This, at least, is the popular image of what has become known as ‘gentrification’, for few studies have been undertaken to confirm or reject it. Logan’s book on gentrification in inner Melbourne, covering the period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, is therefore most welcome. His analysis is very detailed and it dispels many of the popular beliefs.

The first part of the book considers various demographic, occupational, housing, and ethnic changes which have occurred in inner Melbourne and Logan uses case studies of three suburbs – East Melbourne, North Carlton, and Kensington – to trace in detail particular patterns of change. He shows that the middle class is not dominating inner Melbourne. In fact, inner Melbourne is continuing to lose population, and those of the middle class who are moving in are not only becoming owner occupiers, but there are many who are residing in rental accommodation. In sum, gentrification has not been anywhere near as significant as is popularly believed. No large-scale social and physical change has occurred and significant changes which have appeared have only happened in certain parts of particular suburbs.

Most of the book focuses on political relationships. Of greatest interest is the relationship between these politically rather conservative middle class residents and various governments and government instrumentalities, such as the Melbourne City Council, the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Victorian Housing Commission. To fight for its household and residential interests, this middle class organised itself into a number of resident action groups and the analysis provided by Logan on these groups and their relationships is of considerable value.

It is the detailed descriptions given of inner Melbourne’s gentrification process which make this a worthwhile book. Nevertheless, the book has deficiencies. Firstly, the mass of empirical detail tends to overwhelm the reader and it becomes difficult to see the forest for the trees. Secondly, the book does not explain gentrification. That is, there is no theoretical argument, although in a clumsy fashion Logan did attempt a theoretical stance. In an effort to organise his empirical data, he grabbed what he considered were available theories of the city, remoulded them, and hung a set of data on each. Such efforts were crude and showed a shallow understanding of each theory. His descriptions would have stood just as well without these pegs. Thirdly, for a book published in 1985, it is surprising his analysis finishes in the mid-1970s. He could easily have traced some of the trends which have appeared through into the 1980s. Finally, it was also surprising that he neglected what had been published on gentrification since the 1970s.