Here's a potentially good idea about which I'm rather ambivalent: rules requiring in-city developers to include robust landscaping features such as green roofs and vegetation-covered walls. It's easy on the eyes, but it may not be smart public policy.
To begin with, it's unclear how much burden Seattle's cutting-edge new rules would impose; and it's unclear how much benefit they'd achieve. But if most developers are skeptical -- and they are, at least according to this article -- then policymakers should listen very carefully.
Burdening developers with additional layers of regulatory complexity, especially here in regulation-heavy Seattle, may not be such a hot idea. Those regulations tend to reduce the viability of further in-city development or raise the cost. Either is bad.
No, I haven't been reading Milton Friedman over the holidays. It's just that when it comes to urban development, I'm not sure that we need a lot of elaborate new policies and procedures. In some case, we simply need less red tape.
Here's why ...
The most environmentally sensitive thing we can do in urban design is encourage more density in places that allow us to live lighter on the land. That means giving people an opportunity to live, work, and do business in places where tennis shoes substitute for gas tanks. (Generally, those are also places where people consume less land and also use less energy heating and lighting their homes.) To encourage that sort of environmentally beneficent way of living, the smartest public policy may be to to slash well-intentioned but unnecessary obstacles to development. Minimum parking requirements leap to mind. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of others.
Construction costs are already spiking and urban affordability is already a serious problem. Sprawl is accelerating in places where land is cheap and regulations are minimal. So unless we have a really good reason (and there certainly are some) we should avoid making it more expensive to build commercial real estate or multi-family housing in urban areas.
I guess I should mention that I'm hardly opposed to green design for managing stormwater runoff or to achieve other benefits. (In fact, I've been semi-obsessed with the issue lately.) In many cases, environmentally friendly design may actually be cheaper and more efficient than conventional alternatives. Trees can cut down on air conditioning; swales can ease drainage loads; and studies have shown that urban vegetation has social and economic benefits too.
So there's all that. But some policies have unintended consequences that may actually be counterproductive; and getting a handful of green roofs is not worth discouraging development in pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.
Let's call it the Ockham's Razor of environmental policymaking: sometimes the smartest thing we can do for the environment may also be the simplest.
Learning how to count to 350
U.N. chief will pressure senators on climate bill
Friday music blogging: Here We Go Magic
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 5:09 am
04 Jan 2007
I suggest that the city needs a new law that would require removing an old law before they can make a new one (of course, my proposed law would be the first one the bureaucrats would eliminate) /:)
From the article:
To understand the thinking behind the new rules, consider the forests that occupied this land before they were cleared to make room for city development, suggested Steve Moddemeyer, a senior adviser with the city's Department of Planning and Development.
In such a forest, rainfall first hits the tallest trees, sticking to needles and bark. Then it might trickle down onto vine maples, still 15 feet or more above the ground. Next, it drips down onto salal, a leathery native shrub. From there, it drops onto ground-covering plants such as moss and kinnikinnick. Then, it drains its way through organic debris before reaching the soil. In a thick, old forest, the whole process can take 30 days.
In the city, it takes only a few minutes for rainfall hitting sidewalks, streets, parking lots and other impervious surfaces to pour into storm and sewer drains -- often bringing street pollutants in its wake.
"That distinction drives a lot of costs for sewer and drainage systems and even for creek restoration, because you have this kind of water that roars into the systems," Moddemeyer said. By contrast, thick forest vegetation has so much surface area, much of the water evaporates or is absorbed.
Seattle is a city, not an old growth forest. It is highly unlikely that this idea will make any measurable difference in creek restoration efforts or certainly in any cost savings. People are free to make gardens and green roofs, let's not force them on the citizenry.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
willa Posted 6:09 am
04 Jan 2007
I say, put solar panels or something on the roof, and use the storm water somewhere else for irrigation. Although, of course, it's not a great idea to replace all the madatory parking spaces with mandatory parks, either, as nice an idea as that seems (and if you don't believe me on this, read Jane Jacobs).
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:33 am
04 Jan 2007
Dixie under grassAbout twenty years ago our famous Atomic Energy Agency chief and Fox Island neighbor, Governor Dixie Lee Ray, advocated grass on roofs to combat global warming. It was conservative code and in-your-face cynicism aimed at environmentalists worried about global warming, in short, a mean spirited joke. Everybody knew that planting grass does nothing to mitigate global warming. How this disinformation became city policy is an indication of the trouble we are in. It just plain nuts.
Permalink
Eric de Place Posted 7:01 am
04 Jan 2007
In defense of Seattle's new proposed rules, green roofs are not intended to combat global warming. That's pretty obviously nuts. Instead, they're intended to manage stormwater runoff by replacing impervious surface (roofs) with pervious natural drainage (soil and water-hungry plants). Stormwater runoff is a fairly serious ecological problem in the Puget Sound region and it's often considered the single biggest threat to our marine environment. My concern with Seattle's rules is simply that the best way to reduce impervious surface is probably to encourage dense development and discourage low density sprawl with the roads, parking lots, and large roof areas per person that it entails.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:17 am
04 Jan 2007
But in Seattle, it hardly rains in the summer, which is when grass planted in four inches of soil could absorb water (although not much of it). Instead, it rains day in and day out all winter long. The plants and four inches of soil absorb next to no water in the winter once saturated. A lawn or garden in Terra firma on the other hand slows water down and allows it to percolate into several feet of soil. A green roof does a poor job of emulating a forest floor, especially in Seattle, where it drizzles endlessly instead of having the occasional thunderstorm.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:18 am
04 Jan 2007
We had two feet of rain the last two months. And Tacoma dumped her sewage into Puget Sound during the wind storm power outage. I have suspended my kayak routines. Gig Harbor has a straight pipe dumping sewage every day, and pays the fines because that is cheaper than building a treatment plant.
Puget Sound systems handling sewage and runoff are problems green roofs will not solve.
Permalink
caractacus Posted 7:32 am
04 Jan 2007
A big part of the problem is that the land is getting managed industrially because people aren't where they need to be to take care of it properly.
See for example.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/583
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:38 am
04 Jan 2007
Sometimes large companies support onerous preconditions and standards to keep the smaller competitors out of the picture. I don't know if green roofs are in that category.
Green roofs may not solve flooding and runoff, but LID techniques sure can, as this press release boasts:
December 11, 2006
Pringle Creek's Full-Scale Porous Pavement System Flies Through Wettest Month in Oregon History
Eco-consious developers celebrate success of nation's largest "green street" system
SALEM, Ore. - According to the National Weather Service, Oregon experienced record-breaking rainfall throughout the month of November. The Portland metro area received 11.61 inches while Salem alone received more than 15 inches. Yet while many regional streets and sidewalks flooded as a result of clogged storm drains, Pringle Creek Community -- a 32-acre sustainable living community located in the Willamette Valley -- cruised through the month without flooding due to the success of its state-of-the-art porous pavement or "green street" system.
"It seems a very odd idea to suggest that increased urban density is favourable to sustainability."
The key is per capita impact. The EPA publication Protecting Water Resources with Higher-Density Development has a very easy to understand explantion.
Low density suburbs and rural farms have significant water pollution impacts. In some cases worse than an equal area of urban development.
Permalink
caractacus Posted 8:58 am
04 Jan 2007
I've read yours, are you going to read mine?
Permalink
caractacus Posted 9:03 am
04 Jan 2007
It's very clear that suburbs and half-arsed industrial agriculture are going to make a big mess, but to me the search for alternatives should probably go beyond high density urban plus slightly more efficient industral agriculture.
There are plenty of models that look much more attractive, and I simply don't think we should allow ourselves to be locked into the business as usual choices in such important matters.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 9:59 am
04 Jan 2007
Folke Günther's re-ruralisation concept reminds me in some ways of the Sky development in Calhoun County, FL... although it's not clear yet to what extent the agriculture will be based on permaculture principles. The development won preliminary, unanimous approval from the county commissioners on Dec. 21, 2006.
I don't agree with Günther that emptying out cities is necessary or desirable. Various people prefer a variety of living environments, on a spectrum from farms to city centers. Each point on the spectrum has pros and cons in terms of potential sustainability. I think most of them have the potential for a high level of sustainability.
Permalink
jscorse Posted 10:19 am
04 Jan 2007
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
caractacus Posted 10:38 am
04 Jan 2007
I'm genuinely interested to know.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:52 pm
04 Jan 2007
Let the builder or owner or manager or whoever is responsible decide the best means of meeting those goals. If green roofs is the answer they choose, fine.
Permalink
Eric de Place Posted 2:40 am
05 Jan 2007
http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/01/03/a...
Permalink