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

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