Greenwashing and Sprawl...Part Two

Discussions about the tangible and intangible costs of sprawl can be a bit exhausting, in addition to being a bit overwhelming. As we have mentioned, this could be a contributing factor as to why the problem has slipped to the back of the national consciousness.

But all hope is not lost, Frodo.

As this past year's election shows, when a dedicated group of people demand a change from the establishment, that change will take place. That being said, we must examine how the housing and development industry utilizes the cloak of greenwashing.

Firstly, when a developer or home builder claims that they are building a truly "green" community, ask yourself one question; how do you get to this community?

If you are required to drive your automobile to this community, guess what, it ain't green. Regardless of how many EnergyStar rated appliances the home has, or how many rain barrels are collecting runoff from the house; the fact that private transportation means were required to reach the destination disqualifies the development from joining the ranks of the sprawl-busters.

Secondly, if the design and layout of the "green" community includes wide, circuitous streets; cul-de-sacs, bulbs, elbows; and lacks on-street parking; guess what, it ain't green.

Study after study, the notion that wide, curvy streets with no on-street parking have been shown to be about as unfriendly to the pedestrian as humanly possible. Not only that, these extra-generous swaths of petroleum-based asphalt aren't exactly the most environmentally-sensitive or friendly. A community which is truly "green" features multiple levels of protection for pedestrians, multiple pedestrian or bicycle-accessible destinations which help fulfill a resident's daily needs and multiple opportunities for social interaction between residents.

Social interaction between residents is one of the most important elements for the creation of equitable and sustainable communities. It is through the creation of a strong "sense of community", ensuring that a connected, cohesive community will some day supplant the constructed neighborhood development.

(Note: Just because a developer or designer designs, constructs or creates a neighborhood does not mean that they have created a community.)

(Another quick note: This is by no means intended to be a comprehensive list of all of the elements of a truly equitable and sustainable community development theory, we just need to explore the three major areas in which developers and designers utilize the cloak of greenwashing)

Finally, examine the location of the new development not from the aspect of what means of transportation was utilized to reach the development, but with regards to what was the prior land-use. If the developer needed to change the zoning designation or amend the municipality's comprehensive plan in order to obtain approval for the project; it ain't green.

(Note: I will concede that at times the comprehensive plans are not always the best guides for the organic evolution of development patterns, but more often than not developers base their land-use recommendations on Hyper-Capitalist ideals that allow them to get the "best and highest use" of a tract of land.)

Ask yourself; are there complimentary adjacent land-uses? Are there multiple housing types within the community that will foster upward and lateral mobility for a variety of socio-economic levels? Are there complimentary and connected land-uses within the well-defined boundaries of the development? Are there open-spaces within each neighborhood of the development that will foster a connection to the landscape and positive social interaction?

Let us think back to the Garden City planning ideal. In the Garden City, there are a variety of complimentary and connected land-uses, all of which help to foster the creation of a sustainable community matrix. This does not necessarily mean that Garden Cities are the answer.

Once again, we are faced with the need for a system-wide paradigm shift with regards to our housing development ideals. This is an expression which I have been using quite often in our exploration of sustainability and sustainable development.

Let us think back to the election; the collective conscious of the nation demanded that our habits and practices take a new direction. The same change must be made with regards to our development and consumption habits and practices.

In other words, if we do not demand that a change take place, it won't.

And once again, Hyper-Capitalists need not worry about their ability to generate profits from the development and creation of equitable and sustainable communities. Their ability to generate profits from the creation of connected, complimentary communities will practically be guaranteed if we demand that these types of developments are what the collective conscious of the nation desires.

“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” - Aldo Leopold, 1949. A Sand County Almanac

Greenwashing and Sprawl...Part One

Sprawl.

Remember sprawl? It seems as if the concept and practice of creating/perpetuating sprawl has fallen from the nation's conscious. Is this an indication that we have successfully lobbied against the agents of sprawl and defeated them through the creation of interconnected, pedestrian-friendly, integrated and environmentally-friendly communities?

I am fairly certain we all know the answer to that question.

Why is it then, that the prototypical form of suburban development, adopted shortly after the end of the World War II, has faded into the back of everyone's mind? The answer is simple; most people consider the economic and environmental impacts of sprawl to be insignificant in their daily lives.

Many Americans, especially in these trying economic times, are thankful to even own their own home and have the ability to make the mortgage payment, provide food for their family and own their own private automobile. As former President George W. Bush once said, "I believe part of a hopeful society is one in which somebody owns something." (Source: Third Presidential Debate, Tempe, Arizona, Oct. 13, 2004)

(Granted, home-ownership is a more sustainable form of housing, but I am not exactly sure that's what Dubya meant. And I understand that he's only been the "former-President" for about 24 hours, but it's been a long 8 years.)

Americans, at least a large portion of Americans, for some reason have yet to associate any intangible (or tangible for that matter) costs with the practice of sprawl. Why is that? The answer is simple; greenwashing.

While the national builders and their associated trade organizations will be the first to tell you that they are concerned with developing "communities" and building homes to address our housing needs, in reality they exist for one reason; to make a profit.

The most profitable way for a national builder to develop a community is to acquire "raw land" which in most cases is located away from city centers. The reason for this is simple, volume + low development cost = enormous profits.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that developing a parcel of land that used to be a farm is far less expensive than rehabilitating or adapting an urban structure for housing. More importantly, these builders are mainly concerned with how many homes they can build in the shortest period of time. (As an example, Pulte's Del Webb division requires a minimum potential of 3,000 units plus adequate acreage for a golf course in order to even consider purchasing a tract of land.)

But this is not the point of our exploration today. Admittedly, the effects of sprawl are widespread, numerous and often exhausting to contemplate; which is probably the major factor which has contributed to why we have seemingly "moved on" from being concerned with sprawl.

To simplify our discussion, we need to understand the hidden or intangible costs of sprawl. The most important of which are the added degradation of our overall health, the added expense associated with our transportation choices and the negative environmental impact that suburban developments in rural areas inflict upon the ecosystem.

Consider our national health.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 12.4% of children age 2-5, 17% of children age 6-11 and 17.6% of children age 12-19 are obese. While the integration of high-fructose corn syrup into nearly every food product in our society has contributed to this alarming trend, the pervasion of suburban sprawl can be considered one of, if not the largest, contributing factor. Why you may ask? One of the Hyper-Capitalist driven strategies for developing profitable communities is to avoid building sidewalks.

Seems like a silly or insignificant element. But take a tour of any of the new developments in your immediate area and pay close attention to the design of many of the homes. You will notice that the most significant element of the facade is the garage. Simply think back to our discussion of our national transportation choices and we understand why the garage has become so significant in the design and construction of new homes.

In addition to our transportation choices, if we look at the national builder strategy of maximizing the number of potential units,we find that neighborhood parks take away the opportunity to build one more unit. Besides, Americans drive everywhere anyway, so there is no need for spaces that cost money to design, build and maintain without the Hyper-Capitalist benefit of profitability.

Our previous discussions of our national transportation choices eludes to the additional costs associated creating developments which are, in essence, disconnected from basic goods and services. In addition to these costs, increased automobile trips cost us something more important than money; time.

The time Americans spend commuting, obtaining goods and services from sources that are agents of sprawl themselves and working to maintain their primary mode of transportation leads to a disconnect with the landscape, the environment as a whole and with other members of our society. Consider this simple fact: Americans spend more time commuting to and from work (around 100 hours) than they do vacationing (around 80 hours). To further compound the issue, the average American forfeits 3 whole days of vacation per year!

The final cost, the added impact to the ecosystem and environment which sprawling developments exert on previously undeveloped land, contributes to a myriad of costs for our society.

The introduction of petroleum-based products into ecosystems that previously protected themselves naturally from a minimum amount of these products and by-products has had a widespread economic impact on our daily lives. Environmental clean-up programs, the degradation of our clean water supplies and the nitrification and destruction of our soils have led to costs that are increasing daily and will have a long-term impact that has yet to be realized.

Perhaps the main reason that the issue of sprawl has fallen to the wayside is that it can be exhausting. Our discussion today has barely scratched the surface of the overall effect that this practice has exerted on our culture and society.

It seems as if this discussion has also strayed from the original topic; greenwashing. Admittedly it has, only in the sense that we have yet to discuss how greenwashing is utilized in the continued pervasion of sprawl.

Considering the somewhat overwhelming evidence that we have presented today, we shall continue our exploration of the use of greenwashing in our next post.

Our settlement of land is without regard to the best use of land. -Arthur Erickson

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?