Rough Draft

As previously stated, I'm taking a History class this quarter and therefore writing papers. Below is the rough draft for what I'll be finalizing, starting tonight, and on through the weekend. I realize the thesis is a little weak and that I don't really push any opinions but that will change soon, hopefully. In fact, the professor suggested that I rearrange it by historical period (New Deal, 1970s, Clinton Admin to now) and focusing on a point that I only touch on in the conclucsion, being that change only comes with government intervention. Enjoy (assuming people enjoy essays).

Sustainable Development from the Postwar Era to the Present

Introduction
Though the idea of constructing the built environment in ways that are harmonious with the natural environment can be witnessed worldwide and throughout history, from the igloos of the Inuit to the cliffside dwellings of the Anasazi; from the temples of ancient Greece to the modern architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, the contemporary term “sustainable development” was first uttered in 1987 at the UN World Commission on Environment and Development. Then prime minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Bruntland, may or may not have been familiar with Fallingwater, but she demonstrated her grasp of the concept when she defined this new term as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Twenty years later, with the environmental cause being a relatively popular issue – recent magazine covers tout “The Greening of America” (Newsweek 7/17/06) and Al Gore succeeded in presenting Global Warming as a real problem in An Inconvenient Truth – one can look around Seattle and see the realization of “green” buildings in a number of places. Far from ubiquitous in the construction industry, these new developments are attempting to change the way that our built environment impacts the natural environment.

Attempts to improve the relationship between housing and the environment are nearly as old as the postwar pattern of tract housing that is the antithesis of sustainable development. Urban development, such as commercial and retail construction, multi-family housing projects, and the skyscrapers that define “downtown” districts have also been criticized for their impacts on the natural environment and have undergone transformations in theory and increasingly in practice over the past several decades.

A Brief History of the Rise of Suburbia and its Environmental Impacts
The shift from the traditional craftsman home to mass-produced suburban tract housing was a result of many occurrences in the first half of the 20th Century. The methodology behind producing these developments was perfected by William Levitt who, among others, was encouraged by the United States government to apply a streamlined approach to construction while building housing for workers in defense plants during World War II (Rome 16). After the war ended, there was a spike in demand for housing for several reasons: new couples formed and old couples were reunited and they began to start families; prewar New Deal reform made low interest mortgages available to much of middle class so single family housing was an option; construction during the Depression was minimal and the omnipresent influence of the media exacerbated concerns by focusing on “horror stories about the housing shortage” (Rome, 18).

Keynesian economics, which focused on consumption as a means of boosting a slow economy, had been proven successful by the increased spending during WWII. After the war, housing construction was seen as a way to both alleviate the housing shortage and spur economic growth (which combated fears of a second depression). Acts such as the G.I. Bill and the Housing Act of 1949 made this new American ideal of home ownership possible and by 1956, more than 60% of Americans owned their homes (Rome 35).

The environmental impacts of these enormous developments were numerous, both during construction and after being occupied. Water pollution transcended the phase of development: erosion during the construction process, a problem in itself, carried soil into waterways and later became a problem due to the prevalence of septic tanks, which were prone to leaking. The increased area of impermeable surfaces of roads, roofs, sidewalks and compacted soil used in yards caused increased stormwater runoff and increased flood damage, especially in developments foolishly constructed in floodplains. The increasing popularity of the automobile contributed to noise and air pollution; the low cost of electricity contributed to the rise of air conditioning and electric heating which in turn encouraged further development without regard to natural ventilation, shade from native trees, or architectural design that attempted to integrate the structures with the environment. Animal habitat was destroyed and open space was lost to further construction or quarantined behind fences.

Water Concerns
With the rise of postwar suburban construction on the periphery of metropolitan areas, the use of septic tanks became commonplace. The builders of these developments selected these sites, which were located beyond the reach of municipal sewer system, in part because the land was affordable, as was the installation of septic tanks in place of neighborhood sewer systems. Research conducted by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Illinois Institute of Technology, conducted in 1969 and 1971, respectively, found that 33% to 50% of septic tank systems failed, thus polluting groundwater and surface water in the area (Rome 112-113).

Concerns over the environmental impacts of septic tanks surfaced long before this research was conducted. According to Adam Rome, the critique of septic tanks began almost immediately after widespread use began, right around mid-century; in the interest of “protecting investments and preventing public-health hazards” (Rome 89), federal agencies and popular magazines published manuals and articles stressing the importance of proper use, but no government regulation existed. In the following two decades, the effects of these systems had evolved to a point where the federal government intervened. The establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, in response to rising environmental concerns regarding water and air pollution, deforestation, and the prevalence of the pesticides, set the stage for the passing legislation that came to be known as the Clean Water Act (1972). Though this act set maximum levels for pollutants that could be directly introduced to water sources, it did not place any restrictions on the use of septic tanks. However, it did direct state governments to establish their own parameters for acceptable amounts of pollution from indirect, or nonpoint, sources, such as septic tanks and runoff (see discussion below). Unfortunately, plans for rehabilitating septic tank systems in Washington are still not in place, according to a 2004 interview with the Program Manager for Water Quality at The Washington State Department of Ecology .

Stormwater runoff is an important concern in both residential and urban development because it can spread pollution from sources such as overflowing septic tanks and torn bags of fertilizer stacked outside of home improvement stores. Increased runoff can also add to the demand on the wastewater treatment facilities in cities like Seattle, where the storm sewers and sanitary sewers are combined, and in cities where the two systems are separate (in the case of the latter: water flows into manholes through old style covers that have holes for use in removing the covers to gain access). Finally, the elevated volume and speed of water running across an impermeable surface causes floods to be more destructive as well as eroding creek beds and silting waterways as it returns to natural channels.

An interesting contemporary methodology for reducing the volume of runoff that is currently being researched in Seattle is the Green Roof, which involves planting vegetation in rooftop beds to recreate the natural conditions of the land and thereby reducing the quantity of rainwater that requires treatment. During a two-year research project conducted by Magnusson Klemencic Associates, a Seattle-based Structural and Civil Engineering firm, an assortment of test plots, planted in different locations around the city, mitigated from 65% to 94% of the cumulative rainfall . This technology is widely used in Europe, most notably Germany, where the International Green Roof Association is headquartered, and provides myriad other benefits not related to stormwater runoff, such as providing animal habitat, increasing the quality of the air, and reducing dust and smog .

Energy Consumption
The use of fossil fuels and electricity both helped spur suburban and urban development in the postwar era. Many homes were heated and cooled by fossil fuels and the popularity of electrical appliances skyrocketed; the “quality of life” improvements that the suburbs promised had come true. The reach of electricity was also greatly expanded by New Deal reform, thus producing an increased market for kitchen appliances as well as electric air conditioners and heaters. For example, the hydroelectric Bonneville Dam, located outside of Portland, Oregon, and completed in 1941, was constructed to deliver electricity to the farms and rural areas of the Northwest. The Bonneville Power Administration was created by the Roosevelt Administration in 1937 and continues to distribute about half of the power used in the region . Though this specific method of electricity production is sustainable, the resulting availability gave developers the ability to neglect wise design choices – such as orienting houses to receive maximum sunlight in the winter or preserving mature trees on the property to provide shaded areas in the summer – since electricity could be used to power air-conditioning and heating systems.

Concurrently, public interest in solar energy was increasing in the wake of conservation measures for coal and fuel oil during WWII; progressive engineers, scientists, and writers embraced the idea of conserving resources and using sunlight and thought it essential to the survival of the human species. Wealthy groups and organizations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, endowed research projects to develop the technology necessary to harness energy from sunlight. The results of these projects were very promising: one project conducted at MIT found that 75% of the heating required for a household in Boston could be provided by the sun. However, the federal government never supported further solar research; it preferred to invest money in nuclear research since it had military applications. Without federal support, the market for solar power never developed to its full potential and the builders preferred to keep using traditional heating technology since the price of heating oils remained very low (Rome 46-53).

Solar design was another concept that was popular amongst the conservation-minded public and architects. As mentioned previously, the orientation and layout of a house could be such that passive solar heat was maximized in the summer, via south-facing walls of windows, and minimized in the summer, by large eves that blocked the overhead sunshine. Insulated window manufacturers were early proponents of this design approach since they stood to profit handsomely (Rome 55). Once again, this philosophy never really caught on because of the prevalence of electrical or fossil fuel powered air conditioners and heaters. Socially, the contemporary mindset of modernity through consumption versus economy through thrift prevented the widespread popularity of solar design.

However, the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 revived interest in both passive and technological methods for climate control in buildings as well as solar technology. The American Institute of Architects formed the AIA Committee on Energy and further explored the benefits of properly orienting buildings on sites and using materials, such as triple-glazed windows, to increase the efficiency of the buildings climate control systems . The National Renewable Energy Laboratory was founded in 1977 to advance solar research and is currently working in conjunction with the United States Department of Energy (formed the same year) to develop Zero-Energy Buildings. Over the next fifteen years, the federal government’s role in furthering sustainable development was minimal but it remained a priority for many professionals and European governments. The sea change at the federal level in the United States came with the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.

Contemporary Developments
Ronald Reagan removed Jimmy Carter’s solar panels from the White House roof, and terminated the tax credits for others who bought solar panels, six years before Bill Clinton was elected. Soon thereafter, one of the most successful movements toward sustainable development came with Clinton’s “Greening of White House” which was a plan to significantly increase the efficiency of the building. Among other modifications, the insulation was upgraded, energy-saving light fixtures and office equipment were installed, and mechanical systems were upgraded. The results, three years later, showed that $150,000 per year was saved in energy, water, and solid waste expenditures . The Rocky Mountain Institute, one of the premier supporters of sustainable development, now considers the White House a “world-class environmental showcase. ”

While this project spurred further government investment in upgrading federal facilities, the private sector would soon have a ranking system to encourage sustainability. The nonprofit United States Green Building Council (USGBC), which incorporated in 1993, set out to design such a system and accomplished their goal in 1998 with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, which can be likened to a seal of approval for green buildings. Points are awarded to a building based on certain sustainable criteria such as the use of local or recycled materials, erosion control during construction, on-site stormwater detention, and access to public transportation. The rating system has been extremely successful; as of September 2003, nearly 140 million square feet of new construction had been registered with the system .

Discussion and Conclusion
The shift from traditional construction practices, which had typically relied on local materials and resulted in buildings designed to coexist with, rather than overpower, their environments, to mass produced housing was accelerated in the years following World War II. The existing New Deal programs along with the demand for housing, the technological improvements, and the capitalist spirit all contributed to rapid development of land at the periphery of urban centers. The government encouraged such development, as it was crucial to economic growth, and, possibly due to cemented American ideals regarding the quantity of resources and space at our disposal, failed to address environmental concerns until the damage was already done.

Throughout the years, the scientists, engineers, writers, architects, and activists struggled to bring attention to the problems that the new patterns of development were inflicting on the natural environment. More often than not, their efforts did not succeed in changing the industry as a whole but they had small victories intermittently. The major triumphs for the movement came when the federal government passed legislation to protect the environment or served as an example. The foundations of the most recent push for sustainable development can be traced to early 1990’s with the actions of the federal government in greening their own buildings – and showing that efficiency does lead to savings in dollars and resources – as well as the formation of the USGBC. With the current political situation regarding fossil fuels and terrorism, as well as formalization of scientific theories regarding human impacts on the climate, the timing for continued progression in sustainable development could not be better.