I recently wrote a post about water needs in and around our area, and how regional water use affects our City. A link to that post is here (
http://montbelvieucityplanning.blogspot.com/2012/04/water-wise.html) if you're interested.
As a follow up to that post, and because I know that there's some interest in the area, I wanted to report on a meeting I attended last week. The meeting was called by Rusty Senac, one of our County Commissioners. In attendance were planners and officials representing Baytown, Mont Belvieu, Chambers County, and several local water related players. The discussion ranged from how to supply immediate needs for those folks who are experiencing poor water service, to how to continue to ensure quality and plentiful access to water for the next 50 to 100 years. These are not easy questions to answer.
The area is experiencing a huge influx of development. Baytown is growing eastwards into Chambers County and along I-10. The industrial expansion in the area is really picking up, with industrial and business parks mushrooming up all over, representing billions and billions of dollars worth of local improvements in industrial infrastructure growth. It really boggles the mind to think about the amount of money and things that are going on... Attendant with that, if not quite as dramatic, is the expansion of the residential side. We often look to industry as the main players in the area. This is true due to size and impact on the economy. Yet our residents have needs that are just as valid and serious, and these needs cannot be ignored and not planned for.
As noted in the previous blog post, we are set up pretty well as a City. We have good, deep wells that provide enough water for our City's needs for the foreseeable future. Past decisions have been wisely made to ensure that we would have this supply for years and generations to come.
But there are a number of things that affect our water supply. Even though we are on ground water (our water comes from several deep wells at various locations around the City), we are affected by upstream aquifer recharge (the joke was that we need to tell the folks in Dallas to flush twice, please) (which is not really funny, after all) and subsidence. So far we don't have much issue with either. The development between here and Dallas is minimal for the time being, so the uses for the water upstream of us will be low-impact agricultural uses. This is actually good for us, because that water percolates down into the water supply that we eventually draw from. Our area has a couple of aquifers from which to draw. The Chicot Aquifer tends to be more shallow, while the Evangeline Aquifer is deeper. Both have sufficient water to meet our needs, but this close to the coast, there is some salt/mineral intrusion from the sea that can give the water taste or other issues. The City takes our water from the deeper Evangeline Aquifer, while other local, smaller utility districts may take theirs from the Chicot.
Recharge rates are affected by, and in turn affect, runoff in the area. As the zones where water enters the ground becomes saturated, it enters streams and bayous and eventually slowly makes it's way to the ocean. The rate of replenishment for the aquifers in our area is about 6" per year, which means if we take more than that, we're looking at a subsidence issue, and eventually we could suck it all dry. For our City's public uses, however, studies have shown that we have a virtually unlimited supply of water.
That could change. As demands for surface water (water diverted from streams, bayous, etc) increase - and, make no mistake, they are increasing - the amount of water that makes its way into the recharge zone for the aquifer will diminish. This is exceedingly difficult to quantify, and almost impossible to regulate. How can you force an entity who needs the water to allow water to remain in the ground so it can recharge the aquifer? Who controls the rain and evaporation rates? (Well, we know the answer to that one). But all of these difficult and random things must be accounted for. It's not for nothing that the Mayor of Atlanta encouraged his citizens to pray for rain several years ago whilst in the midst of the drought. That was a very serious thing. And, in his case, it seemed to have done the trick. Short term. (Keep praying, folks).
So, the upshot is that there is really plenty of water available for the current and immediate (20-50 years) needs of our growing community and industry. However, if we are not careful we will find ourselves behind the curve for planning for these resources and may find them reduced or too expensive to hold on to. Also of interest is the apparent desire of Baytown to expand the water treatment in the east part of their City (and in the western part of Chambers County) to help provide the needs for culinary water in our area. And this is a good thing.
So, as always, stay tuned. It is an interesting and dynamic time for our area! And these are issues that are important as we look to the future.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Grounded Figures
I recently came across this article:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/09/12/160996525/odd-things-happen-when-you-chop-up-cities-and-stack-them-sideways
I found it very interesting. When I was in grad school, we looked at cities at this scale and in this kind of context. This is called a figure-ground study, where you reduce everything to its most basic and simplistic elements - in this case, just streets and, well, not streets. This provides you with a stark contrast between what is otherwise relatively obscure.
You could also do the reverse with these images. I have chosen one image to highlight from the article. The original image looks like this:
The article then arranges the blocks thus created to show relative size, shape, and other interesting aspects of these teal colored blocks. The result (while not included here) is lovely and interesting. This image, though, is also lovely and interesting. It shows how the blocks relate to one another, how some spaces are informed and dictated by natural and man-made forms, including rivers and roadways. It also shows the organic nature of the way things developed in the city.
By way of contrast, I generated this image. This is exactly the same image as the one above, only the contrast this time has been given to the part of the city that is NOT blocks or other open areas. This shows the network of streets and highways, and also shows the large area in the center that is the river. The interconnection of the roads and the river are interesting, as is the organic nature of the highways - mainly developed in the 50s and 60s, which are both informed by the grid and also seem to disregard it completely. There is also a stark contrast in the rigid grid of Manhattan (with Broadway and 4th Avenue moving off at an odd angle and wanting to disrupt the grid's rigidity) and Brooklyn to the east, with it's obviously organically developed grid system - where there are several grids placed at odd angles to each other, forming convoluted intersections and other general fun. What is missing from this image are the bridges over the river - which you would not see in this kind of study because they are represented as the same color as the water way behind, but which would be interesting to note because of the way it pulls both sides of the image/city together.
I have written in the past about the need for people to impose their ideals on their lives and on their built environment. Le Corbusier wrote about the rational thinking person of antiquity who has moved in to a new area and begins to lay out streets at right angles to each other, which is at once aesthetically pleasing as well as practical and efficient. The above article seems to bear that out, for the most part.
But then you have places like Istanbul and Paris, where there are relatively few rigid right angles. Even Berlin, which is much more like New York than the others, still has a lot of sinewy curves and lines. These are places where people live and work and move around... They are not terribly efficient or right-angled, but they are still good cities.
My point is that we often get stuck in one particular model, and cannot think outside that model. It is good for us to occasionally step back and look at the big picture, as it were, and imagine what things COULD be like. We can also learn much from others and what they're doing. Different doesn't necessarily mean better, but it doesn't necessarily mean worse, either. The world is a wonderful variety of so many different things, different people with different ideas and ways of looking at things - shucks, even of living and building their cities.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/09/12/160996525/odd-things-happen-when-you-chop-up-cities-and-stack-them-sideways
I found it very interesting. When I was in grad school, we looked at cities at this scale and in this kind of context. This is called a figure-ground study, where you reduce everything to its most basic and simplistic elements - in this case, just streets and, well, not streets. This provides you with a stark contrast between what is otherwise relatively obscure.
You could also do the reverse with these images. I have chosen one image to highlight from the article. The original image looks like this:
The article then arranges the blocks thus created to show relative size, shape, and other interesting aspects of these teal colored blocks. The result (while not included here) is lovely and interesting. This image, though, is also lovely and interesting. It shows how the blocks relate to one another, how some spaces are informed and dictated by natural and man-made forms, including rivers and roadways. It also shows the organic nature of the way things developed in the city.
By way of contrast, I generated this image. This is exactly the same image as the one above, only the contrast this time has been given to the part of the city that is NOT blocks or other open areas. This shows the network of streets and highways, and also shows the large area in the center that is the river. The interconnection of the roads and the river are interesting, as is the organic nature of the highways - mainly developed in the 50s and 60s, which are both informed by the grid and also seem to disregard it completely. There is also a stark contrast in the rigid grid of Manhattan (with Broadway and 4th Avenue moving off at an odd angle and wanting to disrupt the grid's rigidity) and Brooklyn to the east, with it's obviously organically developed grid system - where there are several grids placed at odd angles to each other, forming convoluted intersections and other general fun. What is missing from this image are the bridges over the river - which you would not see in this kind of study because they are represented as the same color as the water way behind, but which would be interesting to note because of the way it pulls both sides of the image/city together.
I have written in the past about the need for people to impose their ideals on their lives and on their built environment. Le Corbusier wrote about the rational thinking person of antiquity who has moved in to a new area and begins to lay out streets at right angles to each other, which is at once aesthetically pleasing as well as practical and efficient. The above article seems to bear that out, for the most part.
But then you have places like Istanbul and Paris, where there are relatively few rigid right angles. Even Berlin, which is much more like New York than the others, still has a lot of sinewy curves and lines. These are places where people live and work and move around... They are not terribly efficient or right-angled, but they are still good cities.
My point is that we often get stuck in one particular model, and cannot think outside that model. It is good for us to occasionally step back and look at the big picture, as it were, and imagine what things COULD be like. We can also learn much from others and what they're doing. Different doesn't necessarily mean better, but it doesn't necessarily mean worse, either. The world is a wonderful variety of so many different things, different people with different ideas and ways of looking at things - shucks, even of living and building their cities.
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)
