Last week, I wondered “how many planners today are salivating at the chance to plan the reconstruction of Greensburg, Kansas.” The answer was not long in coming.
The governor of Kansas has announced that she wants to make the reconstructed community “the greenest town in rural America.” She says she wants to “rebuild a better footprint.”
By “footprint” does she mean a metaphorical footprint, so that the town has a lower environmental impact? Or does she mean a physical footprint, so that the town occupies less land? The latter, of course, would require a lot of buying, selling, and trading of local private properties.
Ed in Delhi will help you get employment and realize your teaching goals and earn a decent living. http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/6-10-15-DDA-Minutes.pdf viagra sale This is an embarrassing problem that a lot of people do not really want prescription for cialis to go. Additionally, they take effect in women of all ages every viagra online for women day. buy generic cialis Additional side effects include: headache, pounding heartbeat, nausea, weakness, and weight gain. 3) Angiotensin II receptor blockers -These drugs block the action (not the production) of Angiotensin II – Side effects (fairly rare) include: Diarrhea, dizziness, headache, lightheadedness, back and leg pain, sinus congestion, kidney failure, liver failure, or respiratory failure. Of course, the governor is not the only one with green dreams of Greensburg. The local chapter of the American Institute of Architects has nobly “offered its expertise in rebuilding.” But just how much expertise do they have?
“It really seemed like a golden opportunity to do something with green design where you’re creating a healthier environment for the residents and just a healthier environment in general,” says the president of the AIA chapter. So while the governor is talking about energy efficiency, the AIA wants a “healthy environment,” which is probably code for pedestrian-friendly design, mixed uses, and all the other latest New Urban stuff.
Just what do they think they are going to do? Pass laws requiring every Greensburg family who is already burdened by the loss of their homes and businesses to shell out more money to insure that their new homes meet some standard of “green”? Get the rest of the taxpayers of Kansas or the U.S. to subsidize construction? Reallocate land ownership so that people who once owned homes on quarter acre lots are assigned lots with a much smaller “footprint”?
Anything they do that doesn’t rely entirely on voluntary means is likely to do far more harm than good. Building a town, even a town as small as Greensburg, requires that lots of different factors be taken into consideration: transportation, education, income, police and emergency services, recreation, communications, public health, private health, food services, distribution of other goods, and governance to name just a few. These people are going to focus all attention on one or two issues and no doubt will almost completely forget about many of the others. “Oops, we forgot the schools! Oh well, the rest of the town is green.” The results will be just one more disaster papered over by good intentions.
I suggest that they use concrete dome or earth-covered (underground) construction to make the town tornado resistant.
This will give them lower insurance costs, lower heating and cooling costs and overall lower life cycle costs and provide better mental health through a greater feeling of security.
Concrete buildings have their own problems such as condensation, but these problems are easier to alleviate than the potential losses due to fire and storms that wood houses experience.
“Building a town, even a town as small as Greensburg, requires that lots of different factors be taken into consideration: transportation, education, income, police and emergency services, recreation, communications, public health, private health, food services, distribution of other goods, and governance to name just a few.”
You sound like a planner.
These people are going to focus all attention on one or two issues and no doubt will almost completely forget about many of the others. “Oops, we forgot the schools! Oh well, the rest of the town is green.†The results will be just one more disaster papered over by good intentions.
Whenever I see arguments papered with such certitude, it is my clue that the argumentation is agenda-based and should be treated with additional caution.
Of course the planning process does not work this way.
I also note that Randal conflates politicians and architects with planners. This purposeful muddle serves to create confusion, along with the vague generalities (“probablyâ€Â) and vague accusations of statism inherent in the unsupported allegation of reallocating land ownership. I wonder if this is a test-run for Comedy Central.
DS