This week: Political Imaginations
einat manoff
Perhaps the better title for this week's readings and discussion
should have been 'Homes and Work: Looking Beyond Speculation Toward a
Political Imagination '. I'm sure you'll have lots of interesting
thoughts to share.
Hayden, Dolores. 1980. What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like?
Speculations on Housing, Urban design, and Human Work. Signs 53,
Supplement. Women and the American City. PP. 187-170
Saegert, S., Fields, D., & Libman, K. 2009. Deflating the Dream:
Radical Risk and the Neoliberalization of Homeownership. Journal of
Urban Affairs. 31(3): 297-317.
Looking forward, _Einat
Simon Mertner Vind
Placing the responsibility alone on the individual and not bad
structures/politics is either the biggest fraud or the most genius discourse
– dependent on how you look at it.
It is an indisputable fact that the focus on individual responsibility has
dominated the Neoliberal political regime and still does. Herman Caine,
Republican candidate and pizza king: “If you don’t have a job and you’re not
rich, blame yourself (0.35 minutes into:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHMEC8Xk9cg).
We see how strong this perspective is in both texts. In Deflating the Dream
by Saegert we read the homeowner’s (tragically) stories and experience about
their households; the mortgage system that both made the purchase of the
possible and the reimbursement impossible; the American dream. It is
extremely interesting to read how some of them never question the American
Dream (the part of the dream concerning your own house) although they have
been so obviously screwed by the lenders, the banks and the whole financial
system that gets bailed out by the government no matter how crazy risk they
take because they are too big to fail. It should now clear for everybody
that too many households were taking loans that never should have been
accepted in the first place – loans that were created by the finance sector
and accepted by the government.
Who’s to blame? The institutions that made the subprime loans possible or
the individual that accepted the loans? That is a typical
individual/structure discussion and for me, contrary to Herman Caine (okay,
I admit it’s a cheap trick to distance yourself to Caine, Palin and these
kind of people), this is a perfect example that illustrates the
private-public partnership’s most impressive achievement: persuading the
individuals, the households, and the life world that structures doesn’t
exists(they say the same about the devil ;-) ) and you, and you alone, is
the architect of your own fortune.
This leads me to the next text, “What would a non-sexist city look like?” by
Hayden. As much as I like the critical analysis, I can’t help question the
solution. Before criticizing, I should just make clear that I am very biased
when reading texts about households/house roles/ because of the baggage I’m
carrying: I’m from Denmark in Scandinavia where the welfare state doxa is
the dominating discourse – and not the American Dream. Well, as a
Scandinavian it is very interesting to read what is not written: the role of
the state in households and childcare. One of the cornerstones in the
welfare state project was to get women working and therefore childcare to
some extent became a structural responsibility: From the age of 6 month to
school start we have daily nursery homes.
Is it naïve to believe that without structural projects like the welfare
state project women are doomed to be the primary care takers of children and
household? Well, I think that is what I believe and this also frames my
understanding on the whole HOUSE project: it is another example of how
misleading analyses can be if one: 1) doesn’t acknowledge that you are not
the only architect of every parts of your own life, 2) doesn’t acknowledge
that structures such as the welfare state actually can be a liberating
factor and deregulation the constraining.
Simon
William Cawthern
The issues confronted by Hayden and Saegert, Fields & Libman constitute what many Americans believe to be facts of life: the role of the woman in the kitchen, and citizens must own their own homes. I think both articles do a good job of explaining how these core tenets of American life evolved. But what I really appreciate about these articles is that they are challenging the norms, the status quo of “civilized” people. The trends that “What Would a Non-Sexist City be Like?” and “Deflating the Dream” illuminate how silly it is what we take for granted and how that has molded our built environments.
Women, traditionally constrained to the role of the homemaker, have been relegated to a class below men. To compound this, the resources available to help women – daycare, shopping, etc – conduct their “motherly” duties separate women from their own personal identities. In response, Hayden proposes that communities adapt a new layout that enables neighborhoods to work together to raise kids, thus relieving the burden of women who want to work outside of the home. Written in the 1980s, I think Hayden would be happy with the progress we have made as a society in empowering women to develop careers; likewise, the trend of stay-at-home dads has been growing in recent years. While I think we are still short of gender equality in the workplace, we have improved since letting go of the nostalgia for the 1950s Mom and Dad America. Regardless, the HOMES movement that Hayden supports would benefit everyone, since it is based on the idea of communal space and sharing responsibility.
Reading this article made me wonder – what would have happened if women had “been in charge” all along? In other words, as opposed to the male-dominated cities that we have inherited, what would a female-dominated city be like? Would we be so motivated to change that? I have no answer for it, but Hayden succeeded in forcing me to re-imagine norms.
Much as men and male-interests encouraged us to think of women as unimportant, neoliberalism has encouraged us to think of homeownership as the ideal. We are made to believe that owning your own home – often a detached single-family house in the suburbs – is integral to being a U.S. citizen. Benefits are written into the taxes we pay. But the advantages of homeownership (pride, privacy, a gift to one’s children) are overshadowed by the recent collapse of the economy which was in part due to too many people underwater on their mortgage. In short, banks gave people lines of credit for a new home and told them they could afford it, even though it was easy to see they could not. I think this shows what happens when structural values dictate too strongly the actions of individuals. The ideal of owning your own home backfired on many, and they can’t escape the economic hole that was dug by the “American dream.”
Both the articles this week illustrate how values and structural power intersect. And it is only a matter of time before people realize there is more than one value system to live by, whether it is supported by the mainstream or not.
bradley brashears
While reading the week’s readings, I couldn’t help but think of the current Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demonstrations occurring across the country. Demonstrators are protesting social and economic inequalities that ninety-nine percent of the US population endures, all at the mercy of large corporations and inadequate government intervention. The right to own your own home in America has been a key component of inequality and has been for the better part of the last century. The concept of home ownership and pursuing the “American Dream” has been inscribed into the human psyche as a symbol of status, identity, and a sense of belonging. As many American households have succumbed to foreclosure and bankruptcy, the ability to hold on to the American Dream has become virtually impossible.
Inequalities in the U.S. housing market have always run deep. “White, male skilled workers are far more likely to be home-owners than members of minority groups and women, long denied equal credit or equal access to housing” (Hayden, 171). Lending institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have red-lining practices that have largely prevented minority groups from qualifying for home mortgages and loans. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 1970s resulted in legislative efforts to reduce the disparity of home ownership among minority groups. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 was passed in an attempt to reduce inequalities in the housing market. However, in the 1980s, the Reagan administration sought to reduce the role of the federal government by passing responsibilities to the state level. Government intervention decreased and restrictions were removed, thus beginning the deregulation of the free market. This became known as neoliberalism, in which many public programs were drastically reduced or eliminated and the increasingly unregulated private sector took over. The free market, relying on consumerism, focused on the idea of selling the American Dream. However, because of deregulation efforts, many of the lending institutions “not subject to CRA regulation also led to new, inclusionary, and profitable lending practices that resulted in higher interest rates and greater risk of foreclosure for minority, lower socioeconomic status, and female-headed households” (Saegert, 300).
In the 1990s, the Clinton administration sought to decrease the disparity of homeownership among minority groups, especially African-Americans, by calling for more regulation in the housing market through building equity accumulation for such households. “For example, Clinton-era CRA regulations changed the spatial emphasis of CRA by requiring loans to low- and moderate-income households, regardless of the economic status on the neighborhood. This change had the effect of increasing the percentage of African Americans and Latinos who were able to purchase homes in predominantly white neighborhoods with loans from CRA lenders” (Saegert, 301). However, once George W. Bush took office deregulation returned continuing America’s long history with inequality in the housing market. During this time, lenders targeted minority households with subprime loans which led to their ultimate demise. “ [D]ebt has outpaced equity accumulation for low-income, minority, and female-headed households because of the disproportionate targeting of subprime loans to these households. The foreclosure crisis suggests that the most straightforward goal for expanding homeownership, the accumulation of wealth and its intergenerational transmission, has gone awry for many of the very households it was intended to benefit: minorities, female-headed households, and low-income families” (Saegert, 302). “Many of those who became homeowners were able to buy because of the relaxation of underwriting standards, risk-based pricing of loans, and the marketing of homeownership to virtually every household. They were financially fragile and placed in the economy in particularly vulnerable and risky locations” (Saegert, 307). Once the housing market crashed in 2008, many of these households faced foreclosure and mounting economic conditions that exacerbated the long standing inequalities of the US housing market. Minority groups, female-headed households, and low-income households fell victim to a volatile and unstable market.
Presently, OWS and numerous demonstrations across the country are battling for equality for the ninety-nine percent that have been affected by the worldwide economic crisis. Protestors are demanding a new economy – an economy that evenly distributes its resources to all, not just the one percent at the top. Many households across the country, especially minority, female-headed, and low-income households have been deeply affected by the economic downturn that has been building for some time. America has had a long affair with discrimination and inequality, which have resulted in widespread disparities that many are fed up with. Hopefully, the demonstrations and efforts of the American public will lead to fundamental changes that are important for the people to move forward, leaving no one behind based on racial, sex, and socioeconomic differences.
-Bradley
Samuël Poisson
First, some related links…
A movie, Cleveland versus Wall Street,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wr27nOXfuE&feature=related
On January 11, 2008, Josh Cohen and his
associates, lawyers in the city
of Cleveland, assign to justice 21 banks that they deem
responsible for
foreclosures that are devastating their city. But banks on
Wall Street that
they attack by all means oppose the opening of proceedings.
Cleveland vs. Wall Street tells the story of a trial
that should have
happened. A trial of cinema, including history, the
protagonists and their
stories are real ...
And the lighter side of the crisis : McMansions as student housing …
Actually, even if this article seems trivial in front of the social and individual disaster of the crisis, it is still giving some interesting possibilities of interpretation : in the end the State, i.e. tax payers, is paying. In an other world (difficult to think without the help of utopia), there would be federal programs for student housing, with enough funding to cover the needs.
But in the real world, the path of public program is far more complicated.
For decades ( around 150 years actually), the housing sector has been working in order to turn any kind of public intervention toward its interests. William Levitt, the father of modern suburbia, said “utopia would be get rid of the government, except in its proper function of an insurance agency”. The sentence expresses a rare honesty. A real liberal point of view is never reached, the discourse against governmental action is part of the neo liberal ideology, but the actual neo liberal world definitely need the State to survive. The very subtle part of it is the achievement of a self-contradictory paradigm that do not –until now- destruct itself, but become bigger, fed by that inherent contradiction.
The discourse is so efficient that most of homeowners are unable to see that their homeownership would not have been possible without federal subsidies going to the affluent through tax deduction on mortgage interest. The “mansion subsidies” are already a public program, but an invisible one. The downturn of the housing market make it visible. The market for McMansions only exist because of State intervention, and since the State “invested” in banks in 2008, one could considers that it virtually “owns” those mansions (or at least the delta between the market prices before and after 2008). As a result, students can afford living in those pretentious tasteless houses.
Both texts deal with an entire system of values, show how much what is often described as an economical system is much more complex and complete. The dominant discourse stresses today economical aspects, but the reasons invocated in the 19th century had more to do with moral. It is the strength of the American dream ideology to include such a large spectrum of fields, making ideology invisible as such, becoming “common sense”.
The moral starting point gives birth to suburbia, which result in a freeze of gendered and class division of work. Today’s point of view tends to consider the constraint of suburbia, especially for women, as an accident. But it was intended to be so.
Hayden’s utopia to transform suburban neighborhoods sounds clever, simple, obvious. But again, where should we start? Who should start? The article was written in 1979, and is still extremely up to date. It is a pleasure to read it, but at the same time it is asking “what happened in the last 30 years? Why do these experiments stay experiments?”
The conclusion of Deflating the dream gives some elements of a Marxist answer: the crisis is necessary to make change happen. Experimenting the collapse of a world leads individuals to “redefine citizenship beyond its neoliberal confines”. Shall we act in order to make the collapse happen even faster ?
Le 14/11/11 14:15, einat manoff a écrit :
Tess Bath
We’ve spent a lot of time in this class deconstructing naturalized urban form, from traffic segregation to slum formation to, in my most recent reading, the nature city/dualism. Each time I think I’ve got a hold on things a new text comes along and shakes them up again – which is great – but makes evident the alarming power of space in shaping my social understanding. This is exactly what Dolores Hayden’s piece did for me. While not unfamiliar with many aspects of her critique, formerly vague ideas became perfectly clear and those that were new were accessible and succinct.
I was surprised at my failure to thoroughly critique the domestic sphere prior to this reading – things that felt so blatantly obvious once brought to my attention had never occurred to me before. I found myself saying “OH! That’s right the domestic work is done in isolation from the rest of the family” and “YES! Everyone is required to buy their own vacuum, lawnmower, car, etc. because NOTHING IS COMMUNAL!” While communal life is something I’ve engaged with before, I think I had mentally segregated it from mainstream and urban design, and failed to recognize how its implementation radically effects consumer culture. I found Hayden’s attempt to layer it on top of existing highly privatized spaces refreshing. Although I’ve called into question the individualism behind the private/domestic sphere and the suburban model I had failed to call into question certain aspects of its special articulation. Imagining living situations where day-to-day activities aren’t private problems with private solutions was liberating. It made me feel as though summer camp never has to end - AWESOME.
I can’t recall which text we read that explicitly stated that tolerance can’t be achieved without those that are marginalized being present, but the idea of a space that promotes extensive interaction between formerly segregated groups (as in the one including former mental patients, the elderly, and the unmarried) is something I really believe in. I think the only way to permanently remove the stigma is by engaging with those that are stigmatized. While I recognize a wide-spread implementation of HOMES is perhaps unrealistic, I think it’s important that they exist, so that we are able to physically experience and understand what an alternative to normative domestic space feels like. People are hesitant to adopt anything radically different from their familiar, which is why exposing, and perhaps even familiarizing people to different forms is so important. Sometimes our imagination alone fails to take us there and we need something material.
“Deflating the Dream” explains how the crisis of capitalism led to the creation of new markets in the form of high-risk loans to low-income and marginalized communities formerly excluded from home ownership. What is significant about this text is its focus on the ways in which the neoliberal discourse shaped and shapes the subjectivities of homeowners. Again, we see the powerful and intimate effects of something seemingly innocuous, whether it be the rhetoric of the neoliberal agenda or the hidden violence of domestic space.
Juan Carlos Quiridumbay
In “Deflating The Dream: radical risk and the neoliberalization of
homeownership,” Susan Saegert explains the importance of owning a
home, which symbolizes status in society. I compared this ideology
with my country’s, Ecuador. In Ecuador, since the 1980s a lot of
people became home owners because the economy was better and there
were a lot of jobs available for its citizens. Nowadays we have seen a
drastic changed due to the United States economic crisis. Ecuador’s
economy is not better, but worse, homes have been lost, people have no
jobs, and even the school systems have being affected because there
are not enough subsidies to support them. This is also seen in many
cities in the United States, where welfare has been affected and there
is not enough subsidies to help the ones in need, specially the ones
who have lost their homes.
In “What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing,
Urban Design, and Human Work,” Dolores Hayden explains how
architecture and city planning is a way to ensure a certain form of
living. In this context how men had more power than women. And how the
single suburban home manifest existing gender roles. For example, man
worked, became home owners, whereas the women were “house managers,”
taking care of children, husband, maintain the home, doing chores,
etc. Due to this Dolores Hayden suggest collective living for men and
women to participate in equal household work, such as cooking,
childcare and chores. By having cooperative living, it would reduce
the belief of “woman's place is the home,” allowing them to have the
equal opportunity to be in the workforce and have the access to
"social and material needs of being a parent."
Also the article points out some of built structures with cooperative
attributes that served women who enter the workforce and were single
parents. One project was Otto Fick, in Copenhagen in 1903. Which this
allow women to get access to have day care assistance and other
resources for free, allowing them to get a job to sustain their
families. Also the Fiona House, which had shared baby-sitting and day
care. The relations of this structures was that some of the residents
would be employed by the development itself.
The article also offers examples of modern city plan, such as Radburn,
NJ and Baldwin hills, LA, that had some ideas of cooperative living,
this happen by taking down private lots and adding communal green
space to these homes. These spaces benefit women and also children
because they did have more spaces to socialize in.
I also found this article very interesting because from where i come
from, we did not have "collective houses" in the 1980s. The roles of
the women was to stay home and do the chores. Whereas men were the
income provider. Also, there were no built structures, such as Otto
Fick, that allow women to have day care and baby-sitting assistance
when they wanted to have a job.
On Nov 14, 6:43 pm, Tess Bath <tessbat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We’ve spent a lot of time in this class deconstructing naturalized urban
> form, from traffic segregation to slum formation to, in my most recent
> reading, the nature city/dualism. Each time I think I’ve got a hold on
> things a new text comes along and shakes them up again – which is great –
> but makes evident the alarming power of space in shaping my social
> understanding. This is exactly what Dolores Hayden’s piece did for me. While
> not unfamiliar with many aspects of her critique, formerly vague ideas
> became perfectly clear and those that were new were accessible and succinct.
>
> I was surprised at my failure to thoroughly critique the domestic sphere
> prior to this reading – things that felt so blatantly obvious once brought
> to my attention had never occurred to me before. I found myself saying
> > First, some related links…****
>
> > A movie, *Cleveland versus Wall Street,*
>
> > ** **
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wr27nOXfuE&feature=related****
>
> > ** **
>
> > *On January 11, 2008, Josh Cohen and his associates, lawyers in the city
> > foreclosures that are devastating their city. But banks on Wall Street that
> > they attack by all means oppose the opening of proceedings.
>
> > Cleveland vs. Wall Street tells the story of a trial that should have
> > happened. A trial of cinema, including history, the protagonists and their
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > And the lighter side of the crisis : McMansions as student housing …****
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/us/homework-and-jacuzzis-as-dorms-m...
> > ****
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
>
> > ** **
> > Actually, even if this article seems trivial in front of the social and
> > individual disaster of the crisis, it is still giving some interesting
> > possibilities of interpretation : in the end the State, i.e. tax payers, is
> > paying. In an other world (difficult to think without the help of utopia),
> > there would be federal programs for student housing, with enough funding to
> > But in the real world, the path of public program is far more complicated.
> > For decades ( around 150 years actually), the housing sector has been
> > working in order to turn any kind of public intervention toward its
> > interests. William Levitt, the father of modern suburbia, said “utopia
> > would be get rid of the government, except in its proper function of an
> > insurance agency”. The sentence expresses a rare honesty. A real liberal
> > point of view is never reached, the discourse against governmental action
> > is part of the neo liberal ideology, but the actual neo liberal world
> > definitely need the State to survive. The very subtle part of it is the
> > achievement of a self-contradictory paradigm that do not –until now-
> > *
> > The discourse is so efficient that most of homeowners are unable to see
> > that their homeownership would not have been possible without federal
> > subsidies going to the affluent through tax deduction on mortgage interest.
> > The “mansion subsidies” are already a public program, but an invisible one.
> > The downturn of the housing market make it visible. The market for
> > McMansions only exist because of State intervention, and since the State
> > “invested” in banks in 2008, one could considers that it virtually “owns”
> > those mansions (or at least the delta between the market prices before and
> > after 2008). As a result, students can afford living in those pretentious
>
> > ** **
> > Both texts deal with an entire system of values, show how much what is
> > often described as an economical system is much more complex and complete.
> > The dominant discourse stresses today economical aspects, but the reasons
> > invocated in the 19th century had more to do with moral. It is the
> > strength of the American dream ideology to include such a large spectrum of
> > The moral starting point gives birth to suburbia, which result in a freeze
> > of gendered and class division of work. Today’s point of view tends to
> > consider the constraint of suburbia, especially for women, as an accident.
> > Hayden’s utopia to transform suburban neighborhoods sounds clever, simple,
> > obvious. But again, where should we start? Who should start? The article
> > was written in 1979, and is still extremely up to date. It is a pleasure to
> > read it, but at the same time it is asking “what happened in the last 30
>
> > The conclusion of *Deflating the dream *gives some elements of a Marxist
> > collapse of a world leads individuals to “redefine citizenship beyond its
> > neoliberal confines”. Shall we act in order to make the collapse happen
Sara
important to me. Hope my reaction is clear.
While a bit overly optimistic about the new administration, Saegert’s
article takes an important critical psychological stance on the
physical construction of America. Left out of the approach are the
impacts of the predatory lending and the housing crisis on the
collective psychology of Americans toward the economy. Proliferations
in housing at various times created a false sense of wealth in the
form of rising home prices which resulted in high liquidity of equity
and bolstered the construction industry. Home construction is viewed
as an indicator of economic health in America since the industry
creates many temporary jobs for skilled and unskilled workers and
signifies a demand for new homes. This reinforces the American Dream
of homeownership as a generative ambition in our society for the an
ever-increasing number of families who consistently earn their way to
purchasing newly constructed, single-family, detached house.
In its focus on the individual, Saegert skips the impact of
speculators on the American housing market. A loosening of regulation
enable individuals and collectives to flip properties or resell them
outright at a higher price. The homes purchased in these quick cash
schemes at times neighbor those of the individuals like the ones who
participated in the study. The addition of these ghost homes to the
market helped to heat up the bubble and to degraded the neighborhood
feel, safety and stability promised by proponents of homeownership.
These factors fueled by the neoliberal policies, placed many recent
homebuyers into a contaminated system; one that turned physical
structures into capital and eroded the legacy of the 30-year amortized
loan. The placement of blame on the borrower who shouldn’t have taken
the loan or gotten sick or lost a job or had a unexpected child gives
analysts a means to easily dismiss the failures of these policies.
Housing is not considered a right in America (think of how we allow
homelessness as an acceptable situation to individuals and society for
those facing drug addiction, poverty, mental health issues, etc.);
therefore, it can be considered a product that can be provided by a
self-regulating market. As a commodity, housing became financialized
to a degree that the homes and families that fund that secondary and
shadow markets that attract the participation of global investors are
indistinguishable from the physical or emotional spaces at the
market’s base.
Nontraditional social circumstances are not reflected in the commonly
accepted typology for the American home. Common examples are multi-
generational homes due to an ageing population and unmarried,
divorced, and single-parent homes. Each of these arrangements calls
for a home serving more or fewer users than the nuclear family. The
financial burdens attendant to heads households in both situations can
lead to foreclosure. Hayden implicitly addresses these special
scenarios yet focuses specifically on reconfiguring the home in terms
of the woman’s experience. Her concepts for creating differently-sized
units with shared resources and services can help reduce the burden of
mortgages and the impact that an injury, death, or job loss will have
on financial solvency. However, her solution draws heavily from a
European tradition of social housing which is hardly reflected in
American culture, particularly where crossing demographic barriers.
The neoliberal attitude and the financial crash influence the physical
configuration of our cities, towns, suburbs and rural landscapes. The
effects of deregulation persists in the market for farmland, which is
undergoing a major speculative wave that has made families instantly
wealthy and transferred centuries-long family-owned tracts to
corporations. (The incentive for small farmers to retain the land is
low as farming for the individual is not well aided by regulations and
subsidies. They are the common legal targets of nearby corporate
landowners.) Land ownership, transfers, and home construction
influence how the built environment forms as well as how to think
about where we do and should live.
On Nov 14, 7:35 pm, Juan Carlos Quiridumbay <jcquiridum...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> read more »
Marc Pearce
like others.
It is a very particular commodity because it is invariably a first
necessity for all human beings as a source for protection but also as
the basis for the family unit (no matter its form). It is also a
particular commodity because it can be durable and used as an
investment, possibly gaining value over time. But it is also very
specific because it is the basic element of the urban landscape and
its location has very strong social and economic implications.
Housing is a key element in the way we design of cities, in social
mobility, in our identity, and in our hole economic system.
The mechanisms behind housing and its ties with social, political and
economic culture, makes it a good indicator of political imagination.
I find it very interesting to compare housing policies and practices
in different countries around the world, essentially because the
unique features of housing are universal. Also, practices and policies
around the world will differ despite the opening of the housing
markets to the global economy which potentially questions the strong
relationship it has with local context.
Today’s job crisis has not affected the housing market in the same way
in different countries. Practices and political cultures differ; our
relationship with debt, with ownership, with public interest,
considerably changes our resistance to the housing crisis.
But it seems that, more than simply an opportunity, it is essential to
understand the pros and cons of ownership, of leasing, of social
housing, of government regulation, of open market, of locality,
through a comparative approach in order to plan for a better city, for
a better society. It is essential in order to go beyond the “common
sense” of a specific political ideology and culture, in order to avoid
any underlying contradictions.
It is very exciting today to see Cuba opening housing to individual
ownership. If some may see it as a step towards main-stream neo-
liberalism, I am hopeful that it will prove to be an alternative to
liberal housing policies and that in practice it will give insight on
regulatory mechanisms. I am especially interested when considering the
underlying effect of open markets on major world capitals that are
becoming completely disconnected from regional social and economic
contexts.
[Cuban regulations go beyond, of course, limiting ownership to two
houses per family, making it impossible to substantially profit from
landownership. The reason for this change seems to be the decaying of
housing conditions and the states slow response to housing demand.
This might have a very negative result, it might throw Cubans out on
the street, it might reinforce a class system and polarize the
economic structure of society. But, it might well protect Cubans from
the harshness of an already polarized society that thrives on the
black market and the corruption…]
mqu...@hunter.cuny.edu
11/15/11
Saegert and Fields take a look at the the ideology surrounding homeownership
and the American Dream, as well as the implications of a neo-liberal regime on
the feasibility of those dreams. The authors look at neo-liberal constructs: the
market, the individual and property and how the "roll back" policies of the
Reagan years brought about the deregulation of financial markets. The
expansion of credit to low-income communities went along with the reduction
in state-based entitlements, marking a fundamental shift in how the
government approaches ameliorating poverty. Using the home as a mechanism
for social reproduction and as an asset for the owner goes along with the idea of
self-reliance, individualism and responsibility as defining all social problems on
an individual basis. Saegert and Fields point to the contradiction between the
rhetoric of homeownership and the practices of the financial sector, claiming
that the institutions of government and finance would not support people's
efforts to achieve the goal of owning property.
Hayden examines the architectural principle of a "woman's place is in the home."
She points to the gendered division of labor as being reinforced by the design of
the home. Ideologies of homeownership, anti-feminism, and mass consumption
combine to create the docile domestic female. These issues are determined to be
"private" problems because of the spatial organization of the home,
neighborhood, and the city. Hatden argues that we must do away with gender-
based conceptions of labor, provide community services that support
households, and eliminate residential segregation. Many of Hayden's suggestion
fly in the face of the neo-liberal constructs described before, showing that
seemingly neutral economic ideologies are reinforcing gender, racial and class
discrimination.
How can we use the elements of HOMES to reshape new residential communities,
taking issues brought up by feminist critiques of design head-on? Possibly the
"critical political consciousness" of disillusioned ex-homeowners that Saegert
and Fields speaks of can take hold and connect the failing of neo-liberal housing
policy to coherent political action. What is left to be questioned here is the
outright fallacy of the myth of homeownership creating the ideal living
environment. Parochial concerns can come to dominate the political discourse of
communities of homeowners and how they conceptualize their community,
neighbors, and more importantly, who and what it isn't. Housing as a
commodity, ideology of liberty, and cornerstone of community building makes it
the most influential element of the functioning of a society.
Mario Quijano
Lea Dyrup
REDESIGNING THE AMERICAN DREAM
Homeownership seems to have been the evident solution for decades on how to fulfill the American Dream. Since the housing programs in the New Deal from 1933, it has been possible for most (white) working class families to own their own house through long-term mortgages. After reading the texts for tomorrow, to me it seemed really clear:
- Has this ideology of homeownership boosted the American economy? Yes would be my answer, looking at the increasing sprawl in the 50’s and 60’s and the need to buy home appliances, also described in Haydens article, What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work.
- Has the ideology increased ethnical inequalities? Yes, especially with HOLC’s redlining.
- Has the ideology created sexists neighborhoods, which maintained the assumption that women’s place was in the home? Yes, and following Hayden women cannot improve their status in the home unless their overall economic position in society is altered.
- Are the ideology environmental sustainable? No way!
So after painting this very black and white picture, where does it leave us? In the article Deflating the dream: radical risk and the neoliberalization of homeownership the neoliberalization of homeownership was supposed to conflate the use value and exchange value of homes, arguing that homeownership would improve the quality of life, life chances, and the wealth of disadvantaged populations both for the current generation and for generations to come. But what happened? The big bubble of endless and non-transparent mortgages busted and did not only left people with giant mortgages. The article also argues that the people threatened with foreclosure, is subject to a crisis in health care, in labor and income policies and practices, in food security ect. and the foreclosure can become an ontological crisis concerning personal identity and the relationship to the rest of society.
The article Deflating the dream is an interesting text, which made the reason of the Occupy Wall Street movement very apparent to me. The benefits from the neoliberazation of homeownership was given to 1 % of Americans, while the rest of the population can look forward to a decrease in quality of life!
So maybe it is about time to think about a redesign of the American Dream – both the imagination and the concrete physical structure of a house and a neigborhood. Are we moving towards a time, where quality of life is not about individual freedom but also about the people surrounding us? And how is it possible to design physical structures that urge equality? These are some of the questions, I hope we’ll discuss in tomorrows class.
Lea
Cindy Borrero
Deflating the Dream: Radical Risk and the Neoliberalization of Homeownership
In this study about homeownership, Susan saegart interviews homeowners and tries to figure out the best ideal conditions to deter foreclosure and how to deal with financial problems that can arise as a result of life conditions. She feels that ideally, it’s best when the state stays out of it and leaves it between the homeowner and the lender.
The study consists of 127 people homeowners who, while currently not in foreclosure, are at risk financially and have sought help from their Neighborwork Organization. The participants were from New York, NY; St. Louis, MO; Hamilton, OH; Duluth, GA; or Waco, TX. The majority were African American or Latinos, females, and of low to moderate income. Almost 40% have refinanced and are all at risk for mortgage foreclosure.
Many of the homeowners thought that, while they were responsible for their situation, so were the lenders. They felt they should have been better advised about the hardships and future situations regarding their mortgage. They also felt that there should be better systems in place to help them when they need it. They felt the system failed them, especially when they sought help to prevent problems from getting worse.
Not only were some homeowners not helped, many were disrespected, harassed for not paying, charged late fees, and half-payments were returned when attempting to pay whatever they could. Some of the problems that caused them to be late included divorce, loss of job or wages, pregnancy, family problems.
The study showed that these people worked hard to keep their homes and were sometimes met with resistance when looking for help and guidance. Some felt discriminated against either for race, where they lived, or economic status. Clearly there need to be a better system in place to prevent foreclosures.
What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like?
Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work
In this article by Dolores Hayden, she narrates that architects and designer basically plan around the premise that a home is basically centered and made for a woman and the needs of her family. But is also needs to be updated to include the needs of the working woman and not just the housewife. More and more woman are entering the workforce, making the 2 income family more prevalent.
In the past, it was thought that the better the home life, the more productive the workers so the economists and environmentalists would try to design a home with that in mind. Happy workers are better for their bottom line. The responsibility fell on the woman to make sure she managed the home correctly so that her husband was happy be the best worker as possible. The men should come home to a calm and serene place to relax and clear their minds.
Advertising was also centered on women. They targeted them to buy all these appliances that would make their lives easier and therefore that of their husbands and families. In order to keep up with all these demands, more women began to enter the workforce. Their supplemental income helped to pay for their appliances and American dream life. The home was seen as a place to be filled with merchandise. Husbands and wife shared labor duties but the wife also has home duties.
Hayden also points out that their needed to be a system in place so that they share all duties equally, like that of some countries. When planning a home, the architects and designers have to keep in mind, not only the housewife, but the working housewife.
Richie Alicea
actually is, as the idea itself can be interpreted in many different
ways. Does the idea of the American Dream adequately represent the
vision of the home? Well, to some it very well may. The idea of the
family, house, lawn and white picket fence is one that entices
millions of people each day, some to the point that they have dug
themselves into financial holes they cannot get out of. What is it
that is so alluring about such a vision? Why is owning a home
considered to be the illustration of professional and social success
that living in an apartment is not?
Perhaps is is the long-held notion that being a property owner makes
one a higher class of citizen then those who don't. Or perhaps it
represents a certain level of investment in the community that the
transient nature of an apartment (where one can pick up and leave at
any moment) does not. To some, it is a tangible object to leave to
their children. To others it is simply an environment in which the
intangible moments of family life can take place. The fact that is is
any and all of these things is what makes it something that so many
people take so much risk in trying to achieve.
The Saegart article shows how this need to live the American Dream was
exploited by the deregulated finance industry. While she alludes to
the ultimate goal being to expand the prospect of homeownership to all
people, many of whom were previously excluded, I suspect much more
sinister motives. In another class, we watched 'Inside Job,' a
documentary on the housing crisis, that illustrates the ultimate goal
being driven by greed combined with ineptitude within the financial
sector. This is much more akin to my belief. The myth of the American
Dream was perpetuated over the years, and with a neoliberal government
now on its side, the finance industry exploited a weakness in the
American mindset--the incessant need to own a house.