The American Dream
One of the more interesting arguments in housing and community development connects the narrative of the American Dream–or more specifically the public and private efforts that allow(ed) it to be pursued–to disinvestment in the inner city. “The Geography of Opportunity” by DUSP Professor Xavier de Souza Briggs really crystallizes this argument.
An inter-generational concept of the American Dream would center on family and mobility. Since colonial times, American was known as the “Land of Opportunity,” a place that pulled people because of the chance for a better individual chance of success. In the 20th century, the American Dream took on connotation of moving to the suburbs, buying a home and designing the ideal environment for childrearing. When you even consider the magnitude of remittances from the US from immigrants to other countries, I think it becomes even clearer how much family and mobility are critical components of the American Dream.
What’s the catch though?
Though the racial nature of it is less pronounced these days, the American Dream in the 20th century was synonymous with white families moving out of inner cities to suburbs. While people can certainly vote with their feet (as the saying goes), there is more to the story. The mobility led to the creation of new towns on the outskirts of central cities. These new suburban governments balkanized the need for balanced tax revenues and services in metropolitan regions. Suburbs have lower property taxes, which is possible because their governments are not responsible for all the services that central cities provide. However, other aspects of that which central cities provide (hospitals, civic institutions, economic bases, etc.) are public goods and benefit everybody in the region.
As a result, one could argue that the collective realization American Dream has equated the abandonment of cities.
Suburbs use various private and public mechanisms to exclude people of color and poor people. In the past, this has taken many forms that were much more overtly racial than today: the threat of fire-bombing, realtor steering, neighborhood associations coming together to purchase property, racially-based restrictive covenants, zoning laws that favor $500,000 1/2 acre minimum homes, legal and extralegal barriers to apartments, resistance to public transportation and a vast amount of other actions.
Thus, the American Dream was maintained by institutionalizing lack of opportunity.
It was also federal policies that facilitated suburbanization of America. The highway system that made commuting feasible was the result of federal policy. There has been significant suburban (and racial) bias in federally insured home mortgages, mortgage lending and underwriting standards.
