Sign in or 
Firehock |
What is green infrastructure?
Share this
 Firehock |
What is green infrastructure?
Jul 19 2007, 6:56 PM EDT
Green infrastructure is often confused with the field of green building. In the context of building "green," certification programs such as LEED and stormwater management strategies, such as Low Impact Development are often employed. However, green infrastructure is not infrastructure that is environmentally friendly; GI encompasses the interconnected natural systems and ecological processes that provide clean water, air quality and wildlife habitat. Green infrastructure sustains a community’s social, economic, and environmental health. So, in short, green infrastructure is a forest and not a constructed raingarden. A raingarden is a wonderful way to slow and filter stormwater and I employ them in watershed planning to retrofit developed urban areas with better stormwater management. However, it's important that we not confuse these practices. This is the definition from our website "Green infrastructure planning provides an opportunity for communities to approach land use planning in a new way. By considering and inventorying environmental functions and values before development begins, land can be designated appropriately for protection and/or restoration to provide wildlife habitat, recreation, stormwater treatment, energy savings, aesthetic values, improved community health, and sustainable economies. Land planning that begins within the context of local ecological systems can ensure that development is channeled to the most appropriate areas, thereby protecting environmental functions while also saving money and energy. In already developed areas, green assets can be reconnected. At environmentally impaired sites where some contamination has occurred, natural systems and habitats can be restored." Green infrastructure approaches entail identifying, maping and conserving environmental assets before they are destroyed or damaged. They are not added in afterwards. I think this Wikiweb site is unclear and muddies the concept.
|
 ncormier |
1. RE: What is green infrastructure?
Jul 19 2007, 8:18 PM EDT
i appreciate your perspective, but disagree on green infrastructure referring only to the preservation or planning of natural resources. so many of our landscapes are already impacted in some way by human involvement. so many of our solutions require an integration of built and natural systems. so many of our solutions require us to think at multiple scales simultaneously. our working definition includes preserved natural places as the foundation of our green infrastructure system, but holistically and holonically embraces the full continuum of natural to built environment and regional to site to molecular scale. why limit the definition to planning if it can impact other realms as well, especially if integration is a key to our success?
|
|
Firehock |
2. RE: What is green infrastructure?
Jul 20 2007, 9:53 AM EDT
"i appreciate your perspective, but disagree on green infrastructure referring only to the preservation or planning of natural resources. so many of our landscapes are already impacted in some way by human involvement. so many of our solutions require an integration of built and natural systems. so many of our solutions require us to think at multiple scales simultaneously. our working definition includes preserved natural places as the foundation of our green infrastructure system, but holistically and holonically embraces the full continuum of natural to built environment and regional to site to molecular scale. why limit the definition to planning if it can impact other realms as well, especially if integration is a key to our success?"Hello there -- The limit of my definition is "limited" by the word limit on the comment field and the wordiness of my original response. Of course, GI is not limited to only natural areas. In December, we completed a green infrastructure strategy for Charlottesville VA which is highly urbanized and impervious. Green infrastructure planning is often needed because of the challenges to adding grey infrastructure and not obliterating the green. It can also be added back in as I noted earlier "natural systems and habitats can be restored." "Land planning that begins within the context of local ecological systems can ensure that development is channeled to the most appropriate areas, thereby protecting environmental functions while also saving money and energy. In already developed areas, green assets can be reconnected. Even at environmentally impaired sites where some contamination has occurred, natural systems and habitats can be restored." Identification and economic assessment of a community’s natural assets is an important part of GI planning efforts. Placing a dollar value on stormwater mitigation or water filtration services provided by a natural system can help localities make more informed decisions about whether particular land areas are best suited for new development or should be set aside for a greenway or acquired for a wildlife refuge or parkland." I am not objecting to "intergration!" That's what we do. I'm objecting to confusing GI with LID, which has it's own definition and can be part of a watershed or other strategy but don't confuse engineered systems with the natural. We've impacted most systems so much of urban and suburban areas are not "natural" but a raingarden is not a wetland. Of course you know that. We need clarity of definition, especially when talking with the development community. Thanks for the dialogue! |
|
ncormier |
3. RE: What is green infrastructure?
Jul 22 2007, 10:36 PM EDT
i certainly share your concern that one might confuse a green engineered system with wild lands. the last thing we want is a developer claiming that because they put in some bioswales they can clear a wetland. i always start my presentations with a reminder that the wild is the very foundation of our GI web and that even the greenest designed and engineered stuff we can imagine rarely approaches the complexity and deep level of functioning that wild landscapes have evolved to provide. however, there is another powerful misconception that is ravaging our landscape--that nature is out there, not right here around us all the time. many think of nature as the sacred getaway (after a stop at REI to gear up) to be preserved in special patches. everything outside those protected patches gets the profane treatment we're all witnessing. in my view, thinking of GI as a web that stretches from wild lands to the heart of the city asks us to reconsider what we do throughout the built environment and to insist that each investment we make achieve multiple benefits. LID is fine, but it is only one part of one layer of the GI web. why not allow GI to be an over-arching paradigm that includes LID alongside a whole host of other opportunities to put the power of nature to work in our urban environment? for example, at a site scale, we are working on stormwater planters in st. louis where the plant palette is specifically designed to provide key songbird steppingstones through the city. these green gems are also giving a down-and-out streetscape a memorable identity. is that still LID? on a planning level, we are working with the city of lake forest park to plan their GI investments in mobility, natural drainage, salmon habitat, civic places, etc. so that they are integrated for maximum impact. we aren't confusing GI with LID, but saying that it is such an important and effective meta-concept that it should influence design and engineering too. doh, comment limit...thank you!
|
|
Firehock |
4. RE: What is green infrastructure?
Aug 24 2007, 9:54 AM EDT
HI - You asked "why not allow GI to be an over-arching paradigm that includes LID alongside a whole host of other opportunities to put the power of nature to work in our urban environment?" so you want to understand wWhy does it matter if LID is considered under an umbrella of GI? It's all just green planning right? I work with a lot of developers and there have been many examples where they have proposed cutting large shade tree, disturbing riparian zones and "wet areas" and placing homes on top of groundwater recharge areas -- these same developers then propose raingarden and bioswales and even LEED or energy star buildings to make up for the loss of shade trees and capture new runoff. They'd rather clear the site and start over when nature was doing these functions already on site. There is great confusion in the development community on what to do and how to think about this. As one of my colleagues likes to say "LID is not a license to develop anywhere!" and he is an LID expert." We need to seperate approaches and explain when and how to combine strategies. I certainly use both but it's important to really push the development community to think first of the harnessing and taking advantage of what is already there. I know you and I agree on this strategy but you don't agree with me on why it's important to make the distinction. I have done entire watershed plans with LID retrofits and LID strategies but I also emphasize what we have to start with. I am an LID fan but I am also a fan of being clear what is appropriate and when. My opinion -- your lumping of technologies confuses very different strategies and does harm to a difficult issue. It matters quite a lot.
thanks, Karen |
 bmaryman |
5. RE: What is green infrastructure?
Aug 24 2007, 10:37 PM EDT
it seems like LID conveys how to build better, but that green infrastructure planning AND design talks about both where and how to build. in that way the scalability of the approach does seem to point toward a greater benefit across the urban-rural continuum. LID is not a license to develop anywhere, but maybe the green infrastructure paradigm is an entry point to discuss with developers both how and where to build and how the green infrastructure within their property lines might add to and connect with other green infrastructure elements beyond the property line. e.g. how a natural drainge swale or constructed wetland ties into a a healthy watershed OR how a green robust "green space" in a multi-family development might connect to broader urban and regional forest systems.great discussion . . . |
|
Firehock |
6. RE: What is green infrastructure?
Aug 26 2007, 12:57 PM EDT
"it seems like LID conveys how to build better, but that green infrastructure planning AND design talks about both where and how to build. in that way the scalability of the approach does seem to point toward a greater benefit across the urban-rural continuum. LID is not a license to develop anywhere, but maybe the green infrastructure paradigm is an entry point to discuss with developers both how and where to build and how the green infrastructure within their property lines might add to and connect with other green infrastructure elements beyond the property line. e.g. how a natural drainge swale or constructed wetland ties into a a healthy watershed OR how a green robust "green space" in a multi-family development might connect to broader urban and regional forest systems.Bmaryman -- You've nailed it. What I can I say besides, "Well stated!" Thanks, Karen |
|
ncormier |
7. RE: What is green infrastructure?
Sep 13 2007, 12:11 AM EDT
"Bmaryman -- You've nailed it. What I can I say besides, "Well stated!"brice, that BC green infrastructure guide that you just posted really well clarifies this semantic question. it acknowledges both natural green infrastructure and engineered green infrastructure. basically, preserve as much of the former as we can and create as much of the latter and link it to the former. cool doc! they also have one element we need to add, the country lane. it sort of belongs to both natural drainage and healthy connections since it is a more porous alley. i'm gonna say 3CL for now. cool? |
|
bmaryman |
8. RE: What is green infrastructure?
Sep 13 2007, 1:40 AM EDT
sounds good to me. you see i also posted intersection repair?
|
