STOP
In class we talked about The Woodlands neighborhood that is located in Texas, and I thought to myself, why don’t we do this here?
My boyfriend and I bought a house in the Pendleton area about three years ago, since then, there has been many new developments pop up around us. The first thing that is done when they start mapping out the neighborhood is just cut every single tree down. Just wipe out everything that is there. This to me is the wrong way to look at it, and personally, I think that from an aesthetic point it is very unattractive and unappealing to do so. A good masterplan is taking into account all of the things that a piece of land has to offer, and big beautiful trees are definitely something that the land around those areas had to offer, but instead of planning with them and around them, they decided to wipe it clean and start over. Planners should be looking at what the land has to offer us instead of it being about how many houses can we squeeze into this area? it becomes crowded and the houses are basically stacked on top of each other. We should be planning so that the people, architecture, and the land can all benefit from each other and not just focusing on one of the three.
“In essence, the design involved the conceptual and metaphorical turning on its side of the section of Manhattan’s high-rise Athletic Club, with its variegated program spread horizontally rather than vertically. This process also included a rethinking of the relationship between architecture and landscape, through a suppression of the three dimensionality of architecture.” -Mostafavi
Stop taking all the trees away..
I agree with you. I hate that so many trees get torn down and then they don't get replaced. All I see around this area are parking lots and asphalt. I understand that planning around trees isn't necessarily space effective planning, but the least they could do is plant more trees in place of the ones cut down. Even a line of trees is more visually appealing than a sparce wasteland between houses.
ReplyDeleteA lot of my family works in housing development, and this is something I've seen a lot growing up as well. The clearing of lots just to build houses and replant a couple trees. In one way, I understand why it's so difficult to do otherwise, but I do wish there was a better way of planning future developments to work with the nature that exists instead of wiping the slate clean.
ReplyDeleteHailey,
ReplyDeleteI agree that leaving as much of the land as possible that the earth is already giving a site is more beneficial in the long run. It is always hard when a client, owner, or developer wants to start from scratch because we are taking away more than what we replace.
Hailey, I notice the same thing with recent developments that have been popping up around my home. They think that the only way to design a good neighborhood is to start from scratch so that they can theme it the way they want. Most of the streets are named after plants with no plants in site. The woodlands intrigued me because of this concept of aging in place and all the planning that went into the neighborhood. Architecture tied to the landscape is so much for intention and meaningful it seems than those stripped and started from scratch.
ReplyDeleteHailey, as much as I agree with you in that these developers need to reserve from just scrapping and grading an entire neighborhood worth of land to start their development, what needs to be taken into consideration is that with the higher density of houses in that neighborhood, there is a chance for those developers to make more money. In addition these neighborhoods are often the ones that the younger generations can even start to think about affording. More land per each lot means a significant increase in cost for the developer which means a significant increase in cost for the buyer as well.
ReplyDeleteSo in many places there are requirements to replant every tree that you cut down, this is actually good environmentally in the long run (if it's actually done). I absolutely agree with you that we should try to leave as many trees as we can, but between a shifting the runoff in new directions and with many of the trees that get cut down in our area being 80 foot tall pine trees, I don't have an issue with it. In an ideal world we would have these picturesque oak trees with sprawling leaves and building won't impact its root system or destroy the new development, but we don't live in an ideal world. A house with 4 trees whose leafing branches start 60 feet up is not a wonderful aesthetic considering the house is maybe 30-40 feet tall. Planting new trees is actually a great sustainable practice because of their quicker growth in their earlier years. Once a tree gets very large it stops gathering as much carbon from the atmosphere and one of its only functional benefits is dropping shade. So if these developments are actually following through with that law (I think there's a fine if you don't) then this is actually a fairly sustainable practice assuming they don't burn the wood.
ReplyDelete