Analysis



The experimental nature of Greenbelt began to decay during the 1950s and 1960s. Greenbelt's founding ideals were threatened on all sides, both internally and externally. The complete disassociation of the planned community by the federal government, gave the townspeople and developers more flexibility with land use. Although many believed development to be beneficial, it often worked against the goals of the original community.
Development of upper-scale housing (than that of the older dwellings) began the degradation of Greenbelt's ideals. The community was initially designed "primarily for families of modest income" (Mayer, 1). This intent quickly changed with development of Lakeside and, later, the other communities. The community, as a whole, began to ignore the needs of the lower-class families in favor of middle class desires. This reflected the changing attitudes of the city itself since most of the residents of Lakeside and other new developments were former residents of cooperative homes (Fischetti, 23). The residents were economically "growing up" and they quickly changed their attitudes according to their changing condition. Old ideas about inclusion of lower classes and opportunities accessible to all, were easily discarded in favor of large properties in exclusive locations within the city. All new developments within the core of Greenbelt and exclusive areas around Greenbelt Lake were far more modern and spacious than the older row houses and low-rise apartments. This naturally divided the city into two distinct groups, the older developments and the newer single family homes.
The changing economic situation of the residents of Greenbelt caused the owners of single family homes to become more intolerant to mixed development. Special contempt was reserved for apartment development (see Growth of Greenbelt: 1950-1970). Home owners were cautious about property values to the extent that they actively campaigned to exclude any new apartment development from Greenbelt. This naturally meant that they desired to exclude their inhabitants-lower class families. When apartment units were built, they were often marginalized such as Springhill Lake (located on the other side of a major highway far from view of "core" residents). Citizens of "Old Greenbelt" were also happy of the fact that residents of Springhill Lake did not need to burden "Old Greenbelt", or even come into it, for recreational needs (Fischetti, 41). Through physical barriers and explicit actions, the residents of Greenbelt during the period 1950-1970 actively voiced their disregard for the lower class and its needs. The implications of this attitude on race relations is discussed by Michelle Sit in her analysis of the racial and religious composition of Greenbelt, Maryland.
Planning of the new communities also detracted from the initial concepts that town planners had endowed Greenbelt with. This included the planning and design of both the single family homes and apartment developments. Such characteristic elements as central green spaces and roadway underpasses were continually left out of the new communities. The back-to-back lots attempted to maximize land use instead of wasting it on central parks and playgrounds. When playgrounds were built, they were often placed in marginal areas of their respective neighborhoods. This detracted from their accessibility and appeal to children. Matt Burns examines the recreational aspects of Greenbelt and its implications on the youth who lived in the city. He argues that the playgrounds and parks were central in keeping the children occupied and out of trouble. Yet, the youth were not the only citizens to be adversely affected by the development. The long walk between the new neighborhoods and the town center, especially that of Boxwood Village, caused people to turn to automobiles for transportation. This totally undercut the idea of a "greentown" were walking is intended to be the most popular mode of transportation. The marginalization of apartment dwellings further exacerbated the situation. Due to the neglect of characteristic functional details in the new communities of Greenbelt, the ideals, both in form and function of the original community, were degraded.
The founding vision of Greenbelt began to fade away rapidly during the 1950s and 1960s. Inhabitants of the city saw the idealistic dream as less appealing than upward mobility. They wished to express their growing prosperity in the form of intolerance and exclusion, under the veil of community development. Distinct features of the community were largely ignored in favor of more monetarily efficient designs. Greenbelt thus began to appear as any other suburban community. Development took precedence over intricate planning and, as a result, the social and stylistic identities of the original community were forever erased.
Back to Main Page Founding Ideals Growth Conclusions and Outlook