Discourse analysis

1080

Urban Geography, 2010, 31, 8, pp. 1080–1099. DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.31.8.1080Copyright © 2010 by Bellwether Publishing, Ltd. All rights reserved.

1080

THE DISCURSIVE REGIME OF THE “AMERICAN DREAM” AND THE NEW SUBURBAN FRONTIER: THE CASE OF KENDALL

COUNTY, ILLINOIS1

Matthew B. Anderson2

Department of Geography University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Abstract: This study examines the current role of ideology in maintaining and reproducing consumer demand for residential suburban spaces in the outer ring of American metropolitan regions. It highlights the contradiction between the promises that are made through the ideology and discourse of the American Dream and the inherent limits of those promises within the reali-ties of a highly dynamic capitalist society. It is argued that this powerful discursive formation has evolved through recent neoliberal times, and is manifest in the suburban landscape in new ways. It must continue to produce simulated images that signify mythologized narratives of the past that cater to sentiments of hope and a better life in the future. At the same time, it works through existing fears and anxieties in order to secure the progressive accumulation of capital in the sub-urban built environment. Evidence will be provided from the ongoing suburbanization of Kendall County, Illinois at the southwestern edge of metropolitan Chicago. [Keywords: American Dream, suburbs, discourse, ideology, political economy.]

What is an ideology without a space to which it refers, a space which it describes, whose vocabulary and links it makes use of, and whose code it embodies? … What we call ideology only achieves consistency by intervening in social space and in its

production, and by thus taking on body therein. Ideology per se might well be said to consist primarily in a discourse upon social space.

—Henri Lefebvre (1974/1991, p. 44)

Mass suburbanization, with its standardized version of culture and way of life, contin-ues to fuel the always turbulent and unstable American capitalist economy. In this context, the elite suburbs (as physical and semiotic forms) of the United States have significantly changed in many ways since the 1970s (Garreau, 1991; Hackworth, 2005; Krause and Sugrue, 2006; Yang and Jargowsky, 2006; Lang and LeFurgy, 2007; Singer et al., 2008). Key dominant attributes accompany this change. Physically, these affluent suburbs are increasingly marked by gated communities; balkanized, inward-looking subdivisions; and cul-de-sac street patterns. Conceptually, discourses involving sustainability and the envi-ronment now prevail, and are reflected in these suburbs (especially since the shift to neolib-eral modes of governance) as magnets for capital investment (see Keil and Graham, 1998).

1I am indebted to David Wilson for his critical comments on previous versions of this manuscript. I would also like to thank Dennis Grammenos and Erick Howenstine for their guidance while conducting much of this research at Northeastern Illinois University. I am also grateful to Diane Anderson and Dave Horner for their much appreciated support and assistance. The critical comments from Elvin Wyly and anonymous reviewers were also extremely helpful. The usual disclaimers apply.2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew Anderson, Department of Geography, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801; telephone: 217-333-1880; fax: 217-241-1785; e-mail: [email protected].

NEW SUBURBAN FRONTIER 1081

This study focuses on the latest phase of the suburb-shaping “American Dream” dis-course, which represents a nuancing and revision of its constituent elements from the early postwar period through the current neoliberal period. This discourse’s prominent themes and impacts are applied to the evolving residential landscape in the quintessential contemporary suburb: Kendall County at the edge of metropolitan Chicago. This issue is interrogated by merging the insights from studies on the suburban American Dream (see Jackson, 1985; Fishman, 1987; Hayden, 2002; Archer, 2005) with those of Marxian political economy. Of central concern is how the U.S. style of suburbanization, marked by the predominance of expanding low-density residential and commercial development, has continued unabated in the face of multiple countervailing tendencies. Recognizing the highly consumptive nature of this type of built environment (see Rome, 2001; Register, 2006; Daniels, 2009), its evolution is explored in one prototypical place during a time of domestic and global economic upheaval, rising energy costs, and heightened sensitivity to environmental degradation and sustainability.

The “American Dream” rhetoric will be shown to have changed in important ways dur-ing the rise of neoliberalism. It is unveiled as a hybrid discursive construct that combines traditional and new themes, works through established spatialized processes, and creates new physical forms in today’s suburban landscape. This discourse invokes images that sig-nify the same mythologized landscapes and narratives of the past that cater to sentiments of hope (see Johnson, 2006) and a better life; it simultaneously works through temporally specific fears and anxieties, such as heightened economic and employment insecurities and influxes of immigrant and racialized populations. In this process, the Fordist “golden years” are now incorporated into the contemporary narrative by including traditional notions of tranquility, harmony, and “pristine” bucolic landscapes (Walker, 1977, 1978, 1981; Jackson, 1985; Fishman, 1987).

There are several ways to deconstruct a discourse. The “American Dream” is exam-ined as a deeply engrained symbolic order (Giddens, 1979), and centered on social space (Lefebvre, 1974/1991). It is interrogated as a space-producing narrative that remains inti-mately associated with the horizontal expansion of the American metropolis. Operating through a variety of channels (e.g., mass media, entertainment industry), the real estate industry (builders, developers, speculators), and government institutions (local and federal politicians), this ideology is continually (re)produced and reconstituted to maintain con-sumer demand and support the profitable investment of capital in the built environment. The following sections treat the process of suburbanization in the context of the tradition of the “American Dream,” U.S. metropolitanization growth since the early postwar period, and the transformation of the “American Dream” discourse as expressed in the landscape of Kendall County. Suburbanization continues to steamroll across this once rural land-scape: census estimates for 2007 ranked Kendall County, Illinois (70–80 kilometers south-west of Chicago) as the fastest growing county in the United States.

THE TRADITIONAL AMERICAN DREAM DISCOURSE

The notion of the “American Dream” did not arise in isolation and has deep economic roots. As Harvey (1975, 1989) and Walker (1977, 1981) have shown, this discourse originated in a style of suburbanization that efficiently safeguarded the reproduction of capitalist social relations and facilitated capital accumulation. The prosperous 1945–1973

1082 MATTHEW B. ANDERSON

period of mass suburbanization successfully expanded outlets for pent-up real estate capi-tal while triggering demand (backed by the ability to pay) for industrial products, i.e., construction, labor, household appliances, financial and legal services, automobiles, and oil—in short, a linking of multipliers (see Walker, 1981; Beauregard, 2006). The post-1945 American Dream discourse embodied five prominent tenets (Miguez, 2007b, p. 2): (1) the vision of a good life and upward mobility; (2) the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence, especially the “pursuit of happiness”; (3) equality; (4) homeownership; and (5) moving to the Pacific coast (beginning with the gold rush) as a metaphor for a utopian western home far from the corrupted eastern cities.

Although the association of the suburban single-family “dream home” with the ideology of the American Dream extends back to the 19th century,3 the actual expression American Dream did not emerge until 1931 (Forsyth, 2007). At that moment, the United States faced the depths of the Great Depression, and the promotion of widespread homeownership (strongly aided by the mass media and the entertainment industries) served to motivate and encourage families to buy into the value of owning one’s home as a means to combat a seriously depressed economy.4 The “rationality of growth,” in essence, was encapsulated into a “dream” (Lefebvre, 1973/1976, p. 117–8).

During the postwar period the process of metropolitan growth generally adhered to the model of inner city disinvestment coupled with massive suburban expansion and prosper-ity, a process greatly aided by tax incentives to homeowners, reform in mortgage finance, the GI bill, and the construction of the federal interstate highway system (Walker, 1977). Suburbia now became not only accessible just for the wealthy, but also for moderate- as well as for middle-income Whites.5 Characterized by the mass production of homogenous single-family homes within sprawling subdivisions, this landscape defined the image of success through hard work and upward mobility. Meanwhile, the “main street” business centers characteristic of older Fordist suburbs sought to capture the ambience of small-town rural America in contrast to the new spaces of mass consumption that were marked by swaths of concrete along highway-oriented strip malls and shopping centers. But the romanticized “pristine” landscape remained limited to the more affluent suburbs; yet as

3The dimensions of gender within the history of the suburban “dream home” in the United States has been well documented by numerous commentators (e.g., see Hayden, 2002; Archer, 2005; Giesel, 2007). Gender plays a distinct role within this particular idealized model of lifestyle and landscape that became encapsulated within the virtues of suburban housing during the twentieth century. Specifically, this prevailing model of suburban life has historically been designed to accommodate the image of the young White family, “with the father as breadwinner, mother as housewife, and children reared to emulate these same limited roles” (Hayden, 2002, p. 58). Although this particular White-patriarchal model is largely based on 19th-century ideals far removed from those of 21st-century American society, it still characterizes much of the contemporary suburban landscape.4The virtue of homeownership within “American Dream” discourse is not necessarily restricted to homeowner-ship in the suburbs. However, when considering that 80 percent of the total housing stock in the United States in the year 1999 was built after 1940 with nearly two-thirds of the 100 million occupied units being single-family detached homes (Hayden, 2002, p. 28–29), it should be clear that the vast majority of those who chased the “American Dream” of homeownership, upward mobility, and all the other concepts embedded within this power-ful discourse, have done so in the direction of the suburban frontier.5In this context, the historical role that race has played within the urbanization process should be acknowledged.

Following Hackworth’s (2007) notion of the “expansion-exclusion dialectic,” economic and urban expansion is only deemed possible as long as perceived threats (racial minorities) are excluded in the new expanding land-scapes. Essentially, race has been used to justify this type of necessary exclusion in the U.S. residential housing market through a host of discriminatory policies such as racial covenants, exclusive zoning, redlining, and out-right racism (see Smith, 1996; Hirsch, 1998; Hayden, 2002; Beauregard, 2006; Wilson, 2007).


Jackson (1985, p. 273) noted, in the Chicago region alone, 24 separate suburbs during this period included either the word “park” or “forest” in their names. In short, this three-decade-long period of prosperity and steady growth fostered a sense of stability, certainty, and “American exceptionalism” (Beauregard, 2006) that became bound to a landscape’s images and lifestyles.

FORDIST AND POST-FORDIST CAPITAL ACCUMULATION

The role of suburbanization as a solution to the problem of the 1930s economic malaise, however, eroded during the 1970s with the rise of inflation and global economic stagnation (Walker, 1977, 1981). This period signaled the end of the Fordist “golden years” (1945–1973) and sufficiently fractured the promises and/or expectations of stability, certainty, and prosperity that the traditional American Dream discourse propelled. This period of social, economic, and political restructuring ushered in the post-Fordist period of “flexible accumulation” (1973–present) and neoliberalism as a dominant mode of political gov-ernance across America. As these postwar suburbs aged, surplus real estate, industrial, and finance capital accelerated their flight to the newer, burgeoning, Sunbelt metropolitan regions (such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Houston, and Atlanta) to secure favorable outlets for capital investments. Furthermore, this period of political-economic restructuring was accompanied by a transformation of the American class structure. The White working-class jobs that were the cornerstone of the Fordist “golden years” were lost to capital mobility due to innovations in information technology or rendered obsolete by innovations in manufacturing (Castells, 1989; Ranney, 2003). This led to the reorganization of the U.S. workforce marked by the emergence of a new, professional, white-collar, middle class alongside significant growth in the low-wage service sector (Castells, 1989; Smith, 1996; Ranney, 2003; Harvey, 2005). However, the American Dream discourse remained in the forefront during this period of restructuring (Hochschild, 1995; Miguez, 2007a) as new generations and populations provided the demand that continued to fuel mass suburbaniza-tion in the post-Fordist period (Fishman, 1987; Krause and Sugrue, 2006).6

The 1990s saw the emergence of a “renaissance economy” (Bluestone and Harrison, 2000, p. 2) based on increased consumer spending attributed to the aggregate decline of homeowner equity (Wyly, 2002) and the explosive use of credit cards. Mountains of

6Although suburbas have indeed “diversified” since the early 1990s (Jones-Correa, 2006), socio-economic seg-regation persists (see Wyly and Hammel, 2004; Wilson, 2006; Yang and Jargowsky, 2006; Ashton, 2008). In the Chicago region, Latinos and Blacks have been able to move to the suburbs, but the vast majority remain hyper-segregated and confined to just a few suburbs (Latinos in the western inner ring suburbs and in older satellite cities at the periphery, and Blacks in the southern suburbs; see Howenstine, 2006). In this context, to claim that lower-income minority groups have been able to move to and diversify the suburbs (e.g., Bruegmann, 2005) supports the neoliberal argument that “trickle-down” economics does indeed occur and benefits the entire socio-economic spectrum. However, when confronted with the fact that the vast majority of the lower-income minority groups (Blacks and Latinos) that have entered the suburbs are greatly concentrated in just a few suburbs, maintaining similar levels of socio-economic segregation that have long existed in the inner cities, it becomes clear that these lower-income minority groups have not actually ascended the socio-economic ladder; rather the older inner-ring suburbs in which they live (due to either push factors from gentrification in the city, congregation to communities with familiar residents, or proximity to employment opportunities) have further decayed due to a dwindling tax base caused by continued White flight. As Teaford (2008, p. 59, 161) observes, “throughout the U.S., suburban ghettos perpetuate the American tradition of racial segregation and economic want,” and although they might live in suburbia, it is a “suburban existence far removed from the American Dream.”


fictitious capital were created for corporations and consumers alike (Harvey, 2005). Dur-ing the 1990s, credit card debt increased by 61%, soaring from $432 billion to $1,173 billion (Ranney, 2003, p. 41). And combined with government funding during the 1980s that underwrote the development of the Information Industry (Castells, 1989), the 1990s became a decade of accelerated industrial production and a resurgence of metropolitan expansion.

As rising levels of affluence increased the desire for control of more private space (Lucy and Phillips, 2006), the suburban solution was, in effect, resuscitated in many Rustbelt metropolitan regions during the 1990s. Much of this “affluence,” however, was an illu-sion, and was based on the injection of fictitious capital throughout the domestic economy. Specifically, this “temporal fix” that took place in the 1990s failed to resolve the economic problems of the 1970s and 1980s, merely deferring them to the future (Harvey, 1982; Jessop, 2006). Moreover, the resuscitation of the suburban solution largely occurred as a result of an institutional fix (Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Ashton, 2008) that took place at the end of the 1980s, whereby a major consolidation of financial lenders effectively produced a new landscape for mortgage lending (Hackworth and Wyly, 2003; Wyly, et al., 2006; Ashton, 2008), such as the 40-year and 50-year mortgage, sub-prime variable interest mortgages, and zero down payments (see Immergluck and Smith, 2005; Wyly et al., 2006). These incentives and adjustments were deemed necessary for the expansion of outlets for profitable investment of real estate and finance capital, as a much wider range of the population could suddenly qualify for a mortgage, regardless of how risky those investments might have been (Wyly, 2002; Hackworth and Wyly, 2003; Wyly et al., 2006; Ashton, 2008; Immergluck, 2008). However, as Harvey (1975, p. 137) has stressed, the structure of a widespread debt-encumbered population is “largely predicated on future economic growth” (the consequences of which could be disastrous if at any point this required future growth were to be interrupted).

Accompanying the temporal and institutional fixes of the late 1980s and early 1990s, Rustbelt metropolitan regions experienced a wave of notable central city revival, con-siderable inner suburban decline, and further outer suburban growth (see Orfield, 1997; Wiewel, Persky and Schaeffer, 2002; Lucy and Phillips, 2006; Hackworth, 2007). This process, described by Hackworth (2007) as the “neoliberal spatial-fix,” continued well into the 2000s.7 In this general overview, resuscitating the suburban solution merely represents one aspect of the spatial dimension within the complexities of a larger neoliberal, post-Fordist “spatio-temporal fix” (see Jessop, 2000, 2006; Jessop et al., 2008).

THE CONTEMPORARY PRODUCTION OF NEW SUBURBAN SPACES AND ITS RHETORICAL UNDERPINNINGS: KENDALL COUNTY, IL

This section chronicles the American Dream discourse in Kendall County, Illinois (Fig. 1), a representative example of the current elite American suburb. It is a discourse that per-vades the conversational rhetoric of developers and advertising literature, and has subtly

7It should be stressed that these models (i.e. the “neoliberal spatial-fix”) are simplified explanations of urban transformation occurring on a wider structural level. These macro-scale processes have generally been regionally contingent during both the Fordist and post-Fordist periods, with variations occurring between and within regions (see Hackworth, 2005; Skaburskis and Moos, 2008).


changed in recent years during a period of heightened neoliberalism. The central tenets of the traditional American Dream are now interwoven with new features (see Table 1). The cracks in the old façade have been repaired and recast as an outgrowth of contemporary political, economic, and social conditions (as opposed to viewing the current discourse as a replacement of its previous traditional version).

As variations of this discourse likely exist between suburbs of different demographic composition, it should be stressed that Kendall County represents one suburbanizing area consisting of a substantial White upper-middle-class population. However, as a representa-tive example of the elite American suburb, it also potentially points to a broader discursive fix now unfolding across suburban America. The evidence presented here has been drawn from a wider case study8 (for the period between 2006 and 2009) focusing on the evolution of Kendall County and its recent transformation from a primarily agricultural landscape into a full-fledged outer suburban region.9

8A variety of methods were utilized (compilation of photographs, literature, catalogue of subdivisions, and anon-ymous semi-structured interviews with developers and residents) that aim to examine the production of “place” in Kendall County, Illinois, and to observe the deployment of “American Dream” discourse by developers/ advertisers.9Due to a major concentration of high-tech industries lined up along I-88 and the completion of I-355 in 1989, Naperville (a traditional residential suburb) and Aurora (an older industrial satellite city) essentially coalesced into one gigantic suburban agglomeration during the 1990s (Wang, 2002). Since the early 1990s, the Aurora/Naperville corridor has experienced a major increase in employment and population density that has been a direct response to increasing demand for higher-income housing for those fortunate enough to flee the congestion of the suburban metropolis.

Fig. 1. Kendall County, Illinois within the Greater Chicago metropolitan region (left) and in detail (right).


The Composition of the Post-2000 American Dream Discourse

In the neoliberal age where an ethos of fierce competition and individual culpability dominates (Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Harvey, 2005), the desire for stability, certainty, and a better life for the future remain as important as ever. These desires, embedded in the contemporary American Dream discourse, are now manifest in a romanticized invoking of the “golden years” of the Fordist period (of hope, harmony, and economic resurgence). This perception leaps out of brochures offered by many developers and builders in Kendall County. Here, readers are discursively taken to idyllic small towns, stable White social relations, and “orderly” friendly communities. These references, borrowing from decades-old imagery deployed by real estate developers, invoke nostalgic sentiments for prospec-tive buyers who likely spent their early years in the Fordist suburbs. For example:

In keeping with Yorkville’s traditional values … [we are] big on small town charm and familiar ties to yesterday … Grande Reserve is the place to retain fond memo-ries of the past, where you live and look forward to the future … Think ahead to the

Table 1. The Suburban “american Dream” from The immeDiaTe PoSTwar PerioD Through conTemPorary neoliberal TimeS

Fordist–Keynesian period (1929–1973)

Post-Fordist–Neoliberal period (1973–present)

Features of the “American Dream” discourse

Goal of housing the working middle-class in the detached single-family house

The older features remain and are now intertwined with the following newer features:

Virtues of homeownership and upward mobility

Greater emphasis of the virtues of a meritocracy

Promise of economic security, stability, and safety

Hope for a better future while romanticizing the Fordist “golden years”

The mythologized 19th-century pristine landscape and “agrarian villa”

Works through prevailing fears and anxieties during contemporary global times

“Greening” of the discourse

Characteristics of the suburban landscape

Inclusion (despite racial exclusion)

Exclusion

Mass production of single-family homes

Larger and more expensive single-family homes

Uniform design and conformity Subtle variation of design

Melding of the grid street pattern with the cul-de-sac

Increasing dominance of curvilinear cul-de-sac street pattern

Proliferation of enclosed and/or gated communities

Increasing incorporation of “aestheticized” natural landscapes


things you will enjoy at Grande Reserve … birthday parties, hanging holiday deco-rations, taking the training wheels off her bicycle, watching his first Little League game, celebrating milestone anniversaries and more. (Grande Reserve, 2007)

The dream began over fifty years ago, and has become a tradition … owning a good home, in a good neighborhood with good schools … giving children the same oppor-tunities our parents gave us … is still the American Dream. (Lakewood Springs, 2007)

Spend some time at Eaglecrest … You’ll be dreaming of a return to classic Ameri-cana. (Eaglecrest, 2009)

But there is much more subtlety. Today, residents are concerned about increased energy costs and environmental despoliation in their communities and beyond. During the 1990s, an environmentally sensitive political and social climate crystallized as a growing subur-ban population of voters forced their concerns (rising energy costs, traffic congestion, and the like) into the national spotlight (Jones-Correa, 2006). As a result, this shift significantly threatened the viability of the prevailing form of dispersed suburban development. As the 1990s progressed, this “anti-sprawl” counter-narrative of denigrating such developments as wasteful and socially irresponsible gained considerable traction (see Duany et al., 2000; Hayden, 2002; Daniels, 2009), and necessitated a response within the American Dream discourse.

In this context, the “greening” of the American Dream emerged as a prominent element of the post-2000 version. This “greening” process has affected the discourse in two ways: (1) through the widespread advertising of actual available “green” spaces, “natural” open land, and forest preserves (Fig. 2); and (2) through incorporating the values of energy efficiency. This dual meaning is captured in the following comments by John Zediker, President and CEO of Moser Enterprises and developer of Grande Reserve:

Living green also means choosing a lifestyle and environment to live that promotes the preservation of natural resources … appreciation for nature and an atmosphere that supports an eco-conscious lifestyle. (Nature Abounds, 2007)

The “beautiful rolling land” providing “the best of life and nature at the same time” infuses the discourse at Ashcroft Place (Ashcroft Place, 2009), while the “streaming morn-ing sun through surrounding woodlands” can be experienced at Eaglecrest (Eaglecrest, 2009). Although the role of “nature” in the packaging of suburbanization is not new (see Jackson, 1985), it has again become a salient advertising feature. In short, this discursive element is able to counter critics who argue suburban sprawl destroys the “natural” envi-ronment (see Duany, et al., 2000) by incorporating the preservation of “nature” into the discourse and landscape itself.

In contrast to the traditional discourse, this current “greening” of the contemporary neoliberalized incarnation caters to concerns about conservation, the shrinking of green space, and the ills of “sprawl.” This “eco-friendly” dimension is strongly emphasized in the contemporary narrative, and marks a distinct break with the traditional version (see Daniels, 2009). Essentially, the “greening” of the contemporary discourse is designed to


defuse the negative connotations associated with this type of suburban built-environment, which emerged during the 1990s by providing a “guilt-free” value for potential consumers. And this discursive adjustment reflects the resilience of this space-producing narrative in terms of overcoming emergent obstacles by incorporating them into (and therefore rein-forcing) the discourse itself.

Neoliberal Times and the Suburbanization of Immigrant and Racialized Populations

The current American Dream discourse works through another contemporary fear: the new immigrant horde. This inclusion in the discourse is nuanced and complex. At the core is a subtle invoking of code words—“community,” “neighborhood,” “streets,” “parks and open space”—that have become infused with ominous, immigrant-related meanings. This practice is chronicled as a deft political project by the real estate community in the Chicago area (Wilson and Grammenos, 2005; Grammenos, 2006; Wilson, 2007), and regards such words as akin to hollow vessels that are filled with subtle negative ascriptions. In the pro-cess, they are ideal terms to be deployed to nurture balkanized, fortressed communities whose separation can be understood as logical and rational. The following remarks by residents serve as examples:

I think these words, like community, mean something different for each person. I think it means whatever people value or desire about their own idea of the kind of

Fig. 2. Marketing the natural landscape and environment (photo by author).


community they want … people want to identify with attributes that they value … whether it’s land values, status, parks, rivers and streams … the things that people want to be a part of, they identify with these things, and it’s these things that people associate with community or neighborhood. It means whatever it is about this town or area that people are attracted to, and identify with … and sometimes it’s pretty small, just one thing, a school district or land values, and it’s individualistic by fam-ily. (Interview A, 2009)

The neighborhood is more important than the greater community, people identify with a much smaller local area, especially now that people are coming out from Naperville and Aurora … with community, I think people want friendly, reliable neighbors. Naturally, I want them to be demographically and politically similar to myself … someone trustworthy. Obviously, everyone wants access to good schools, but nice big parks are important for your kids, and you want to feel comfortable taking them there, and to feel safe. (Interview B, 2009)

Each of these discussions captured the kinds of “communities” and “neighborhoods” that these residents value and desire, those offering economic stability, safety, and like-minded people. Thus embedded in these code words is the unspoken exclusion of anything and anyone perceived to deviate from, or threaten, these particular values.

What makes this political project resonate in Kendall County today is fear of a growing Latino population that is infiltrating the nearby older satellite cities of Aurora and Joliet. The latest census estimates for Kendall County reported an increase in Latino popula-tion from 4,086 in 2000 to 12,712 in 2007. As one interviewed long-time county resident noted:

It’s unbelievable how quickly it’s swept from Naperville to Plano … And it’s all people from the city moving here. It’s turning into Naperville. Are there really that many people who can buy a $300,000 house plus the property taxes? Nobody I know can. And now more and more Mexicans are coming too … But I guess this is the way the world works, and the traffic is getting worse and worse. I’m waiting until the time is right to sell, but where am I to go?” (Interview C, 2006)

The recent appearance of several moderate-income “immigrant” subdivisions and rental apartment complexes (i.e., The Reserve at the Fox River) has exacerbated this fear. As one resident stated: “the number of Mexicans in the neighborhood can be determined by counting the Christmas-decorated lawns featuring nativity scenes” (Interview D, 2009). Another resident, who claimed to speak for others, concluded that the presence of a new rental-apartment complex meant that “it was time to move.” As he recounted: “It’s all over. Naperville’s moving in. People are going to be anxious to leave now, and move even farther out” (Interview E, 2006). These long-established stereotypes and fears of a massive immigrant influx are ultimately used to discipline homebuyers in Kendall County. Thus the American Dream discourse now draws on the prevailing social climate of immigrant fears. And language, as a hollow construct, increasingly does the rhetorical bidding for real estate capital under the cover of benevolence and the idyllic.


Combined with the incorporation of the romanticized “golden years” and the sensibili-ties of environmental conservation into the current narrative, this discourse can be read as a mutation of the older traditional version, revised and adjusted within the context of prevailing political, economic, and social climates.

The Meaning-Laden Contemporary Landscape of Kendall County

Like the American Dream discourse, the physical form of this contemporary suburban landscape in Kendall County also functions as a kind of text. Always under construction, it becomes a continuous visual-spatial “carrier” of meanings (Soja, 1989, 1996). This land-scape unequivocally embeds the meanings of the revisionist American Dream discourse as a complex, evolving physical form. In terms of pure physical presence, it should be viewed as a hybrid landscape that represents an amalgamation of pre-existing characteristics (i.e., homeownership, the dominance of the single-family home, exclusionary zoning, automo-bile dependency, and the traditional virtues of the family unit) integrated with several newer components: (1) intensification of the cul-de-sac and curvilinear street patterns; 2) less public entry points to subdivisions; (3) larger size of houses and private lawns; (4) the declining prevalence of the sidewalk and front porch; (5) the intensified “greening” of the landscape; and (6) the increased use of the pervasive clubhouse icon. Although these components are not totally new, they have become increasingly central and salient as prominent physical features here. And the intensification of these features now embod-ies modified, neoliberal tinged meanings. The remainder of this section will assess these features in relation to the contemporary American Dream discourse.

Insulation: The cul-de-sac, winding roads, and limited access. Suburbanization in Kendall County today differs from its previous Fordist incarnation. At the core is a new kind of exclusion that is embedded in its physical form and semiotic content. Here, subtle design variations distinguish houses: less access to the “public” of streets, greater physical separation from roads and other houses, and prevalence of isolated cul-de-sacs. The origins of these physical features lie in a straightforward goal: to discourage unwelcome strang-ers from cruising by in close proximity (Duany et al., 2000). But now this has changed. These physical features now aggressively lash out at people, communicating a defiant trumpeting of elitism and insularity. Based on discussions with these developers, builders, and residents, the interpretation is stark. The values of neoliberalism, incorporated into these features, communicate a proud and intensified individualism and the desire to mark oneself as different and distinctive from a proletarian pack and others who would have communities and society believe in the importance of collectivism and the community. I am a successful being, economically and socially, this ensemble of symbols communi-cates, and I long to be in an exclusive domain that speaks to my discerning and individual-ist tastes. Immigrants go home, it is said, and all others go home, I have made my mark and carved out my spatial turf. If you are interested, go out and carve up your own.

The neoliberal injection of the individualistic sentiments of a meritocratic society into the contemporary American Dream discourse is now well documented (see Johnson, 2006; Miguez, 2007a). Many of these values were subtly revealed during discussions with hom-eowners in Kendall County, who touched on these points when asked to describe at length what these physical features meant to them:


I think they [referring to cul-de-sacs and winding roads] were designed to prevent drive-by’s, you minimize voyeuristic people and through-traffic … it reduces traf-fic flow, so it’s either people you know or people who are lost. It makes the street safer for children too, and you know if there’s a car of thugs, the cops will be called. (Interview A, 2009)

It gives a sense of privacy … people are close to the people they like, and away from the hustle and bustle. You have the breathing room to be your own person … it’s almost like a constitutional right, you in your own castle and you have the right to be left alone … I think the subdivision is a point of entry for allowing people to control their own property, to keep the riff raff out, and the people you don’t like. And, of course, there’s the perception that you’ll live happily ever after. (Interview B, 2009)

There’s a wide range of people who buy into these developments, but there’s defi-nitely a type of person, if they have money, want to show it off, and it’s the newer generation of wealth who does this, and attach their status to their home … But I think most people are simply buying a lifestyle, a whole package of beliefs that go with the house … it’s also the safest way to invest your money, or so it’s perceived … people want close neighbors, BBQ’s, and safety. (Interview F, 2009)

As these discussions revealed, those distinct features of insulation (with the motivations underlying their existence) are now deeply embedded within this landscape. As with the proliferation of gated communities elsewhere across suburban America (see Low, 2003), the intensification of these insular features reflect an elaborate personal outlook that is simultaneously cathartic, aggressively exclusionary, and defiantly class prioritizing. In a social world where fears and desires blend into an entanglement of discursive dreams and ideals, residents opt to live here and communicate their truths while under the sway of the designs of real estate and finance capital.

The sanitization of public space. This evolving suburban form in Kendall County also involves a “cleaning up” and “repairing” of public space—parks, open spaces, and “main streets”—to produce a spotless, upper-class aesthetic micro-turf. These spaces are pro-jected as the heart and soul of an exclusive Kendall County, the leading edge of its values and tastes. These spaces are thus conceived as elaborate communicative devices, the core of a symbolically rich county and set of subdivisions that are to broadcast their values and desires in no ambivalent terms. In this context, these public spaces are conceived as gate-ways to these subdivisions, their metaphorical front yard that guides the observer into the symbolic realm to come. Not surprisingly, then, these public spaces are often spoken of by builders, developers, and planners in the same breath as the subdivisions:

Spend time amid Grande Reserve’s attractive and natural setting, with plenty of scenic country surroundings. Here you’ll find a home where your family can estab-lish roots, thrive and grow. You’ll also find genuine feelings of neighborliness and a comfortable close-knit community environment … There are a variety of homes, neighborhoods, and parks, as well as a central aquatic center and clubhouse. (Grande Reserve, 2007)


Henneberry Woods is a master-planned, family community with hundreds of acres of open space … Henneberry Woods offers a solid foundation in which your family can thrive and grow. (Henneberry Woods, 2009)

Wiseman-Hughes is delicately blending 209 luxury homes with over 91.7 acres of beautiful rolling land, giving you and your family the opportunity to celebrate the rest of life and nature at the same time. Relax and enjoy the subtle charm of the nearly nineteen acres of open space that flows throughout the community. Witness firsthand the graceful maturing of its tree-lined streets, or head over to the near by Fox River and soak up the ever-changing plant life and wildlife. (Ashcroft Place, 2007)

And, as one sales representative reported:

Well, there’s numerous hiking trails, and the Silver Springs State Park is very popu-lar with residents … But here, you got the “tot lots” for the kids, and there’s also plenty of open space for them to play, and you’ve also got the clubhouse. (Interview G, 2007)

These spaces, like the elaborately insulated roads and fortressed homes, communicate a cultural elitism and distaste for the lumpen masses. Specifically, the attraction and promo-tion of these spaces express, at best, an unspoken ambivalence toward those who deviate from this class-based form of social acceptance. Moreover, the majority of these quasi-public spaces (i.e., clubhouses, nature trails, playgrounds) exist entirely within the con-fines of these increasingly balkanized residential “country clubs”:

Life is good when you’re a member of the club. It’s a place where neighbors meet neighbors for fun and fitness, and kids make lasting friendships and treasured mem-ories. If you own a home at Lakewood Springs, you’re a member—it’s as simple as that. (Lakewood Springs, 2007)

These spaces are “public” to the subdivision only, as access is limited to “members” (and friendly outsiders who are invited) while perceived threatening elements are filtered out by the insular design of these new subdivisions.

The greenscaping of Kendall County. Greenscaping, a major physical characteristic of the suburbanization process before the neoliberal era, is now used as a means to exclude others within the hardening geography of a class-based residential mosaic. Whereas previ-ous greenscaping was essentially a cosmetic, land-value–producing attachment to these areas to keep them profitable and appreciating in equity (see Walker, 1981; Muller, 1981; Jackson, 1985), this has now changed. Today greenscaping is additionally mobilized to create an audaciously individualistic, autocratic identity. Like the other physical features discussed, the neoliberal ethos is embedded in this greening process to build “communi-ties” that will unabashedly embrace the most conspicuous forms of consumption and the most virulent of social repugnances.

Lakes, streams, brooks, emotive gardens, and forested canopies (see Fig. 3) become a kind of new nature —a produced nature. It is a nature that embraces and spurns, relishes


an identity and class of people while rejecting all alternatives. Certainly this nature in Kendall County still asserts the pre-neoliberal nature of dreamy, romantic, nested-in-the-natural residential place and community, which is still a major staple for selling land, maintaining housing markets, and fostering capital accumulation. But, neoliberal identity politics are now deeply embedded in this process, and evident in the following remarks from residents:

Well, I think there’s a lot of people coming from the city, you know, yuppies! They think they’re doing a moral good … when they buy these particular houses, people don’t feel like a selfish jerk … it’s like recycling, they’re doing it for a cause, they feel they’re a part of something larger … you get the best of both worlds, to live out here and not feel guilty. (Interview H, 2009)

There were subdivisions going up even when I was growing up, but I never saw names like these, or big signs of the developers … some of the real wealthy ones had names, but it was mainly just the houses … They didn’t have names and identi-ties, but they all do now. The names seem to be attached to the identity of living in a specific development. (Interview A, 2009)

People think they’ll be healthy, and lots of people have dogs … and if there’s area to run around in fields and feel safe, people can take walks, and literally have space

Fig. 3. Gazebo and artificial lake at Lakewood Springs (photo by author).


to breathe … I think most people do care that the natural landscape is not destroyed, even if it’s an artificial nature … I know some people even prefer this kind of nature, rather than dealing with the hassles of actual wilderness. (Interview F, 2009)

In this context, the heightened sensitivity to environmental protection and energy con-servation that emerged during the 1990s remains a serious barrier to the viability of this form of built-environment. As a result, the homes in many of these new subdivisions are fitted with power-reducing technologies designed to minimize energy consumption. More-over, in addition to the emergence of new town center malls, some developers are design-ing subdivisions in a similar walkable city-like format that promotes a more pedestrian and sustainable lifestyle (i.e., Mill Crossing, 2009). Of course, although many of these homes and developments are touted as “eco-friendly,” it must be stressed that they remain automobile-dependent and register some of the highest levels of energy consumption in the world (Hayden, 2002). And, ironically, the “quaint” small town status and the “natural” scenic surroundings systematically advertised by developers continue to diminish with the ensuing “green” development of the region. Although this process has been observed for decades, the “simulation of nature” now operates in new ways. Specifically, it is an evolved representation of nature that now signifies new meanings since Lefebvre (1970/2003, p. 27) wrote the following passage:

Theoretically, nature is shrinking, but the signs of nature are multiplying, replacing and supplanting real “nature.” These signs are mass-produced and sold … Parks and open spaces, the last word in good intentions and bad urban representation, are simply a poor substitute for nature, the degraded simulacrum of the open space char-acteristic of encounters, games, parks, gardens, and public squares.

CONCLUSION

It has been argued here that the suburban American Dream is not a fixed, cemented ideology, but rather a fluid and malleable social formation. As this study has shown, the common hopes, dreams, virtues (e.g., stability, security, homeownership, etc.) and mythol-ogized landscapes that were invoked during the immediate postwar period remain central features of the American Dream discourse in Kendall County, Illinois and countless sub-urban regions like it. But this fluid and evolving formation now embodies new evocative images and meanings in the context of contemporary neoliberalism. The Fordist “golden years” are now romanticized as a prosperous time of stability and harmony that can once again be realized. The image of suburban prosperity is still strongly advertised and tells consumers it will provide self-sustainable, safe, and desirable communities. However, this revised and updated version of the American Dream now nurtures these hopes and desires during a time of heightened economic uncertainty, chronic employment insecurity, sen-sitivity to environmental concerns, and the suburbanization of racialized and immigrant populations. In short, this discursive representation remains sensitive and responsive to changing political climates, economic conditions, and sociocultural norms as it continues to enliven capital accumulation.


There is a distinct irony to the discourse of the American Dream. Although it is adroitly deployed to suggest a permanent state of tranquility and happiness, the creative destruc-tive reality of capitalist society renders the realization of these desired emotions to be temporary at best (Miguez, 2007a). Consumers, then, are sold an image-rich landscape of permanence that cannot come to fruition. The haunting reality that “all that is solid melts into air” (Berman, 1982) is relentlessly cloaked as capital strives to fuel the engine of accumulation.

This study of Kendall County raises some key questions about the future of the American Dream discourse. Will the contradiction of what it suggests and sells versus what is cur-rently being delivered (i.e., economic malaise, financial and job insecurities) result in a substantially new or qualitatively different discursive formation? And as the U.S. suburban housing market continues to be seriously affected by the economic crisis that began in 2008 (Leroux and Reardon, 2007; Roeder, 2007, 2008; Plano Record, 2007 [23(12)], 2009 [35(1)]), what are the potential impacts on the American culture historically associated with this style of built-environment?

Even though these questions remain unanswered, it is difficult to imagine a radically reconstructed version of this nation-defining ideology. As Johnson (2006, p. 172) points out, “since many of us who are in positions of power to implement social change are directly benefiting from the existence of the very structures that require alteration, it is hard to imagine the dissolution of them.” Whether or not major change in the discourse is on the horizon, new suburban areas like Kendall County will continue to be sites of growth and development, as the capitalist economy continues to rely on suburbanization as a major staple of capital accumulation. However, the legitimacy of the contemporary American Dream discourse has been sufficiently weakened by the ongoing global economic crisis, and this presents an ideal opportunity to further critically dismantle this discursive com-plex and expose the power relations operating behind it.

REFERENCES

Archer, J., 2005, Architecture and Suburbia: From English Villa to American Dream House, 1960 – 2000. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Ashcroft Place by Wiseman Hughes, brochure collected March 3, 2007. Ashcroft Place by Wiseman Hughes. Retrieved April 26, 2009 from http://www.

wisemanhughes.com/communities/ashplace/index.phpAshton, P., 2008, Advantage or disadvantage?: The changing institutional landscape of

underserved mortgage markets. Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 43, 352–402.Beauregard, R. A., 2006, When America Became Suburban. Minneapolis, MN: The

University of Minnesota Press.Berman, M., 1982, All that is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. New

York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc.Bluestone, B. and Harrison, B., 2000, Growing Prosperity: The Battle for Growth with

Equity in the Twenty-First Century: Boston, MA/New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Brenner, N. and Theodore, N., 2002, Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neo-liberalism.” Antipode, Vol. 34, 349–379.


Brenner, R., 2002, The Boom and the Bubble: The U.S. in the World Economy. London, UK: Verso.

Bruegmann, R., 2005, Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Castells, M., 1989, The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restruc-turing, and the Urban-Regional Process. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Daniels, T., 2009, A trail across time: American environmental planning from city beauti-ful to sustainability. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 75, No. 2, 178–192.

Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., and Speck, J., 2000, Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York, NY: North Point Press.

Eaglecrest by Kennsington Homes. Retrieved April 25, 2009 from http://www. kensingtonhome.com/communities/grandereserve/home.html

Fishman, R., 1987, Bourgeois Utopias; The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Forsyth, A., 2007, Re-defining the dream on the American stage. In R. Miguez, editor, American Dreams: Dialogues in U.S. Studies. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press, 207–233.

Garreau, J., 1991, Edge City: Life on the New Urban Frontier. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Giddens, A., 1979, Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradic-tion in Social Analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Giesel, C., 2007, Feminisms: Rethinking the American Dream. In R. Miguez, editor, American Dreams: Dialogues in U.S. Studies. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press, 42–57.

Grammenos, D., 2006, Latino Chicago. In R. P. Greene, M. J. Bauman, and D. Grammenos, editors, Chicago’s Geographies: Metropolis for The 21st Century. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers, 205–216.

Grande Reserve, brochure collected March 3, 2007 [see also http://www.gladstonehomes.com/communities/GR/GR_brochure.pdf].

Hackworth, J., 2005, emergent urban forms, or emergent post-modernisms? A comparison of large U.S. metropolitan areas. Urban Geography, Vol. 26, 484–519.

Hackworth, J., 2007, The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Hackworth, J., and Wyly, E., 2003, Social polarization and the politics of low income mortgage lending in the United States. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Vol. 85, No. 3, 149–165.

Harvey, D., 1975, The political economy of urbanization in advanced capitalist societies: The case of the United States. Urban Affairs Annual, Vol. 9, 119–163.

Harvey, D., 1982, The Limits to Capital. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Harvey, D., 1989, The Urban Experience. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University

Press.Harvey, D., 2005, A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.Hayden, D., 2002, Redesigning the American Dream: Gender, Housing, and Family Life.

New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.


Henneberry Woods. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from http://www.henneberrywoods.com/Hirsch, A. R., 1998, Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940–

1960. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, second revised edition.Hochschild, J. L., 1995, Facing up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of

the Nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Howenstine, E., 2006, Race and income in the Chicago area. In R. P. Greene, M. J. Bauman,

and D. Grammenos, editors, Chicago’s Geographies: Metropolis for The 21st Century. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers, 163–171.

Immergluck, D., 2008, From the sub-prime to the exotic: Excessive mortgage market risk and foreclosures. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 74, No. 1, 59–76.

Immergluck, D. and Smith, G., 2005, Measuring the effect of subprime lending on neighborhood foreclosures: Evidence from Chicago. Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 40, 362–389.

Jackson, K., 1985, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Jessop, B., 2000, The crisis of the national spatio-temporal fix and the tendential ecologi-cal dominance of globalizing capitalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 24, 323–360.

Jessop, B., 2006, Spatial fixes, temporal fixes and spatio-temporal fixes. In N. Castree and D. Gregory, editors, David Harvey: A Critical Reader. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publish-ers, 142–166.

Jessop, B., Brenner, N., and Jones, M., 2008, Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environ-ment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 26, 389–401.

Johnson, H., 2006, The American Dream and the Power of Wealth: Choosing Schools and Inheriting Inequality in the Land of Opportunity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones-Correa, M., 2006, Reshaping the American Dream. In K. Kruse and T. Sugrue, editors, The New Suburban History. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 183–204.

Keil, R. and Graham, J., 1998, Reasserting nature: Constructing urban environments after Fordism. In B. Braun and N. Castree, editors, Remaking Reality: Nature at the Mille-nium. New York, NY: Routledge, 100–125.

Krause, K., and Sugrue, T., editors, 2006, The New Suburban History. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakewood Springs by Lakewood Homes, brochure collected on March 3, 2007.Lang, R. and LeFurgy, J., 2007, Boomburbs: The Rise of America’s Accidental Cities.

Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Lefebvre, H., 1970/2003, The Urban Revolution. R. Bonnono, translator. Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota Press.Lefebvre, H., 1973/1976, The Survival of Capitalism: Reproduction of the Relations of

Production. F. Bryant, translator. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Lefebvre, H., 1974/1991, The Production of Space. D. Nicholson-Smith, translator.

Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Leroux, C. and Reardon, P., 2007, Leaps of faith drive ever-expanding ‘burbs—‘Drive

until you find your house.” Chicago Tribune, November 25.


Low, S., 2003, Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lucy, W. and Phillips, D., 2006, Tomorrow’s Cities, Tomorrow’s Suburbs. Chicago, IL and Washington, DC: American Planning Association, Planners Press.

Miguez, R., 2007a, editor, American Dreams: Dialogues in U.S. Studies. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholar Press.

Miguez, R., 2007b, The American Dreams: A brief historical outline. In R. Miguez, editor, American Dreams: Dialogues in U.S. Studies. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2–33.

Mill Crossing by Pasquinelli and Portrait Homes, 2009. Retrieved May 11, 2009 from http://www.pasquinelli.com/Chicago/MillCrossing.aspx

Muller, P., 1981, Contemporary Suburban America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Nature abounds in Grande Reserve in Yorkville, Plainfield Sun. Retrieved May 12, 2007 from

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/plainfieldsun/classifieds/homes/380029,3_ 7_CEN9_MOSER_S1.

Orfield, M., 1997, Metropolitics; A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Ranney, D., 2003, Global Decisions, Local Collisions: Urban Life in the New World Order. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Register, R., 2006, Ecocities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Roeder, D., 2007, Chapter 11 for Neumann. Chicago Sun-Times, October 23.Roeder, D., 2008, Kimball Hill Files Chap. 11. Chicago Sun-Times, April 24.Rome, A., 2001, The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of

American Environmentalism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Singer, A., Hardwick, S., and Brettell, B., editors, 2008, Twenty-First Century Gateways:

Immigrant Incorporation in Suburban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institu-tion Press.

Skaburskis, A. and Moos, M., 2008, The redistribution of residential property values in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver: Examining neoclassical and Marxist views on changing investment patterns. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 40, 905–927.

Smith, N., 1996, The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. New York, NY: Routledge.

Soja, E., 1989, Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London, UK: Verso.

Soja, E., 1996, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other Real-And-Imagined Places. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Teaford, J., 2008, The American Suburb: The Basics. New York, NY: Routledge.Walker, R., 1977, The Suburban Solution: Urban Geography and Urban Reform in the

Capitalist Development of the United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-ment of Geography and Environmental Engineering, Johns Hopkins University.

Walker, R., 1978, The transformation of urban structure in the nineteenth century and the beginnings of suburbanization. In K. Cox, editor, Urbanization and Conflict in Market Societies. Chicago, IL: Maaroufa Press, 165–212.


Walker, R., 1981, A Theory of suburbanization: Capitalism and the construction of urban space in the United States. In M. Dear and A. Scott, editors, Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society. New York, NY: Methuen Young Books, 383–430.

Wang, Y. Q., 2002, Urban land cover change in northeastern Illinois: A Landstat view from 1972–1997. In W. Wiewel and J. Persky, editors, Suburban Sprawl, Private Decisions and Public Policy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 25–41.

Wilson, D., 2006, The growing socio-spatial polarization in Chicago. In R. P. Greene, M. J. Bauman, and D. Grammenos, editors, Chicago’s Geographies: Metropolis for The 21st Century. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers, 189–204.

Wilson, D., 2007, Cities and Race: America’s New Black Ghetto. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wilson, D. and Grammenos, D., 2005, Gentrification, discourse, and the body: Chicago’s Humboldt Park. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 23, 295–312.

Wiewel, W., Persky, J., and Schaeffer, K., 2002, Less sprawl, greater equity: The poten-tial for revenue sharing in the Chicago Region. In D. Squires, editor, Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Responses. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 255–292.

Wyly, E., 2002, Mortgaged metropolis: Evolving urban geographies of residential lending. Urban Geography, Vol. 23, No. 1, 3–30.

Wyly, E., Atia, M., Foxcroft, H., Hammel, D., and Phillips-Watts, K., 2006, American home: Predatory mortgage capital and neighborhood spaces of race and class exploita-tion in the United States. Geografiska Annaler B, Vol. 88, 105–132.

Wyly, E. and Hammel, D., 2004, Gentrification, segregation, and discrimination in the American urban system. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 36, 1215–1241.

Yang, R. and Jargowsky, P., 2006, Suburban development and economic segregation in the 1990s. Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 28, No. 3, 253–273.

INTERVIEWS CITED

Interview A; resident, August 1, 2009.

Interview B; resident, August 1, 2009.

Interview C; resident, August 27, 2006.

Interview D; resident, January 3, 2009.

Interview E; resident, August 27, 2006.

Interview F; resident, August 1, 2009.

Interview G; with development representative, Gladstone Homes at Grande Reserve, March 3, 2007.

Interview H; resident, August 2, 2009.

Documents

Discourse analysis