers) between 1999 and 2014 indicates the occurrence of a process of gentrification in most of the 32 communes in our corpus, 19 of which experienced a fall in this category, without any recording an increase. In other words, although we are dealing with “urban peripheries”, there is no working class consolidation and, by extension, no sign of a precariat developing in the communes in Nancy’s first and second peri-urban rings. Among the communes most affected by the downward trend in the unskilled worker category are (again) Cerville (13.5% to 5.2%), Amance (13.3% to 6.1%), Dommartin-sous-Amance (11.2% to 5%), Chaligny (19% to 13%), and Frouard (17.4% to 12.4%). These figures accord with regional and national trends where, during the same period, the decline in unskilled workers was 6 and 5 points respectively. Looking more systematically at this data, we can distinguish two types of commune that have undergone significant change: A first group of older, upscale communes have consolidated their bourgeois evolution over the past twenty years. As we have already seen, this is the case with Dommartemont, historically well-off and “clubby”, which continues to welcome an ever growing number of executives. In line with this development, the number of unskilled workers has stagnated at around 3.5%, although in the centre of this village clinging to the hillsides surrounding Nancy there are a few modest rental dwellings where low-income households live. Within this same group, we find two other communes, Laître-sous-Amance and Lay-Saint-Christophe, which have also experienced growth in the number of executives (18.7% and 16.7% respectively). Historically, these two communes have also had relatively small numbers of unskilled workers (no more than 8%), and those numbers are continuing to drop. As in the case of Dommartemont, we cannot speak here of a “classical” form of gentrification, as the working classes have not been predominantly displaced by upper and uppermiddle social categories. The initial weakness of the unskilled categories in all three communes rules out such a process. Other communes, however, have undergone more typical processes of change. The second group has recently gentrified and, as such, records both a growth in the executive, higher professional and mid-range professional classes and an 1999 2014 1999 2014 Agincourt 13,7% 21,0% 1,2% 4,3% Cerville 14,4% 26,9% 5,7% 7,9% Chaligny 11,2% 17,5% 4,3% 8,0% Eulmont 12,8% 21,0% 12,3% 13,3% Lupcourt 13,1% 24,6% 4,9% 9,2% Velaine-en-Haye 20,0% 29,0% 11,8% 14,8% 13,7% 14,4% 11,2% 12,8% 13,1% 20,0% 21,0% 26,9% 17,5% 21,0% 24,6% 29,0% 1,2% 5,7% 4,3% 12,3% 4,9% 11,8% 4,3% 7,9% 8,0% 13,3% 9,2% 14,8% 0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0% 35,0% Agincourt Cerville Chaligny Eulmont Lupcourt Velaine-en-Haye 1999 2014 1999 2014 “mid-range” professions “executive and higher” professions Figure 1: Development of the categories “mid-range” and “executive and higher” professions (1999/2014) Source: Authors’ presentation of INSEE statistics of the French population censuses “Recensements généraux de la population” (RGP) conducted in 1999 and 2014. 264 Hervé Marchal, Jean-Marc Stébé, Florian Weber equally marked decline in the semi-skilled and unskilled worker classes. The two communes of Chaligny and Lenoncourt can be taken to exemplify the trend. For Chaligny, between 1999 and 2014, while the executive/ higher professional and mid-range professional categories grew by 3.9 points (4.0% to 7.9%) and 6.2 points (11.3% to 17.5%) respectively, the semi-skilled and unskilled categories decreased by 5.5 points (22% to 16.5%) and 6 points (19% to 13%) respectively. As far as Lenoncourt is concerned, the statistics indicate a more salient gentrification process: between 1999 and 2014 the executive/higher and mid-range professions increased by 14.7 points (5.1% to 19.8%) and 9 points respectively, while the semi-skilled and unskilled categories declined by 5.7 points (19.2% to 13.5%) and 3.6 points (14.1% to 10.5%) respectively. These two communes appear, then, to exemplify par excellence a cross movement of gentrification, where a decline in modest socio-economic categories goes hand in hand with a growth in wealthier categories. Looking now at the development of higher education qualifications in peri-urban Nancy, the statistical data from INSEE reveals a strong increase in levels in line with the gentrification process already noted in specific communes. Between 1999 and 2014, all the communes surveyed experienced a marked increase in educational levels. In some communes, the increase even reached 22 points: in Lupcourt the graduate population surged from 16.2% to 38.4%. Other communes recorded an increase of over 15 points, starting with Lenoncourt (14.5% to 31.1%), Velaine-en-Haye (25% to 41.2%), and Eulmont (24% to 39.6%). As for the three traditionally well-off communes of Dommartemont, Laître-sousAmance and Lay-Saint-Christophe, all three also experienced strong growth in terms of people with tertiary education qualifications, Dommartemont recording 50% and the other two communes almost 40% ‒ figures that again confirm their status as socially and economically privileged locations. This being said, it should be noted that communes such as Eulmont, Lupcourt and Velaineen-Haye, which originally had a lower rate of university graduates, have now caught up with historically well-off communes such as Laître-sous-Amance and Lay-SaintChristophe. In the same period Lorraine’s graduate population grew by only 5 points, reaching a quota of 22% in 2014, when France as a whole had 30% in this category. In other words, a number of communes in Nancy’s first and second peri-urban rings have seen a significant increase in their graduate populations over the past twenty years, and one that is well above the regional average: 28 of the 32 communes in our sample have a university graduate rate above the regional average (22%); 19 communes have a graduate rate above the national average (30%). The overall picture arising from this data is as follows. Apart from the three historically posh “residential-club” type communes (Dommartemont, Laître-sous-Amance and Lay-Saint-Christophe) classical gentrification, with strong growth of the higher professional and managerial classes combined with an increase in the proportion of university graduates and a matching decrease in the incidence of less qualified categories, is marked in nine communes in our sample (see Figure 213). Our statistical analysis, then, shows recognizable trends. However, without some evidence of what these figures actually mean for the people who live there, they remain abstract indices. In order to explore the experience of gentrification more concretely, we have, therefore, conducted semi-structured interviews in the nine communes in peri-urban Nancy most deeply involved in a recent process of gentrification (Figure 2). These are: Bouxières-aux-Chênes, Cerville, Chaligny, Eulmont, Fléville-devant-Nancy, Lenoncourt, Lupcourt, Pulnoy14 and Velaine-en-Haye. 4.2 Motives for selection of residential location: social exclusiveness, rising property prices The inhabitants we interviewed all belonged to the upper and upper-middle social classes. Analysis of the interviews revealed a number of converging factors, all of which imply some sort of demarcation, regarding respondents’ aspirations and rationales for their choice of residential location. The households interviewed cited above all the village, neighbourhood or specific development where they lived, highlighting its amenities (e.g. woods, public park, square, golf course, riding school, river). Then they mentioned the large plots of land available for the construction of single-family houses (between 700 and 1,500 sq. m.). Finally, they cited the importance of neighbours who shared their way 13 The basis for inclusion in the category of communes undergoing gentrification is an increase or decrease in the selected categories that is above the national average. 14 Although this commune of 4,500 inhabitants located 11 km east of Nancy has on the whole only undergone a weak process of gentrification, it is known within the urban/rural hybrid of Nancy for its landscape quality, due in particular to a large golf course adjoining several housing developments. Gentrification of periurban spaces in France ‒ the surroundings of Nancy Gentrifizierung in periurbanen Räumen Frankreichs – am Beispiel von Nancy 271 McManus, R.; Ethington, P.J. (2007): Suburbs in transition: new approaches to suburban history. In: Urban History 34, 2, 317337. doi: 10.1017/S096392680700466X Musterd, S.; Ostendorf, W. (eds.) (1998): Urban Segregation and the Welfare State. Inequality and exclusion in western cities. Abingdon. Nappi-Choulet, I. (2006): The Role and Behaviour of Commercial Property Investors and Developers in French Urban Regeneration: The Experience of the Paris Region. In: Urban Studies 43, 9, 1511-1535. doi: 10.1080/00420980600831692 Pattaroni, L.; Kaufmann, V.; Thomas, M.-P. (2012): The Dynamics of Multifaceted Gentrification: A Comparative Analysis of the Trajectories of Six Neighbourhoods in the Île-de-France Region. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36, 6, 1223-1241. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01042.x Pattison, T.J. (1977): The Process of Neighborhood Upgrading and Gentrification: An Examination of Two Neighborhoods in the Boston Metropolitan Area. Cambridge. Phillips, M. (1993): Rural Gentrification and the Processes of Class Colonisation. In: Journal of Rural Studies 9, 2, 123-140. doi: 10.1016/0743-0167(93)90026-G Pinçon, M.; Pinçon-Charlot, M. (2007): Sociologie de la bourgeoisie. Paris. Préteceille, E. (2007): Is Gentrification a Useful Paradigm to Analyse Social Changes in the Paris Metropolis? In: Environment and Planning A 39, 1, 10-31. doi: 10.1068/a3970 Raymond, H.; Dezès, M.-G.; Haumont, N.; Haumont, A. (1966): L’habitat pavillonnaire. Paris. Rérat, P. (2012): Choix résidentiel et gentrification dans une ville moyenne. In: Cybergeo 579. doi: 10.4000/cybergeo.24931 Rifkin, J. (2000): The Age of Access. New York. Schwartz, H.; Seabrooke, L. (eds.) (2009): The Politics of Housing Booms and Busts. Basingstoke. Slater, T. (2006): The Eviction of Critical Perspectives from Gentrification Research. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30, 4, 737-757. doi: 10.1111/j.14682427.2006.00689.x Smith, N. (2002): New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. In: Antipode 34, 3, 427-450. doi: 10.1111/1467-8330.00249 Smith, D.P.; Phillips, D.A. (2001): Socio-cultural representations of greentrified Pennine rurality. In: Journal of Rural Studies 17, 4, 457-469. doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(01)00014-6 Smith, D.P.; Higley, R. (2012): Circuits of education, rural gentrification, and family migration from the global city. In: Journal of Rural Studies 28, 1, 49-55. Stébé, J.-M.; Marchal, H. (2007): La sociologie urbaine. Paris. Stébé, J.-M.; Marchal, H. (2017): Acquérir et rénover une maison au cœur d’un village. Regards sur un territoire émergent: le préurbain. In: Ethnologie française 46, 4, 719-730. Stockdale, A. (2010): The diverse geographies of rural gentrification in Scotland. In: Journal of Rural Studies 26, 1, 31-40. Uitermark, J.; Duyvendak, J.W.; Kleinhans, R. (2007): Gentrification as a governmental strategy: social control and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. In: Environment and Planning A 39, 1, 125-141. doi: 10.1068/a39142 van Gent, W.P.C. (2010): Housing Policy as a Lever for Change? The Politics of Welfare, Assets and Tenure. In: Housing Studies 25, 5, 735-753. doi: 10.1080/02673037.2010.483588 Vieillard-Baron, H. (2016): Die Geschichte der banlieues in Frankreich. Von der Mehrdeutigkeit der Definitionen zu den heutigen Besonderheiten. In: Weber, F.; Kühne, O. (eds.): Fraktale Metropolen. Stadtentwicklung zwischen Devianz, Polarisierung und Hybridisierung. Wiesbaden, 75-91. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-11492-3 Wacquant, L. (2007): Parias urbains. Ghetto, banlieues, État. Paris. Weber, F.; Kühne, O. (eds.) (2016): Fraktale Metropolen. Stadtentwicklung zwischen Devianz, Polarisierung und Hybridisierung. Wiesbaden. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-11492-3 Weber, F.; Kühne, O. (2017): Hybrid suburbia: New research perspectives in France and Southern California. In: Quaestiones Geographicae 36, 4, 17-28. doi: 10.1515/quageo2017-0033