Review: Last Harvest by Witold Rybczynski

Witold Rybczynski, author of Home, A Clearing in the Distance, and (my favorite) City Life, has two new books out. Well, it's actually only one book, entitled Last Harvest: How a Cornfield Became New Daleville, but it feels like two. As is the case in several of his previous books, Rybczynski alternates between a narrative that acts as the backbone of the book and a series of intellectual asides that, together, form a sort of supportive history to said backbone story. Normally this works well, with the historical details serving to enrich the central story line, but in Last Harvest, the two are separated more severely than in previous books. In short, one is highly engrossing and the other is...not so much.

In Rybczynski's defense, it should be stated at the outset that not even F. Scott Fitzgerald could jazz up the topic: residential suburban development. For those who aren't terribly interested in real estate (or even just this decidedly un-glamorous side of it) the backbone narrative, which tracks the conversion of a piece of farmland in the town of Londonderry in exurban Philadelphia into what is alternately called a "neotraditional neighborhood" and a "traditional neighborhood development" (or TND), is a challenge. There is bureaucracy, there is endless compromise, there is an utter lack of desire on the part of the developer to create the kind of real design guidelines that supposedly make these types of subdivisions -- sorry, communities -- work. About halfway through the book Tim Cassidy, a landscape architect on the Londonderry planning commission, explains to the author: "In reality, anything [the developers] build probably will be mediocre. But if they shoot for mediocre, it will just be terrible!" Near the end, Cassidy explains his opinion of the now-under construction project: "I guess I would have to say it's probably what I expected, because I expected to be disappointed." My sentiments exactly.

Upon deciding to write a book about subdivision development, Rybczynski took a gamble. Had he started tracking a neotraditional development that wound up working, this part of the book might have been more interesting. (For evidence of this, one need look no further than the section of Last Harvest that deals with Vince Graham's Newpoint development in Beaufort, SC.) Unfortunately, he wound up with a dud. But the parts of Last Harvest that track the history of suburban development in the United States wind up not only overshadowing the narrative -- they relegate it to the role of a rather long case study. Indeed, these fascinating asides, collected together, could be sold as a separate book. In them, the author covers everything from the well-planned early garden suburbs (including Chestnut Hill in Philly, where he lives), to Frank Lloyd Wright's prescient Broadacre City plans and the way that the Levitt brothers (of Levittown fame) disseminated those ideas to the masses. The best is probably the section that rather successfully argues that the standard suburban ranch house represents one of the most radical architectural departures in American history. I wouldn't be lying if I told you that Rybczynski makes the history of suburbia almost fun to read.

But even here, there is a hitch. About a third of the way into Last Harvest, Rybczynski's generally objective and academic voice cracks. "For the first time in history," he writes, "urbanization does not mean concentration." This opinion, which rather sneakily passes for observation in the context of the chapter, sets a very subtly pro-exurban development tone for the book. Granted, this is obviously not an anti-exurb book. It was frustrating, nonetheless, to see the definition of urbanity undermined in such a way. Urbanization is a term that describes the process of making an environment urban. There is a reason that the sub- prefix is added to the term to describe the kind of sprawling, decentralized growth like that described in Long Harvest. A suburban environment is, by nature, less than urban. This is not a comment on quality (though many would argue otherwise), but quantity. Urbanization is intrinsically tied to concentration (of many things), and suggesting the contrary is Rybczynski's one misstep in his careful plotting-out of the evolution of the American suburb.

Suburbia is what it is. Long Harvest, then, does an excellent job of helping the reader to understand the suburb for what it is. While by no means arresting, Rybczynski's recounting of the many tedious details of the development and planning process for one small subdivision -- sorry, communi...oh, forget that -- is certainly enlightening for anyone who wants to understand why so many of today's suburban developments look the way they do. Even better, if you can look past some semantic flubbery, it provides a wonderfully engaging history of how they got to their current state. At the very least, that history will give any good urbanist something to chew on. And what else can you ask a good summer book to do?


Links:
Last Harvest: How a Cornfield Became New Daleville (Powells.com)

NewDaleville.com

A True Alternative

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Newton's Law is one of the few scientific maxims that I can recite, verbatim, years after my last science class. It's concise, it's eloquent, and it applies to so much more than physical or chemical reactions in the way that Newton described. Urbanism is the perfect example, I think.

Which came first -- the town or the city? That's actually a pretty easy question to answer, but there has been a constant push-and-pull between rural and urban places over the course of human civilization. At different times, with different demographic groups, one or the other is en vogue. But not recently; of late, we have been plagued in our building and planning practices by an intense mediocrity, a society-wide indeciciveness. What we want, of course, is the best of both worlds: the convenience, community, and culture of the city, and the peace, privacy, and pastoral scenery of the small rural town. What we've wound up with is suburbia: the best of nothing.

I don't talk much about towns here; this is an urbanist blog, after all, and I am an avowed urbanist. However, I think that small towns play a very fundamental and almost completely overlooked role in the creation of successful cities. Towns are the yin to the city's yang; the genuine, 180-degree counterpoint to urbanism. Let's be honest: cities aren't for everyone. For cities to thrive, there is a need for an equally viable rural alternative. Perhaps the most insidious facet of the suburbs' assault on society is the way in which they supplanted the small town as the alternative to the city. Racial segregation, auto-oriented sprawl, pollution, social tension, congestion -- all of these are well-discussed, very popular arguments against suburbia. But more than anything, the suburbs have caused generations of people all over the world to grow up in places that are neither here nor there.

A new study out of Pennsylvania yesterday illuminates the slow but steady recovery of that state's rural areas over the past three decades. While a decrease in unemployment and an increase in income are both seen as good signs, the report emphasizes the need for a comprehensive economic plan for the state's rural areas, which hold 28% of its population. With the growth of the internet-based economy, more and more people are finding it possible to live and work wherever they choose. This puts rural areas like Pennsylvania's at a crucial point in their economic history. These areas must begin to reclaim their rightful spot as the true alternative to the bustle of city living.

From the Pennsylvania report: "[T]he state must move beyond antiquated smokestack chasing economic development policies and invest, on a regional basis, in key rural industries with potential for growth. In much of rural Pennsylvania, these assets include natural beauty and tourist destinations, town centers, a powerful sense of community, and, in some places, colleges and universities."

While I agree with this statement, I also think that it aims too low. The need for small towns and rural communities is not simply to draw tourists from sprawling metropolitan areas, but also to convince these visitors of their supremacy over the suburban environment as an alternative to urbanity. So yes, focus on the natural beauty, the town centers, the powerful sense of community. But don't pitch them as tokens. Pitch them as elements of a truly equal and opposite lifestyle.


Links:
Rural Pennsylvania at an Economic Crossroads Says New Keystone Research Center Report on Trends Over Last Four Decades

UrbanOhio.com (Photo credit)