Today was wonderful...for a few reasons.
First, I came home tonight to find some beautiful carrots laid in the garden. It really brightened my day. Thank you to whomever brought them. I brought a few of the carrots in for dinner and left the others in the basket for those who visit the Boulevarden tonight.
Since we planted the Boulevarden we have often come home to gifts of apples, apple sauce (which was wonderful), vegetables, flower bouquets and plants for the garden. I so appreciate people who have shared their garden bounty with us.
- Today I received my first negative comment regarding the Boulevarden...it is below. I found it odd that the anonymous writer stated I had "taken away from the intended purpose of that land" - speaking of the boulevard. I guess because I don't know what the 'purpose of that land' is...or how having this garden disrespects that 'purpose'. I believe that sharing vegetables and flowers with my neighbors has much more purpose and value than watering, fertilizing and mowing grass. Maintaining grass in Southern Alberta is VERY environmentally unfriendly. We do not use any chemicals in the Boulevarden and we have planted drought tolerant and native plants to conserve water.
I wonder what the City of Lethbridge would do if they awoke to spraypainted art on the side of City Hall one Monday morning? Likely, the tag would be removed and the cultrip arrested and charged for his/her disregard for city property. What I also wonder is what makes what you are doing so different from that spray artist?, After all beauty is in the eye of the beholder, correct? I have driven by your garden, and live in the direct neighbourhood and find what you are doing to be outright wrong, regardless of how you see its success.
I also wonder how you may feel if one of your neighbours decides that they are going to give away old car parts on the boulevard in front of their house?
I am also quite stunned that you would have such nerve as to publicly praise yourself for the vandalism you have done to property that you know is not yours.
I have no contention to community gardens, and feel that they are wonerful ideas that can bring neighbours and communities together, but they need to be put in areas designated by the city, and decisions should not be left to the individuals, as this could closely represent anarchy.
You do have a nice yard, an I can apprecite the work you have put into it, but what you should have done if you wanted closeness with your community is created this garden on property that you owned, and not taken away from the intended purpose of that land.
I also received the below emails today:
"If "guerrilla gardening" were easy or completely acceptable...it wouldn't be "guerrilla", would it? I would like to ask "anonymous" if, rather than generalizing to car parts and etc...it was universalized..."what if everyone grew a guerrilla garden?"
The vandalism comparison is not appropriate...as that is clearly the alteration of architecture. In the case of a boulevard, or a parking lot, or a vacant lot...spontaneous gardening represents a step towards a "state of nature" in a way that what is being displaced is not.
I'm sure that "anonymous" might prefer Mussolini's Italy - where the trains always ran on time - but the gene pool is a little more diverse. We can't all catch the same trains...going to the same place. There will always be some aspect of the human spirit which demands an alternative schedule...
Suck it up anonymous. Plants aren't car parts."
- Jon
and
"Not only are you maintaining the space, but you've turned it into a public-use space (/i.e./, a space that has some use-value)"
- Bri
and
"one day I was taking a stroll through my neighborhood (London Road) and I came across the loveliest boulevard garden (Boulevarden) on 7th Avenue. It was so striking that I had to pause and reflect on its beauty and the statement it made about...beauty in urban places, coloring outside the lines, creating common places of beauty, and so on. I really am stuck for words on the tremendous impact this garden had on me. I was truly moved. A few days later I read in The Herald the article about you and the guerrilla gardening and realized it was you who put that garden in! Anyhow, today I was listening to CBC and I heard you AGAIN talking about G.G. So I thought, I MUST check out your blogspot (I did) and also let you know what I think of what you are doing. I think you deserve a medal from the City of Lethbridge for your beautification efforts in this city. What you are doing is so progressive and beautifully reckless that it's no wonder there is the odd dissenting and unenlightened voice. What you do for the residents of Lethbridge is profound and wonderful. Thank you."
- Em
Soooo...it was a big day all round...an AMAZING day...
9 comments:
I was listening to the CBC program this afternoon and decided to look into your blog and some comments that were made.
Although I cannot speak for the individual that wrote the negative comment, what I believe they are trying to state is not that sharing and community spirit is wrong, but the fact that you decide, without permission of the writeful owner, what the property is to bu used for, and what you feel is waste.
You could have, just as easily, created a garden within your own property that would have granted you and your community as much, or more enjoyment and satisfaction.
By the way, I do notice that your property has lawn on it, and if you feel that "...sharing vegetables and flowers with my neighbors has much more purpose than watering, fertilizing and mowing grass.", then why would you have not used your own space to create this garden, rather than take over what is not rightfully yours?
By the way, I think that your garden looks nice and serves a nice purpose, and I agree with the previous person in that you have gone about creating a sense of community and sharing in the wrong way.
A great idea, that could get a lot of community press, participation and would generate significant community spirit is to request the city for a block of land outside of your buolevard that can be treated as a community garden.
I agree with the latest comment regarding the use of the boulevard as a garden.
You mention that sharing vegetables and flowers with your neighbours has much more purpose than watering, fertilizing and mowing grass. Well that is all well and good but do it on your own property. These boulevards are public property and you do not have the right to decide to change the appearance of them. I feel that the city council should be setting bylaws governing these boulevards if they are not already in place.
I agree that what you have done is indeed a form of vandalism. It does not have the same appearance as spray painting a wall but you have helped yourself to something that is not yours and that is wrong.
What is next? Digging up a plot in the downtown park?
We all live by rules in this society. If you are allowed to help yourself to property that doesn't belong to you then how do you stop the next guy from doing his own thing. I would also be concerned as to the examples we are setting for our children. We have to have respect for other people's property and that includes the city's.
I as well agree with the initial comments as well as the two subsequent observations, one notably about the example we are setting for our children.
Would you find it acceptable for someone to just show up at your house overnight and take over you front yard, and make something of it that you do not approve?
We all need to get back the lost art of respecting others and their property. If you do not respect others they should not have to respect yours.
I feel what you are doing is wrong and requires correction.
Jon,
I found your comments humourous, at best. Nice try, but in your struggle to defend what is wrong you neglect to understand the point of the three people that commented before me.
The idea of a community garden is a great one, and I would commend the individual, or group, that would approach the city for a space designated for this purpose.
Where is the line drawn for "appropriate" use. No, car parts are not flowers, but that is not the point here.
Grow a garden on you own land and invite the public to share in it with you, rather than change what was not yours to change in the first place.
-BL
ps- Many of the people in this neighbourhood do not like what has been done here. I am one of them, and I have spoke with many others that fee the same way. We don't want to make waves or create some sort of uprising, we just want to say our piece.
Thanks for the opportunity to do so.
Loralee
I think anonymous is just plain wrong. Your garden is gorgeous and an act of extreme community building. It gives so much to each of us and I know I have made numerous trips there just to see the progress (something I do not do to the useless boulevards anonymous loves so much). I am planning my own boulevarden right now. Thanks for being inspiring!
Lisa
Civic government ideally exists to administrate infrastructure and hold land in trust on behalf of its citizens. The City is not a private entity, but an expression of its collective populace. Responsible stewardship over community/communal assets shouldn't be construed as vandalism. I would ask what the boulevards that the city holds in trust are earmarked for? How has their been a serious change in that earmarked use? It is not as if there has been a defacement (if you call beautifying and sharing defacement) of private property.
Fr. Tham
The points raised by people who could be described as "naysayers"
regarding "boulevard gardening" are founded on genuine and valid
concerns - ie: if many citizens altered their alloted share of City
property called "boulevards", then what standards would govern whether
the outcome is "art" or "mess"?
Clearly, for some, it is more desirable to accept the standardization of "lawn" rather than risk the "vandalism" of individual interpretation.
I understand the perspective, but I don't share it - and this is why:
The standardized "lawn boulevard" is, itself, simply a default provision of the City...it is not guided by any particular philosophy other than that is low cost installation, low cost maintenance, and fairly universal (though, as the Boulevarden Blog images show...there are asphalt boulevards...concrete boulevards...dirt boulevards).
The City, for its part, expects a nominal degree of maintenance from the homeowner - mowing, watering, trash removal, broken glass removal, general monitoring.
There is nothing particularly laudable about the "default" boulevard,and we shouldn't be trapped into believing that the default boulevard is the "right way"...it's just a default position.
Having broken down cars & appliances on the boulevard is not an apt comparison because those items are: i) inherently dangerous; ii)attract pests with potential disease (mice); iii) attract liability to both the City and the object owners.
"Vandalism" is, by dictionary definition, "the willful and malicious destruction of property." It is a false comparison for those who liken boulevard gardening to the act of a vandal, for the following reasons:
First, creating a garden can hardly be described as "malicious". It may
indeed be willful (I think it would HAVE to be)...but the intent could
not be described as one of "malice".
Second, there is no destruction of property. Consider...the boulevard is a piece of real estate, owned by the City. Apart from the "default"
function it serves in hosting grass and trees, in some instances it
represents a "temporary" state of being for land which may later be
incorporated into a widened roadway - or, for a "right of way" for
subsurface utilities. Either way, the boulevard garden does not
"destroy" the property - it only renders it "different" from the default stage. The City may still widen the roadway...the phone company may still dig up the Zucchini to access a broken connection. The property has not been damaged.
Since neither "malice" or "damage" has occurred, how can "vandalism" be ascribed?
Finally, there seems to me to be a false "slippery slope" when one
rhetorically asks "what's to stop people from digging up Galt Gardens to plant vegetables and flowers that they like?"
Such an action WOULD do damage to City property...since that property
has been singularly designed to be a public City park. It is not a
boulevard...it is a piece of City property which is designed and
maintained in that state in a way that a boulevard is not.
There is much in our society which is founded upon ascertaining a
person's intent. There are also many provisions to ascertain whether an action represents a substantial violation of reasonable standards - or if it is a deviation which can be accommodated within the context of a diverse society.
Clearly, to me, people who oppose the concept of the "boulevarden" need to revisit their own values on "what is acceptable/tolerable" and what is substantially problematic.
Ordered societies don't need to be homogenous right up to the very
margins of the private/public interface - that does not produce laudable communities. Energy and imagination create the kinds of communities which people want to live in, and people want to visit.
Jon,
Great academic rhetoric, but the point to earlier comments has been clearly missed.
First and foremost I want to be clear that I am not trying to start a "fight", and I will not continue my discussions after I write this post. If the Mayor supports this type of gardening then I can align myself and accept this as well.
Never once did I say that what has been done was ugly, messy or inappropriate. It was merely the way it was done. If Mrs. Edwards is calling this "Guerilla" gardening and "took over" property, there is the underlying implication that how this was being done may be wrong in nature. Remember, I am not speaking of the result, only the action.
The world would be a far better place if we did more of what we felt was right and less of what was wrong.
If Mrs. Edwards felt this was "right" then it would not be "Guerilla" would it.
-BL
"If Mrs. Edwards is calling this "Guerilla" gardening and "took over" property, there is the underlying implication that how this was being done may be wrong in nature.
If Mrs. Edwards felt this was "right" then it would not be "Guerilla" would it."
Sooooo...freedom fighters/guerillas are struggling for what they don't beleive in, and what they perceive to be wrong?
...ok.
Post a Comment