Patterns of retail gentrification on inner-city main streets in Stockholm: the role of privatized property ownership

ABSTRACT

This study aims to investigate the connection between property owners and shopfront retail changes on main streets, exploring the role of private property ownership in retail gentrification. Examining four inner-city streets in Stockholm between 2009 and 2018, a commercial gentrification index reveals patterns of retail gentrification. Privatization in Stockholm (1990–2010) resulted in cooperative housing associations (CHAs) becoming the dominant property owners. Retail gentrification is slightly more pronounced among CHA-owned properties. Interviews with 122 small-business owners renting from CHAs indicate that their short-term economic interests limit efforts to counteract retail gentrification, favouring its exacerbation over preserving independent retailers on main streets.

KEYWORDS:

• Main streets
• retail gentrification
• Stockholm
• tenure conversion
• public realm

Introduction

The urban retail landscape is undergoing a transformation, and main streets are local battlefields that have witnessed significant changes in terms of their character and usage. This transformation is largely a redistribution of retail activities due to the rise of e-commerce and out-of-town shopping centres, which has raised concerns regarding the deterritorialization of retail. However, the relationship between retail and urban spaces remains strong (Guimarães 2022; Sevtsuk 2014). Moreover, gentrifying neighbourhoods are generally where new retail spaces open as neighbourhoods upgrade in order to attract middle-class gentrifiers (Hubbard 2016, 2018).

Retail gentrification is defined as new retail capital monetizing storefronts characterized by ‘direct and indirect displacement of traditional shops, that are replaced by new retail places that aim for new and wealthier clientele’ (Guimarães 2022, 222). In this study, new retail capital are both independent businesses geared towards the gentrifier’s lifestyle (Hubbard 2018, 295) and (local) chain stores imitating these new independent businesses backed by global financial schemes (Mermet 2017). Retail gentrification as a consequence of residential gentrification remains relatively understudied, despite decades of gentrification studies (Hubbard 2017; Kosta 2019), similar causes such as a rent gap and changing consumer environment (Mermet 2017) and ‘given [that] local shopping streets constitute one of the most obvious battlegrounds of gentrification’ (Hubbard 2018, 295). Several studies have focused on the significance of retail change in furthering the process of gentrification (Walker and Fox Miller 2019); however, what exactly retail gentrification constitutes is underdeveloped, and there is no widely recognized method for measuring it (Kosta 2019).

A key component of and driver behind retail change is property owners who are in charge of ground-floor management. Research shows that in the later stages of gentrification, property owners increasing rents is a crucial factor in retail change (Sakızlıoğlu and Lees 2020), and that new property owners in particular tend to increase rent to a level that is often above that which long-time shop owners can afford when commercial leases expire (Zukin 2012). The consequence of this is a certain kind of retail change: ‘The more mature retail gentrification is, the higher the commercial rents, which result in the growing presence of chain shops as they are the only ones able to afford such prices’ (Mermet 2017, 1171). Within retail gentrification debates, the relationship between property owners and ground-floor tenants is rarely addressed. In contrast, within gentrification studies the role of property ownership is widely recognized (Smith 1979; Stein 2019; van Gent 2013; Zukin 1987), as is the idea that the privatization of housing is closely tied to gentrification processes (Hochstenbach 2017).

Privatization of property has occurred in Stockholm in the last few decades in much the same way as in other cities. The shift in political power and an economic crisis in Sweden in the early 1990s prompted housing deregulation, enabling renters to purchase their apartments via the formation of Cooperative Housing Association (CHA) which bought the buildings – at that time at prices that were far below market price – they lived in, and which they became members of (Christophers 2013). This form of cooperative housing is unique to the Scandinavian context, which in Sweden is governed by the Co-operative Societies’ Act (Sw. Lag om ekonomiska föreningar, Swedish Parliament 1987) and the Condominium Act (Sw. Bostadsrättslag, Swedish Parliament 1991). Members pay an annual membership fee that gives them the right to vote at meetings and elect and be elected as members of a board. The CHA governs the management of the building and its ground-floor tenants (Vogel, Jonas, and Lundqvist 2016). Between 1990 and 2010, a large-scale movement from public and private rentals to market-based cooperative housing took place in inner-city Stockholm, with the proportion of CHA increasing from 26 to 62%. On the city level the proportion of public housing in Stockholm decreased from 19 to 7%, with private rental housing decreasing from 73 to 36% (Andersson and Magnusson Turner 2014). Several studies have observed that the tenure conversion mostly took place in already-attractive inner-city areas (Andersson and Magnusson Turner 2014; Blomé 2012; Magnusson 2005). The consequence of this radical shift in the social geography of Stockholm is that large-scale tenure conversion has sped up and reinforced the residential gentrification process, leaving the inner city less socially and economically diverse (Andersson and Magnusson Turner 2014; Blomé 2012; Hedin et al. 2012; Magnusson 2005; Magnusson Turner and Andersson 2008). Yet, the impact of privatized property owners on their ground-floor tenants, and the relationships between the two, has been insufficiently studied.

Whether retail change is an articulation of retail gentrification through an intensification of retail capital, and how CHAs navigate this retail change, are the research questions of this article. It aims to investigate the relationship between property owners and shopfront retail change on main streets, in order to explore privatized property ownership as an understudied element of retail gentrification. This article uses Kosta’s (2019) commercial gentrification index and Zukin et al’.s (2009) retail capital categorization to discern whether Stockholm’s main streets are following a course of retail change that can be classified as retail gentrification. In addition, because large-scale tenure conversion to private ownership of property resulted in CHAs being the dominant property-owner type on inner-city main streets, the research presented in this article investigated retail change occurring among CHAs as compared to other types of property ownership. Quantitative analysis was used to focus on retail changes that have occurred in the last decade on four inner-city main streets in Stockholm (Figure 1) in relation to changes in the ownership of property over the last three decades. Lastly, interviews with small-business owners renting from CHAs were used to deepen the understanding of the relationship between the two groups. This constitutes the qualitative analysis, consisting of 122 face-to-face interviews.

Figure 1. Four main streets in Stockholm.

This article argues that the retail change on main streets in Stockholm to some extent qualifies as retail gentrification based on the food and boutique index.

Why shopfronts on main streets matter

Main streets are sociable places where commercial activities and community values coexist. Factors such as the presence of independent retailers, a mixture of businesses and activities, and comfortable public spaces contribute to the liveliness of main streets (Mehta and Bosson 2021) and sense of community (Pendola and Gen 2008). Mehta argues that ‘[t]he future main street has the unique opportunity to go beyond the experience economy [by aiming for a] fulfilling urban experience not just for the consumers but for the community’ (2022, 61). The presence of ‘third places’ (Oldenburg 1989) is vital for realizing this; shopfronts that function as third places are found to support social interaction on main streets through their role as community gathering places, and as spaces that personalize shopfronts and as to extend their territory onto the pavement (Debenedetti, Oppewal, and Arsel 2014; Mehta and Bosson 2010), leading to increased sociability (Mehta 2019).

Main streets, as everyday consumption spaces, derive a significant part of their character and liveliness from their shopfronts (J. Jacobs 1961; Mehta 2011). Shopfronts establish an essential relationship between the built form and social life on streets (A. Jacobs 1993) and, in addition to connecting the building to the pavement, are part of the public realm, constituting complex social and political arenas where identities are negotiated, social encounters take place, and public life is performed (Sennett 2011). The quality of shopfronts, however, varies, and this determines how a street is experienced: ‘If the ground floors are interesting and varied, the urban environment is inviting and enriching’ (Gehl, Johansen Kaefer, and Reigstad 2006, 34). Although shopfronts determine how a street is experienced to a great extent, they are generally understudied (as is argued by Kickert 2016); nevertheless, a number of studies on ground floors have been undertaken. These have explored the conditions for ‘active’ ground floors (Kickert 2016); the role of ground floors in perceptions of safety, activity, conviviality, and comfort (Heffernan, Heffernan, and Pan 2014); and how they facilitate pedestrian comfort (Ewing et al. 2016) and sociable pavements (Mehta 2009; Mehta and Bosson 2010).

Retail gentrification

A broad array of shopfronts on main streets produces the kind of neighbourhood character that attracts upper- and middle-class residents (Zukin et al. 2009; Zukin, Kasinitz, and Chen 2016). The (changing) residential mix in gentrified areas comes with consumption and lifestyle patterns that favour the ABC (art, boutiques, and cafes) category of shopfront (Zukin 1998, 2012), which provides healthy, green, and authentic consumption choices (Hubbard 2016, 2018).

Studies demonstrate that new retail spaces in gentrifying neighbourhoods reflect the consumption patterns and identities of the new urban middle class (Bridge and Dowling 2001), which in an international context has ‘particular qualities and characteristics in common, some of which [sic] expressed through consumption practices’ (Shaker Ardekani and Rath 2020, 123). Examples of these are craft breweries in Portland, Oregon, that are on the ‘leading edge of gentrification’ and contribute to solidifying ongoing patterns of gentrification (Walker and Fox Miller 2019), and coffee shops in Paris, Tehran, Glasgow, and Amsterdam that form aesthetically appealing places where coffee as a global commodity forms a consumption practice that creates the identity of the emerging cosmopolitan middle class (Bantman-Masum 2020; Shaker Ardekani and Rath 2020). These new retail spaces change the retail mix and increase the attractiveness of the area, advancing the process of gentrification.

Consumer practices driven by lifestyle preferences and social status are part of a trend of upscale shops and services that are increasingly found in gentrifying neighbourhoods (Shaker Ardekani and Rath 2020; Zukin 1998; Zukin, Kasinitz, and Chen 2016). Changes in and upscaling of retail is a relatively new dimension of gentrification; new retail capital enters a neighbourhood and causes structural changes in the retail industry there through the arrival of chain shops, disappearance of small, individual-owned shops, disruption of social bonds, and changing views on the commercial viability of the inner city (Zukin et al. 2009). The new retail capital is a concentration, internationalization, and financialisation of retail investment in gentrifying neighbourhoods that instigates a process of retail gentrification (Mermet 2017).

The attraction of capital to places such as main streets is subject to the viability of retail-property investment (Teale 2013). Unlike independent retailers, chain shops have the capital necessary to move into gentrifying neighbourhoods (Meltzer and Capperis 2017). The arrival of chain shops can signal that an area is safe for commercial investment (Zukin et al. 2009). Continued investment results in an increase in property values, and encourages homebuyers to favour these neighbourhoods because they are economically viable, not least because of attractive consumption spaces such as active ground floors (Bridge and Dowling 2001; Smith 1979).

Kosta (2019) analysed whether retail gentrification characterizes retail changes, and developed the results into a commercial gentrification index that maps retail change through an address register, including shop count, shop type, business composition, and business turnover, which are used for indices relating to boutiques, food, and ethnic services. Zukin et al. (2009) identified the direction of change for three types of business in order to identify processes of retail gentrification: increase in new entrepreneurial retail capital (boutiques) and corporate retail capital (chain shops), and decrease in old, local retail that serves long-term residents. These tools were used in the research presented in this article to infer whether Stockholm’s main streets are undergoing retail gentrification.

Case description

Gentrification has been an ongoing process in Stockholm since the deregulating shift in housing politics in the early 1990s (Franzén 2005). The gentrifying process results from an increasing presence of high-income, highly-educated residents in an area, at the expense of low-income and less well-educated residents (Andersson and Magnusson Turner 2014; Cody and van Gent 2015; Smith 1979; Zukin 1987). The luxury renovations and subsequent rent gap that developed in Stockholm were observed as the marker of gentrification (Millard-Ball 2000, 2002), but more recent studies have identified housing tenure conversion as the driving force behind changes in the socioeconomic and demographic mix, spurring the gentrification process (Andersson and Magnusson Turner 2014; Magnusson 2005; Magnusson Turner and Andersson 2008).

The deregulation of housing policy was a consequence of a shift in political power and economic crisis in the early 1990s in Sweden. The new centre-right government, after a long period of Social-Democratic leadership, implemented a housing policy with a neoliberal course that eventually led to municipal-owned housing companies being required to operate in a more commercially focused, financially secure manner (Andersson and Magnusson Turner 2014; Hedin et al. 2012). This caused municipally owned housing companies to sell off substantial parts of their public housing stock to residents, which effectively dismantled the traditional welfare-oriented housing policy (Bergsten and Holmqvist 2013; Hedin et al. 2012; Holmqvist and Magnusson Turner 2014; Turner 1997). This government-led privatization of property significantly contrasted with the responsibility of the government to facilitate ‘affordable housing for all’, which had been a pillar of the Swedish social-democratic welfare state since the 1930s (Hedman 2008; Kadarik and Kährik 2021).

Similar tendencies can be found in other European countries. In the Netherlands, the neoliberal shift in housing policy that also took place in the 1990s instigated tenure conversion from social-rental housing to home ownership in inner-city neighbourhoods (Boterman and van Gent 2014). The intention for this to facilitate social mixing was, however, criticized for constituting state-led gentrification (Hochstenbach 2017; Uitermark and Bosker 2014; van Gent 2013). Similarly, in the UK, deregulation in the form of buy-to-let has been associated with the rise of gentrification (Paccoud 2017).

However, in Sweden, renters actively initiated privatization (Lantmäteriet 2021). The process began in the early 1970s, as an activistic act to avoid displacement and protect the urban fabric against the threat of urban renewal (Franzén 2005). However, as the economic gain from tenure conversion was typically highest in the inner-city area, the property values of centrally located properties rose the most; therefore, it has been argued that the conversion motive became primarily economic (Andersson and Magnusson Turner 2014). The opportunity for residents to become financially involved in and responsible for influencing their immediate living environments can be seen as an advantage associated with conversion (Kleinhans and Elsinga 2010), as their potential influence is extensive (Vogel, Jonas, and Lundqvist 2016). Nevertheless, this is not generally perceived to be an essential motive by residents (Andersson and Magnusson Turner 2014; Blomé 2012), for whom economics and the calculus of the individual prevail in terms of their participation and engagement in CHAs (Bengtsson 1998). By becoming owners, matters regarding the buildings they live in are tied to their private finances, which inevitably impacts their views on ground floors.

The process of tenure conversion has caused changes in the socioeconomic compositions of buildings. The differences between the residents moving in and those moving out are critical to understanding shifting population segments in gentrifying neighbourhoods (Cody and van Gent 2015). Much public rental housing was sold to residents at levels 40 to 60% below market prices (Christophers 2013), and the evidence shows that the social change in gentrifying neighbourhoods in Stockholm was instigated by these new owners leaving immediately after the conversion, and being replaced by ones with higher disposable incomes (Magnusson 2005). The residents who remained were those who were already financially comfortable.

In addition to new CHA tenants contributing to the gentrification process, residents who want to move into other housing sectors need to have the necessary financial means. For example, as the financial requirements for rental contracts became much stricter, private rentals in gentrifying neighbourhoods began to be of interest to those who could afford them (Blomé 2012; Magnusson Turner and Andersson 2008). Hence, having a stable income is increasingly a requirement for moving into attractive central areas of Stockholm (Kadarik and Kährik 2021). Education level has dwindled in importance due to the national rise in education levels in Sweden (Magnusson Turner and Andersson 2008). Moreover, short-term residents such as Airbnb guests contribute to gentrification (Wachsmuth and Weisler 2018), but their impact is restricted in Sweden due to the legal requirements that people reside at the address where they are registered; in addition, CHA boards generally do not allow subletting to take place unless valid reasons are presented, although short-term rentals sometimes go unnoticed (Bostadsrätterna 2021; Fastighetstidningen.se 2014).

Methods

Four main streets in Stockholm were studied.

The data used in this study consisted of property and shopfront information about the four selected main streets; this resulted in a database on the address level, and was supplemented with interviews with small-business owners renting from CHAs. The property data was obtained from a database called Datscha, which collects property data in Sweden at the building level (i.e., it offers a range of variables for every building), and includes names of property owners and purchase dates, as well as other details less relevant to this study. Based on complementary searches, categorizations were developed, resulting in eleven property-owner types that were organized into three categories. CHAs are one of the eleven types.

The data on shopfronts was obtained from personal observations in 2018 and the earliest Google Street View photographs (taken in 2009 and 2011). The data includes ground-floor function of shopfronts (e.g., restaurant, hair salon, or shoe shop) and tenant type (e.g., independent or chain shop). Complementary internet searches assisted in validating observations and developing categories.

In Sweden, most ground-floor rental contracts run for three, five, or ten years, after which the rent level is generally renegotiated; the outcome of the renegotiation often determines whether the tenant can afford to stay or not. It is rare that the owners of businesses also own the property where the business operates. Analysing the shopfront data from a decade after the tenure conversion revealed the effects of the CHAs’ ground-floor management decisions. The property data shows that most conversions took place between 1999 and 2008, and the shopfront data comparing 2009 and 2018 provides insights regarding changes to shopfronts.

Interviews with small-business owners were undertaken in order to analyse the relationship between CHA boards and their ground-floor tenants. The interviews were conducted in May and June 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survival of small businesses during the Pandemic depended partially on the government offering to subsidize rent such that business owners could receive a discount of up to 50%. However, property owners (rather than business owners) had to apply for this, and under the condition that property owners paid half of that discount (i.e., up to 25% of total rent) to tenants with businesses in vulnerable sectors (Gustafsson 2020). The interviews added nuance to the understanding of the rent-discount decisions made by the boards of the CHAs. It was concluded that interviewing business owners was preferable to interviewing CHA board members as the former had a more economically precarious position (Bartik et al. 2020), and the economic dangers that they faced were more pressing and interesting in the context of the Pandemic. By listening to small-business owners, meaningful, complementary perspectives that facilitated the quantitative analysis were obtained (Danenberg 2021; Yin 2014). A total of 122 face-to-face interviews, ranging from five to 30 minutes, were held with small, local, and independent business owners who were renting from CHAs. The interviews did not require an ethical review based on information provided by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. Precautions were taken to avoid spreading COVID-19.

Results

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between property owners and shopfront retail change on main streets and explore privatized property ownership as an element of retail gentrification. The results show, firstly, that CHAs have become the dominant property owner type on inner-city main streets between 1990 and 2010–a strikingly short period of time. Secondly, the retail change, based on sectorial counting, shows a tendency towards retail gentrification. Thirdly, shopfront change is similar to change in property-owner type, but leans even more towards retail gentrification. Lastly, small-business owners renting from CHAs experience the relationship as impersonal and business-minded, and feel that CHAs have only moderate sympathy for the challenging situation that the COVID-19 pandemic presented. Furthermore, it was felt by the small-business owners that the financial decision-making of CHAs is defined by a short-term perspective, limiting their ability to support and sustain small, local, and independent retailers.

Tenure change

CHAs comprised the largest category of property owner on the four streets studied (Figure 2). In total, 142 of the 294 property owners (48.3%) were CHAs.

Figure 2. The distribution of property owners on four main streets.

More than half of the property owners on Hornsgatan and Odengatan were CHAs (Figure 3). More than two-thirds of all of the identified CHAs were situated on these two streets: 40% on Hornsgatan (55 CHAs) and 34% on Odengatan (48 CHAs). On these streets, more than half of the property owners were found to be CHAs (59% on Hornsgatan and 57% on Odengatan).

Figure 3. The distribution of property owners on four main streets.

Although the share of CHAs on Götgatan and Hantverkargatan was lower − 26% (17 CHAs) and 42% (22 CHAs), respectively − 12% of the identified CHAs were located on Götgatan, and 16% on Hantverkargatan.

Property-owner change was analysed with respect to the available data. The findings demonstrate that a substantial concentration of tenure change occurred between 1999 and 2008, when half of the studied CHAs (47.9%) were formed (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Period when the property owner was changed.

Figure 5 shows tenure change from a spatiotemporal perspective, showing different time periods across the four streets. This visualizes the fact that 71 conversions took place on Odengatan and 101 on Hornsgatan between 1999 and 2008. In total, between 1999 and 2008 around one-third of the properties on each street were bought by CHAs.

Figure 5. Period when CHAs were formed.

Commercial gentrification index

Kosta’s commercial gentrification index factors in shop count, types, business composition, and turnover, which are used in Kosta’s (2019) indices relating to boutiques, food, and ethnic services. Kosta argues that categorizations of street shops and businesses should be developed to fit sites and research questions. The shopfront data used in this study facilitated categorization of tenant function and type. The tenant-type data aligned with the tenant-type categorization of Zukin et al. (2009), fitting the boutique index. The tenant-function categorization aligned with the food index.

The food index has served as an indicator of retail gentrification in various studies (Bridge and Dowling 2001; Shaker Ardekani and Rath 2020; Walker and Fox Miller 2019). The centrality of food consumption is a marker of middle-class identities (Kosta 2019). On main streets in Stockholm, the category ‘food and drink services’ increased from 190 to 226 businesses between 2009 and 2018. Among the tenants of CHAs, ‘food and drink services’ increased from 84 to 114 tenants between 2009 and 2018. These changes explain the increase in restaurants, bars, and cafes; based on this increase, it can be inferred that a pattern of retail gentrification has occurred on main streets in Stockholm.

Figure 6 shows shopfront function change between 2009 and 2018, comparing shopfronts owned by CHAs with ones owned by all other types of property owners. It shows that the tendencies of the CHAs are similar to those of all other property owners. The changes among CHAs, however, show an even more substantial increase in ‘food and drink services’ and a decrease in ‘retail product shops’.

Figure 6. Shopfront function changes between 2009 and 2018.

The three categories that are distinguished by Zukin et al. (2009) are increase in new entrepreneurial retail capital (boutiques) and corporate retail capital (chain shops), and a decrease in old, local, retail that serves long-term residents. This study distinguished between chain shops and small, local, and independent retailers. My interpretation is that regional chain shops largely follow the new entrepreneurial retail capital category. The retail change among the tenant types suggests a tendency towards retail gentrification, based on quantitative assessment, between 2009 and 2018. Sole traders and family businesses decreased from 270 to 245, and local companies (fewer than three employees) decreased from 290 to 214. Regional chain shops increased from 55 to 101, national chain shops increased from 89 to 118, and international chain shops increased from 108 to 123. The shopfront tenant types follow a comparatively strong tendency towards retail gentrification for both CHAs and all other property-owner types (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Shopfront tenant type change between 2009 and 2018.

CHAs and their shopfronts

As small, local, and independent retail shops are in decline and generally being challenged by the ongoing retail change, interviews with small-business owners who were renting from CHAs during the COVID-19 pandemic were intended to shed light on the relationship between the boards of CHAs and ground-floor tenants. The interviews mainly focused on the subject of the government rent discount, which was a peculiar situation that required not just economic sense but a sympathetic response on the part of association boards. The findings show that 52 of the 122 business owners received a three-month rent reduction: of these, 36 received a 50% reduction and seven received less than 50%. Of the 62 business owners who did not receive a three-month rent reduction, 30 received a hard no; 14 received a maybe, even though the Pandemic had been ongoing for two months; two received the reduction as loans; two were offered deferred payment of rent; three did not ask; two were unable to receive it as their type of business did not qualify for rent reduction; and nine did not need it. In five cases the shop owner was not available for interview and the staff were not able to arrange contact with them, and in the remaining three cases, the shop owner declined to answer. The interviewees expressed frustration and helplessness, although in some cases also hope. These feelings were exacerbated by difficulties contacting the boards of associations, even though board members, as residents, generally pass by the shopfront every time they enter or exit a building.

Several business owners stated that they received notification regarding decisions about rent discounts with drastic consequences by email, and many described boards as distant and removed from the day-to-day operations of businesses. A handful of business owners knew board members personally, but it was more common for the relationships between the two groups to be relatively impersonal. This caused frustrations during the Pandemic.

The small-business owners interpreted the lack of sympathy of CHAs as reflecting a focus on their finances above concern for the small businesses. Several interviewees presumed that financial decisions were directly linked to residents’ personal finances, meaning that sympathy was limited by the economic capacity of the CHA, and decisions relating to expenses directly influenced how much residents paid monthly. This approach, however, went against the government’s policy of encouraging property owners to offer rent discounts to shopfront tenants who had seen their revenue decrease as a result of social distancing and working from home. An Italian restaurant owner explained why the recommendation was not always followed: ‘It is their own money; they would be gifting it to us while they have mortgages to pay themselves. This is different for [property] companies’. Another explanation was given by a hairdresser, who pointed out that board members did not seem to sympathize with the loss of revenue of business owners on the basis of an assumption that a business in a busy location should not have a problem reaching customers, even during the Pandemic. Others felt that board members were detached from reality, did not believe that revenue had substantially decreased (Thai restaurant owner), or did not comprehend that the customer bases of some businesses were primarily people in high-risk groups in relation to COVID-19 (optician). A dry cleaner stated that rent reduction ‘would only be given if the shop is on the edge of going bankrupt’.

The relationships between shopfront tenants and property owners were found to be broadly characterized by dependency; the CHA has extensive power in selecting ground-floor tenant, thus affecting the retail change on main streets. Some interviewees deliberately chose not to ask for or receive a discount on the assumption that the board was neither interested in nor keen to help with the day-to-day challenges of tenants. Some shop owners were afraid that the rent would be increased (restaurant owner), or that the discount would eventually have to be paid back (hairdresser). Some interviewees expressed a belief that CHAs prefer quiet and clean shopfront tenants, especially ones whose business activities do not result in odours or noise at night, who provide stability for the CHA’s economy; however, others stated that they believed the opposite and that many CHAs approve of restaurants. The owner of two restaurants felt that one CHA board was pleased to have a restaurant as their tenant, but the other was unhappy with this state of affairs. This power in deciding on the kind of shopfront is reflected in a statement made by an independent clothing shop owner, who claimed that he existed under the threat of needing to move out and be replaced by a pharmacy chain shop that was willing to pay higher rent.

The interviews suggested that CHAs function as decentralized organizations that are run based on ideals, economic capacity, and the perspectives of board members. The differences between associations result from board members’ specific attitudes and interests, and each association’s financial situation. In other words, every association makes decisions on its own, led by those with seats on the board.

Discussion and conclusion

The global trend of retail capital establishing itself on main streets through service-oriented chain shops replacing small and local retailers (Hubbard 2016, 2018; Zukin et al. 2009) can be said to have manifested itself in Stockholm by 2018 (Danenberg et al. 2018). This study demonstrates that retail change in Stockholm between 2009 and 2018, which was quantitatively analysed using the food and boutique indices, had a tendency towards retail gentrification. However, complementary ethnographic field observations should be conducted in order to verify this and assess differences between shopfronts (Kosta 2019).

Private owners of property and ground-floor management were explored in relation to the retail change that occurred on main streets over the course of a decade; the conclusion was that the identified change could possibly be attributed to decisions made by CHA board members. The privatization of property in Stockholm, where shopfronts are managed by CHAs run by residents, rather than public or private landlords, has not only reinforced residential gentrification (Andersson and Magnusson Turner 2014; Magnusson Turner and Andersson 2008) but led to an increased tendency towards retail gentrification on the part of CHAs as compared to other types of property owner (Ji 2020; Mermet 2017; Gary, Bridge, and Dowling 2001). The large-scale tenure conversion that occurred two decades ago enabled board members to end rental leases and attract new tenants. CHAs show a similar but slightly more extreme pattern of retail gentrification than other types of property owners in Stockholm, implying an interest in attracting retail capital rather than preserving small, local, and independent retailers.

Privatization enabled residents to be involved in ground-floor management. The perceived qualities of gentrified neighbourhoods are significantly determined by shopfronts (Zukin et al. 2009), and so CHAs may wish to safeguard these qualities by taking responsibility for sustaining small, local, and independent retailers and a mixture of retailer types (Debenedetti, Oppewal, and Arsel 2014; Mehta 2019; Mehta and Bosson 2010; Pendola and Gen 2008; Mehta and Bosson 2021). This study did not find substantial signs of retail gentrification being counteracted, and in fact the conclusion is the opposite. Small-business owners see CHAs supporting retail gentrification, given the retail change in that direction that they facilitate, as a matter of short-term economic motives. This implies, however, that members of CHAs do not always take responsibility for supporting the diverse and authentic environments of main streets that they find attractive and wish to live on. Failure to interrupt the retail gentrification process suggests a paradox (Ji 2020; Mermet 2017), as the repercussions of gentrification negatively impact the pavement experience and overall urban environment (Gehl, Johansen Kaefer, and Reigstad 2006).

Ground-floor tenants of CHA boards interpreted a general lack of engagement as being related to short-term economic motives. This aligns with research that suggests that residents see apartments as sources of short-term profit (Blomé 2012; Ramberg 2016). From the perspective of CHAs, short-term economic gain is easier to grasp than long-term social benefit (Bengtsson 1992), and exploiting the economic benefits of property ownership is to some degree understandable where property owners are eager to participate in the neoliberal trend of commodification of the ‘attractive city’ image in exchange for investment (Ramberg 2016). The professionalism and knowledge of CHA board members with regard to engaging in a more nuanced way with main streets from a long-term, quality-focused perspective appears to be limited. Two studies on the challenges within the Swedish cooperative housing sector suggests that being a member of a board is characterized by voluntary, temporary, and time-consuming duties, and that board members act out of self-interest, lack a long-term perspective, and focus too much on keeping monthly costs low (Muyingo 2015, 2016). This is reflected in the unwillingness of many CHAs to offer rent discounts during the COVID-19 pandemic. The qualitative results presented in this article show that, in most cases, CHAs were hesitant and unwilling to financially support shopfront tenants with reduced rents, which they perceived as meaning that they had to bear these costs themselves.

The results of this research are specific to the Swedish context. However, an understanding of the role of private owners of property in the process of retail gentrification may be useful in other research contexts. The issue boils down to how to support and maintain a long-term perspective on main streets (Jones 2010) as property values and short-term financial perspectives become increasingly focused on. Hence, further research on how planning, design, and management can contribute to the future of main streets (Carmona 2021; Kickert 2022) should also include property owners, and more specifically their role in the process of retail gentrification. This can be expanded upon by utilizing existing knowledge and methods (Kosta 2019).

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Prof. Sharon Zukin for her inspiration and insightful discussions. The author also acknowledges Ass Prof. Tigran Haas and Prof. Hans Westlund for their valuable feedback.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnson Foundation.