Abstract
Although American suburbs are commonly understood as the result of growth machine efforts or are grouped in categories like edge cities or inner-ring suburbs, these approaches obscure the unique characters of individual suburbs. This study examines four consequential “character moments” in three Chicago suburbs, Naperville, West Chicago, and Wheaton, where the suburb’s character was open to public debate. These moments show character over time is critical for understanding suburbs, character moments are rare but often consequential, not all moments involve particular development projects and some may be prompted by perceived threats, and suburban character is more dynamic than typically posited.
Introduction
Although much attention has been paid to why and how American suburbs were formed (Baxandall and Ewen 2000; Beauregard 2006; Fishman 1987; Hayden 2003; Jackson 1985), less attention has been paid to how the unique “character” (Molotch, Freudenburg, and Paulsen 2000) of suburban communities has developed and changed over time. It is common for suburbs to be placed in categories such as edge cities (Garreau 1991) or boomburbs (Lang and LeFurgy 2007b), but these schemas obscure the unique characters and developmental trajectories of individual or clusters of suburbs (McManus and Ethington 2007). Despite images of suburbia as bland and homogeneous (e.g., Kunstler 1993; Riesman, Glazer, and Denney 1950; Whyte 1956), suburbs have a character consistently under negotiation (Kaufman and Kaliner 2011) as local leaders and residents debate the symbolic meaning and trajectory of their community, incorporating what has happened in the past as they consider the future.
This study examines the “character moments” that arise in suburbs when local elected officials, business leaders, civic organizations, and residents are involved in open and often contentious discussions about what form the community’s character should take. These “unsettled” moments (Swidler 1986, 2003) can lead to a community consensus that often set a character and development course for years to come. This issue is particularly relevant as American suburbs are changing in important ways: New groups are moving to and living in the suburbs (Berube and Kneebone 2011; Timberlake, Howell, and Staight 2011), and more suburbs have or are approaching the end of available land (Lang and LeFurgy 2007a). Both of these concerns plus new development can prompt communities to reevaluate their existing character.
To examine how suburban character is formed and utilized, I analyze four post–World War II “character moments” in the development trajectory of three Chicago suburbs, Naperville, West Chicago, and Wheaton. While these suburbs were founded by the mid-1850s, they each made intentional postwar decisions regarding what character they wanted to pursue. After reviewing the concept of character and how American suburbs are typically categorized, I explain the methodology of this study. I then present overviews of these three suburbs before examining four “character moments” in more detail and drawing four conclusions: Character should be included in analyses of suburbs, broad discussions of character in suburbs are relatively rare but consequential, not all suburban character moments are linked to particular development projects and may also be motivated by certain perceived threats, and the character of a suburb is not often linear or static for long.
Literature Review
Recent research on places has increasingly emphasized the symbolic dimension, the “place” in spaces (Gieryn 2000). Such work has developed amid a larger “cultural turn” (Bonnell and Hunt 1999) where urban scholars have examined how “processes of meaning-making” (Spillman 2002) play out in different contexts (e.g., Gottdiener 1997; Zukin 1995). In other words, “place is the site where culture achieves its ‘cumulative texture’ by acquiring layers of ‘tradition and character’” (Aguilar-San Juan 2005).
Untangling the intersection of development, place, and meaning, Molotch, Freudenburg, and Paulsen (2000) compare the development of Ventura and Santa Barbara, California. The authors focus on how places develop a coherent understanding of themselves (character) and how this coherence changes over time (tradition). In more theoretical terms, they describe character as the “lash-up” or coming together of unlike elements within a community and tradition as the structuration of path-dependent choices made by actors in a community. Examining the historical trajectories of Santa Barbara and Ventura shows that their characters diverged because of unique responses to large social forces like the development of the oil industry and the construction of a major highway. Although the two cities ended up with similar census characteristics such as population, income, educational levels, and per capita retail sales, there are deeper differences: Santa Barbara has a more forward-leaning economy, exhibits more sophisticated tastes and a more vibrant downtown street life that is also more connected to the Pacific Ocean, and local officials perceive Santa Barbara to be more of a “model” and “success” as a community. Thus, character is not only composed of measurable items like the number of arts establishments or the physical layout of the downtown but also the internal and external perceptions of the community. Overall, Molotch, Freudenburg, and Paulsen (2000) argue that it is less important to focus on attributes that places share or do not share but rather to look at how attributes are linked together (lash-ups) and then develop over time (structuration).
Building upon this work, Paulsen (2004) argues for a continued need to understand “place character” and how it is constructed in particular places over time. This involves moving beyond common census-level traits such as population, income levels, or even more intricate measures used to describe and compare suburbs. One method Paulsen suggests for uncovering place character involves matching similar locations that arrived at disparate outcomes. This strategy, Mill’s method of difference, is used in this study—Cases are categorized by their outcomes whereas certain key predicting variables are held constant (Lieberson 1992; Ragin 1994; Smelser 1976).
Utilizing this same approach, Kaufman and Kaliner (2011) examine how the states of Vermont and New Hampshire are unique today after being similar in the late-1800s. In this process, Kaufman and Kaliner argue that the process of character-making is less stable than a “rolling inertia” (Molotch, Freudenburg, and Paulsen 2000), is “far from monotonic,” and is more idiosyncratic and dynamic than historians might grant. At the same time, they claim that migration is a critical determinant of unique character outcomes: The two states attracted different groups of people with Vermont attracting a more liberal crowd that transformed the character of the state.
This growing emphasis on character suggests that “growth machine” models of development (Logan and Molotch 1987; Molotch 1976) could be improved by accounting for character. Even decisions made by powerful politicians and business people that are primarily guided by economics and profit-seeking can include a character component, both in terms of the debate over the new policy and the outcomes for the community. Routine and bold attempts at development often need to be couched in terms that “fit” the community’s character and may be met with opposition from residents wary of a change of course. Economics and profits may be the most powerful drivers of development decisions, yet character often plays a critical role.
Accounting for the dynamic character of places also challenges another established way of understanding suburbs: using categories or types. Classificatory categories, such as edge cities (Garreau 1991), boomburbs (Lang and LeFurgy 2007b), inner-ring suburbs (Hanlon 2009; Orfield 2002), gated or private communities (Blakely and Snyder 1997; Low 2003; McKenzie 1994), working-class suburbs (Berger 1960; Nicolaides 2002), ethnoburbs (Li 2009), or schemes based on wave or time of development (Hayden 2003; Keating 2005), can be helpful. Places in these groups share important traits such as the amount of office space, proximity to the city, population growth, and function. Hence, suburbs across metropolitan regions can be compared. More broadly, these types are reminders that even though suburbs may share some of the same basic building blocks like housing subdivisions, strip malls, and arterial roads, they are not the same in important ways.
However, these types are lacking. They are based on the founding or current standing of suburbs, not on the processes by which suburbs have grown from founding to today. The edge cities of Tysons Corner, Virginia, and Naperville, Illinois, traveled different paths to this type, the first growing around a barren intersection, the second having more than 130 years of history before becoming an edge city. Similarly, two 1950s era suburbs may have followed different trajectories and, today, have very different characters.
In addition, these categories suggest suburbs are static and that communities tend to stay in the same category. This is not the case: They are often dynamic, consistently renegotiating their existing character. Over time, suburbs could change categories as they mature and as leaders and residents make critical development decisions that push them toward new categories and understandings.
Every community has character: This is true of urban neighborhoods, suburbs, and rural hamlets as they all have unique configurations of history, meanings, symbols, and tradition. As Molotch, Freudenburg, and Paulsen (2000) and Kaufman and Kaliner (2011) illustrate, communities near to each other can experience similar social forces and still reach disparate outcomes. Building on this research regarding character across places, this study focuses on the smaller periods of time, “character moments,” when leaders and residents discuss and make critical decisions influenced by and about character. Examining these consequential moments helps move research on the suburbs toward the study of their “ongoing transformations and reinventions” (McManus and Ethington 2007, p. 319) rather than more static understandings of suburbs at a single point in time. In asking how a suburb turned out one way and not another, this study argues that character moments, and character more broadly, matter for observers who wish to more fully understand how suburban development occurs.
Data and Method
These four character moments emerged in a larger research project involving Naperville, West Chicago, and Wheaton, Illinois. Research for the project included more than 60 days in local museums, interviews with 35 current and past leaders (mainly political officials and city employees) in the three suburbs, and utilizing numerous secondary sources.
These three suburbs were chosen carefully. They share four traits that help control for regional and temporal variation: As Chicago suburbs, they have experienced similar regional forces like railroad and highway construction, they were founded in the same period (1831 to early-1850s) when the region was relatively unsettled, they are the three major suburbs in the southwest quadrant of DuPage County (though not the only ones), and until after World War II, they were all small towns and connected to Chicago by railroad. Like the comparison of Ventura and Santa Barbara, California (Molotch, Freudenburg, and Paulsen 2000), the similarities among these suburbs allows for the argument that their different outcomes today are the result of particular policies and decisions, sometimes shaped by character moments, that sent each community down its own developmental trajectory.
These character moments were all drawn from relatively recent history: 1960 to today. Although there were important character moments within and prior to this period, such as the coming of the railroad in all three communities and the 1860s battle over the county seat between Naperville and Wheaton, the majority of growth in each community has occurred after World War II, and these four character moments were particularly influential in this time period as each community responded to suburban growth.
Overview of the Three Suburbs
Naperville was first settled by Joseph Naper on the west branch of the DuPage River in 1831. Naperville was the first DuPage County seat when the country was formed in 1839, but it lost the seat to Wheaton in 1868 after two heated local elections. The railroad came in 1864 after residents rejected a right-of-way for the first railroad out of Chicago in 1848. After World War II, Naperville began to grow: Local builder Harold Moser developed numerous subdivisions, the East-West Tollway opened in 1958 with a full interchange just north of Naperville, and Bell Laboratories announced a new facility just north of town in 1964. The growth rate increased as more high-tech companies moved into town, the boomburb’s (Lang and LeFurgy 2007b) population grew from 42,601 in 1980 to 128,358 in 2000 to 141,853 in 2010, the downtown developed into an entertainment center, and the city received numerous accolades in the early-2000s, including being high on Money’s “Best Places to Live” list. 1
West Chicago and Wheaton were both founded along the first railroad to enter Chicago, the Galena & Chicago Union (G&CU), which began operations in 1849. West Chicago started as a set of railroad facilities at a key junction roughly 30 miles west of Chicago. The railroad was the city’s backbone for many decades, providing jobs and an identity while first attracting Irish and German immigrants in the 1850s and also Mexican immigrants starting in the mid-twentieth century who sought factory and agricultural jobs. After World War II, the city decided to primarily add industrial parks and only in the 1990s did upscale housing developments take root. West Chicago today has 27,086 residents (up from 23,469 in 2000), is 51.1% Latino (2010 Census), and has retained a working-class, industrial character.
Wheaton was platted in 1853 on the north side of the G&CU tracks and incorporated in 1859 on land first settled in the 1830s. From early on, the city has had little industry, but Wheaton College was founded in 1860 and Wheaton became the county seat in 1868. The population grew after World War II, even as city leaders did not annex all the land they could have to the north and south. A progressive city government attempted to transform the downtown in the late-1960s, and a number of evangelical Christian companies relocated to Wheaton or nearby suburbs to be close to Wheaton College. A struggle from the late 1970s through the mid 1980s over a 1,352-acre site on the south side of the city ended with the city being able to construct its one large commercial area. Wheaton’s 52,894 residents (down from 55,416 in 2000) today live in a quiet community still known for its political and religious conservatism.
Four Character Moments
These three communities share similar beginnings, but local leaders made critical decisions that either maintained or altered their character. Each suburb has had multiple “unsettled” moments (Swidler 1986, 2003) where the community’s character was revealed and openly debated among local officials, local leaders, and residents. This article focuses on one critical moment from each suburb during the post–World War II suburban growth era and also contrasts each city’s recent approach to downtown development.
Battle over the Wheaton Yards Project, 1968-1971 Wheaton
In the late-1960s, Wheaton had a five-member city council: the elected mayor and four elected councilmen. In 1969, Councilwoman Marget Hamilton was elected Wheaton’s first female mayor in a special election due to the death of the previous mayor. With her election, the progressives had a 4-1 voting advantage. 2 Along with other interests, such as applying for monies from the DuPage County Housing Authority to construct senior and low-income housing (100 senior citizen units and 56 low-income units), 3 Hamilton and the progressives developed plans for a former electric train yard just southwest of downtown. Plans for the site included two 20-story apartment buildings alongside a new train station (moved west from its central place in downtown), some assorted denser housing, a multimodal transportation facility, and a commercial area and parking garage to serve the train station and the apartments. 4 This was no small development: One newspaper said the buildings would double Wheaton’s apartment stock and would be the tallest buildings between Chicago and Davenport, Iowa. 5 The proposal drew the attention of Illinois Governor Richard Ogilvie who said he hoped the project “could serve as a prototype for other ‘older’ suburbs which need to revitalize downtown business areas.” 6
Some residents, vocal in public hearings, viewed the development as a major challenge to Wheaton’s established character as a community of single-family homes. In the 1971 city elections, a slate of conservative candidates opposed the progressives in office. In a series of public debates, the two sides clearly presented opposing sides on the Wheaton Yards project. The conservative mayoral candidate, Ralph Barger, said, “The city council is now controlled by a vociferous minority interested in socialistic advancement.” The progressive mayoral candidate, John Waters, replied, “I’d like to go back too, but we can’t go back. We believe the times are with us—they are swirling about us—and we must participate. We can’t build a city with a wall around it.” 7 The conservative candidates added that the project would not produce the revenue necessary to offset what they would require in services, apartments would attract transient people who wouldn’t care about the increased taxes they would add to the city, and the project might lead to an extended period of aggressive apartment building. 8 The public housing applications also drew the conservative’s ire. In addition to an argument about removing property from the tax rolls, Barger referred to who might live in these units: “Wheaton isn’t necessarily suited to everybody’s way of life . . . People in low-income housing units may not want to live in a dry town.” 9
In the April 1971 local elections, the slate of conservatives won the mayoral race and the council positions.
10
After withdrawing the city’s proposal for public housing at their first meeting while holding office,
11
the new officials worked unsuccessfully through the end of 1971 to cancel or delay the construction of the two large apartment towers.
12
Despite their unsuccessful efforts, Wheaton’s current city manager said the towers had a profound difference on plans for subsequent decades: A lot of people didn’t think [Wheaton Center] represented the character of Wheaton . . . [Under Barger] there were a lot of changes in zoning regulations which were designed to limit the height of buildings and minimize the ability of something of that nature to occur again.
13
More than any other project in Wheaton’s history, this proposal vividly brought out the opinions of officials and residents regarding Wheaton’s character. In addition to discussions about tax monies and the costs of services, there was an open discussion about how the development would shape Wheaton. Conservatives wanted to maintain the single-family home atmosphere and wondered about attracting new kinds of residents. Progressives wanted to be more proactive in responding to the changing times. Ironically, the Yards project foreshadowed Wheaton’s successful 1990s construction of condominiums near the train station. According to City Manager Don Rose, The concept with Wheaton Center I think, you know, was fine. The density problem was too much for a truly small . . . back in, you know, 1970. It basically was a single-family town and to see two 20-story towers go up in the heart of the town was, you know, psychologically just too much for people.
14
Outside of the towers, Wheaton today has a limited number of apartments and this particular character moment loomed over development decision for years to come.
Discussions About Annexationsand Future Growth, 1960s Naperville
Naperville had experienced some suburban growth by the late-1950s: Hometown developer Harold Moser had begun a long building career and the East-West Tollway, just north of the city and connecting the western suburbs with Chicago’s Loop was completed in 1958. The next decade included discussions about how growth might change the small suburb.
The January 11, 1960, City Council meeting set off public discussions about growth after a Council vote to annex 1,596 acres, nearly doubling the city’s size in one night.
15
Afterward, one local newspaper suggested the community was at a crossroads and needed to retain control over the growth: The city faces two alternatives: to expand following a basic program laid out in a master plan, or to expand without a preconceived program . . . We believe expansion of this type will take place. But the subdividers of the future won’t be all hometown boys with a deep-seated sense of responsibility toward the community. Already large corporations with a rightful concern for large profits, and little concern for maintaining the charm and heritage of our community, are seeing to (or have already) purchased property in the area that will be the corporate Naperville of tomorrow. The city must control these developments.
16
The editorial clearly laid out a choice about Naperville’s future character: expansion within firm guidelines or steered by profit-minded outsiders. The call for controlled growth was affirmed as a more complete story emerged: DuPage County planned to build a large sewer treatment plant south of the city, and the annexation gave Naperville control over that land. In addition, the city extended the reach of its subdivision control ordinance, regulations established in 1954, and was better able to manage nearby growth. 17
Annexations again came to the forefront of public discussion in the late-1960s. Facing a number of annexation proposals, including one for 750 acres by Levitt & Sons, the Illinois State Sanitary and Water Board delayed development by refusing to allow new connections to the central sewer plant. Whereas one local newspaper called for an annexation moratorium until the sewer issue could be solved, the other local paper suggested there was a broader question at stake: In opening the door at the county line, solons will determine the final character of the community. When this answer is made we will know—is Naperville to remain a suburb, or—is Naperville to become a city in the full sense of the word. What shall the choice be?
18
After a public forum regarding the Levitt request and an argument from a future mayor that “Levitt needs Naperville, but can Naperville afford Levitt?” the City Council voted against the proposal as it required Naperville to expand into Will County beyond the projected boundaries drawn up in 1959 by the city. 19
Related to questions about annexations and growth were discussions about proposals for denser forms of housing. While Wheaton’s apartment discussion mainly revolved around one large development project, Naperville’s involved a greater number of proposed units: Of the estimated 16,340 dwellings built or projected for construction between 1954 and 1969, 6,065 were to be apartments and 2,795 were to be town homes. 20
Similar to Wheaton, discussions about denser housing in Naperville involved points about practical and fiscal matters
21
as well as questions about how apartments and multifamily housing might change the community’s character. In opposition to 1965 plans for 500 apartments along the south side of the DuPage River, opposed residents said they wanted to “keep Naperville ‘a city of homes’.”
22
An advertisement from residents in the Naperville Sun in 1968 explained opposition to apartments: What kind of Naperville do you want? A homeowner community with balanced commercial and industrial areas? Or . . . A community existing for the benefit and profit of land developers and foreign financial institutions? Naperville—or Apartment-ville? The City Council will decide. A total of six thousand apartments and “townhouses” are planned by developers and outside money lenders for Naperville.
23
This was a choice about character: “Apartment-ville” or a “homeowner community”? One overview of Naperville’s development from 1967 to 1972 described the situation: “Suddenly—it seems—the farm has become a subdivision and the tree-shaded street a boulevard; but most startling, for Naperville, in these past few years is the trend to apartment living.” 24
Despite opposition, city officials took a more pragmatic approach. City Clerk Del Hosler said the city could effectively regulate such growth: If we try to keep them out, they will simply build on our doorsteps, just outside city limits, where we would have no control over them whatsoever . . . As it is, we make the regulations tough . . . He (the builder) has access to water, electricity, sewers, and so on. The City has some authority over his construction, and is able to see that he constructs the streets properly, installs proper sewer connections, and so forth. Both the City and the builder are assured of high-quality apartment areas and subdivisions.
25
Naperville’s approach to apartments mirrored its general approach toward growth after World War II: emphasize quality or controlled growth rather than impose severe restrictions. Development was acceptable as long as it satisfied the Subdivision Control Ordinance and other regulations. These choices demonstrated that leaders recognized Naperville’s growth potential but also wanted to make sure it occurred on their terms. This influenced Naperville’s development until there were no more large parcels to bring into the city. 26
Fighting to Remove Radioactive Thorium, 1970s-2000s West Chicago
Although West Chicago seemed to regard industry as an unmitigated good for many decades, illustrated by the development of several large industrial parks on railroad land after World War II, one of these industrial properties along the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern railroad tracks would later be discovered as the source of radioactive material that was spread all throughout town. The battle over removing the thorium raised questions about West Chicago’s industrial character and how the community would be viewed and also respond.
In 1974, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested radiation tests for West Chicago. Of interest was an industrial facility, then owned by Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, that had produced rare earth metals, including thorium, from the early 1950s through 1973. 27 For several years, nearby residents had complained about negative effects of living near the property. The study found radiation not only at the factory site but also throughout the city, spread through contaminated dirt, on numerous residential properties and in West Chicago’s primary park. 28 Studies over the next 20 years found more than one million cubic yards of thorium to be cleaned up. 29
In 1977, the NRC told Kerr-McGee to prepare a decommissioning plan for the facility, 30 but it took two decades to work out an acceptable plan between Kerr-McGee, the federal government, the state of Illinois, and West Chicago for cleaning up the factory site and the community. By February 1997, Kerr-McGee reached a final agreement with West Chicago to remove the remaining thorium tailings, ship the material to Utah, set aside the factory land for parks, and compensate the city with $14.3 million. 31 The local newspaper said this pact potentially changed the image of Kerr-McGee “from the city’s blackest enemy to its savior.” 32 Kerr-McGee had cleaned up 662 properties 33 by February 2002, but smaller clean-up projects were yet to be completed. 34
During this prolonged struggle, the suburb’s character suffered. Already known as a more working-class, industrial suburb, one Chicago media source dubbed West Chicago the “radioactivity capital of the Midwest” and said it had “radioactive breath and streets lined with radiation.” 35 In 1982, several Chicago-based antinuclear groups staged a small in-town protest noted by the New York Times. 36 Yards across the city were torn up to remove the radioactivity, and residents had difficulties selling their homes. 37
More positively, the city government and a grassroots groups (TAG—Thorium Action Group) successfully fought a large corporation. After Kerr-McGee agreed to the 1997 deal, the local newspaper commented on the meaning: There are few events in the history of West Chicago that were singularly significant as the spectacle of Friday’s first trainload of thorium leaving the city. The destruction of the Roundhouse in the late 1950s, signifying the end of the railroads’ predominance in the city, is the only event within most people’s memory that had such immediacy and lasting impact . . . The significance of the thorium presence in West Chicago is in part the story of how progress can both harm and heal a city . . . The engine that drove TAG and others to continue when all hope seemed futile was the idea that the people who live and work together should, collectively, be the supreme arbiter of their common fate. This is nothing more or less than the definition of a community.
38
This community that had developed was cited as a model for successfully turning away 2003 plans by the County Board to locate a waste transfer station in West Chicago. 39 Several current city leaders cited the thorium fight as a proud moment for the city. 40
More broadly, this struggle raised questions about the role of the industry in the city. Early in the process, the local newspaper said, “Whatever economic gain the city enjoyed during the more than 40 years the plant was in operation is being lost as this long process grinds on slowly and without a predictable end.”
41
A recent mayor was more optimistic with the end of the clean-up in sight: [I]t was our worst nightmare that is becoming our dream come true . . .It hurt as a community as far as the impression of the community but those of us who lived here knew better. Now the rest of the world is finally saying well, they’re cleaning this thing up.
42
As the thorium was shipped out starting in the 1990s, West Chicago redoubled its efforts to attract high-tech industry, particularly for open land just south of the DuPage Airport. While this struggle did affect development in the city until the late-1980s, the community also had to work on its image as well as discuss the role of the industry in the city.
Recent Downtown Redevelopment, 1990s-Today
All three suburbs have pursued downtown revitalization in recent decades because of several pressures: competition, needing tax revenues from existing and new businesses, slowing greenfield growth, and interest in building upon unique downtown characters. After discussions among city leaders, businesses, local organizations, and residents, several similar strategies have been pursued: beautification and unified design features, using Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and special area taxes for infrastructure and development, and building denser housing near train stations. But, with similar goals and strategies, all three suburbs have developed character-specific plans.
Wheaton first moved in the mid-1990s to use TIF funds for two condominium developments, envisioned as “an urban village,” 43 near the train station. TIF funds also contributed to a downtown parking garage, 44 a weekly French market opened in 1996, 45 and a Starbucks opened in 1999. 46 Redevelopment near the railroad tracks continued with the conversion of the former county courthouse into condominiums 47 and the construction of a five-story office building with first-floor retail space and an attached three-story parking garage 48 . In addition, a group of businesses formed an association that advertised the downtown with the slogan, “It’s like coming home again.” 49
On the whole, the redevelopment plans have been modest, fitting with Wheaton’s self-understood character as a more stable city compared with other suburbs. The current mayor says Wheaton has had a “very, very good conservative approach” and “We’re not risk takers . . . That’s not us.” 50 Some public discussion has ensued about the use of TIF districts, the moving-away of a downtown grocery store, and establishing a historic district north of downtown to protect a neighborhood of older homes. Overall, Wheaton increased the downtown population, a concentration of restaurants has been established, and there is hope for a more vibrant future.
In comparison to Wheaton’s measured efforts, Naperville has been more aggressive. Multiple local leaders attribute the downtown’s turnaround to the opening of the Fox Valley Mall in the early 1970s in adjacent Aurora when a developer chose to build there over Naperville. 51 In response, Naperville solicited an influential plan that recommended a downtown Civic Center, an improved downtown appearance, and construction of a park along the DuPage River. 52 Today, the Riverwalk, is an oft-cited symbol of civic success: Residents and businesses donated time, material, and money for the initial stage, which opened Labor Day 1981, 53 and it has been expanded greatly since.
By the late-1990s, multiple national retail stores were in the downtown 54 and the combination of municipal center, library, Riverwalk, and restaurants supplied a steady stream of people. 55 Several parking decks have been built, and plans are in the works to expand the downtown slightly with mixed-use developments to the north, near the downtown train station, and south across the DuPage River. 56 Public discussions regarding the downtown have included concerns about traffic and where new parking decks should be located. 57 Despite these concerns, the downtown has drawn praise; one journalist wrote, “Together, they pump a lot of people into a 16-square-block core that is a magnetic mix of antique and modern structures, chain and independent retailers, busy all the time and packed on weekend evenings.” 58 Naperville has become known for its vibrant core as well as its growth.
West Chicago has repeatedly tried to link its downtown to its railroad heritage. In contrast, Wheaton and Naperville both desire transit-oriented development, but Naperville leaders are glad the train does not run through the downtown, 59 and Wheaton leaders suggest residents view the railroad as a “nuisance.” 60 Plans in West Chicago from the late-1960s to late-1980s made this tie explicit. A 1968 Chamber of Commerce plan promoted a railroad theme for two blocks of Main Street. 61 Mid-1970s plans led one resident to hope the downtown would become “Railroadsville, Illinois.” 62 A 1988 DuPage County Development Department Planning Division report called for a railroad park as no similar facility in the county had the potential to attract visitors. 63
Today, West Chicago’s downtown continues to languish. The city has introduced several recent plans and goals—condominiums near the railroad station (some of which have been built) and mixed-use development with a “24/7 culture” 64 ; constructing a new “city center” through converting former industrial land into a new City Hall, space for a College of DuPage satellite campus, and a possible new railroad station along the long-delayed commuter STAR line 65 ; adding a “third place” (Oldenburg 1989) “type of business such as Starbucks or Panera Bread” 66 ; and linking downtown with busy Illinois Route 59 to the east by encouraging new development. 67
Each community pursued similar downtown goals but did so through character-influenced options: Naperville’s overall growth helped attract higher-end, national stores, Wheaton modestly sought to increase its vibrancy, and West Chicago attempted to build around its railroad heritage. Local leaders suggested following a plan developed by another suburb is not a preferred option. West Chicago’s development director sums up this perspective as she said the city’s plans were appropriate for its size: The council doesn’t want to be Arlington Heights or Naperville and it’s not appropriate for our size . . . I think they’ve been very, very successful and their river walk is beautiful, but I think that it’s not what we would want to be . . . we would like to retain the historic portion of it and have some combination of draw of our residents as well as the outside world too. So it’s on a more modified scale . . . but I think they are both very successful, just very different.
68
Leaders in each suburb would like to have successful downtowns and the increased tax revenues and prestige, yet each city has pursued unique plans.
Discussion and Conclusion
These three Chicago suburbs experienced numerous character moments with four highlighted in this study—the large Wheaton Yards project, Naperville’s decisions regarding large-scale growth in the 1960s, the fight over thorium removal in West Chicago, and talks in all three cities about how to pursue downtown revitalization and growth. These public discussions were about more than just practical issues such as finances; public officials, local leaders, and residents discussed how developments or actions “fit” within the existing and future character or “feel” of each suburb. These character moments reveal four critical insights regarding the character of suburbs.
To start, the recent emphasis on “space and place” (Gieryn 2000) is acutely needed in the study of the oft-caricatured suburbs. Adding to a growth machine approach, scholars can show how a specific suburb interacts with and transcends an existing character rooted in history, public officials, business leaders, residents, outside social forces, and broad suburban values (Baumgartner 1988; Knox 2008). Recognizing a unique character helps move beyond characterizing Naperville a boomburb, Wheaton a bedroom suburb, and West Chicago a working-class suburb. These labels veil how suburbs arrived at this stage, how suburbs are experienced now, and what the suburb may become. Knowing a suburb requires knowledge not only of boundaries or demographics but also of the symbolic boundaries (Lamont 1992; Lamont and Molnar 2002) that demarcate and define suburban locations (Lacy 2004).
The concept of character is not imposed by social scientists on places: Local leaders understand how their city’s character differs from nearby suburbs. West Chicago officials have been very aware of their city’s negative image over the years 69 and in response have sought out higher-end housing and a large high-tech industrial park. Several non-Wheaton leaders spoke of Wheaton’s conservative character with several noting its ban on alcohol sales that was reversed in the 1980s. 70 Leaders in West Chicago and Wheaton cited Naperville’s growth. 71 Naperville leaders echoed the phrase, “We’re a big city with a small-town atmosphere,” 72 balancing their history and understanding as a small town with having a current population of nearly 150,000 people.
Second, character moments are relatively rare but very important points in a suburb’s life course where below-the-surface understandings of the community or more restricted character conversations are more widely discussed. These open discussions allow for the formation and crystallization of collective memories in a suburb as well as allow opportunities to suggest alternatives for the future. Character doesn’t always emerge from open discussions or exact policies (Kaufman and Kaliner 2011), but there are critical moments where this discussion is public and consequential.
Developers or growth machines should be aware their proposals, particularly bold new ideas, may lead to protracted discussions about character. Local officials will make unpopular decisions if they feel it is in a suburb’s best interests, but each suburb differs in how much or what kind of new development is acceptable. In other words, the force of the “rolling inertia” (Molotch, Freudenburg, and Paulsen 2000) of suburbs varies. Among these suburbs, Naperville was the most aggressive in pursuing development, whereas both West Chicago and Wheaton moved more slowly. But even in Naperville, new development provoked debates over what it meant for the community and whether it was “controllable” through a subdivision control ordinance and planning.
Third, not all character moments are linked to specific development projects and may be motivated by perceived threats. Certain projects, like those involving a downtown or historic district, tend to stir up character discussions, but other events can do the same. The thorium case in West Chicago is an example: Leaders and residents were provoked by a corporation’s actions to fight for the city’s character and image. Another Wheaton example also shows this: A public discussion in the 1980s about overturning its ban on liquor sales focused on whether Wheaton should increase business and revenues or maintain its longstanding conservative and religious character.
The argument that migration affects character development (Kaufman and Kaliner 2011) has some merit in these cases. New residents can be perceived as a threat, whether they are from different places or of different social classes, races, and groups. During more rapid growth in Naperville and Wheaton, there was talk about “old-timers” and “newcomers” or people in the “old” and “new” parts of town. Through the mid-1960s, blacks found it difficult to buy a home in Naperville. Despite Wheaton’s early history of openness toward blacks, the Wheaton Yards discussion contained undertones about lower-class apartment dwellers. The growing Latino population in West Chicago prompted discussion about the city and its future. These conversations were not only partly tied to new development involving new residents but also had a different edge: How will new residents fit in and/or change the community?
A second possible threat, voiced in these character moments and at other points in the life course of these suburbs, involves projects that might burden taxpayers and the city with new costs as well as threaten property values. Suburban residents in recent decades have fought strongly against tax increases even as they have much at stake in their homes, particularly in well-off suburbs, and worry new changes might lower property values. Wheaton and Naperville residents feared more apartments would lower property values, and the thorium in West Chicago made it more difficult to sell homes.
Thus, there is evidence of suburban exclusion (e.g., Wiese 2004) in these three suburbs as character discussions may also be motivated by excluding certain new residents and protecting property values. Scholars examining postsuburbia (Phelps, Wood, and Valler 2010; Teaford 1997) describe the tension between suburban residents wanting to maintain a semblance of small-town life even as suburban leaders search for ways to boost revenues, such as in historic downtowns, which also have the effect of pushing their municipalities toward becoming more urban. In these discussions, character might refer both to the established nature of a community as well as act as a tool for existing residents to use in political battles against new populations and more urbanization.
Finally, the trajectories of these three suburbs suggest suburban character does not follow a linear path. Suburbs can and do change directions as they readjust goals and development plans as well as respond to changing external and internal forces. Wheaton chose to maintain its bucolic, conservative image over its 160-year history. But this was not predetermined or easy; Wheaton leaders and residents made numerous deliberate decisions to accomplish this. Naperville presents a contrast: a once small town made conscious choices to annex land for housing while encouraging high-tech companies to move into town after Bell Laboratories arrived in 1964. In recent years, West Chicago has worked to counter negative stereotypes even as it remains more working-class than much of DuPage County. The starting points and later big moments in suburbs are not destiny, and they have more autonomy in choosing their own paths than is often assumed (Ghitter and Smart 2009).
The dynamism of suburban character will continue as suburbs age and experience additional character moments. Conditions can change quickly: During the 1980s and 1990s, Naperville was one of the fastest-growing cities in the country and was praised in the early-2000s by multiple publications. But now that greenfield development has shifted elsewhere, what will Naperville become? In coming years, many suburban leaders and residents will have opportunities to determine whether the character of their community will be maintained or changed in light of new challenges.
Ultimately, ignoring or downplaying the role character plays in suburban development decisions leaves scholars with an incomplete understanding of suburban growth and communities. This study of three Chicago suburbs shows that particular suburbs not only have unique characters but these are shaped in consequential character moments, which then are extremely influential for a community’s growth trajectory. While some studies have provided in-depth looks at particular suburbs (e.g., Gans 1967; Nicolaides 2002; Seeley, Sim, and Loosley 1956), additional case studies or comparative works that examine specific suburban clusters or groups over time would provide insights about different kinds of and motivations for character moments, the particular characters of unique suburbs, and the patterns among suburbs across regions or suburban types. Local decisions are made with both economics and character in mind: As business people, local leaders, and residents discuss and then make key decisions that send a suburb one way or another, the existing and future character of the community is a consistent consideration. Only when character is included as an ever-present and important variable in the analysis of suburban development will we have a deeper understanding of suburban communities, their differences, and their growth and development patterns.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by an Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts graduate research grant from the University of Notre Dame.