Site clearing is an accepted and often overlooked part of construction. Where do we architects/'scapers draw the line between conservation of valued habitat and our incessant demand for creating bigger and better places? +more
We can follow LEED guidelines and preserve 50% of a site for a credit, we can find a McHargian analysis that rates the quality of habitat and build in the least valuable, or we can bulldoze everything in the path of progress.
Occasionally the public with protest the chopping down of their beloved trees as explored in this NYT article. Or in the face of a misperceived threat from a new regulations, will clear-cut their entire lot just to preserve their 'property rights'.
Is there a middle ground where we can maximize habitat, restore degredated places and create fabulous buildings? Tree moving isn't really the answer...
No Comments
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.