Protect-community movements across America are alive and well. The authors examine one such movement in a Chicago working-class neighborhood—Pilsen. They focus on a discourse oppositional to gentrification that has effectively mobilized space and historicity to speak its truths. The results reveal that diverse mental spaces were constructed and used in discourse to offer two critical constructions: positive resident identities, and developers as villains. Such spaces, grounding medium in the discourse, framed, organized, and illuminated these constructions. This visual rhetoric, Henri Lefebvre's representation of spaces, was a key ingredient in discourse. With actual and threatened opposition to gentrification, many developers formed a sense of a ‘ready-to-rumble neighborhood’. Fears of virulent street tactics (that is, harassment of gentrifiers) most discouraged developers because they could make development projects risky.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenkoGStrohmayerU, 1997Space and Social Theory (Blackwell, Oxford).
2.
BensmanDLynchR, 1990Rusted Dreams: Hard Times In A Steel Community (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
3.
BourdieuP, 1977Toward An Outline Of A Theory of Practice (Basic Books, New York).
4.
Chicago Historical Society, 2000, “Out of the Loop: neighborhood voices”, technical document, Chicago Historical Society, Clark Street at North Avenue, Chicago, IL 60614-6071.
5.
Chicago Sun – Times2001, “University village rises on Maxwell Street site”, 26 October, page 21.
6.
Chicago Tribune2000, “A new chapter”, 20 August, page 14.
7.
Community News Project, 1999, “New life in city core as homes spiral out from Loop”, technical document, Community Media Workshop, c/o Columbia College, 600 S. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60605–1996.
8.
CoxK, 1993, “The local and the global in the new urban politics: A Critical view”Environment and Planning D, Sociology and Space11433–448.
9.
CoxK, 1999, “Ideology and the growth coalition”, in The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later Eds JonasA E GWilsonD (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY) pp 21–36.
10.
CresswellT, 1996In Space/Out Space (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: MN).
11.
DearM J, 1997, “Postmodern bloodlines”, in Space and Social Theory Eds BenkoGStrohmayerU (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 49–71.
12.
DearM JClarkG, 1984State Apparatus: The Language of Legitimacy (Routledge, London).
13.
DelgadoT, 1999, “Exiles, migrants, settlers, and natives: literary representations of Chicano/as and Mexicans in the Midwest”, OP64, Julian Samora Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.
14.
DiskinJDuttonT A, 2002, “Cincinnati a year later and no wiser”Shelterforce Online123 (May/June).
15.
GamboaI, 2001, “Pilsen today: trends and processes”, technical document, available from the author.
16.
Great Cities Institute, 2000, “UIC neighborhoods initiative”, technical report, Great Cities Institute, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL.
17.
GreeneR, 1997, “Chicago's new immigrants, indigenous poor, and edge cities”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science551178–191.
18.
HackworthJSmithN, 2001, “The changing state of gentrification”Tidschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie924664–4477.
19.
HamnettC, 2000, “The study of gentrification”, in A Companion to the City Eds BridgeGWatsonS (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 288–297.
20.
HarveyD, 1989The Condition of Postmodernity (Blackwell, Oxford).
21.
HarveyD, 1996Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference (Blackwell, Oxford).
22.
HastingsA, 1999, “Analyzing power relations in partnerships: Is there a role for discourse analysis”Urban Studies3691–106.
23.
JonesJ P, 1995, “Making geography objectively”, in Objectivity and Its Other Eds NatterWSchatzkiT SJonesJ P (Guilford Press, New York) pp 51–76.
24.
JordanY, 2000, “Maxwell Street—a long battle for territory”, technical report, Olive-Harvey College, Chicago, IL.
KennedyL, 2000Race and Urban Space In Contemporary American Culture (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh).
27.
LeesL, 2000, “A reappraisal of gentrification: Towards a geography of gentrification”Progress in Human Geography24389–408.
28.
LefebvreH, 1981The Production of Space (University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas).
29.
LeventhalA, 2001, “Viva Chicago! Pilsen and Little Village are authentic Mexican barrios in the windy city”Travel 17 May, page 2.
30.
LiggettH, 1995, “City sights: Sights of memories and dreams”, in Spatial Practices Eds LiggettHPerryD (Sage, Newbury Park, CA) pp 243–273.
31.
LincolnB, 1989Discourse and the Construction of Society (Oxford University Press, New York).
32.
McCannE, 2000, “Race, protest, and public space: Contextualizing Lefebvre in the US city”Antipode3221–37.
33.
MasseyD, 1992, “Politics and space/time”New Left Review number 196, 65–84.
34.
MeleC, 2000Selling the Lower East Side: Real Estate, Culture, and Resistance in New York (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN).
35.
MeleC, 2001, “The materiality of urban discourse: Rational planning in the restructuring of the early twentieth-century ghetto”Urban Affairs Review35628–648.
36.
MuellerT, 1999Discourse and Transformation in St Louis unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL.
37.
MunozV, 1998Resisting Gentrification and Displacement: Voices of Puerto Rican Women of the Barrio (Garland, New York).
38.
News and Views1996, “Local banks, UIC partnering to revitalize neighborhoods”22–4.
39.
NortonA, 1993Economy of Signs (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
40.
PeckJTheodoreN, 2001, “Contingent Chicago: Restructuring the spaces of temporary labor”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research25427–460.
41.
Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, 2001, “Community friendly development versus gentrification”, paper presented at the Call to Action Conference, March 3, Chicago, Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, 2502 West Division Street, Chicago, IL 60622-2804.
