The Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning
Commission labels Greenbelt as "an example of a residential community that
embodies many of the desired features characterizing good residential
communities" (Knepper, 145). Greenbelt's unified
plan for complete
community life aimed to meet these criteria. Safety, economy and
healthful living were very important elements of the plan. The superblock
structure was their solution. The physical issues addressed by the architecture
and planning are
quite successful. Considerations for children, in particular, and their
daily routines demanded a creative solution to problems arising in the
automobile age. Superblocks pushed the main roadways out to the
perimeters; each block of housing units looked inwards onto a park or
playground which were connected by a separate system of walkways. This
distinction between vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns is most
effective in promoting safety in the community. Underpasses were built
to allow for safe crossings of the main roads. There are less roads, and
more footpaths; children play on the "front" gardens of the superblocks
which are green with landscaping. Greenbelt architecture and planning also attempted
to address
certain social and environmental issues which they felt were key to
operating a successful suburban community. I feel that some decisions
made in this concern fell short of achieving the intended goals. First,
Greenbelt boasts of having given much consideration to (and spent much
money on) the landscaping
of the community. In hopes of creating
characteristics of life in the pastoral countryside, originally exclusive
to the wealthier classes, Greenbelt sports acres and acres of greenery, as
well as a man-made lake. Such is the irony of it. Greenbelt, in its
entirety, is unnatural. Human artifice is found not only in the
staircases and superblocks, but also in the placement, size, and type of
every shrub, tree, rock, and--of course, lake. It is as if the American
suburban lawn ideal had extrapolated into a humungous-scale project called
Greenbelt, Maryland. (see project on lawn
sprinklers!) The establishment of a tightly-knit community was
attempted also
through the use of the superblock. The park area formed on the interiors
of the blocks were intended to foster a sense of community among
neighboring residents. Serving as pretty, casual meeting areas, members
of each family would converse, play, and stroll within these designated
regions. The object was to become aware and develop a healthy
understanding of different residents and their outlooks. However, one
aspect of Greenbelt's idealism yielded results different from those
intended. A selection
criteria had to have been met in order to have been
approved as a suitable family for this new town. This selection resulted
in a certain "sameness" in the residents of Greenbelt. These "club-like"
groups tended to exclude those of different races, social classes, and
other diversities of surrounding populations. In effect, the parks
created by the superblocks more resembled congregation areas for people of
similar background, interests, and aspirations--not, an American cultural
salad bowl. On a more positive note, the town center
successfully addresses
many issues of economic health and efficiency. The co-operative nature of
these businesses allowed for residents to own, operate, and manage these
establishments including: theater, grocery stores, gift shops, etc.
Greenbelt's Co-ops
are furhter examined by Rob Levendosky.
More importantly, the infrastructure of Greenbelt was designed to lead
residents safely and conveniently to the town center. This made purchases
easy for the community. This ownership-patron duality of the residents
allowed the community to become self-sufficient and economical in its
operations. The Center
School and recreational
facilities were also
located in the "bowl" of the crescent. These areas, as well as the co-op
establishments, were all accessed by walking. Thus, the goal of the town
planners were fulfilled. Unfortunately, this self-sustainability has proven
to be a
double-edged sword. Certain social issues have been neglected because of
its effectiveness. For instance, the town's ability to fulfill basic
needs lies completely within walking distance from each residence.
Greenbelt is successful as a nuclear community. However, citizens of
Greenbelt tend to withdraw into their own social and economic
microcosms. Community becomes a "prison." Contact with neighboring
structures and influences are limited. Robert Fishman in Bourgeois
Utopia, confirms this by stating that suburban ideals are
traditionally
defined by the principles of exclusion. Once again, diversity is left out
of the selection criteria for residence in suburbia. Despite the shortcomings of Greenbelt as a model
community, its
successes are commendable. Perhaps, if anything, we have learned that
architectural and planning decisions can provide practical solutions to
social issues such as those faced at Greenbelt. As long as society
continues searching for "a better place to live," communities like
Greenbelt will find ways to improve; we will be that much closer to
utopia.
History | Architecture and Planning | Final Thoughts |