Greenwashing the Site Plan...Thou Shalt Not Pollute the Water

Having touched upon the choices which lead many developments to completely alter the existing soil matrix,we can now shift our focus to the second requirement of the sustainable site plan:

...the proposed project does not contaminate the overall water supply, which includes both surface sources and sub-surface sources...

This seems as if would be the one requirement that nearly everyone in the world could understand, but alas, we find this is usually not the case. As we delve into this issue a bit further, and of course jargon-free, try to keep in mind our short discussion regarding the site's soils.

Early in the planning stages of a development (keep in mind this refers to any type of building and development activity), the designer is always faced with the task of treating the stormwater which falls on the site.

In jargon-free terms, the designer needs to be sure that the rainwater that runs across pavement, concrete and other surfaces which it cannot pass through (jargon= impervious surfaces) is as clean or cleaner than when it left the cloud.

In order to really understand this concept, let's quickly talk about the hydrological cycle, or in jargon-free speak; how rain is born and reborn. Here's a quick visual aid:

The simple explanation for this graphic is that water evaporates up into the clouds from various water surfaces such as ponds, lakes and oceans. The clouds hold the moisture, move over the land and release the moisture in the form of rain, sleet or snow. When the rain hits the ground, it is absorbed through the soil (remember soils!!!), and is consumed by plants through their roots.

The rainwater that is not consumed by our plant friends moves through the soil and underground channels (jargon= aquifers), returning to the water supplies (ponds, lakes, rivers, oceans) to be used again in the cycle.

In addition to the underground movement of water back to the source, our plant friends contribute to the cycle by releasing moisture into the air through a process called transpiration. In jargon-free terms, the plants sweat and the sweat returns to the clouds to be reborn as new rain.

In other words, in the hydrological cycle; everything is connected to everything else.

As we can clearly see, altering a site's soils to accommodate a use that the site is most likely not suitable for has far-reaching consequences. This leads us back to our discussion about clean water.

When rain falls on pavement (especially asphalt), some of the water moves across the pavement while a small amount of water is absorbed into the asphalt. Herein lies a major issue; asphalt is made with oil.

Automobiles also need oil to operate their internal combustion engines and quite often these autos tend to leak oil; especially when they are parked. If rain is falling on the asphalt and moving across that surface accumulating various chemicals on its journey, one could presume that there is a lot of oil in that water.

Here's something else to consider; most drinking water supplies originate from surface runoff. In jargon-free speak, when the rain falls and moves across a parking lot; chances are you are going to end up drinking that water.

If your municipality does not get its drinking water from surface runoff, but through an aquifer (look at the diagram), then guess what; not only are you drinking some of the oil and chemicals on the surface of the pavement, but when the water moves through the asphalt (which it does even though asphalt is considered to be impervious) picking up more contaminants on its journey; because the soils on many sites have been drastically altered, that water is not exactly the cleanest.

So what!?! may be your initial response, but if we take a closer look at the hydrological cycle diagram we notice that the water which moves through the soil not only returns to its source (e.g. a reservoir), but the dirty water is returning to the clouds to be reborn into rain; or as we have come to know it: acid rain.

Now that you are thoroughly scared to drink water, we need to return to the requirement for the sustainable site plan:

...the proposed project does not contaminate the overall water supply, which includes both surface sources and sub-surface sources...

A truly sustainable site plan provides measures for treating the water which falls on the site and eventually ends-up coming out of your tap. Logically, the next question that is on the tip of your tongue is most likely; If that's the case, then what are you going on about?!

Well, as we all know by now, measures taken by Hyper-Capitalists are usually driven by one principle; how does it affect my bottom line. Developers will always choose the method which costs them the least amount of money but satisfies the minimum requirements for approval.

In fact, many municipalities offer developers the opportunity to "bank" or "mitigate" their impacts on stormwater runoff. In other words, they can use money in place of clean water!!!

All hope is not lost, Frodo.

The rules governing stormwater treatment are becoming more and more restrictive. This has caused the development community to rely on Hyper-Capitalist scare tactics in their responses to governmental agencies. Their usual response sounds something like this: "If we are more restricted with how much of the land we can develop because of stricter stormwater rules, then the city/county/town is going to lose tax revenues and will be restricting its own growth."

Once a government entity hears that tax dollars will be lost, all hell breaks loose.

What the developers are not saying is that for a few dollars more in the planning phases of a project, a creative landscape architect or civil engineer could utilize sustainable stormwater management techniques that will allow growth to continue in addition to not polluting the water supply!

In fact, many of the sustainable stormwater treatment techniques are far more aesthetically pleasing than the standard practices!! Imagine, not only will they be providing clean water, but their development will be more attractive!!! More attractive means more profits!!!!

Hyper-Capitalists Rejoice!!!!!

So as we can clearly see, the need for strict adherence to the second requirement of the sustainable site plan not only ensures that our children will not be born with deformities due to our drinking water having alarming levels of contaminants, but it will produce a more aesthetically pleasing landscape.

Not only does this improve the environment, but it improves our culture and our society as a whole. And only then can we begin to move towards sustainable and equitable existence.

Beauty: the adjustment of all parts proportionately so that one cannot add or subtract or change without impairing the harmony of the whole. -Leon Battista Alberti

Ahh, a landscape architect...I have a question about my lawn

If you consider the ASLA Annual Meeting the profession's "birthday", then the first weekend in October marked the 109th year of Landscape Architecture in the United States. So, we ask ourselves the quintessential existential question; why are we here?

As you move through the spaces that comprise your daily routines, take an inventory of the elements that compose these spaces. For most designers, especially landscape architects, we lament as to how the space should have been arranged, or how there should have been more plant materials utilized, or how there should be more sidewalks, and so on ad infinitum. From this point, the comments usually focus upon how civil engineers rule the earth and how planning departments bow down to the pressure of big business and so on.

Some of these statements are true, yet the question remains, why are we here? While it is true that landscape architecture has become more of a "household" term through the portrayal of landscape architects by Timothy Hutton and Jude Law in such films as Sunshine State and Just Like Heaven, most Americans still have little idea as to what a landscape architect does. This however, is not the point.

What the public needs to be educated on is not what landscape architects do, but what landscape architects can do. For far too long our profession, as a whole, has simply stood by while civil engineers rule the earth, and planning departments are run and populated by professionals with public administration and law degrees.

Landscape architects are unique professionals equipped to solve multi-faceted problems while maintaining an aesthetic beauty that compliments the existing context. The question becomes not why are we here, but why are we not solving the problems before they become problems?!

Take as an example the typical parking lot, as most of you have already enVisioned, the typical American parking lot is usually devoid of the following elements: shade trees, planting medians and sidewalks. Why? Not because civil engineers hate these elements, but because of the requirements prescribed by planning departments. The planning departments are not to blame, landscape architects are to blame! They are to blame because they failed to take charge as an allied design profession to ensure that a design-based code be developed in order to prevent what is essentially an unpleasant and unsustainable solution from being explored at all!

Consider this an overdue wake-up call. If landscape architecture is expected to survive an additional 109 years as a profession, then we should take a cue from the civil engineers and architects who have convinced the world that their solution is the only alternative. The $64,000 question, however, is how do we achieve this paradigm shift?