Green Infrastrucure

In Illinois we had a bill in our state legislature las year that was to require green infrastructure and it also named LA’s as a resource. That bill was changed into a legislative directive to the EPA to further study the issue and come back with a report. Check out the Illinois EPA web sight and you will find more. There was a briefing today on the topic. There is alot of good information and project proven examples that are showing many benefits including cost savings for using green infrastructure.

Some of the municipalities here on Cape Cod require bioswales and/or bioretention ponds on all commercial sites regardless of size. We are seeing and being able to participate in more environmental solutions due to regulation. Land is very valuable and limited here, so anyone doing anything (note that I am careful not to use the word – developer) on a piece of land is generally trying to maximize the use of that land even if they personally feel pro-environment. That is where it becomes very important that the planning boards, conservation commissions, and growth management provide the mechanism to maintain the values of the community through regulation.
We (the company that I work for and all those others working in our communities based on what I see and hear) advocate for the client within the established rules and regulations first. Then we advocate to the client for the best application and practices within the context of the project. Regulation brings one set of values and the client brings another set. We essentially negotiate between the two through design and representation at meetings and hearings.
I would not characterize us as advocating for green infrastructure so much as being available to apply those principles when called upon to do so.
Do we not have an obligation as licensed professionals to provide services without being judgemental or biased? Everything should be in the interest of best practices, but advocating for outside interests is something different. I think this could be the point where the mentality of many landscape architects diverge from other design professionals who maintain the latter. understanding of professionalism and why we may not be invited to the party as much as the others.

I don’t know if it is as much about advocating at this point, there are a number of programs be looked at that are considering requirements for “Green Infrastructure”, i.e. the EPA. As agencies look at requirements for infiltration, water quality and potentially stormwater utility taxes, green infrastructure is a cost effective, environmentally suitable measure to manage stormwater. LA’s are in a great position to be the suppliers of the service. I know alot of engineering firms are lining up to serve this sector, but LA’s have the background to play on a more even field now. So if it is advocating your asking about, we all should be doing it.

Anyway you look at it, these things are not designed in isolation. They are some of the trailing parts of an overall site plan rather than the leading parts. It does not seem practical to expect to get work by marketing abilities in a portion of a site plan rather than marketing to the bigger context and being prepared to do well with the green infrastructure on the projects that you do get.

The driving force for these practices is coming from regulation, at least it is where I live and work. You could look at that as meaning that it is coming from community values which are enforced through regulation because that is essentially what the boards are supposed to be doing. It is actually implemented by designers working for developers, but it is neither advocated or driven by those designers working for developers. We certainly recommend them as a practical matter (and believe they make sense), but we’ll go with the flow of the developer if he does not want to go there to start out with. The permitting process is going to force the issue rather than us having to advocate for it. In the end, we look good to the client because we advocated for him even though he still may have to do what we suggested in the first place. The result is the same, but clearly someone else pushed it on the client rather than us and we’ll get the call on the next project.
Are they going to go with someone who has advocated for them before or are they going to hire someone who sounds like they are advocating for the regulatory board that they have to negotiate with? I think it is a fatal marketing strategy.

I don’t look at our regulating boards here in Virginia as strongly supporting me as a designer or as a member of the community. That has not been my experience and probably a whole other conversation. It may very well be a slippery slope to hand over part of the design process to a regulatory board for the slight of hand of being able to say I am an advocate for my client.

I would rather my design stand alone as a good design and quality work, and not just good enough to get city approval. Altho more times than not, the latter is true and the only requirement from the client.

I do agree that the place a landscape architect should shine is in the project as a whole, and not as a specialist in one portion of a site. Good on ya mate!

I’d like to think that all of us are suggesting the use of whatever makes the most sense for the situation at hand. When “green infrastructure” makes sense I believe we would advocate for it. In fact we do. When there is not enough room or the topography is working against us, it often makes more sense to go with subsurface leaching. We tend to use a combination of both. Sometimes it is collected in catch basins and piped to a large retention area. Other times it directly runs off into grass lined swales with raised drainage grates and piped through drainage trenches and into leach pits to keep the retention area from getting deep enough to require fencing or overflowing. Sometimes it just plain does not fit, so it all goes under ground.

Swales and retention areas are sometimes the cheapest as well as the greenest, but sometimes the land value and intensity of use make it more expensive than the structures. Another added on expense in my area is that a somewhat rigorous maintenance program (with verification) is often required.
And of course the third thing is the permitting process. You simply can’t do what can’t be approved.
You have several things that influence the choices:
1. does the site lend itself to green infrastructure?
2. is it cost effective?
3. how sensitive is the particular environment that it is in?
4. how much does the regulatory process influence the outcome?
5. to what degree does it conflict with other goals of the project

This is why I don’t tjink it is purely about advocating for being green which I may be reading into this more than it is intended. The environment is a big issue these days, but it is not the only issue. Sometimes it is legitimately a huge issue on particular projects. Other times the world simply is not going to end when there is a leach pit intead of a swale.
We all need to be vigilant in addressing every aspect on a particular site and weighing those values according to the particular situation. We should not stake claim to any particular value and declare it a mission to advocate for or against it all of the time.

No one asks if we should advocate for a particular type of hardscape. Why does it make sense to advocate for a particular drainage solution? This is what I meant by a failed marketing strategy. When we declare the result before the process, only the guy who already wants that result will hire you. Our competitors simply don’t do that and that is one reason that they get “our work” while we complain that we are better qualified.