Source AD Two years ago my husband and I were living in a cramped apartment in Brooklyn, paying rent we could barely afford. Now, for fifty-eight dollars a ...

This question asks how useful an interview with a Levittown resident (published 1951) is for understanding the growth of American suburbs in the 1950s. Usefulness questions require assessing both what the source reveals and what it cannot tell us.

What the source tells us: The resident describes moving from a cramped Brooklyn apartment to a Levittown house with a yard for fifty-eight dollars a month on a thirty-year mortgage. She lists the amenities: a refrigerator, washing machine, television set, schools, swimming pools, and shopping centres. Her husband commutes to Manhattan by train. She expresses deep satisfaction, saying "for the first time in our lives, we feel like we truly own a piece of America."

Why the source is useful:

• It captures the aspirational quality of suburban life that drew millions of Americans from cities to suburbs in the postwar period. The language of homeownership as "owning a piece of America" reflects the powerful cultural association between suburbs and the American Dream.
• Levittown (built 1947-1951 by William Levitt) was the model for mass-produced suburban housing, using assembly-line construction techniques to build 17,400 homes affordably.
• The specific financial detail (fifty-eight dollars a month) illustrates how GI Bill home loans and FHA mortgages made homeownership affordable for middle-class families.
• The list of modern appliances reflects the consumer culture that defined postwar suburban life.

Limitations of the source:

• The source represents only the positive experience of one (likely white) family. William Levitt's original contracts included restrictive covenants barring sale to Black families, and suburbs were overwhelmingly racially segregated. The source says nothing about who was excluded.
• It does not address the environmental impact of suburban development (loss of farmland, car dependency, urban sprawl).
• It does not mention the conformity of identical houses or the isolation and boredom experienced by some suburban women, later famously described by Betty Friedan in The Feminine Mystique (1963).
• The economic decline of cities as tax revenue and middle-class residents departed is entirely absent.
• Critics like Lewis Mumford condemned suburbia as culturally sterile, but this perspective is not represented.
• Published in a national magazine, the interview may have been selected because it presented a positive image of suburban life.

How to reach the highest marks:

• Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple answer, such as "it is useful because it tells us about the suburbs."
• Level 2 (3-4 marks): Uses specific source details (mortgage cost, amenities, commuting) with some comment on usefulness.
• Level 3 (5-6 marks): Evaluates usefulness by weighing the source's value as evidence of why suburbs appealed to middle-class families against its significant omissions (racial exclusion, environmental costs, cultural critiques, impact on cities). A strong answer would note that the source captures the "demand side" of suburbanisation but tells us nothing about the people and places left behind.