1963, the year of Taylor’s death at the age of 83.In recognition of the contribution made byTaylor, the Griffith Taylor Medal is now themost prestigious award offered by the Instituteof Australian Geographers.

Overall, Strange and Bashford present Tayloras ‘an Enlightenment-style polymath . . . and avisionary interdisciplinarian . . . He linked the“antiquity of man” to climate, languages toecology, the evolution of races to the ice ages:Taylor thought big, unlimited by scale, by disci-pline, and sometimes by evidence’ (p. 6). Theauthors document the variable quality of Taylor’sresearch. While his initial geological and meteo-rological research was based on very carefullycollected data, much of his later data collectionwas less precise, being based on whistle-stopfield tours and academic forays into disciplinaryareas (such as anthropology and eugenics) thathe had little grounding in.

Taylor was oriented towards achievement andrecognition. He surrounded himself with sup-porters in the form of ‘mentors, colleagues,friends, students and family members – able andwilling to offer affirmation’ (p. 8). ‘There was nogreater publicist for Taylor than Taylor himself,who drew attention in every talk and publicationto his remarkable achievements’ (p. 12). Forexample, an inspection of Taylor’s (1932) papertitled ‘The Geographer’s aid in nation-planning’contains 174 self-references in 15 pages oftext. Conversely, Taylor didn’t react construc-tively to criticism, frequently ignoring contraryadvice. In particular, he did not appreciate criti-cism from people he regarded as being junior tohimself.

Taylor had a combative personality and is bestremembered for his fight with the optimists of hisera over the development potential of Australia.While Taylor liked to present himself as a lonevoice crying in the wilderness, Powell (1978)notes that he did in fact receive support frompoliticians, bureaucrats, businessmen and aca-demics. Overall, Taylor provides a useful exam-ple of a pioneering geographer. His capacity tobe an effective communicator, combining lan-guage and graphical skills contributed to hispopularity as a lecturer and journalist. In particu-lar, he was an excellent cartographer and a sourceof effective metaphors.

In summary, Griffith Taylor: Visionary, Envi-ronmentalist, Explorer is a very intensivelyresearched historical review of Taylor’s life. It isneither an iconoclastic review nor a myth-building biography, nor does it offer a systematic

analysis of Taylor’s theories and the historicaldevelopment of geography in Australia. Rather itcharts Taylor’s development as a person and asan academic, and it focuses on his attitudes andactions. It is a book worth reading by Australiangeographers as well as social scientists interestedin the development of academia in the earlytwentieth century, and it should grace the libraryshelves of all tertiary campuses where geographyis taught.

REFERENCESGordon, K., 2005: From a Scientist’s Life, Art’s Cautionary

Tales. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)), NewYork, N.Y., 12 Oct, E.4.

Nye, M.J., 2006: Scientific Biography: History of Science byAnother Means? Isis 97, 322–329.

Powell, J., 1978: Griffith Taylor Emigrates from Australia.Geography Bulletin (March), 5–12.

Soderqvist, T., 2003: Science as Autobiography: TheTroubled Life of Niels Jerne, trans. David Mel Paul (YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT), cited in Nye (2006).

Taylor, G., 1932: The Geographer’s Aid In Nation-Planning.The Scottish Geographical Magazine 48(1), 1–20.

Laurence KnightUniversity of Tasmania

Australia

GentrificationLoretta Lees, Tom Slater and Elvin Wyly, Rout-ledge, New York and London, 2008, xxviii + 310pp, ISBN 9780415950374 (paperback), US$35.96.

The form, causes and effects of gentrificationhave been a mainstay of urban geographicinquiry for at least two decades. It is surprising,then, that the work of Lees, Slater and Wylyrepresents the first textbook devoted to the topicof gentrification. However, there is also a time-liness to this contribution. Gentrification is con-tinuing to diffuse and take on new forms, andis increasingly promoted through neoliberalpolicy instruments (which often employ weaselwords such as ‘regeneration’, ‘revitalization’ or‘renewal’, rather than the politically-loaded‘gentrification’). The authors address theseongoing developments, as well as more estab-lished themes, via a sustained engagement withthe literature, and insights from their ownresearch.

The stated intention of this book is toprovide a ‘comprehensive, accessible, intro-ductory volume (complete with case studies)’that is ‘theoretically informed and empirically

334 Geographical Research • August 2010 • 48(3):330–340

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 Institute of Australian Geographers

grounded’ (p. xxi). To achieve this goal it beginsby examining the first systematic occurrences ofinner-city residential rehabilitation and restora-tion in centres such as London and New York inthe 1950s. These trends prompted Ruth Glass tocoin the term ‘gentrification’ in 1964. Importantconcepts in this first phase of gentrification, suchas sweat equity, are introduced, as are many ofthe early synonyms, such as ‘brownstoning’ and‘homesteading’.

In the following two chapters, the focus shiftsto competing academic explanations for gentrifi-cation, and the changes in locational preferencesunderpinning it. While description and analysisof explanations grounded in production (chapter2) and consumption (chapter 3) have the poten-tial to be rather careworn – given the sheervolume of work to have previously consideredthe strengths and weaknesses of each – there isno evidence of unoriginality here. On the con-trary, these chapters provide lively and thor-oughly up-to-date accounts.

By way of example, the topic of ground rent,which might otherwise be dry and difficult terri-tory for many readers, is described in an acces-sible and compelling manner. The reasons for agrowing divergence between capitalized andpotential ground rent in urban neighbourhoodsare made abundantly clear, as are the social andpolitical consequences of the associated devalo-rization. The authors’ concern to elucidate theseconsequences, and their treatment in the litera-ture, ensure readers do not lose sight of what is atstake. This is evident in one telling criticism ofconsumption-oriented research, where it is notedthat preoccupation with middle class in-migrantshas led to a systematic exclusion of workingclass concerns: ‘next to nothing has been pub-lished on the experiences of nongentrifyinggroups living in neighbourhoods into which themuch-researched cosmopolitan middle classesare arriving en masse’ (p. 122).

These chapters acknowledge the ground-breaking research of the late 1970s and 1980s,but are by no means mired in historical debates.Indeed, Chapter 4 is devoted to recent ‘muta-tions’ of the term gentrification to encompassnew forms of property (re)development. Onesuch form is new-build in central urban areas(often on brownfield sites), which breaks thetraditional association of gentrification with therestoration of historical residential areas, butstill entails capital reinvestment, middle classin-migration, and the production of a gentrifiedaesthetic. A second is super-gentrification,

whereby already gentrified neighbourhoodsexperience on-going, and increasing capital-intensive, change driven by the residentialdemands of a global financial elite. As Lees,Slater and Wyly explain, these developmentspush the boundaries of the term ‘gentrification’,without appearing to subvert it.

More challenging, perhaps, is the explorationof gentrification far removed from central citylocations. In the UK, for example, so-called‘rural gentrification’ entails middle class migra-tion from suburbs to villages, resulting in a moreservice-oriented rural economy, as well as dis-placement of working class residents. While thistrend arguably entails a rejection of suburbanspace and values, similar to conventional gentri-fication, it also raises the question of where thelimits to the process might be drawn. Morespecifically, what, if anything, distinguishes‘gentrification’ from other forms of property(re)development and revalorization? If villagesand hamlets can be gentrified, why not extend theterm to suburbs experiencing house price infla-tion, ad-hoc upgrading, and a degree of intenzi-fication? Perhaps the definition could even bestretched to new greenfield suburbs that displaceprevious land use(r)s and cater to prosperousbuyers?

Such questions are particularly pertinent inlight of the remarkable real estate boom of 2002–2007. Residential property markets across citieslike Auckland and Sydney, for example, weretransformed by processes such as capital rein-vestment, social upgrading, landscape change,and displacement of low-income households.If these trends represent the ‘core elementsof gentrification’ irrespective of ‘a particularlandscape or context’ (p. 158), it appears tofollow that entire metropolitan (and indeednon-metropolitan) regions may be gentrified.While this is an provocative train of thought, itarguably leaves us in a situation where anyhousing market experiencing a degree of priceinflation and middle class in-migration might besaid to be ‘gentrifying’, even when the suburbanform remains dominant (see, e.g., Freeman andCheyne, 2008).

This implication is significant, because itcalls into question the traditional association ofgentrification with urbanism. At one point theauthors appear to acknowledge this, notingrecent connections between gentrification and‘the general financial transformation of housing’(p. 179), but in general they advance the con-ventional line that it is ‘the antithesis of sub-

Reviews 335

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 Institute of Australian Geographers

urbia’ (p. 124), and inherently linked to urbancultural values (p. 211). Ultimately, there is anunresolved (perhaps unacknowledged) tensionbetween a very general definition of gentrifica-tion, and a narrower interpretation anchored inurban spaces and processes. As such, it is unclearwhether the authors succeed in drawing ‘gentri-fication’ broadly, without undermining the use-fulness of the term as something more specificthan a catch-all for every form of upgrading and‘middle-class colonization’ (p. 156).

One might also question the ‘geography’ ofgentrification in this text. Specifically, while fre-quent mention is made of the ‘global’ nature ofthe process, discussion remains firmly anchoredwithin the comfort zone of most gentrificationresearchers – that is, the familiar territory oflarge cities in the United Kingdom, the UnitedStates, and Canada. On the one hand, readerswill appreciate that this focus reflects both theauthors’ own research foci, and the general stateof the literature. On the other, they might alsohope for greater consideration of gentrificationin the global south. They may ask, in particular,whether a concluding chapter that devotes ahalf-page to gentrification in South Africa – fol-lowed by 22 pages on three North Americanexemplars (New York, San Francisco, and Van-couver) – does justice to its title, ‘The future ofgentrification?’

While Gentrification raises many questions, itshould be stressed that it answers a great manymore; one is left in no doubt, for example, aboutthe rent gap theory, the complex connectionsbetween gentrification and displacement, andthe tensions between emancipatory and revan-chist interpretations. The writing is consistentlyengaging, and the case studies (while mostlyAnglo in origin) are instructive and richlydetailed. The text is accompanied by a range ofblack-and-white photos and figures (althoughfigure 3.1 is not properly reproduced). For thisreader, the highlight remains the thorough-goingexamination of production and consumptionissues. I will have no hesitation in making thesechapters, at minimum, required reading forupper-level students in urban geography.

REFERENCEFreeman, C. and Cheyne, C., 2008: Coasts for sale: Gentri-

fication in New Zealand. Planning Theory and Practice 9(1), 33–56.

Damian CollinsUniversity of Alberta

Canada

Russia’s Northern Regions on the Edge:Communities, Industries and Populations fromMurmansk to MagadanVesa Rautio and Markku Tykkylainen (eds),University of Helsinki, 2008, 233 pp, ISBN9789521040979 (paperback), €28 + VAT.

There are many commentaries on the disloca-tions accompanying the collapse of the SovietUnion and the disruptive shift from a centralised,planned economy and society to one subject tobadly regulated, corrupted market forces. Few ofthese commentaries touch upon the regions mostseverely affected by these revolutionary changes.The gap is partially filled by this publication,which communicates the research undertakenprimarily by geographers at the University ofJoensuu with a focus on ‘the spatial restructuringof communities, from villages to industrial townsin remote settings’ (p. 7). In the Joensuu tradi-tion, research strengths lie in fact-finding, docu-mentation and analysis, tied to well-selected casestudies. In his introductory chapter, Tykkylainenobserves that ‘The current era of restructuring isa unique constellation of economics, culture andspace in which both the processes and arenas ofdevelopment have evolved in an unpredictableway. The research methods therefore need to beempirical and grounded in on-site investigations’(p. 19).

In the second chapter, Heleniak provides aninsightful overview of the North’s extraordinaryeconomic and sociodemographic misfortunesover the last two decades, most clearly revealedin population declines. Almost all oblasts havelost over 25 percent of their population, withthe two most remote eastern oblasts losing 57percent (Magadan) and 67 percent (Chukotka).Many small settlements have become ‘ghosttowns’ peopled only by a few elderly residentswith a strong sense of identity as heroes andpioneers of the North. However, perhaps surpris-ingly, the heaviest losses have been in citieswith former populations over 250,000, with anaverage loss of 36 percent. With the withdrawalof the state as economic planner which ‘priori-tised output over profit’ and heavily subsidisedfuel and food shipments to remote locales, localeconomies collapsed overnight. From 1992 to1997 subsidies on food and fuel shipments to theNorth fell from 1.58 to just 0.12 percent of GDP.In their case study of Magadan, Rautio andRound report that real wages fell by between 50and 70 percent, compared with a national averagedecline of 21 percent. Access to basic services,

336 Geographical Research • August 2010 • 48(3):330–340

© 2010 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 Institute of Australian Geographers