For thousands of years, it was required of human beings to live in harmony with nature. Nature’s laws governed human behavior. If those laws weren’t followed, then human lives were lost. It has only been within the past couple hundred years that the attitudes towards nature’s laws have changed. With scientific discoveries, improving engineering practices, and industrialization human beings have begun exhibiting behavior which suggests they know better. The paradox in this collection of attitudes is that the rules have not changed, but the stakes are now much higher regarding the blatant disobedience to nature’s laws.
These cavalier ideas of mortal judgment can be clearly seen in today’s development practices. The processing order in which decisions are made are out of sync with the direction that should be taken. We must first consciously recognize the bad behavior so that we can make changes. We must then restructure our behavior so that it is more in line with and respecting nature's laws.
POLICY > DESIGN > LAND
The creation of human habitat comes at a cost as nature is taken from a state of symbiosis and is converted to an environment of disunion. This is a fact that can’t be refuted. While some may claim that sustainable development practices are legitimate in minimizing impacts on nature, human beings are incapable of giving back what’s being taken during this conversion process.
This process is further exacerbated by the propensity of human beings to usurp their will over nature through modern development practices. Land tends to be treated as though it is a misbehaving child that must be brought into behavioral conformance. Are there natural features that are interfering with design efficiencies? Well, engineering and heavy machinery will take care of that!
The creation of human habitat is also impeded by policy practices (zoning) which are indifferent when it comes to honoring the land itself. There is regulation at higher levels of government (i.e. Environmental Protection Agency) which demand protection for identifiably sensitive ecosystems containing animals and/or plant life. Aside from this, and the occasional local ordinance that might protect slopes or ridgelines (which are typically financial, rather than environmental in nature), development occurs as long as it meets the policy requirements of zoning which are governing the allocation of use and density. What this means is a priority ranking which places POLICY at the top, which then governs DESIGN, and thus places LAND at the bottom.
Ranking the priorities in this fashion turns the development process into a commoditization exercise where the primary objective is efficiency and revenue. POLICY tells you the use you are allowed to deliver and how much of it you can emit. The DESIGN exercise isn’t about design under these terms – rather, it is instead an engineering exercise to determine how to come as close to what the rules of POLICY will allow, with the LAND ultimately being a victim in this efficiency approach.
LAND > DESIGN > POLICY
The mission and objectives of land development practices need to be entirely different from the modern delivery system. Developers should view their role as community builders instead of that of a developer. A community builder takes a much stronger stance towards their role as a steward to the land and its natural features. They must see their responsibilities associated with replacing natural habitat with human habitat as a delicate balance of respect, rather than one of dominance.
With this type of mindset, the top priority becomes the LAND. The delivery of human habitat should coincide with nature rather than supplanting it. The LAND becomes the primary governance of DESIGN with the existing natural habitat informing what can and should be done. True designers are able to read the directions being given by the LAND and deliver plans of adoration and grace. The DESIGN is then able to dictate POLICY as a measure of adherence to the LAND, and thus codify how and what gets delivered based upon the DESIGN as opposed to the other way around.
It is an ignorant fallacy on the part of human beings to think that their wisdom exceeds that of the natural laws which govern this planet. Rather than seeking to usurp nature, we must instead be making attempts to understand its operations and behave in conjunction with it. To think and act otherwise will be at our collective peril.