ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, IN THE PLANNED "NEW TOWNS" OF GREENBELT, COLUMBIA AND RESTON

Abstract

How successful have certain planned communities been in harmonizing with the natural environment? Three planned "new towns", Columbia, Greenbelt and Reston in the Washington-Baltimore area are evaluated and compared from an historical and environmental perspective for insight into this question. Greenbelt, the earliest of the three communities was established in the 1930's and was an inspiration for the latter two towns which were started in the early 1960's. Known for a greater amount of open space within their urban environments (about one third of the total land area), all three "new towns" have the responsibility of either harmonizing with this open space or allowing it to deteriorate. Large corporation funding in Reston and Columbia allowed for the development of more lasting master plans than in Greenbelt where the Federal Government ceased its ownership of the land in the early 1950's without establishing a permanent future master plan. This was why later development based on flexible zoning took away part of the original intended belt of green around Greenbelt. A major environmental problem exists in that despite increased open space, these towns have used many conventional development techniques such as making standard impermeable surfaces (i.e. roofs and roads), even though these surfaces are reduced in extent by concentrating housing with interior green space buffering, the use of the "superblock" with interior greenspace (in Greenbelt), and the use of closed loop and cul-de-sac roads. The impermeable surfaces drain into storm drains which in turn empty into streams and from there go into "real estate lakes" which are man-made lakes developed in all three communities. Run-off carries with it pollutants and agents of eutrophication (principally oil from cars and phosphorus from lawn fertilizers). With the deteriorating water quality from this process, monitoring programs have been set up recently in the two newer "new towns". The older community of Greenbelt also recognizes the problem and has proposed some solutions such as filtration devices installed along feeder streams leading to Greenbelt Lake. The main solution put forward has been to create more retention ponds upstream from the lakes. However, this attacks the effect of the runoff problem rather than its cause. Better watershed management with improved technology involving the use of earth sheltering and porous pavement would help reduce run-off by increasing the permeable to impermeable surface ratio - a major cause of the problem. Wildlife does appear to be more prevalent in all three "new towns" than in standard towns laid out in a grid like fashion with little consideration for the natural environment, because more habitat is provided with greater amounts of open space left under natural or unmown cover. Columbia and Reston are attempting to improve the quality of their open space by reducing the amount of mown areas, by encouraging the meadows and tree growth. Greenbelt also has a few projects around its central lake to improve habitat, but its main battle continues to be overdevelopment. Despite the improvement of habitat for wildlife, handling the pollutants that flush out of "new towns" will remain a problem for some time to come because from an environmental standpoint, "new towns" are not ideal ones. The use of the gasoline powered automobile, and the lawn care habits of the residents are generally the same in "new towns" as they are in old ones. Only by clearly seeing and acting in accordance with the law of cause and effect as it relates to mankind's interaction with the environment will change this situation.