Last night, I attended a meeting at the Downtown Association that made me sad for the future of Fairbanks and even made me wonder if this is any place for someone with a love of community.
Executive director Emma Wilson summarized the results of a marketing survey commissioned by the Fairbanks Convention and Visitors Bureau. If you live in the Fairbanks area, you may remember the FCVB’s survey last August where we were to answer questions about Fairbanks’s strengths, weaknesses, activities, et cetera. The marketing company hired was attempting to discover Fairbanks’s “brand” — what our self-image was and how others viewed us.
A lot of it was nice to hear: we’re tough for surviving the winter weather, we have a vibrant arts community, and we’re very friendly.
What was disheartening — though it was really no surprise — was the “rugged individualism” theme. This is apparently how Fairbanksans see themselves — rugged individualists, living life on their own terms. One respondent to the survey said, “In Fairbanks, we get to live as we please — not as others tell us.”
It’s not that I’m against individuality. But the rugged individualism that my fellow Interior citizens paint themselves with — this “up yours, world” attitude — says nothing about obligations to others. It says nothing about the need for diplomacy, cooperation, and compromise. It says nothing about common goals and common struggles. It says nothing about citizenship or community.
(Why can’t we have “rugged communitarianism” instead?)
What’s more, the respondent who believes we get to live as we please is just plain wrong. I would like to live without a car that sucks up fifteen percent of my income. I would like to live a short walk from a grocery store, a bank branch, a café, a smoke-free bar, a bakery, and my place of work. I would like to like to have sizable untouched green spaces within walking distance of civic amenities. I would like to look upon the largest buildings in our city — which ought to be courthouses, convention centers, and theaters, but instead are grotesque box stores — without feeling like going on antidepressants.
But I can’t.
Wow, good analysis of the push and pull of society vs. “the one” (trek reference) You tempt me to write a diatribe on the things that make me sad about Alaska but I’ll resist. Suffice it to say that I don’t believe Fbx is the only place in AK that is firmly in the camp of the rights of individual. Obviously sprawl and poor planning are a result of that there…and many other places in the US. I admire your support for the community in the way you have participated in the dialogs.
I lived in Fairbanks from 1970-1975, and I do remember that attitude. I was just a child at the time, 9 when we left Alaska, but it seems like Libertarians were big there (heck, we were Libertarians at the time), and they’re big on the rugged individual.
But at the same time, we lived in a homestead out past College at first, and we never locked our door. My mom said if you locked your door in such an isolated area, you were depriving someone of the opportunity to come inside, get warm, and find something to eat. We were always happy when someone would come by and take advantage of this opportunity, because the house would already be warm, and usually the next time they were travelling through those parts, they would stop by with some groceries or something like that.
I haven’t been back to Fairbanks since 1975, so I can’t speak to it now. We lived at 2nd and Cowell (sp?), in a log house that I believe now has been torn down to extend the parking lot of the church next door.
I do remember a lot of ‘open space’ in Fairbanks. Blocks that had never been developed, and were just forest, so you could ride your bike through and have a great time. Are they still there?
Within the City of Fairbanks (there is a much larger Fairbanks North Star Borough that also encompasses Ester, North Pole, and Salcha), I don’t think there’s the kind of open space you’re thinking of, J. Now, that could be wrong — I live downtown and don’t usually go far off my beaten path unless it’s on some business. But within the city proper, everything is owned, and any parcels of undeveloped land are small enough that you wouldn’t be excited to ride your bike through there.
However, if you live outside the city, you’ll find forest land aplenty, including a few places with nice trails for biking. Either the land out there is public, or it’s private but so sparsely inhabited that somebody probably wouldn’t care if you took a ride or a stroll through his or her land.
Recreational land use — walking, biking, skiing — is a big reason people come to Fairbanks and a big reason they choose not to house themselves in the city. It’s unfortunate that city planners of our past either didn’t see that or believed that such land uses must be separated and segregated.
The ‘rugged individualism’ Fairbanksans profess is probably not as antithetical to community as it seems on the surface. This attitude is more a reaction to the enforced conformity seen elsewhere than an expression of what Fairbanks is capable of as a community. Great site, by the way! Russell
Russ (or anybody else), can you suggest some examples of the “enforced conformity” to which many Fairbanksans react? I’d really find it useful to understand that. Plainly, nobody is suggesting that Fairbanks or Alaska institute social policies like the Soviets under Stalin. So what are the more moderate places — within the U.S., say — that still offend Fairbanksans’ political sensibilities?
I would argue that “rugged individualism” makes Fairbanks a vibrant and dynamic community. It also provides a counter weight to the conformance and dim repetition seen in chains stores and restaurants, which I believe are the agents of “enforced conformity” as described by Russell.
As for the planning process, part of a successful plan will be a framework that allows for “rugged individualism” to be expressed in the architecture and public spaces of downtown Fairbanks.
If the plan is the pattern from which downtown Fairbanks will be cut, rugged individualism shall weave the clothe from which it will be made.
Discontinuous Permafrost
Frankly, I’m not sure what “rugged individualism” is. By itself, it sounds like a nice quality. But when I hear it expressed, it always seems to be in conjunction with some antisocial, anti-community sentiment: wanting not to pay taxes, or wanting the freedom to build whatever ecologically catastrophic eyesore you please.
Rugged individualism sounds nice, and I’d like to understand what’s good about it, where it harmonizes with community, and where it runs against community. I’ll make a main posting sometime to try to solicit some input.
I’ve been meaning to get back to this post all week… No doubt there is an aspect of this ‘rugged individualism’ that is purely imagination- the fiction that everyone can do entirely as they please with accountability to no one. Although this is clearly where your criticism is concentrated, I don’t believe this aspect is prevalent enough to warrant deep concern.
To get back to this idea of enforced conformity, there are several ways that it plays out. One is a pattern of development guided entirely by economic efficiency (from the point of view of the developers). At best the effects on community are left entirely to chance. In plenty of cases zoning and planning aids and abets this style of development in the interests of economic growth. Compare walking through the downtown neighborhoods with walking through the subdivisions behind Fred Meyer West and the old K-mart.
Another- and this is the source of your quote about ‘not living the way other’s tell us’- is a litany of local ordinances that on the surface are supposed to maintain the well-being of the community, but in reality serve to homogenize and exclude.
Here’s an example from our newly adopted community in central Pennsylvania. Whilst familiarizing myself with our local codes and zoning laws (in an effort to find what we can and cannot do with our new home) I was surprised to learn that my grass cannot exceed 6″ in height. I was preparing to go on at length about how the enforcement of such a law seems more ridiculous than the law itself, but last night I happened to meet someone who’s been cited for tall grass.
It’s also not legal for more than 3 unrelated persons to live in the same residence (I’m a little unclear on how this is measured- how many unrelated persons are there in two married couples, for instance? I can’t decide.)
Having had cause to reflect on such things I’ve come to several conclusions.
(1) Fairbanks is an excellent case study for what happens in the absence strict code enforcement.
(2) The lack of such ordinances seems fairly benign. That is to say individuals have great capacity to self-regulate. However, I do suspect Fairbanks has an above average incidence of house fires.
(3) The diversity of living styles in Fairbanks suggest that Fairbanks either has a high concentration creative types or that local ordinances and modern patterns of development elsewhere dampen the range of outcomes considerably.
I have gone on and on, but the point I originally intended was that it takes a lot of work and finesse to adopt zoning and planning regulations that enhance community building. There probably isn’t much conflict between the community building you are after and the types of codes that your ‘rugged individualist’ are railing against.
Great reading –
I’m inclined to agree with Russell on the concept of rugged individualism marrying with community inclinations versus it having to be a diammetrically opposing viewpoint. I always focus on the positive – namely that ordinances and zoning can protect those elements of life that we hold so dear (without limiting your grass height).
Ironically, throughout the 2 years I’ve been involved with the planning process here in Fairbanks – I haven’t had one person who has seriously said “don’t plan” – just many cautionary tales as to the dangers of “over planning”. For those who are from Fairbanks, I think that we have seen the political momentum err on the side of “don’t ever plan” and thus any “planning” that has occurred has been site specific and by its very nature, only made matters worse (and the perception of planning worse) as issues and areas are dealt with in isolation bubbles.
Bottom line is that Fairbanks hasn’t had a comprehensive planning process for our downtown and we are embarking on it – whilst preserving those elements that we do love and hold dear……we just have a bit of a tougher job than other communities at times. I would be sad if our revitalized downtown didn’t fight fiercely to protect the individual mindset of Fairbanksans – but I see it in a creative mechanism – for instance, we’ll never see form design radiate through – but we may well see great cutting edge building design.
Glass half full kind of person, I guess!
Just happened to see this articule and it caught my eye! Having lived \ live in Anchorage, it reminds me of the stance that tends to be taken North of Anchorage in the Eagle River area, the “Leave me alone, Change Nothing that is what I came to Alaska for”. Overall progress and change is good for us! and if you do not like the Glass is half empty or full .Then change the size of the Glass!