Having recently moved to New England, I have become familiar with the idea of a New England village. I live in a town that 30 years ago would probably have been described the exact same way as Bedford Village. There are the people that live in town, those that live on the water and those that live in mini (and sometimes not so mini) estates. There are three main churches, one of which is definitely more prestigious to belong to. The population is 97% caucasian. The country club in town has a ten year wait list. I personally don't feel that this community is segregated by landscape but I decided to ask some of the residents who have lived here for a longer period of time for their input. It proved to be similar to the responses of those that Duncan received thirty years ago a few hours away.
Alpha versus Beta. What I have noticed from these articles is that it isn't actually versus anyone. There are simply two different ideas that have shown up across Anytown, USA. They do not segregate based on ideas. Instead people choose to live in one environment of the other. The alpha neighborhood has evolved over decades or centuries. The beta environment has quickly adopted some of the rules of alpha landscape and created their own set of rules. The general ideas portrayed by Duncan seemed to be just as relevant today in my town as they were thirty years ago a few hours away. The segregation that exists is there by choice. Neither group blames the other. They just have different social networks. For some those networks include the country club and for others they include the church they belong to. The amount of diversity in my small town has not changed much in the last thirty years. Some of the people I spoke with eluded to the fact that this town is exclusive and they are proud just to live there. Ideas of both Alpha and Beta landscapes came up.
The alpha and the beta landscapes appear in many forms. In the Bickford article, they take the form of CIDs and PUDs. In the Duncan article, they take the form of newer homes in established neighborhoods. There are some similar characteristics that these landscapes share in both articles and there are some that are unique. There are those that love to live in a PUD and there are those who generally dislike the idea. From our conversations this past week, I know that there are people belonging to both categories in this discussion. I don't feel that one is bad and the other is good. I just have my preference and so do others. I feel it is this sentiment that segregates the alpha and beta landscapes in this article. There is no real friction between the groups, just a general preference for their choice.
The alpha landscape begins with the general dislike of imitation and disdain for what is easily available. This is easy to relate to CIDs and PUDs in the Bickford article. I do not want to live in a home that is replicated through out my neighborhood in a slightly different color and the garage on the left instead of the right. This is just one of the preferences of the alphas. The alpha landscape appears to dislike change. They like to preserve the past and not allow great changes for the future. Changes happen a little at a time, as a gentle evolution. Everything seems to be more random. It has happened over years. The age of the landscape is something to be proud of, the alphas are happily linked to the past. The alphas fill the old neighborhoods, the ones were eventually the houses are torn down and rebuilt or added onto to fill the families needs. Everything here takes time.
The beta landscape is more easily related to the ideas presented in the Bickford article. The Betas want a prosperous suburban idea. They build it quickly and dominantly. A major benefit of building so quickly is that everyone is new to the neighborhood and bonds are more quickly formed than someone that moves into a well established neighborhood. The beta landscape if full of symmetry and order. The guidelines for building in these neighborhoods is strictly enforced and carefully coordinated. Less importance is placed on what their landscape looks like and more on where their landscape is. Location is a major part of the beta landscape. Choosing to live in the beta landscape provides an individual the very best parts of the alpha landscape condensed down to a new community. Adopting the pros and leaving out the cons allows for the beta landscape to learn from the mistakes made over time and create a better landscape.
Some of the other ideas presented were not as relevant between the two articles. Duncan claims the Beta landscape wants to accentuate their affluence. I don't believe that only exists in one landscape any more. Everywhere I go I see the ornate mailboxes. A sense of community exists among both landscapes. In my experience, I also no longer see privacy as being something that one group does not value. Six foot tall privacy fences line all the backyards. A home is now a sanctuary where one requires privacy.
Some communities have evolved over centuries while others were built in a year. Housing is a symbol of status and achievement. The location of your house does affect your social status. It is as true today as it was thirty years ago. The ideas of segregation are not so much forced as they are chosen. People choose to surround themselves with people of similar interests. Bickford claims it is not democratic for such segregation but do we really have a choice in changing the way people choose to live? They have been choosing to live like this for centuries and they continue to do so today.
Alpha versus Beta. What I have noticed from these articles is that it isn't actually versus anyone. There are simply two different ideas that have shown up across Anytown, USA. They do not segregate based on ideas. Instead people choose to live in one environment of the other. The alpha neighborhood has evolved over decades or centuries. The beta environment has quickly adopted some of the rules of alpha landscape and created their own set of rules. The general ideas portrayed by Duncan seemed to be just as relevant today in my town as they were thirty years ago a few hours away. The segregation that exists is there by choice. Neither group blames the other. They just have different social networks. For some those networks include the country club and for others they include the church they belong to. The amount of diversity in my small town has not changed much in the last thirty years. Some of the people I spoke with eluded to the fact that this town is exclusive and they are proud just to live there. Ideas of both Alpha and Beta landscapes came up.
The alpha and the beta landscapes appear in many forms. In the Bickford article, they take the form of CIDs and PUDs. In the Duncan article, they take the form of newer homes in established neighborhoods. There are some similar characteristics that these landscapes share in both articles and there are some that are unique. There are those that love to live in a PUD and there are those who generally dislike the idea. From our conversations this past week, I know that there are people belonging to both categories in this discussion. I don't feel that one is bad and the other is good. I just have my preference and so do others. I feel it is this sentiment that segregates the alpha and beta landscapes in this article. There is no real friction between the groups, just a general preference for their choice.
The alpha landscape begins with the general dislike of imitation and disdain for what is easily available. This is easy to relate to CIDs and PUDs in the Bickford article. I do not want to live in a home that is replicated through out my neighborhood in a slightly different color and the garage on the left instead of the right. This is just one of the preferences of the alphas. The alpha landscape appears to dislike change. They like to preserve the past and not allow great changes for the future. Changes happen a little at a time, as a gentle evolution. Everything seems to be more random. It has happened over years. The age of the landscape is something to be proud of, the alphas are happily linked to the past. The alphas fill the old neighborhoods, the ones were eventually the houses are torn down and rebuilt or added onto to fill the families needs. Everything here takes time.
The beta landscape is more easily related to the ideas presented in the Bickford article. The Betas want a prosperous suburban idea. They build it quickly and dominantly. A major benefit of building so quickly is that everyone is new to the neighborhood and bonds are more quickly formed than someone that moves into a well established neighborhood. The beta landscape if full of symmetry and order. The guidelines for building in these neighborhoods is strictly enforced and carefully coordinated. Less importance is placed on what their landscape looks like and more on where their landscape is. Location is a major part of the beta landscape. Choosing to live in the beta landscape provides an individual the very best parts of the alpha landscape condensed down to a new community. Adopting the pros and leaving out the cons allows for the beta landscape to learn from the mistakes made over time and create a better landscape.
Some of the other ideas presented were not as relevant between the two articles. Duncan claims the Beta landscape wants to accentuate their affluence. I don't believe that only exists in one landscape any more. Everywhere I go I see the ornate mailboxes. A sense of community exists among both landscapes. In my experience, I also no longer see privacy as being something that one group does not value. Six foot tall privacy fences line all the backyards. A home is now a sanctuary where one requires privacy.
Some communities have evolved over centuries while others were built in a year. Housing is a symbol of status and achievement. The location of your house does affect your social status. It is as true today as it was thirty years ago. The ideas of segregation are not so much forced as they are chosen. People choose to surround themselves with people of similar interests. Bickford claims it is not democratic for such segregation but do we really have a choice in changing the way people choose to live? They have been choosing to live like this for centuries and they continue to do so today.
2 comments:
Annie,
I really enjoyed reading your response to the article. Let me offer up an opposing view to your comment "the ideas of segregation are not so much forced as they are chosen."
Yes, in most cases people have chosen to live where they are whether that includes segrgation or not. However, I have found it to be true that many people struggle to reach further but are constantly held back by who they are or what group they are classified as being a part of. This is the case for all races, ethnicities, etc. For example it has been researched that it is very hard for people of the lower class to step up into the next class. This includes people who are working 2-3 jobs. Have they chosen to live where they live, or has it been forced by the class that they were born into? Do we really choose where we want to live or are we placed into a landscape growing up?
I agree with your comment for the most part. If someone really wants to succeed, they will find a way. I see people of all races and ethnicities that have overcome the obstacles and created a better life for themselves. Some people let themselves be limited by the fact that they have been born into a "lower" class. Others from that same class find a way to reach beyond what they know and raise to a "higher" class. We all do have a choice and it is up to ourselves to make something possible. There are the few and privledged that can choose whatever they want. For the rest of us, we must make choices in our lives to help us achieve our choices of where we want to live or what we want to be. We are all placed somewhere growing up but if we put in the effort, there should be nothing holding us back to make the choice of where we want to live.
Post a Comment