A Greenwashed Site Plan...In real life

Well, the time has come to revisit the site of our favorite home improvement supply center and take a look at physical manifestation of their "commitment to sustainability". You guessed it, we've got our sights set on Lowe's, champions of Hyper-Capitalism.

In our look at the Greenwashing of site plans, we opened our jargon-free discussion by examining the first requirement for the development and implementation of a sustainable site plan; preserving the site's soils.

As we recall, one of the tell-tale signs of a site that has soils which are unsuitable for development is a giant pile of dirt. So, with that in mind, let's take a look to see what creative grading methods our friends at Lowe's approved for their site plan.

Huh. That looks like it might be a giant pile of dirt. In fact, if we presume that the bulldozer (the second machine from the left) in the picture is the smallest of the John Deere dozers; the height of the machine from the ground to the top of the roof is 10-feet, 5-inches!!!

Now consider the fact that the machines are closer to the camera, so due to the phenomenon of forced perspective, the dirt pile actually appears to be smaller than it really is!!! (As a reference, the technique of forced perspective is what Peter Jackson used in the Lord of the Rings films to make the Hobbits appear smaller than other characters!!)

If we recall our discussion, stripping the soils from a site adversely affects not only the site on which they are developing, but all of the sites in the area immediately surrounding the site.

On top of that, if we summon our sustainability mantra that everything is connected to everything else; there are going to be serious adverse impacts on sites that aren't necessarily contiguous with the Lowe's site.

If we look at a topographic map of the site before it was altered by the specifications set out in the site plan, we can begin to truly understand the impact that this type of development has on the land.

Many of you are now scratching your head and wondering, what the ##%! am I looking at!?!?! Simply put, each one of those lines on the map represents a contour or a predetermined change in elevation (or height). In this particular case, this map is showing contours in 2-foot increments. So very every line you encounter on the map, the height of the ground is 2-feet higher than the last.

If you look closely, there are a lot of lines stacked up on this site.What that tells you is that the site is very, very steep and most likely not very suitable for development. Certainly not for "big-box" commercial development that requires lots of flat terrain.

To demonstrate how steep this site was, let us take a closer look at the topo map.

The red line on this map connects the contour representing elevation 310 (feet above sea level) to the contour representing 370. The line measures 291-feet in length. If we use our highly advanced mathematical skills to determine the slope by dividing the difference in elevation (a.k.a. "the rise") by the distance between the two points we are measuring (a.k.a. "the run"), we determine that this are has a slope of just over 20%.

That may not mean much to many of you. Honestly, not many people besides Landscape Architects and Civil Engineers go around town guessing the slope of various sites.

To put this in perspective; if you have ever stepped foot onto a patio, you know that a patio is what we consider to be fairly flat. In reality, the slope of the patio is somewhere between 1-2%!!! Considering the fact that spring is quickly approaching, consider this example. The average slope of the outfield area of a baseball diamond is about 1%!!!

I think we can begin to see how significant a 20% slope is compared to the two examples of relatively "flat" surfaces.

Looking back, you may recall that an analysis using the USDA Soil Survey showed that over 90% of this site's soils were unsuitable for development based on the overall soil matrix. Add to the fact that a "big-box" commercial development requires a site that is in the 2%-5% slope range and we begin to reveal one of the most egregious hyper-capitalist driven greenwashing practices around.

Instead of adapting their use to the site (or even finding a site more suitable for their use), Lowe's and their site planner have adapted the site to their use.

Consider this; would you buy a pair of shoes which you knew didn't fit you and weren't the style you wanted; then spend a ton of money adapting those shoes to fit your foot and look the way you want?!?!

Of course not. But for some reason, Hyper-Capitalists don't share the same common sensibilities that you do.

No house should ever be on a hill or on anything. It should be of the hill. Belonging to it. Hill and house should live together each the happier for the other. -Frank Lloyd Wright

Still Greenwashing the Site Plan...Trees ARE the Answer...

As we continue our exploration of the requirements for developing and implementing a sustainable site plan, we now shift our focus to the use of the site's existing vegetation.

This portion of our discussion can be considered as one of the main factors as to why Landscape Architects must take a more prominent role in the development and implementation of sustainable and equitable site plans. So without further adieu, let us set the stage for today's discussion;

...the proposed project ensures that air will be able to flow through the site in an unobstructed manner and that as much existing vegetation is preserved as possible in order to reduce air pollution...

Of the four requirements for a sustainable site plan, we find that in the development and implementation of site plans, far too little importance is placed on the preservation of existing vegetation as well as the introduction of new vegetation.

A closer examination of this requirement reveals that there are a few more reasons for preserving the site's existing vegetation than simply reducing air pollution. Considering the fact that everything is connected to everything else, we discover that a site's existing vegetation contributes to the goals of some of the other factors we have discussed as well as making significant contributions to additional environmental and ecological issues that are not mentioned in the four requirements.

Existing vegetation on a site;

• Helps reduce wind speeds on a site;
• Helps provide mature and effective visual buffers;
• Helps reduce soil erosion caused by wind on a site;
• Helps reduce erosion caused by rainfall on a site;
• Helps clean rainwater falling on a site;
• Helps distribute rainwater to the soil on a site;
• Helps the site's soil remain healthy and functional;
• Helps control the site's temperature;
• Helps create livable, functional, enjoyable and aesthetically pleasing spaces on a site;
• Helps foster a more sustainable ecological community by providing habitats for native animal species;
• Helps protects the overall ecological community from exotic species of plants, animals and diseases.

Phew, that list would make this requirement run about three pages as opposed to the simplified three lines that it now occupies. I would tend to agree with that statement, however what this list demonstrates is how underutilized existing vegetation truly is in the development and implementation of a majority of site plans.

On the other hand, the "simplified" sustainable site plan requirement helps illustrate one of the most underutilized ecological and environmental attributes of plants; the reduction of air pollution.

There are very few cities in this world which utilize trees as a major air pollution abatement device. One cannot dispute the scientific evidence that clearly shows the process in which airborne contaminants are removed from the atmosphere by trees. Everyone who has had an elementary school education should be familiar with the process called photosynthesis.

For those who don't recall the entire process, the only thing you need to concern yourself with is that trees absorb carbon dioxide and other dangerous gases and through photosynthesis, convert those gases into oxygen and release that oxygen back into the atmosphere.

At this point you may be saying to yourself; if preserving the existing vegetation on one site helps reduce air pollution, imagine how clean the air in my community would be if ten, twenty or thirty sites preserved as much existing vegetation as they could!!

Aha!! Remember, everything is connected to everything else!!!

Not only would the air be cleaner, but let us not forget that the soils would be functioning properly; vast areas of paved parking would be much cooler in the summer months from the shade provided; the visual impacts of such crowning architectural achievements as Lowe's, WalMart and any other "big-box" buildings would be greatly reduced; soil erosion resulting from gusting winds would be reduced; rainwater would be cleaner when it finally reached the ground; and our society and culture would be vastly improved through the creation of enjoyable, functional spaces.

Let us not forget who is best equipped to deal with these factors during the development and implementation of sustainable site plans; the Landscape Architect.

Hyper-Capitalists need not worry about the impact of retaining existing vegetation on a site, and here's why. If you plan properly, the site can be planned to avoid having to remove vegetation, redistribute the disturbed soil and then replace or "mitigate" the impact of the removed trees! All of this means less construction costs resulting from informed site planning!!

(Note: many municipalities require that developments either replace existing vegetation that has been removed through either planting new vegetation or contributing a formulated monetary payment to what is generally referred to as a "community beautification fund"; once again offering developers the opportunity to use money to offset their negative environmental impacts!!)

You may be asking yourself; Why don't we try to preserve as much as we can if there are so many positive attributes associated with existing vegetation?

Therein lies the issue; we need to move towards a more sustainable and equitable society and culture. This need goes beyond rewarding the few people who make buildings more efficient through LEEDs certification; beyond those extremists who chain themselves to old-growth trees in the Pacific-Northwest; beyond those who opt for a "green" home.

As a society and culture, we need to realize one thing: everything is connected to everything else.

When we finally accept and embrace this notion, only then will we be able to move towards a more equitable and sustainable society.

Study nature, love nature, stay close to nature. It will never fail you. -Frank Lloyd Wright

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

Continuing to Greenwash the site plan...

Looking back on our initial discussion regarding the greenwashing of site plans, I believe that perhaps a further examination of the elements, concepts, theories and ideals of developing a sustainable site plan is required.

In our continuing discussion, we need to focus on the goals of a sustainable site plan in terms that everyone will understand and appreciate. Often times, designers (myself included) become so entrenched and zealous about their overall concept that we tend to spew large amounts of jargon, which usually results in the general public simply "tuning us out".

If we simplify the aims of a sustainable site plan, we discover that designers are charged with the task of developing site plans that meet their client's development needs while ensuring that these four essential requirements are met;

1. the site's soils are preserved or developed in a manner that does not degrade either the fertility of the existing soils or increase the potential for soil erosion;
2. the proposed project does not contaminate the overall water supply, which includes both surface sources and sub-surface sources;
3. the proposed project ensures that air will be able to flow through the site in an unobstructed manner and that as much existing vegetation is preserved as possible in order to reduce air pollution;
4. the proposed project provides for enhanced human well being, enhanced cultural diversity and enhances the natural and social environment.

Provided that these elements are met and/or preserved, then we can truly label a site plan sustainable and equitable for a proposed development or project.

(Note: the word development can be used to describe any project which changes the use of a site; many people simply equate the concept of development with residential neighborhood construction, however it applies to commercial projects, industrial projects, parks and recreation projects and so on.)

Let us examine each requirement on its own merits and keep the discussion jargon-free.

...the site's soils are preserved or developed in a manner that does not degrade either the fertility of the existing soils or increase the potential for soil erosion...

Most of us would consider this requirement as common sense, but as we all know what is right and responsible is rarely considered common sense among Hyper-Capitalists (oops, jargon-alert!!).

Consider this; if you wanted to build a house and someone explained to you that there is a 99.9% chance that your house will collapse in less than a year because of erosion, would you build the house?

Or that the spot were you are planting a vegetable garden was once a toxic waste dump and there is a 99.9% chance that the vegetables you grow will give your family terminal illnesses in less that one year, would you plant that garden?

Common sense would say that you would try to avoid these types of situations. Alas, such is not the case for a multitude of developments in this country.

Simply stated, if you pass by a new development project and there happens to be a ridiculously large pile of dirt on one part of the site, this tells you that the soils conditions on that site are not suited for development!!!

Soils on a site exist in a form similar to a layer cake; throughout history these layers have been built-up through a variety of environmental processes. These layers all serve a specific purpose, but are composed of different materials due to past uses of the site, the types of vegetation that have lived on the site and where the site is located in the overall geography of the area (e.g. on the coast, at the base of a mountain, etc...).

When a development must alter the make-up of the soils, or strip off the chocolate layer of the cake and add an asparagus layer, this alters the ability of the soils to perform functions that have been occurring on the site for thousands of years. And as we surmise from our chocolate-asparagus layer cake, they don't exactly mesh.

At this point, you are undoubtedly asking yourself, Why do we develop on sites with unsuitable soils?

The answer to that question is found in the real estate industry's favorite mantra, location, location, location.

Believe it or not, developers and Hyper-Capitalists are more than willing to risk the safety of the people who will be using the development in addition to risking the safety of their neighbors in an effort to make some money.

The impact that each individual development has on the soils is varied and often site-specific, which helps illustrate the dire need for the development of sustainable site planning practices. Whether a proposed project threatens to increase the likelihood of causing a landslide or polluting a local stream because the soils have been drastically altered; landscape architects are equipped with the knowledge and skills to address these issues.

As we move through our exploration of each of these points, we will once again discover that everything is connected to everything else.

“The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.” - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Greenwashing the site plan...

(As we return from the short hiatus, we will resume our look at Greenwashing and how it has infiltrated nearly every aspect of development.)

Our focus will now shift to the impact that Greenwashing has exerted on the design industry and how that is affecting the overall paradigm shift to a more sustainable world. It is important to note that it is more than likely that a majority of design professionals probably don't intentionally greenwash their efforts. However, to survive in our Hyper-Capitalist economic structure, their efforts to provide sustainable and equitable design solutions are often usurped by their Hyper-Capitalist clients desires and demands.

With that in mind, our exploration of the greenwashed site plan must begin with the theoretical and philosophical aims of developing a ecologically and environmentally responsible site plan. There are two important points to keep in mind as we delve into this particular topic; the first is that a majority of the time, the influence which the Landscape Architect can exert on the final technical aspects of a design is often usurped by the influence that Civil Engineers exert on our site development efforts.

While Civil Engineers possess the technical knowledge to ensure that sites function properly with regards to grading and drainage, Landscape Architects also possess a similar knowledge-base which allows for the technical site requirements to be met in addition to possessing the knowledge to develop a sustainable and equitable site plan. This appears to be a side-effect of the lack of public knowledge regarding the technical qualifications which Landscape Architects possess, even though Landscape Architecture has been a recognized profession for over 100-years.

The second point is that responsible site development ideals are instilled in Landscape Architects from a very early stage in the educational experience and continue to be emphasized and extolled throughout one's professional development, licensing and professional practice standards. It is the influence which Hyper-Capitalism has exerted on the overall development industry which has caused many designers to "shelve" and even abandon these ideals.

These are essential points which must be addressed as we embark on a system-wide paradigm shift to a more sustainable and equitable development ideal.

As professionals, Landscape Architects undergo a vigorous and extremely difficult licensing process. This process includes educational requirements, professional practice requirements and continuing education requirements (once a professional passes the LARE). To begin to understand exactly how detailed and vigorous the examination process is for Landscape Architects, simply peruse the recommended reading list provided by the Council of Landscape Architect Registration Boards (CLARB).

In order to understand the basic concepts and ideals which Landscape Architects utilize during the site planning process, we will rely upon an essential text for Landscape Architects; Environmental Planning for Site Development by Anne Beer and Catherine Higgins. This book is one of many which provide designers with the theoretical and technical information required to develop sustainable and equitable site plans for nearly every type of development.

Our discussion begins with the need to understand when site planning is required in the overall context of development. As the authors illustrate, "A site plan is needed when: (1) whenever it is proposed to change the use of an area of land or build on all or part of it; (2) whenever it is proposed to change the way in which an area of land and its associated landscapes is managed and maintained." (Beer, 1990. 3)

If we look back to the concepts and practices of comprehensive and future land use planning, the need for developing a sustainable and equitable site plan becomes even more important when considering the frequency with which developers apply for and are approved for land use plan amendments in order to develop sites according to their Hyper-Capitalist ideals as opposed to the sustainable and equitable development of a community.

The influence which Hyper-Capitalism exerts upon our land development choices and practices is clearly evident when we examine the differences between the cost of site development to the developers as opposed to the cost of site development to all of society.

"Costs to society are incurred...through: (1) the need to provide adequate infrastructure; (2) the extra work which has to be carried out to protect adjacent natural resources; (3) the need to create new landscapes because of damage to the visual resources caused by the development; (4) the loss of cultural resources; (5) the need to relocate people whose lives are disturbed by an unacceptable land-use change, for instance one which increases the local noise level." (Beer, 1990. 6)

As we can clearly see, the site planning process has far reaching implications which will influence and impact not only environmental and ecological aspects of a community; but also the social, cultural and aesthetic aspects of a community which are rarely codified by everyday community members and virtually never considered by developers. This also helps demonstrate why Landscape Architects should be assuming more control of the site planning process. The training of Landscape Architects far exceeds that of the technical training of Civil Engineers and includes a significant amount of training and education in the areas of the social and cultural impacts of our design solutions.

This point is further illustrated when we examine the broader picture at understanding the impacts and influences that the site planning process can have on our community, our society and our environment. These factors include: "(1) the manner in which people's actions are constrained and limited by the physical environment; (2) the intent to conserve what remains of the plants, animals, insects, etc. that make up the natural world; (3) the need to provide for people's primary needs such as shelter, food and economic activity; (4) the intent to encourage the development of environments which people experience as satisfactory places in which to live, work or play." (Beer, 1990. 10)

A full and comprehensive understanding of this process and its potential impacts on our environment, society and culture is varied and complex, as we have seen from this brief discussion of the ideals with which Landscape Architects are trained to deal with site planning.

You may be asking yourself, "What does this discussion have to do with Greenwashing?" In order to answer that question, we will continue our examination of the site planning process tomorrow with the help of our old friends, Lowe's Home Improvement.

No house should ever be on a hill or on anything. It should be of the hill. Belonging to it. Hill and house should live together each the happier for the other. -Frank Lloyd Wright

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

on the Edge...part two

In part one, we explored some of the large-scale political ramifications and objectives of this typical big-box development site. We now need to explore a few of the ecological and environmental impacts that this development will have on the surrounding area.

Let us examine an "area of environmental concern" which serves an important ecological function in the overall context of the immediate area.

If we examine this critical transition area, we discover that the area to the left of the silt fence (the solid black fabric fence) contains a creek, riverine area and some freshwater forested/shrub wetlands. While the silt fence is a temporary, preventative measure designed to protect the adjacent areas from the impacts of construction, we need to examine the edge between to the two areas. In order to fully understand the importance of this edge, we turn to one of the most important works concerning transitional areas between competing landscape archetypes; Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning (Harvard, 1996.)

Boundaries may also be “political” or “administrative”, that is artificial divisions between inside and out, which may or may not correspond to natural “ecological” boundaries or edges. Relating these artificial edges with natural ones is important. As human development continues its expansion into natural environments, the edges created will increasingly form the critical point for interaction between human-made and natural habitats. (1996:27)

While this edge between the two areas is largely based upon on "administrative" division established through the required "setback" from the center of the stream bed, there are ecological implications which may not be addressed by this "safe zone".

Let us examine the "grading" solution which the designer has chosen for this area of the site. When Landscape Architects "sit" for the Registration Exam, we are instructed that retaining walls are not an acceptabel solution to grading problems. While the presence of this bland and lifeless retaining structure is not the main issue, one of the design details should cause some serious concern for this area.

A closer look reveals that drainage structures have been installed within the are that the wall is retaining. This is a typical construction detail that helps to enSure the wall will not fail under the weight of what will presumably be diesel-fueled semi trucks or dumpsters. What is of vital importance is that all of the contaminents that the stormwater system will be collecting will be discharging in this are and travelling across the disturbed and nearly non-existent edge into the stream, wetlands and freshwater pond just off of the Lowe's property.

And we find that the stream, wetland and pond ecosystem that will be the recipient of the Nonpoint Source Pollutants which are collected throughout the site. Even when the "nice landscaping" (as described by one of the developer's agents in a city council meeting) is installed on the bottom slope of this retaining structure, there will be little impact that the plant material (which is more than likely designed to satisfy the minimal code requirements) will exert on the pollutants that are leaching into the adjacent ecosystem.

The point? As designers we need to assess a site from every standpoint and make informed recommendations to our clients. Considering the fact that the developer had to convince the city to change its Future Land Use Plan, indicating that the developers know what is best for the community as opposed to the professional planners who determined the future growth patterns for the community through a process which included input from the general public! How did they accomplish this change? Through a hyper-capitalist inspired development model masked with a bit of greenwashed site plans (see "nice landscaping" above).

Look around your community for examples of this type of development model and you will be shocked as to the large numbers of examples you will be able to find.

"Form follows function - that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union." -Frank Lloyd Wright

on the Edge...part one

As designers, the site development process typically begins when a developer approaches a professional to "fit" a use to a site. This practice has far reaching implications that normally have adverse effects on the local ecological community but are often hidden or discarded through greenwashing tactics. To illustrate this point, we can simply return to our big-box friend, Lowe's Home Improvement. (Just one note before we begin; it may seem that I am "picking-on" Lowe's, but in all fairness, this development model is employed by multiple hyper-capitalist corporations and developers throughout the country and the local example of this practice is more than likely occurring in your community or in a community near your home.)

Let's think about the factors which should be explored when selecting a site for development, in this case, an emotionless warehouse that is surrounded by large swaths of impervious parking lots. In the case of Lowe's, hyper-capitalism can be identified as the driving force behind the selection of this particular site. The unwritten mantra of the real estate industry is "location, location, location" and as we can see in the aerial photo below, this site is situated at a fairly significant intersection. (Also take note as to the vegetative cover on the site prior to development, and then take a look at the previous post on Greenwashing to see how drastically that site has been changed.)

So, great location with a maximum amount of visibility once all of those pesky trees have been bulldozed. The size is right for a billion square-foot architectural abomination and parking lots designed to handle the crowds on the busiest shopping day of the year. So, as a designer, what should have been the next factor we look at to determine suitability? How about the soils? Does the natural ecological function and matrix of the site support commercial uses?

When we analyze the area using the Web Soil Survey from the USDA, we find that an overwhelming 90.8% of the site is unsuitable for commercial development! Take a moment and absorb that number again; 90.8%. So, why was this site selected for development? Simply put, the proponents of the project relied on the hyper-capitalist notion of economic development and prosperity for the area. In reality, this particular site had the appropriate size for the development of a warehouse and parking, and the underlying ecological factors played little or no role in site selection.

What becomes alarming in this case, and subsequently in hundreds or thousands of development cases similar to this around our nation, is that even the designers fall in line with the developer's greenwashed ideals. I have spoken about the need for Landscape Architects to whole-heartedly embrace the principles of sustainable development and become champions of the cause; and this example is counter-productive to that effort. When potential clients seek the assistance of Landscape Architects, they do so because they require the knowledge, experience and conviction that an expert can bring to the table with regards to their particular project. It is in our capacity as experts with specialized training in problem-solving which encompasses the social, economic and environmental factors related to site development that qualifies our profession to become leaders in the sustainable development movement.

In part two, we will explore further some of the ecological implications of the development of this site. These implications are not specific to this local example, but can be found throughout the country on a multitude of development projects.

“The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.” - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

So what the #@%$ is "Greenwashing"!!

By this point, you may be wondering about a term which has been thrown about in previous posts: Greenwashing. Many of you may be wondering what in the world I mean by "greenwashing". Is it a new form of dying that uses organic, recycled materials? Or is it a new form of low VOC paint which has taken the building industry by storm? The simple answer is, of course, no it is not any of these things.

The Sustainable Dictionary defines "greenwashing" as;

"...any form of marketing or public relations that links a corporate, political, religious or nonprofit organization to a positive association with environmental issues for an unsustainable product, service, or practice."

Further investigation of this practice shows that it extends beyond the practices of the building and development industry and is certainly a threat to the goals of the sustainable movement with the design industry itself! You are all encouraged to read one of the greatest articles written on the issues of sustainability and their application within the design professions. Green World, Gray Heart is perhaps the quintessential primer for understanding the challenges that we face, both as designers and as members of the ecological community, when we talk about sustainability and sustainable development.

Rhetoric, articles and theories are all well and good, but a picture is generally worth a thousand words. Or in the case of the example I am about to provide, a picture is worth about 24 words.

Let us examine our Big-Box friend, Lowe's Home Improvement. As we wade through the various pages on Lowe's website regarding their commitment to sustainable development practices and the "green" industry we find the following statement on their "Environmental Policy" page.

“Conserving our natural resources is an investment in the future. Lowe's is committed to being a responsible steward of the environment."

Let us now look at the implementation of their stewardship.

Huh, when we look at their development practices from a visual standpoint, it seems that they aren't exactly the stewards that they claim to be. So, who's to blame? Lowe's? Perhaps, yet they are simply following their Hyper-Capitalist business model to spend as little as possible in order to make as much as possible. Many of you will be happy to know that the area shown in the last image is an area that contains a stream and wetlands, but they are simply following the guidelines.

If you had guessed that this is a top-down failure, you hit the nail on the head. If we borrow a page from politicians and pundits, we can usurp the "blame-game" to assign responsibility. However, the important point is that this is a failure that has been spurred by the Hyper-Capitalist system itself. Yes, the municipality should assume responsibility for authoring a development code that allows such behavior. Yes, the designers should have explored creative, ecologically sensitive (or even aware) solutions to the site plan. Yes, Lowe's should know better (or even give a hint that they actually care about how their parking lots, I mean, locations are designed and constructed).

It is this type of behavior that we must change in order to enSure that our nation will not become a swath of pavement accented by emotionless architecture. As designers, and more importantly as members of the wider ecological community, we must take the initiative to change the way we shape our world.

I implore all of you to become more active in the development of your community. The simplest action you can take is that as you gather news from the various sources you frequent, make your local planning department one of those sources. If you have the time, call the planning department and ask about upcoming large projects (all of the applications are public record, so don't let them throw the Patriot Act in your face).

When Big-Box retailers are planning an abomination in your community, you can simply email or call your planning department and inform them that you are opposed to the project. This simple action becomes part of the application and if enough people simply call, city and town governments may be persuaded to rethink the project.

Remember, there is no destructive force more powerful than apathy.

"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -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?