Bohemian Boom Town
Building a Bohemian Boom Town:
The Construction of a ‘Creative Class’ in Asheville, North Carolina
Mary LaRue Scherer
Sociology/Anthropology Directed Research
Warren Wilson College, 2006
1
Bohemian Boom Town
2
Abstract
This research investigates the ways in which urban development, gentrification, and
dominant representations of a “boom town” create a city tangled in contradictions. The
case study was conducted in Asheville, North Carolina, an increasingly popular urban
destination because of its progressive image and high quality-of-life standards. I found
that development, gentrification and representation are cooperating to obscure what is not
unique about the increasingly moneyed city by promoting, and more importantly
creating, “uniqueness.” After interviews and observations were conducted, my analysis is
that citizens are aware of its surface-level controversies, but have mostly accepted the
deeper contradictions. This supports my hypothesis that Asheville maintains the consent
of citizens by constructing a hegemonic discourse of the “good city.”
Bohemian Boom Town
3
Building a Bohemian Boom Town:
The Construction of a ‘Creative Class’ in Asheville, North Carolina
Asheville is currently on the radar for developers, tourists, young couples and
retirees looking for the perfect place to relocate. As a result of the development, new
buildings are popping up downtown and sidewalks are expanding to accommodate
outdoor cafes and more and more visitors. Billboards line the highways leading to the
city, advertising the openings of the sunset-bathed gated golfing communities, with
captions boasting their proximity to downtown. The ways Asheville is portrayed in
tourist and travel guides would lead anyone to believe that the city is a paradise of
idealism, unique shops, creative energies, and mountain vistas. As local business owner
Sasha proclaims, “Oh, it’s one of the best cities in the whole United States, there’s no
question. It’s beautiful, friendly, small, not big things, and the people (inaudible). I love
it. I’ll never go to New York again. I told you how many countries I live in my life and
everything, and that’s it! I’m gonna die here.” A wide spectrum of audiences, ranging
from outdoor enthusiasts to art aficionados, agree that Asheville is a special city.
But what is it that is so unique, so special? Uniqueness has become a niche in
Asheville, a stylistic device without a defined point of reference. Among my key findings
were that development projects, the ‘revitalization’ of downtown, and the various media
representations are cooperating to obscure what is ordinary or lower-end about the
increasingly moneyed city by promoting, and more importantly, creating “uniqueness”.
This goes largely undetected because of 1) the growing popularity of “uniqueness” and
“progressiveness” in an increasingly homogeneous and conservative culture (Florida,
2002); and 2) the assumption within the “good city” discourse that an unusual city is
Bohemian Boom Town
4
impervious to mainstream influences (Hanna & Del Casino, 2000; McCann, 2004).
Developing cities and the strategic nature of their representation is understudied,
particularly in cities like Asheville that promote this image of “uniqueness” and
impenetrability. The rationale of my research is that the politics of representation cannot
be investigated without considering the interdependence of urban development,
gentrification, and cultural representation.
Asheville is certainly not the first city to grow rapidly and end up with internal
contradictions. In fact, Asheville has started to be dubbed the Santa Fe, the Santa Cruz,
the Eugene, the Ann Arbor, and the Boulder of the East, aligning it with the other small
cities that have become popular for similar off-beat appeal. Ironically, by marketing to
progressives, New Age artsy types, and quality-of-life-seeking retirees, Asheville is
currently funding a revitalization effort that follows the script of many other developing
cities. Richard Florida (2002), a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, is
the author of one such popular script, which he has titled The Rise of the Creative Class.
In his discussion of Creative Class theory he explains that “The key to [a city’s]
economic growth lies not just in the ability to attract the Creative Class, but to translate
that underlying advantage into creative economic outcomes…” (Florida, 2002, p. 188).
Florida’s theory was mentioned by one of my informants, who confided that Asheville
planners are openly employing the strategy and heralding its success. This is more than
plausible when considering the following quote from Florida (2002):
Places are also valued for authenticity and uniqueness. Authenticity comes from
several aspects of a community---historic buildings, established neighborhoods, a
unique music scene, or specific cultural attributes. It comes from the mix---from
Bohemian Boom Town
5
urban grit alongside renovated buildings, from the commingling of young and old,
long-time neighborhood characters and yuppies, fashion models and "bag ladies.”
An authentic place also offers unique and original experiences. Thus a place full
of chain stores, chain restaurants, and nightclubs is not authentic. You could have
the same experience anywhere. (p. 281)
Creative Class theory is central to my research, since one of my key findings was that
Asheville is embracing “authenticity” and “uniqueness” as the dominant strategy for
representation, and its citizens have for the most part entered into the hegemonic
discourse of the “good city.”
In light of the nature of my findings, I decided the goals of my research should be
two-fold: to acknowledge that there are stories and perspectives about life in Asheville
that have been ignored or disregarded because they fail to match a set of criteria that
frame Asheville favorably, and to contribute to the discourse a new framework for
recognizing what and who in the growing urban environment are engaging certain
representations. I tried to meet these goals by identifying the most visible representations
and contrasting their prominence with the invisibility of any other representation. By way
of a disclaimer, this study is not meant to imply that there are sharp lines between the
representations, and I attempt to avoid stereotyping any particular representation by
pointing out the overlaps and changing nature of each in regard to the others. This
research is also not intended to serve as an expose of corrupt city policy, but rather to
delineate the interconnections among several factors, none of which are more or less
accountable than the other.
Bohemian Boom Town
6
I have laid the foundations for my research in the following section, in which I
review existing theories on the subjects of urban development, gentrification and
representation, in order to provide support for my findings. The rationale of my research
is to illuminate the interconnections between seemingly disparate aspects of urban life, so
my theoretical background spans the sociological and economic disciplines. In my
methods section, I explain why I chose certain informants and cites of observation to be
representative of Asheville. To introduce the body of my paper, I have included a brief
history of the city to provide a context for informant’s statements and my own
conclusions. For clarity, I have divided the presentation of my evidence into separate
sections for development, gentrification, and representation, respectively. The mutual
reinforcement of the factors is revealed in these sections, but I discuss it explicitly in my
conclusion.
Theoretical Background
Theories of Urban Development, Planning and Policy
Although I am using Asheville as a case study, it is necessary to link Asheville’s
current situation to a larger national trend in urban development, often termed urban
renewal, renovation, revitalization, regeneration, or rehabilitation (Palen & London,
1984). These terms are most commonly found in the rhetoric employed by urban planners
and economic think-tanks. Many American cities are subscribing to the same plans and
objectives due to what McCann (2004) has termed “interurban competition:” in their
striving to achieve the ratings and rankings of Among the Best Places to Live, etc, cities
are increasingly relying on a combination of economic and extra-economic factors,
implying that just as important as actual economic stability and access to resources is the
Bohemian Boom Town
7
creation of such a perception, afforded to the masses through style, image, evidence of
“culture,” and other attestations to overall quality of life (McCann, 2004, pp.1910-1912).
“Thus, power becomes wielded not through contextless articulations that foist power and
a new way of seeing on an unsuspecting mainstream, but through cultivating prevailing
beliefs and values” (McCann, 2004, p. 1926).
This theory, which I define as The Hegemonic Construction of the Popular Urban
Center, is connected to the creation of the Coalition Framework, identified by McCann
(2004), and functions to give everyone a voice and a sense of participation in the
community’s future designing. The coalition framework applies to Asheville in the sense
that false or tinged perceptions of the city are founded in the general assumption that
someone, somewhere, is assessing the appropriateness or accuracy or fairness of the
representative image, and therefore it must not be cause for concern; hence, the ultimate
hegemonic mechanism (McCann, 2004, p. 1918).
Another example of how Asheville gives citizens the impression of rampant
opportunity is through the widely popularized notion of entrepreneurialism that the Good
City is supposed to promote. McCann (2004) posits that entrepreneurialism is less of a
viable option than it is a contributing factor to the quality of life image, which centers on
the notion that the private sphere is being increasingly opened to the public. In other
words, the Good City will seem to provide the general, middle-class public with more
access to decision-making processes that will ultimately affect them. McCann (2004)
asserts the theory that this is not so much true as it is popular to stake a claim in. This is
due almost entirely to the fact that assuming agency and upward mobility are options in a
developing city, whether or not they are being experienced as first-hand realities,
Bohemian Boom Town
8
maintains a citizenry’s faith in and love for the place, and keeps them complacent when
opportunity and fortune fail to materialize (McCann, 2004).
Theories of Gentrification
For example, in cities where ideals of cooperation, participation and
entrepreneurialism are not so effectively promoted, blatant gentrification tends to meet
with more organized resistance. In Asheville, “gentrification” is certainly being tossed
around in reference to business closings and the rising cost of living, but it hasn’t
compromised most citizen’s faith in the opportunities. The majority is still subscribing to
the notion of the Coalition Framework, or dreams of starting their own business in the
newly-remodeled square.
Palen and London (1984) contest the misuse and over-application of the term
“gentrification” and subsequently redefine it as “reinvasion.” They identify five existing
explanations for the phenomenon: demographic-ecological, sociocultural, politicaleconomical, community network, and social movements.
The demographic-ecological theory locates population, social organization,
environment and technology as central to urban change. For example, the baby boomers
can be held responsible for the overwhelming demand on housing supply that forced
suburban-born idealists to be resourceful and reclaim space in underclass neighborhoods,
in what Clay (1978) calls “the recycling of the inner city” (cited in Palen & London,
1984, p. 15). The popularized value placed on community living leads these idealists to
the space provided by neighborhood, and hence reinvasion, posing as regeneration,
revitalization, etc, takes place in those neighborhoods poor enough to be overrun and
ideologically weak enough to be dominated (Palen & London, 1984).
Bohemian Boom Town
9
The sociocultural analysis by these theorists is not based on aggregates but on
actual values, ideas, beliefs, aligning it with what McCann (2004) identifies as the
strategic combining of economic and extra-economic factors in the creation of a the
“good city.” Allen (1980) contends that people are reinvading cities to bring their “prourban values of cultural diversity and pluralism and the search for a transcendent
community in the middle-class repopulation of the central city” (cited in Palen &
London, 1984, p. 17) Another variation of this approach is the theory that cities represent
spaces where the American values of individuality and autonomy are most available, and
reinvasion is merely the result of a national nostalgia for the days when upward mobility
was still a reality (Palen & London, 1984).
As important as the sociocultural explanation might be, Marx for one would
counter that the political-economic explanation is more crucial to understanding
reinvasion. This theory is based on assumptions about competition, noted by McCann
(2004) as the driving force for urban development and homogenization. Cades (n. d.)
coins “urban residential reconstruction” to explain that reinvasion is the result of
decreasing availability of land and resources and increasing cost of living and
transportation, making the typically poor inner city more appealing (cited in McCann,
2004, p. 1923). He says legislative changes have also de-racialized the slums with
antisegregation laws, opening them to the once uninvited white middle class. But Marxist
theory claims that it is not so coincidental or innocent: gentrification is a strategic move
on the part of the bourgeoisie to displace the proletariats. Smith and LeFaivre (1984)
explain gentrification as “a product of land-based interest groups” (cited in Palen &
London, 1984). This theory is relevant to a sociological analysis of Asheville, as the city
Bohemian Boom Town
10
relies on the working class for the labor which creates the option of a progressive
lifestyle.
To frame this phenomenon in a way that lends the groups involved more agency,
there is the theory of reinvasion as a social movement. It assumes that the movement is
ideologically-founded and organized with the end-product of social change in mind. Not
unlike the theory of search for transcendent community, social movement theory claims
that reinvasion is merely resource-mobilization, a means to an exalted, idealistic end.
This results in the adoption of a lot of agency on the part of the invaders, who, in their
reclaimed space, are able to create the styles and symbols and make the decisions in a
way that was impossible in pre-established conventional suburbs, for example.
These theories all apply to different aspects of what is being referred to as the
gentrification of Asheville. The demographic-ecological theory offers explanations for
why a large portion of Asheville’s burgeoning population is in their mid-to-late twenties,
and why they are seeking out more self-directed employment. The sociocultural theory
helps to illuminate the interconnections between Asheville’s predominantly progressive
belief system, attested to, for example, by the enormously popular bumper sticker “All
One,” and the town’s economic trends, like the sale of exorbitantly priced local art. The
political-economic theory clearly applies to Asheville in that it explains how larger,
ultimately national discourses on the importance of market competition can be held
responsible for the city’s preoccupation with development, as in the case of the eight new
condos currently under construction downtown. The theory of social movement provides
a framework for analyzing Asheville’s various resistance strategies, as well as a means
for understanding existing gentrification not as malicious, but as the possible result of
Bohemian Boom Town
11
another displacement of idealistic and creative youth from bland and dead-end suburbs
(Palen & London, 1984).
Theories of Representation
McCann (2004) goes further in his analysis, claiming that the media’s role in the
creation and perpetuation of the Good City image is understated. His theory outlines how
“media discourse anoints certain cities as successful and worth emulating and specifying
the extra-economic aspects of local economic development that are currently valorized in
localities across the country” (McCann, 2004, p. 1910). This explanation argues that the
media is responsible for representing place in a way that appeals to certain consumers and
investors, and in this way city, or the urban lifestyle, has been commodified.
Hall (1997) agrees that media is the most obvious means of representation, and
representation is the way we negotiate our use of symbols such as language and style.
Hall’s theory is that while representation is at the heart of all social matters, the various
aspects of representation (semiotics, discourse, and image) are deliberately constructed.
Applying this theory to the study of Asheville and its conflicting representations will
inevitably help to break down those representations that seem integral to the city’s
identity, and highlight how many of them are simply more marketable.
Theories of Deviance in the Urban Setting
There are some basic routes a growing city will take to hide those representations
that don’t match the popular image being marketed. As Ferrell (1997) explains it, the
urban culture of crime, most commonly associated with the marginalized subcultures of
youth or racial minorities, provides an arena for the negotiation of the dominant group’s
control and use of space. Providing the example of graffiti, Ferrell (1997) delineates what
Bohemian Boom Town
12
is ultimately a code of resistance to status and power in the urban setting. But the point is
that this code of resistance, so often criminalized and stigmatized, acts in direct response
to a code of domination that is fundamentally hegemonic and pervasive in its
manipulation of popular trends. In other words, public subversion, particularly in the
urban context, is not as criminal as it is threatening to the hegemonic construction of a
city’s image. Ferrell (1997) suggests that the social agenda of a developing city will have
an agenda that emphasizes only certain styles that promote its economy. This agenda
typically includes “…an urban environment made safe for excursions and endless,
effortless consumption, for the ‘discovery’ of urban charm and prepackaged urban
adventure. They suggest…white-bread gentrification unimpeded by the ugly realities of
street survival, a ghettoization of social life such that the young, the disobedient, and the
down-and-out remain sequestered within ghost towns of physical and cultural isolation”
(Ferrell 1997, p. 29).
Ferrell (1997) postulates that the use of crime and deviant style in the negotiation
of cultural space is the only avenue for contestation, due to the increasing application of
universal appeals to the urban setting. Calling it the ‘dystopian dream,’ Ferrell (1997)
identifies the ways a city’s image is founded on idyllic principles of societal utopia,
harking back to theory of reinvasion as the product of individual desire to belong to a
transcendent community.
Related to this concept of the dystopian dream is the idea that most urban
development is predicated on stereotypes, basing image-related policies on what lifestyle
stereotype is currently most popular. Arguing that determining the popular stereotype is
based on media representation, Frank (2003) claims that currently the most-promoted
Bohemian Boom Town
13
stereotype is that of the tight-knit community, the sleepy security of the all-American
small town, and the general lack of deviance implied by the construction of pastoralism.
This is nostalgic as well as compensatory; the lifestyle being popularized is that of
community, but since real communal ideals are disappearing, “community” is being
reinvented as a sign in developing cities like Asheville, which explains the growing
appeal of the city. This theory also explains issues of non-representation and invisibility
of certain groups: neighborhoods where violence is regular and poverty and suffering are
obvious are apt to be omitted from a city’s representation of itself, not simply because of
their unpleasantness but because they run directly counter to the image of pastoralism
that is in the process of being reclaimed as a lifestyle option even in bigger towns (Frank,
2003).
Theories of Tourism
In order for media representations of a city to be taken seriously by the general
public, there must be at least some corresponding reality; in Asheville, this is manifested
through tourism, which conveniently acts as an economic mechanism as well. Although
tourism and the theories pertaining to it would ordinarily fall in the category of
economics, my research targets tourism as the most clearly observable aspect of
contested representation. The theory of tourism as providing the economic engine for the
maintenance of control explains why tourism is always only representative of certain
carefully chosen aspects of a city. Inherent in such a theory is the critical examination of
authenticity, which has given rise to several more specific theories (Hanna & Del Casino,
2000; McCann, 2004). MacCannell’s Marxist theory of the leisure class articulates the
ways in which the general public seeks out the authentic in their attempts to order and
Bohemian Boom Town
14
structure the world, but ultimately ends up with nothing since everything being framed as
authentic is responding to that label in a way that obscures reality (Hanna & Del Casino,
2000).
Theorists Rojek and Urry (1997) clear up some of the ambiguities in this theory
by proposing that tourism sites that are labeled as such because their manufacture of
authenticity “…may not be as obviously artificial or contrived as once thought. It should
not receive the denigration that tourism typically receives since all cultures are
inauthentic and contrived” (cited in Hanna & Del Casino, 2000, p. xxi). Their theory
helps to identify tourism not as a problem so much as a cultural practice that aids in the
formation of social and spatial identities. By identifying with the attraction group and its
activities or histories, or by identifying instead with a countercultural group of
marginalized resisters, cities create social landscapes that are bound to produce and
reproduce each other, creating more opportunity for equal representation.
Each of these theories contributes to a critical analysis of Asheville. In particular,
I apply the theory of maps as mechanisms, explained by Hanna & Del Casino (2000) as
an underused resource for cultural exploration, seeing as
[Map] icons reference, reinforce, or ignore a whole realm of texts and knowledges
that also take and lend meaning to the spaces represented on the map…As a
material representation of space…, this tourism map is complexly and
intertextually interrelated with the spaces and identities it strives to represent. (pp.
x-xi)
However, the aim of this research is to show the relationship between factors that
have been studied only independently in the past. This relationship framework provides a
Bohemian Boom Town
15
new framework for studying an unusual town like Asheville. Preexisting research
addresses the issues of typical American boom towns, but it was my belief that since so
many citizens have moved here to escape typical towns, studying Asheville required this
different theoretical approach.
Methods
My participants were 12 interviewees I selected because of their evident
involvement with the issues or their position within an organization or business that I
suspected to be a site of contradiction. I interviewed associates of popular downtown
restaurants and shops; a commercial real estate broker; an officer with the Asheville
Police Department; an editor for the Mountain Xpress, and members of the Planning and
Development Department, the Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods, the Asheville
Affordable Housing Coalition, Public Interests Projects and the Asheville Community
Resource Center. Eight were male, three female, and all but one were white. Four
interviewees lived downtown, while two lived in West Asheville, one in North Asheville,
three in Haw Creek, and one in Fairview. One woman was in her early 20’s while all the
rest were 30 or older. One informant has lived in Asheville for 25 years, five for 10-20
years, and five for six years or less, but none have lived in the city for less than four
years. Two interviews lasted over an hour, while most were 40-50 minutes long. Four
informants met me at a restaurant or coffee shop, while I traveled to the offices or
workplaces of the others.
While I heard from a wide variety of perspectives, all but one informant were
professionals in their field, and predominantly white and male. The potential limitations
of my data are that non-professional perspectives are not adequately documented with
Bohemian Boom Town
16
interviews. However, I attempt to compensate by focusing my observations of the racially
and economically marginalized or otherwise less visible groups in the city. Other limits
of my methodology include my own positionality, which was the key factor that
restricted my access to non-affiliated groups and individuals. As a college student, I
lacked the credentials that would have granted me the credibility to interview anyone off
the street, as I would have preferred. Furthermore, I worried that my positionality as a
Warren Wilson college student influenced what my interviewees told me. In some cases,
I believe I was identified as an advocate or a sympathizer to the informant’s perspective
(i.e. the administrators of the Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods), while in other
cases, it was assumed that I was after incriminating evidence (i.e. the Director of
Planning and Development). For at least two interviews where I assumed the latter would
be the case, I introduced myself as merely a local college student, and tried to present
myself as modest or uninterested in the controversies except for data purposes. While I
have no way of gauging to what extent that increased informants’ honesty, I never left an
interview with the impression that I had gotten the short story. In many cases, I was given
further information or directed to other informants.
I used a tape recorder to record interview sessions. I tried to recruit interviewees
from arenas of controversy, and to formulate questions that would prompt them to discuss
the controversy. I very rarely adhered closely to the questions, because their answers
often gave me new questions that seemed more relevant (for the list of interview
questions, see Appendix A).
Observations in the form of field notes were taken in most parts of downtown,
including Lexington Avenue, Wall Street, Pritchard Park, new construction zones, and
Bohemian Boom Town
17
various bars and cafes. I also explored the periphery in order to compare and contrast
downtown to its neighborhoods, which led me to several gated mountainside
communities and gas stations in black neighborhoods like South Asheville. I also
attended gatherings and festivals like Belle Chere, Goombay, and the Thanksgiving Day
Parade.
Historic Background to the “Authenticity” of Today
Before discussing what I found in these interviews and observations, it is
interesting to note that Asheville’s history is one aspect that does distinguish it from the
previously mentioned similar small cities. The city’s historic trajectory was frequently
mentioned by my informants as a source of pride and identity. It is important to establish
that the city’s renown among out-of-state tourists is not new; before the Depression,
Asheville was already popular for its location in the mountains and near hot springs, both
of which were thought to have health-restoring properties for malaria patients in
particular. But the depression collapsed the thriving economy the town had established,
and the rebound was especially slow because of the debt incurred in the 1920’s. As Ron,
a member of the Planning and Development city explained it to me,
One situation in Asheville was that we were the equivalent of a billion dollars in
debt, public debt, at the time of the Depression. We borrowed money to build this
building, to build the Asheville high school, to purchase the land and build the
reservoir out at North Fork, paved streets in west Asheville that had never been
paved before… the city bonded all this debt because we were growing, and a
growing in a phenomenal way.
Bohemian Boom Town
18
A bonfire in the square in 1974 celebrated the last debt payment, and today, planners and
developers congratulate themselves when they see how neighboring cities gutted their
historic downtowns in favor of industry, while Asheville’s historic buildings now bring in
tourism and testify to the much sought-after element of character.
However, there was a major episode in between that Ron identifies as “Fifteen or
twenty years ago, [when] there were just a huge number of vacant storefronts in
downtown Asheville…It’s good to see the storefronts filled, and the new life.” But Paige,
significantly younger informant, bemoans the loss of the social scene that accompanied
the vacant storefronts:
I’ve known a lot of people who lived here when downtown was abandoned, and
they say downtown first became cool when Malaprop’s opened up on
Haywood Street, and it was this really fringy little bookstore, and there was a
coffee shop downstairs, and it just—the floor was sideways, and everyone just sat
around and played guitar, and it was like the first cool thing. And then Downtown
Books opened, and then Vincent’s Ear opened, and for a long time it was just a
handful of musicians and a handful of punks, and then a handful of street people
and sex workers, and that was fine. It was fine that all those people coexisted.
Of the business owners I interviewed, the ones who had been in Asheville for more than
12 years told similar stories about the abandonment of the 80’s and early 90’s, but
referred to it as “when downtown was very bad, but much better now (Sasha).” Although
once identified as the town that was in a constant recession, four of my informants
referred to Asheville as a boom town without my prompting. A statement made by Jasper
Bohemian Boom Town
19
attests to the town’s economic transitions: “It’s been a boomtown before in its history,
like in the 20’s or whatever, and they had a recession for a long time, and now it’s a
boom town again, and I think that’s undeniable. It’s boomin.’” Because the transition
from slump to boom occurred in a 15-year timeframe, Ron calls it an overnight success.
Indeed, as revealed to me by Sasha, the owner of Old Europe, his 12-year old business is
one of only three others that have been established downtown for more than 12 years—
the rest are all new, and several have already come and gone.
Findings from the Field
Development
Because of this predicted population explosion, already very much underway, the
city is erecting eight new condominium high-rises and otherwise making plans to
accommodate more people, cars, and infrastructure (Behsudi, 2006; Sarzynski, 2004).
The development discourse has become a prime arena for the hegemonic construction of
the “good city” image. Development, as referred to in this research, is the appearance of
new buildings and other large physical changes in downtown Asheville. Small-scale
development has been occurring since the revitalization effort of the early 90’s, and while
the effort focused on renovation, it was also responsible for the two highly visible highrises that dominate that already dominate the skyline.
While many citizens, particularly the older population, are relieved that Asheville
escaped economic failure, the boom brings with it an enthusiasm for city growth that is
not shared by all, regardless of several informants’ testimonies to shared community
vision. In fact, as I was conducting my research, the preexisting controversies over
development policies came to a head, and substantial news coverage was given to the
Bohemian Boom Town
20
debates. But the first spark was ignited by the city’s hotly disputed proposal to build a
parking garage on a critical piece of land downtown, adjacent to an apartment building
housing mostly elderly residents, and the historic Basilica church. The Citizen-Times ran
a front-page article and dramatic photo of two elderly women picketing, demanding that
their privacy and their sunlight, fresh air and view be respected and protected (CantleyFalk, 2006). The proposal did not go through, but the civil activity surrounding it initiated
a dialogue about development. As summarized by Pete, “Yeah the parking garage was a
huge debate, because it would have drastically altered the landscape and the social setting
of this crucial part of downtown …and there’s plenty of that story I think that remains to
be told.”
Tied into the development discourse is the influx of chains in the city limits.
Citizens have different reasons for opposing chains, but the most common complaint I
heard was that the developers had violated the city’s ordinances. The Coalition of
Asheville Neighborhoods (C.A.N), the NGO that represents the citizens in matters of
development, has filed three allegations against the Department of Planning and
Development, claiming that the city looked the other way and granted developers
variances that violated the Unified Development Ordinances. The allegations were in
reaction to the overnight appearances of businesses like Staples, Walgreens, and an oversized, over-lit sign for Prudential Real Estate (Behsudi, 2006; Bothwell, 2006). The case
is being closely followed by the news, since the ultimate outcome could be a permanent
falling out between C.A.N and the city, causing serious detriment to the neighborhoods
that C.A.N has been protecting from development they don’t want. Ron, a planning board
member, is optimistic about the stir over development, commenting that “…a lot of
Bohemian Boom Town
21
people are very dissatisfied with the new Staples building, but one of the things that has
been brought to this community has been the awareness that perhaps there are some
changes we need to make…to get buildings that are more compatible with what people
really want.” However, my research points out that people don’t necessarily want the
same thing, which is the point where the contradictions arise.
Statements in which the “people” were referred to as a unified whole signified
Asheville’s tendency to confuse community with unanimity or to identify only two
radically opposed groups as “people.” Ron didn’t define the “people” whose wishes for
the city’s development he hopes to accommodate, but he did refer another group not
necessarily included in the first “people.” For example, he was aware of the opposition to
development, and familiar with the criticisms inherent in the discourse, and confided that
…people get concerned when I talk about density, and more dense development
happening closer to our core, but the problem we have in Buncombe County is
that growth is going to occur. And we basically had the huge success of marketing
ourselves as a great place to live and work and recreate, so people are coming
here in droves.
One must infer that the people getting concerned about density are not the same
people coming to the city in droves, since this is the group creating the density. Ron is
trying to please both “people” because they are the most visible from his vantage point.
The irony here is that Asheville prides itself on its diversity, and yet representations not
visible from the top floor of city hall are not included in the “people” being considered in
the development plans.
Bohemian Boom Town
22
Another irony is that both groups of “people” are ultimately being accommodated,
because the city is wisely catering to both with the same justification tactic. Because he
was aware of the resistance to development, Ron explains it this way:
Well in downtown, vertical development makes a lot of sense…I think we
should be concerned if we start seeing forty story buildings downtown, but in
general heightening downtown makes a lot of sense... [and] from a service
provisional tax standpoint, it makes sense to concentrate development in the right
places, and let it go up, and build up a city that’s healthier in terms of its ability to
pay for infrastructure and other things.
His reasoning was that it deters urban sprawl into the mountains and provides more
downtown housing, which would necessitate public transportation and eliminate the
current volume of long commutes into town. This effectively appeals to both his
audiences: the concerned citizens, who are quieted by the threat of development in the
mountains instead and the prospect of less traffic, and the droves who will keep coming
because the mountains will still be beautiful and there will be more housing with views
downtown. But in the large gap between these two groups are those who don’t want or
won’t be able to afford downtown housing, or who already rely on public transportation
to commute.
Although it is hard to pinpoint the specific development wishes of everyone in the
gap, it is easy to distinguish between those excluded from the considerations and those
who will benefit from the proposed development. While there’s scarcely a peep from the
former group, others are becoming less ashamed of their interest in urban growth.
Restaurant manager Jasper admitted, “I mean, I don’t have anything against a high rise
Bohemian Boom Town
23
just because it’s a high rise. That’s fine, I actually wouldn’t mind if the city was five
times as big. That would excite me.” This shows that the way the city is promoting its
own development, as illustrated in the last excerpt, is effective, even though the city was
originally popular for its small and self-sustaining appeal. Jasper’s excitement was
echoed in other interviews, while others showed signs of disengagement from the subject
matter, in the case of Jim’s comment: “The thing you can count on is inevitable change.
And people will discuss whether it’s good change or bad change, but again, those are just
differences of opinions, depends who you ask.” These statements prove that openness to
development is becoming a normalized and well-established part of the discourse.
Not all citizens opposing big development are concerned primarily with sign
heights and ordinances, like the C.A.N. administrators. For some, the opening of
notorious chain businesses is symbolic of a change in downtown’s social climate, or a
devaluing of what was once an unofficial commitment to independent businesses. When I
asked Jasper if he thought downtown was threatened by chain takeover, he didn’t
mention the new Staples, but rather commented that “... as long as there’s still so many
little independent businesses it doesn’t concern me to much, but when Starbuck’s and
Wal-Mart start moving downtown and you see all these chains downtown, and these little
independent businesses start shutting down, that’s when I’ll start to worry a little.” His
statement was echoed by other informants: I asked Pete for his estimation of where most
people stood on the development debate, and he identified the majority as, “...those
people that don’t mind business prospering, but prefer it to be independent, non-chain,
not mega corporate development, as opposed to more Staples, more Wal-Mart’s, etc.”
Pete cites the Staples in his comment because he’s heavily involved with the allegations,
Bohemian Boom Town
24
and for him the ordinance issues and chain invasion have run together. These statements
reveal that if downtown remains free of chains, citizens will remain under the impression
that independent business is alive and well downtown. In other words, chains are the only
visible sign of development associated with a threat to the city’s quality-of-life standards,
and as long as they don’t appear downtown, citizens won’t resist development.
Some interesting nuances should be noted. While none of my informants were
pro-chain business, there were several statements suggesting that chains could tailor
themselves to Asheville’s character and avoid objection that way. Jim seems to think that
Asheville could accommodate chains that were willing to adapt to the city's image. He
admits,
I mean, we’ve talked to Starbuck’s, we’ve talked to them a good bit, kinda saying,
‘oh yeah, Asheville, this is kinda how we have to do it in Asheville.’ But they
want to make people happy… there’s a lot of people that don’t want to see a
Starbucks or a McDonald’s or a whatever downtown, but my prediction is that it
will happen. Just with all the—and there’s ways that you can do it right. They can
make it more appealing and aesthetic and fit in rather than just, you know.
This comment is compelling for two reasons. First, remember that Jim works in real
estate, and has now openly admitted to negotiating with Starbucks and predicted that
chains will inevitably become a part of downtown, and contrast this with other informants
who had faith in the city’s tradition of independence. Secondly, he is confident that
chains, who “want to make people happy,” could adopt Asheville’s “appealing and
aesthetic” characteristics, and thereby avoid ruining the image. This proves that there is
Bohemian Boom Town
25
an aesthetic design for the city’s surface, that no matter what the reality, any business
could dress up in Asheville fashions and thereby remain incognito.
In conclusion, investigations into development in Asheville found that growth
plans, while met with some opposition, ultimately maintain the consent of the people by
promoting normalizing or neutralizing statements within the development discourse. This
is proven by the fact that the people referred to in development rhetoric are either those
trying to restrict growth or those relocates for whom the growth is occurring. Asheville is
being developed to simultaneously suit relocates and the public opposition, while the rest
of the citizens are not being acknowledged in the plans. The prospect of accelerated
development and more buildings is not synonymous with a major threat to Asheville’s
uniqueness for my informants. Chains are the only visible threat to the tradition of
independence, and if they don’t appear downtown, the assumption will be that Asheville
has successfully resisted mainstream pressure, even though as Florida (2002) states,
“…the [Creative Class’s] increasing nonconformity to organizational norms may
represent a new mainstream value” (p. 78). This is evidence that my informants have for
the most part entered into the constructed development discourse, which McCann’s
(2004) theory explains as a “…hegemonic, normative discourse of interurban competition
that sustains and encourages relative ideological conformity over large parts of the
developed world…” (p. 1912). Therefore, while the city may have averted the prospect of
chains and their mainstream connotations, other businesses and buildings that are moving
in downtown that are creating a different kind of divide, as I explain in the next section.
Gentrification
Bohemian Boom Town
26
Development might be the most openly contested issue in downtown, but the
underlying issue of growing class divisions is gaining momentum. As one informant put
it, “I think the place is becoming more modernized, but more importantly, more
moneyed, just more upscale.” According to local news sources, the term “gentrification”
entered the Asheville discourse when in 2004, the ACRC (Asheville Community
Resource Center) was evicted, and Indy music venue Vincent’s Ear suddenly lost its lease
(Shanafelt, 2004). Both establishments, once located across from one another on North
Lexington Avenue in downtown, were committed in some form to accommodating and
representing that part of the local population deemed countercultural. The ACRC was a
non-profit community collective that worked to support social justice-oriented endeavors,
like feeding the homeless, distributing health resources and hosting consciousness-raising
events. The owners were evicted by their landlord based on reports of alleged unruly
behavior during an event, and although many local businesses and individuals expressed
their support and rallied with the collective, the address is unoccupied today. The closing
of Vincent’s Ear was well-covered in the local news due to the venue’s popularity and
proud tradition of featuring big-name underground punk and alternative music. As
reported by Mountain Xpress reporter Steve Shanafelt (2004), “[Owner Joan] Morris says
no reason was stated for not renewing the lease, leading more than a few regulars to
conclude that the counterculture-friendly café is being shoved out to make way for a
more mainstream – and presumably more upscale – business. The word ‘gentrification’
seems to pop up in almost every conversation, and not in a positive sense.” In an
representative comment, news editor Peter summarizes the feelings of most liberal
citizens that took note of the closings: “But when [the ACRC] lost their big place on
Bohemian Boom Town
27
Lexington it was at this period close to when Vincent’s Ear lost its space, so that was
seen as part and parcel of this same potential pressure for upscaling and gentrifying.”
In the past two years, other business closings have included the much-frequented
coffee-shop Beanstreets, vegan sandwich shop Max and Rosie’s (both on Lexington
Avenue) and the Blue Moon Bakery. Concerned locals are crying “gentrification,” but
Shanafelt (2004) comments in reference to Vincent’s Ear, “A stroll down North
Lexington reveals no sign of the kind of rampant commercial development that might
require the relocation of the club.” In addition, the landlords responsible for the eviction
in this case are members of the Lantzius family, who have been actively involved in
preserving downtown character since its boom in the 70’s, apparently to such a degree
that the city declared October 10th John Lantzius Day in recognition of those efforts. With
this knowledge, is it still possible to assume that these evictions are by and large the
product of a push to marginalize small, countercultural businesses? Sharon Willen,
Asheville Area Chamber of Commerce director of business and industry doesn’t think so:
“"I don't see gentrification. It has certainly become a more attractive business district than
it once was, but the stores on Lexington are all offbeat, and I don't see anything too
mainstream going in there" (Shanafelt, 2004). And at a first glance, or even regular
perusal of the alluring shops that punctuate the downtown area, she’s right. None are
commercial in nature or design, and all storefronts are aesthetically appropriate, with
muted earth tones and unique, artistic signs. But is this enough to mute the accusations of
gentrification? Several of my astute informants made compelling statements insisting that
regardless of visual cues, gentrification is alive and well in Asheville. Others provided
Bohemian Boom Town
28
evidence of how gentrification in Asheville is designed to garner wealth using images
and connotations that make the make the city popular.
Since the topic of gentrification itself can no longer be avoided because of loud
citizen dissent, authorities are finding ways of talking about the issue that reveal why
people like Sharon Willen are convinced it’s not a reality. Several informants from the
development and economic sectors offer examples of how gentrification is explained.
These explanations avert its controversial aspects, which helps to normalize and thereby
defend gentrification. The defenses rely heavily on oversimplifications of the debate, as
well pointing out what is not gentrified, and why it should be enough. Real estate broker
Jimmy offered the following normalizing definition of the problem:
People are used to paying $5 a square foot, and rent shoots up to $15, then that’s a
hard point to swallow, your rent going up three times what is was. There’s some
people who can adjust and some who can’t, and you will see the change
downtown, or anywhere, when the market gets a lot of attention, because then
there’s people who are willing to pay certain rents.
For Jimmy, the issue is simply one of the economic development that affects any market
that starts to get a lot of attention. Seeing as his job is to sell property, the reasons why
the market is getting a lot of attention is not so much his concern, which is why he
doesn’t see it as controversial.
Development authority Ron on the other hand is necessarily aware of the
controversy, and finds telling words to explain new developments. For example, he cites
the fact that traditional gentrification, meaning pressure on natives to give up their
residences for less than they’re worth, is not happening. “…there’s a lot of concern I
Bohemian Boom Town
29
think about gentrification. And I think it’s really displacement, uh, it really doesn’t affect
residential very much in downtown because the prices people are getting for their condos
are through the roof, from $300 to $400 a square foot, it’s phenomenal, to even more in
some of the new construction.” It is true that residential gentrification is not an issue in
downtown, but it is interesting that Ron brings up this point even though the accusations
are not about residential gentrification. If this point is part of the defense, it would follow
that concerned citizens are being dissuaded from resistance by looking on the bright side.
Independent bookstore owner Annika, while unhappy about gentrification,
exemplifies how citizens are learning to highlight what isn’t being gentrified instead, and
to internalize the normalizing logic. “Everybody gutted their downtowns, put in fucking
malls, took out old buildings, and that didn’t happen in Asheville to such a degree. We’re
still visible, the art deco is still there, architecture is still there…but what’s gonna happen
now is, it’s gonna be hard to resist.” This statement shows that she acknowledges the fact
that Asheville has not fallen prey to the same commercialized gentrification of other
developing cities, because the signs of the city’s uniqueness (like the art deco) are is still
intact, a fact frequently mentioned by the city’s planners to defy allegations of
gentrification. Noting how the pressure to conform will be hard to resist reveals how
normalized this notion has become, even among the pioneers of independent business in
Asheville. Most importantly, this statement shows that citizens expect gentrification to
include some degree of downtown gutting or mall-building. Neither Annika nor any other
of my business associate informants discussed what other less typical signs might be,
except to include business closings in their observations. This indicates that Ron’s
simplification of the issue is mostly successful.
Bohemian Boom Town
30
Perhaps the most common defense for gentrification is the fact that downtown’s
boom in the 70’s necessitated that the dingier parts of downtown, once plagued by hard
drugs and prostitution, clean up. These specific areas were the Montford neighborhood,
most of West Asheville and all of Lexington Avenue. Interestingly, Montford is now
home to a gated community, West Asheville has some of the highest rents, and Lexington
Avenue is probably the most attractive business district in downtown. In the past,
Lexington Avenue was seen as the axis of everything about downtown that was grungy,
countercultural or lower-end. One informant reflects,
…for a long time it was just a handful of musicians and a handful of punks, and
then a handful of street people and sex workers, and that was fine. …And those
sex workers and those people who are addicted to drugs and those really grungy
punk rockers and those really dirty hippies, they were here before all these
hipsters were. And they’re the ones that started it, they’re the ones that made it
interesting. Slowly but surely, it got bigger and it got bigger and businesses and
police started to get rid of the street people. And now it’s like everyone wants to
be here.
From a development standpoint, one can see why this posed a problem, as well as why
the people and activities referenced above by Paige were unfavorable to the average
citizen. This might be why Ron chooses the following words to discuss gentrification:
Once that sidewalk [on College Street] got widened, the ability of the property
owners to charge more for their floor space went up markedly. So we had a real
cultural change in that area. It went from a variety of lower-end businesses to
restaurants with sidewalk cafes, and that really helped turn that area around.
Bohemian Boom Town
31
It’s difficult for citizens to argue with the accuracy of this statement because it is easily
observable that the dinginess of downtown’s past is gone, and the lives of many citizens,
including the gentrification complainants, are the better for it. This is one possible
explanation for why when I asked informants to comment revitalization projects, they
either bemoaned the loss of a “cool scene” or normalized it as part of the economic logic
of a growing city.
Other points are included in the defense of gentrification that are hard to deny.
The figures prove that crime, for example, has significantly dropped since downtown
cleaned up, placing Asheville at the top of the list for lowest crime rates against persons
and property in the state. Annika comments on the change:
Well, crime is a lot less. I think that there are sophisticated alarm systems now.
They’re installing those them on all those little castle houses. Quite a few of them
are bed-and-breakfast businesses, so they have the council…there’s more police,
there’s a police stations, a separate station, in the neighborhood. They moved the
liquor store away, all kinds of cleaning up. I would say it’s more…watched.
She notes how increased presence of law enforcement is part of the cleanup process. The
ethical objection to the decriminalizing of downtown is that it is the result of quarantining
the “lower-end” population in public housing projects that are so well-hidden that I didn’t
even know they existed until a police officer took me through on his patrol. They are
located in the South French Broad and West End/Clingman neighborhoods, and the five
largest are Hillcrest, Deaverview, Pisgah View, Livingston, and Lee Walker Heights.
Three house all-Black residents, while the other two are mixed Black and Hispanic. Ron
references the projects when discussing crime: “In general, we have areas where we do
Bohemian Boom Town
32
have concentrations of poverty, and there’s public housing developments. And a fair
amount of the crime does come from those areas…” But that data does not affect the
crime rate for downtown, and it’s because the people once down on Lexington selling
drugs are now confined to their projects for fear that such high visibility in a gentrified
area would get them arrested. Additionally, the officer informed me that some downtown
business owners have requested that law enforcement pay special attention to areas near
their business where church-groups have taken to feeding the homeless. They reported
that their patrons complained about having to “wade through the homeless people” on
their way to the establishment, detracting from their sense of security. Since the
invisibility of poverty and non-Whites downtown is becoming the norm, preserving the
image of community and progressiveness is easy for the city. Instead of wondering where
all the vagrants, sex workers and crack heads went, most citizens assume that they simply
lost interest or business and relocated.
In an attempt to discover whether informants were aware of the many public
housing developments, they were asked to discuss the parts of the city considered by
most citizens to be crime-ridden or “lower-end.” None of them mentioned the projects,
and the widespread ignorance about their existence was confirmed by a police officer
who took me through the projects. After he had pointed out several notorious crack
houses were busts had been made in the past, I asked him if he thought most citizens
were aware that such activity was happening only blocks from downtown proper. He
commented that since residents of downtown and its frequent visitors are unlikely to be
crack users, and therefore wouldn’t have any reason to even venture into the projects. The
director of an affordable housing organization mused that the houses are just nice enough
Bohemian Boom Town
33
that they don’t pose a threat, and if people aren’t scared, they’re not concerned. This goes
a long way to explain why informants had very little to offer on the subject of bad
neighborhoods in Asheville, suggesting predominantly that there really aren’t bad parts of
the city. Jasper summarizes: “The neighborhoods here aren’t that bad.” His thoughts are
seconded by Ron, who concludes that “… in general, Asheville doesn’t have wide areas
of neglected neighborhoods that would be considered slums.” Interested in the realtor’s
perspective, I asked Jimmy, who responded tellingly, “No, I wouldn’t say you have any
bad neighborhoods or bad areas. You have some that might not attract certain buyers.”
These three comments demonstrate the lack of knowledge or even a lack of concern for
the clearly poverty- and crime-ridden areas revealed to me by the police officer (Barber,
2002).
Several suggested that Montford used to be run-down, but was resurrected
through recent revitalization efforts. This kind of effort is the one the planning director
hopes to extend to neighborhoods like West End/Clingman and South French Broad. He
admits,
We have the West End/Clingman neighborhood, where it’s pretty clear that
neighborhood was severely neglected by the city, but that neighborhood actually
banded together… the city worked with them to create a neighborhood plan, and
they weren’t real happy with it I don’t think.
The neighborhood banding together prompted the establishment of the non-profit
cooperative Mountain Housing Opportunities office is located, and where they built their
first and very successful public housing unit. Their success is widely hailed in the
planning and development community, presumably because they have taken up the city’s
Bohemian Boom Town
34
job and started to rehabilitate the area themselves. But the housing units built by MHO
are just barely affordable by working class standards, and their prim siding and whitewashed walls accommodate only the upper echelon of the neighborhood’s poor. In
reference to the building of affordable housing downtown in the Market/Eagle street
district, Paige remarked on the contradiction: “…and then you realize it’s like for one
bedroom, they wanna charge five or six hundred dollars! Affordable to who?…not for the
barbershop that works across the street.” One can assume that the barbers are from the
projects that for one reason or another, no one mentioned. The affordable housing options
mentioned by my informants were far from equivalent to the projects I toured.
Clearly, poverty in Asheville is only worthy of discussion only to the extent that
there is something appealing being done about it. Affordable housing is part of the
planning discourse inasmuch as it helps to preserve the city’s image, as attested to by
Ron: “But we still need to look for opportunities to get affordable housing downtown.
Because when you think about the area, there’s a need for housing for the artists that
make it so attractive.” Conversely, there was nothing attractive about the projects and the
conspicuousness of their neglect. An interview with the director of the Asheville
Affordable Housing Coalition gave me further insight into this reality. His comments on
the nature of revitalization were compelling. “You gotta hide the blight!” he says, to
capture the mentality of city planners. He explains that the blight refers to heavy
concentrations of people like himself that are different than what the city has chosen to
incorporate as part of its image. Efforts might be made to rehabilitate these areas, but if
the people themselves don’t change to fit the criteria, they are pushed to the periphery.
Most interestingly, he asserted that this push doesn’t have to be literal, because citizens
Bohemian Boom Town
35
will automatically hide what makes them uncomfortable. In terms of housing, the city
doesn’t need to intervene at all, because the landlord will simply jack the price up to
exclude the typically impoverished non-white population.
A testimony from Paige proves that this is happening in Asheville. She related her
story of moving into an apartment in South Asheville, a historically Black neighborhood:
…it was pretty obvious when we moved in that the landlord was just letting us
move in because we were white people, like, not Black people, and she was really
concerned about there being a crack house in her residential place… So, she
wanted it to be me rather than a poor Black family, for sure. Like she didn’t say
that explicitly, but that was understood.
Asheville’s gentrification segregates the traditionally segregated city to an extreme
degree. The people that are different are being metaphorically pushed to the periphery,
but as it happened on Lexington, that countercultural appeal means business, and
business means the area needs to clean up, i.e. the original inhabitants need to either
conform or move. Many have moved to West Asheville, but that too is now being
upscaled, and there seems to be fewer and fewer options of places to hide. The former
ACRC member went on to express her dismay.
…when I first moved here, which was only four years ago, I remember being in
high school and everyone being like, ‘West Asheville’s this really fucking scary
place, like it’s all Black People and Latino people and watch out if you’re going
there at night,’ and now it’s like the cool thing? That is fucked up. Because where
are all these Black and Latino people going? They’re gonna get pushed outside
the city limits, and why? Because they don’t have as much money as the rich
Bohemian Boom Town
36
white college students who wanna live in their neighborhood? I mean, yeah, that’s
the truth, but I don’t think it’s ethical at all.
Some would say that Paige voices the opinion of the idealist, but the way she puts it
presents the irony inherent in the gentrification of a city like Asheville that prides itself so
much on its progressive reputation.
In conclusion, investigation into gentrification in Asheville found that while there
are some signs of traditional methods of revitalization, overall the phenomenon is
happening covertly, thereby maintaining the consent of the typically conscientious
citizenry. By reminding residents of the ugliness of downtown’s past, and by pointing out
how the city is still off-beat, authorities and developers make a convincing case for subtle
gentrification. For the most part, citizens were unaware of how this subtle gentrification
was carried out through the mediums of public housing, segregation, crime management,
suggesting that Asheville fit the “good city” criteria on so many levels that neighborhood
neglect and segregation were not possible. This locates Asheville as what Ferrell (1997)
would call a Dystopia, where “there’s a mood among people that if [you] make the town
look like it doesn’t have problems, then it doesn’t have problems” (p. 25). Not so
coincidentally, the historically lower-end neighborhood and districts are now the most
popular and affluent, harking back to Palen & London’s (1984) theory of reinvasion by
suburbanites in search of weak spaces wherein to foster their own transcendent
communities. Gentrification is alive and well in Asheville, but is not taking the traditional
forms that members of the Creative Class can recognize, and is therefore hardly
contested.
Representation
Bohemian Boom Town
37
The contradictory ways that Asheville represents itself internally and to the
broader society is what sparked my sociological imagination, and prompted further
exploration into its development and gentrification. Several factors emerged as being key
sites of contradiction. Testimonies to what constitutes a city’s culture of uniqueness are
the most astute examples of this contradiction. Additionally, because the city relies on
tourism for a good portion of its economy, the way the city markets itself proved to be at
odds with how some informants expressed their interpretation of what the city represents.
The various forms of marketing media analyzed include tourism brochures, city maps,
billboards and published promotional accounts, like the compilation of Asheville’s many
high ratings.
Wanting to know more about how citizens describe their love of Asheville, I
asked informants to discuss why they moved or stayed in the city. References were made
to the high quality of life, the distinctive, historic character, the amount of activity
downtown, and the entrepreneurial opportunities. Annika told me her story: “I was
looking for a small city that I could start a bookstore in, could afford to pay rent, and
grow up with. And friends said, ‘try Asheville,’ so I did!” This shows that in the past,
Asheville has been promoted in the Best Places discourse for its smallness and openness,
the same reasons that now attract the droves that will cause the population to triple. The
alluring quality of uniqueness has an equally ironic twist. As Pete explained, “I like a
downtown that still has a lot of bricks, still has a lot of character, so when you walk
around you don’t feel like you’re in too modern an environment,” revealing that the city
is marked by its alleged resistance to modernity. But interestingly, he contradicts himself
when expressing why he came back after time away. “I was looking for some slightly
Bohemian Boom Town
38
new work, some new experiences and environments, and Asheville seemed like a good
bet.” So while the lack of modernity attested to by the historic buildings is appealing, the
newness of the social environment is an integral part of the equation, a contradiction in
and of itself. A new and modern social structure against the backdrop of a historic town
in America is certainly not unique; in fact, it can even be understood as the model for a
boom town.
Some statements including reference to the uniqueness were part of larger
discussions of development, and were framed as considerations for developers and
planners. For example, Annika feels that “…the impact of what Asheville is, what it
represents to the nation, there no such place like this anymore.” Her choice of words
illustrates her interpretation of the city as not just a good home but an important symbol
in a rapidly homogenizing society. Other commentaries on uniqueness pointed out how
the image of such is being widely capitalized on. Planner Ron summarizes both sides,
adding a little social theory of his own:
The small town charm, the relatively easy and uncongested transportation, things
along those lines. And it’s a draw—they are moving here to run their businesses,
because to those economies, it’s not the location, it’s the circuit…But today’s
economy is more an economy of the mind rather than an economy of
materials…So they want to come to some place that’s cool, and they can do that
because they aren’t tied to the location-specific part of their industry.
This excerpt is telling in that Ron accurately identifies the reasons for the city’s appeal
while also disclosing the underlying economic reason. It was interesting that Ron was the
only informant to attribute Asheville’s popularity to an “economy of the mind.” His
Bohemian Boom Town
39
observation, while framed objectively, can ultimately be seen as an admission on his part
to a deliberate exploitation of cultural (mind-based) symbolism. His statement can be
reread to mean that without industry, there’s no traditional economic explanation for why
Asheville is as wealthy as it is; the promotion of Creative Class, the term theorist Richard
Florida has coined to refer to this “economy of the mind,” is clearly at the root of it.
For the most part, informants did not recognize a connection between the city’s
tourism and this hegemonic notion of an “economy of the mind.” Several testimonies to
the importance of tourism were made, given its major economic contribution and its “part
in an economic development strategy,’ as Ron put it, later clarifying that “[we’re] not just
supporting tourism for tourism’s sake. Also, some felt that tourists in Asheville are less of
a problem because “[t]hey have less attitude than tourists in a lot of other towns.” This
signifies the notion that because of what Asheville represents to broader society, the
people it attracts are also unique, even while in the all-American role of ‘tourist.’ But
downtown restaurant manager Jasper has a particularly succinct observation of the
tourism contradiction:
[Tourism] is like a double-edged sword. It helps get jobs, it helps support the arts,
but at the same time it brings up the prices on everything, which affects the
quality of life for just your local people, working people. And it creates a kind of
Walt Disneyworld feel when you go to Belle Chere or something. So
basically it’s both: we have to have it here to support the arts and for Asheville to
be what it is, and there’s always been a lot of tourists here, but at the same time
the more tourists start to move here, it just makes it harder for the mountain folk,
or just the local working people who have been here for generations. They might
Bohemian Boom Town
40
be forced out.
It is interesting that Jasper mentions the ‘Disneyworld feel,’ since urban sociologist
Ferrell uses the same analogy in his discussion of the Dystopian Dream phenomenon
(although his case studies were conventional, mainstream urban spaces). But the
synthesis of tourism and gentrification, in particular his example of how tourism is
needed to support the arts but ends up getting ‘Disney-fied’ shows that there is at least
some level of awareness and dissent.
However, citizen dissent on the matter of tourism’s promotion of gentrification is
not the most visible thing to a visitor. The first thing they will come across is a city map,
free at most government offices and many businesses. The most widely circulated, The
Best of Asheville, is provided by the Asheville City Development office (see Appendix
B). It highlights local restaurants, parks, shopping centers, and sports centers, and clearly
delineates how to reach them from virtually any point within 20 miles of downtown. A
detailed map of Biltmore Historical Village is included. Bordering the fold-out map are
advertisements for 32 local businesses, most of which enjoy prevalent popularity. The
map is the equivalent to the ‘Most Popular’ page in a high school yearbook in the way
that it features the editor’s best friends and the kids that are just so highly visible that the
editor assumes they are popular. Once the yearbook gets published, it represents a sort of
authority to its readers, and whoever is featured on the page becomes known as ‘popular’
regardless of reality. Of the 32 businesses featured on the Asheville map, I had only been
to two in my four years spent going downtown fairly regularly. Like the yearbook, the
map assumes a kind of authority, and the businesses it features are now known as the best
or most popular businesses.
Bohemian Boom Town
41
Other forms of circulatory literature and media in Asheville operate in the same
way. The Mountain Xpress emphasizes the latest art and culture community happenings,
and covers city issues surrounding diversity, environmental concerns, and political
disagreements. In this way, it seems like the paper that Creative Class theorist Richard
Florida (2002) might have envisioned as being the perfect thing for the Creative Class.
Other literature exemplifies the way gentrification is being framed in Asheville as
acceptable because of its commitment to the arts and charity. For example, Blue
Mountain Living, a glossy, high-definition quality-of-life local magazine, includes
tabloids, interviews and editorials on local charity initiatives. The high school yearbook
analogy can be applied to these kinds of magazines even more easily, since their colorful
tabloids so similar to actual ‘Most Popular’ pages. However, this particular publication
has a distinctly promotional edge, as revealed by its downtown real estate edition. The
author explains current condo residents as “Creative, affluent spirits…come from near
and far for this simple, elegant life;” the author appeals to potential condo owners by
declaring that “Nothing says sophisticated, connected urban dweller like a new luxury
loft or condo in downtown Asheville. Raw and indulgent at once, the fashionable homes
profiled in these pages exude the creative confidence of their trend-setting comfort”
(Herrick, 2006).
Perhaps even more compelling is the way other news sources and publications
from across the country have rated and thereby represented Asheville (Ball, 2006). If an
out-of-state tourist types “Asheville” into an internet search engine, one of the first results
will be the colorful and engrossing official tourism website, directly accessible at
www.exploreasheville.com. A direct link from the first page, Asheville Accolades, will
Bohemian Boom Town
42
take the searcher to the 2 page-long list of mentions of the Top 10 lists that Asheville has
made it onto over the years (see Appendix C). Because the city has been making list
appearances equivalent to a hit song at the top of the charts in the past year, several of my
informants mentioned this phenomenon without being prompted. When I asked Jim the
real estate broker if the majority of his clients were looking to buy or to sell, he
responded, “I’d say you have a lot of people wanting to buy. They recognize that
Asheville is a booming market, it’s always in the top ten of something, to retire to, to
move to, top ten to start a business, you know, whatever.” Jim wasn’t aware of the
specific lists his city is featured on, but he made it clear that he didn’t have to be:
Asheville is booming, which leaves its agents free to focus on the transactions
themselves, since the city has already been sold. Ron, however, as director of planning
and development, was more acutely aware, most likely because he had a hand in
advertising the city in the right way to the list publishers: “The community marketed
itself to basically the world, and it’s hard to find a top ten list that Asheville isn’t listed
on.”
While it may sound like an exaggeration, Ron’s claim is not far off. Since 2001,
Asheville has appeared on 60 Top Picks lists. I will refer to them as Top Picks lists, since
only 22 lists out of the 60 documented are selections for Asheville out of ten. Three are
#1 rankings, while eight of the picks are from Top 5 lists, five rate on Top 25 lists, six on
top 50 lists, two on top 100 lists, and the remaining 14 have unspecified rankings on
miscellaneous lists. Interestingly, the #1 rankings are “#1 Urban Haven in the World—
with benefits of rural life, urban sophistication and energy” from Wallpaper Magazine,
#1 in America’s Best Vegetarian-Friendly Small Cities from GoVeg.com, and “The
Bohemian Boom Town
43
Happiest City in the United States” from Self Magazine. Of all the publications
represented, nine are outdoor adventure and recreation oriented, eight are tourist-directed
travel and vacation guides, six are arts and culture-centered, six are retirement literature,
and five are publications that include research on the best cities to live in or move to. The
most noteworthy list titles are “America’s Dozen Distinctive Destinations,” “Five Cities
that are Special,” “Top 15 Places to Reinvent your Life,” and “Top 10 Towns for a
Second- Home Investment.” Included in the frequently cited aspects of the city on all lists
are the mountains, the arts, the history, the climate, the shopping, and the hotels. On the
competitive lists, Asheville was compared against other nominated cities for
employment, housing, education, crime, and health care. Ron’s thoughts concur with the
lists: “We continue to stay at the top of the statewide list, and that’s because … we don’t
have some of the problems that other communities have in regard to large areas where
public disinvestments is not—we don’t have places that are really slums, we don’t have
difficulty associating with (pause) -- we don’t have the unemployment rates other
communities might have.” Although it has been discussed in previous sections that this is
not really the case, it becomes easier for Ron to say when he has the support of
nationwide popularity ratings.
In conclusion, an investigation of representation in Asheville found that the city
promotes certain representations over others, which operate by shaping the city into a
haven for the social elite. These representations go uncontested by the majority of the
population because they stand for the preferences of the Creative Class, which include a
place’s mind-appeal and its propensity for “uniqueness” (Florida, 2002, p. 183). To
describe what draws them to (and keeps them in) Asheville, citizens have adopted the
Bohemian Boom Town
44
vague terms of the discourse, showing that the “good city” construction transmits to
representation. This stems back to McCann’s (2004) explanation of the connection
between marketing and representation: “With the greater centrality of the ‘extraeconomic’ come stronger links between innovation and marketing and a related rise in
the importance of image, representation and narrative in urban policy formulation…” (p.
1913). Tourism brochures, city maps, billboards and published promotional accounts are
signifiers of the extra-economic factors promoted in Asheville, effectively providing the
dominant representation to outsiders, and acting as a self-fulfilling prophesy for the city.
As theorist MacCannell said of tourism, “Spaces of tourism hide the reality of everyday
life under a myriad of representations that cover the endless spherical system of
connections…” (cited in Hanna & Del Casino, 2000, p. xix). Although Florida (2002)
preaches tolerance and diversity, representational forms that do not match Asheville’s
chosen image are hidden or ignored, not legislatively, but as an automatic reaction by
self-interested or simply disinterested dominant representatives. It should be noted that
Florida (2002) acknowledges this shortcoming: “Even though the rise of the Creative
Class has opened up new avenues of advancement for…minorities, it has certainly failed
to put and end to long-standing divisions…” (p. 79).
Conclusions
Development, gentrification and representation in Asheville reinforce one another
in constructing a city of wealth and prestige that masquerades as creativity and
conscience. This has gotten as far as it has because the hegemonic discourse of the “good
city” co-opts citizens who would otherwise resist its implications in an ironic twist. The
signs of the Good City are well thought-out, and for the most part citizens do believe that
Bohemian Boom Town
45
the city represents their own ideals and values. The citizens who are doing the most to
subvert this are the few who standing up to the city government and demanding that they
follow the rules, like the group filing the allegations right now. This is a form of
resistance because it symbolizes a pressure on the city to stay faithful to what they and
the citizens agreed upon.
Finally, conducting this research has made me realize that what’s happening in
Asheville is becoming epidemic in this society, because as a society we have discovered
this “economy of the mind,” and are increasingly exploiting cultural capital not just for
status, but for class benefits as well. As my findings suggest, Asheville citizens for the
most part are not using specifically political terms to describe the city’s identity as
“progressive,” indicating that the image of such suffices. In discussing the power of the
Creative Class’s influence, Florida (2002) makes similar observations, and goes as far as
to incite the Creative Class to action:
Many Creative Class people bemoan trends like suburban sprawl and mindless
urban renewal. But these are the products of well-organized groups—developers,
contractors, building-trade unions, politicians—eager to enrich themselves or to
erect tangible monuments to their efforts. Countering such well-ensconced
interests with their institutional power bases takes a lot more than firing off an
angry letter to the editor or signing a petition. To be effective, the Creative Class
may ultimately have to invent new forms of collective action. (p. 317)
Florida (2002) presents the influence of the Creative Class in a positive light, calling its
members the trendsetters of new mainstream values. Whereas he frames is positively, I
think his claim reveals just how conformist the non-conformist niche has become. Just
Bohemian Boom Town
46
the same, Florida (2002) has given the Creative Class a challenge, and more importantly,
a responsibility to use their newfound power effectively.
By assuming their role as integral (if not authoritative) members of the
mainstream, the Creative Class must recognize their own tendency to dominate the
representative arena to the detriment of citizens who don’t meet the image’s criteria.
While Asheville’s growing popularity symbolizes a profound ideological shift in
American society, this symbolism is simply reproducing itself rather than representing a
reality. Creativity, by definition, is the presentation of something new, and cannot consist
entirely of representation. Asheville and its reputation have tremendous potential for the
creation of a new urban reality, if only its citizens would stop settling for mere
symbolism.
Bohemian Boom Town
47
References
Ball, J. (2005, September 23). Asheville among best cities to retire. Asheville Citizen
Times, p. C10.
Barber, M. (2002, February 10). Taking Back the Neighborhood: North Asheville
residents seek solutions to increasing crime. Mountain Xpress, 8.
Behsudi, A. (2006, February 7). Residents shaping Asheville’s future: Neighborhood
groups desire well-planned development. Asheville Citizen Times, p. B1.
Bothwell, C. (2006, February 15). Irate Citizens appeal city staff interpretations of UDO.
Mountain Xpress, 12.
Cantley-Falk, R. (2005, September 28). Apartment tenants push to stop parking garage.
Asheville Citizen Times, p. A1.
Ferrell, J. (1996). Youth, Crime, and Cultural Space. Social Justice, 23(4), 21-39.
Frank, R. (2003). When bad things happen in good places: Pastoralism in big-city
coverage of small-town violence. Rural Sociology, 68, 207-225.
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.
Hanna, S. P., & Del Casino Jr., V. (Eds.). (2003). Mapping Tourism. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Herrick, M. (April 2006). Lofty Aspirations go inside Asheville’s Luxury Condos. Blue
Mountain Living.
Palen, J. J., & London, B. (Eds.). (1984). Gentrification, displacement, and neighborhood
revitalization. Albany: University of New York.
McCann, E. J. (2005). Interurban competition, quality of life and popular media
discourse. Urban Studies, 41, 1909-1929.
Bohemian Boom Town
Sarzynski, B. (2004, April 14). Up and Coming: What price downtown Asheville?
Mountain Xpress, 10.
Shanafelt, S. (2004, December 8). Up in Smoke: The last days of Vincent’s Ear.
Mountain Xpress, 11.
48
Bohemian Boom Town
Appendix A
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1) Why do you live in Asheville?
a) Did you choose Asheville, or are there other reasons?
2) What’s different about your neighborhood and downtown Asheville?
a) If you consider your residence downtown, how is it different from
surrounding areas?
3) What are your definitions of Asheville’s “good” neighborhood and “bad”
neighborhoods?
a) What leads you to define them this way?
b) Have these neighborhoods changed over the years?
4) If and when you go downtown, what are you likely to do?
a) Is it more often for business or pleasure?
5) What’s your impression of tourism in Asheville?
a) How does it affect you personally?
b) Do you agree with the generalization that Asheville is a tourist town?
6) What can you say about the persistence of crime rates in Asheville?
a) What do you see or not see in terms of evidence of crime?
b) Does persistent crime in Asheville concern you?
7) How well is the media covering news events in Asheville?
a) Which publication or channel do you rely on for news?
b) Why?
49
Bohemian Boom Town
50
8) How do you feel about the major downtown developments, i.e. the Battery Park
parking garage?
a) What other issues or developments are similar?
b) How will you be affected by more developments like this?
9) Can you describe any major visible changes (buildings, storefronts, signs) that
have taken place since you’ve been living in Asheville?
10) What can you say about the recent closings of establishments like Vincent’s Ear,
Beanstreets, the ACRC, or any others you might know of?
a) Why do you think these businesses are closing?
11) If you had to choose, what would you say is your favorite aspect of living in this
city?
Bohemian Boom Town
Appendix B
Asheville City Map
51
Bohemian Boom Town
52
Appendix C
Asheville Accolades
2005

AmericanStyle Magazine: Readers voted Asheville #8 in a poll of the Top 25 Arts
Destinations, up from #10 in last year's poll.

RelocateAmerica.com: Named Asheville #9 in “America’s Top 100 Places to
Live in 2005.” The nominated towns were compared against education, crime,
employment and housing data for the past year.

Men’s Journal: Western North Carolina attractions, Asheville's Early Girl Eatery
and The Grove Park Inn Resort & Spa listed in its "12 Months of Adventure"
expert's guide to the perfect trip in 2005. (February 2005)

Conde Nast Traveler: Named the Inn on Biltmore Estate to its 2005 Gold List:
The World's Best Places to Stay. The Grove Park Inn Resort & Spa was named to
the 2005 Gold List Reserve.

Pinnacle Living Magazine: Asheville rated one of the top 25 towns in the
Southern mountains for relocation, second homes and retirement. (2005)

Consumer Reports: One of the Five Best Places to Retire Money Adviser
(September 2005)

MSN/Sperling's Best Places: 8 of 10 Best Places to Live (July 2005)

Farmers Insurance Group: 19 of Top 25 Most Secure U.S. Places to Live (June
2005)
Bohemian Boom Town

53
Forbes: 31 of 168 Small Metros Best Places For Business And Careers (May
2005)

Entrepreneurial/Innovation Index Small Business Administration: 31 of 394
Regions,(April 2005)

AmericanStyle: 8 of America's Top 25 Small Town Arts Destinations (Summer
2005)

Men's Journal: 11 of 50 Best Places To Live (April 2005)
2004

Mountain Bike Magazine: Pisgah Forest voted one of the best trails for mountain
biking. (October 2004)

USA Weekend Magazine: Asheville named one of five “Cities that are Special.”
(July 2004)

National Geographic Adventure: Asheville listed as one of the “10 Great
Adventure Towns.” (September 2004)

Men’s Journal: Asheville ranked as one of “The 10 Best Fall Mountain Bike
Rides” in North America. (September 2004)

Southern Living Magazine: Asheville chosen as one of the top mountain
destinations in the Southeast in a Reader’s Choice poll. (April 2004)

RelocateAmerica.com: Named Asheville #5 in “America’s Top 100 Places to
Live in 2004.” The nominated towns were compared against education, crime,
employment and housing data for the past year.
Bohemian Boom Town

54
Where to Retire Magazine: Named Asheville one of eight great college towns.
(May/June 2004)

AmericanStyle Magazine: Readers voted Asheville #10 in a poll of the Top 25
Arts Destinations, up from #18 in the previous year's poll.

Men’s Journal: Nantahala Outdoor Center -- "the Harvard of paddling
instruction" -- named one of the 100 Best Trips on the Planet. (April 2004)

Cities Ranked and Rated: Named Asheville the #8 rated city in America to live in
2004. Determined by a number of essential factors, including economy and jobs,
cost of living, climate, education, health and health care, crime, transportation,
leisure, and arts and crafts. Presented by Frommer’s Travel Guides. (March 30,
2004)

Travel and Leisure: Named Grove Park Inn Resort & Spa as one of the top 500
greatest hotels in the world. (January 2004)

Travel and Leisure: Named Grove Park Inn Resort & Spa as one of the top resort
spas in the world. (2004)
2003

Where to Retire Magazine: Asheville selected as one of eight great walking
towns. (12/15/2003)

MSN Money: Named Asheville one of the top 10 towns for a second-home
investment. (2003)

MSN: Asheville named one of the top five “Best Places to Retire.” (2003)
Bohemian Boom Town

55
AmericanStyle Magazine: Readers voted Asheville #18 in a poll of the Top 25
Arts Destinations. (2003)

Travel and Leisure: Named Grove Park Inn Resort & Spa as one the world's best
golf resorts in a reader survey. (2003)

Blue Ridge Country Magazine: In the 15th Anniversary edition, Asheville was
ranked in the top three in “Best Mountain Town,” "Best Couples Getaway,” “Best
Festival,” for Belle Chere, “Best Retirement Town,” “Best Weekend Getaway,”
and “Best Shopping Overall.” (August 2003)

Southern Living Magazine: Asheville chosen by a Reader’s Choice poll as one of
the top mountain destinations and weekend getaways in the Southeast. (May
2003)

Mountain Bike Action: Named Asheville one of the 10 best mountain bike towns.
(May 2003)

National Geographic Adventure: In their Best of Adventure 2003 Issue, Asheville
was named one of the top mountain biking destinations in the Southeast.
Asheville “is fast becoming the Boulder of the Southeast – with better riding.”

AARP Magazine: Asheville selected as one of the Top 15 Best Places to Reinvent
Your Life. (May-June 2003)

Parents Magazine: In the round-up of "editors' picks," Asheville is listed among
of the top destinations for family travel. (April 2003)
2002

Self Magazine: Named Asheville the Happiest City in the United States.
Bohemian Boom Town

56
New York Times: Asheville made the Harris Poll list of “Most Desirable Places to
Live". (September 2002).

Hemispheres: Asheville joined a select list of 70 of the world’s most visible and
visited cities—the only in NC ever featured in the popular United Airlines
magazine. The feature piece is titled, “Three Perfect Days in Asheville.”
(September 2002)

USA Weekend: Blue Ridge Parkway listed as one of noted cyclist Greg LeMond’s
best scenic routes to train. (August 2002)

USA Today ran two stories one week apart entitled, “Top 10 Literary
Destinations” and “Historic towns that invite you to stroll.” (July 2002).

National Trust for Historic Preservation: Listed Asheville among its List of
America’s Dozen Distinctive Destinations, describing it as “offering diverse
natural, historic, and cultural experiences that preserve generations of the
'Appalachian tradition.'" (July 2002)

Men’s Journal: In the Best of Summer Issue, Asheville was listed as one of the
Top 50 Hot Road Trips that “will make the greatest three months of your life.”

AmericanStyle Magazine: Readers voted Asheville as #13 in the list of the Top 25
Arts Destinations in America for “sharing a love for the arts and promoting
cultural tourism.” (Summer 2002)

Bike Magazine: In nominating 2002’s premium places to live and ride, Asheville
was ranked as one of America’s Top Five Best Mountain Biking Towns. (June
2002)
Bohemian Boom Town

57
Where to Retire Magazine: Asheville listed as one of the Best Tax Heavens in the
Country. (Spring 2002)

Book Magazine: Asheville ranked 3rd in the Top 10 Great Literary Trips in the
nation. (May/June 2002)

USA Today: Ranked Gold Hill Cafe in Asheville one of "10 Great Places for
Caffeine and Conversation." (March 2002)

Barron’s Online: Asheville listed as one of the Best Places to Retire. (March
2002)

Wallpaper Magazine Annual Round-Up Edition: Asheville ranked the #1 Urban
Haven in the World—with benefits of rural life, urban sophistication and energy.
(Jan./Feb. 2002)

Outside Magazine: Named Asheville one of the ten best outdoor towns.
2001

Southern Living Magazine: Asheville was chosen by Reader’s Choice poll as one
of the top mountain destinations and weekend getaways in the Southeast. (Fall
2001)

National Geographic Traveler: Rated Biltmore Estate in Asheville as one of
America’s Top 50 Places of a Lifetime. (October 2001)

MSN Home Advisor: Ranked Asheville among the Best Five Places to Retire.

Where to Retire Magazine: Asheville rated in Ten Great Towns for Retired
Singles. (Summer 2001)
Bohemian Boom Town

58
Employment Review: Asheville rated one of Ten Top Small Cities in America’s
Best Places to Live and Work.

American Style Magazine: Asheville rated eighth of the top 25 arts destinations in
the USA. (Summer 2001)

Whitewater Paddling Magazine: Rated Asheville a Top 10 Whitewater Town.

Canoe and Kayak Magazine: Asheville named one of the top 10 paddle towns.
(April 2001)

FamilyFun Magazine: Asheville named one of the top five Southeast cities for
family vacations.

Mountain Bike Magazine: Named Asheville one of the 10 best U.S. cities for
mountain bikers. (June 2001)