This article analyses the relationship between the accommodation of Dispersed asylum seekers and urban gentrification in the UK. We argue that alongside other racialised and classed minorities, asylum seekers are vulnerable to spatial strategies associated with gentrification such as neighbourhood ‘dumping’, containment and ‘territorial stigmatisation’, the highly coercive quality of the UK government’s Dispersal Scheme means that any relationship between asylum and gentrification must be treated as deliberate, the result of the multiscalar interests which have a stake both in Dispersal and urban ‘development’. Drawing on empirical research conducted in Glasgow, the recipient of the largest asylum seeking population annually in the UK, we find that asylum accommodation processes and gentrification have developed a symbiotic dynamic, whereby the ‘failure’ of mid twentieth-century urban ‘regeneration’ provided means and motive for Dispersal, and Dispersal provided sufficient resources to fuel further rounds of urban ‘regeneration’. We also find that recent changes to the Dispersal contract, from a dynamic in which resources were associated with housing availability, to one in which they are associated with maximum housing capacity, have created conditions for alternative forms of gentrification, in which strategies such as rent gap suppression are seen as having potential to yield more capital than infrastructural development. Finally, we argue that the respective spatial politics of both Dispersal and gentrification must be understood as mutually-interested, coercive technologies, which work together to contain and exploit racialised and bordered urban minorities. We call for urgent further research into how the asylum border is embedded in contemporary urban spatial economies.

本文分析了分散寻求庇护者的住所与英国城市高档化之间的关系。我们认为，与其他种族和分类少数群体一样，寻求庇护者也容易受到与高档化相关的空间策略的影响，例如邻里“倾销”，遏制和“领土污名化”，英国政府的“分散计划”具有高度强制性，这意味着庇护之间的任何关系高档化必须被刻意对待，这是分散性和城市“发展”都具有利益的多尺度利益的结果。借助在格拉斯哥进行的实证研究，格拉斯哥是英国每年寻求庇护的最大人群，我们发现庇护过程和中产阶级化已经产生了共生动态，因此，二十世纪中叶的城市“复兴”的“失败”为分散提供了手段和动机，而分散提供了足够的资源来推动下一轮的城市“再生”。我们还发现，最近对分散合同的更改，从将资源与住房可用性相关的动态变化到与最大住房容量相关的动态变化，已经为高级化的其他形式创造了条件，在这种形式中，租金等策略差距的抑制被认为比基础设施的发展具有更多的资本潜力。最后，我们认为，散布化和高级化的各自的空间政治必须被理解为互利的，强制性的技术，它们共同工作以遏制和利用种族化和边界化的城市少数民族。