The Park: How Much is Too Much?

The park was once a privilege enjoyed only by the wealthy elite, but with the advent of the residential squares of London constructed in the 18th century —such as Bedford Square—the idea of the garden square within the city became more accessible. Of course, these early garden squares were semi-private, accessible only to the residents, but they created a precedent that would be carried on to this day. With worsening health conditions within cities during the industrial age in the 19th century, the act of bringing nature into the city became synonymous with creating a healthy city. Now, every major city (and most others, regardless of size) has at least one major public park within its perimeter. This is seen to be a benefit to the society, but when observed, it becomes obvious that it is not. Bringing nature within the city creates more sprawl, less access to real nature, destroys habitats, and increases pollution created by transportation. The goal should not be to contain nature within the city, the goal should be to contain the city within nature.

The theory of Landscape Urbanism, championed by Harvard professor Charles Waldheim, takes the position that the best way to organize the city is through its landscape, not through its buildings. This theory springs, in large part, from the writings and teachings of Ian McHarg, and focuses on his work in geographic information systems (GIS) as the progenitor of building placement. Ian McHarg’s research and writings on landscape information layering are very agreeable and were written with protecting the environment as a high priority, but it is my opinion that they can be blown out of proportion, and destroy the environment they are trying to protect in the process.

Cities are inherently destructive to the environment, but they are necessary for human civilization on Earth. In his book Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto, Stewart Brand asserts that cities create culture and culture creates civilization (2009, p. 28). Furthermore, cities advance civilization and wealth, but these are not necessarily the main points Brand is trying to make. The key point of his chapter “City Planet” is the fact that for the first time in human history, more people live in urban conditions than in rural ones, and this—Brand says—is a good thing. Brand takes the stance that concentrating human activities into cities offers many benefits environmentally, socially, and economically. The act of condensing our activities is imperative to the conservation of the environment. Even Le Corbusier—the designer of the infamous Towers in the Park—believed in creating boundaries for growth in the form of reserves. I doubt that supporters of Landscape Urbanism have a devious plan to create sprawl through allowing nature to penetrate into the city, thus displacing it, but it has that unfortunate side effect. When a park is made within the city, the space it occupies is space that a building could have occupied, but now that building (or buildings) must be placed further out.

Within this park, large predators cannot survive because it is not large enough to accommodate their nutritional requirements. All animals require a certain amount of land—depending on their species—in order to survive. This space is typically referred to as the home range of the animal, or the carrying capacity of that habitat (“Extension Forestry & Natural Resources”). In city parks, it’s only typical to see species of squirrels and birds within it because they require less land than larger species. As cities grow, habitat for these larger animals becomes smaller, and so does their population size because the carrying capacity of the land has been reduced. If large parks continue to be mainstays of the modern city, the city will grow at a faster rate, reducing nature on the periphery, while replacing it with “natural” parks and gardens that are not large enough to support the larger displaced species.

Beyond the threat to many species of animals, the increase in the city’s footprint creates a greater need for transportation. With current technology, this greater need for transportation will increase carbon dioxide emissions. It also increases the amount of infrastructure the city requires in order to function. Not only does this become an environmental problem, but it becomes an economic problem as well. The length of materials to supply building needs must be taken into consideration when looking at the sprawl of cities. By containing the city and making it more dense, maintenance and construction cost of infrastructure is reduced (“The Solution”).

While the containment of the city is beneficial for environmental and economic reasons for society as a whole, it does have some drawbacks. The main problem with the containment of the city is the inevitable rise in property value that is associated with it (Schlomo). Another is the argument that ridding the city of parks would create a lower quality of health, and reduce access to nature. To address the first problem, property value would rise, but so could commerce. Taking a lesson from Stewart Brand, cities create wealth, and this wealth could be used to help subsidize living for those who can’t afford it. To the second argument, my stance is not to rid the city of parks, my stance is to rid the city of parks that consume space that a building could utilize. Rooftop gardens are preferable because they do not take up land area, and by condensing the city, the distance to a truly natural reserve would be much less than it is today. Furthermore, not all land lends itself to be built upon, whether it be due to poor soil conditions (such as wetlands) or prohibitively irregular sites.

Just as Peter Calthorpe said, there is no “silver bullet” to the issues regarding the balance between the natural environment and the human environment, but I feel like containing the city—for the reasons above—would be a step in the right direction. States like Oregon, Colorado, and California actually require an urban growth boundary for their cities and metropolitan areas (Nelson, 2000; “Urban Growth Boundary”). These are environmentally minded states, but they understand that by creating these boundaries, they preserve more nature outside of them even though they are forced to reduce the nature inside. By reserving land within the city for buildings and containing the city, we can reduce our overall footprint on the Earth, reduce travel times, reduce infrastructure costs, and preserve wildlife. When they displace buildings and cause sprawl, parks become the antithesis of environmentally friendly.

References

Brand, S. (2009). City Planet. In Whole earth discipline: An ecopragmatist manifesto. New York: Viking.

Calthorpe, P. (2010). Urbanism in the age of climate change. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Extension Forestry & Natural Resources. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.clemson.edu/extension/natural_resources/wildlife/publications/fs14_habitat_requirements.html

Knight, P. (Director) (2014, October 15). London: The Residential Square. Lecture conducted from Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

'Making room for a planet of cities' – Shlomo (Solly) Angel, Stern School of Business, New York University. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://unhabitat.org/making-room-for-a-planet-of-cities-shlomo-solly-angel-stern-school-of-business-new-york-university/

Nelson, A. (2000, May). Effects of Urban Containment on Housing Prices and Landowner Behavior (Land Lines Article). Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/298_Effects-of-Urban-Containment-on-Housing-Prices-and-Landowner-Behavior-

Penn State Department of Geography. Map Overlay Concept. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2014, from https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog482fall2/c9_p6.html

The Solution. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.questcanada.org/thesolution

Tucker, M.A. & Rogers, T.L. (2014) The effects of environment and body size on mammalian feeding ecology. Proceedings of Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281 (1797).

Urban growth boundary. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.oregonmetro.gov/urban-growth-boundary