From: IN%"URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" "Urban Planning Discussion List"
3-AUG-1994 04:03:05.49
To: IN%"URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" "Multiple recipients of list
URBAN-L"
CC:
Subj: RE: Sustainable Development
Return-path: <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-urban-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from psuvm.psu.edu by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HFGJ8IZ6688ZED6O@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 04:03 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id
5345; Wed, 03 Aug 94 04:10:40 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7760; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 04:10:40 -0400
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 11:33:43 -0600
From: Jack Varga <jvarga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Sustainable Development
Sender: Urban Planning Discussion List <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Multiple recipients of list URBAN-L <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Urban Planning Discussion List <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-id: <01HFGJ8IZ6688ZED6O@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Comments: To: Urban Planning Discussion List <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxx>
At 12:34 PM 7/29/94 -0700, Richard Crepeau wrote:
>Jack Varga writes:
>
> Recently, (about three days ago), as some of you may have heard,
> the Aspen, Colorado planning department issued a moratorium on
> new residential building permits for homes over 2700 sq ft. In the
> past decade, the average completed square footage of a master bedroom
> suite was approaching this size. Some thoughts on topics for
discussion
> in this group might include the economic impact this will have on the
> community, (ie., architects, landscape architects, construction
> companies, etc.). One thing is for certain, the planning department
> will remain busy.
>
> Now back to Gary Parsons quote :
>
> >>> "Do not people really want technological progress and the
> >>> resulting benefits? Will not S.D. mean a stifling or
reduction.
> >>> in our life styles?"
>
> How many two or three person families "need" a 25,000 sq ft
> vacation home bordering a wilderness area?
>
>*******************
>
>Jack:
>
>I believe you are getting to my gut reaction as to what sustainable
>development needs to address (at least in the context of the United
>States): the difference between needs and desires.
>
>I am too much the fatalist to believe that one can change the
>stubborn minds of others. Given the value that most people in the
>States place on private property rights.
>
> In a study group in which I participated, we tried to define a bio-region
>for San Diego, and we really couldn't. In addition, I went away with the
> belief that an area such as San Diego cannot sustain itself.
>
>Sustainable development can't just be legislated.
>Does one start from a clean slate or does one draw a
>line and say "from now on, everything will be developed in an
>ecological and economically sustainable manner"?
>...what happens if we wipe the slate clean
>and tell all unsustainable industries to go elsewhere (or perhaps
>just tell them that they can't use their property in the manner they
>have been in the past). How do we tell all the residents whom we
>cannot sustain within our region to move? We can estimate a proper
>population level, but how do we determine who can stay and who must
>leave? If the population falls below a certain level, who do we
>allow in?
Wow, that was beautiful...
>...in San Diego that's pretty hard, because we consume water that
>belongs elsewhere that is depriving others of their share. Most of
>our food stuffs are imported from elsewhere... Now, it
>occurs to me that it will be hard to grow those vegetables without
>copious amounts of water, not to mention pesticides, fungicides and
>various hormones that are decidedly not sustainable.
>
>Most people in the States and elsewhere in the Western world
>have come to expect such things as these summer vegetables in winter
>(and other more important things that are too numerous to mention).
>
>With regard to the moratorium in Aspen, can you report any
>particulars?
>
> -How long is the moratorium
Until Febuary 19, 1995 (seven months)
> -What is the rationale for the moratorium.
To "stop the spread of huge homes, especially empty 'spec' houses that
Mayor John Bennet calls 'tombstones'."
Denver Post 7-31-94
> -Can you summarize some pros & cons
The ordinance came from the city's historic preservation commission, and
has strong community support. Its intent is to give the planning department
time to see what remedies, (if any), can be developed to "ameliorate a major
destructive problem."
Some of the repercussions are obvious. If the moratorium is extended
or should become permanent, the obvious legal battles will begin. Architects
and developers no doubt have a case.
On the pro side, a large part of Aspen's success is based on it's historic
character. Property owners are finding it much more lucrative to raze
modest size Queen Anne and Eastern Stick syle Victorians in favor of
considerably larger, contemporary townhomes.
The affluent have long been members of the community, but they generally
planned for their homes to fit in to the historic motif. Recently, the trend
in home design is more in the order of "hey, look at me, I'm filthy rich, and
I want everyone to know it." Many are being built on highly visible mountain-
side or ridgeline properties. In Colorado, like it or not, this type of
development has been labeled the "Californication of Colorado" and there
are many who openly resent and oppose such a trend. I believe that as
long as this is America and you are not a fugitive from justice or on
probation, you free to go where you may. Environmental ethics teaches
us, however, to respect the 'sense of a region'. At times I find the plight
of Coloradoans (and I am one) and their fear of the "Californication"
of our state anologous to the plight of native americans.
>
> -Will this explode into another landmark Supreme Court case a la
> Lewis or Nollan?
If the moratorium is extended or becomes permanent my guess is yes...
>
> -While there is a moratorium on constructing 2700 sq ft houses,
> are there other developments just as destructive that are not
> temporarily banned?
Since this whole idea of character destruction is so subjective it's
impossible to say one way or another. IMHO, yes. Not long ago
the Ritz Carlton was completed right at the base of Aspen Mountain.
A one block area right in the heart of town was razed to make room.
The whole Snowmass Village area is again (IMHO) nothing more than
a blistering sore on the edge of one of our finist wilderness areas.
The Doral Hotel in Telluride might be a highly celebrated design for
New York, LA or other urban areas, but does nothing to enhance
the historic nature of the community. Again, IMHO...
Jack Varga
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colorado
303/275-4412
jvarga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
3-AUG-1994 04:03:05.49
To: IN%"URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" "Multiple recipients of list
URBAN-L"
CC:
Subj: RE: Sustainable Development
Return-path: <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:owner-urban-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from psuvm.psu.edu by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HFGJ8IZ6688ZED6O@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 04:03 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id
5345; Wed, 03 Aug 94 04:10:40 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7760; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 04:10:40 -0400
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 11:33:43 -0600
From: Jack Varga <jvarga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Sustainable Development
Sender: Urban Planning Discussion List <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Multiple recipients of list URBAN-L <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Urban Planning Discussion List <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-id: <01HFGJ8IZ6688ZED6O@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Comments: To: Urban Planning Discussion List <URBAN-L%TREARN.BITNET@xxxxxxxxx>
At 12:34 PM 7/29/94 -0700, Richard Crepeau wrote:
>Jack Varga writes:
>
> Recently, (about three days ago), as some of you may have heard,
> the Aspen, Colorado planning department issued a moratorium on
> new residential building permits for homes over 2700 sq ft. In the
> past decade, the average completed square footage of a master bedroom
> suite was approaching this size. Some thoughts on topics for
discussion
> in this group might include the economic impact this will have on the
> community, (ie., architects, landscape architects, construction
> companies, etc.). One thing is for certain, the planning department
> will remain busy.
>
> Now back to Gary Parsons quote :
>
> >>> "Do not people really want technological progress and the
> >>> resulting benefits? Will not S.D. mean a stifling or
reduction.
> >>> in our life styles?"
>
> How many two or three person families "need" a 25,000 sq ft
> vacation home bordering a wilderness area?
>
>*******************
>
>Jack:
>
>I believe you are getting to my gut reaction as to what sustainable
>development needs to address (at least in the context of the United
>States): the difference between needs and desires.
>
>I am too much the fatalist to believe that one can change the
>stubborn minds of others. Given the value that most people in the
>States place on private property rights.
>
> In a study group in which I participated, we tried to define a bio-region
>for San Diego, and we really couldn't. In addition, I went away with the
> belief that an area such as San Diego cannot sustain itself.
>
>Sustainable development can't just be legislated.
>Does one start from a clean slate or does one draw a
>line and say "from now on, everything will be developed in an
>ecological and economically sustainable manner"?
>...what happens if we wipe the slate clean
>and tell all unsustainable industries to go elsewhere (or perhaps
>just tell them that they can't use their property in the manner they
>have been in the past). How do we tell all the residents whom we
>cannot sustain within our region to move? We can estimate a proper
>population level, but how do we determine who can stay and who must
>leave? If the population falls below a certain level, who do we
>allow in?
Wow, that was beautiful...
>...in San Diego that's pretty hard, because we consume water that
>belongs elsewhere that is depriving others of their share. Most of
>our food stuffs are imported from elsewhere... Now, it
>occurs to me that it will be hard to grow those vegetables without
>copious amounts of water, not to mention pesticides, fungicides and
>various hormones that are decidedly not sustainable.
>
>Most people in the States and elsewhere in the Western world
>have come to expect such things as these summer vegetables in winter
>(and other more important things that are too numerous to mention).
>
>With regard to the moratorium in Aspen, can you report any
>particulars?
>
> -How long is the moratorium
Until Febuary 19, 1995 (seven months)
> -What is the rationale for the moratorium.
To "stop the spread of huge homes, especially empty 'spec' houses that
Mayor John Bennet calls 'tombstones'."
Denver Post 7-31-94
> -Can you summarize some pros & cons
The ordinance came from the city's historic preservation commission, and
has strong community support. Its intent is to give the planning department
time to see what remedies, (if any), can be developed to "ameliorate a major
destructive problem."
Some of the repercussions are obvious. If the moratorium is extended
or should become permanent, the obvious legal battles will begin. Architects
and developers no doubt have a case.
On the pro side, a large part of Aspen's success is based on it's historic
character. Property owners are finding it much more lucrative to raze
modest size Queen Anne and Eastern Stick syle Victorians in favor of
considerably larger, contemporary townhomes.
The affluent have long been members of the community, but they generally
planned for their homes to fit in to the historic motif. Recently, the trend
in home design is more in the order of "hey, look at me, I'm filthy rich, and
I want everyone to know it." Many are being built on highly visible mountain-
side or ridgeline properties. In Colorado, like it or not, this type of
development has been labeled the "Californication of Colorado" and there
are many who openly resent and oppose such a trend. I believe that as
long as this is America and you are not a fugitive from justice or on
probation, you free to go where you may. Environmental ethics teaches
us, however, to respect the 'sense of a region'. At times I find the plight
of Coloradoans (and I am one) and their fear of the "Californication"
of our state anologous to the plight of native americans.
>
> -Will this explode into another landmark Supreme Court case a la
> Lewis or Nollan?
If the moratorium is extended or becomes permanent my guess is yes...
>
> -While there is a moratorium on constructing 2700 sq ft houses,
> are there other developments just as destructive that are not
> temporarily banned?
Since this whole idea of character destruction is so subjective it's
impossible to say one way or another. IMHO, yes. Not long ago
the Ritz Carlton was completed right at the base of Aspen Mountain.
A one block area right in the heart of town was razed to make room.
The whole Snowmass Village area is again (IMHO) nothing more than
a blistering sore on the edge of one of our finist wilderness areas.
The Doral Hotel in Telluride might be a highly celebrated design for
New York, LA or other urban areas, but does nothing to enhance
the historic nature of the community. Again, IMHO...
Jack Varga
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colorado
303/275-4412
jvarga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx