The Housing Market and Population Vulnerabilities: Perceptions in a Fordist and a Post‐Fordist Context

Abstract

Drawing on qualitative interviews and participatory urban‐appraisal tools, this paper analyzes household perceptions on the five elements of Lawrence and Su‐Yeul's market‐led pluralism (M‐LP) framework (2008). It uses post‐Fordist Columbus, Ohio, and Fordist Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as testing grounds for these household perspectives. M‐LP suggests that at the center of contemporary housing market lie five elements: developers/builders who unveil new urban spaces with culturally open communities; lending agencies that offer affordable mortgages to all; real estate brokers/agents who have moved past discriminatory practices; consumers whose preferences emphasize class‐type elements; and communities that impose development agendas. While many felt that the housing market of the mid‐2000s was racially blind, race still played a crucial role in driving home‐buying decisions, especially in Milwaukee. Columbus respondents aligned more closely with M‐LP, putting greater emphasis on class, but they also used phrases and words to blur race and class distinction. Both metropolises, though, illustrated complex intertwining between class and culture.

Key words:

• discriminatory
• Fordist
• post‐Fordist
• market‐led pluralism
• mortgages

This research was made possible by support from multiple grants: (i) Small Grants Program of The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity (Ohio State University, $7,500), (ii) the Alumni Grants for Graduate Research and Scholarship (Ohio State University, $2,000) and (iii) the Academic Merit in Writing Award, Department of Geography (Ohio State University, $2,000). I want to thank Late Professor Lawrence A. Brown (my former PhD mentor) of Ohio State University, who had edited the first draft of this paper. I also thank few friends who read the draft versions of this manuscript and provided critical comments along with American‐English editorial suggestions. Draft version of this research was presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Division of the American Association of Geographers at Asheville, NC (November 2010), and comments/suggestions of the audience have been incorporated. I also wish to thank members of my dissertation committee Dr. Kendra McSweeney, Dr. Kevin Cox, and Dr. Marie Cieri, all from Geography, Ohio State University and Dr. Linda M. Lobao, (Rural Sociology, Ohio State University) for their critical insights through various stages of my dissertation's final phases that used qualitative research investigations. Finally, I am indebted to the 67 respondents in Columbus Ohio and 33 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin without whose support and engagement in this research, this task could have never completed and enriched.

This research was made possible by support from multiple grants: (i) Small Grants Program of The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity (Ohio State University, $7,500), (ii) the Alumni Grants for Graduate Research and Scholarship (Ohio State University, $2,000) and (iii) the Academic Merit in Writing Award, Department of Geography (Ohio State University, $2,000). I want to thank Late Professor Lawrence A. Brown (my former PhD mentor) of Ohio State University, who had edited the first draft of this paper. I also thank few friends who read the draft versions of this manuscript and provided critical comments along with American‐English editorial suggestions. Draft version of this research was presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Division of the American Association of Geographers at Asheville, NC (November 2010), and comments/suggestions of the audience have been incorporated. I also wish to thank members of my dissertation committee Dr. Kendra McSweeney, Dr. Kevin Cox, and Dr. Marie Cieri, all from Geography, Ohio State University and Dr. Linda M. Lobao, (Rural Sociology, Ohio State University) for their critical insights through various stages of my dissertation's final phases that used qualitative research investigations. Finally, I am indebted to the 67 respondents in Columbus Ohio and 33 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin without whose support and engagement in this research, this task could have never completed and enriched.

Notes

This research was made possible by support from multiple grants: (i) Small Grants Program of The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity (Ohio State University, $7,500), (ii) the Alumni Grants for Graduate Research and Scholarship (Ohio State University, $2,000) and (iii) the Academic Merit in Writing Award, Department of Geography (Ohio State University, $2,000). I want to thank Late Professor Lawrence A. Brown (my former PhD mentor) of Ohio State University, who had edited the first draft of this paper. I also thank few friends who read the draft versions of this manuscript and provided critical comments along with American‐English editorial suggestions. Draft version of this research was presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Division of the American Association of Geographers at Asheville, NC (November 2010), and comments/suggestions of the audience have been incorporated. I also wish to thank members of my dissertation committee Dr. Kendra McSweeney, Dr. Kevin Cox, and Dr. Marie Cieri, all from Geography, Ohio State University and Dr. Linda M. Lobao, (Rural Sociology, Ohio State University) for their critical insights through various stages of my dissertation's final phases that used qualitative research investigations. Finally, I am indebted to the 67 respondents in Columbus Ohio and 33 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin without whose support and engagement in this research, this task could have never completed and enriched.

1. Cities or city have been used synonymously for urban areas and/or metropolitan statistical areas throughout the entire text. The analyses centered on the two metropolises of Milwaukee and Columbus, and should not be confused as only the central city. Milwaukee is comprised of five counties, whereas Columbus comprised of seven counties (2000 Census definition).

2. “Privatopias” are urban developments and/or the growth of self‐governing “common‐interest developments” that have effectively seceded from the public sphere of city governance, and have gained control over the means of membership and exclusion (McKenzie 1994).

3. One could argue that this was an especially ebullient time in terms of race relations, as the candidacy and eventual election of Barack Obama led some to believe in a post‐racial America.

4. All protocols of Institutional Review Board were followed.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Madhuri Sharma

Dr. Sharma is an assistant professor of geography at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996; [[email protected]].