This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]On: 06 August 2014, At: 22:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Urban GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurb20

Big Sky or Big Sprawl? RuralGentrification and the ChangingCultural Landscape of Missoula,MontanaRina Ghose aa University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeePublished online: 16 May 2013.

To cite this article: Rina Ghose (2004) Big Sky or Big Sprawl? Rural Gentrification and the ChangingCultural Landscape of Missoula, Montana, Urban Geography, 25:6, 528-549

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.25.6.528

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

528Urban Geography, 2004, 25, 6, pp. 528–549.Copyright © 2004 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

BIG SKY OR BIG SPRAWL? RURAL GENTRIFICATION AND THE CHANGING CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF MISSOULA, MONTANA

Rina Ghose1

Department of GeographyUniversity of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

Abstract: The Rocky Mountain region has experienced significant growth in the last decade,caused mainly by in-migration of population. This paper explores the case of Missoula to exam-ine the nature of this growth and its impacts upon the cultural landscape of the Big Sky countryof Montana. Impacts from growth include increasing urbanization and sprawl, changing housingtastes, conspicuous consumption of open space, and spiraling real estate prices. The paper con-tends that such changes are caused by the in-migration of the new middle class in search of aRocky Mountain lifestyle, creating a process of rural gentrification in which long-term residentsare increasingly displaced. Vociferous public responses to these changes have created demandsfor affordable housing, control of sprawl, and protection of open space, leading to the implemen-tation of new policies and regulatory measures in a state that is famous for its history of fierce,rugged individualism and an anti-regulatory culture. [Key words: rural gentrification, sprawl,Montana, in-migration.]

I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is

love, and it’s difficult to analyze love when you’re in it.—Steinbeck, 1962

The words of John Steinbeck are effectively echoed by many Americans who are nowmoving to Montana every year. Indeed, many people have come to regard Montana, the“Big Sky Country,” as the “last best place.”2 The state is renowned for its wilderness, itsspectacular scenery, relaxed lifestyle and a myriad of recreational opportunities. ButMontana to many people is a backwater interior state with a dying economy—who wouldwish to live there anyway, this contingent might ask. As it happens, many would.Montana’s population has grown from 799,065 in 1990 to 882,779 in 1999, over half ofwhich is due to net internal migration (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000a). Located in thesplendor of the Rockies, counties in Western Montana have been notable gainers. Simi-larly, the entire census defined Mountain region has experienced strong populationgrowth due to in-migration in the last decade (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000a). Thus farscholarship on the New West attributes the rural restructuring process to amenity driven

1 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rina Ghose, Department of Geography, Bol-ton Hall 478, P.O. Box 413, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201; telephone: 414-229-4868; fax: 414-229-3981; e-mail: rghose@uwm.edu2 The sense of privilege of living in Montana was heightened at the end of the 1980s when a vast anthology ofwritings about Montana was published as The Last Best Place, edited by William Kittredge and Annick Smith.The hefty volume continus to sell well nationally and internationally.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 529

migration. Footloose employment opportunities, equity rich households and changingvalues among retirees influence decisions to relocate to the mountain west (Rudzitis,1991, 1993, 1996; Power, 1996; Shumway and Davis, 1996; Ghose, 1998; Nelson andBeyers, 1998; Vias, 1999; Von Reichert and Sylvester, 1998, 2000, 2002; Beyers andNelson, 2000; Nelson, 2000; Shumway et al., 2001). However, the repercussions of suchgrowth on the land-use, housing, resource allocation and ensuing public policy remainsless studied. With the exception of Von Reichert and Sylvester (1998, 2000, 2002), Mon-tana has also received little attention in this literature. Lastly, the existing research haslargely been at a macroscale, creating the need for specific place-based research thatextends the understanding of the complexities embedded in nonmetropolitan growth.

Drawn from a broader research on Western Montana from 1995 to 2001,3 this paperaims to bridge such gaps. It studies the case of Missoula County, which has grown from58,263 in 1970 to 96,303 in 2002 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2002). The populationis centered on the picturesque city of Missoula, home to the University of Montana.Missoula’s population has grown from 42,918 in 1990 to 57,053 in 2000, a 32.9% popu-lation increase in a decade (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2002). Emerging as Montana’s fastestgrowing city, Missoula earned metropolitan status in 2000 (U.S. Bureau of Census,2002). The adjacent county Ravalli experienced an in-migration of 10,314 between 1990and 1999, becoming a bedroom community for Missoula commuters (U.S. Bureau ofCensus, 2002).

This paper examines population growth and its impacts and interprets the landscapenoting values implied and contradictions inherent in the new politics of consumption. Itexplores the community’s responses to growth and sprawl that have culminated in regu-latory measures being implemented in a state reputed for its rugged individualism andanti-regulatory stance. The paper argues that the patterns of growth and their reper-cussions point to the emergence of “rural gentrification” in America influenced by the in-migration of relatively affluent urbanites. British geographers have used this term todescribe the profound changes in the English countryside, caused by the influx of moreaffluent newcomers belonging to the service class or the new middle class, who areattracted by the rural idyll as the ideal place to live and raise one’s family (Pahl, 1965;McLaughlin, 1986; Little, 1987a, 1987b; Newby, 1987; Thrift and Williams, 1987a,1987b, 1989; Cloke et al., 1991; Harper, 1991; Cloke et al., 1998). Their greater purchas-ing power enables them to “impose a degree of social and cultural hegemony over con-sumption choices” and, in doing so, to impose quite profound changes on the social andphysical environment (Cloke and Little, 1990, p. 18). The countryside thus becomes “apositional good—that is, into something which is fixed in supply and whose consumptionis dependent upon one’s position in society” (Phillips, 1993, p. 126). Conflicts thus arisebetween the newcomers and the locals over the changing identity of the community, con-spicuous consumption of the countryside, increasing privatization of resources, housingaffordability, and issues of environmental conservation.

While relocation from large urban centers to smaller towns involves greater distancesand less of a rural-urban dichotomy in my American case study, I argue that it bears

3 This research was funded by the National Science Foundation’s Doctoral Dissertation Research ImprovementAward and a grant from Illinois State University.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

530 RINA GHOSE

remarkable similarities to the rural gentrification process in England. This Americanversion shows a similar longing for the rural idyll by the new middle class migrating fromurban centers, not for a pastoral English countryside but for the celebrated Rocky Moun-tain lifestyle. Simultaneously, the newcomers have expected certain urban amenities suchas good community infrastructure, cultural activities and a variety of shopping and diningopportunities. These demands have created new opportunities and tensions within thecommunity, particularly within its land-use patterns. Open space has been transformedinto new subdivisions that are too expensive for the local residents, leading to theirmarginalization. Community conflicts over issues of rapid growth, affordable housingand environmental protection have led to significant regulations being implemented in astate reputed for its anti-regulatory attitude.

It is critical to note that the rural gentrification process is both similar and differentfrom the urban gentrification process. Both have been undertaken by primarily White,middle-to-upper class citizens motivated by lifestyle preferences. But urban gentrifica-tion celebrates urban living, driven by preference for short commuting time betweenwork and play, desire for unique architecture and the desire for participating in publicspheres of consumption, where home cooking is replaced by chic restaurant food, andhome entertainment by expenditures on clubs, movies, and shopping (Ley, 1980; Jager,1986; Mills, 1988, 1993; Ley, 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994). Central city neighborhoods, withtheir distinctive architecture and locational advantages became the logical residentialchoice for urban gentrifiers. In contrast, the rural gentrification process in America ismotivated by the need for a slower life style among the small towns of the Rockies, toraise one’s family in the tradition of hearth and home in proximity to wilderness and awayfrom the chaotic and violent urban cities. Commodification of space and displacement ofresidents have occurred in both processes. Considerable research has been done upon theurban gentrification process in America. This paper aims to contribute to the study ofrural gentrification process, as it is distinctly shaping the growth, land use, and increasingurbanization of smaller communities in America.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research was conducted through a case-study approach (Yin, 1994), utilizingmigration data sets, questionnaires, in-depth semi-structured interviews, and documentsanalysis. The research included responses of 46 newcomers whose primary residence wasin Missoula, and 30 long-term residents who had lived in Missoula for at least 15 years.All newcomers and long-term residents were homeowners, as homeowners exert a stronginfluence in local development issues. Semi-structured interviews were also conductedwith planning officials, the Mayor, the members of the City Council, developers, realtors,and community activists. Various types of documents were analyzed including real estatedocuments from the Missoula County Association of Realtors and Lambros Real Estate,the largest real estate company in Missoula. Planning documents from the planning agen-cies, articles from Montana Business Quarterly journal, local real estate advertisements,and local newspaper accounts chronicling growth and its associated impacts have pro-vided valuable data.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 531

MIGRATION AND RURAL GENTRIFICATION IN MISSOULA

In the British rural gentrification literature, ex-urbanite newcomers belonging to theservice class or new middle class have been identified as active agents of rural gentrifica-tion in the English countryside. Such newcomers are typically White, family householdswith higher educational attainment, higher income levels and occupations inservice-based industries. Research indicates that a certain number of newcomers toMontana fit into this category. For instance, Von Reichert and Sylvester’s study (2002)on Montana’s migration shows that while the total number of migrants fall within a rangeof demographic characteristics, a sufficient number of them do fit the socioeconomic pro-file of new middle class. Thus, 39.5% of newcomers are college graduates, 17.3% havean annual income between $50,000–$100,000 and 4% have income of $100,000 or more(Von Reichert and Sylvester, 2002). The county-to-county migration data for 1995 to2000 demonstrate that newcomers are typically White family households, and a sufficientnumber of them belong to the service class (Table 1).

The real estate data also show that a majority of the homebuyers in Missoula fit theprofile of new middle class (Lambros Real Estate, 1993–2001, unpublished data; Mis-soula County Association of Realtors, 1993–2000, unpublished data) and a pattern wasalso noticeable among the newcomers who participated in my study (Tables 2 and 3).

Moreover, like the British studies, a distinctive number of newcomers to the Rockieshave migrated from urban centers since the mid-1980s to 2000 (U.S. Bureau of Census,1995, 2000b).4 The newcomers participating in my study have similarly moved fromlarge urban centers as well.

Finally, rural gentrification in Britain has been prompted by the notion of “rural idyll.”The American studies on the New West have found similar migration motivations whichinclude the beauty of the natural landscape, recreational opportunities, proximity to wil-derness, reasonable living costs, and the “western lifestyle,” appealing to highly skilledlabor, entrepreneurs and retirees (Rudzitis, 1991, 1993, 1996; Jahrig, 1995; Lorah, 2000).Von Reichert and Sylvester’s study on Montana migration (2002) has found that “theenvironmental quality and the rural character of Montana attract nearly one in five” (VonReichert and Sylvester, 2002, p. 143). Another survey on Montana’s migration has notedsuch factors as “outdoors, scenery, less congestion, hunting and fishing, pace of life, lessexpensive to live, fewer people” (Montana Business Quarterly, 1995, p. 5). Thereal-estate data on homebuyers have also shown that the “quality of life” factor is thedominant motivation behind such migration. My field data also notes that newcomersmoved to Missoula primarily because of its attractive lifestyle amenities, such as “beau-tiful landscape, scenery and environment,” “access to varieties of recreation,” “slowerpace of living,” and “rural lifestyle/country living.” However, the newcomers wereequally motivated by the perception of Missoula (or similar towns in Rockies) to be the

4 Migration patterns were revealed in analysis of county-to-county migration datasets which indicate thatbetween 1985 and 1990, metropolitan areas of seven states were the primary sources of migrants: California(1584 migrants), Washington (1231), Idaho (747), Utah (595), Texas (548), Oregon (514), and Colorado (507).Between 1995 and 2000, metropolitan areas from eight states were the primary sources of migrants: Washing-ton (2118), California (1749), Utah (1254), Idaho (982), Colorado (872), Texas (643), New Jersey (504), andMinnesota (498).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

532 RINA GHOSE

TABLE 1. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF IN-MIGRANTS TO MISSOULA

Category SubcategoryNew migrants to Missoula (%)

Education Less than 9th grade 1.79

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 5.11

High school graduate 24.11

Some college, no degree 25.72

Associate degree 6.91

Bachelor’s degree 25.78

Graduate or professional degree 10.58

Occupation Management, business, financial 8.94

Professional and related 22.05

Protective service 0.82

Other service 20.51

Sales and related 14.81

Office and administrative support 15.29

Farming, fishing, forestry 0.96

Construction, extraction 5.08

Installation, maintenance, repair 2.97

Production 3.56

Transportation, material moving 5.01

Household income Under $25,000 37.48

$25,000–$49,999 32.43

$50,000–$74,999 17.51

$75,000–$99,999 6.92

$100,000–$199,999 4.41

$200,000 or more 1.25

Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 2.49

Mining 0.04

Construction 6.02

Manufacturing 4.71

Wholesale trade 2.48

Retail trade 15.37

Transportation, warehousing, utilities 4.23

Information 3.17

Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, leasing 4.85

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, waste-management services

9.14

Educational, health, social service 23.83

Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, food services 16.21

Other services 5.12

Public administration 2.36

Sources: County-to-County Migration Data, 1995 to 2000; U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000b.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 533

ideal place to raise children. Therefore, “great place to raise children” was frequentlycited. This corroborates the findings in the British studies (Little, 1987a; Valentine,1997), which have noted that perception of rural areas, as the ideal place to raise childrenis a significant reason behind the migration of service class to the countryside.

Missoula’s beautifully preserved historic downtown containing an array of gourmetrestaurants, coffee shops, galleries and boutiques, also appealed to the consumption needsof these newcomers (Figs. 1, 2, and 3). This is similar to what the British studies havenoted, that rural gentrifiers are drawn to “various theatres of consumption, especially tosmall towns with historic cores” which legitimizes “service-class consumption lifestyles”(Cloke and Thrift, 1987, p. 327). It is then unsurprising that Von Reichert and Sylvester(2002, p. 143) found “Montana’s cities may be attractive because of their small size andtheir relatively low levels of urban disamenities.” As former urbanite newcomers con-fessed in their interviews, they would feel lost in a truly rural setting remote from allurban amenities. Thus towns containing an ideal combination of significant urban amen-ities, packaged in an attractive wilderness setting are irresistible to the new middle classwho are financially able to undertake lifestyle moves. In turn, such moves have critically

TABLE 2. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF NEWCOMERS

Category SubcategoryMale newcomers to

Missoula (%)Female newcomers

to Missoula (%)

Education Less than high school 0 0

High school graduate 13 17

Some college, no degree 13 30

Associate degree 4 0

Bachelor’s degree 35 26

Graduate or professional degree 35 27

Occupation Executive, administrative, managerial and professional

79 58

Technicians and related support 17

Sales/clerical service 11 8

Service 5

Operatives 5

Industry Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting 5

Construction (company owned by newcomers)

16 8

Finance, insurance, real estate 21

Professional and related service - health 8

Professional and related service: education

21 25

Other services 21 58

Public administration 11

Source: Survey of newcomers by author.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

534 RINA GHOSE

shaped the local landscapes and identities, in order to accommodate the consumptiontastes of the new middle class.

CHANGING LANDSCAPES OF MISSOULA

Missoula’s landscapes depict powerful consequences of rural gentrification such asthe emergence of prestigious neighborhoods and new housing tastes, creation of “westernliving” as a positional good, conspicuous consumption, privatization of open land and thehillside, and a steep escalation in real estate prices, which have led to considerable com-munity debates. Population growth led to 5,600 residential building permits being issued

TABLE 3. SALARY DISTRIBUTION OF NEWCOMERS

Newcomer household income levels in dollars Households (%)

Under $25,000 0

$35,000 4

$35,000–$45,999 19

$50,000–$74,999 43

$75,000–$100,000 19

$100,000 or more 15

Source: Survey of newcomers by author.

Fig. 1. Restored historic buildings housing offices, restaurants, and pricey boutiques in downtown Missoula.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 535

Fig. 2. A specialty store in downtown Missoula.

Fig. 3. New gated mansion atop South Hills in Missoula.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

536 RINA GHOSE

between 1990 to 1999 (Missoula Housing Authority, 1999), resulting in a spate of newconstruction that is quite different in location, size, style, status and price. In the past,housing construction was concentrated within the core of Missoula valley, zoned urbanwith six houses to an acre. Neighborhoods showed little exclusivity and single-familyhomes tended to functionalism in style, ranging from small starter homes to larger familyhomes, between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet in size, and set in quarter-acre to one-acrelots at most. In sharp contrast, new residential tastes have created demands for low den-sity living in large square footage homes (between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet) locatedin large lots with views of the mountains (Fig. 4). The majority of this new constructionhas occurred beyond the city limits, where tracts of vacant, inexpensive farmlands havebeen bought and transformed into new housing. Pre-existing subdivision regulations haddesignated some of these neighborhoods for suburban residential development at one ortwo houses per acre with no community sewer system. Other areas were recommendedfor low-density rural development, at one unit per five to ten acres, though clusteringcould also be allowed. The developers, taking advantage of these low-density develop-ment clauses, were able to create houses in large lots ranging from two to five acres andten to twenty acres, out in the countryside of Missoula and Ravalli counties, often onhillsides commanding magnificent views of the surrounding mountains, with access torecreational areas practically in the backyards. Despite their rural locations, these neigh-borhoods are well connected to the city proper through major roads, allowing residents toreach the city in 20 minutes or fewer. These new neighborhoods then have repackaged aRocky Mountain lifestyle with quick access to modern city amenities, and have emergedas expensive, prestigious and sometimes gated communities, containing expensive, large

Fig. 4. New construction on top of Pattee Canyon in Missoula.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 537

houses. Sensing the nature of the housing demand, realtors are selling not just homes, buta “Montana Dream,” “a log cabin getaway,” “country-style comfort,” and “room forhorses … rural yet minutes from the city” (Missoula County Association of Realtors,April 1998). One “Montana Dream” consisting of “premier horse setup with five-stallbarn, arena & viewing stand ... spacious and stunning three-story home with three bed-rooms” is priced at only $875,000 (Missoula County Association of Realtors, April1998). Realtors and developers have created large log homes in keeping with new culturaldemands, which have become quite popular with the newcomers (Fig. 5). One such“unique log home, with private natural setting on 30 acres” cost $985,000 in 2000 (Mis-soula County Association of Realtors, July 2000). Other new housing tastes include theconstruction of large barn-style houses and houses with large verandas, brass carriagelanterns, and partial rock facades to evoke the theme of leisurely country living. The inte-riors of these homes are frequently decorated in country styles and in distinct Westernthemes. These stylish new constructions situated on the best locations are a powerful“positional good” (Hirsch, 1976; Newby, 1980; Cloke and Thrift, 1990; Phillips, 1993),accessible to those who have sufficient economic and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984).

Dramatic changes have taken place in housing prices as well. In 1989, the median saleprice of a home was $54,965, a price that was not beyond the reach of most Missoulianswho earned an average annual wage of $17,454 (Missoula Housing Authority, 1999). In2000, the average selling price of a home was $171,501, located in less desirable neigh-borhoods (Missoula Area Economic Development Corporation, 2000; City of Missoula,1999, 2000; Missoula Housing Authority, 1999). A new house of good construction qual-ity and boasting a good location is around $300,000, if not more. This rapid escalation of

Fig. 5. Newcomer’s log home on 11 acres.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

538 RINA GHOSE

house prices has been attributed to the increasing demand and the purchasing power ofwealthy newcomers who have arrived from out of state (Lambros Real Estate, 1993–2001, unpublished data; Missoula County Association of Realtors, 1993–2001, unpub-lished data; City of Missoula, 2000). The average Missoulian can scarcely afford suchprices and are being pushed out of the housing market. The Missoulian sums up Mis-soula’s housing situation accurately when it states that the brisk real estate market isgeared towards buyers that have arrived with good jobs, or investment wealth and equity,

But our concern isn’t whether houses are affordable to some people. It’s whetherthey’re affordable to enough people and whether you can afford to buy one withwhat you earn at a local job. Our fear is that housing prices that put home ownershipout of the reach of average earners will, over time, change the demographics andcharacter of western Montana. (The Missoulian, August 29, 1996)

The front page story titled “Bottom’s up—way up: Even the most modest homes inMissoula are becoming inaccessible,” stated that “housing prices have increased dramat-ically, but perhaps the biggest change has been at the bottom of the market, where pricesin Missoula have nearly tripled” (The Missoulian, December 28, 1997). Issues of under-employment and the customary low salaries of Missoula have aggravated the housingproblem. In 2001 the average wage in Missoula County rose to only $26,182 (in contrastto the $36,159 in the nation; Missoula Area Economic Development Corporation, 2001).Although Missoula’s economy has improved in recent times, most of the new jobs are inlower-end service and retail sectors that provide low salaries (City of Missoula, 1999).About 75% of Missoula households do not have high enough incomes to purchase theaverage home (Missoula Housing Authority, 1999). Homeownership is thus increasinglyout of reach for lower income families and even moderate income families in Missoulatoday can only afford to buy houses of smaller size, inferior quality and poor locations(City of Missoula, 1999, 2000; Missoula Housing Authority, 1999). Lack of affordablehousing has not been relieved by the creation of new rental properties. The costs of con-struction and of land acquisition have kept rents high in the new units. Rental costs for atwo-bedroom apartment have increased, “about 34% from 1990 to 1998 and renters, themajority of whom are low- and moderate-income people are caught in a housing squeezesimilar to the one experienced by would-be home buyers” (City of Missoula, 1999, p. 15).The sharp increase in rents is compounded by low-rental vacancy rates, ranging from 1%to 3% across all segments of the rental market from 1991 to 2000 (Wilson et al., 1992;Lambros Real Estate, 1993–2001, unpublished data; City of Missoula, 1999; MissoulaHousing Authority, 1999; Missoula Association of Realtors, 2000).

The role of realtors and developers in Missoula’s gentrification needs to be noted.Smith has highlighted the roles of real estate developers and financiers in gentrification,which is primarily a private-sector process, the result of a privileged class capitalizing oninvestment opportunities (Smith, 1979, 1986). In my study, the force of the private sectoris most evident in the majority of new construction, which has generated large, expensive,single-family homes. As the planning staff noted

There are plenty of opportunities to provide lower end market rate housing in thistown but of the total developers only a few do it because they can make a lot more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 539

profit per unit on custom houses. (Office of Planning and Grants, Missoula,Montana, 2001)

Thus, the developers and realtors are as much an active agent in shaping the newresidential landscape of Missoula as the consumers are. But as Mills has pointed out,“production is always a cultural intention” (Mills, 1993, p. 156) and in this case theproducers have catered to the consumer preferences in elite landscapes as these generatethe largest profit margins.

“BEEN-HERES” VERSUS “COME-HERES”: GROWTH REACTIONSAND COMMUNITY CONFLICTS IN MISSOULA

Spain pointed to the similarities that exist among urban and rural gentrification, inwhich rapid in-migration leads to changing community identities (1993). In particular,

When the number of new residents reaches a critical mass, and when resources arereallocated and subsequently privatized, conflict over values and definitions ofcommunity eventually ensue between “been-heres” and “come-heres.” (Spain,1993, p. 156)

Because resources significantly shape the quality of life of a community, new resourceallocation caused by growth can strongly affect the quality of life, a decline of which isperceived as a typical aspect of gentrification,

[For] where density [of population] is low, as in nonmetropolitan counties, rapid in-migration in response to employment (or recreational or retirement) opportunitiesmay disrupt highly valued ways of life.… a culture shift occurs when a communityis unable to absorb previously unrepresented in-migrants without strain. (Spain,1993, p. 162)

It is thus unsurprising that the population growth and gentrification in Missoula hasalarmed the long-term residents, who fear the loss of their cherished quality of life. Thesight of large expensive subdivisions that continue to spring up on hill slopes, forests,ranches and open lands have incensed residents, creating fears of losing wildlife habitats,playing fields, parks, vistas, and trails (Fig. 6). Such fears were expressed in the 1996survey on 700 Missoula Valley residents, in which 28% of the respondents felt “alarmed”with the population growth and 66% felt “concerned” by it (Office of Planning andGrants, Missoula, Montana, 1996). The majority (84%) felt that Missoula should managegrowth, and an additional ten percent felt that the planning agencies should do everythinglegally possible to stop growth. Another survey in 1998, conducted by City of Missoula’sParks and Recreation Program on 3,500 residents, indicated that the public stronglyemphasized preservation of open spaces, wildlife habitat, parks and recreational areas.

The findings from my survey and interviews with the long-term residents corroboratesuch anti-growth sentiments. One female respondent felt that “growth has been uncon-trolled, developers have gotten away with murder the majority of people in Missouladon’t feel comfortable with growth and did not want growth.” Her husband, an architect,agreed that “Missoula has been discovered and growth has been uncontrolled.” Many ofthe interviewees felt this uncontrolled and unregulated growth has incurred huge costs in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

540 RINA GHOSE

its natural and social environment. The 1998 update of Missoula Urban ComprehensivePlan acknowledged these,

As population in the valley continues to grow, this pattern of development, if itprevails, will become increasingly expensive. The pattern consumes large amountsof land, requires broad, less efficient coverage for fire and police protection, andrelies on longer stretches of roads and other capital infrastructure which are expen-sive to build and maintain. Environmental costs also are incurred. (Office ofPlanning and Grants, Missoula, Montana, 1998)

The issues have then resulted not only from growth, but also from the new landscapetastes that have accompanied such growth. Long-term residents thus quite rightly use theterm “gentrification” when they describe Missoula’s landscape changes.

Transformation of wildlife habitats and open spaces into expensive subdivisions thatare out of reach for most Missoulians have generated frustrations, reflected in newspaperheadlines.5 One interviewee sadly commented about “homes going up in places where

5 The following headlines from The Missoulian capture the feelings of frustration over growth in Missoula:“Land values rocket” (front page, October 11, 1995); “Urban sprawl in the Big Sky: Cities are spreading outand out and out” (May 26, 1996); “Wildlife paying price for new construction” (May 26, 1996); Is home own-ership within your reach?” (editorial, August 29, 1996); “Western Montana is booming: New census estimatesconfirm region is getting crowded” (front page, March 21, 1997); “800 new houses in Miller Creek” (frontpage, June 4, 1998); “Affordable housing remains closed to too many: High rents, steep prices, low wagesconfound attempts to solve dilemma, report finds” (May 19, 1998).

Fig. 6. New subdivision on a former farmland.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 541

horses grazed.” One long-term male resident, a computer professional in his 40s, said,“The general consensus is that all the amenities of this town are slowly declining. This isnow a very competitive town, in terms of affordable housing, to find a job.” Anotherinterviewee, a male writer who has lived in Missoula for 20 years, said, “Everything isnow overrun, overwritten, overruled, just simply by the increasing numbers of people.Almost everything that I loved in Missoula is now eroded enough that I am seriouslyconsidering leaving Missoula and Montana. I am not sure where I will go.”

Although all of the long-term residents that I interviewed were homeowners andmiddle-class, and they also affirmed a need for affordable housing. They were thankful tohave bought their homes before prices escalated, and felt that they could not afford to buythe same home today. Older residents felt that their adult children are being locked out ofthe real estate market and cannot afford to buy even a modest home. As a result, youngernative Missoulians are being forced to leave. One respondent remarked, “I have a cousinwho has lived here all his life. He and his wife have had trouble finding a house inMissoula for a reasonable price. Eventually they had to leave and move to another smallertown.” Another interviewee said “it’s very difficult when you grow up here and espe-cially when you have kids who grow up here and your kids can’t afford to live here. Itmakes me mad.” Their anger is directed towards affluent newcomers who are perceivedto be uncaring about the impacts of growth. According to one woman,

There is a resentment against newcomers coming in, and having more wealth andbeing able to buy more than old Missoulians can buy. I think in the case of new-comers coming in and buying chunks of Missoula and then shutting themselves offfrom Missoula and denying civic responsibility, that creates the worst resentment.

One long-term male resident said, “I am trying not to stereotype some of the newer folks,but I do think some of the newer folks in the outlying suburbs around the city don’t havethe ownership in the city or its problems or its opportunities and so they tend not to bequite as involved.” Another male respondent believed that the problem lies in the recenturban sprawl. He commented that,

With the growth and especially with the physical sprawl of the city, there’s been alack of civic responsibility. In a smaller town, where you tend to know everybody,where the neighbors are closer together, there’s a certain responsibility involved.All that has changed. I think it has become a problem that everybody who is comingin now wants the amenities of the city, but they don’t necessarily want to contributeto it or be responsible.

Conversely, the long-term residents also accuse the newcomers of meddling in the com-munity’s affairs. One woman felt that “Some of the people who move in, they buy thesehuge houses and have a lot of money and want to make a lot of decisions about the neigh-borhoods around them, when really, they haven’t lived here long enough to have a feelfor what should go on in the community.” The long-term residents also feel that theurbanized new comers migrate to Missoula in search of rural arcadia, but when faced withNature they react adversely. As one woman stated,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

542 RINA GHOSE

Impact [of growth] on wildlife is a big concern of mine. Developments haveslaughtered the wildlife around our neighborhood. Just like that movie star [AndieMcDowell] who lives up in Ninemile [in Missoula County] was angry because thewolves ate her dog, and of course she knew about the wolves, that’s why shewanted that ranch up there. But when it comes down to it, she doesn’t want to livewith the wildlife and that bothers me.

Long-term residents mourn for the loss of their community identity. Many feel that thesmall town spirit of Missoula is being lost forever. Not only do they feel that crime andtraffic have increased, but they perceive that the general friendliness of the communityhas declined. A number of respondents lamented that “Missoula used to be a real cohe-sive community, but with so many people moving in, it no longer is that way. Nowadaysthere are more people who don’t make eye contact, who won’t say hello; it didn’t use tobe that way,” said one woman. Another resident mentioned, “There is less of a feeling ofpersonal contact, less of a feeling of community.” The leisurely lifestyle, so valued byMissoulians, is also felt to be fast disappearing in the face of increasing number of peoplewho have brought more hustle and bustle into the town. As one woman stated,

[Missoula] is still a very beautiful place, but the number of people does for me,change the whole beauty of certain activities, such as going to the farmer’s marketor going to the Out to Lunch program at Caras Park. It is just nuts out there now.Now you can’t even walk through there without seeing wall-to-wall people.

Missoula’s changing community identity is also reflected in its retail landscape, whichhas generated diverse viewpoints between the locals and the newcomer “come-heres.”The interviews of long-term residents by Bruya et al. (1995) and by me reveal that theprolific growth of trendy boutiques, shopping malls, expensive gourmet restaurants,designer sports and recreation stores have angered a significant section of the localsbecause such consumption patterns are changing the community’s small-town,down-to-earth identity into that of chic, urban sophistication. One woman commented,“The town looks so yuppie. Look at our downtown for example. All these fancy stores,these are not for people from Missoula, these are for bigwig spenders. The averagespender in Missoula does not buy from those stores.” She felt that such consumptionpatterns have been influenced by the arrival of the newcomers. “I think the kind of peoplethat are coming in are introducing a side of themselves, and as a regular old Missoulian,I don’t like all this stuff. Those stores, I can just see through the windows and know thatit is not my kind of store.” Another replied, “the original Missoulians wouldn’t have themoney to buy things in these pricey boutiques unless they happen to be developers orrealtors.” Referring to the boom in retail growth, one man commented, “there’s a tremen-dous increase in retail in Missoula. It just boggles my mind how many stores and mallshave opened in Missoula recently. We never needed them in the past.” Another long-termfemale Missoulian complained

I don’t like all the malls that have come in. People who come here want to bringtheir lifestyles with them, have all the malls, they don’t want the wilderness andthe wolves in their back door. People who lived here a long time, we want thewilderness, we want the wolves and we don’t want the malls. So people come here

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 543

to flee from crime and inner cities and congestion, but they end up just bringing itwith them.

Another man commented upon the growth of expensive sporting goods stores, “A lot ofthese designer fly fishing shops cater to the same kind of people that would go to Aspenor Jackson Hole. It’s a real departure from old Missoula culture. We have a lot of peoplewho like to hunt and fish, but it was never in this designer style.” In contrast to suchvalues, my interviews with the newcomers indicated that they were very pleased to haveaccess to such consumption opportunities in a small town in Montana, through whichthey can continue to partake the amenities they were accustomed to prior their move. Thisattitude is also unsurprising, for as Phillips (1993) pointed out, gentrifiers are well knownfor buying into particular services, commodities and lifestyles, which enable them to con-struct their social identities. Thus in Missoula, widely varying value differences betweenthe newcomers and the long-term residents are being played out into the landscapes. AsSpain has noted, such value differences and community conflicts are classic symptoms ofgentrification, because they “are played out in different consumer patterns” (Spain, 1993,p. 163). The continuing proliferation of malls, galleries and restaurants in Missoulademonstrates that the market for such goods is still growing. As the next section willillustrate, the anger at the changing nature of the community identity, has resulted in newregulatory measures that are at startlingly at odds with Montana’s anti-regulatory culture.

CONFRONTING CONSUMPTION THROUGH GROWTH MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

The locals in Montana are increasingly contesting gentrification through new publicpolicies. On November 7, 1995 Missoulians approved a $5 million bond issue to conserveopen space, the largest open-space conservation measure in Montana’s history. The bondwas initiated as a citizen-driven movement against growth by long-term residents ofMissoula. The support of the community for the bond was quite unprecedented inMissoula’s and indeed in Montana’s history. In the past, three bonds had been proposed,in 1979, 1980, and 1984. Poor voter turnout and lack of support from County Commis-sioners killed most of these bonds at the ballot. Only the1980 bond had mustered enoughvotes to pass, but it was worth only $500,000. In 1995, the picture was completelyreversed when the majority of community rallied to pass the biggest bond in its history inorder to preserve open space from further development. Even Missoula County Commis-sioner Barbara Evans, a conservative long-term resident and staunch critic of the 1980bond, was supportive in 1995. “We need to protect what makes Missoula Missoula, andyou can’t do that for free.… Fifteen years ago, there wasn’t the urgency to save,” Evanssaid (The Missoulian, October 31, 1995). The success of the bond at the ballot is evidenceof unified resistance from long-term residents to fight against growth.

Newly enacted growth management measures are another significant illustration ofsuch resistance. In 1995, Montana’s first “Growth Management Task Force” was formedin Missoula, composed of citizens, the business community, developers, realtors, plan-ners, city council members, county commissioners, community activists, and manyothers. The plan recommended the implementation of the Urban Growth Area

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

544 RINA GHOSE

Appropriate for all urban-density residential development when there are noenvironmental constraints and when the public services necessary to support highdensity uses (most notably public transportation and public sewer) are present.(Office of Planning and Grants, Missoula, Montana, 1998, p. 91)

Specific growth management tools such as density bonus is now available in UrbanGrowth Area, permitting the developers to increase the density over what the currentzoning allows eight dwelling units per acre or less.

The realities of implementing such tools have generated mixed results. Long-termresidents fear that these tools will destroy their coveted Big Sky country lifestyle, withoutaffecting the moneyed class who will reside in areas that will not come under such regu-lations. Fueling fire to these fears is that density bonuses are difficult to implement withinthe Missoula County (than within the city limits), where citizen-led protests can overturnsuch proposals easily. Consequently, developers and realtors can easily escape thedensity clause if they continue to build expensive, low-density housing for the affluentclass in the land lying just outside the city limits.

Other regulatory measures have brought mixed results as well. Since 2001 measureshave been introduced to address the problems of environmental damage caused bynew development. The planners acknowledge that these measures will have differentialoutcomes, particularly in terms of housing prices. As the Office of Planning and Grants,Missoula, Montana, staff noted:

When we require quality design standards with new developments, or when werequire the kind of engineering works that would be associated with grading, drain-age and erosion control standards on hillside development, these could increase thecost of housing. (2001)

Another planner feels that regulatory measures such as tougher hillside developmentstandards will in any case not be the main reason behind higher priced housing in suchphysical locations, because “on hillside developments it’s almost inevitable that you’renot going to meet any kind of market rate housing there to begin with.” Thus, thelong-term Missoulians are correct in assuming that a differential quality of life willcontinue to exist, with choice hillside locations and open space continuing to evolve as“positional goods,” a trend that new regulations have been unable to curb.

One of the more controversial regulatory measures being proposed is the use of impactfees. Since the cost of providing infrastructure to the new subdivisions is quite substan-tial, impact fees have been proposed to pay for the implementation of infrastructure andservices through specific fees [such as police/sheriff, fire/EMS, sewer development fee,clean water mitigation fee, roads] (Office of Planning and Grants, Missoula, Montana,2001). The tool has already created mixed feelings:

The developers and realtors are in unison in wishing that there would be no suchthing as impact fees From the planning perspective one of the concerns we have isthat if the City enacts the fee and the County does not implement impact fees, thendoes that make development in the city more expensive and could there be aperverse incentive to build outside of the city limits but close to it within the county

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 545

lines, which is the contrary to what we wish to achieve through growth manage-ment. (Office of Planning and Grants, Missoula, Montana, 2001)

Thus, the complexity of growth management is creating new challenges and new hierar-chies of power relations between different groups. While these measures will protectopen space to a certain extent at the city scale, it is quite possible that little control mayultimately exist at the Missoula County scale. The adjacent County Ravalli faces evengreater challenges in controlling growth and sprawl. With its strong rural character, prox-imity to Missoula city and gorgeous scenery, it experienced a 40.6% population growthrate between 1990–1998, escalating its population from 25,010 to 35,156 (U.S. Bureau ofCensus, 2000a). However, fierce local resistance to any regulatory measure (includingzoning) and lack of a formal planning department has made it ill equipped to handle rapidgrowth. There is an opportunity for gentrification to leapfrog into adjacent areas that haveless regulatory control, while continuing to harness Missoula’s urban amenities.

CONCLUSION

Urban scholars have noted the re-emergence of the urban gentrification process in thedecade of 1990s. But the emergence of rural gentrification as a process in America hasremained largely unnoticed. One suspects that this phenomenon is quietly taking place inthe amenity rich areas of American countryside, be that in the Rocky Mountains or inrural Maine. As this research demonstrates, growth of population in more rural areas con-taining a higher quality of life can lead to widespread changes in their cultural landscapes,generating multiple debates over sprawl, land-use, housing, employment, and communityidentity. The conflicts that then rise between the long-term residents and the affluent new-comers are an outcome of the process of class colonization, for “as the service class gainsin strength in rural area, so it comes into conflict with other classes and class fractions”(Cloke and Thrift, 1987, p. 328). Strong responses to such class conflicts lead to enact-ment of new regulations, indicating a resistance to privatization and commodification ofland and natural resources. In this study, such measures evolved despite Montana’shistory of resistance to public regulations and its traditional support for free enterpriseand rugged individualism. But loopholes may enable gentrification to sidestep suchregulations or it may jump into adjacent, more rural areas containing few regulations,thus continuing to extend class colonization and enabling the commodification and priva-tization of open space. Simultaneously, the newcomers themselves may get involved increating stricter regulatory measures, for as the British studies have noted, representationin local politics becomes increasingly significant for newcomers in order to preserve thevalues of their positional goods (Cloke and Thrift, 1987). My interviews with newcomersindicated that they were strongly interested in being involved in local politics. Suchinterests can lead the newcomers to act as gatekeepers, and restrict further entry of thenew middle class. Rural gentrification is thus a complex process, and it is necessary forscholars to engage in longitudinal case studies to explore the nature of rural growth andgentrification process in America.

It is also necessary to compare and contrast rural and urban gentrification processes forcertain inherent similarities exist between the two. First, both are race-specific andclass-specific movements, undertaken by Caucasian and new middle class population,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

546 RINA GHOSE

inspired by differing consumption patterns. Second, the uneven circulation of capital andthe changes in the spatial division of labor have contributed to both processes, particu-larly in producing the new middle class or service class category, which acts as gentrifi-ers. Third, roles of production and consumption are quite critical in both types ofgentrification. The developers, realtors and financiers play an active role in the produc-tion of gentrification. Simultaneously, gentrifiers act as capitalists taking advantage ofreal estate opportunities through gentrification, as well as partaking in conspicuousconsumption in order to legitimize and promote their social identity. Fourth, role ofreproduction strongly influences the locational choices of both urban and rural gentrifi-ers, albeit in different ways. Urban gentrification studies have shown that gentrified areasare preferred by young, single, childless women, dual income households orsingle-parent, female-headed households. A strong participation in the labor market,accompanied often by delay in childbirth influence urban gentrifiers both in their loca-tional choice as well as in their consumption patterns. In contrast, women tended to be inmarried households, with young children in rural gentrification, in which the rural idyll issought out as the perfect place to raise young families. For such women, acts of home-making and childrearing take precedence over labor market participation in rural gentri-fication. Lastly, both acts of gentrification involves real estate price escalation leading todisplacement of local residents, causing community conflicts that lead to attempts atenforcing regulatory measures to mitigate such conflicts. Further studies are necessary todocument additional similarities and differences, thus giving rise to greater theorizationin this research agenda.

REFERENCES

Bourdieu, P., 1984, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London,UK: Routledge.

Beyers, W. B. and Nelson, P., 2000, Contemporary development forces in the nonmetro-politan west: New insights from rapidly growing communities. Journal of Rural Stud-ies, Vol. 16, No. 4, 459–474.

Bruya, S., Duce, K., and Schweitzer, J., 1995, We Are Missoula: Thoughts on Change ina Growing Community, Volume I. Missoula, MT: Northern Lights Research and Edu-cation Institute Inc.

Cloke, P. and Thrift, N., 1987, Intra-class conflict in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies,Vol. 3, No. 4, 321–333.

Cloke, P. and Little, J., 1990, The Rural State? Limits to Planning in Rural Society.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cloke, P. and Thrift, N., 1990, Class and change in rural Britain. In T. Marsden, P. Lowe,and S. Whitmore, editors, Rural Restructuring: Global Processes and TheirResponses. London, UK: David Fulton, 165–181.

Cloke, P., Phillips, M., and Rankin, R., 1991, Middle-class housing choice: Channels ofentry into Gower, South Wales. In T. Champion, and C. Watkins, editors, People inthe Countryside, London, UK: Paul Chapman, 38–51.

Cloke, P., Phillips, M., and Thrift, N. 1998, Class, colonization and lifestyle strategies inGower. In M. Boyle, and K. Halfacree, editors, Migration to Rural Areas, London,England: Wiley.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 547

City of Missoula, 1999, Missoula Consolidated Plan for Federal Fiscal Years 1999–2003. Missoula, MT: Author.

City of Missoula, 2000, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing: Fair Housing TaskForce Report. Missoula, MT: Author.

Ghose, R., 1998, “A Realtor Runs Through It”: Rural Gentrification and the ChangingCultural Landscape of Missoula, Montana. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Depart-ment of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Harper, S., 1991, People moving into the countryside: Case studies of decision making.In T. Champion, and C. Watkins, editors, People in the Countryside. London, UK:Paul Chapman, 22–37.

Hirsch, F., 1976, Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Jager, M., 1986, Class definitions and the aesthetics of gentrification: Victoria in Mel-

bourne. In N. Smith, and P. Williams, editors, Gentrification of the City, Boston, MA:Allen and Urwin.

Jahrig, S. H., 1995, Have computer and fax modem, will travel: NY city analyst becomesMontana lone eagle. Montana Business Quarterly, Summer, 12–16.

Kittredge, W. and Smith, A., editors, 1988, The Last Best Place: A Montana Anthology.Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Ley, D., 1980, Liberal ideology and the post-industrial city. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, Vol. 70, 238–258.

Ley, D., 1987, Styles of the times: Liberal and neo-conservative landscape in innerancouver, 1968-1986. Journal of Historical Geography, Vol. 13, 40–56.

Ley, D., 1992, Gentrification in recession: Social change in six Canadian inner cities,1981–1986. Urban Geography, Vol. 13, No. 3, 230–256.

Ley, D., 1993, Past elites, present gentry: Neighborhoods of privilege in Canadian cities.In L. Bourne, and D. Ley, editors, The Changing Social Geography of CanadianCities. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.

Ley, D., 1994, Gentrification and the politics of the new middle class. Environment andPlanning D: Society and Space, Vol. 12, 53–74.

Little, J., 1987a, Gender relations in rural areas: The importance of women’s domesticrole. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 3, 335–342.

Little, J., 1987b, Gentrification and the influence of Local Level Planning. In P. Cloke,editor, Rural Planning: Policy Into Action? London, UK: Paul Chapman, 185–199.

Lorah, P., 2000, Population growth, economic security, and cultural change. In S. F.McCool, D. N. Cole, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Laughlin, editors, Wilderness Science ina Time of Change Conference, Vol. 2, 230–237. Proceedings RMRSP-15-VOL-2.Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky MountainResearch Station.

McLaughlin, B., 1986, Rural policy in the 1980s: The revival of the rural idyll. Journalof Rural Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, 81–90.

Mills, C., 1988, “Life on the upslope”: The postmodern landscape of gentrification. Envi-ronment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 6, 169–188.

Mills, C., 1993, Myths and Meanings of Gentrification. In J. Duncan, and D. Ley, editors,Place/Culture/Representation. London, UK: Routledge, 149–170.

Missoula Area Economic Development Corporation, 2001, Missoula Community Profile2000. Missoula, MT: Author.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

548 RINA GHOSE

Missoula County Association of Realtors, 2000, Real Estate Records, 1993–2000. Mis-soula, MT: Author.

Missoula County Association of Realtors, 1998, Home Buyers’ Guide. April. Missoula,MT: Author.

Missoula County Association of Realtors, 2000, Home Buyers’ Guide. July. Missoula,MT: Author.

Missoula Housing Authority, 1999. Living in Missoula: A Comprehensive Report ofMissoula’s Housing Market through 2004. Missoula, MT: Author.

Montana Audubon Council, 1993, Subdivision and Land Use Planning Project. January.Helena, MT: Author.

Nelson, P. B. and Beyers, W. B., 1998, Using economic base models to explain newtrends in rural income. Growth and Change, Vol. 29, No. 3, 295–318.

Nelson, P. B., 2000, Rural restructuring in the American West: Land use, family and classdiscourses. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 17, 395–407.

Newby, H, 1980, Green and Pleasant Land? Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Newby, H., 1987, Country Life: A Social History of Rural England. London, UK:

Weidenfield and Nicholson.Office of Planning and Grants, Missoula, Montana, 1996, Missoula, Montana Collabora-

tive Scenarios Planning Project. Missoula, MT: Author.Office of Planning and Grants, Missoula, Montana, 1998, Missoula Urban Comprehen-

sive Plan, 1998 Update. Missoula, MT: Author.Pahl, R. E., 1965, Urbs in Rure: The Metropolitan Fringe in Hertfordshire. London, UK:

London School of Economics, Geographical Paper No. 2.Phillips, M., 1993, Rural gentrification and the processes of class colonisation. Journal of

Rural Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, 123–140. Power, T., 1996, Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies. New York, NY: Island Press.Rudzitis, G., 1989, Migration, places and nonmetropolitan development. Urban Geogra-

phy, Vol. 10, 396–411.Rudzitis, G., 1991, Migration, sense of place and nonmetropolitan vitality. Urban Geog-

raphy, Vol. 12, 80–88.Rudzitis, G., 1993, Nonmetropolitan geography: Migration, sense of place and the Amer-

ican West. Urban Geography, Vol. 14, 574–585.Rudzitis, G., 1996, Wilderness and the Changing American West. New York, NY: John

Wiley and Sons.Shumway, J. M. and Davis, J., 1996, Nonmetropolitan population change in the Moun-

tain West: 1970–1995. Rural Sociology, Vol. 61, 513–529.Shumway, J. M., Davis, J., and Otterstrom, S. M., 2001, Spatial patterns of migration and

income change in the Mountain West: The dominance of service-based, amenity-richcounties. The Professional Geographer, Vol. 53, No. 4, 492–502.

Spain, D., 1993, Been-heres versus Come-heres: Negotiating conflicting communityidentities. Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 59, No. 2, 156–171.

Smith, N., 1979, Toward a theory of gentrification: A back to the city movement bycapital not people. Journal of the American Planners Association, Vol. 45, 538–548.

Smith, N., 1986, Gentrification, the frontier, and the restructuring of urban space. InN. Smith, and P. Williams, editors, Gentrification of the City. Boston, MA: Allen andUrwin.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014

RURAL GENTRIFICATION 549

Steinbeck, J., 1962, Travels with Charley: In Search of America. New York, NY: Viking.Sylvester, F. T., Polzin, P. E., Selig Wellwork, S., and Nesary, M., 1995, Montana migra-

tion patterns. Montana Business Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2–13.Thrift, N. and Williams, P., 1987a, The geography of class formation. In N. Thrift and

P. Williams, editors, Class and Space: The Making of Urban Society. London, UK:Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1–22.

Thrift, N. and Williams, P., 1987b, Manufacturing rural geography. Journal of RuralStudies, Vol. 3, No. 1, 77–81.

Thrift, N. and Williams, P., 1989, Images of social change. In C. Hamnett, L. McDowell,and P. Sarre, editors, The Changing Social Structure. London, UK: Sage, 12–42.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995, County to County Migration Profiles: 1990 Census ofPopulation and Housing. Special Project 312. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000a, General information. Retrieved from the U.S. Bureauof the Census Web site at http://www.census.gov

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b, County to County Migration Flow Files: 2000 Censusof Population and Housing. Retrieved from the U.S. Bureau of the Census Web site athttp://www.census.gov

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002, General information. Retrieved from the U.S. Bureauof the Census Web site at http://www.census.gov

Valentine, G., 1997, A safe place to grow up? Parenting perceptions of children’s safetyand the rural idyll. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol.13, No. 2, 137–148.

Vias, A., 1999, Jobs follow people in the rural Rocky Mountain West. Rural Develop-ment Perspectives, Vol. 14, No. 2, 14–23.

Von Reichert, C. and Sylvester, J. T., 1998, Motives for migration: A study of Montananewcomers. Montana Business Quarterly, Winter, 15–19.

Von Reichert, C. and Sylvester, J. T., 2000, Why Montanans come home: Understandingreturn migration through interviews from high school reunions. The Rocky MountainWest’s Changing Landscape, Vol. 2, No. 1, Summer, 2–9.

Von Reichert, C. and Sylvester, J. T., 2002, Returning and new Montana migrants: Socio-economic and motivational differences. Growth and Change, Vol. 33, 133–151.

Wilson, P., Ghose, R., and Wulkan, L., 1992, Missoula Housing Stock and Supply: AReport to the Mayor’s Housing Task Force. Missoula, MT: Department of Geography,University of Montana.

Yin, R., Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 2

2:11

06

Aug

ust 2

014