Search for a command to run...
Every city has a location in time and space. Therefore, urban research, too, naturally bears the strong imprint of the specific time and space in which the city under study is located. Given this, should we aim for a general theory of cities, or should we emphasize theories that explain local particularities? This choice marks a major turning point for urban research. As the concept of “gentrification” is increasingly discussed in an expanded manner to cover cities around the world (see Brown-Saracino 2010 for a history of the debate)—as Ren and Ping (2026) state in their introduction—there is an increasing wavering about which of two opposing emphases should be prioritized. But why use a concept as distinctive as gentrification when trying to explain a worldwide urban phenomenon, rather than more generalized, abstract terms like hierarchical upgrading or displacement? While more generalized terms may lack conceptual depth due to their simplicity, they can offer a more neutral analytical base that is free from locational dependency. In contrast, when using the term gentrification, it is difficult to completely eliminate the inherent temporality and spatiality implied by the historical term “gentry.” It is certainly possible to define the meaning of the term gentrification more clearly. However, the more strictly we try to define the meaning of gentrification, the narrower the scope of its application becomes, and the less useful it becomes as an analytical tool. Yet, if such a distinctive concept as gentrification had not been introduced, the current boom in comparative studies (e.g., Lees et al. 2016) might have been more limited or might not have existed at all. This special issue also might not have been published. With neoliberalism and globalization, major cities around the world have undergone similar structural changes. There was a clear need for a term that could capture this reality. Gentrification played a part in fulfilling this structural requirement. At the end of their introductory study, the editors of this special issue refer to this controversial function of the concept of gentrification as a “common platform.” A platform implies a common base on which a variety of different cases are placed. However, its implications go beyond simple commonality. By connecting the different cases placed on this base, the platform can exert a unique power as a stage for generating previously unseen emergent effects. I believe that these characteristics of the platform are behind the fact that the concept of gentrification has become so widely used worldwide. So, what are the emergent effects that can be made possible when the unique concept of gentrification becomes a common platform? I would like to highlight three points here. First, the concept of gentrification has such powerful image-evoking power that it has attracted researchers from all over the world, regardless of their different context. This has helped to spark a recent trend in comparative urban studies. Comparisons have been made between major regions such as Europe, America, Asia, and Africa (Simone and Pieterse 2017; Lancione and McFarlane 2021; Robinson 2022), though not all of them are necessarily related to gentrification. More specific areas, such as East Asia and Southeast Asia, have also become subjects of comparative research (Shin et al. 2016; Waley 2016). This ambitious special issue, which covers Ulaanbaatar, Seoul, Shanghai, Chongqing, Taipei, Tainan, and Bangkok, also makes an extremely important contribution to these research challenges. Second, the concept of gentrification inherently implies both the structural forces that create cities and the existence of agents who live in them. As a result, it constantly reminds researchers that they should not simply describe the existence of class disparities or displacement in cities, but should also pay attention to the complex relationships among the various stakeholders involved. The form of these relationships likely varies greatly from city to city. However, framing an issue in the form of gentrification theory has great significance in that it reminds us that exploring complex and multilayered social processes is essential for urban studies. Third, the concept of gentrification has made a significant contribution to bringing ideas such as “fairness” or “equity” back to the center of urban studies. Whose city is it? To whom does the city belong? What deprives people of the conditions for good living? These questions, I consider, are at the center of gentrification studies. Gentrification contains an intuitive foundation that naturally draws researchers' attention to the contradictions or problems that arise in cities and the mechanisms that cause them. A critical perspective is an integral part of the debate. Of course, despite these benefits, the overuse of the concept of gentrification may also bring confusion into research. What is important is to recognize the limit of gentrification as an analytical tool in research. For instance, positioning gentrification as a clearly defined standard concept using highly versatile abstract terms is one important choice. In this case, understanding can be deepened by clarifying how individual local cases differ from the neutrally defined concept. Such a usage is close to Max Weber's “ideal type.” To avoid any misunderstanding, an ideal type is not a concept that implies anything “correct” or “ideal” in itself. It is merely a starting point for analysis. Alternatively, another way of understanding may also be useful. American sociologist Blumer (1954) pointed out that when approaching diverse social realities, it is important not only to have a definitive concept that strictly identifies and limits the characteristics of the object, but also to have a concept that provides a reference point and serves as guidance when approaching broad empirical cases. He called this a sensitizing concept. Each study in this special issue also provides constructive examples for the methodological arguments surrounding the concept of gentrification. Each author's position on the use of the concept of gentrification appears to differ slightly. However, the intellectual feast and competition that gentrification, as a sensitizing concept, has generated from East Asian cases provides an important starting point for deepening the discussion. Finally, I would like to thank the editors and contributors for realizing this fruitful opportunity despite the many difficulties. The author declares no conflicts of interest.