In 1902, seeking to explain the importance of city planning, Daniel H. Burnham, the foremost architect and planner in the United States wrote, In the American there is developing, a new instinct. This impulse he explained defied tradition, exploited opportunity, and strove to produce a new modern world. These attributes reflected, for many Americans, the United States place in the modern world. This new modernity framed the emergence of the Progressive Era, a period in the early twentieth century when theories of social, political, and economic efficiency seemed to promise a better society. How did the ideas of city planning change urban development? What if any of those changes relate to the urbanism today?
Planners, who comprised an amalgamation of intellectuals, social reformers, business leaders, lawyers, doctors, and government officials were driven by a progressive belief that American society could be made better, not simply better in terms of aesthetics, but better in the sense of an environmental determinism that addressed the ills of urban society. This period marks the formulation of city planning theories that allowed planning advocates to define what city planning could and should accomplish. Identified by their commitment to safeguard social unity and political cohesion that characterized the American social system, planners pursued different avenues in their search for stability. They articulated ideologies of efficiency, social welfare, and beautification in their search for the proper formula for development.
At some basic level, city planning represented a professionalization of urban development practice driven by the rise of an educated white middle-class who feared disruption rooted in the city. The push for professionalization provided this managerial oriented middle-class a tool to establish civic prominence by displacing the traditional power structure by arguing their understanding of the "new science" of city planning positioned them to make better decisions for society. Thus, from its inception, city planning established a link between middle-class social belief and regulatory standard for housing and development. The origins of the contemporary suburban experience can be traced to this period. Historian Dolores Hayden writes that the source of United States postwar housing policy grew from the need to fulfill ideas of family and work more applicable to the nineteenth century idea of home and work rapid developing in the Twentieth century.
Our research on the Hannibal Square Community Land Trust links directly to this ongoing debate in American planning literature. As we talk to people and explore the history of the organization, one clear barrier to the success of the HSCLT is the traditional desire to own a home. Let me explain. The CLT in Winter Park like CLT around the country operate by holding land in trust and selling the home. CLTs prevent market forces from raising prices and keeps homes within reach of families who could not traditional participate in the housing market.
This process however runs counter to what Americans believe should happen when they buy a home. CLT homeowners own the home and leases the land. This is not the traditional owner model and while the CLT provides a unique opportunity to buy homes, many people who may qualify resist participating. For African-American especially, the thought they will not own the land, an idea deeply rooted in the psyche as a symbol of citizenship, is troubling. I would argue that one obstacle for the HSCLT to overcome is the belief, born in the aftermath of the Civil War, that African-American must acquire and hold land to be secure in the United States. This belief, best summed up with the phrase "40 acres and a Mule" grew from the action of William T. Sherman, who issues Special Field Order No. 15 in 1865 grant land to former slaves in Georgia. The special order was rescinded by President Andrew Johnson within a year and the hopes for African-American land ownership were caught in the politics of Reconstruction. Regardless, the ideas remains a reference point for African-Americans. In the aftermath of slavery sleeking and holding land was one mechanism to demonstrate freedom.
As I have noted in earlier episodes, Winter Park was planned with African-American property owners as a goal. In the years since the town's founding, African-Americans have maintained ownership, but the value of their land has not matched their white counterparts--a clear legacy of racism. At the same time, development pressure have increasingly focused on Hannibal Square, in part because the area east of the railroad track is too expensive for new development. For African-Americans struggling to hold on land that has been in their families for generation, the pattern of recent development tells a story of African-American displacement driven by white land speculators, white businesses, and new white residents. How can those African-American residents support the HSCLT? For them the HSCLT provides homes without land, a model that counters both the history and desire promoted in the American experience.
The HSCLT can be one way to stabilize the housing market in this traditional African-American neighborhood and provide an opportunity for a new generation of low to moderate income homeowners to live in Hannibal Square, yet to achieve that goal, a new narrative of home ownership will need to be created and nurtured within the community.
