A pivotal innovation in the production of urban space has been the rise of privately governed neighborhoods overseen by homeowners associations (HOAs). One in every five American households resides in an HOA neighborhood regulated by conditions, covenants, and restrictions amounting to what has been referred to as a “quiet revolution” of urban politics. Their proliferation across cities warrants greater attention as they signify the transformation of state–civil society relations whereby nonstate entities are increasingly important actors in shaping the terrain of citizenship. HOAs are granted broad powers by the state and have profound effects on homeowners’ experiences of everyday life through regulations that generate neighborhood space. This article examines the different modalities of governance deployed by HOAs to shape homeowner participation in producing a certain yard aesthetic, namely the lawn. While the lawn is a dominant cultural landscape in the United States, we find that homeowners in privately governed neighborhoods report a greater commitment to producing a lush, green, well-manicured lawn and apply higher rates of fertilizer to their yards than households in nonprivately governed neighborhoods. Although HOAs exercise power by directly regulating homeowners’ spatial practices, they also govern indirectly by holding out the possibility of a sense of place and belonging that is connected to the production of aestheticized and commoditized landscapes. The deployment of both disciplinary and governmental forms of power supplement each other in the ongoing process of building neighborhood citizens that actively shape circuits of global capitalist investment in cities through the imaginary of neighborhood community.
Bailey N and Manzi T (2010) Governing through community? A comparative study of changing management practices in mixed tenure housing development. Conference paper presented at Comparative Housing Research: Approaches and Challenges in a New International Era, Technical University of U Delft, Netherlands, 23–25 March 2010.
2.
BirchMBGramigBMMoomawWR (2010) Why metrics matter: Evaluating policy choices for reactive nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environmental Science & Technology45(1): 168–174.
3.
BlaineTWClaytonSRobbinsP (2012) Homeowner attitudes and practices towards residential landscape management in Ohio, USA. Environmental Management50(2): 257–271.
4.
BlomleyN (1998) Landscapes of property. Law and Society Review32(3): 567–612.
5.
BormannFBalmoriDGordonG (2001) Redesigning the American Lawn: A Search for Environmental Harmony, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
BoudreauxP (2009) Homes, rights, and private communities. U. Fla. Journal of Law and Public Policy20: 479–535.
7.
BoyackA (2014) Community covenant alienation restraints and the hazard of unbounded servitudes. Real Estate Law Journal42(4): 450–492.
8.
BröcklingUKrasmannSLemkeT (2010) Governmentality: Current Issues and Future Challenges, New York: Routledge.
9.
CarricoAFraserJBazuinJ (2013) Green with envy: Psychological and social predictors of lawn fertilizer application. Environment and Behavior45(4): 427–454.
10.
CheshireLRosenblattTLawrenceG (2009) The governmentality of master planning: Housing consumption, aesthetics and community on a new estate. Housing Studies24(5): 653–667.
11.
ChowdhuryRLarsonKGroveM (2011) A multi-scalar approach to theorizing socio-ecological dynamics of urban residential landscapes. Cities and the Environment4(1): 6.
CookEHallSLarsonK (2012) Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: A synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosystems15(1): 19–52.
14.
CramptonJWEldenS (2007) Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography, London: Ashgate Publishing.
15.
CruikshankB (1999) The Will To Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
16.
DowningA (1849) A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening: Adapted to North, London: GP Putnam.
17.
EttlingerN (2011) Governmentality as epistemology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers101(3): 537–560.
18.
FallovM (2010) Community capacity building as the route to inclusion in neighbourhood regeneration?International Journal of Urban and Regional Research34(4): 789–804.
19.
FeaganRRipmeesterM (2001) Reading private green space: Competing geographic identities at the level of the lawn. Philosophy & Geography4(1): 79–95.
20.
FieldsD (2015) Contesting the financialization of urban space: Community organizations and the struggle to preserve affordable rental housing in New York City. Journal of Urban Affairs37(2): 144–165.
21.
FissoreCBakerLHobbieS (2011) Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus fluxes in household ecosystems in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Minnesota, urban region. Ecological Applications21(3): 619–639.
22.
FlintJ (2003) Housing and ethopolitics: Constructing identities of active consumption and responsible community. Economy and Society32(4): 611–629.
23.
FoucaultMBurchellGGordonC (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
FoucaultMSenellartMEwaldF (2009) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France 1977–1978Vol. 4, New York: Macmillan.
25.
FraserJBazuinJBandL (2013) Covenants, cohesion, and community: the effects of neighborhood governance on lawn fertilization. Landscape and Urban Planning115: 30–38.
26.
FranzeseP (2005) Privatization and its discontents: Common interest communities and the rise of government for ‘the nice’. The Urban Lawyer37(3): 335–356.
27.
FranzesePSiegelS (2007) Trust and community: The common interest community as metaphor and paradox. Missouri Law Review72(1): 1111–1157.
28.
GothamK (2002) Race, Real Estate, and Uneven Development: The Kansas City Experience, 1900–2000, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
29.
GothamK (2006) The secondary circuit of capital reconsidered: Globalization and the US real estate sector. American Journal of Sociology112(1): 231–275.
30.
GroffmanPLawNBeltK (2004) Nitrogen fluxes and retention in urban watershed ecosystems. Ecosystems7(4): 393–403.
31.
HarrisEMartinDPolskyC (2013) Beyond ‘lawn people’: The role of emotions in suburban yard management practices. The Professional Geographer65(2): 345–361.
32.
Harris E, Polsky C, Larson K, et al. (2012) Heterogeneity in residential yard care: Evidence from Boston, Miami, and Phoenix. Human Ecology 40(5): 735–749.
33.
HaughtonGAllmendingerPOosterlynckS (2013) Spaces of neoliberal experimentation: Soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality. Environment and Planning A45(1): 217–234.
34.
HarveyD (1978) The urban process under capitalism: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research2(1–4): 101–131.
35.
HarveyD (2001) Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography, New York: Routledge.
36.
HeckRThomasSTabataL (2012) Multilevel Modeling of Categorical Outcomes Using IBM SPSS, New York: Routledge.
37.
HeckRThomasSTabataL (2013) Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling with IBM SPSS, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
38.
HegelG (1991[1821]) Hegel: Elements of the Philosophy of Right, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
HoxJ (2010) Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications, Quantitative Methodology Series, New York: Routledge.
40.
ImmergluckD (2011) The local wreckage of global capital: The subprime crisis, federal policy and high-foreclosure neighborhoods in the US. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research35(1): 130–146.
41.
JenkinsV (1994) The Lawn: A History of an American Obsession, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
42.
JohnsonB (2013) Neighborhood covenants and restrictions: An examination of fit. GeoJournal78(4): 601–614.
43.
JonesJ (2011) Property and personhood revisited. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy1(1): 93–136.
44.
JosephM (2002) Against the Romance of Community, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
45.
KennaTDunnK (2009) The virtuous discourses of private communities. Geography Compass3(2): 797–816.
46.
KirbyA (2008) The production of private space and its implications for urban social relations. Political Geography27(1): 74–95.
47.
KrätkeS (2014) Cities in contemporary capitalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38(5): 1660–1677.
48.
LarsonKBrumandJ (2014) Paradoxes in landscape management and water conservation: Examining neighborhood norms and institutional forces. Cities and the Environment7(1): 6.
49.
LarsonKCasagrandeDHarlanS (2009) Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: Social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environmental Management44(5): 921–937.
50.
LepofskyJFraserJ (2003) Building community citizens: Claiming the right to place-making in the city. Urban Studies40(1): 127–142.
51.
LermanSTurnerKBangC (2012) Homeowner associations as a vehicle for promoting native urban biodiversity. Ecology and Society17(4): 45–58.
52.
LeviR (2009) Gated communities in law’s gaze: Material forms and the production of a social body in legal adjudication. Law & Social Inquiry34(3): 635–669.
53.
LowS (2003) Behind the Gates, New York: Routledge.
54.
LowSSmithN (2006) The Politics of Public Space, New York: Routledge.
55.
McCabeB (2005) The rules are different here: An institutional comparison of cities and homeowners associations. Administration & Society37(4): 404–425.
56.
McCabeB (2011) Homeowners associations as private governments: What we know, what we don’t know, and why it matters. Public Administration Review71(4): 535–542.
57.
McGuirk P and Dowling R (2009) Neoliberal privatisation? Remapping the public and the private in Sydney's masterplanned residential estates. Political Geography 28(3): 174–185.
58.
McGuirkPDowlingR (2011) Governing social reproduction in masterplanned estates: Urban politics and everyday life in Sydney. Urban Studies48(12): 2611–2628.
59.
McKeeK (2011) Sceptical, disorderly and paradoxical subjects: Problematizing the “will to empower” in social housing governance. Housing, Theory and Society28(1): 1–18.
60.
McKenzieE (1994) Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government, New Haven: Yale University Press.
61.
McKenzieE (2006) Emerging trends in state regulation of private communities in the US. GeoJournal66(1–2): 89–102.
MacphersonCHobbesT (1962) The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
64.
MartiniNFNelsonKCHobbieSE (2015) Why ‘feed the lawn’? Exploring the influences on residential turf grass fertilization in the Minneapolis−Saint Paul metropolitan area. Environment and Behavior47(2): 158–183.
65.
MarusekS (2012) Lawnscape: Semiotics of space, spectacle, and ownership. Social Semiotics22(4): 447–458.
66.
NassauerJWangZDayrellE (2009) What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning92(3): 282–292.
67.
NelsonR (2011) Homeowners associations in historical perspective. Public Administration Review71(4): 546–549.
68.
NelsonRH (2005) Private Neighborhoods and the Transformation of Local Government, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
69.
ParsonD (2005) Making a Better World: Public Housing, the Red Scare, and the Direction of Modern Los Angeles, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
PetersonNSpeerPMcMillanD (2008) Validation of a brief sense of community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology36(1): 61–73.
72.
PiererMSchröckAWiniwarterW (2015) Analyzing consumer-related nitrogen flows: A case study on food and material use in Austria. Resources, Conservation and Recycling101: 203–211.
73.
Pow C (2014) Urban dystopia and epistemologies of hope. Progress in Human Geography. DOI: 10.1177/0309132514544805.
74.
PurcellM (2006) Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Studies43(11): 1921–1941.
75.
RaudenbushSBrykA (2001) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76.
RobbinsP (2007) Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds and Chemicals Make Us Who We Are, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
77.
RobbinsPPoldermanABirkenholtzT (2001) Lawns and toxins: An ecology of the city. Cities18(6): 369–380.
78.
RobbinsPSharpJ (2003) Producing and consuming chemicals: The moral economy of the American lawn. Economic Geography79(4): 425–451.
79.
RoseN (1996) The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. Economy and Society25(3): 327–356.
80.
SchellerD (2015) Neighborhood governments and their role in property values. Urban Affairs Review51(2): 290–302.
81.
SelhorstALalR (2013) Net carbon sequestration potential and emissions in home lawn turfgrasses of the United States. Environmental Management51(1): 198–208.
82.
SendingOJNeumannIB (2006) Governance to governmentality: Analyzing NGOt, states, and power. International Studies Quarterly50(3): 651–672.
83.
SmithJ (2006) The law of yards. Ecology Law Quarterly33: 203–232.
84.
StaeheliLA (2008) Citizenship and the problem of community. Political Geography27(1): 5–21.
85.
SteinbergT (2006) American Green: The Obsessive Quest for the Perfect Lawn, New York: WW Norton.
86.
SwyngedouwE (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies42(11): 1991–2006.
87.
TaoJMcCabeB (2012) Where a hollow state casts no shadow: Homeowner associations in local governments. The American Review of Public Administration42(6): 678–694.
88.
TekleA (2011) Lawns and the new watershed law. Marquette Law Review95: 213–244.
89.
TownshendI (2006) From public neighbourhoods to multi-tier private neighbourhoods: The evolving ecology of neighbourhood privatization in Calgary. GeoJournal66(1–2): 103–120.
90.
TurnerVIbesD (2011) The impact of homeowners associations on residential water demand management in Phoenix, Arizona. Urban Geography32(8): 1167–1188.
91.
WalksA (2006) Aestheticization and the cultural contradictions of neoliberal (sub)urbanism. Cultural Geographies13(3): 466–475.
92.
WalksA (2013) Suburbanism as a way of life, slight return. Urban Studies50(8): 1471–1488.
93.
WeigertA (1994) Lawns of weeds: Status in opposition to life. The American Sociologist25(1): 80–96.
94.
WhitneyK (2010) Living lawns, dying waters: The suburban boom, nitrogenous fertilizers, and the nonpoint source pollution dilemma. Technology and Culture51(3): 652–674.
