[Eric Childs]

My argument is that, sooner or later, the rest of the economy will be forced to move in a direction that is more efficient and practical for a healthy economy. You say that our economy uses the power of what people ‘want’ as the driving force behind it. I’m saying that we’re seeing evidence that the economy and landscapes we’ve built are inherently vulnerable, and the things people ‘want’ are changing because of the way our economy is changing. When gas prices rose this summer, transit ridership soared and has since stayed fairly high, though the spike in riders strained the capacity in many cities. I advocate investment in mass transit not because I think it is cool, but because I think this will soon be a necessary part of a functioning economy.

I disagree with the choices presented above: between harnessing the mechanism of reality or pretending idealism is reality. Granted there are many pie-in-the-sky people out there, but I think that investing in mass transit is entirely pragmatic and necessary if we are going to meet the needs of businesses and people in the near future. I don’t understand how that could be a one-time pay out with no return unless you are viewing things in the extreme short term.

Let me clarify that I’m not saying that government spending on mass transit or community gardens or community-supported agriculture is what will get the economy moving again. I don’t think that’s what this discussion is about. I am saying that in light of the economic crisis, investment in mass transit is something that does provide a tangible benefit both in the short and long term, it is to the benefit of landscape architecture to be involved and support such investment, and there is a benefit to planning ahead for such projects, given that transit projects take a very long time to complete. We can clearly anticipate that need now, so I argue that the reality of our situation dictates that we plan, invest, and implement transit projects now. I don’t view that as idealism.

[Eric Childs]

Andrew:

I am interpreting the point that Nick and Gil were trying to make is that our economy is in a transitional mode. The US economy has been one based on easy access to cheap energy where goods and services are mass-produced or standardized and perpetual growth is required for the economic engine to keep moving. Some believe that the US and other large-scale economies will eventually adjust to more local scales where people do utilize public transportation and community gardens. The Pacific Northwest, for example, is much further down this path than my hometown of Atlanta.

Some landscape architects and other design professionals are expecting this transition because, as this summer showed, access to cheap energy is not guaranteed in either the short or the long term. It may not seem practical to build the empty transit hub or downtown hotel as you described, but if the US dedicates itself to modernizing its mass transit systems, you might see the transit hub thriving in as soon as five to ten years. Likewise, you may lament the fact that the hotel doesn’t get built, but you didn’t ask the question of whether it should be built in the first place. If the planners allow hotel developers to build outside of the downtown zone, that may be a short-term benefit to the local economy, but what if the recession runs the hotel out of business anyway? Why are you valuing the needs of the hotel developers over the requirements of the town planners? You are correct in that landscape architects have profited from accommodating the auto, but I would argue that strip malls, not the community farmer or public transit are more likely to be viewed as absurd by future historians given the transitional phase the US is experiencing.

I am not prepared to make the argument that strip malls and cars are the reason for the current downturn, but I will argue that this recession is showing how vulnerable the public is to shocks in the economic system because of our land use and transportation patterns. By creating landscapes/economies dependent on cars and cheap oil, we limit people’s options. The high gas prices this summer forced already-struggling people into difficult choices. In Metro Atlanta, you are out of luck if you don’t have a functioning car to get to work. Imagine if gas prices rose to $4 or $5 a gallon during this recession because of a new Middle Eastern war or an attack on a major pipeline. Consumer spending makes up 70% of the US economy, and it makes sense to make our communities as efficient and flexible as possible over the long haul. To me, an efficient and flexible community is one where you don’t necessarily have to get in your car to make local trips, where buying local food or growing your own is an option (illegal in many neighborhoods thanks to HOAs), and where smart growth gives people a chance to use these options.

So I don’t think that planners or LA’s are trying to force communities to choose between grocery stores with parking or green spaces. We are not telling people that they should stop using strip malls or ride the bus, but they are trying to give people the necessary options to function in their communities in both good and bad times. All the examples you mentioned (the downtown hotel, the empty transit hub) are first steps in a movement toward more resilient cities that will make for a healthier economy in the long term. I think many LA’s and planners recognize that if we lead the way in this direction, we will be well-positioned to take advantage of the “big business” that will come our way in transforming our communities to places that accommodate people and the environment.

[Author]

Posts