Brett Lezon

Who comes up with these LAME theories anyway??? Liberal Professors and Liberal Landscape Architecture Students……who rely on ridiculous unproven theories instead of looking seriously at the “science”.

This whole notion that one of the major roles of Landscape Architects is to “SAVE THE PLANET” is getting really old people. Of course our Planet has “Climate Change”, it has from the beginning of time and always will. Mankind has absolutely ZERO control of the EARTH’s climate.

The recent idea by some of the Democratic Party Presidential Candidates suggesting the U.S. spend $3 to $30 Trillion dollars to “Change our .Climate” is not only ridiculous but, completely laughable!

CLIMATE (and air pollution – water pollution) are GLOBAL issue, NOT just an issue here in the United States. The U.S. has made major improvements in improving our Air Pollution problems…..but, take a close look at the rest of the Nations on our Planet…..they could care less. China, Russia, India, South Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Mexico….on and on will not and can not be made to reduce their Carbon Emissions. Really, WHO is going to make them stop???

Legitimate Environmental Scientists have clearly stated…..that MANKIND can not and does not have ANY control over the CLIMATE CHANGES on our Planet. If there is anyone or any organization or Nation who truly believes THEY can alter the CLIMATE CHANGES on Earth……I would love to meet them….because, they just don’t exist.

Just a last note. Satellite images of the EARTH show that the Planet is GREENER now that it has been in past 100 years. So, a TON of Oxygen is being released into our environment.

Please LAND 8…..stop publishing these very LIBERAL articles that suggest Landscape Architect’s should spend their “design careers” in an effort to SAVE the PLANET. IMO, a vast majority of Landscape Architects are doing well just trying to make a descent living in this profession.

Great summary, and this is an excellent topic for LA’s to be engaged in. With licensure constantly under attack right now anything that focuses on Health, Welfare, and Safety is huge. Good stuff.

Another Liberal “design concept”. I saw nothing about the COSTS involved to create new urban city life. This article, to me, advocates we build more cities like HONG KONG, CHINA, where people are literally living on top of each other in 400 to 500 sq. ft. apartments. No thanks. I have lived in at least a dozen different Apartment Communities in the U.S….a couple were actually very nice, but the best was in the North Dallas area and it cost me $1,600.00 per month (plus, electricity, cable TV, etc.)…and it wasn’t downtown, it was in the suburbs. I think being creative and innovative is a positive thing….but sorry, this article isn’t very sensible to me.

Just once…………….I’d really like to see a “Conservative, realistic” approach to design solutions where Landscape Architects could have a direct and positive impact.

J. Robert (Bob) Wainner

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your comments. When it comes to costs it can be very difficult to compare true like for like internationally, not to mention the issue of the projects representing different types of future housing from block design to residential and mixed-use building right down to single-family dwellings. I’m not sure what value costs would really add to the article.

Perhaps you could write that article about a conservative approach to design solutions that has a positive impact on the issues raised. I would be interested in reading it.

Best regards,
Ashley

I enjoyed and appreciated this article. But, while I have not been involved in designing any exceptionally large (Billion dollar projects or resorts)…I have designed (or assisted in the designing) of close to 600 various types of projects during my career. And, I believe that “my approach” to Landscape Architect has always been a mirror image of this Author’s approach….for most of the 40 years I have been practicing Landscape Architecture. Every Landscape Architect should approach all of their design projects as this Author has so elegantly described!

Sincerely,

J. Robert (Bob) Wainner Plano, Texas

I’m definitely NOT an expert on Far Eastern Nation’s environmental issues……but, IMO, any efforts to “green” up large Asian cities could very well be a “waste of…..time and money”.

Because, the most critical environmental issue (in my mind) in those large Asian Cities…..Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul (South Korea), Tokyo & yes, even Bangkok…and several other cities in this part of the World….is “Air Pollution” due to excessive CO2 emissions! This issue should be their #1 priority. But, with their city populations continuing to grow by the thousands every year, the CO2 problem can only get worse. In Seoul, South Korea (for example)…the Government shut down (650) downtown parking garages/lots…due to the high CO2/Air Pollution problems…forcing thousands of workers to use “mass transit” to get to and from work.

So, adding City Parks & other green spaces in Bangkok and other Southeast Cities seems like a GREAT idea, but, it’s my “understanding”….maybe I’m wrong…that they are more interested in “financial interests” by building more and more skyscrapers & industry, than improving the quality of their lives.

J. Robert (Bob) Wainner – Plano, Texas USA

Thank you for this very interesting article.
Although they are useful, I see Pocket Parks more as a cruel defect of public authorities (and private) investment in large public spaces.
Better Pocket Parks than nothing at all but let’s not forget that it’s a patch on a lack of commitment and decision-making.

Love the bulbous form–it looks like it was made from Silly Putty. Curious about the color–seems toned down. Was there a reason for this? Also curious about the material–fiberglass or some kind of resin-based material? Last, how does the rain drain out?

While I “still” enjoy driving my BMW Z3 convertible sports car…..I really don’t drive around much since I’ve been retired now for a couple of years. BUT, I agree with almost everything written in this article.

I believe walkable cities (that also include bicycles) is a good step in the right direction for America.

A very good “case in point” is if you take a good look at what has been going on in CHINA. Many citizens in China “used” to walk or ride bikes everywhere……then, their economy began to BOOOOOM, big time. So, more and more people began buying and driving cars….instead of walking and biking. The results are terrible!!! The air pollution in China and other SE Asian Nations is so bad, the air is barely breathable. My wife and I watch Asian Dramas on Netflix…and you can see in almost every TV Drama…how terrible the air quality is. I mean, you can SEE how bad it is over there.

I have to admit though, I am “against” the U.S. joining the Paris Agreement…..that was created to solve air and water pollution around the World. IMO, every Nation should be responsible for the own CO2 and water pollution problems……..U.S. taxpayers should NOT be responsible for paying for ANY foreign Nations’ air pollution or water quality problems. We can maybe help “educate” them on HOW to resolve their problems. Even though President Trump has relaxed many of former President Obama’s EPA regulations, I still believe that the U.S. is far ahead of a majority of the World’s nations on cleaning up our own environmental problems.

Good Article!

J. Robert (Bob) Wainner

Hi Bob,

Many thanks for your considered thoughts and comments. Thank you for highlighting China. You make an interesting point. We’re glad you liked the article.
Kind reagrds

As a matter of fact, i really like the way the principles governing the planning and implementation for a “walkable city” been put forward in this article. Commendable, but wish this principles and effort could be adopted by various cities in Asian cities, in particular Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. I believe a concerted urge and public voices of the urbanites and local authority would make happen effectively.

Just a few thoughts and opinions here. IMO, if our society were to convert to a transportation system that was, say, even as low as 75% electric driven…..it would put a major strain on our U.S. power grid. Plus, that would make our Nation very vulnerable to cyber attacks by our enemies on our electric grid….and I have read, enemy nations have already been trying to hit our grid. Even North Korea has threatened to do this…one well placed nuke on our electric grid, would paralyze our entire Nation. In addition, the ideas and concepts presented in this article are a bit optimistic to say the least. Maybe, I said “maybe” the U.S. might one day be OK with some of these concepts…but, good luck convincing the rest of the World Nations to do this. Unless we can figure out how to build a “glass dome” over the U.S…how do we keep other Nation’s CO2 emissions out of the U.S.? In addition, it we implemented all of the ideas suggested in this article…going with a somewhat AI driven society…think of ALL of the lost jobs! Taxi & bus drivers, car manufacturing industry, auto repair shops and auto part stores….this list would be very long. And, WHERE does all the financing come from to implement these ideas? More taxes? And, I actually enjoy driving my sports car and going where and when I want to go some place. I don’t want to call a driverless car to come pick me up. Too many of these ideas sound very “utopian” and farfetched, IMO.

J. Robert (Bob) Wainner

Many thanks for taking the time to read our article and for your considered thoughts and opinions.
I agree that many national grids would currently not be able to cope with a 75% market share of electric vehicles. Luckily, we are quite a long way off such a high share. While we need to plan ahead, I think the grid will have time to increase capacity through a diverse portfolio of energy supplies. Also, it is already possible to stagger over-night charging to use the grid when it is in less demand. In fact, it might even be possible to use centralised parking and charging stations to even out some of the fluctuations in green energy production.
As for cyber security and the vulnerabilities of the national grid in the US, you make a good point. This is somewhat outside of the remit of urban design, but no doubt a consideration that should be taken into account.
Regarding decreasing CO2 emissions, any decrease globally is of benefit. Not decreasing net emissions because those of other countries cannot be excluded, does nothing to reduce CO2 and move towards a more sustainable future. Also, CO2 is not the only pollutant caused by vehicles. By decreasing the amount of fossil fuel vehicles on the road, local levels of particulates, CO, NO, SO2 and PAHs are decreased. This has direct health benefits for local neighbourhoods.
You make a good point about the short-term loss of jobs. Many people raise concerns about AI decreasing jobs. However, this will be somewhat off-set by increases in jobs in areas such as servicing, coding/programming, data management, R&D, etc. Throughout history advances in technology has lead to jobs being lost and created. Let’s see where this leads.
I agree with your point about liking to drive your sports car. I’m sure many people enjoy driving. That’s why I think Rethink’s ideas about uber-style fleets of AVs is probably most sensible. I think AVs probably appeal mostly to those who don’t care to drive. As is well documented, fewer millennials are learning to drive. I think in the future there will be fewer and fewer keen drivers which will coincide with an increase in driverless cars.

Best regards,
Ashley D Penn.