There goes the gaybourhood? Dispersion and clustering in a gay and lesbian real estate market in Dallas TX,1986

Abstract

Gay and lesbian neighbourhoods play a pivotal role as places of safety, empowerment and visibility for gay and lesbian individuals. Using over 9000 real estate listings from the gay- and lesbian-oriented Dallas Voice newspaper, our paper uses spatial statistical methods to explore the location of gay and lesbian neighbourhoods in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). With data spanning the years 1986 to 2012, we examine how gay and lesbian real estate hot spots have changed over time. Advertisers consistently listed rental properties in the primary gay neighbourhood of Oak Lawn in central Dallas. However, for-sale property listings tell another story; hot spots expanded considerably from the traditional gay neighbourhoods of Oak Lawn and Oak Cliff to include a number of adjacent neighbourhoods through the mid-2000s, then contracted during the late 2000s. We conclude that while adjacent neighbourhoods have become hot spots in recent years, the gay- and lesbian-oriented real estate market continues to focus on traditional gay and lesbian enclaves in central Dallas.

Keywords

gay geography lesbian LGBT neighbourhood real estate

Introduction

The rapid assertion of gay and lesbian identities in the late 20th century and the ensuing gay rights movement have been inseparable from and largely dependent upon the visibility of gays and lesbians in urban space (Abrahamson, 1996; Murray, 1979). Geographers have used the locations of gay and lesbian-oriented businesses and services (Harry, 1974; Levine, 1979), interviews (Castells, 1983; Podmore, 2001) and census data (Anacker and Morrow-Jones, 2005; Gates and Ost, 2004) to understand the evolution of gay and lesbian visibility in urban neighbourhoods. In previous research, we used 9210 street addresses listed in home advertisements posted in the gay and lesbian-oriented Dallas Voice newspaper (hereafter referred to as the Voice), to map shifts in the gay and lesbian geography of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) from 1986 to 2012 (Whittemore and Smart, 2016). We concluded that gay and lesbian households were dispersing from traditional enclaves, suggesting integration, but in such a way that created new clusters, suggesting the continued importance of proximity to each other. In this paper, we again use these addresses to map shifts in realtors’ conceptions of gay and lesbian residential preferences in the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA, specifically applying spatial statistical methods to understand the distribution of hot spots of advertisements in five periods spanning more than two decades. We consider our findings in the context of Voice coverage of how the gay and lesbian population has shifted in the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA.

Like our previous work, this paper contributes to the literature by introducing data on rental and real estate markets to the study of gay and lesbian geography. It also makes a unique contribution by studying change over time, and answers to calls to investigate gay and lesbian geography beyond traditional enclaves (Gorman-Murray and Waitt, 2009). Our paper also examines gay and lesbian territory in an understudied setting far from the often-studied queer metropolises of New York and San Francisco: the American Southwest. Our study is more accurately one of housing advertisements targeted to gays and lesbians rather than a broader one of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, because of the terminology used in the Voice’s coverage and its own descriptions of its readership. Additionally, realtors’ conceptions of gay and lesbian residential preferences are not a perfect measurement of gay and lesbian geography, particularly as not all of the gay and lesbian population can express their preferences in a capitalist land market.

Our analysis in this paper reveals evidence of the geographical shifts within the area’s gay and lesbian community: gay and lesbian households continue to seek residence in traditional enclaves, but they have also established new enclaves, as evidenced by new statistically significant hot spots. Interestingly, however, these new hot spots have only arisen in neighbourhoods directly adjacent to traditional enclaves, suggesting an incrementally expanding gay and lesbian real estate market. Furthermore, we suggest that there may be a continued preference for traditional enclaves; in the late 2000s we note a contraction in the number of hot spots and their re-concentration, with exceptions, in traditional enclaves. We take these conclusions together to indicate that while gay and lesbian households may feel more comfortable beyond their traditional enclaves, their identification as part of an affinity group motivates continued clustering, and that clustering in traditional enclaves is even preferred given their affordability.

Gay and lesbian neighbourhoods

Gay and lesbian identities formed in part via the creation of gay and lesbian communities and thus in tandem with gay and lesbian visibility in urban neighbourhoods (Murray, 1979). Gay and lesbian populations have been visible in US neighbourhoods since the Second World War (D’Emilio, 1998). The concentration of gays and lesbians in physical territories allowed them to elect legislators sympathetic to them, thus making discrimination against gays and lesbians and other community concerns visible (Aldrich, 2004; Bailey, 1999; Castells, 1983; Forest, 1995).

Understanding the geography of gays and lesbians is therefore necessary in understanding the relatively rapid assertion of gay and lesbian identities as well as gay and lesbians’ fight for equal rights (Gates and Ost, 2004). However, unlike many other minorities, gays and lesbians have not been explicitly enumerated in national censuses (though partnered, co-habiting same-sex couples have been counted in recent years). Thus, the investigation of gay and lesbian geography is most often dependent upon anecdotal evidence (Bell, 1991; Podmore, 2001). Harry (1974) used lists of gay bars to suggest that larger gay and lesbian communities tended to exist in larger urban areas. In his study of San Francisco, Castells (1983) used interviews, the number of multiple male households on voter registration files, gay bars, gay businesses and professional offices, and votes for openly gay politician Harvey Milk in order to map the gay population in that city.

These studies, however, left women almost completely out of the picture (Jay, 1997), and were inevitably inadequate in their understanding of gay male geography as well. Castells concluded that lesbians lacked visibility because women lack territorial ambitions, leading other researchers to note the prevalence of gender bias in this area of research (Valentine, 1995, 2000). Podmore (2001: 337), observing the location of lesbian social interactions in Montreal, found a lesbian community to exist in the socially mixed boundary between the city’s Anglo and French halves. Gieseking (2013), observing social networks, described a lesbian community within the Brooklyn neighbourhood of Park Slope during the 1980s. Other geographers (Rothenberg, 1995; Valentine, 1995) have also noted the role of lesbians’ interpersonal communication, special events and support groups in understanding lesbian territories.

Decennial US censuses since 1990 have counted same-sex partnered households (distinct from roommates). This has given geographers the opportunity to study numbers and locations of some – but not all – gay and lesbian people with a large public data set. Using these data, geographers have for the most part confirmed anecdotal associations between large urban areas and gay and lesbian populations (Bailey, 1999; Black et al., 2000). They have furthermore noted gay and lesbian couples’ apparent preference for specific neighbourhood types, which include those with above-average concentrations of multi-unit housing, rental housing and older housing (Bailey, 1999).

Gates and Ost (2004) used Census 2000 data to find that ZIP (postal) codes with high concentrations of same-sex partners also had a higher proportion of non-White and foreign-born residents, higher crime, a lower share of owner-occupied homes and a higher proportion of homes built before 1939, but also higher household incomes, a higher percentage of residents with a college degree and a higher median house value. In addition, heterosexual families may be less attracted to these particular ZIP codes because these areas were home to fewer married couples, as well as smaller households and homes. Also using Census 2000 data, Anacker and Morrow-Jones (2005) again found higher concentrations of both male and female same-sex couples in less family-friendly areas (as indicated by a lower proportion of children), but they found greater concentrations of same-sex couples in neighbourhoods with higher percentages of non-Hispanic Whites.

Qualitative data, however, continue to be important, at least because there are some problems with reliance on census data to map gay and lesbian populations. Brown and Knopp (2006) point out that census data exclude gay and lesbian people who are either single or not living with their partner, in addition to any coupled gay and lesbian households who are not comfortable with reporting themselves to the census.

Qualitative studies continue to lend narrative to studies of gay and lesbian geography. These narratives can also contextualise gay and lesbian geography within wider socio-spatial trends in the city. Collins (2004), for example, hypothesised that gay communities experience four phases in the course of their lives. First, they come together in neighbourhoods experiencing economic decline and a bohemian presence, after which gay and lesbian social opportunities and services gain visibility. With this visibility, the neighbourhoods become a destination for gays and lesbians from outside the neighbourhood in search of gay and lesbian-oriented services and social opportunities. Finally, the local community declines as the neighbourhoods’ revival leads to a rise in rents and re-integration. For instance, the gay community of San Francisco’s Castro began with the departure of the working-class Irish population from the area and an influx of gays from abutting bohemian areas, and the consequent restoration of economic activity oriented to the gay population (Abrahamson, 1996; Godfrey, 1988). More recently, however, it is integrating into the surrounding area as rents rise and less wealthy gay and lesbians are forced out (Brown, 2007; Buchanan, 2007). Gay and lesbian communities thus assert themselves through neighbourhood restoration and activism that culminates in integration.

In the past decade, many have noted an apparent decline in the prominence of gay and lesbian communities within traditional enclaves (Brown, 2007; Buchanan, 2007; James, 2011; Kyles, 2007), with some asserting that this has to do with a younger generation of gays and lesbians feeling more integrated into society (Aguirre-Livingston, 2011; Ghaziani, 2014), or because the internet has decreased the need for communities to be physically concentrated (Brown, 2007). Also playing a role is the attraction of heterosexual capital into neighbourhoods revitalised by gay and lesbian sweat equity, in turn displacing gays and lesbians less capable of paying high rents (Doan and Higgins, 2011).

Despite these trends, many gay and lesbian households continue to show a preference for living in traditional enclaves (Ghaziani, 2010, 2014). Doan and Higgins (2011) and Doan (2015) suggest that this desire for traditionally concentrated communities is strongest among the young, the poor, and gays and lesbians belonging to marginalised racial and ethnic groups – exactly those who are increasingly priced out of traditional enclaves.

Noting the apparent decline in traditional ‘ghettos’, other researchers have turned their attention to queer-friendly neighbourhoods (Brown, 2013; Gorman-Murray and Waitt, 2009), places lacking a strong queer visibility but nevertheless welcoming to sexual and gender minorities because of a general cultural openness. This literature shifts attention to cohesion with other groups and away from the conventional focus on gay and lesbian territorialisation (Gorman-Murray and Waitt, 2009). Remaining unassimilated, different identity groups form communities via their mutual attachment to physical space and involvement in neighbourhood issues (Gorman-Murray and Waitt, 2009). Critically, however, such queer-friendly neighbourhoods may be far from the norm, as many gays and lesbians find most suburban areas unfriendly and even unsafe (Doan and Higgins, 2011; Nash, 2013), or may find new, ostensibly queer-friendly neighbourhoods to be less accepting of young, lower-income and minority members of the community (Lewis, 2015). In their study of the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA, Whittemore and Smart (2016) studied gay and lesbian-preferred neighbourhood characteristics to provide evidence of both dispersal and continued clustering, suggesting the importance of both queer-friendly areas and traditional territorialisation.

Research approach

We explore the spatial distribution of Voice-advertised for-sale and rental properties across more than two decades by employing descriptive and spatial statistical methods. This approach allows us to describe the changing location of gay and lesbian territory in the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA, linking it to qualitative data on both the gay and lesbian real estate markets and broader socio-political trends in the region.

Our analysis is based on the assumption that advertised properties serve as a reasonable proxy for gay and lesbian homeowners and renters. It is likely that a non-trivial portion of advertisements do not represent actual purchases and leases by gay and lesbian households. However, we presume that landlords and real estate agents list their properties in the Voice in order to reach its gay and lesbian readership, and that this targeted marketing is based on local knowledge of the gay and lesbian real estate market. Furthermore, Whittemore and Smart (2016) find that the Voice listings used here are located in neighbourhoods that contain far more same-sex partnered households than is the case for the MSA as a whole, suggesting that the listings are a reasonable proxy. Finally, the use of spatial statistics helps to identify locations in which these ads appear frequently, which reduces the risk of misidentifying neighbourhoods as gay and lesbian hot spots. Nevertheless, we urge some caution in interpreting our results.

Data

We use street addresses of all 9210 home and apartment listings in the Dallas Voice from 1986 to 2012. The Voice is a gay- and lesbian-oriented newspaper that has been published weekly in the Dallas-Fort Worth area since 1984. We geocoded the listings using ArcMap 10.2 software, and excluded one record for a home outside the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.

The data are not uniformly distributed across time, but rather reflect two distinct trends. First, as Figure 1 shows, advertisements became more common throughout the 1990s. This growth, we suspect, is due to realtors’ recognition of a niche gay and lesbian market – Susan Melnick (Melnick, 1992a, 1992b) and Lory Masters were among the first to do so (Master Realtors, 1993). Gays and lesbians historically had trouble buying homes through mainstream channels (Ritz, 1987). Second, we observe a strong spike in advertisements – particularly for for-sale homes – during the real estate boom of the early 2000s, with an equally strong tapering off of advertisements following the real estate crash of the late 2000s. Overall, there are more for-sale properties (N = 7698) listed than rental properties (N = 1512).

Nor are the Voice advertisements distributed uniformly across space. As Figure 2 shows, the bulk of listings were for properties in three areas. First, a large group of listings is located southwest of downtown Dallas in the Oak Cliff neighbourhood. Second, a linear agglomeration of listings extending northwest from downtown encompasses the neighbourhoods of Oak Lawn, Bluffview and Northwest Dallas. Finally, another group of listings is found northeast of downtown, containing the various eastern Dallas neighbourhoods including Vickery Place, Lakewood, the M Streets neighbourhood, Hollywood/Santa Monica and Casa Linda. Many other listings are located in areas that do not appear to represent meaningful clusters of listings. We analyse these patterns of clustering in this paper, both across space and across five time periods.

As noted in Whittemore and Smart (2016), we believe that our data set has strengths and weaknesses. First, our data are an improvement over the most commonly used data in recent years, census tallies of same-sex partnered households. Census data omit unpartnered gay and lesbian households and likely skew toward certain demographic groups (perhaps wealthier and White households) that are more willing to ‘out’ themselves to the US Bureau of the Census. However, our use of real estate advertisements may lead to other biases. Listings themselves do not represent actual gay and lesbian buyers and renters, but we assumed that consistent advertisements in particular neighbourhoods represented a trend of gay and lesbian homebuying and renting. However, real estate listings may disproportionately show up in neighbourhoods where there is much turnover and market speculation, or where the greatest profit may be found. We also note that the Voice readership skews toward male and higher-income people (Vercher, 1996). The listings found in its pages may reflect the neighbourhoods where these readers live. We discuss the drawbacks to our data set in greater detail in Whittemore and Smart (2016).

Methods

In this analysis, we build on the descriptive work carried out in Whittemore and Smart (2016), which combined the location of Voice advertisements with contemporaneous census data to chart the changing (and in other ways, unchanging) demographic and physical characteristics of the typical neighbourhoods in which advertised properties were found.

Here, we extend the analysis by using spatial statistical techniques to describe the geographic location of core LGBT neighborhoods using Voice advertisements as evidence. Specifically, we examine trends in clustering of gay and lesbian-oriented real estate ads across more than 20 years. We discuss regional trends in the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA and focus on the specific neighbourhoods in which clustering occurred over time.

We use the Getis-Ord G_i* statistic to identify hot spots of both for-sale and rental properties listed in the Voice. Hot spot analysis is useful for identifying statistically significant clusters of data across space; we use this technique to identify which areas within the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA are core components of LGBT geography across time. The G_i* statistic is a tool that compares spatial patterns of data points (in this case, Voice listings) to the patterns one would expect under the assumption that the data points are distributed randomly across space. For statistical comparison, the technique generates multiple random distributions using a Monte Carlo technique, with data aggregated into areal units such as census tracts or grid cells. We aggregate our data points to grid cells of one half-mile by one half-mile (about 800 m × 800 m), roughly approximating a reasonable neighbourhood-scale walkshed. We identify as hot spots those grid cells that have a less than 5% chance of being the product of a random distribution of listings.

We aggregate our data into five periods: (1) 1986 (rentals) or 1988 (for-sale properties)¹ to 1992, (2) 1993 to 1997, (3) 1998 to 2002, (4) 2003 to 2007, and (5) 2008 to 2012. By doing so, we ensure a sufficient sample for each period to produce stable results, while still providing sufficient temporal granularity to adequately describe temporal trends. In some cases, we further combine the first two periods for sample size reasons, discussed below.

Analysis

Regardless of the period, Voice real estate advertisements were, on average, in close proximity to one another (see Figure 3). In the first period (1988 to 1992), advertisements for for-sale homes and condominiums were, on average, just over 2100 feet (640 m) from their closest neighbouring advertised property. In later periods, that average distance between an advertised property and its nearest neighbour plummeted to a much closer 175 to 360 feet (53 to 110 m), suggesting that most for-sale properties listed in the Voice tended to be located in clustered locations within the region. Rental properties exhibit a somewhat different pattern, with close proximity (between 290 and 880 feet, or 90 to 270 m) in all five periods. The second period in our study (1993 to 1997) saw somewhat more dispersed rental advertisements than other periods did, and the difference is statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.

Figure 4 shows the geographic mean centre of the location of for-sale advertisements in the Voice over time. For the decade spanning periods one and two (1988 to 1997), the centre points of for-sale properties were indistinguishable from one another, and both located just on the west side of the Trinity River. These points represent the high concentration of for-sale advertisements in Oak Cliff vis-a-vis other neighbourhoods of gay and lesbian settlement on the east side of the river, including Oak Lawn and areas in East Dallas, including Vickery Place. While Oak Lawn has been at the centre of gay life in the city since at least the early 1970s (Johnson, 2007; Webb, 2006a, 2007), it only became so because it featured an abundance of inexpensive rental housing in close proximity to employment centres downtown and wholesale trade centres to the immediate northwest of downtown. Oak Lawn historically had very small pockets of for-sale single-family housing stock; the boom in townhome and condominium construction there did not begin until the 1990s (David, 1999; Vercher, 1993).

In the third period (1998 to 2003), the mean centre point shifted to the northeast, toward the southern end of the Oak Lawn neighbourhood. Thus, we hypothesise that the gradual movement of the mean centre is in part due to this construction boom. In the following two periods (2004 to 2012), the for-sale centre point shifted still further to the northeast. We believe that this shift was due to the increasing appeal of for-sale properties to gays and lesbians in non-traditional, abutting neighbourhoods to Oak Lawn’s northwest (Webb, 2001), as well as further afield eastern Dallas neighbourhoods.

Clustering: For-sale properties

We next turn to our statistical analysis of spatial clustering. Figures 5 through 8 show statistically significant clusters (p < 0.05) of Voice-advertised for-sale properties for four periods; periods one and two are combined for reasons of sample size.² All hot spots (shaded and hatched) are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level for their respective periods. Among for-sale properties listed in the Voice, we see considerable shifts over time in the location of for-sale hot spots, though all hot spots in all five periods are still located in the urban core of the city of Dallas, the most populous city in the MSA. Figure 5 shows that in the late 1980s and through the mid-1990s, for-sale homes listed in the Voice clustered primarily in Oak Cliff. However, the analysis also shows less prominent clustering across the Trinity River in Oak Lawn, downtown Dallas, and very near East Dallas neighbourhoods. This distribution further confirms our hypotheses regarding the mean centre analysis.

By the late 1990s and early 2000s, Voice-advertised for-sale properties had spread considerably (Figure 6), with hot spots reaching both further south into the southernmost parts of Oak Cliff, further north into Northwest Dallas and further east and northeast into Lakewood, M Streets and Hollywood/Santa Monica. According to the contemporary press, by the early 2000s, gay and lesbian households (likely the wealthier, White subset representing the bulk of the Voice’s readership) were feeling increasingly comfortable in less explicitly gay and lesbian-oriented environments, decreasing the necessity of living in traditional enclaves (Vercher, 2001). In M Streets, gays and lesbians were part of the general tide of neighbourhood gentrification (Wayne, 2004). However, this movement out of traditional enclaves may also have been due to the perception of inner-city issues, such as crime, that had in part lead to previous generations of heterosexual Whites leaving core neighbourhoods (Webb, 2001). In the hot real estate market of the early to mid 2000s there may also have been push factors present: fears of Oak Lawn’s gentrification by wealthier heterosexual households were a common topic of Voice coverage at the time (Kusner, 2006; Webb, 2006b)

During the real estate boom period of the early to mid 2000s (period four, shown in Figure 7), the Voice for-sale home hot spots eroded in the Oak Cliff neighbourhood, retracting from the south to coalesce around a smaller area similar to the original 1988–1997 hot spot. At the same time, for-sale hot spots significantly expanded in the north and east into the neighbourhoods of Preston Hollow, Northeast Dallas and Casa Linda, absorbing the wealthy independent municipalities of Highland Park and University Park.

In our final analysis period, spanning 2008 to 2012 (Figure 8), we observe considerable contraction and fragmentation of the for-sale property hot spots. The Oak Cliff hot spot south of the Trinity River shrank again, becoming focused on the northern core where it first arose in the late 1980s. In the north, the hot spot also diminishes substantially, retreating from the previous frontiers of Northwest Dallas and Preston Hollow. To the east we observe a similar contraction, as Northeast Dallas and Casa Linda are no longer contained within the hot spot. Interestingly, however, hot spots were preserved in the near-northwest neighbourhoods of Bluffview, and to the east in Lakewood and Hollywood/Santa Monica.

Clustering: Rental properties

While our analysis of for-sale hot spots exhibits a remarkable pattern of hot spot growth, decline and fragmentation, our analysis of Voice-advertised rental properties is one of equally remarkable consistency in rental hot spots. Figure 9 shows a composite map of all rental hot spots identified in our five study periods. In each of the waves, the Getis-Ord G_i* statistic identified six or seven half-mile by half-mile hot spot areas (again, statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level) centered around Oak Lawn, just north of downtown Dallas. On the one hand, this could indicate that landlords or management companies did not find it advantageous to advertise in a gay- and lesbian-oriented publication unless their property was within Dallas’ traditional gay and lesbian neighbourhood. However, it could also suggest that likely renters, who may have represented a younger and relatively lower-income subset of Voice readers, have indeed preferred the security, comfort, social opportunities and services of Dallas’ most well-known gay and lesbian neighbourhood.

Conclusion

Our analysis paints a picture of two divergent trends in gay and lesbian territory in the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA from the late 1980s until 2012. For homeowners, the 1990s to mid 2000s represented a time of incremental expansion of core gay and lesbian neighbourhoods, with a sharp contraction after the real estate collapse of the late 2000s. Rental data, on the other hand, exhibit a strong and static cluster in Oak Lawn, the traditional gay and lesbian neighbourhood of the region, across all periods we examine.

It is difficult to conclude exactly how much of the early to mid 2000s hot spot growth was related to trends of gay and lesbian out-migration from traditional enclaves, though this trend is well documented in articles printed in the Voice (e.g. Webb, 2001). Some of the hot spot growth may be an artefact of the data; we suspect that our data skew towards neighbourhoods that may have seen greater market activity and speculation in the wider market. Neighbourhoods including Preston Hollow and Northeast Dallas were not featured in Voice coverage of gay and lesbian neighbourhood trends. During the late 2000s housing market downturn, hot spots retreated for the most part to traditional enclaves, though not without some exceptions in neighbourhoods directly abutting the original Oak Lawn-East Dallas hot spot: Bluffview, Hollywood/Santa Monica and Lakewood. This suggests that the early to mid 2000s hot spot expansion into farther afield territories may have been exaggerated by market circumstances, and given cooler market conditions and the disruption of push factors, most homebuying gays and lesbians of the region desire to reside in traditional enclaves, or at least in close proximity to them.

Among renting gays and lesbians, there also seems to be a case that traditional enclaves are preferred. We stress again that the Voice readership generally skews wealthier, male and White. This subset of the gay and lesbian population likely has more choices in the housing market, and thus that our findings do not represent a complete picture of the gay and lesbian geography of the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA. With this caveat in mind, we take our findings to provide further evidence of our conclusions made in our previous analysis (Whittemore and Smart, 2016): that gays and lesbians are dispersing, but in such a way that it creates new clusters. We furthermore find that these new clusters are adjacent to existing gay and lesbian territory. In addition, our findings suggest that given the opportunity to do so, traditional enclaves are still favoured by gay and lesbian homebuyers and renters.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Abrahamson

(1996) Urban Enclaves: Identity and Place in America. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Aguirre-Livingston

(2011) Dawn of a new gay. Toronto Grid, 9 June. Available at: http://www.thegridto.com/city/sexuality/dawn-of-a-new-gay/.

Aldrich

(2004) Homosexuality and the city: An historical overview. Urban Studies 41(9): 1719–1737.

Anacker

Morrow-Jones

(2005) Neighborhood factors associated with same-sex households in U.S. cities. Urban Geography 26(5): 385–409.

Bailey

(1999) Gay Politics, Urban Politics: Identity and Economics in the Urban Setting. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bell

(1991) Insignificant others: Lesbian and gay geographies. Area 23(4): 323–329.

Black

Gates

Sanders

. (2000) Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography 37(2): 139–154.

Brown

(2013) Gender and sexuality II: There goes the gayborhood? Progress in Human Geography 38(3): 457–465

Brown

Knopp

(2006) Places or polygons? Governmentality, scale, and the census in The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. Population, Space and Place 12: 223–242.

10.

Brown

(2007) Gay enclaves, once unique, lose urgency. New York Times, 30 October, page 1.

11.

Buchanan

(2007) S.F.’s Castro district faces an identity crisis: As straights move in, some fear loss of the area’s character. San Francisco Chronicle, 25 February, p. A1.

12.

Castells

(1983) The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

13.

Collins

(2004) Sexual dissidence, enterprise and assimilation: Bedfellows in urban regeneration. Urban Studies 41(9): 1789–1806.

14.

David

(1999) Home sweet townhome. Dallas Voice, 4 June, p. 58.

15.

D’Emilio

(1998) Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: the Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940–1970. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

16.

Doan

(2015) Why plan for the LGBT community? In: Doan

(ed.) Planning and LGBT Communities: The Need for Inclusive Spaces. New York: Taylor and Francis, pp 1–16.

17.

Doan

Higgins

(2011) The demise of queer space? Resurgent gentrification and the assimilation of LGBT neighborhoods. Journal of Planning Education and Research 31: 6–25.

18.

Forest

(1995) West Hollywood as symbol: The significance of place in the construction of a gay identity. Environment and Planning D 14(2): 133–157.

19.

Gates

Ost

(2004) The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

20.

Ghaziani

(2010) There goes the gayborhood. Contexts 9: 64–66.

21.

Ghaziani

(2014) There Goes the Gayborhood? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

22.

Gieseking

(2013) Queering the meaning of ‘neighborhood’: Reinterpreting the lesbian-queer experience of Park Slope, Brooklyn, 1983–2008. In: Taylor

Addison

(eds) Queer Presences and Absences. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 178–200.

23.

Godfrey

(1988) Neighborhoods in Transition: The Making of San Francisco’s Ethnic and Nonconformist Communities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

24.

Gorman-Murray

Waitt

(2009) Queer-friendly neighborhoods: Interrogating social cohesion across sexual difference in two Australia neighborhoods. Environment and Planning A 41(12): 2855–2873.

25.

Harry

(1974) Urbanization and the gay life. The Journal of Sex Research 10(3): 238–247.

26.

James

(2011) Change with a straight face barrels into the Castro. New York Times, 7 May, p. 23A.

27.

Jay

(1997) Domestic dykes and the politics of ‘indifference’. In: Ingram

Bouthillette

Retter

(eds) Queers in Space: Communities, Public Spaces, Sites of Resistance. Seattle, WA: Bay Press, pp. 163–170.

28.

Johnson

(2007) The best of times, the worst of times. Dallas Voice, 23 November, pp. 30–31.

29.

Kusner

(2006) There goes the gayborhood. Dallas Voice, 27 January, p. 39.

30.

Kyles

(2007) Culture clash: Boystown shifting as more families move in. Chicago Tribune, 10 December, p. 6.

31.

Levine

(1979) Gay Ghetto. Journal of Homosexuality 4(4): 363–377.

32.

Lewis

(2015) Fractures and fissures in ‘post-Mo’ Washington, DC: The limits of gayborhood transition and diffusion. In: Doan

(ed.) Planning and LGBT Communities: The Need for Inclusive Spaces. New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 56–75.

33.

Master Realtors (1993) A home buyer’s workshop for our community. Dallas Voice, 12 March, p. 18.

34.

Melnick

(1992a) Advertisement ‘Affordable North Oak Cliff’. Dallas Voice, 19 June, p. 15.

35.

Melnick

(1992b) Advertisement ‘Burying or Selling a Home?’. Dallas Voice, 18 September, p. 11.

36.

Murray

(1979) The institutional elaboration of a quasi-ethnic community. International Review of Modern Sociology 9: 165–177.

37.

Nash

(2013) The age of the ‘post-mo’? Toronto’s gay village and a new generation. Geoforum 49: 243–252.

38.

Podmore

(2001) Lesbians in the crowd: Gender, sexuality and visibility along Montreal’s Boul. St.-Laurent. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 8(4): 333–355.

39.

Ritz

(1987) Trials and tribulations of homebuying. Dallas Voice, 3 July, p. 12.

40.

Rothenberg

(1995) ‘And she told two friends’: Lesbians creating urban social space. In: Bell

Valentine

(eds) Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities. London: Routledge, pp. 165–181.

41.

Valentine

(1995) Out and about: Geographies of lesbian landscapes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 19(1): 96–111.

42.

Valentine

(2000) Introduction. Journal of Lesbian Studies 4(1): 1–9.

43.

Vercher

(1993) Uptown realtors opens for business in area. Dallas Voice, 28 May, p. 3.

44.

Vercher

(1996) 1996 Dallas Voice marketing survey confirms upscale readership profile. Dallas Voice, 19 April, p. 18.

45.

Vercher

(2001) Landmark shop marks 20 years. Dallas Voice, 21 December, pp. 27–29.

46.

Wayne

(2004) The rainbow tour. Dallas Voice, 30 April, pp. 38, 40.

47.

Webb

(2001) Northwest Dallas an enclave for gays. Dallas Voice, 19 October, pp. 26, 28.

48.

Webb

(2006a) Gay historian recollects past for benefit of youth. Dallas Voice, 23 June, pp. 6, 8.

49.

Webb

(2006b) Memorable Oak Lawn house faces demolition. Dallas Voice GLBT Real Estate Magazine, 14 July, pp. 1, 12–13.

50.

Webb

(2007) Oak Lawn’s transformation dates way back. Dallas Voice, 9 February, p. 6.

51.

Whittemore

Smart

(2016) Mapping LGBTQ neighborhoods using home advertisements: Change and continuity in the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA over three decades. Environment and Planning A 48(1): 192–210.

There goes the gaybourhood? Dispersion and clustering in a gay and lesbian real estate market in Dallas TX,1986–2012

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Gay and lesbian neighbourhoods

Research approach

Data

Methods

Analysis

Clustering: For-sale properties

Clustering: Rental properties

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

Notes

References