{"id":3354,"date":"2010-08-07T23:49:55","date_gmt":"2010-08-08T06:49:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/?p=3354"},"modified":"2010-08-07T23:49:55","modified_gmt":"2010-08-08T06:49:55","slug":"on-re-reading-biophilic-design-taking-love-to-the-street","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/2010\/08\/07\/on-re-reading-biophilic-design-taking-love-to-the-street\/","title":{"rendered":"On re-reading Biophilic Design: Taking Love to the Street"},"content":{"rendered":"

Since I’m fuming in a conversation over on Facebook about the City of Victoria’s Department of Engineering (which seems to me benighted), I was reminded of my 2007 article, Biophilic Design: Taking Love to the Street<\/a> (the link goes to the Scribd version).<\/p>\n

Not to sound too much like I’m tooting my own horn, but that was such a good article, and such a great idea – and it was instantly shot down<\/a> in a committee meeting of council without so much as a second thought by then-Director of Engineering Peter Sparanese, who told Councilor Pamela Madoff that the scheme floated by me in the above-linked article would be too expensive: as far as anyone could tell, he quoted a $12million price tag seemingly on the spot – amazing, how quickly that particular variation<\/a> of a Class-C<\/a> estimate materialized…<\/p>\n

In the Director of Engineering’s mind, it was seemingly more expedient to build yet another paved road, …and that’s exactly what happened. And how did the Director get his way? By conjuring a figure that was 3 times more expensive ($12million) than what his conventional fix would cost ($4million). No one ever questioned him on how he came up with his numbers, and from what I’ve seen he has been given free rein ever since: “…Coun. Helen Hughes pointed out the last time the council looked at the project [to fix the View and Vancouver Street intersection] the cost was estimated at $1.55 million, less than half the $4,080,000 of the latest estimate.” (source<\/a>)\"\"<\/a> and let’s not forget how mercurial the Department of Engineering’s financial estimates regarding the Johnson Street Bridge<\/a> refurbishment and\/or replacement have been…<\/p>\n

That this city has no imagination is something I’ve suspected ever since, and my suspicions have been proven again and again in every twist and turn regarding the Johnson Street Bridge<\/a> fracas – where the only imagination shown is in quoting increasingly bizarre budgets for either option.<\/p>\n

For the record, here’s my August 2007 article in full:<\/p>\n

\u201cBiophilic Design: Taking Love to the Street\u201d<\/p>\n

We know that regular exposure to nature is good for us, and yet we perfect designs that keep nature out, sometimes even erase our awareness of it. Protected from nature, we control and limit our exposure \u2013 we stay warm in winter, cool in summer, which affords us greater productivity and increases our comfort. Like most people, I\u2019m happy to enjoy central heating and storm windows. But an over-armored life isn\u2019t ideal, either. Think of dinosaurs or giant turtles next time your car has you imprisoned in a traffic jam or your office window won\u2019t open because that would disturb the air-conditioning<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Today\u2019s eco-conscious designers point out that excessive barriers to nature produce lowered quality of life as well as boring, mediocre built environments. But designing with nature, they argue, contributes to health, creates excitement, and even fosters love. Love of nature, termed biophilia by E.O. Wilson, refers to a deep-rooted need \u201cto experience natural habitats and species.\u201d Wilson\u2019s colleague Stephen Kellert writes of biophilic design<\/em>: a conscious bent to design access to nature into what we build in cities. It\u2019s a mandate that can shape buildings, parks, \u2026and streets.<\/p>\n

Earlier this spring, the City asked for the public\u2019s input at several Parks Masterplan workshops. Planners wanted to know how we use parks, and where we might create new ones. During one workshop, there was an electric moment when a participant suggested turning part of View Street into a linear park. She noted that traffic volume on Fort and Yates (both one-way arterials) is heavy, while it\u2019s relatively light on View. While still allowing cars, the city could nonetheless create a linear park \u2013 which would function as a badly needed beautification project, too \u2013 and, she added, let\u2019s incorporate exercise stations for seniors.<\/p>\n

View crosses Vancouver Street, already blessed with an unparalleled canopy bestowed by majestic chestnut trees whose massive trunks suggest outdoor sculpture. Under the trees, wide grassy boulevards suggest to the many pedestrian commuters that here, indeed, is an urban park \u2013 or should be. The intersection of View and Vancouver is sinking, however, and presents a major engineering conundrum. But this problem could become an opportunity.<\/p>\n

As we know from Jennifer Sutherst\u2019s research (\u201cLost Streams of Victoria,\u201d map, 2003), that intersection is built on what was a wetland fed by seasonal streams and rainwater run-off. The wetland in turn fed a stream that coursed along Pandora (accounting for Pandora\u2019s odd bend, between Douglas and Government): the stream marked the boundary between Chinatown and \u201cwhite\u201d Victoria. It was treated badly even in the 19th-century (apparently turned into an open sewer), was soon contained, put underground, paved over. Its remnants still drain into the Inner Harbour.<\/p>\n

Sutherst\u2019s map shows the wetland directly at View and Vancouver. Today, its asphalted surface is impermeable, while drainage codes mandate that run-off from roads and neighbouring buildings diverts to storm sewers, versus flowing back into the marsh. Consequently, the now-hidden wetland is drying up, and as it dries, its layers of peat shrink and compress, causing the roadbed to sinks. To \u201cfix\u201d that problem, we\u2019ve in-filled additional layers of asphalt, making the surface even heavier \u2013 and contributing to increased compression of the underlying stratum.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s in many ways a classic vicious circle, and a lesson in living peaceably with micro-ecosystems. In effect, by building yet another protective barrier between nature (the wetland) and us, we have also paralyzed the wetland\u2019s hydrological functioning. If the land were a body, what would the wetland be? Perhaps kidneys, absorbing fluid, treating it, discharging it. By putting impermeable asphalt over that natural organ, we\u2019ve desiccated it, and now it\u2019ll cost a pretty penny in engineering surgery.<\/p>\n

Since we have to throw money at it anyway, what if we did something truly innovative to that diseased organ? What if we practiced biophilic design to restore its ecological function \u2013 and gained a unique urban focal point in what could be a fabulous linear park project? Imagine, for example, an intersection with a permeable steel-grid \u201croad-bed\u201d suspended slightly over a daylighted wetland, the latter slowly restored to full hydrologic function. In the restoration field, daylighting typically refers to excavating and restoring a stream channel from an underground culvert, covering, or pipe. In the case of the View\/Vancouver wetland, it would more appropriately refer to removing an impermeable surface, and planting appropriate vegetation that allows the wetland to resume its normal function as a water filter. Restored urban ecology also provides both an educational tool for stewardship and an aesthetic community amenity.<\/p>\n

The art-technology-engineering challenge lies in marrying restoration with normal urban functioning: traffic (automotive and pedestrian) has to flow. But consider the value that could accrue for Victoria with a project like this. If Dockside Green, locally the symbolic heart<\/em> for sustainable development, attracts worldwide attention, perhaps a brilliantly restored kidney could turn a few heads, too.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Since I’m fuming in a conversation over on Facebook about the City of Victoria’s Department of Engineering (which seems to me benighted), I was reminded of my 2007 article, Biophilic Design: Taking Love to the Street (the link goes to the Scribd version). Not to sound too much like I’m tooting my own horn, but […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":311,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1419,2058,2168,6171,2233,1114,1651,407,1418],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cities","category-focus_magazine","category-green","category-johnson-street-bridge","category-land_use","category-leadership","category-local_not_global","category-nature","category-victoria"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3354","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/311"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3354"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3354\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3363,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3354\/revisions\/3363"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}