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

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?