Examining New Urbanism...I'on's Sustainable Qualities

Intensity of Use

The original design for I’on that included 1,240 residences, 440 of which would have been multi-family units, would have yielded a density of around five units per acre. However, the approved design produces a density yield of only 3.1 units per acre that results in a considerably less-dense development. Due to this adjustment, I’on fails to create a compact and consolidated development strategy.

The development strategy does successfully yield higher-density within each of the individual neighborhoods, but the regulations that govern the design and implementation of TNDs in Mount Pleasant severely handicaps the developments ability to provide a density yield that is considerably higher than existing residential neighborhoods in the municipality.

The blame for the lack of a compact and consolidated development plan does not rest solely on the regulations set forth by the planning commission. The developers of I’on chose to create six separate neighborhoods in the hopes of increasing the density of the development, but on a compartmentalized level.

The large lot sizes of a majority of the boroughs also contribute to its disappointing overall density yield. These large lots, coupled with the construction of sometimes unnecessarily large homes with wide side-setbacks are contributing factors to the lack of a compact and consolidated development.


Diversity of Use

I’on provides 30,000 square feet of commercial space in the development’s commercial core on the southern edge of the development. I’on, however, does not provide a diverse mix of housing types anywhere in the entire development. There are no rowhouses, townhomes or mixed-use units within the commercial core.

The only type of dwelling available at I’on is single-family detached housing, and the residences at I’on are anything but modest. Due to the small amount of commercial space, lack of multiple housing types and absence of mixed-use housing, I’on fails to create a development that is comprehensive and complementary with regards to the diversity of use of the land.

I’on does achieve some success through the planning of the development’s overall land-use plan. While the commercial core is insufficient in size to address the needs of the entire development (the commercial core covers approximately one-acre compared to the developments size of 243-acres), the development plan provides ample amounts of open space throughout the development by creating small pocket-parks within each individual neighborhood.

In addition to open space planning, I’on plans to open a school and two churches within the development in the future, however there is ongoing litigation concerning the legalities of implementing these uses.


Extent of Use

I’on’s 243-acre site has been carefully planned to ensure that existing natural ecosystems will not be disturbed by development and the boundaries of I’on are clearly defined to ensure that the neighborhood will not sprawl-out into the landscape. Because of this, I’on has been successful at creating a contained and consistent development with regards to the extent of use of the land.

Many opponents of I’on felt that the development would have a significant negative impact on the existing neighborhoods, but that has not been true to this point. The effort to protect the natural features of the site is one of the most successful facets of the overall design strategy.

The walking trails that wind throughout the development, many of which are in sensitive portions of the overall ecosystem, have a minimum impact of the environment. The only foreseeable issue that I’on may face with regards to extent of use of the land is whether or not additional commercial space will be required as the development grows in population and where the additional commercial space will be located.

People should think things out fresh and not just accept conventional terms and the conventional way of doing things. -R. Buckminster Fuller

Examining New Urbanism...I'on

The foundation for a critical analysis of the four developments that are the subject of this study has been established and now an exploration of the developments can begin.

The methods of data collection utilized in the preparation of this report included a critical analysis of site plans and development planning objectives, site visits, photographic studies of the various physical and aesthetic features of each development, impromptu interviews, the collection of empirical data from various planning organizations in addition to the collection of printed materials related to the developments. The data was then analyzed utilizing the aspects of sustainability and the normative qualities associated with each aspect.

(Note: This study was originally published in 2005 and the data represented here reflects the “best available” data at the time of publication.)

I'on Village, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

Development history

I’on Village is a green-field infill development in the bedroom community of Mount Pleasant that is located seven miles east of Charleston, South Carolina. Mount Pleasant has a population of approximately 56,000 people and covers an area of approximately 26,000 acres.

The development is sited on 243 acres that was originally comprised of 60 percent former agricultural fields, 30 percent was 30-40 year old hard wood growth, and 10 percent was in the form of three man-made lakes.

The development is surrounded by suburban neighborhoods that follow the sprawling development ideals of the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. The main access road to the site from outlying areas is U.S. Highway 17 which is characterized by further evidence of suburban sprawl through the proliferation of chain restaurants, convenience stores and gas stations which populate the roadside.

I’on is being developed by the Charleston-based development company Civitas and was planned by a land development team that consisted of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company; Dover, Kohl and Partners; Seamon, Whiteside and Associates; and DesignWorks. The development phase of I’on is nearing the 75 percent completion mark and will feature an ultimate build-out of 759 single-family units on the 243-acre site yielding an overall density of 3.1 units per acre.

The site features a commercial core with 30,000 square feet of office and retail space located directly adjacent to the main entry of the development. The architectural style of the development pays careful attention to the historic architectural styling and details of the regional vernacular, yet does not offer multi-family or townhouse style residences. The development currently provides 5-miles of walking trails that will be increased to 12-miles by the time the construction phase of the project concludes.

The developers of I’on faced considerable legal trouble from both the residents of existing neighborhoods and the limited guidelines set forth by the Mount Pleasant planning regulations. When I’on was originally being planned, there were no Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) guidelines in existence in the town of Mount Pleasant and the original plan for 800 single-family units, 440 multi-family units and 90,000 square feet of commercial space had to be abandoned in favor of the lower-density, sprawl-driven plan currently being implemented.

Alas! how little does the memory of these human inhabitants enhance the beauty of the landscape! -Henry David Thoreau

Greenwashing...

Hope.

If you haven't already heard that word expressed a thousand times since November, you're about to experience an unprecedented use of the word.

Yes we can.

A catchy little phrase coined by the first minority elected to the highest office of our nation; ironically also a phrase used by advertisers during one of the NFL Championship games on January 18th (and regardless of which hyper-capitalist entity used this phrase, it's disturbing just the same).

This week will certainly become one of the definitive milestones of America's cultural and social history, but there is a deep seeded problem that can derail progress. Americans expect too much and are unwilling to change their fundamental beliefs in order to facilitate progress and change. All the hope in the world will not change the decisions which are made that are based upon Hyper-Capitalist ideals.

In the Mississippi Delta region, such blindsided hope is preventing our nation from actually correcting many of the planning and development choices made prior to Katrina. President-elect Obama provides hope, but he can not fix everything on his own.

Along the same lines, a riverfront re-development project is beginning to take shape in New Orleans; but as we mentioned previously, the city has no comprehensive plan to adequately address the issues that led to the social, cultural, environmental and economic destruction left in the wake of Katrina.

"Stop raining on the parade!"

"Stop being such a Pollyanna!"

These may be the cries coming from the back of the auditorium, but if we are to hope I ask this question; why not hope for a leader who motivates people to develop equitable and sustainable goals and then implement those goals?

Now, this is not to say that there are not people and groups out there contributing to our equitable and sustainable future (fighting the "good fight", so to speak), but as we have mentioned, our future as a society, culture and community requires a systematic paradigm shift. And the only way to facilitate that shift is to include our national community's consumption habits in that shift.

Hope.

Yes we can.

As the title of this post suggests, I was originally going to simply discuss greenwashing and its lasting effect on our culture and society. However, we will begin that discussion another day and we will see how yet again, everything is connected to everything else.

"It is not despair, for despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt. We do not. It is wisdom to recognize necessity, when all other courses have been weighed, though as folly it may appear to those who cling to false hope. Well, let our folly be our cloak, a veil before the eyes of the Enemy!" -The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien

Laying the foundations...

Designers, planners, academics and writers are often accused of and fall victim to the phenomenon of analysis paralysis. In short, we continue to collect data on a quest to make the best decision we can regarding an issue; but then we become overwhelmed with data and fail to take action.

As designers, this comes in the form of site analysis. Simply stated, "...the site is analyzed for its fitness for the purpose of the plan..."(Site Planning, Lynch/Hack. 1984.).

In retrospect, our discussion of the auto industry bail-out and our national transportation planning problem has been a broad-stroke, preliminary site analysis. We have identified some core issues, behavioral patterns, social and cultural preferences, environmental impacts and are now prepared to offer a preliminary planning structure that will benefit our nation and our society.

So without heading into a analysis paralysis, let us begin our national recovery.

As we have mentioned, there is a dire need for a systematic paradigm shift with regards to our national transportation planning goals. This will require participation from a variety of stakeholders; resulting in the implementation of a plan which will ensure an equitable and sustainable national transportation strategy. So without further adieu, let us begin.

1. Impose a higher tariff on foreign automotive imports.

Proponents of NAFTA, G8 nations and a host of economists are already beginning to boil-over with reasons we should avoid this avenue. However, if we plan to resuscitate our domestic automotive manufacturing industry, we must give consumers a reason to purchase domestic products. These tariffs not only encourage consumption of domestic products but they will provide a revenue source for our nation that does not come from the pockets of our own citizens.

2. Streamline the domestic manufacturing process.

If we look back to the factors which lead to the creation of the Hyper-Capitalist system, we can argue that its founder was a simple man named Henry Ford. When that name is mentioned, many people conjure images of the now famous "assembly-line process". The Hyper-Capitalist system has distorted the original intention of this process which has lead to a disparity among the compensation workers receive for such work. Consider this fact; an auto worker in the United States averaged a salary equivalent to $70-per-hour while teachers in this nation averaged only $33-per-hour (for a 9-month position). Is manufacturing an automobile truly more challenging and important than educating our nation?

3. Establish more stringent standards for fuel efficiency and tax manufacturers whose products fail to meet or exceed those standards.

The average fuel economy for American autos (2007 model year) is 34-mpg, while the average for Japanese imports is 40.6-mpg. Furthermore, the Chevrolet Aveo tops the list at 37-mpg while the Toyota Prius achieves 51-mpg (both averages shown are for highway miles).

4. Impose regulations which match users with the type and size of vehicle they require as opposed to what their Hyper-Capitalist fueled consumption habits desire.

This will probably be considered the most unattractive element of the plan, but this is essential to the systematic paradigm shift that we must achieve. In simple terms, if you are not employed in the construction trade or don't own a farm, you do not need a truck capable of hauling tons of materials. If you are a homemaker, you do not require a Cadillac Escalade to perform daily short-trips errands. This restriction allows the automotive manufacturers to focus on more fuel efficient autos while also reducing the cost of manufacturing (less steel, etc...); allows designers to destroy less of the landscape to accommodate oversize passenger vehicles and reduces the consumer's expenditures on automobiles.

5. Impose a car-pool tax on single-driver commuters, impose a higher tax on gasoline, offer higher tax credits for the manufacturing of smaller and efficient automobiles and offer tax credits for car-poolers and transit riders.

All of these elements are simple revenue generators that will encourage and facilitate the systematic paradigm shift.

6. Utilize our existing Interstate System for the implementation of alternative forms of viable transit systems; specifically Bus Rapid Transit (BRTs).

Our friends at AASHTO (The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) have been requiring transportation planners and engineers to design highways with ample amounts of "extra space" (e.g. recovery areas, over sized shoulder widths, wide median widths, etc..). With a retrofit that utilizes these spaces, we can definitely re-design our Interstates to accommodate BRTs. This action will also result in development patterns which encourage and foster more compact, compatible and cohesive designs that can combat the adverse effects of sprawl.

7. Utilize alternative energy uses in the development of BRTs, specifically fuel-cells.

While fuel-cell technology was once a hopeful aspect of passenger automobile development, the amount of cells required to efficiently power passenger cars was found to be unachievable. However, buses are a perfect match for the utilization of fuel-cells and many are currently being developed and deployed in various areas of the nation.

8. Utilize our national rail network for commuter and light-rail systems.

Encouraging automotive manufacturers to explore other technologies (especially trains) is not a unrealistic proposition. (In fact, I must give credit to Car Talk for helping to foster this particular part of the planning strategy). Our friends at Car Talk raise a very valid point, Ford CEO Alan Mulally was once CEO of Boeing!!! So a establishing operations for the development of alternative forms of transportation should not be a stretch for Ford.

What we have outlined here are the basic elements of a national transportation strategy which will foster a systematic paradigm shift towards an equitable and sustainable society. Many of these elements impose taxes on various users, manufacturers and limit the need to create over sized swaths of paved areas throughout our nation.

In the Hyper-Capitalist system, the most effective of way of encouraging a systematic paradigm shift is by relating every aspect of every element to the almighty dollar.

People should think things out fresh and not just accept conventional terms and the conventional way of doing things. -R. Buckminster Fuller

Patches, patches everywhere...

Over the past few weeks, there has been a fair amount of attention given to the concepts of backyard farming and "victory gardening". Undoubtedly, this focus has a direct correlation to the failure of the American hyper-capitalist system, the rise in unemployment and the normally unassociated costs of purchasing food from a commercial source.

In many urban communities, residents not only grow organic vegetables, but they raise "small flock" chickens, generally numbering less than 10 hens that produce an average of 2 eggs per day per hen. In addition to providing homeowners with fresh, locally produced eggs, the urban chicken proponents use the flocks as educational tools for children.

Recently, there has been significant attention given to the notion that a portion of the White House grounds should be used to grow organic crops, presumably in an effort to promote what has been called the "sustainable food movement".

Here is where the problem with these concepts lies (and I am sure that many people will accuse the author of merely obsessing over semantics while the overall concept is what is more important). Converting your lawn into a victory garden, raising your own chickens and cracking your own eggs is a fine way to save money, but it is not necessarily a sustainable practice.

Is it organic? Yes.

Does it reduce fossil fuel consumption? Yes.

Does it provide educational opportunities for young Americans? Yes.

Does it help support the local economy? No.

Does it address the needs of American farmers who have been run out of business by their government and now by their neighbors? No.

Do a few fragmented patches of organic gardens, chicken coops and rain barrels make for a fully sustainable local and global community? No.

The same phenomenon which threatens to obliterate forests throughout the world is now threatening to derail the entire sustainability movement; fragmentation. When a forest ecosystem is divided into patches, the inhabitants of the forest may find it more difficult to migrate through the ecosystem, thereby reducing their access to food and potential mates (note: this a fairly broad stroke introduction to the concept of complimentary and connected uses, which we will explore in great detail in the coming weeks).

Because of the lack of a comprehensive, complimentary and cohesive sustainable development regulatory structure, the efforts of those involved in the movement are inadvertently creating "patches" of organic and sustainable elements within their local (and eventually global) community.

A prime example which has been receiving a fair amount of national press is the redevelopment of New Orleans. As many of you know, Global Green has been constructing 8 LEEDs certified, "green" architecture homes in a ward of the city. As many of you may not know is that the city government and redevelopment authority do not have a comprehensive plan that allows for the creation of a truly sustainable city. In other words, the only sustainable project occurring in New Orleans are 8 homes built by Global Green and visited by Brad Pitt.

Let us recall the Brundtland definition of sustainable development; "...development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." In layman's terms, we are putting the cart before the horse.

Without comprehensive planning, we are threatening to derail the purpose and potential of sustainable development and organic production methods.

Without comprehensive planning we, as a local and global community, are threatening to create communities which will become fragmented, thereby derailing our social and cultural development.

And when we fail to evolve and adapt as a society, we threaten our entire existence.

We are not going to be able to operate our Spaceship Earth successfully nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common. It has to be everybody or nobody. -R. Buckminster Fuller

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?