U N E A R T H I N G H I S T O RY T O D E S I G N F O R S U S TA I N A B L E C O M M U N I T I E S

of the soil

FE ATURING :

JUNE 2015

EXPLORING FOOD ACCESS IN GREENVILLE’S MILL VILLAGES THROUGH THE LENS OF ORAL HISTORY

AND URBAN TRANSITION

1 2 3History of Food Security in Mill Villages

Recommendations & Next Steps

Project Overview,Partners & Process

PORTFOLIO CONTENTS:

UNCOVERING HISTORY INGREENVILLE’S TEXTILE

CRESCENT TO DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABILITY

SETTING THE STAGE

RESEARCH PROCESS

CONCLUDING REMARKS

REFERENCES & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PROJECT PARTNERS

HEAR: Unearthing the Story of the Soil

PROJECT SCOPE & TIMELINE

CREATE: Contextualizing Historical Research

DELIVER: Recommendations and Strategic Action

Outlining Theoretical Foundations

Victory Village Concept & Proposal

Acknowledging Relevant Research

Understanding the Judson Community

Presenting the Historical Approach

12

3

4

56

Research completed by Benjamin Riddlethrough the Shi Center for Sustainability

in partnership with Overstreet Studios

PROJECT SCOPE

a Core Team of local service providers, residents, commu-nity partners and designers to research the historical land use and community needs of a proposed site, identify local assets, define the project scope and facilitate its development.

a network of Working Groups to develop and implement programs pertaining to housing, agriculture, the built environment and social services.

key Community Leaders to champion the Victory Vil-lage model, and identify Community Sponsors to anchor financial and in-kind support.

a Victory Village prototype plan according to the Judson property that integrates housing, sustainable agriculture, education, workforce development, entrepreneurial op-portunities and community services.

ASSEMBLE

BUILD

RECRUIT

DESIGN

DEVELOPMENT PROCESSABOUT THE PROJECT

This research on historic food systems and development pat-terns was completed in partner-ship with the Furman Universi-ty Shi Center for Sustainability and community partners in Greenville to inform the devel-opment of Victory Village, a proposed mixed-income com-munity.

Victory Village is a sustain-able community development project facilitated by Overstreet Studio, an urban design firm that specializes in sustainable communities.

SCOPE OF RESEARCH

This multifaceted project includes many phases of research, activity and development. The scope of this specific research project aims to illuminate the history of the site of the proposed development in light of current food systems research. Specifically, this historical research examines land uses that included food production in Greenville’s textile communities in order to understand how local foodways functioned before the contemporary period. With this understanding in mind, and in light of current zoning ordinances and land uses, this research serves to inform a new model of community development that fosters resilience and sustainability.

1

SETTING THE STAGE

Greenville is a community known for its generous spirit and collaborative approach towards problem solving. As a region, the Upstate of South Carolina is often lauded for our high quality of life and verdant natural landscape. With this said, many people in our community do not experience Greenville in the way that the press so often depicts.

While once a productive example of American dynamism and the American dream, many of the communities in Greenville’s Textile Crescent are gripped by generational poverty and face limited access to meaningful employment, healthy food and reliable transportation. These factors have influenced the development of systemic problems, which are directly linked to issues of food security and resilience. In the midst of these pressing challenges, exciting opportunities have emerged that promise to bring new opportunities to these communities.

Farmers, consumers and institutions across the upstate are joining together with local entrepreneurs to develop a regional food hub that aims to address problems related to food access in a holistic and systemic way. [a] At the same time, local homeless service providers, institutions and housing agencies are joining forces to address issues of affordable housing, food access, and employment through unprecedented collaborative efforts. [b]

By harnessing the power of the collective, stewarding the land through effective zoning and urban planning, and using a diverse set of tools and approaches, Greenville is poised to develop new models of community development that enhance quality of life for all citizens in an equitable, sustainable way.

[a] Feasibility Study – A case for an Upstate (SC) Food Hub(2014)[b] Homelessness White Paper: A Collective Approach to Reduce Homelessness in Greenville County (2015)

2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

In order to contextualize the historical research on foodways in Greenville’s mill communities, and to understand how this in-sight informs an understanding of resilience and food security, a clear understanding of these theories is required. This research is support-ed by a brief literature review of two key theoretical frameworks.

UNDERSTANDINGRESILIENCE

In the context of food systems and community development, resil-ience refers to “the resilience of social systems, (which are) related in some way to the resilience of the ecological systems on which social systems depend.” [c] In this light, resilience is “a community’s ability to maintain, renew, or reorganize social system functions,” so that planning, design and

HISTORICAL APPROACH

While theory and relevant data present a conceptual and quantitative under-standing of sustainability issues, this information alone does not effectively account for the ways that problems pertaining to food security and resil-ience affect local populations.

In the same vein, this data does little to shed light on how these issues have played out over time and affect daily life. Historical research is an effective supplement to theoretical and quanti-ative social science research,since it illuminates the nuanced ways that systemic problems affect people and communities over time.

To assist with the development of Victory Village, and to inform commu-nity development practices in post-in-dustrial mill communities, this research project seeks to understand how small producers and local institu-tions strengthened the local food econ-omy and fostered a sense of resilience that protected working class neigh-borhoods during periods of economic uncertainty and transition. This report features first-hand accounts of life in textile villages, which were drawn from oral histories, research from Greenville mill historians and interviews with community residents in the greater Greenville area.

[c] (Adger, 2000, p. 350) [d] (Franklin, Newton, and McEntee, 2011, p. 775)

[e] (Pothukuchi, 2004, p. 356)[f] (FAO, 2014)

THEORY, RESEARCH & HISTORICALAPPROACH

learning can occur in a way that ensures the capacity to deal with sudden shocks. [d] By improving the integrity and viability of local food networks, communities like those in Greenville’s Textile Crescent can foster sustainability in a way that protects the most vulnerable.

UNDERSTANDING FOOD SECURITY

In the community development are-na, food security refers to a state where “all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food sustem that also maximizes community self-reliance and social justice.” [e] In light of this definition, one notable aspect of food security according to the Federal Ag-riculture Office is “empowering small producers” and “strengthening social protection mechanismsfor risk reduction.” [f]

LOCAL RESEARCH AND REPORTS

With this theoretical understanding of food systems and resilience in mind, local reports, white papers, and case studies that explore food systems, homeless service provision, regional food hubs, and food insecu-rity were referenced before engaging in fieldwork and historical research. These documents are listed at the end of this portfolio as cited references.

2

THE SITUATION

Around the world, communities are working to address issues of wealth disparity and homelessness in new and creative ways. This too is true of Greenville, a city known for its collaborative nature and generous spirit.

THE STORY In 2014, a group of homeless service providers, urban designers and board members from United Hous-ing Connections joined with com-munity volunteers to discuss cre-ative ways to address homelessness in Greenville County.

They realized that by working across sectors and bridging the gaps between disciplines, Greenville is poised to create a new paradigm for sustainable community develop-ment, and a new model for collabo-ration towards collective impact.

This model would build upon exist-ing relief and recovery services for the homeless, and work in tandem with the efforts of local service pro-viders by offering a unique hous-ing-first approach that incorporates educational, entrepreneurial and vocational opportunities in a diverse and supportive community environ-ment.

BUILT UPON HISTORY Inspired by Greenville’s Textile Mill Communities and the spirit of col-lective action that emanated from WWII Victory Gardens, this team set out to design a holistic model for sustainable community develop-ment, known as Victory Village.

Building upon the urban fabric of mill communities, this model incorporates housing with opportu-nities to pursue education, entre-preneurship, vocational opportuni-ties and sustainable agriculture in a walkable neighborhood setting.

A NEW PARADIGM

Informed by successful models of urban revitalization, Victory Village is designed to be a diverse, mixed-income community that integrates formerly homeless and low income individuals with others interested in being a part of a sustainable community marked by strong relationships, meaningful work, a vibrant local economy and a verdant natural landscape.

This approach towards develop-ment draws upon the strengths and assets of local residents to foster a shared sense of pride and support, while offering an opportunity for an extended network of service pro-viders and volunteers to collaborate in a new and innovative way.

OPPORTUNITY

In the midst of a pressing challenge, Greenville is presented with a unique opportunity to create a new way to solve problems in our community. By harnessing the power of the collective and drawing upon our shared values and strengths, we’ll create a place where everyone has an opportunity to live the good life.

SHARED VALUES

Victory Village is envisioned as a vibrant community where people from all backgrounds have the opportunity to pursue and experi-ence the fullness of a life well-lived. These shared values are woven throughout the project and keep it on course:

EMPATHY: we listen and learn before making assumptions and plans.

RESPECT: we put people before politics, products, programs, and process.

TRANSPARENCY: we believe vulnerability and honesty are the foundations of trust.

RESILIENCE: we think learning how to fail forward, admit mistakes and recieve grace is a key to success.

HONOR: we value positive affirmation and humble authenticity build confidence and a shared sense of pride.

“WE WANT A HAND UP,NOT A HAND OUT.”-James, a homeless father

BUILDING UPON HISTORY TO DEVELOP A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY

3

JUDSON: POISED FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

IDENTIFYING SITE FOR DEVELOPMENT In partnership with local community leaders, mill historians and and service providers, the Victory Village development team identified a 22 acre site in the Judson Community as an ideal location for the proposed devel-opment. In order to contextualize research on food secu-rity and resilience through the lens of history, this project focuses on the Judson community as a site for analysis, since it is the proposed location for Victory Village.

HISTORY OF THE JUDSON COMMUNITY

The Judson Community is part of the Textile Crescent surrounding the west side of Greenville. The Judson Mill was originally called the Westervelt Mill, after J. Irving Westervelt, one of the mill founders. The mill was renamed Judson, after Charles Judson, a professor at Furman University. The Judson Mill opened in March 1912 and like most Greenville mills, produced textiles.

The foundation of mill villages contained a sense of pride that grew from working in the mill and becoming an active member of the community in which they lived. Each village was self-sufficient, and many things required for daily life was in close proximity. All the neighbors knew one another and they had opportunities to develop friend-ships through sports teams, garden clubs and a local radio station. The community was like a family. This sense of community has been lost over the years, which is one of the reasons for the decline in Judson. By providing oppor-tunities to re-create this community pride, in addition to the physical assets already in place, Judson can truly be a special place. Source: [g] Judson Community Plan HISTORICAL RESEARCH IN JUDSON

This research project builds upon the history of the Judson Community by identifying oral histories of residents that lived in the area during the early part of the twentieth century.

CONC

EPTU

AL R

ENDE

RING

OF

JUDS

ON S

ITE:

3

RESEARCHING THE PAST TO UNDERSTAND THE PRESENT

CONTEXTUALIZING RESEARCH TO INSPIRE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS

SHARING INSIGHTS TO INFORM DEVELOPMENT & POLICY CREATION

HEAR

CREATE

DELIVER

THIS PROJECT WAS INFORMED BY HUMAN CENTERED DESIGN METHODS

RESEARCH PROCESS

In order to contextualize research and other information collected during this project for the purpose of the development, the project was informed by design methods. Rooted in the social sciences, systems thinking and social work, human centered design is a research and prob-lem-solving process that is used across sectors to create solutions that contribute to the well being of humanity.

Human centered design can be used as strategy for defining problems, researching and un-derstanding systemic causes, creating prototypes and testing possible solutions. By continual-ly reviewing the objectives of the design process and engaging stakeholders as collaborators, outcomes emerge after a great deal of iteration and adjustment as practically feasible, desirable and viable for sustainable implementation.

SOURCES: Stanford University Hasso Plattner Institute, IDEO.org

4

Pauline Griffith, Spindle WorkerJudson Mills

“WE GREW EVERYTHING WE ATE RIGHT HERE AT HOME, EXCEPT FOR WHAT WE BOUGHT AT THE COMPANY STORE.”

MILL VILLAGE MEMORIES

As the whistle blew to end the af-ternoon shift at Judson Textile Mill, the front door of the company store opened wide to greet workers in pursuit of daily provisions. Just past the front counter, pyramids of color-fully labeled canned goods are packed tightly into shelves that line the inte-rior of the building. With wicker bas-kets in hand, workers both young and old jostled through the narrow aisles to pick up weekly staples: canned vegetables, salted pork and a sack of grits. Towards the back of the store, yards of madras and linen spilled out over square tables where seamstresses

sourced fabrics for garment making. This bustling scene is representative of a normal day at a textile mill-town emporium.

The company store of a twentieth century mill village was more than a place for food procurement; it was a hub of commercial and social activity that represents the traditions and mo-res of the time. In the textile commu-nities of Greenville, South Carolina, company stores served mill workers that were far removed from the city center. The foodways of each mill community were marked by a delicate system of local production, provision and consumption, which ensured food security and created a shared sense of community vibrancy during the textile period. When coupled with a network of community orga-

nizations and support services, this system created a local food economy that fostered resilience and protect-ed workers from destitution during periods of economic uncertainty. This interwoven network of factors stabi-lized the local food system during the textile era, and could serve to inspire new approaches towards community development in the post industrial period.

MOVING TO OPPORTUNITY

In the beginning of the twentieth century, farming families across the Southeast fled depressed agricultural conditions to find work in the textile towns of the Carolina Piedmont. This regional migration was indicative of a national shift in labor from the hin-terlands into cities and towns, which

Benjamin RiddleShi Center for Sustainability

of the soilEXPLORING FOOD ACCESS IN GREENVILLE’S MILL VILLAGES THROUGH THE LENS OF ORAL HISTORY AND URBAN TRANSITION

left a meager two percent of Ameri-cans farming during the period. Fam-ilies squeezed into newly constructed houses that were only steps away from the workplace, and soon settled into life as operatives of the burgeon-ing industrial economy.

This process of migration and adap-tation is best understood by listening to the stories of a family in transition during the period. In order to contex-tualize these circumstances, this piece explores the life of Paul and Pauline Griffith through an oral history, and compares their journey to work with the community at present.

MEETING THE GRIFFITH FAMILY

According to the oral history cata-logued by Southern historian at UNC

Chapel Hill, Paul and Pauline Griffith moved to the textile village of Judson, South Carolina with their families in the first decade of the twentieth cen-tury. Soon thereafter, they married in 1927 and settled into a home on Third Avenue in Judson, where they lived while working in the mill and raising children.

While the surrounding mill village was a stage for industry, other activities such as backyard gardening, animal husbandry and urban agri-culture played an important role in family life for the Griffiths, and other farming families. Once settled in, these families adapted mores of life in the hinterlands to their new home in textile communities. Pauline Griffith noted that her mother was permitted by the mill overseers to tend to a gar-

den behind their house, which was in close proximity to a shared com-munity grazing pasture on Third Avenue where residents housed and tended to various farm animals. “Coming from the country,” Pauline said, “they used to allow us to have a place where we could have a hog pen. And she liked to do that. And we had a cow, too. We had our own milk and butter. She grew a lot of vegetables in the garden.”

With low wages and large fami-lies, Pauline noted that her siblings joined her mother in canning garden vegetables for preservation, which saved the family money. Pau-line noted, “we grew everything we ate right there at home, except you know, the commodities you’d have to buy in the store.”

“COMING FROM THE COUNTRY, THEY USED TO ALLOW US TO HAVE A PLACE WHERE WE COULD HAVE A HOG PEN. AND SHE LIKED TO DO THAT.”

“Forget about race. Just help people.”

and prepare food for future use. These programs were of great benefit to a family’s social and economic stability, since many low-wage workers faced the prospect of financial hardship. Like the Griffiths, families often supplied the bulk of their food needs with seasonal produce from backyard gardens, and canned vegetables that were “put up” each harvest season. Eggs, milk and poultry were often sourced from local producers, who used facilities provided by the mill.

MILLS PROVIDE ASSISTANCE DURING HARD TIMES

While this type of paternalism pro-vided social and economic benefits to workers, textile mill owners viewed the practice of providing facilities as good business. During the Great Depression, the textile mills provid-ed their own private social services and relief efforts. If a family was on the verge of food insecurity in a textile community, they could file for a relief order at the local company store, which agreed to sell products at wholesale prices. Through these pro-

grams, a family of four to six people might be given two dollars in grocer-ies each week, which could provide 4 pounds of bacon, 5 pounds of dry beans, 6 pounds of sugar, one dozen eggs, 4 pounds of grits and more.

Such activities were intended to raise the spirits of the community and ensure the continuation of work at the mill. Community services like the relief program, combined with locally sourced food from the com-pany store and backyard gardens, the use of shared facilities and collective

rituals like canning vegetables creat-ed conditions for the emergence of a sustainable food system within mill communities. Such a system fostered a sense of resilience and enabled families to persist amidst fluctuations of activity due to mill strikes, changes in working hours and seasonal work shortages.

GLOBALIZATION DESTABILIZES MILL COMMUNITY, ECONOMY

Towards the end of the twentieth century, transitions in the global economy led textile companies to

LOCAL CURRENCIES CREATE HYPER-LOCAL COMMERCE

One of the key institutions in each mill village was the company store, which provided families like the Grif-fiths with canned goods, home goods, clothing and other sundries that were not grown in their backyard gardens. These stores varied in size, structure and selection, often based on where they were located in proximity to the city. Stores were either held by the company or privately owned and operated. Both types were locally managed, which created a culture of hyper-local commerce.

In Judson, the company store was privately owned and company-spon-sored to provide general merchandise to local residents on site and through delivery. Like many textile communi-ties in the Upstate, the Judson com-pany store issued a local currency, or company script, which was issued, traded and spent locally. The issuance of local currency created a system of payment and bartering that encour-aged local economic exchanges and kept employees bound to the mill at large. MILLS BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE TO PROVIDE FOOD SECURITY

Beyond the company store, large textile mill operations like Judson also sponsored a host of community orga-nizations and agricultural programs for the benefit of their workers. From canneries and communal grazing lands to Victory gardens, garden clubs and nurseries, the mill villages of Greenville were filled with opportu-nities for people to produce, process

change their practices in order to remain competitive. Companies like Milliken, which operated Judson Mill, replaced workers with new machin-ery and divested from assets and services that were not directly related to operations, like housing and com-munity facilities. This represented a fundamental shift in the relationship between workers and the workplace, which disrupted traditional systems and changed the socioeconomic order of mill villages across the region.

At present day, the Judson communi-ty is filled with a demographic mix-ture of transients, established resi-dents and temporary renters, many of which claim no association with the historical identity of the mill village. The company store that once stood at the back gate of the Judson Mill has since been torn down, and the com-munity grazing lands are now home to Hollis Elementary School and a local branch of the YMCA.

DISCOUNT STORESSERVE LOCAL POPULATION

The streets of Judson are now traveled by cars and pedestrians, who walk by foot to discount stores along heavi-ly-trafficked Highway 123. The con-venience stores that line the highway represent a grazing commons of a different sort. Where residents once tended to animals and farmed in proximity to their homes, gas stations and corner stores now crowd out the land. While these stores provide ac-cess to packaged foods, fresh produce is hard to find in this food desert. The case of poor food access in Judson is representative of broader dysfunc-tions in a food system that no longer features local agricultural production.

COMMUNITY GARDEN FUELS MILL VILLAGE REVITALIZATION

In the midst of economic uncertainty, local residents have joined together in recent years to revitalize the com-munity through grassroots social and economic development projects. Led by resident Andrew Ratchford and the Judson Community Association, residents have planted a community garden a block away from the garden plot that was tended to by Paul and Pauline Griffith. Using a variety of alternative farming tech-niques, residents plan to produce a variety of high-yield crops on the small plot, which sits adjacent to the historic grazing commons. Across the street from the Griffith’s home on Third Avenue, a new community development project is planned to offer new housing and services to connect residents with education, job training and agricultural opportuni-ties. While still in its formative stages, these efforts are representative of the

resilience of working class people that first settled the Judson mill village. Today, new opportunities are being forged through public-private partnerships and a renewed spirit of civic engagement.

In Judson, new growth is rising from the soil once more. While current residents have access to packaged and prepared foods in the community, the extent to which mill operatives made use of shared-use facilities, the company store and their own gardens in the twentieth century is notable. Beyond their utilitarian purposes, shared facili-ties for food processing and community gathering bound locals together through common rituals and practices, which engendered a shared-sense of unity in the community. This sense of security transcended income level and social status, and fostered a collective identity and sense of pride around the mills.

UNCOVERING FACTORS THAT FOSTER LOCAL RESILIENCE

In addition to this robust social network, the relatively high rates of employment in the mill village during the peak of operations at Judson Mill ensured that residents had the means to actively participate in the local economy, and thereby secure basic necessities like food and shelter.

By contrast, the modern Judson com-munity faces neither shared practice nor strong employment. High rates of unemployment, irregular work schedules and a lack of reliable transportation options creates significant barriers to food access for those people that do not haveautomobiles. With these said, new efforts to overcome these barriers through grassroots community development are notable, but nascent at best.

Beyond access, the extent to which textile companies provided for their workers, and the tightly woven social fabric of mill villages like Judson created the conditions for a strong food system that was accessible in the midst of economic hardship and uncertainty. Additionally, privately sponsored social welfare programs, shared-use facilities, and the agricultural heritage of many mill workers created the conditions that fostered resilience and serves as the backbone of a strong and stable local economy.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES

In the post-industrial urban context, one might take note of the formative role that twentieth century textile companies played in the development of strong communities.

This notion of enlightened capitalism can serve as inspiration for how the public and private sectors can work together to shape a strong and stable while also revitalizing communities. In the midst of decomposition, the topsoil is regenerated to nurture new growth. Urban reformers, grassroots leaders and private sector partners should work together to set the stage for ambitious public-private partner-ships.

BIBLIOGRAPHYAnderson, Cynthia D., Michael D. Schulman, and Phillip J. Wood. “Globalization and Uncertainty: The Restructuring of Southern Textiles.” Social

Problems 48, no. 4 (2001): 478-98. Accessed No-vember 14, 2014.

Bainbridge, Judith T., and Robert Warin Bain-bridge. Greenville’s Heritage. Greenville, S.C.: J & B Publications, 2006. 226-230.

Belcher, Ray. Greenville County, South Carolina: From Cotton Fields to Textile Center of the World. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2006. 88-89, 94.

Coxe, Richard. Judson Mill Company Store, 1930. Photograph, Greenville Historical Society, http://greenvillehistory.org/ghs/?q=node/7&id=0&view=20&search=judson#db, October 20, 2014.

Cumbler, John T. “From Milling to Manufacturing: From Villages to Mill Towns.” In Reasonable Use: The People, the Environment, and the State, New England, 1790-1930. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Huff, A.V. Jr, Greenville: The History of the City and County in the South Carolina Piedmont. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1995. 218-229.

Tullos, Allen. Habits of Industry: White Culture and the Transformation of the Carolina Piedmont. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989. preface, notes, index.

Williams, Marshall. Life in the Textile Crescent. Oral History, Greenville, South Carolina, Sunday, October26th, 2014.

UNEARTHING FACTORS THAT FOSTER RESILIENCE

ACCESS TO FOODSHOULD BE VIEWEDIN THE CONTEXT OF A RESILIENT COMMUNITY ECOSYSTEM FOOD

SECURITY

STABLEJOBS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

COMMUNITY SUPPORT

TRAINING & EDUCATION

ACCESSIBLE MOBILITY

The robust local food system and economic exchanges thatdefined twentieth century mill villages fostered resilience

and acted as a safety net that protected workers from destitution during periods of economic uncertainty.

An interwoven network of factors stabilized the local food system during the textile era, and could serve to inspire

new approaches towards community development in the post industrial period.

Today, many of Greenville’s mill villages are located in food deserts that feature few opportunities for stable employment. Many lack access to transportation, and face limited housing and workforce development opportunities. Amidst this situation, grassroots leaders are organizing to bring new life to their communities.

Building upon historic mill village development patterns, and inspired by historical accounts of food security and resilience in Greenville’s mill communities, Victory Village proposes a holistic model of community development that incorporates factors that foster resilience, including the opportunity to grow, process, sell and prepare food in an urban setting.

At present, this type of development cannot occur at the proposed site in Judson Community, since it is currently zoned for industrial use. This development will require the creation of a new planning and zoning ordinances that allow for a mixture of land uses, including urban agriculture,multifamily residential and retail located in proximity to a transit corridor.

To proceed with the development of Victory Village in light of current zoning restrictions, a Planned Development (PD) must be developed. This process requires that all details per-taining to the proposed land use are outlined in a comprehensive document that can be shared and discussed with the community at large.

RECOMMENDATION

SITUATION

NEXT STEPS

OPPORTUNITY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTTO REQUEST CHANGE TO ZONING POLICY

To invest time and energy into a project that seeks to shift paradigms is an investment that comes with great risk, and even greater reward.This portfolio is an artefact from a season of deep listening, coalition building, diligent research and rapid prototyping. This project represents beginning an initaitive with great potential to create a new way to develop communities in Greenville County. For those that this development is designed to serve, it holds even greater promise. Over the past twelve months, I have worked on the fringes of society, risked failure and in the eyes of many, pushed the boundaries of acceptable research. Through this process, I have worked with a mult-diciplanary team to assemble a di-verse and dedicated group of service providers and community members that are eager to bring Victory Vil-lage from concept to fruition. At this point in the project, I plan to work with Victory Village team to integrate insights from historical land use into the development plan

and assist with the creation of a strategy to pursue required zoning and land use changes. I also plan to work with the team to assist with the formation of an organization that effectively facilitate the project moving forward. While outside the bounds of my work as a researcher, this effort will ensure the sustainability of the project and set the stage for its future development. In light of the factors that foster food security and community resilience, and in reflection on my research of historical foodways Greenville’s textile communities, I have come to conclude that a Planned Devel-opment (PD) will not catalyze the sytemic change that Victory Village model is designed to foster. To set precedence for mixed-use community developments that include urban agriculture, broader changes to zoning ordinances and urban planning policies are required. While Victory Village can be a model for sustainability that builds upon the walkable street fabric of mill communities, its

implementation and development should be coupled with strategic reccomendations and advocacy for local urban planners, policy makers and developers approach commu-nity planning with walkability, food security and factors of community resilience in mind.

Moving forward, I plan to meet with Mayor Knox White and represen-tatives from the City of Greenville to discuss ways that these priorities might be integrated into the efforts of the city’s Green Ribbon Advisory Council. I also plan to meet with County Planner Andrew Ratchord and representatives of Greenville County Redevelopment Authority to discuss my findings and research.

Victory Village is built upon the notion that every neighborhood should be a place where people can enjoy the good life, regardless of their means, race or creed. It is this principle that moves me to continue working with this project into the future. - Benjamin Riddle 5

THIS IS A PREFACE, NOT A CONCLUSION.

REFERENCES:

1. SETTING THE STAGE

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347-364.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). The Post-2015 Development Agenda and the Millennium Development Goals. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/post-2015-mdg/mdg/en/

Franklin, A., Newton, J., & McEntee, J. C. (2011). Moving beyond the alternative: Sustainable communities, rural resilience and the mainstreaming of local food. Local Environment, 16(8), 771-788.

Pothukuchi, K. (2004). Community food assessment: A first step in planning for community food security. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, 356-377.

Friddle, E., Lehman, R., Moore, D. & Templeton, B., (2015). Homelessness White Paper: A Collective Approach to Reduce Homelessness in Greenville County

Greenville County (2014). Judson Community Plan. Retrieved from http://www.green-villecounty.org/gcpc/long_range_planning/pdf/judson_final_draft.pdf.

Kelliher, C. (2014). “From Farm-to-Fork”: Proposed “Food Production Node” Placements in the Upstate, South Carolina to Increase Efficiency of Local Food SystemNetworks. Retrieved from https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publica-tion/4462613.

McCabe, W., “Mapping “Food Deserts” in Greenville County” (April 14, 2015). Furman Engaged!. Paper 370.

Park, S. (2014). Feasibility Study – a case for an Upstate (SC) Food Hub. Retrieved from http://www.greenvillecounty.org/apps/LongRangePlanning/uploads/Feasibility_Study.pdf.

1.a. Outlining Theoretical Foundations

1.b. Aknowledging Relevant Research

Anderson, Cynthia D., Michael D. Schulman, and Phillip J. Wood. “Globalization and Uncertainty: The Restructuring of Southern Textiles.” Social Problems 48, no. 4 (2001): 478-98. Accessed November 14, 2014.

Bainbridge, Judith T., and Robert Warin Bainbridge. Greenville’s Heritage. Greenville, S.C.: J & B Publications, 2006. 226-230.

1.c. Presenting the Historical Approach

6

REFERENCES:

Belcher, Ray. Greenville County, South Carolina: From Cotton Fields to Textile Center of the World. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2006. 88-89, 94.

Coxe, Richard. Judson Mill Company Store, 1930. Photograph, Greenville Historical Society, http://greenvillehistory.org/ghs/?q=node/7&id=0&view=20&-search=judson#db, October 20, 2014.

Cumbler, John T. “From Milling to Manufacturing: From Villages to Mill Towns.” In Reasonable Use: The People, the Environment, and the State, New England, 1790-1930. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Huff, A.V. Jr, Greenville: The History of the City and County in the South Carolina Piedmont. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1995. 218-229.

Tullos, Allen. Habits of Industry: White Culture and the Transformation of the Carolina Piedmont. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989. preface, notes, index.

Williams, Marshall. Life in the Textile Crescent. Oral History, Greenville, South Carolina, Sunday, October 26th, 2014.

1.c. Presenting the Historical Approach

1. SETTING THE STAGE (continued)

I’d like to acknowledge the work and efforts of Pat Dilger, who mentored me through this process. Pat is a diligent leader, public servant and urban designer that inspires me to dedicate my time and talents to work that does good.

I’d also like to thank Kelly Grant Purvis, Angela Halfacre, the staff at the Shi Center for Sustainability, and the Duke Endowment, whose combined efforts created the opportunity to pursue this research through a Shi Center Fellowship. Their dedication to Furman University and the greater Greenville community is to be commended.

Additional thanks are given to the following individuals, who were instrumental in shaping my thoughts and supporting my work before, during and after the research process: Andrew Ratchford, Julia Mullins, Ron Vergnolle, Don Koonce, Marshall Williams, Martin Livingston, Scott Park, Mike McGirr, Alexa Woodward, Will McCabe, Dr. Mike Winiski, Dr. Weston Dripps, Greenville County Library, Furman University Library, community residents in Judson, and the board of United Housing Connections.

Acknowledgements

“ONE OF OUR GREATEST STRENGTHS RIGHT NOW IS THAT COLLABORATION IS AT ITS HIGHEST POINT EVER.”- Don Oglesby, Homes of Hope