<caption><image_106>The image shows a group of people in a conference room. There are six people in the room, three women and three men, standing in front of a projector screen. The woman on the left is holding a microphone and appears to be giving a presentation. The man on the right is standing next to the projector screen and is gesturing with his hands as he speaks. The other three people are sitting at tables and are listening attentively. The room has a whiteboard and a door in the background.</caption><transcript><audio_107>should we take a group of questions maybe about so maybe we'll start off with the three questions i can</transcript><transcript><audio_108>i have a comment for anne and a question for lisa although it may get reversed by the time i'm done so i really appreciate your pointing out how ridiculous at times the critique of neil's rank gap theory were in part because at</transcript><caption><image_109>The image shows a group of people sitting in a conference room. There are six people in the room, all of whom appear to be engaged in a conversation. The room has black chairs and a whiteboard on the wall. In the center of the image, there is a man holding a microphone and speaking to the group. He is wearing a gray shirt and is gesturing with his hand as he speaks. To his left, there are two other people sitting at a table, one wearing a blue shirt and the other wearing a black shirt. To the right of the man holding the microphone, another person is sitting at the table and appears to be listening attentively. There is a backpack on the floor next to the table.</caption><transcript><audio_110>the end of that 1979 article he says quite clearly the presence of a rank gap does not guarantee that there will be gentrification the absence of a rent gap guarantees there will not be gentrification and so he's really quite clear about this but</transcript><caption><image_111>The image shows a group of people sitting around a table in a conference room. There are six people in the room, three men and three women, all of whom appear to be engaged in a discussion. The man in the center of the image is holding a microphone and appears to be speaking, while the other three people are listening attentively. The room has black chairs and a wooden table in the background. There is a man standing at the front of the room and a woman sitting at the back of the table. The walls are painted white and there is a bulletin board on the wall.</caption><transcript><audio_112>the thing that struck me re-reading a lot of his gentrification work recently was that what he was really developing this is true of his uneven development work i mean they're closely related too is what he was really developing was a theory of the circulation of capital</transcript><transcript><audio_113>it's very much about the circulation of capital and how capital circulates through cityscape and the built environment and and that's the piece that i think got lost in a lot of debates i think got lost in a lot of neil's work as well uh</transcript><caption><image_114>The image shows a group of people sitting in a room with black chairs. There are three people in the image, two men and one woman. The man on the left is wearing a white shirt and glasses and is holding a pen and appears to be writing something on a piece of paper. The woman on the right is sitting on a chair and is also holding a microphone. They appear to be engaged in a conversation. The room has a white wall and there are other people visible in the background.</caption> should we take a group of questions maybe about so maybe we'll start off with the three questions i can i have a comment for anne and a question for lisa although it may get reversed by the time i'm done so i really appreciate your pointing out how ridiculous at times the critique of neil's rank gap theory were in part because at the end of that 1979 article he says quite clearly the presence of a rank gap does not guarantee that there will be gentrification the absence of a rent gap guarantees there will not be gentrification and so he's really quite clear about this but the thing that struck me re-reading a lot of his gentrification work recently was that what he was really developing this is true of his uneven development work i mean they're closely related too is what he was really developing was a theory of the circulation of capital it's very much about the circulation of capital and how capital circulates through cityscape and the built environment and and that's the piece that i think got lost in a lot of debates i think got lost in a lot of neil's work as well uh
{"source": "grass-yt-cc-by.1Uvn5fsXv2k|shard_1000_4|create_multimodal_data.extract_yt_and_generate_transcripts.49|shard_1000|create_multimodal_data.generate_captions.49|shard_1000|create_multimodal_data.generate_captions.49", "params": {"id": "1Uvn5fsXv2k", "channel_id": "UC9a4rOBePS1wS8sfgAVeFXg", "duration": 2883, "view_count": 275, "age_limit": 0, "like_count": 1, "channel_follower_count": 142, "license": "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)", "uploader_id": "@hkcgghk", "yt_tar_file": "/leonardo_work/EUHPC_E03_068/audio/fixed_download/grass-yt-cc-by//shard_1000/1Uvn5fsXv2k.tar.gz"}}