The Impact of Gentrification Phenomena in Thailand

Abstract

The principal objective of this review paper was to study the impact of gentrification phenomena in Thailand using a research methodology combining a review of the existing literature and a desk analysis of case studies, focusing on two main interconnected contributions to debates on gentrification. First, understanding gentrification phenomena by examining the existing literature required a perspective on not only gentrification but also its stages and consequences. Second, particular attention was paid to the desk analysis of case studies of gentrification phenomena in Thailand to provide an overview and critical analysis. The results of this research show that gentrification has accelerated across the globe to become a central engine of urban development. Gentrification is a complex process that has significant and multifaceted impacts on urban communities. Gentrification can have positive impacts, such as improving the urban scenery by revitalising the neighbourhood’s blighted places and raising property values by making buildings more appealing and contemporary. However, gentrification can also have negative impacts due to critical issues that are neglected such as the displacement of original inhabitants, particularly vulnerable populations; the loss of tangible and intangible cultural heritage; social inequalities; environmental vulnerability; and inappropriate land consumption. All of these factors contribute to the fact that urban development in Thailand still runs into issues or roadblocks that keep it inefficient and unable to fully accomplish the intended objectives.

1. Introduction

Gentrification—the conversion of working-class and socially marginal central city neighbourhoods for middle-class residential use—is a legacy of the private-market investment capital inflow into the central business districts of major metropolitan centres in the 1960s. Because of a change in corporate investment and a parallel expansion in the urban services sector, gentrification became increasingly apparent in the architectural restoration of dilapidated dwellings and in the concentration of new cultural amenities in the urban core.

The issue of gentrification in modern society did not surface until the early 1990s; gentrification has been extensively studied in Western countries for many years. Understanding gentrification requires an understanding of how neighbourhoods changed due to the socioeconomic changes that occurred in major cities in the U.S. and Europe. Case studies on the gentrification process from the early 1970s through the 1980s became the blueprint for the worldwide gentrification process. The gentrification phenomenon changes over time and is linked to globalisation, the role of the state, and specific social groups who seek greater freedom or more space. These phenomena have evolved into numerous manifestations, both good and detrimental, such as the gentrification that occurs in rural areas based on indigenous causes. Residents of cities of importance migrated to outlying regions in their quest for tranquillity, a rural life, and a return to more natural ways. The cost of land increased as a result, and the design of new homes and buildings altered the neighbourhoods’ historical identity and transformed the local landscape. Nevertheless, from an academic perspective, in this study, the term ‘gentrification’ is used to describe the societal disparities that have resulted from the gentrification phenomenon in urban settings.

Gentrification is the process by which the working-class people of inner-city districts are displaced by more affluent socioeconomic groups and the consequent physical renovation of those places. Rehabilitation is the process by which the cultural and economic elite transform constructed forms, frequently buildings endowed with heritage value (Glass 1964), (Smith 1982), (Smith 1998), (Ley 1996), (Kennedy and Leonard 2001), (Butler and Robson 2003), (Lees et al. 2008), (Hwang 2016), by reinvesting capital into disinvested areas to exploit the gap between actual and potential ground rent (Smith 1979) caused by inner-city neighbourhoods’ socioeconomic decline during the 1970s and 1980s, an era known as post-industrialisation. At that time, the main mode of production shifted from manufacturing to the service sector and decreased the demand for low-skilled labour in urban areas (Wilson 1987), (Davidson and Lees 2009), embedded in urbanisation processes that integrate politics, culture, society, and ideology. The need to provincialize was acknowledged because urbanisation is uneven and place-specific, revealing numerous trajectories (Smith 1996), (Chakrabarty 2000). The process involves a shift in the socioeconomic status of the land users, with a corresponding change in the built environment caused by reinvestment in fixed capital (Clark 2005), and this alters a neighbourhood’s surroundings, thereby transforming the city, causing cultural conflicts, and diminishing the value of life and social class (Prakitnonthakan 2018), (Boonchaiyapruek 2019).

Although sociologists, geographers, and other urban scholars have identified a widespread pattern of increasing economic affluence in cities across the country, mainstream urban sociologists remain hesitant to identify these changes as evidence of gentrification, in part because the term is still ambiguous, contentious, and politically charged, even 50 years after it was first coined. Moreover, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030 agenda, an agreement that all United Nations member governments have signed delineating aims to be achieved by 2030, includes designing cities that leave no one behind.

The megatrend of urbanisation is one of many challenges that the world is facing in the 21st century due to population growth and high urbanisation rates. Thailand has experienced continuous urbanisation since the 1950s. An important future trend is the growth of medium and small cities (Office of The National Economic and Social Development Council 2022). As urbanisation advances, gentrification inevitably follows, which impacts economic, social, physical, and environmental dimensions. It is apparent that recent urbanisation has created many critical issues, especially the directionless expansion of cities, environmental degradation, social inequality, uneven income, and shortages of housing and basic services due to mass migration. Therefore, spotlighting these negative impacts is paramount. This article aims to enhance our perspective on gentrification phenomena by examining their stages and consequences as elucidated in the existing literature and providing an overview and critical analysis that will shed a light, particularly on case studies of gentrification phenomena in Thailand.

2. Materials and Methods

Our research methodology combined a review of the existing literature and a desk analysis of case studies to understand the multiplicity of facets and dimensions that characterise gentrification. Document analysis of secondary data from the literature was the favoured technique. From the review of the existing literature, theories and relevant research pertaining significantly to this study were extracted to cover all research contexts, academic perspectives, and stages of the gentrification phenomenon and to summarise the consequences of the process. Furthermore, case studies of gentrification phenomena in Thailand were collected to provide an overview and critical analysis of their patterns and outcomes by surveying research conducted since 1950. The case studies were selected to cover various areas of Thailand and the varying nature of their impacts.

3. Gentrification Phenomena

3.1. The Concept of Gentrification

A review of the literature found mutually informing characteristics that provided an explanation of the important social, demographic, and political changes related to gentrification that accompany the significant alteration of the visible urban scene. These definitions in the empirical literature emphasise two crucial aspects of gentrification: that gentrification causes physical changes and reinvestment in the built environment, and that it changes the neighbourhood’s socioeconomic makeup from a less to a more affluent population. Urban geographers have studied the social, economic, political, cultural, and spatial aspects of gentrification for decades, but they have continuously disregarded the environmental aspects. The focus has been on comprehending the impacts of gentrification from the standpoint of both positive and negative impacts on multifaceted urban communities, including physical impacts, economic impacts, social and cultural impacts, and environmental impacts.

Gentrification is the process of changing the character of a neighbourhood through the influx of more affluent residents and businesses (Lees et al. 2010). Gentrification often shifts a neighbourhood’s racial or ethnic composition and average household income as housing and businesses become more expensive and resources that had not been previously accessible are extended and improved (Buzar et al. 2007), (Butler and Hamnett 2009), (Boterman et al. 2010), (Rérat 2012), (Harrison and Jacobs 2016). Gentrification can occur as the rehabilitation of working-class or derelict housing into housing for middle-class residents or as the process of higher-income households moving into neighbourhoods that have suffered from systematic outmigration, disinvestment, or neglect (Atkinson 2002), (Wyly and Hammel 1999).

1. Forms

Both the processes of urban development and the notion of gentrification have changed to incorporate various forms of social upgrading, as well as their actors and spaces (Clay 1979), (Van Criekingen and Decroly 2003), (Lees et al. 2008), (Teernstra 2014), (Hochstenbach and Van Gent 2015). Initially, the idea of gentrification was limited to the situation of more affluent people renovating the inner city’s existing housing stock. Several authors expanded the definition to include additional forms and examined the improvement of public areas and commercial services (Zukin 1995), (Van Criekingen and Fleury 2006). Other scholars categorised the development of high-status housing in inner cities, particularly in brownfield regions that are typically uninhabited, as new-build gentrification, with the displacement of lower-status inhabitants being primarily indirect. These initiatives are regarded as gentrification because they share several characteristics with classic gentrification, including the reinvestment of capital in inner-city areas, social upgrading of the area by the arrival of high-income groups, altered landscapes, and direct or indirect displacement of low-income groups (Glass 1964), (Davidson and Lees 2005), (Levy et al. 2006), (Smith and Butler 2007). Rather, some academics would refer to these processes as re-urbanisation and reserve the term gentrification for situations in which there is direct displacement (Boddy 2007), (Davidson and Lees 2009), (He 2009), (Van Criekingen 2009).

2. Actors

The emergence and polymorphous effects of gentrification involve various actors. Rerat et al. (2010) point to four main types of actors: (1) gentrifiers, especially middle-class households (Rose 1984), (Warde 1991), (Lauria and Knopp 1985), (Ogden and Hall 2004), (Rofe 2003), (Ley 2003); (2) displacees, especially low-income households (Van Criekingen 2009), (Davidson and Lees 2009); (3) private actors, especially large corporate developers (Warde 1991), (Kern 2009), (Rérat et al. 2009); and (4) local authorities, who are portrayed as playing an active part, where state-led gentrification is considered to be the expression of a neoliberal urban agenda (Davidson and Lees 2009), (He 2009), (Kern 2009), (Van Criekingen 2009).

3. Spaces

Recently, gentrification has spread to far more diverse areas compared to the time when key working-class neighbourhoods were first disrupted by wealthier socioeconomic groups colonising them (Rerat et al. 2010). Gentrification first affected central working-class neighbourhoods colonised by more affluent social groups and then appeared in different national contexts (Atkinson and Bridge 2005) such as levels in the urban hierarchy (Van Weesep 1994), spaces of rural gentrification (Phillips 2004), touristic gentrification (Gotham 2005), and super-gentrification in inner-city areas by even more affluent groups (Lees 2003).

However, it may be inferred from the study of the evolution of this process that the transformation of neighbourhoods into gentrified areas proceeds incrementally. The gentrification process can be categorised into three phases. First, the pioneers in the first wave of settlers start improving the neighbourhood but still coexist with the previous residents. The arrival of the middle class is the second phase. Members of this group begin living more luxurious lives, and more visible changes appear in the neighbourhood. The cost of housing is not yet excessive, and new arrivals still coexist with the locals. The first and second phases are considered gentrification equilibrium—a mixed change thought to develop the district by being imaginative. But eventually, in the third phase, super-gentrification turns the area into a high-rent neighbourhood, forcing the locals to move out when they can no longer afford to live there. It likely becomes a popular tourist destination and evolves into an upscale community. This may or may not be considered a disadvantage of the gentrification phenomenon.

3.2. Consequences of Gentrification Phenomena

Smith (1996) underscored the benefits of gentrification, stating that the process makes the city appealing, whether through a fresh urban landscape or by keeping the city tidy and pleasant as the district’s middle class grows. The economy benefits because home prices rise, new lifestyles enliven the city, and the neighbourhood’s beauty is expertly crafted. However, the adjustments to the area by the new group of people affect the way of life of the original group of people in the area; that is, as the economy in the area grows, the working-class residents must leave the community, and society is divided into two parts.

The gentrification process is a public policy tool. More than ever, gentrification has become an active part of public policy based on a gentrification blueprint; it is employed as a means of directing market processes toward the goal of reshaping urban landscapes in a somewhat more charitable manner, or as a rationale for caving to private sector entrepreneurialism and market forces (Wyly and Hammel 2005). In the past, government improvement grants and other programs supported gentrification, which played a major role in the early 1970s gentrification of inner London (Hamnett 1973), whereas around the same time, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Urban Homesteading Program encouraged the gentrification of neighbourhoods (Lees and Bondi 1995). In the more recent phase of gentrification, the process has been embraced fully and affirmatively incorporated into public policy (Lees et al. 2008). Therefore, the main engine driver of gentrification is public policy, which seeks to use positive gentrification as an engine of urban renaissance (Cameron and Coaffee 2005).

4. Gentrification in Thailand: Case Studies and Critical Analysis

We collected and examined published articles relating to research conducted since 1950 on the gentrification phenomenon in Thailand and case studies from various regions of the country. Below is an overview of the nature of the phenomenon’s impacts, patterns, and outcomes reported in these studies.

Anupat (2022) studied the impact of gentrification in Songkhla’s Old Town to identify the elements of gentrification that caused rapid changes in the town over the course of only 10 years and played a role in promoting the physical preservation of Old Town, developing an economic model with overlapping physical, economic, and social features that differed from those of the original community. Although historic buildings were preserved, there was an impact on the economy and society in terms of the lifestyle and individuality that arose from those features. The middle-class property owners in Old Town were an example of gentrification. The new gentrification comprised young people with higher education levels who were either single or married without children. These outsiders earned more than the other groups. They were motivated by commercial gain in the tourism services business, not by wanting to become part of the community, and therefore felt no closeness or attachment to the town. Their lifestyles were inconsistent with those of the former community, which impacted the way of life of the locals in a town made up of small businesses.

Yusuk and Boonchaiyapruek (2022) studied the guidelines for survival in the adaptation of traditional communities under gentrification phenomena in the new central business district of Bangkok, aiming to study the changes in the area that led to the gentrification phenomenon. Their research also examined how gentrification affected residents’ way of life in the area studied and how they adapted to survive. Finally, it looked at urban planning strategies that can help indigenous communities survive gentrification. To project changes in the area within a radius of 1000 meters from the MRT Rama IX Station, data were collected by surveying the physical characteristics of the area and the changes in socioeconomic characteristics between 2007 and 2020. This included interviews with two key informant groups comprising five people with responsibilities for government agencies involved in urban development and five community leaders or residents of the studied area. Their data were analysed using the content analysis method. The study discovered considerable physical changes in the researched area, particularly in the current Central Grand area, which had been replaced by a new development model. It was a project to build a mixed-use commercial area in a business district. The property had previously been used for modest residential and commercial uses but has since become home to high-rise buildings and substantial contemporary structures. The area under consideration had developed into a bustling business and transportation hub with densely populated housing. The gentrification phenomenon was the result of the migration of people with higher social status replacing older, vulnerable communities that were unable to survive. The economic expansion and growth of the studied area impacted the way of life of former residents, particularly vulnerable populations or people in communities with lower social status. The cost of living soared. Low-income individuals who did not earn enough to cover their basic expenses suffered from social inequity, a poorer standard of living, and diminished community support. The study area encountered pollution from construction sites. However, an in-depth interview revealed that the former Rama IX-area residents had adapted to living on a limited budget without government assistance to cover their higher living expenses. The study also discovered that district-specific urban planning initiatives and governance principles, such as smart communities and housing development in tandem with fostering a strong society, were resolving issues of poor urban planning, managing the area effectively, putting in place a comprehensive housing system, reducing the urban populations’ vulnerability, and expanding the inclusion of indigenous communities to allow them to live under the gentrification phenomenon. Nevertheless, issues and barriers remain that prevent the application of such urban planning measures and governance guidelines from accomplishing all of the desired goals, particularly regarding understanding and fostering engagement between the public, private, and nonprofit sectors.

Shummadtayar and Ongsavangchai (2018) studied urbanisation and urban context variants in the old districts in Chiang Mai, aiming to investigate a fundamental method of urban context variations for evaluating the urban patterns and factors in Chiang Mai’s spatial dimensions. To this end, they utilised remote sensing data from Landsat-5 and Landsat-8 provided by the Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency (GISTDA) between the years 2000 and 2015, which related to the city’s changed policies and financial guidelines for economic development following the financial crisis and new constitution in 1997. More people are becoming involved in governmental and urban development projects, and Chiang Mai’s physical environment has changed in a variety of ways. To determine the geographical pattern of urban growth in three periods, their spatial study used the object-based classification technique on Landsat TM images with a resolution of 30 meters, examining Bands 7, 4, and 3. The Geographic Information System (GIS) findings showed urban growth (1) from 2000 to 2004, spreading into the western site; (2) from 2004 to 2010, spreading into the northern and southern sites; and (3) from 2009 to 2015, slowly increasing in the eastern site, extracted using different attracting factors. Additionally, the patterns of life, environment, and habitat, as well as the dynamics of the city, were defined by observation and by interviewing residents who remained inside the historic central district. Without any restrictions until the Chiang Mai Comprehensive Plan of 2012 and the Chiang Mai Municipal Law of 2014, the traditional district environment changed to exhibit more modern economic trade trends for the tourism centre. The constant adjustments in the land-use tenure were significant. The city’s periphery extends beyond physical, social, or cultural boundaries. A key barrier to cultural preservation and the resuscitation of the old district differentiation in Chiang Mai is the recent isolation and separation of human perceptions from the identity, structure, and meaning of Lanna. Their effects could be further examined in terms of urban environment variations, and a specific planning system should be in place before policymakers have the authority to create a unique urban plan.

Pounpunwong (2017) studied the conversion of rural communities into urban settings. A case study of Doi Mon Cham, Mea Rim district, Chiang Mai province, aimed to investigate the transformation of rural communities into cities in the Doi Mon Jam tourist destination, Mae Rim district, Chiang Mai province, as well as the effects of development in the Doi Mon Jam area. For this purpose, their study analysed the political, economic, social, and environmental dimensions using in-depth interviews and nonparticipant observation, as well as by gathering information from pertinent documents and research. The study’s findings showed that the community and government agencies worked well together to develop the Ban Nong Hoi neighbourhood into a tourist destination. This had a favourable impact on the neighbourhood’s development to be able to host tourists, but such growth has had an impact on many areas, including the village economy, which was primarily based on agriculture. Now, however, the emphasis is on pursuing a career in trade and tourism services. Local administrative bodies that handle the dissemination of agricultural knowledge using communication technologies improved the Doi Mon Jam region’s infrastructure and the way of life of the locals. The tourism industry responds to visitors and the pollution brought on by the large number of visitors, such as high volumes of garbage and traffic.

Pokharatsiri (2003) studied gentrification in urban conservation in the case of social impacts in the Banglamphu area of Bangkok, with the aim of studying the phenomenon of gentrification in urban conservation issues, the social consequences on inner-city communities, and the social impact of eviction by persons who differ from those in the original community. The physical and social structures of the Bang Lamphu community in the old city of Bangkok were analysed, along with the buildings’ characteristics and tenants with regard to the buildings’ preservation. The study also considered the neighbourhood’s social influence in terms of community proximity, way of life, and the neighbourhood’s identity as it develops because of those characteristics. The study’s findings showed that occupants who renovated old buildings shared the same demographic traits as those associated with the gentrification phenomenon, including being recent occupants from outside the neighbourhood, young in age, single or married without children, and having a higher level of education and receiving a high income. The remaining holdings were discovered to have been purchased for commercial, not residential, purposes to engage in new leisure and tourism services with low levels of community affinity, which is at odds with the community’s traditional way of life and has negative social effects on the lives of the original villagers. Even the new population that recently moved in is impacted by gentrification and by gentrification-related approaches to community preservation. To learn and collaborate in finding a suitable solution for the preservation of the community by all groups involved, the potential of each group must be taken into account separately based on demographic, economic, and social characteristics, as well as the purpose of owning a building in the neighbourhood and considering the impacts, both good and bad, that each group has on the neighbourhood, in terms of both physical and social changes.

Table 1. Summary of case studies of gentrification in Thailand and a critical analysis.

Authors	Study Area	Method	Findings
			Positive Impacts	Negative Impacts
Tanapa Anupat (2022)	- Old town of Songkhla	- Surveying physical, economic, and societal changes - Interviewing key informants	- Promoting business in tourism services in the old town	- Inconsistent with the original way of life of the community
Yusuk and Boonchaiyapruek (2022)	- New central business district of Bangkok	- Surveying the changes in physical and socioeconomic characteristics - Interviewing key informants	- Physical changes introducing high-rise buildings and large modern structures - An interchange transportation centre in a high-density residential area - Economic expansion	- Higher cost of living - Low-income people suffer from a lower quality of life and community livelihoods, as well as social inequality - Pollution
Shummadtayar and Ongsavangchai (2018)	- Old districts in Chiang Mai	- Participatory workshops	- Various changes in the physical environment - The urban area is clearly expanding	- Use of land without proper provisions - The identity of the old town has faded
Pounpunwong (2017)	- Doi Mon Cham, Mea Rim district, Chiang Mai province	- Documentary research - In-depth interviews - Observation	- Changes in the community’s economy - Infrastructure development	- Pollution and waste
Pokharatsiri (2003)	- Banglamphu area, Bangkok	- surveying the changes in physical and socioeconomic characteristics	- Economic growth	- Inconsistent with the original way of life of the community - Social impacts that hinder the lives of the original villagers

shows the findings regarding both the positive and negative impacts of gentrification phenomena reported in case studies in Thailand. Although the gentrification phenomenon causes certain positive impacts, it has an overall negative impact in various dimensions, as follows:

1. Physical Impacts: Gentrification is used as a technique in public policy to reconstruct the urban environment towards revitalisation under benevolent supervision and to create a dynamic, more stable neighbourhood. However, gentrification still has a few negative impacts on physical aspects, such as the use of land without proper provisions, and the identity of the old community fading. Moreover, these have a detrimental impact on society and on the traditional way of life in the community, which leads to conflict and discontentment among the residents. Incorporating elements that boost the neighbourhood’s occupancy rate, however, will alleviate the community’s dearth of housing for the working class.

2. Economic Impacts: Gentrification frequently has a positive impact on the local economy because middle-class residents are instrumental in the area’s revitalisation work to make the area unique, which, in turn, raises property values by making buildings more appealing and contemporary. This is a key factor in boosting the local economy. On the other hand, the adverse effects are linked to social factors, such as cost-of-living increases, economic inequities, the loss of affordable housing, and most of the income tending to harm only certain categories of individuals. Consequently, the same community’s residents do not profit until migration is ultimately brought on.

3. Social and Cultural Impacts: Social and cultural diversity has a positive impact on gentrification by encouraging better living and preventing urban sprawl. A diverse environment demonstrates the benefits of living in a gentrified community, albeit at the cost of higher rent and other living expenses. As a result, however, homes are demolished to cover the increased cost of community services. This puts pressure on nearby poor residents to tear down their structures and leave. The initial inhabitants of the area will eventually disappear entirely from the community. In addition, the scene of gentrification may be inconsistent with the original way of life of the community, which hinders the lives of the original villagers.

4. Environmental Impacts: Although gentrification can improve the urban scenery by revitalising the neighbourhood’s blighted places, the area’s growth will result in an increase in pollution and waste.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

In this review article, we used a research methodology combining a review of the existing literature and a desk analysis of case studies. For the case studies, we collected and examined published articles relating to research conducted since 1950 on the gentrification phenomenon in Thailand and case studies from various regions of the country. This review article discovered that, as neighbourhoods developed under the gentrification process, imbalances appeared. Gentrification still has an overall negative impact on all aspects: physical impacts, economic impacts, social and cultural impacts, and environmental impacts.

The key finding is that the original population living in an area cannot survive gentrification due to rapid changes that prevent them from adapting, especially financial limitations that undermine their ability to keep up with rising living expenses, thus compelling the at-risk populace to leave the area. For those who manage to continue residing and working in these regions, gentrification frequently results in a lack of employment opportunities and a poor quality of life. Therefore, the issue of social disparity worsens. Numerous approaches and city planning initiatives run into roadblocks that prohibit them from fully achieving the targeted goals, because the priority is on economic development to facilitate the region’s growth, while neglecting to consider the social and environmental effects on the original inhabitants, particularly on vulnerable populations.

Moreover, class displacement and community transformation, widely known as gentrification, are undesirable events since they frequently pressure and harm the area’s long-term residents, who were the original members of the community. Nevertheless, gentrification is a neutral term used to describe a phenomenon of change that occurs in a specific neighbourhood in a city where local companies and citizens are displaced by new, more affluent businesses and residents. As a result, the local economy and building environment are transformed. New crowds and new classes displace the neighbourhoods that the influx has targeted. Buildings are frequently altered and transformed to appear more contemporary than their predecessors. The original residents and low-income earners relocate away from their initial place to settle in cheaper locations outside the neighbourhood due to the rising housing prices and cost of living. The region eventually becomes dominated by wealthy individuals and businesses. Class displacement and communal transformation can be viewed as a positive effect; this type of phenomenon is considered part of the development and improvement of blighted areas in the community to improve the environment (urban development). For instance, with greater modernity, there are additions and improvements to public utilities and new types of public services that are more in line with the current way of life. However, displacement is not a necessary outcome of gentrification if the original residents cannot afford to move elsewhere or are attached to the neighbourhood, or if higher-income households are able to occupy vacant properties or move into newly constructed developments (Vigdor 2002).

According to the master plan of the National Strategy and National Economic and Social Development Plan, the development of cities to be liveable and sustainable for all groups of people in society should prioritise a good environment, economic growth, and high-quality public utility systems within the city. Dynamic development should be consistent with the city’s identity, and the diversity and potential of the city are based on the participation of all sectors in society to spread prosperity to surrounding areas, as well as the principles of sustainable social, economic, and cultural development. Therefore, we offer the following policy recommendations:

1. Future city development and management require knowledge on creating opportunities from urbanisation and dealing with problems that may arise from it in the changing contexts and trends of future urbanisation. Stakeholders involved in urban development or urban renewal policymaking should consider the adverse effects that may result from the gentrification phenomenon, including how it affects the urban poor who live in traditional communities, and devise urban planning policies or rules that enable traditional communities to survive the gentrification process by engaging all pertinent sectors. The public and private sectors and local community members must work together to develop a plan for communal life that specifically minimises negative impacts on the community’s traditional occupants and maximises the wellbeing of all parties.

2. The creation of new architecture in an old city area should reflect the values of each era. The renovation of a conserved building should consider preserving the original architecture.

3. The notion of cohousing can be used to address housing shortages among underprivileged groups. One interesting approach to co-living is managing underutilised residential buildings by allowing a group of investors or developers to contribute to the area’s growth, using government organisations as middlemen between landowners and investors. In this approach, the BMA and CODI are the primary parties responsible. Government agencies, the private sector, and real estate developers are network partners, and residents and landlords are stakeholders. Co-living can be further researched for affordable housing, as co-living aims to provide people with access to living space at a reasonable cost. The adoption of co-living can be conceptualised as a form of affordable housing.

However, interested parties should conduct research on the criteria for evaluating the gentrification phenomenon in the area, determine gentrification’s effects, and seek the participation of all key sectors, leading to a drive for urban planning measures or strategies to help traditional community groups live more effectively under the gentrification phenomenon in order for sustainable development to occur.