A few of the proponents of this view of the garden were young, mostly white, educated people who were interested in practicing the newly trendy urban agricul- ture (Macias 2008). They were concerned with sustainability issues, permaculture, and food justice. But many others were long-term immigrants and older African Americans originally from the South, who were deeply interested in and rewarded by hands-on gardening. Some were re-creating gardens they had in their places of origin, and many others were gardening for the first time. They devoted much effort to learning gardening techniques and exchanging knowledge with like-minded others across lines of race, ethnicity, and class.

Community Space

The fourth vision of the community garden was as a community space. More  so than for any other gardeners, those with this way of seeing the garden were focused on issues of access and boundaries. It was important to these gardeners that the community garden was easily accessed and welcoming to everyone, even if it raised the risk of theft and vandalism. Within the garden, the community space vision meant an emphasis on the quality of interactions between people. Growing respectful relationships came before growing food or looking green and lush. Wen- dell, a Jamaican immigrant gardener, got angry when others walked past him in the garden without saying hello. As someone who often reminded others of the “com- munity” in the community garden, he gently reproached those whom he perceived to have failed in everyday civility. Other community-oriented gardeners even criti- cized rude e-mail exchanges as compromising community.

Within the parameters of this vision, building of boundaries between inpidual plots was a physical manifestation of suspicion and lack of civility. Gardeners who believed that the garden should be a community space criticized those who pro- tected their plots with fences and locks. They were not sympathetic to the threat of theft. For them, the garden was first and foremost a public community space where it was unreasonable to expect the same experience as in a private backyard. Some pointed out that people who took the produce might be hungry, or not have access  to fresh food. There was a religious aspect to this outlook for those gardeners who viewed the bounty on their plots as God given. At the same time, some were upset by theft because the thief did not ask—if only they had asked, produce would have been shared in the spirit of community.

Many of the gardeners who held the community space vision of the garden lived in the immediate neighborhood of the garden. Many were African Ameri-   can and Puerto Rican long-term residents of the public  housing  development.  They were often seen gardening on more than one plot, just as multiple people gardened on the plot assigned to them. Instead of having a strong attachment to inpidual “private property” plots, these gardeners supported each other by  pitching in when someone was sick or away, or simply wanted to experience gar- dening. Ties with other gardeners and community members facilitated communal and caring behavior, which sometimes puzzled other gardeners who expected a one-to-one correspondence between person and plot. Sense of ownership  came more from the input of labor: if someone helped plant a crop, it was considered partially theirs, even if it grew on someone else’s plot. There was a  strong  emphasis on honoring those who work the most in the garden, especially through physical labor. In a way, the community vision comes closest to bridging the gar- den with the desires of some in the surrounding  neighborhood who  wish  for a  park that is accessible to all.

Removing the Eyesore

Although there were significant differences in defining this public space, its appearance, and appropriate behavior, the everyday encounters among people there were largely civil and often convivial. Perhaps because gardeners were brought together by a common interest of keeping the garden open, many went beyond civil- ity and place-specific friendships (Lofland 1973) to enduring relationships that extended to their lives outside the garden. Many such relationships were among people of similar backgrounds, but some reached across significant lines of class, race, and ethnicity. In fact, several gardeners praised their experience in the garden because it had allowed them to become friends with the kinds of people with whom they did not normally interact. This appreciation of the opportunity to destabilize normal social categories was not limited to a particular vision of the garden or a particular demographic group.