Nevertheless, it is precisely this deeper engagement with difference that also led to conflict and deliberation over clashing values. Almost unanimously, gardeners complained about squabbles and tension marring their enjoyment of the space. Below is an account of one conflictual incident, demonstrating the processes through which the green vision tended to prevail in the garden. Through this inci- dent, I describe the clash between different visions of the garden as it reflected the dynamics of local inequalities. What I want to emphasize is the way these visions were connected to societal hierarchies, how these hierarchies were resisted, and the way conflicting garden visions articulated with the processes of neighborhood change around the garden.

The conflict centered on the issue of clutter and excessive structures in the garden. Covered in lush growth in the summer, structures such as grape arbors, small and large cold frames, and elaborate supports for beans  and  squashes  became starkly visible in the off season. These structures  were  against the  for-  mal garden rules, and the steering committee  reminded  the  members  to  take  them down to prepare for cold weather.  However, some  structures  remained in  the garden over the winter, particularly among those with the farm vision. The eyesore appearance of the garden drew complaints by some in the immediate neighborhood, and even calls to the Parks Department and local politicians. As mentioned, gardeners who wanted the garden to be a green space were particu-  larly attuned to how the garden was perceived and pressed gardeners with unat- tractive plots to clean up. They were also more likely to be highly educated, middle-class people who have dominated the garden steering committee. Their leadership and ability to advocate for their vision of the garden was supported       by their access to economic, social, and cultural capital. They sometimes used legalistic language that served to intimidate and confuse, knew  how  to  effec-  tively engage city authorities, and facilitated meetings in a way that naturalized  their agenda.

The main target of these so-called “lawyers” in this instance was Maral, an elderly immigrant gardener from western Asia, who, despite her advanced age and frailty, had amassed a vast collection of found objects that she claimed to need for future agricultural experiments and recycled art compositions. During the growing season, Maral’s plot was a multicolored spot full of flowering vines, including her signature ruby hyacinth beans. In the winter, the clutter of random objects was  more visible, although many other plots had both clutter and large structures. One  of the first to join the garden, Maral grew increasingly isolated from the other gar- deners. The formal letter warning her that the steering committee would forcibly clear her plot was couched in terms of a safety hazard posed by her constructions. On the day of the scheduled cleanup, Maral arrived with a city employee who over- saw community gardens, and whom she had contacted with claims of elderly and disabled abuse. Although this official responded to Maral’s call for help, he quickly reassessed the situation upon his arrival and sided forcefully with the green vision  of the garden during the emotionally fraught several hours during which other gar- den members carted away Maral’s “junk.” Although Maral attempted to bring objects back on her electric scooter, many of her structures were dismantled, includ- ing the scaffold for the hyacinth beans.

In confrontation with the elderly Maral’s farm vision of the garden, the green vision prevailed, supported as it was not only by various forms of capital among garden leaders, but also by institutional validation of the green vision by a city employee. Although this garden is not managed by philanthropic organizations that run many other community gardens in New  York City, the cultural agendas of  these organizations influence the context in which all community gardens operate (Eizenberg 2013; Martinez 2010; Zukin 2010). In the face of superior resources and capital of the green vision leadership, their arguments about the survival of the gar- den and safety, and the support they enjoyed from the city agency, gardeners with other visions did not interfere with the dismantling of Maral’s garden even though many were uncomfortable with what transpired.