Broadening equitable planning: Understanding indirect displacement through seniors’ experiences in a resurgent Downtown Detroit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Displacement is most commonly conceptualized as forced relocation or dislocation due to physical or economic reasons. However, this conceptualization reduces displacement to a simple spatial moment in time and overlooks indirect forms of displacement. Yet, indirect displacement holds serious implications for equitable planning initiatives that seek ‘revitalization without displacement’, as these initiatives tend to only address physical dislocation. Incorporating a better understanding of the different dimensions of displacement will help inform equitable development efforts that are more inclusive and just. This research uses Detroit as a case study to examine senior tenant experiences of indirect displacement in a rapidly gentrifying downtown. These ‘perspectives from below’ help shed light on the redevelopment impacts on seniors, which could then be concretely incorporated in community planning approaches. Based on in-depth qualitative interviews and participant observation, the findings illustrate the material ways in which seniors have experienced indirect displacement through feelings of exclusion and non-belonging, diminishing social space, and fears of direct displacement – all of which contribute to an on-going loss of sense of place. These experiences suggest a diminishing ability to create place for some, which reduces their ability to assert their right to the city. The paper concludes by considering how an intersectional approach to understanding displacement could help strengthen equitable planning approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".