Words, Words, Words

By Paul Farmer, FAICP

Blueprints Winter & Spring 2008/2009
Volume XXVII, No. 1-2

This article was adapted from Planning magazine and other APA publications.

The opening of the Green Community exhibition at the National Building Museum is a good time to reflect on the meaning of terms like “green” and “sustainable.” Both are terms used to describe laudable goals.

I have to confess, however, that I am a skeptic when it comes to sustainability—not because I don’t agree with its underlying challenges and aims but because I worry that the term is too often used as a marketing tool or is simply tossed into a discussion in a meaningless way.

Certainly, we can agree on many things. We can agree that we’re not achieving sustainability, either in the developed world’s current consumption habits or in the settlement patterns of much of the globe. We can agree that it is desirable to be more sustainable. We can probably even generally agree on the meaning of the term and that “sustainability” is a broader term than “green.”

It’s when we try to closely define sustainability and to measure its outcomes more specifically that agreement begins to fall apart. Goals, objectives, strategies, tactics—all of the standard planning theories and approaches that dominate our practices across the globe—must be finetuned or even redefined if sustainability is to mean something other than simply good planning.

A couple of years ago, my wife and daughter (both planners) and I toured three new communities in the D.C. area in one day: Greenbelt, Maryland (1930s), Reston, Virginia (1960s), and Kentlands, also in Maryland (1990s). It was fascinating to see these developments, each built about 30 years apart. All three are compact and walkable. They are interwoven with paths and trails and are punctuated by generous green spaces. To varying degrees, each community includes a range of housing types and some retail uses.

Are they well-planned communities? Absolutely. Are they green? Well, all three new towns were of their time. But all were built on the far suburban fringe and relied heavily on the automobile. My point is that what’s characterized as sustainable is often simply garden-variety good planning.

I’m willing to admit, however, that there’s more to it. At a recent conference, I saw a presentation on the conversion of a very large public housing project into a mixed-use, mixed-income community—something being done in a number of North American cities. From the location of structures and the relationship of transit to density, site plan, and building design, this conversion was a complete package. Perhaps not every feature was cutting-edge, but the project’s planners and designers showed themselves to be knowledgeable, creative, and extremely comprehensive in their approach. Projects like this one go beyond traditional good planning; they deserve to be called sustainable.

Many planners in our global community are indeed leaders in sustainability. Others are learning. Still others are just using the word. They don’t understand that sustainability must be about more than marketing, just as “master-planned community” once meant something more than another big subdivision. Let’s make sure that “sustainable community” refers to more than an advertising slogan. There’s enough “greenwash” without contributions from planners.

Green Community is an ongoing focus of attention at APA—one of our “supertopics.” It’s the subject of articles in our publications, a research topic (through our Green Communities Research Center), and an important track at our national planning conference. And we are proud to be the presenting sponsor of the National Building Museum’s exhibition—as well as the publisher, next year, of the related collection of essays. This emphasis on green community is also a kickoff to our yearlong celebration of the centenary of the organized planning movement in the U.S. The events of the celebration are highlighted on our web site: www.planning.org.

We can point to many significant accomplishments in those 100 years—some of which can truly carry the “sustainable” label. But as we enter our second century, we also have a new preoccupation: the nation’s pressing need to deal with climate change, diminishing water resources, and, of course, to find renewable sources of energy. 

The facts are well known: the U.S., with only four percent of the world’s population, consumes 25 percent of the entire world’s current petroleum production. It produces less than five percent of the oil supply and has less than three percent of known reserves. Meanwhile, non-OPEC oil will reach peak production this year.

Over the last year, I have listened to experts from various fields talk about the need for federal action on investment and production tax credits for renewable fuels. What caught my attention at one meeting was the observation of financier T. Boone Pickens, who made his fortune in oil and gas, but is now touting solar and wind as our best hope for clean domestic power.

I was also struck by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who highlighted the tie between energy and infrastructure. He noted that our antiquated power grid was the cause of the major blackout that hit the Northeast five years ago. Yet virtually nothing has been done since then to correct the situation. Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t have much faith in the much-vaunted cap-and-trade system, either. “It amounts to taking three right turns when all you need is one left one,” he said. And that one turn? A carbon tax.

At another conference, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography predicted that by 2012, the Colorado River water situation could become so dire that migrations will begin from Las Vegas, Phoenix, and southern California. By 2017, the region’s hydroelectric power production could end.

What should planners be doing? We need to bring our comprehensive viewpoint to bear and to take the lead in developing state and local climate action plans. We need to convince our political leaders and our fellow citizens that where and how we live has everything to do with reducing our energy consumption and our carbon footprint, and that meaningful higher density and compact development close to transit lines are basic elements of a green community. Most important, we must highlight the best practices in planning and the best examples of community planning.

Community planners, who are trained to see the big picture and to think about the long term, are able to address both economic competitiveness and environmental issues in our cities, towns, and neighborhoods. Through education, plan-making, tax policies, capital investments, development review, and other planning actions, we can reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and improve environmental quality for all residents.

To become convincing advocates, we must become broadly educated in science, economics, and policy options. As Americans, all of us should support well-informed leaders with innovative ideas. Simply pondering the issue won’t do much good, and it could lead to false hopes and a lack of commitment to the difficult choices required to solve these problems. •

Paul Farmer is executive director and CEO of the American Planning Association and the American Institute of Certified Planners. He has primary responsibility for the long-term strategic direction of the association, in concert with elected leadership. He is responsible for representing the leadership of the association, its members, and the interests of planning with partners and the public.

Get National Building Museum news.