Doug from Weeds uses the endangered dirt shrew to prevent a church from being built
Recently I was reading an article about the death-by-delay of an upzoning proposal near a train station in Boston because the property might have been “considered ‘priority habitat’ for rare species, including the eastern box turtle,” and I thought about all the times I’ve heard of opponents of density hiding behind environmentalism. Ed Glaeser has written about how Bay Area environmentalists’ opposition to development and California courts’ institution of onerous environmental reviews have encouraged sprawl, and last year we learned that the Northeast Corridor was denied HSR stimulus money because of the lengthy multi-state environmental review necessary.
A few minutes of Googling reveals that stormwater mitigation rules, intended to minimize the amount of polluted runoff entering the watershed, have also been accused of favoring sprawling, greenfield development over infill and denser redevelopment. Existing structures are generally grandfathered in, but any redevelopment apparently must meet the new rules, even if it has no more impervious surface than the building it seeks to replace. Density bonuses for “green” building techniques also strike me as a bit backwards, considering that density is “green” in its own right.
I can’t find any quantitative research on how much of a problem these supposedly pro-environment rules really are, and I don’t have the practical experience of a developer or a planner, but perhaps some commenters will chime in with their knowledge or come up with other instances of environmentalism taking precedence over density.
I don’t really understand why similar environmental considerations don’t also impede low-density development. Is there really more endangered wildlife in central Boston than on the outskirts? Or is it because local governments in low-density exurbs have less demanding rules, or because their residents are less affluent / environmentally conscious?
That’s not Andy, that’s Doug!
On the other hand, people tend to equate density with high rises and skyscrapers. Which is actually not accurate, some of the highest density areas in North America don’t have particularly high buildings. But skyscrapers are not environmentally friendly, in terms of construction and energy usage, so not all ‘density’ is inherently environmentally friendly.
In my hometown of Princeton, NJ low density is held up as the standard of environmental land-use. My church owns five acres in walking distance of campus (~50 students walk) but is trapped by 12.5% FAR zoning in an outdated, energy inefficient and hopelessly undersized 1950s era prefabricated building. Houses in the same neighborhood are allowed to build at twice the density or more, but the church was specifically downzoned sixteen years ago after making a proposal for expansion. We decided to relocate to a location on the edge of town where the allowable FAR is 8%, only to have relentless pressure applied to build at ever lower densities (we only proposed a 5.5% plan) in the name of the environment. For some reason low-density is taken as a measure of environmental sensitivity. When I tried to quote EPA documents arguing for high-density on the lot level so as to concentrate development on the regional level, I just got blank stares. Similarly, no one seemed bothered by the total car-dependency of the zoning and even worse car-dependency of the even lower density called for by local environmental groups. It was quite the lesson in NIMBYism hiding under the banner of the environment. You would think an Ivy League town would at least be aware of the actual principles of smart growth…
As someone who considers himself a proponent of sustainability, I always find this kind of thing frustrating where those who claim to be pro-environment have such a narrow perception of what the “environment” consists of and a lack of appreciation for how interconnected every aspect of our life is to ecological health. As if restricting density and transit oriented development in one place isn’t forcing suburban expansion somewhere else. It is akin to environmentalists that are pointing fingers at “renewable energy sprawl” despite the fact that it is a fraction of the condition that suburban sprawl has produced (which gives nothing back at all.) There are relatively few, if any, new directions that will come with no adverse environmental impact but the real question should be whether the benefits outweigh the costs–which they often can.
Density is one of the most inherently sustainable despite how contrary it is to most of our settlement patterns. In my mind, any localized environmental concerns with increasing density can be offset by simply making it harder to build greenfield development. We should be maximizing what we have already begun to build rather than ruining more virgin landscapes.
As a note, I think that “skyscrapers are not environmentally friendly” is a rather board statement that is not ultimately true. It may take energy to build taller buildings but the density of occupancy that results from their construction outweighs moving against gravity. Skyscrapers make it possible for NYC’s subways to transport 1.6 billion riders a year. They provide an opportunity for reflexive benefit between citizens and services because so much can fit in small proximity. Not to mention that new skyscrapers like One Bryant Park are amazingly sustainable (producing 75% of their own power 300% more efficiently than the grid, 100% rainwater capture, greywater filtration, 35% recycled content… I could go on.) Density should be pushed and deserves some wiggle room.
We live pretty close to the center of our town, and a vacant lot down the street from us was being eyed for development. The proposed site plan called for a mixed-use building with a good amount of density. The site, by the way, is right on a major intersection, directly across from a really nice park. Right now the lot is basically a few trees with a bunch of invasive bamboo shoots with no-trespassing signs posted on each tree. Despite all of this, the neighbors engaged in a full-court offensive against this project, under the banner of being a “green city.” Apparently, green was being interpreted very literally, as in leaves are green and therefor removing any leaves makes us less of a green city. No mention of location-efficient housing or the potential for walking or biking.
However, just listening for a little while to the whole thing unfold made it clear that the environmental argument was purely tactical. Right after the “green” argument came the historic preservation attack, forcing the developer to search around for some unknown cemetery that apparently existing somewhere around there at some point. Then the affordable housing strategy came up, claiming that because these would be “luxury condos” they would displace people (even though a certain percentage were dedicated to below-market rate). If they had stuck to the one green message throughout, I may have at least acknowledged their sincerity, even if thinking the environmentalism was misinformed and misguided. But that’s not what happened.
Wow, that’s pretty impressive…I presume the development never happened?
Whoops, sorry! Good to see someone caught that!
It’s a local thing – people who live in a city but oppose infill development would also be opposed to sprawl development, too – but they don’t have a say in what goes on in far-flung jurisdictions.
One of the best examples of this occurrence is in Boulder, Colorado. Decades ago Boulder, a rapidly expanding city, bought up the rural lands surrounding the city and enacted a urban growth boundary. At the same time they also chartered a 55′ hight limit on all development and also give out a very small amount of building permits per year. While these regulations have yielded a very accessible and urban city (also very expensive) it has also ushered in the creation of a number of other sprawling areas just south of Boulder. Over the years auto-oriented towns like Broomfield and Superior, CO have grown quite a bit taking the overflow population that no longer fits in or can afford Boulder. At the same time Boulder’s economic development officials have attracted more and more jobs into the city leading to some of the worse commuter traffic in the state. Long story short Boulder’s environmentally friendly initiatives have backfired into auto-oriented development surrounding the city and heavy automobile commuter traffic in and around the city.
Developers build sprawl because cows don’t vote. NIMBYism has always masqueraded as environmentalism.
That said, one of the most aggressive proponents of infill development that I know of is the environmental advocacy group, The Coastal Conservation League.
http://coastalconservationleague.org/
Real environmentalists advocate for density.
The new regulations in California implementing the Clean Water Act have definitely mucked things up. There is now a requirement that all runoff be “pretreated”, which means “allowed to filter through a foot of dirt”. This requires the creation of “bioswales” which take up significant amounts of land, and which seem to me likely to end up as mosquito-breeders. Many cities have rules requiring that residential developments cover no more than 25% of the land surface with impervious materials, which includes buildings and pavements (and patios, etc). At California real-estate prices, even post-crash, that’s making it hard to build profitably dense developments.
You could think of environmentalism as a language, or maybe a mode of thinking. People who are familiar with it could use it to justify political goals coming from their own prejudices. Often, both sides do it: Glaeser uses environmentalism to justify his brand of urbanism (“build in California”), to the point of neglecting environmental problems like water; NIMBYs use local environmental issues like rare species to justify policy that’s really intended to prop up their property values, global impacts be damned.
This is not even unique to environmentalism. It’s equally true for capitalism, socialism, nationalism, and communitarianism.
Skyscrapers are not environmentally friendly? Perhaps that is true of ones built in the 1930s, but the ones built today? Absolutely false.