Author(s):
William Lindeke* - University of Minnesota
Abstract:
The debate surrounding new urbanism has frequently centered on issues of aesthetics, diverting attention away from environmental or economic concerns, or social costs of infrastructure. Current demographic and economic changes within the United States suggest that future suburban developments will be more likely to break the Levittown mold of the traditional family house. At the same time, part of the new greenfield development market is explicitly adopting denser, more 'community friendly' landscapes that often reflect New Urbanist principles.
Advertising for new suburban developments is a particularly fruitful place to examine whether new approaches to development represent a shift in suburban cultural ideology. Many historical accounts of suburbia have examined how developers create markets for new communities by appealing to certain sensibilities: domestic privacy, individual autonomy, class codes, cultural homogeneity, or urban agoraphobia. Yet marketing suburbs that explicitly engage with social capital critiques - marketing 'community' – would seem to require an appeal that contrasts with the individualism of suburbia's traditional ideology.
Looking at new condominium and 'new urban' greenfield developments in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, I examine how certain suburban communities incorporate and plan for social engagement in new greenfield developments. More specifically, I look at whether development marketing resolves the tension between the collective ideals of social community and traditional suburban appeals to individual autonomy. Current discursive choices are part and parcel of the historical unfolding of suburban ideology, and point towards how debates over new urbanism may influence and be influenced by current marketing approaches.
