Sustainable Land Development Today - November/December 2007 - (Page 53) THE LAST WORD Don’t Blame Developers So Quickly Steve Sletner, P.E. As I read the “Reader Response” in the July/August issue of Sustainable Land Development Today, my thoughts centered on the accusation that developers are prone to disregard the local terrain and fall into the mode of “reshaping” what are probably unique site conditions that could be assets to the project, the community, and the environment. The assumption is that the developer is dictating this requirement. I challenge that assumption. A more global problem exists. The design team hired by the developer should show more creative alternatives, different from past practices, and potentially more profitable than the status quo. Some 25 years ago, I came out of engineering school ready to change the world and put my talents to use. My first job was with the State Department of Transportation (the name of the state shall be withheld to protect the guilty) where I learned the essence of engineering. At that point I met the most formidable challenge for an engineer. One day I simply asked for a clarification on a design procedure so that I could better understand the logic to apply the methodology. The answer was simple — “Because We Have Always Done It That Way.” A disease that can paralyze perfectly competent engineers, it struck with little warning. The blow was not lethal; I recovered quickly, sought therapy, quit my job, and carried forward this valuable lesson. I believe that often, not knowingly, developers have contracted this disease by hiring the same design team that, over time, gets comfortable in a routine path. Remember, the only professions more conservative than engineers are surveyors and accountants – the other members of the development team. Conservative people relish consistency, which results in the same tried-and-true methods being used over and over—even when they do not apply. Therefore, I believe that the blame is shared, but not equally. The design team, including land planners, engineers, and surveyors, should shoulder the burden of changing how developers look at land. For example, recently I attended a pre-application meeting for a developer in a southern state. We were a Midwest-based company that was chosen for the project over local engineering options. The developer said that one of the reasons they chose us was because we looked at things differently (I took that as a compliment). In that pre-application meeting we introduced the concept of potentially using rain gardens. The municipal staff, as well as other engineers in the meeting, had heard of rain gardens but had not seen them applied. They politely asked for more information and were more than willing to look at alternative stormwater management techniques in lieu of bulk facilities. I was slightly taken aback that rain gardens, which seem to be such a universally accepted application to stormwater management, were not part of the local stormwater vocabulary. There are three fatal symptoms that appear when the referenced disease is contracted. First, when the developer walks through the door with a new project, the design team goes into “assume” mode. We all have heard differing opinions on the real meaning of the word “assume.” In this case the design team may have a long-standing relationship with the developer and thus “assume” that this project fits into the developer’s style. Therefore, the “Because We Have Always Done It That Way” procedure is applied directly to the land. No further thought is given to the land, environment, or future residents. The second symptom is the non-application of what the members of the design team have learned throughout their careers. We learn from a variety of sources — journals, other publications, continuing education, vendor information, professional experience, and communication with colleagues. In many states — and the list is growing — professionals are required to participate in continuing education to keep their licenses to practice current. In a constantly changing world, the design team needs to stretch its comfort level on applicable training and attend courses/seminars that are pertinent to today’s development climate. Lastly, let’s take a closer look at the communication symptom of the disease. The lack of discussion within the design team or parent firm is shocking. Branch offices do not discuss design techniques that may benefit customers in other corporate service areas; individuals attend training only to return back to the workplace and not share information or, even worse, just set the new techniques aside. And sadly, co-workers work independently in a “mine” environment to protect their knowledge so they are more valuable to the design firm, sometimes disregarding the customer—who really signs their paychecks. You will notice in meetings with regulators or municipal staff that the engineer volunteers to take notes, speaking little, and only asking for clarification. So how do we cure this disease? I believe the prescription is fairly simple. The design team needs to get out of this comfort zone, pay attention to the project, and earn their fees. We are not a “necessary evil” simply there to get the approvals and move on to the next project. The design team has a responsibility 53 November/December 2007 Sustainable Land Development Today
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.