More Floridians are suffering growth fatigue
Alternatives are out there, but hidden from our view
As an architect I'm supposed to be pro-growth. However, I decided some time ago that I am really pro-development. The recent backlash against growth shows us how out-of-step our leadership is with what is really on people's minds.
While the no-development option seems to be off the table for obvious reasons, it should remain on the table if we are to extend principles of justice to nonhuman species. In the meantime, here are a few observations.
The Wekiva River, on a recent bike trip with Dr. Scot French. so far, no growth is visible.
Observation #1: We're really, really tired of more pavement
That's not a pun, by the way. We really are tired of more pavement. When the words "car-free living" are spoken it tends to turn the heads in a room. No one has yet painted a picture of what that would be really like, but people are vaguely aware it exists in places other than here. And recent announcements like "Deseret Annexation of 52,000 acres" only means car-ful living, no matter how carefully it is nurbanized with a Starbucks and a Publix. We know we will get less of the above photo and more of something...something we all know all too well. It definitely doesn't mean car-free living.
Development, by the way, is taking something and making it better, which this article favors. Growth simply means making more of it. Growth can be like a cake rising (good) or a tumor forming (bad) so growth itself isn't inherently malicious or beneficial. Development is supposed to be defined to exclude the tumor-forming kind of thing. We're all for that.
Observation #2: We aren't seeing sustainability as desirable yet.
Sustainable Development is cleverly pitted against "growth" as if somehow it's the enemy, and that we should be "for growth." Many people confess to me, however, misgivings about trading nature for acres of pavement and sloppy drywall boxes. Why is this better?
Sustainability isn't about buying EVs or LEDs or meticulously sorting recyclables. We are only getting the "compromise" pitch, as if those activities, or slapping a solar farm on your roof, somehow conveys virtue at a very high cost. It is out of reach for most of us, or in a best-case scenario like sorting your plastics, you may likely consider it to be a terribly inconvenient timesuck.
In reality, it's neither, but sustainability has been appropriated by the establishment to quickly dispense with the "green" argument and get right to the product, which is supposed to suffer as little as possible from being green.
Observation #3: The future is hidden
No doubt you're busy. You don't have time for the dialectic between sustainability and growth, and the decisions are mostly out of your hands, anyway. The future seems already decided.
But another future exists and is hidden. That is the future where sustainable development does not wipe out 52,000 acres of natural ecosystems in exchange for beige stucco and asphalt. Sustainable development could take any number of forms and alternatives. These remain hidden, however, because we are busy and we don't have time to articulate things like car-free living or the inherent beauty and abundance that can come with sustainability.
They're hidden because no one seems able to talk about them. Decision-making is remote, limited, and outsourced. Remote, because the decisions are presented as having already been made without any participation. Limited, because it all seems to be coming out of the same machine that has no ability to make anything other than what's already made. And outsourced, meaning design is limited to what color the stucco is (beige or tan). What if you want something different? There's no pickbox for it, sorry.
Conclusion: the future is yours
Alternatives need to come from you. If you want to suggest an alternative future for the 52,000 acres, please write in. Florida is world-famous for being a playground of fanciful ideas and utopian dreams. Here are a few ideas presented by readers.
Rex Thomas, one of our most loyal subscribers, says "If the Mormons want to do something meaningful with the land they own, they would use it as a demonstration case of a positive sustainable future. Imagine if they set goals of developing the land slowly, in a way that improved water quality, reduced air pollution, and increased biodiversity, as measured today vs. fully developed? Would that change the game? If those were their goals, they may get less backlash."
Cochlear V. Implantte, a recent subscriber, offers this. "The LDS could easily contribute positively to the world future with this land. Mormons have tried to overcome their artificial beginnings with Smith and polygamy, and if they can do that, they could work to overcome racism as well. They could take the one thing they do really, really well -- ancestry -- and dedicate this land to a research center that is devoted to ending racism with their ancestry research. Using the land to build such a research center, along with the supporting infrastructure, is something you might get a diverse group like the population of Orlando to get behind."
Are Thomas and Implantte wildly optimistic? What are your ideas? The best ones may get featured as a part of a Futurama edition. Write to rtreep@richardreep.org today!
-30-
Comments