Sustainable Land Development Today - January 2008 - (Page 10) YOUR VOICE Readers Respond The Truth about Sprawl September 2007 I was catching up last Saturday on business periodicals and read the September 2007 issue of Sustainable Land Development Today. As I read “The Truth about Sprawl,” I was at first fascinated, then surprised that someone out there sees things the way I do, and then shocked that the editors would print an article that in some way comes across in-the-face with philosophies they typically espouse. At that point I suspected that the article must have been written by someone with a respected name in the industry or it would not have been printed. That is when I skipped to the end of the article to see who the author was. I was surprised that I recognized the name. Your company provided the development plan for the Calaway Site in Madison County, Idaho, for which we did the floodplain analysis. It is interesting how each career generation tends to rush into some “new” design philosophy, the “old” being unacceptable and the “new” and enlightened, being the total answer to all ills. In stormwater circles, with which I have had extensive involvement over the decades, “the solution” has gone from “don’t think about or plan for it,” to onsite storage, and from there to vegetated channels, but with sedimentation and maintenance problems that went to concrete lined channels, and for safety, aesthetic, and land use reasons that went to pipe, and then back to grass-lined and bioengineered channels. And the swing now is back to including onsite storage using new terms such as bio-swales, rain gardens, and the like. I’ve seen and worked with the full gamut, and realize the pros and cons of all these approaches, and while I have my preferences, there are places and conditions for them all. I appreciate your ability to cut through the vogue, see things as they really are, use good design practices for the conditions, and not try to force the “favorite-for-the-moment” design concept onto every project that comes along. Gerald R. Williams, Williams Engineering, Inc., Rexburg, Idaho The Truth about Sprawl September 2007 As this article was the first article I read in your magazine I was surprised by some of the assertions. Especially when considering the title of the magazine: Sustainable Land Development Today: Balancing the needs of people, planet, and profit. If the article in question is an indication of the philosophy of the main readership and the staff, perhaps you need to remove sustainable, balance, and planet from the magazine name. My reasoning is as follows. In the article the author states that we do not have a sprawl problem, but in the same column he quotes the fact that there is an average urban density of three people per acre. Three people per acre equates to 12 people or four families per city block. By every measure of urban density this equates to low density living. So if this is not sprawl, then what is? The author does make some good points though, the urban population has increased very rapidly, and the cities were generally not capable of dealing with the increase, hence suburbs. The second issue with the article is this; the author draws the image of one mega city the size of California. The author then proceeds to mock the absurdity of such a thing, proving his point about why eliminating sprawl is a bad idea. The problem is no credible body of urban planers or architects are proposing such a mega city in the first place. Far from it. What planners are discovering is by increasing urban density we can eliminate many of the transportation problems; more people can walk rather than commute. Third, with more people in a denser urban environment, stores can make greater profit for their footprint. Fourth, every American consumes an average of seven hectare. Our consumption demands that we reduce the consumption of virgin lands for "land development projects." True awareness of the planet would question what golf courses should look like in the desert or is eastern seaboard housing what Arizona needs, requires, or can sustain? If the urban heat island is of any concern then we as designers, should ask how are wider freeways, and larger parking lots helping? I point to parking as buildings are a small fraction of the problem; most projects have much more real-estate devoted to parking than the actual buildings. While the article, "The Truth about Sprawl" contains many facts, the interpretation of them has nothing to do with sustainability, sprawl, or balance. To truly write this article with these opinions several words should be clearly defined up front. Sprawl, sustainable, urban, and rural all need to be explained from the author’s point of view. The author clearly has his own interpretation of these basic words that make up the entire article For instance if sprawl is choking our resources, spreading our cities thin, draining time from our lives through commuting, and placing people ever further away from the city center and the place of work, then we have a problem. However, if sprawl is everyone owing a home that wants their own home, and that is a detached single family house, then we have the American dream. What is sprawl? What is sustainable? What about suburbs? Are they sustainable or sprawl? What about cities creates the ideal conditions? Jed Laver, Via the Internet Response: If this article was your first exposure to Sustainable Land Development Today, then we are not surprised by your questions. You are correct that there are many definitions of some terms. We will be identifying our definitions in every issue (see page 47). Onto your other points: Many believe that suburban development can be done sustainably and, therefore, adding new neighborhoods is not “automatically” sprawl. Over the past four years we have included articles on a variety of development types; urban, mixeduse, Smart Growth, etc. We are confident that as design and technological innovations continue, that many different types of development projects can be sustainable with proper implementation and through the balancing of the needs of people, planet, and profit. Send us your 2¢! This section is dedicated to comments from our readers Reader responses to articles in Sustainable Land Development Today are encouraged and may be sent via mail or email (Editor@SLDTonline.com), or online through SLDTonline.com. Mailing address: Sustainable Land Development Today, Attention: Editor, 1275 East 10th St. Suite 201, Dubuque, IA 52001 10 January 2008 Sustainable Land Development Today http://SLDTonline.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.