Northampton Design Forum Should Rethink “Sustainability”

Ecological considerations were strikingly absent from the final Northampton Design Forum designs. Why did the design team replace a large wetland with a grassy commons? Apparently, because the area has no value because it is "mucky" and "stinky"; and because dense development in this space has higher value than the existing wetland, which must therefore be sacrificed to achieve sustainability. The destruction of existing ecosystems without any consideration of their function goes against the notion of sustainability.

One resident asked why the designs bury a river in an underground pipe. Today, many cities “daylight” their rivers, bringing them back to the surface to restore their human and environmental benefits. Instead, the designers suggested to residents that we do the opposite to somehow achieve sustainability. In place of actually having the river, they would give us a turf memorial reminiscent of its historic value!

The designers presented a false choice between dense development and ecological preservation. Then, faced with the overwhelmingly positive benefits of traditional urbanism (never mind the benefits of urban ecological systems), we were forced to accept their choice of dense settlement over nature as a necessary sacrifice in pursuit of sustainability. Actually, both can be supported in our cities. Ecological function and stormwater management are not details that can be worked out later, but are fundamental to sustainable development and must be considered alongside human function in the design process.

Sustainable development requires optimization, carefully weighing tradeoffs to maximize functionality. We must consider human experience, resource and waste flows, transportation, energy, stormwater, urban ecology, etc. Yes, let’s consider the benefits of traditional urbanism – but then, let’s integrate this with knowledge of natural and technological systems to create something new, a more “sustainable” Northampton of the future.