In our class discussion “Urban Policy and the Rise of the Suburb,” we discussed Herbert Gans’ “Social Life: Suburban Homogeneity and Conformity” and Kenneth Jackson’s “Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream: How Washington Changed the American Housing Market.” These readings focused on the federal policies that accelerated the inequitable formation of the suburbs and the role of homogeneity in suburban life.
Jackson discusses the role federal policies played in shaping the housing market. The inherent bias of these policies had many effects. First, the Federal Highway Act of 1921, 1924, and 1956 provided the funding to create the extensive highway systems we know today. This, in conjunction with increased automobile use made previously uninhabitable lands accessible and feasible for everyday residency. Secondly, the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) in 1933 set up appraisal guidelines that laid the groundwork for racist redlining practices while the Federal Housing Administration in 1934 removed the financial risk of home ownership and standardized construction practices. Finally, the Veterans Administration Mortgage Guarantee in 1944 accelerated mass contraction of homes in the suburbs which were easily attainable only for the homogenous demographic of veterans.
Gans then goes on to discuss the myths of homogeneity in the suburbs, arguing that they were both more diverse and less detrimental than commonly thought. However, what was an important point in our discussion was not about whether his argument was logical and accurate, but highlighting the fact that homogeneity itself isn’t the issue. Rather it is the stark inequity between the groups’ living conditions. Connecting back to the results of the federal policies, neighborhoods with African American residents and older buildings were marked as undesirable, resulting in the divestment of funds from the area. This financial divestment had numerous deleterious effects on the minority populations living there.
The questions that are lingering with me have to do with Gans’ claim that “suburban life (and life of the outer city) is more reliant on quasi-primary ties” and the effects of suburban life on the residents (Class lecture slides 9/11). While “relationships between neighbors are more intimate than secondary ties”, the transient nature of them make them less intimate than primary ties (Class lecture slides 9/11). Historically, such relationships are often considered to be negative, fostering hyperactive and superficial social lives. However, I found it very interesting to think of such relationships as a continuation of urban anonymity into suburban life. It could be argued that a commuter that leaves each morning and comes back to the privacy of their individual housing unit could be afforded a similar level of privacy and anonymity as an city dweller. Additionally, the proximity of suburban residents does not necessarily indicate shared values or a sense of community beyond child rearing, which is also shaped by differing belief systems. This argument can be furthered in considering how the opportunity for young married couples to move away from family residencies to create their own life through suburban home ownership. Not only does it demonstrate that the desire for autonomy and privacy was pervasive, but it also shows how these populations fulfilled these desires in the suburban setting.
However, I do agree that the lack of heterogeneity in suburban areas, even if less severe than originally thought, has drawbacks. While there is some truth to Gans’ claim that exposure to diversity does not necessarily translate into relationships and tolerance, the persistent segregation that results from 20th century housing policies and the development of the suburbs perpetuates a cycle of racial turnover, racial covenants, and redlining practices. These processes then maintain racial segregation which has significant negative impacts on African Americans in the U.S.. Overall, I am left wondering where we can start to begin fixing the long, complex history of institutional racism, segregation, and the American ghetto.
Gans discussion of homogeneity in the suburbs being more diverse and less detrimental than society originally thought almost masks the underlying problem at hand. While homogeneity in the suburbs definitely has its drawback, as you discussed in your blog post, the real issue at hand is the inequality amongst African Americans and whites that was established by federal policies.
African Americans got pushed not outward but inward into the inner cities and placed in “undesirable” and red lined areas. By almost “containing” African Americans to a segregated part of the city, the government was subsequently creating the ghettos and the downward trajectory of economic opportunity that Sharkey discussed later on in his text. While the government could argue that its policies were not intentionally racists, the outcomes of their policies can not be disputed . Placed in neighborhoods that are “undesirable” and falling apart, African Americans started to live in communities that had a great divestment of funds These financial divestment had multiple negative effects on the community and as a result, the African American neighborhoods never were able to transition out of the ghetto reputation. As a result, the ghetto as a failing neighborhood has almost reinforced an idea in African Americans that they are failures and can never make it outside of their contained neighborhood. The policies of the government led to this self-fulfilling prophecy and cycle of poverty.