Can places have an inbuilt ideology?

[Sol]

And can that ideology change?

I was thinking earlier today about Montgomery County, TX. It's grown a lot recently as this super-right wing exurb of Houston, and it voted hugely for Romney. It's planned out as a sort of sprawltopia, with little public transit or dense urbanity. It seems like Montgomery County, has had, as a result of its planning, had conservatism encoded into its DNA. It's hard to imagine very many cultural left-wingers wanting to take up residence in such a hostile place.

But then consider the Bay Area. SF's suburbs were built in the usual auto-dependent way back in the 1950s, and they were fairly conservative. But since then, they've become more diverse and more heavily Democratic. But yet there is a certain conservatism there regarding many things--see this Geocurrents post, as well as the associated series. In Atlanta, Clayton County is only just getting around to inviting MARTA in, despite being overwhelmingly Democratic for a while.

Is such conservatism inbuilt in America's suburbs, even when they switch their party affiliation? And can such things be changed?

[Del Tachi]

No.

The conservative people who live in Montgomery County built it that way; the way that Montgomery County is built hasn't "made" the people there conservative there.

People create place, not the other way around.

[Indy Texas]

I grew up in Montgomery County, so I can give you a little background.

The ironic thing about its rightward tilt is that The Woodlands, the exurb that anchors the county (Conroe, the county seat, is a town in secular decline with a largely poor and black population), was built with the goal of being a model for 21st century urban planning.

George Mitchell (the energy tycoon, not the Maine senator) became very worried in the 1970s that the world was suffering from overpopulation and using an unsustainable amount of energy. He was involved in the Zero Population Growth movement that was de rigueur at that time, as well as the Club of Rome.

The Woodlands was supposed to be socially and environmentally "sustainable." They avoided the standard practice of clear-cutting trees to maximize the amount of natural forestation. They laid out subdivisions with the goal of ensuring rich, poor and middle-class people lived near one another (though in practice, there were hardly any poor people to begin with). Interfaith was founded and envisioned to become a nonsectarian, private social safety net, offering food pantries and women's shelters. There was also standard yuppie NIMBY-ism: there were no McDonalds in The Woodlands until the late '80s and no Walmart until the early '00s because those chains would not agree to build stores without the large electric signage that was banned to avoid light pollution.

In the late '90s, George Mitchell sold the development company that built and managed The Woodlands to get the capital he needed to safe his troubled natural gas company. It changed hands a few times but wound up being run by people with no emotional connection to the place who were solely focused on maximizing shareholder value. So pretty much everything that has been built there since the year 2000 or so is bland, corporate Toll Brothers-type crap. Trees get clear cut because it's cheaper. They don't bother putting sidewalks in anymore because walking is for communists. While the early developments always included a decent number of starter homes and even apartment complexes, today pretty much anyone who isn't at least upper-middle class is priced out of the market up there.

[Reginald]

I'm not clear on some of your terminology.

What exactly do you mean by "inbuilt?" Inherent and/or immutable? That seems highly flawed to me, way too deterministic. In any case, I wouldn't say that places have an ideology so much as they reflect an ideology. And every square inch of the built environment necessarily reflects some ideology. And of course that can be changed. I'll also address Del Tachi in that this given place can then influence (though certainly not "create") the ideas/attitudes of its residents.

I also have problems with the equation of conservatism with "anti-densification" and opposition to public transit. I understand what you mean, but wouldn't something like "individualism" be a more appropriate word there? Ultimately, I don't think I buy "cultural left-wingers" being uniformly uncomfortable in oh-so-hostile Montgomery County (by which you basically mean The Woodlands, btw; I doubt rural Montgomery County gives two craps about public transit). Most people don't spend too much of their time thinking about urban/transportation issues.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Vermont voted for Alf Landon and Bernie Sanders, so not really seeing a pattern there.

[traininthedistance]

I understand what you mean, but wouldn't something like "individualism" be a more appropriate word there?

No?  I don't see what's inherently "individualist" about low population densities (or anti-individualist about urban living).

"Hypocritical", OTOH, would work quite well (esp. as regards Palo Alto).

[Reginald]

I don't see what's inherently "individualist" about low population densities (or anti-individualist about urban living).

I didn't mean inherently individualist; I wanted to make sure to say "more appropriate" rather than something more definitive. And there likely is a better way to put it. My point was that I really don't see it as a left-right issue.

[stegosaurus]

Montgomery County is overwhelmingly white and wealthy. It has nothing to do with "ideology" and everything to do with self preservation.

[ingemann]

Of course they can.

Cities as example have a inbuilt collectivistic ideology, you simply need to set the need of the whole over the parts, because if you don't, it's going to be quite dysfunctional.

Another example would be the archetypical American suburb against the railway town.

The structures you build have create a inherent need, which create a inbuilt ideology.

[RI]

Places with strong natural beauty tend be associated with inherent environmentalist leanings.

[AggregateDemand]

Places can have inbuilt ideology.

Coastal California will probably always be environmentally conscious because the California coast is beautiful and the climate is mild. Coastal environments are often sensitive to ecological damage (high-brow Democrat).

Academic communities will probably always lean Democratic because establishing elitism via ethereal academic achievements is more compelling that something concrete, like money or net assets. I can't see academic institutions changing, unless professors are compensated like hedge-fund managers.

Mountainous regions with low population density will always be fiercely independent and usually vote for the anti-establishment party (mostly pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-government R's, but some anti-corporate, pro-pot D's).

The corn belt sways like the leaves on a cornstalk depending upon the most lavish subsidies on offer, which is a form of self-interested democracy with direct-representation. The votes are as fickle as the crop yields and rain patterns.

The suburbs will probably always be overflowing with disinterested apathetic moderate Republicans who vote in herds for status quo (low-grade R's). Urban areas will always be stocked with social reactionaries who need to influence others and groupthink (lowest-common-denominator Democrat).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Vermont voted for Alf Landon and Bernie Sanders, so not really seeing a pattern there.

     This ties into what I was thinking. Areas can be made that will tend to appeal to people with certain ideological leanings. The problem with describing this as an "inbuilt ideology" is that it can and does change over time.