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

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?