Local History In The 'burbs

Local History in the ‘Burbs. Place Attachment and Community Agency in Suburban Communities.

Brian A. Salmons

Paper #4 for CD505X “Community Development II” Dr. Timothy Borich

Spring 2007 Iowa State University

These streets have too many names for me. I'm used to Glenfield Road and spending my time down in Orchy. I'll get used to this eventually, I know, I know… Paolo Nutini, "These Streets" (2006)

Introduction About ten miles east of Tampa, Florida, within the boundaries of the unincorporated towns of Brandon and Seffner, lies an area of suburban neighborhoods of varying ages and styles. On the northern end of this area is Brandon Country Estates, a non-descript subdivision platted in the early 1970's. Old Sawmill Road runs through this subdivision for a distance of about 1,000 feet before merging with Williams Road. Further south in this suburban area is a small lake encircled by a few small houses and other residential structures. Some of the houses have boat docks allowing them access to the lake for fishing. A little bit west of the lake is a street of ranch-style houses built mostly in the 1960's and framed by rows of dilapidated orange trees. A 94-year-old woman lives in one of the houses with her second husband. She can be seen on Saturdays racing around on her riding lawnmower cutting the grass in her backyard, being careful to avoid a wood and metal post that stands by itself looking vaguely out-of-place. Undoubtedly, these descriptions of features of a Tampa Bay suburban landscape bear resemblance to countless other suburban neighborhoods in other metropolitan regions, most of which were built starting in the post-World War II period for white, middle-class urban residents seeking an escape from cities' rising crime rates, racial tensions and deteriorating school systems. From the beginnings of this mass migration, commentators on suburban life were struck by the 'sameness' and 'conformity' that seemed to characterize the physical design and social atmosphere of

suburban-style development. Riesman (1958) commented on what he saw as "an aimlessness, a pervasive low-keyed unpleasure which cannot be described in terms of traditional sorrows" that existed in suburbia (p. 377). Riesman saw the suburban style of life as one marked by loss of "diversity, complexity and texture" (p. 375). In countless commentaries since then, the 'suburb' has been stereotyped as 'suburbia' (Tuan 1974: 225), a place of "bland, materialistic, ticky-tacky boxes on a hillside where people are conformist on the outside and hollow within" (Brooks 2004: ¶ 9) and which stifles the "social interaction, sense of membership, and democratic engagement" that characterized communities of the past (Oliver 2001: 2). Of course, not all suburban communities fit this stereotype. Riesman acknowledged this, explaining that his criticisms are aimed more at the "ideal-typical suburb, more nearly approximated by the newer post-War developments and tract housing than by older suburbs" and that his ire towards the suburbs arises from his own impressions of it, rather than from hard facts (1958: 375-376). However diverse and subjective the experiences of suburban residents may actually be, a great deal of material published in the United States in the 20th and early 21st centuries suggests that a significant portion of the suburban population is in fact dissatisfied with their environment, or else feels no sense of place or attachment to the suburban landscapes in which they live and work (e.g. Goodman & Goodman 1947; Riesman 1958; Jacobs 1961; Mumford 1961; Tuan 1974; Richards 1990; Kunstler 1994; Duany et al. 2000; Putnam 2000; Oliver 2001; Salamon 2003). As a result, even though these places may be called "communities" by developers and residents, the sense of belonging that characterizes a true “community” seems to be in shortage, meaningful social interaction is at a minimum (compared to many rural and urban places) and the potential for community development and betterment, based in active participation and social interaction, is low. Even the thought of making suburban communities "better" seems absurd, given the prevalent yet out-dated stereotype of suburbs as the refuge of middle-class, white-collar workers possessing ample

financial capital and an American pioneer spirit of rugged individualism, assets often assumed to be the panacea for the problems of American society at large. The Brandon/Seffner area described earlier is one such "community" without community. I know because I lived there, across the street from the lawnmower-riding 94-year-old woman. I knew some of my neighbors, though not well enough to call them friends, nor even acquaintances. They were just my neighbors. Undoubtedly many of the area's residents had long-standing relationships with their neighbors and participated in recreational or even quasi-governmental activities together (e.g. homeowners’ association meetings). But the neighborhood as a whole had no unifying sense of community that encompassed a majority of the residents, nor did this sense likely even graze the consciousness of a fraction of them. In spite of this, and in contrast to Riesman's stereotypical suburbanite, I personally managed to develop an emotional bond with the neighborhood in which I resided for 3 short years. I came to understand my neighborhood as a place distinct from all the other neighborhoods in the region and from the suburban neighborhoods where I had spent my childhood. This "place attachment" that I developed towards my neighborhood, rather than arising from a sense of community or social belonging, was rooted in and fostered by an intense familiarity with the area's history acquired through archival research. I came to think of my neighborhood as "Limona", the historic name for an area now officially identified by the postal codes for Brandon and Seffner. I looked at the rows of orange trees and thought of how the vast citrus groves that once covered the region were bulldozed to construct my house (and the rest of them). In an old newspaper article I read the story of the large bell that was rung when dinnertime arrived, an artifact long since stripped from the post standing in my neighbor's backyard. I discovered that the little lake down the road was created when a sinkhole opened up in the ground back in 1879, an event barely marked in the news of the day. Further research told the tale of E.I. Burdick of Albion, Wisconsin who settled on the pine-covered

northern fringe of Limona and constructed a sawmill, a structure now commemorated solely by a couple of regulation street signs above an asphalt-paved road fronted by two dozen houses containing two dozen families, most of whom probably do not know one another.

Background The purpose of this anecdote about the local history and present community of a suburban neighborhood is to demonstrate how fostering place attachment through an appreciation of local history can create the potential for greater involvement in a community on the part of its residents. While this potential was not realized in my personal experience in “Limona” (introverts like myself might need significantly more incentive to get involved in community activities), I nonetheless believe that the general idea has merit and that this form of place attachment may be useful from a community development perspective when aggregated to the level of the community. In this paper I will attempt to sketch the outline of such a theoretical strategy of community development, where positive community change is effected through the agency of residents possessing an appreciation of the history of the ‘place’ and the ‘space’ that their community occupies (Brandenburg & Carroll 1995). While a ‘local history’-based approach to community development has potential applications for any number of different community types, the variant developed here is intended for use in ‘new places’, particularly the American suburban community. In the following subsections contains some background discussion about the concepts and terms used in this paper, as well as an overview of existing community development approaches that have been used in suburban environments. First, the literature that informs the theory of a local history-based approach to community development will be surveyed and summarized, after which the type of community that is targeted by this strategy, the suburb, is examined in more detail. In the Strategy section, a sampling of previous community development strategies, intended to correct the

perceived threat to or cause of a low quality of life in suburban neighborhoods, will be assessed for effectiveness and relevance to the suburban context. After that, a discussion about the ‘community building’ role of local history within the historical and archival professions will be summarized. Lastly, particular suggestions for implementing and carrying out a local history-based approach to community development will be presented, these drawn largely from Timothy Beatley’s Native to Nowhere (2004).

‘Place’ and ‘space’ Synthesizing the work of others, Brandenburg & Carroll (1995) describe ‘place’ as being “composed of actual physical environments or settings and all that occurs in that setting” (p. 384). In this definition, ‘place’ draws on both the human experience of a physical environment (“the meanings, values, traditions, and experiences of [those] who describe and define a space as a place”) as well as the “nature of a given space”, the environmental characteristics of a space that exist independently of its experiential meaning as a ‘place’ (p. 385). A similar relationship between the concepts 'place' and 'space' was used by Lucy & Phillips (2000b), wherein "places are created from spaces" through long-term social interaction with neighbors, friends and local organizations, in turn fostering attachment to place (p. 277). The conception of ‘place’ as being constituted by the human meaning and values that are attached to it implies that a location without these attachments is “just an empty space” (Brandenburg & Carroll 1995: 385). ‘Space’, then, is like a theatrical stage on which social actors live and work in the drama of life, continuously creating meaning and value, and thereby transforming the stage into a scene depicted in the drama. Human agency (including stories about human agency in the past) transforms a ‘space’ into a ‘place’.

Place attachment & communities of memory If ‘place’-creation were a process that produced only fleeting instances of ‘community’ forgotten by succeeding generations, it would not be relevant to the local history-based strategy for community development presented in this paper. But the creation of ‘place’ does matter because, as a result of the social interaction that contributes to producing ‘place’, place attachment is also fostered providing the opportunity for greater individual and collective concern for a community. Discussions of “place attachment”, “sense of place” and “community attachment” are abundant in the literature. Tuan (1974) coined the term “topophilia” (literally, “love of place”) to describe the totality of human affective attachment to ‘place’ (p. 93). Others have striven to dissect the concept of place attachment and examine it in terms of its relation to specific landscapes or theoretical concerns (e.g. Brandenburg & Carroll 1995; Brehm et al. 2006; Cuba & Hummon 1993; Hummon 1992). These studies arrived at widely varying conclusions regarding the causes of place attachment and what characteristics are necessary for a community, ‘place’ or landscape to become the object of attachment. The studies are of primary use to a local history-based strategy in their discussion of either the role of past experience in a particular ‘place’ and its cumulative effect in the creation of place attachment, or of how a ‘sense of place’ contributes to the formation of personal and community identity and attachment. Cuba & Hummon (1993), for example, define the “place identity” variant of place attachment as an answer derived from the interrelation of the questions “Who am I?” and “Where am I?” (p. 112). Here, having a ‘sense of place’ in relation to the physical and social environment is instrumental in the formation of identity. Hummon previously (1992) surveyed the literature on attachment and formulated a unifying concept of “community sentiment” that encompasses “community identification” (place identity) and “community attachment” (place attachment), as well “community satisfaction”. This last facet of community sentiment is determined largely by ecological factors and perception of quality of the built environment. The interrelation of

these three facets of community sentiment has great explanatory power in the examination of suburban communities, as residents of these communities “may be quite satisfied with their community without developing deeper emotional ties to the locale”, while residents of “blighted” or “declining” urban and rural communities “may express feelings of attachment to places they find less than satisfactory” (p. 260-261). The combinations of factors that Hummon identifies as making essential contributions to the generation of community sentiment provide other clues on how an awareness of local history can play a role in community development. As in the creation of ‘place’, social interaction is the most significant factor in the creation of community attachment. Social activities involving friends, family, local organizations and even local shopping venues were found to be the most important sources of emotional attachment to ‘place’ in the studies he cites (p. 257). By contrast, community identity arises out of “personal meanings of life experiences and the public images of local culture” (p. 262). While the personal element of identity formation (or modulation) plays a significant role in the development of community identity, Hummon’s discussion of the “public meanings” of communities as “symbolic locales with distinct cultural identities” (p. 259) is particularly relevant to our topic. However, the discussion on place attachment most pertinent to a local history-based strategy of community development concerns the concept of “communities of memory”. A community of memory, according to Bellah et al. (1985) is a community “that does not forget its past”, and is in fact “constituted by (its) past” (p. 153). They continue: In order not to forget that past, a community is involved in retelling its story, its constitutive narrative, and in doing so, it offers examples of the men and women who have embodied and exemplified the meaning of the community. These stories

of collective history and exemplary individuals are an important part of the tradition that is so central to a community of memory (p. 153). Communities of memory, as the objects of place attachment created through social interaction, provide a “context of meaning” within which perceptions of community performance and ‘quality of life’ can be evaluated. The evaluative aspect of this context enables the residents of a community to come together collectively, connecting their “aspirations for [them]selves…with the aspirations of a larger whole”. Communities of memory simultaneously “tie us to the past [and] turn us toward the future as communities of hope” (p. 153). As such, communities of memory provide us with a conceptual link with which to harness the creation of place attachment to the potential for community development, all through the collective agency of a community’s residents.

Community agency In their discussion of “disaffection” and “community agency”, Luloff and Swanson (1995) highlight some of the difficulties that are frequently encountered in the endeavor to mobilize community resources for purposes of community betterment. In contrast to other highly positive accounts of communities’ capacities for effecting change, Luloff and Swanson chose to tackle the question of “to what extent does a generalized disaffection reduce the opportunities for the emergence of pluralistic and democratic participation by residents in the affairs of their immediate locality” (p. 369). Disaffection, defined as “the degree of fragmentation, anomie, and alienation felt by members of a local society” (p. 351), is a condition recognizable in the descriptions of ‘suburbia’ presented earlier in the paper, particularly that of Riesman (1958). Disaffection has the direct effect of draining individual volition, thereby “limiting community agency and…local social and economic

development” (Luloff & Swanson 1995: 353). Unencumbered community agency, on the other hand, exists in the “capacity of people to manage, utilize, and enhance those resources available to them” (p. 352). Furthermore, …community agency as a concept assumes a capacity for individual and community volition – that is, it assumes that people make choices, even though the range of choices may be greatly…shaped by structural factors. These choices are mediated by individuals’ and communities’ understanding and interpretation of their social conditions…Consequently, such perceptions are intricately bound up in the culture and legacies they receive and articulate (p. 357). Here again we encounter the idea that communities are constituted by their past (culture and legacies), shaped by stories that relate examples of community successes and lessons learned. While the historical legacies inherited by a community may not always seem particularly relevant to contemporary residents, and may even be feared as disruptive to patterns of social interaction as they have evolved in the community over time, it is the intent of this paper to demonstrate how a simple awareness of the local history of a ‘place’ may contribute to increased place attachment among a suburban community’s residents, in turn increasing its “capacity for individual and community volition” to effect positive change and community development.

‘Suburbia’, suburbs & new places As alluded to in the introduction to this paper, ‘suburbia’ is a stereotype of the suburban environment, constructed out of astute observations of the social, cultural and psychological effects (actual or philosophical) of the suburban built environment (Riesman 1958; Kunstler 1994; Duany et

al. 2000), as well as from examples of suburban neighborhoods portrayed (both positively and negatively) in popular TV shows like Leave It To Beaver and The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriett and in movies like The Truman Show and The ‘Burbs. Tuan (1974) suggests that the “suburban image” can even be traced back to Jeffersonian ideals, noting the parallels between the suburban obsession with lawn maintenance and the image of the agrarian pioneer carving out a personal paradise in the frontier (p. 237). In contrast to 'suburbia' , a definition of the 'suburban community', or 'suburb', is much more difficult to arrive at. Criteria for classification as a suburb vary widely depending on the author. Salamon (2003), in her focus on suburban youth, characterizes suburbs as places with “high mobility, age segregation, a weak sense of community, and few work opportunities for adolescents” (p. 18). However, these demographic characteristics by no means describe all suburban places, and they seem to describe an older image of the suburbs as depicted in the idealistic portrayals mentioned earlier (cf. Riesman’s concern over “the concentration of people of a single age-grade and a single class in a suburb, without the presence of old people, servants, and teen-age children” [1958: 376]). Oliver presents other images of the suburb defined by distinct architectural styles, such as the prevalence of single-family homes with garages, or lifestyle choices, like long-distance commuting, but these summarizations of suburban community are also not entirely accurate, nor exclusive to the suburbs (2001: 3). Other attempts at defining the suburb focus on its physical location in reference to a central city, namely that it is “an outlying district of a city, especially residential” (Girling 1994: 171). However, this locational definition of the suburb encompasses a wide variety of settlement types, from post-War inner-ring suburbs to “technoburbs”, and edge cities to exurban, master-planned communities (Girling 1994; Oliver 2001). As Oliver matter-offactly states, “The range of places that now fall under the suburban moniker creates a big dilemma for anyone trying to determine what a suburb exactly is” (p. 8).

Fortunately, an exact definition of the suburb is not necessary for the purposes of this paper, It will be sufficient to simply outline some of the basic aspects of the suburban community to which a local history-based approach to community development might be applicable. Firstly, in line with Salamon’s description of suburban residents being highly mobile (i.e. not living in a neighborhood for very long), a suburban community is one where the majority of residents have lived there for a relatively short period of time. This is not to say that “oldtimers” are not found in the suburbs, nor that the populations of urban and rural communities are mostly without transient residents who pick up and leave after a couple of years. Undoubtedly, high mobility is not a distinguishing feature of the suburbs. However, the tendency for high turnover in suburban population is significant when it is considered concurrently with other characteristics. The second of these characteristics, discussed in detail earlier in the paper, is a low level of informal social interaction among residents. Richards (1990) notes that the suburbs are a place where social interaction with neighbors is experienced as a tense balance between privacy and community (p. 183). The role of the built environment in deterring social interaction in the suburbs will be discussed in the following section. But it is sufficient now to note that if a community already has a relatively high capacity for community agency, the search for another strategy for community development is probably not a major concern for that community. The third characteristic, and the most important for our particular community development strategy, is that suburbs are, historically speaking, ‘new places’. This term is intended here to refer to places where the present physical infrastructure or landscape has been drastically altered from its past appearance, or where there is otherwise little continuity between past and present cultural practices and patterns of social interaction. The 'new' part of the term implies that there is disrupt between a pre-suburban past and the suburban present, while 'place' refers to our discussion earlier

about the distinction between 'place' and 'space'. Hence, 'new places' occupy space formerly occupied by other, now historic, 'places'. In thinking about suburbs as 'new places', there is a tendency to see suburban-style development as a "stage in the process of urbanization" (Tuan 1974: 234). The history of the Bronx lends itself to this theory, as what was initially wilderness and farmland in this area of New York became groups of suburban villages, with these in turn eventually coalescing into the dense urban neighborhood that is the Bronx today (Miele 2007). An evolutionary theory of urbanization, generalized from a single case to the phenomenon of development as a whole, does not inform the concept of ‘new places’ delineated here. However, the rapid conversion of rural towns, farmland and natural areas into suburban developments oriented either towards other suburbs or to a central urban area for their consumer needs, cultural diversions and means of livelihood is a consistent theme of development in the United States. Salamon refers to the effect of these changes on rural towns swallowed up by the massive increase in population and built environment as a process of turning “old towns into a nontown, indistinguishable from countless other suburbs” (Salamon 2003: 11). Elsewhere she describes the “nontown” as “a postagrarian community, embedded in an agrarian landscape, but without any connection to it” (p. 12). The postagrarian community, or the “nontown” is, essentially, a pessimistic version of the ‘new place’ concept, wherein the link with the agrarian past has been suddenly terminated and lost irretrievably. The fabric of small-town and rural social activity, not to mention the agrarian landscape, has been paved and sodded over by the suburban landscape with its comparatively low level of social “interconnectedness” (p. 13). This process is certainly lamentable, and much has been written about the need to stop the suburban “sprawl” that seems only to intensify with each passing decade. But what is not often looked at is the issue of making the suburban communities, of the type Salamon characterizes as “nontowns”, better places to live. Going back to Hummon’s (1992)

tri-part synthesis of community sentiment, “nontowns”, as ‘new places’, may be high in community satisfaction (because, for example, the housing quality is high or the neighborhood is perceived as safe), but low in community attachment and community identity. A local history-based approach to community development is intended to address these latter two facets of community sentiment. Before delving into the specifics of how a local history-based strategy would work, it will be necessary to look briefly at community development strategies that have already been used in suburban communities, as well as trends in development policy and practice that are posited to affect the suburban environment.

Strategy A brief survey of the community development literature does not turn up any coherent strategy of community development for suburban communities. In fact, the idea that the suburbs should be the object of a community development strategy seems absurd within the context of 20th and 21st century American culture. To many Americans, the suburbs (or more appropriately ‘suburbia’) are the epitome of the ‘American Dream’. The suburbs are where single-family homes, with a two-car garages set apart from neighboring houses by large, green lawns and tasteful fences, are the norm and the ideal. Perhaps the most oft-heard reason for moving to the suburbs is that it is “good for bringing up children” (Tuan 1974: 230). The privacy and safety that this kind of environment affords its residents and their families represents to them the upholding of the American right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Incidental community development in the suburbs Duncan and Duncan explained the peculiar nature of suburban residential zoning and land preservation policies as intended to create exclusive residential communities along the lines of class

and race (2001). They criticize the discourse surrounding suburban preference as hiding behind an “aesthetic attitude towards place” that allows suburban residents to “isolate themselves visually from unattractive reminders of the economic basis of their privilege” (p. 406). Setting aside the fact that a great deal of suburbs, especially the early post-War developments, are not the refuge of the wealthy and have considerable proportions of minority homeowners and renters, the idea has yet some merit when examined in light of community development activities that have taken place in suburban neighborhoods. Two of these will be examined here: namely, the phenomenon of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and that of the New Urbanism.

NIMBYism Whether referred to as NIMBY, CAVE People (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) or BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone), the phenomenon of citizen opposition to development projects that might affect the community in which the citizen lives or works is one of the most persistent obstacles encountered by community development practitioners and planners. The occurrence of NIMBYism is particularly visible in suburban communities. The class interests of Duncan and Duncan’s (2001) “aestheticization of the politics of exclusion” theory may be a contributing factor to NIMBYism’s frequent occurrence in the suburbs. The fact that zoning regulations in some suburban areas are designed to limit the development of almost anything but single-family homes may be an indication that suburban residents have considerable political capital that they leverage to maintain the exclusive character of their neighborhoods. The possession of ample financial capital is certainly also a factor in the success of suburban communities to protect the individual interests of their residents as these affect the built environment. The issues that draw out the NIMBY phenomenon in suburban communities usually concern the siting of landfills and incinerators in proximity to the community (Flora, Flora & Fey

2004: 209), the proposed opening of a “big box” retail store (WalMart Alliance for Reform Now 2005), or the construction of additions to a subdivision (Keller 2003) or other houses types near the suburban development, particularly rental properties. Lucy & Phillips (2000b) point out how NIMBYism promotes suburban sprawl by forcing development further out from existing infrastructure, also noting the paradox in this opposition to development in that may actually benefit suburban communities (p. 278). Despite the prevalence of NIMBYism in suburban community development activity, its effectiveness is limited to the purpose of mobilizing residents temporarily around a specific issue facing the community. Hence, betterment of the community is limited to the enhancement of the “community satisfaction” element of community sentiment. Furthermore, this betterment is often sought at the expense of other communities in the region, such as businessoriented urban centers and rural communities located adjacent to natural amenities recreationally consumed by suburban residents (for discussion of environmentalism as an effect of consumer society see Summers 2006). Such an approach to community development is therefore unsuitable, and ultimately ineffective, for the goal of achieving the “long-term sustainability and well-being of the community” (Community Development Society n.d.).

The New Urbanism Since the 1980’s, much of the effort going into making communities better places to live has taken the form of 'development by design'. The foremost example of this approach is what is referred to as the New Urbanism, primarily a design-oriented approach towards improving the quality of life in urban places through construction of ‘livable’ built environments that foster informal social interaction. Fainstein (2000) describes New Urbanism as: Developed primarily by architects and journalists, [thus] it is perhaps more ideology than theory, and its message is carried not just by academics but by planning

practitioners and a popular movement…their aim [is] using spatial relations to create a close-knit social community that allows diverse elements to interact. The new urbanists call for an urban design that includes a variety of building types, mixed uses, intermingling of housing for different income groups, and a strong privileging of the “public realm” (p. 461). From this description, the differences between the “ideology” of New Urbanism and the ideal features of the suburban built environment are clearly visible. New Urbanism favors a mix of housing types to suit different income-levels while the typical suburb is designed to exclude those whose income or social networks are insufficient to purchase a single-family home of a standard quality. New Urbanist developments take the social basis for community as the primary concern of design while the suburbs are designed with personal and familial privacy as the main concern. To the extent that these features of the New Urbanism and suburban-style development represent two differing cultural preferences for the design of the built environment, they may be seen as complementary because they provide for a degree of choice in housing and community, something much valued in American consumer society. New Urbanism, particularly, is lauded as the solution to the problems created when the suburbs began drawing human and financial capital away from urban centers. But contrary to its stated aims of increasing social diversity, bridging the divide between residents of lower and higher income-levels, and fostering inclusive community interaction in public places, much New Urbanist development has occurred outside of the urban centers that inspired it. New Urbanist developments like Celebration, Florida and Seaside, Florida were built on the fringes of existing metropolitan areas, suburban-style, calling into question for many people whether they can actually meet the goals of New Urbanism. In his study of Celebration, Bartling (2002) determined that a sense of “community” had not developed in the town until the residents’ ideas about what constitutes “community” were threatened by outside actors. Celebration’s sense of

community was “based on unifying and defining a series of characteristics and requirements that serve[d] to set up boundaries for admission” (p. 64), and Bartling adds that “the price to buy into Celebration automatically discriminates against the majority of working-class people” (p. 66). New Urbanism, especially in its suburban incarnation of Celebration, appears to be as unsuited to the task of improving the quality of life in the suburban context as is NIMBYism. Its design-focused approach to incubating community largely fails to live up to its stated aims. The cause of this failure may be in no small part due to New Urbanist developments being relegated, through political opposition and zoning ordinances (Fainstein 2000: 463), to vacant land outside the pale of existing urban and suburban settlement. By virtue of being constructed on formerly rural and natural landscapes, New Urbanist developments are essentially ‘new places’, even despite the fact that they are designed to resemble urban neighborhoods and have the idealized “small town feel” that is popularly thought to characterize communities of the past. From this perspective, both suburban and New Urbanist communities are prone to the same problem of low community attachment and identification, even though the design of the communities may generate a high level of community satisfaction.

The ‘local history’ approach Unlike the sectional, class-interest approach of NIMBYism and the design-oriented approach espoused in the New Urbanism, a local history-based approach to community development seeks to improve the quality of life in ‘new places’, places with otherwise little opportunity for informal social interaction, by fostering an awareness and appreciation of the local history of other ‘places’ which have successively occupied the same ‘space’. Awareness of local history is thus not an end in itself in this strategy. Rather, the local history-based approach is intended to work by harnessing this new awareness to the potential for community agency in

effecting positive community change. The specific changes sought by a particular community will vary depending on the specific characteristics and dynamics of that community. But it is hoped that the inspiration of stories about the local past, and the perspective provided by an awareness of past events and landscapes that existed in the very same ‘space’ inhabited by the contemporary community of suburbanites’ familiarity, will encourage residents to envision a future for their community that is sustainable in relation to the surrounding region and recognizes and promotes the need for social inclusiveness, while still seeking to increase the level of community satisfaction which drew people to the suburbs in the first place. In outlining the strategy for a local history-based approach, attention must be paid not only to the studies surveyed earlier in this paper that inform us about what makes a community successful in developing community agency for the long-term; of equal importance are the lessons to be learned from stories about ‘community building’ as it has been experienced by members of the local history and archival professions. As curators of public collections of local historical material and as organizers of local historical projects (such as community oral history projects), historians and librarians have a significant degree of valuable insight that should inform any attempt at effecting community development through local history. While this paper will be dedicated to outlining methods of organizing a community development project and encouraging public participation in the process, knowledge of general methods of historical data collection are also of particular relevance to a local history-based approach to community development. Space constraints prevent the discussion of these methods here, however their relevance should not be brushed aside by the community development practitioner, especially given that the process of historical discovery is as important to community development as the outcome of that process (Baum 1970: 273).

Local history and ‘community building’ On the topic of oral history and ‘community building’, Willa Baum (1970) commented that “The town which has a known and proud tradition and whose citizens, be they old-family or newcomers, feel a part of that on-going tradition, can be expected to aspire to more in the way of civic betterment… than those of a town which has no identity” (p. 273). The suburban community as a ‘new place’ does not have an “on-going tradition”. Nonetheless, a local history-based approach to community development can still be expected to contribute to ‘community building’ in the manner described by Baum. The importance of “feel[ing] a part” of something is tied up with the concept of community identification; that being so, fostering awareness of the local history of a community can play a significant role in the creation of community agency by way of place attachment. Baum is one of a few writers who have drawn a connection between local historical awareness and community agency. Drawing upon the disciplines of anthropology and sociology, she writes that “members of [an ethnic] group without a known past and without an awareness of and pride in their history are less likely to aspire and work toward a better future” (p. 272). Tria (1999), in a brief article in the Nation’s Cities Weekly, mentions that “public history projects provide the essential information that residents need to become informed participants in the never-ending public dialogue about the future of their community”. Beatley (2004) provides us with perhaps the most extensive discussion yet of the role of local history in community development (a whole chapter in fact). He begins with the assertion that local history is an asset to communities because it provides “intertemporal connections”…

…essential connections between the current inhabitants and the people who came before and those who will come along in the future. Historical connections, and having a sense of the people and events that have shaped the communities in which we live, are critical in making places meaningful to us, in casting the collections of buildings as home rather than just empty vessels for sleep and work. The more we understand about the beginnings and evolution of a place, the greater importance that place will assume in our lives (p. 53). The relationship between suburban residents and “the people who came before” need not be one of direct descent as implied in Baum’s evaluation of the importance of “on-going tradition”. In fact, Beatley seems to see the process of place creation, a process that in the suburban context includes the almost complete replacement of one population by another, as an important part of the history of a ‘place’. Significantly, Beatley also sees a role for historical awareness in the promotion of more sustainable forms of development, as when historic buildings are preserved and rehabilitated for modern use. Although suburbs are usually noticeably lacking in historic structures, the same awareness of the process of place creation may induce suburban residents to rethink their opportunities to live in a bigger house further away from the city, and encourage them to stick around and make the community they live in a better place.

How? It is no accident that the section of this paper concerning exactly how to implement a local history-based strategy of community development comes at the very end and constitutes only a fraction of the total discussion. There is not much to say because this type of approach has never been tried specifically as a community development strategy (to my knowledge). Most of the literature on the topic indicates that what community development has occurred was more of a happy

byproduct of a local history project. In saying this, I should point out again that the approach being developed here is intended for ‘new places’. As we have seen, a ‘new place’ has relatively few if any traces of the previous landscape visible to its residents. Thus, community development projects conducted through means of “historic preservation” activities, where buildings are preserved and reused, though intentional in their outcome, are nonetheless not what the local history-based approach presented here is intended to do. What local history-based community development is intended to do is create awareness of the discontinuity between previous forms of the social and built environments and of cultural practice. In doing so, we create attachment to and concern for the present and future condition of a community. The lack of physical remnants of previous ‘places’ should not discourage this endeavor as “even bulldozed places can be marked to restore a shared sense of public history” (Tria 1999) Beatley emphasizes that the key to “place strengthening” is “making the history of a community real and transparent to its citizens and looking for creative design and planning solutions that acknowledge and express this history” (p. 80). He provides a number of useful guidelines and examples of how to accomplish this. The one he emphasizes the most is incorporating local historical content into the curriculum of the community’s schools. While this may require some wrangling with a school board, the results would be among the most valuable such a project could produce, as communities are very focused on the activities of their youth and participation in local history awareness would likely escalate as a result. Some particular activities Beatley mentions are the relatively common activity of conducting oral history projects with a community’s seniors or otherwise long-time residents, and the more innovative and modern idea of creating virtual models of the community, or features of it, as it existed in the past, including the landscape as it looked prior to the occurrence of suburban development. Syncopating these models according to geographic space would be an important part of this activity as the contrast between a continuous

‘space’ hosting discontinuous ‘places’ is key to understanding the process of place creation and the community’s role in it. While much of the research may be conducted by students or other members of the community individually, the research project as a whole will likely need a central person or group of people organizing it. Unpaid volunteers would be the most likely solution for this task in most communities. Many suburban communities have access to a local or regional library and this may serve as a starting point in locating volunteers with a mind for historical research. Similarly, most counties and towns have active historical and/or genealogical societies composed entirely of history and genealogy hobbyists, and even some professionals. While their activities in the field may already be time-consuming, when presented with the opportunity to head up a project of which the goal is involving the entire community in a discovery of its past, they may be persuaded to participate. Green (1940) provides some insight on selecting the right person for the job, namely that “He [or she] must be sufficiently part of the community he [or she] is scrutinizing to be able to understand what has importance and meaning for its citizens and why” (p. 284-285). Baum (1970) echoes this advice: “[he or she] should be someone who has been in the community a while, has social contacts there, is interested in local history, and has some social organizing skills” (p. 274). Whoever is selected to organize the project must be from the community as well as somewhat knowledgeable about it, not only to ensure their interest in the project over the long-term, but also to ensure the trust of other residents who may question the utility of the project and jeopardize its chances at greater community involvement. Beatley (2004) has several other suggestions for making a community’s history “as transparent and visible as possible” (p. 55). The role of the local media can play a part in creating awareness by printing stories with a local historical focus (p. 55). Internet-based forms of media can also be used to spread the word about the project. A person with little experience in this technology

can, with relatively inexpensive and ubiquitous equipment, run a publicity campaign from their home by maintaining a “blog” or general website, administering an email distribution list with which to announce important events or communicate information about the local community’s history, or even create a digital video series about the project that can be made freely viewable on any number of video hosting websites, the most prominent being YouTube. Another way of promoting resident participation includes hosting neighborhood social events, preferably at locations in an outdoor suburban environment, celebrating what are discovered to be important historical events that occurred locally (p. 55). Beatley also discusses the possibility of more creative methods, like creating public murals, sculptures and outdoor art (p. 68). While the suburban environment, being composed largely of private residences, may pose challenges for the accepted siting of community murals and sculptures, it has been done and the projected communitywide basis for a local history project should help secure the residents’ approval. Other ideas include the operation of historical driving tours of suburban areas, with roadside stations along the way indicating the location of historical events. A variation of this, one that is particularly well suited for suburban communities, is using existing networks of pedestrian trails (i.e. urban and suburban trail systems intended for recreational walkers and bicyclists) to provide a predetermined route for an historical tour of a suburban area. Beatley provides the example of the Asheville Urban Trail which has “thirty ‘stations’ or stopping points along the way where one can learn about the history of the city”, and quotes that project’s website as saying that the Trail “is a museum without walls” (p. 69). Some elements of an historical trail tour which might be found in most suburban communities include pieces of land owned by important historical figures (from the local, regional, national or international scene), cemeteries of considerable age or containing the remains of historically important people or groups of people (e.g. a Native American or AfricanAmerican burial place), intersections with roads that have historical significance (e.g. “this road used

to be the only road going into the city”), and natural features which are indicative of previous landscapes and ‘places’, such as old or uniquely native trees, plants, ecosystems and land features or scenic views. One final suggestion for fostering community interest in and appreciation of its local history is to organize a local community archaeology project (see Gadsby & Chidester 2007, for an example). This may be the most difficult type of local history project to undertake in a suburban community given the issues of obtaining permits, locating experienced and qualified personnel to oversee the project, and of course gaining the consent of property owners and homeowners’ associations. However, if a community archaeology project is proven feasible, it would have the greatest effect on exposing the previous histories of a ‘space’ to the suburban residents of the current community.

Conclusion While much remains to be explored in the potential of a local history-based approach to community development for ‘new places’ like suburban communities, I hope the outline of the approach’s informing theories and potential strategies will provide some guidance in the implementation of the approach in the real world. Additionally, I hope that the need for a community development strategy for suburban places was explained thoroughly and that this paper may contribute in some small way in the struggle to create more sustainable forms of development. Perhaps the need for this strategy can be demonstrated once more by referring back to my experience as a suburbanite in “Limona”. In fact, being a suburbanite is something I am intimately familiar with, having lived in suburban places for most of my life, including the entirety of my childhood. It may be a testament to the lack of appeal, the absence of community identity and the low levels of community attachment this engenders that I find myself most at home in urban

environments. I don’t really even think of myself as a suburbanite; and if a nearly lifelong resident of the suburbs can disassociate with that environment so easily, what does that say about its quality of life? In writing this paper and thinking in more intimate detail about the problems presented here, my hope has only increased in the potential for suburban places to become more sustainable communities, places where people want to live long term, instead of just places that they will, in the words of Scottish songwriter Paolo Nutini, "get used to…eventually", or else move on.

References Bartling, H.E. (2002). Disney's Celebration, the Promise of New Urbanism, and the Portents of Homogeneity. Florida Historical Quarterly, 81:44-67. Baum, W.K. (October 1970). Building Community Identity Through Local History – A New Role for the Local Library. California Librarian, 31: 271-284. Beatley, T. (2004). Native to Nowhere. Sustaining Home and Community in a Global Age. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Bellah, R.N., R. Madsen, W.M. Sullivan, A. Swidler & S.M. Tipton (1996). Habits of the Heart: individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Brandenburg, A.M. & M.S. Carroll. (1995). Your Place or Mine?: The Effect of Place Creation on Environmental Values and Landscape Meanings. Society and Natural Resources, 8:381-398. Brehm, J.M., B.W. Eisenhauer & R.S. Krannich. (2006). Community Attachments as Predictors of Local Environmental Concern. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(2):142-165. Brooks, D. (9 November 2004). Take a Ride to Exurbia. New York Times. Retrieved 9 April 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com. Community Development Society. (n.d.). About CDS, Principles of Good Practice. Retrieved 27 April 2007, from http://www.comm-dev.org/.

Cuba, L. & D.M. Hummon. (1993). A Place to Call Home: Identification with Dwelling, Community, and Region. Sociological Quarterly, 34(1):111-131. Duany A., E. Plater-Zyberk & J. Speck. (2000). Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York, NY: North Point Press. Duncan, J.S. & N.G. Duncan. (2001). The Aestheticization of the Politics of Landscape Preservation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2):387-409. Fainstein, S.S. (2000). New Directions in Planning Theory. Planning Perspectives, 35(4):451-478. Flora, C.B., J.L. Flora & S. Fey. (2004). Rural Communities. Legacy and Change. 2nd Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Gadsby, D.A. & R.C. Chidester. (2007). Hampden Community Archaeology Project. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, 4(1):57-59. Girling, C.L. (1994). Yard, street, park: the design of suburban open space. New York, NY: J. Wiley. Goodman, P. & P. Goodman. (1947, reprint 1960). Communitas. Means of Livelihood and Ways of Life, 2nd Edition. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Green, C.M. (1940). The Value of Local History. In C.F. Ware (ed.) The Cultural Approach to History. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Hummon, D.M. (1992). Community Attachment. Local Sentiment and Sense of Place. In I. Altman & S.M. Low (eds.) Place Attachment. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Keller, S. (2003). Community. Pursuing the Dream, Living the Reality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kunstler, J.H. (1993). The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-Made Landscape. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Lucy, W.E. & D.L. Phillips. (2000). Suburban Decline: The Next Urban Crisis. Issues in Science and Technology, Fall:55-62. Luloff, A.E. & L.E. Swanson. (1995). Community Agency and Disaffection: Enhancing Collective Resources. In L.J. Beaulieu & D. Mulkey (eds.) Investing in People. The Human Capital Needs of Rural America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Miele, F.J.J. (2007). Review of The Bronx, by E. Gonzalez. CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship, 4 (1):89-90. Mumford, L. (1961). The City in History. Its Origins, its Transformations, and its Prospects. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World. Oliver, J.E. (2001). Democracy in Suburbia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. Richards, L. (1990). Nobody's Home: dreams and realities in a new suburb. Melbourne, Australia and New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Riesman, D. (1958) The Suburban Sadness. In W.M. Dobriner (ed.) The Suburban Community. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam. Salamon, S. (2003) From Hometown to Nontown: Rural Community Effects of Suburbanization. Rural Sociology, 68(1):1-24. Summers, G. (2006). Consuming Nature. Environmentalism in the Fox River Valley, 1850-1950. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Tria, A.M. (1 November 1999). Public History's Project: Building Community. Nation's Cities Weekly, p. 4. Tuan, Y. (1974). Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

WalMart Alliance for Reform Now (WARN). (2005). About WARN. Retrieved 27 April 2007, from http://www.warnwalmart.org/.