|
|
« barton heights |
Main
| why restore (part 2) »
May 5, 2005
why restore (part 1)
Living on Earth is a weekly environmental news and information program "featuring news, features, interviews and commentary on a broad range of ecological issues". Last week they looked into some of the ecological effects of trends towards large new homes and green building resources.
From the show:
- Since 1950 the average new house has increased by 1,247 square feet. Meanwhile, the average household has shrunk by one person.
- To build the average new home, it takes 13,837 board feet of lumber.
- Ex-urban homes now account, since 1994, for 80 percent of new residential development.
- "The number of Americans with commutes longer than 90 minutes each way has increased 95 percent since 1990. And I think there's also a sort of psychological effect. In the sort of suburbs of the '50s[...] they had a real community there, as many people do in the city. But in the ex-urbs because you're commuting so long [...], you're less likely to know your neighbors or have any sort of ties to the community in which you live."
We, of course, see all of this as not good. I am struck especially by the change in how neighbors relate when they live on 10-acre lots 90-minutes away from where they work. What kind of community can that really be?
Posted by john m at May 5, 2005 4:24 PM
Comments
I enjoyed your post. It's interesting...we moved out of an overcrowded development to be a little more in the country. At first, we didn't want any neighbors. Homeschooling three children, wanting fewer 3am parties, wanting our business to be "our" business, not the entire neighborhood's business...those were all factors in our leaving. We soon realized that we just wanted a little breathing room, not total seclusion. I find, too, my husband taking great solace in coming home to a quiet place after a long day at work. We are surrounded all day long by community, that we spend less time with our own families. Balance is key! Building great big homes on top of each other is suffocating, but moving almost an hour away from work while living on ten acres borders on the ridiculous. Striking a balance seems out of reach these days, doesn't it?
Joy in the journey...
Maria
Posted by: Maria at May 5, 2005 5:42 PM
I agree...that is why I'm a fan of the "walkable neighborhood" and life balance.
The one frustrating thing that has thwarted me, though, is the commute. Here in Chicago, many large companies have moved out of the city and to the VERY far suburbs. If you want to live in a walkable neighborhood but work for a living, you are forced into a ridiculous reverse commute. Companies seem to be moving farther and farther out from the city on these huge campuses that have no convenient access to public transportation. I don't know how to sync this up...
Posted by: jm at May 5, 2005 5:46 PM
Well, development used to be very different. Cities used to incorporate, then plan streets and services, then platt out lots, locate schools, fire stations, etc, zone.
This was done BY the community FOR the community to serve the COMMUNITY's interests. Then the lots would be sold to developers who knew the rules and restrictions and were eager and welcome to make a tidy profit within a reasonable structure.
Now days... developers buy huge tracts of land and do whatever the hell they want with them with little regard to any community value. Usually, developments do not consider things like whether the fire dept will be able to serve them, or whether the schools have capacity for the kids development will add. If thats not the case and the fire response is slow or the schools stuffed to the gills~ hey... that's not not the developers' problem. It never has been. They plan out what will maximize profit, then pitch the plans to the relevant public authorities, which are almost always either either; a) so desperate for the development money that they'll go along with anything, b) incompetent to evaluate the ideas~ they just don't have the professional background or staff, c) totally powerless to stop something even if they did object, or d) all of the above.
Welcome to laizzez-faire development. This is a deeply political issue because the present system was created by the twin misconceptions that the market magically serves everyone's needs efficently and that "freedom" is an unqualified good. For a detailed discussion of why this isn't so and the distinction between liberty and freedom, read Thom Jefferson, or better yet, Rousseau and Locke, from whom he drew his ideas.
Contrary to the simplistic reasoning prevailant in today's politics, reasonable restrictions, clearly defined in advance, INCREASE individual liberty by building in the values we have that require cooperation. The only way to attain those things for yourself otherwise is to be more powerful than everyone else.
I'm sorry to sound so didactic, but these are really important issues that so many people seem to wonder about... "why are exurbs the way they are, what can we do, etc."... but the roots of the problem run too deep and broad to easily understand so everyone just winds up frustrated and thinking it's insoluble. It's not, but it takes political, as well and construction, action.
Posted by: Nathan at May 6, 2005 10:13 AM
Post a comment
|
|
