{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02850877192982456, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003289473684210526, 'mean_word_length': 4.601226993865031, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Rent Gap Re-examined

Rent gap theory is re-examined in view of Bourassa's recent critique. The critique is found to be flawed on three accounts. It equates an abstract concept (actual land rent) with a concrete event (contract rent); it seeks the relevance of the rent gap at times of redevelopment; and it diminishes rent gap theory to an equation for calculating the profitability of redevelopment. In this re-examination, it is argued that: (1) actual land rent is not equal to contract rent; (2) the significance of the rent gap extends over a longer period prior to redevelopment; and (3) rent gap theory should not be reduced to a break-even point in real estate accounting. It is a political economic theory of uneven development on the urban scale and as such cannot be divorced from the societal relations and power struggles involved in the creation and capture of values in the built environment.