🚀 go-pugleaf

(Since rqd@cypress.com didn't provide a "References:" field,
this parenthetical comment is here for attribution freaks who
need to know that ">>" is from mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM.)

>> Creeks in urban areas can be opened up and used as wildlife
>> corridors and as proper introductions to life on the Earth
>> for our children.
> Doesn't this sort of thing decrease the density of the urban
> areas and make them more like the suburbs?  Doesn't this
> sprawl tend to make commuting distances longer, and hence more
> favorable for cars than for bicycles?

=x= Not really.  Most creek-freeing proposals I've seen come
packaged with a number of other urban planning schemes.  The
prototype for this approach is Richard Register's book,
_Eco-City_Berkeley_.

=x= I can't say I agree with absolutely everything in the book,
but it's got lots of ideas and an approach that I think is
appropriate for places with a creek-centered ecosystem (like
Berkeley).

=x= Sprawl is an enormous topic, and one that might be better
dealt with in the new alt.planning.urban newsgroup (or, at
least, ought to be cross-posted to there).

=x= The only observation I'll make here is that not all sprawl
is equal.  I once read about book about Frank Lloyd Wright:
_Usonian_Homes_.  The author (whose name I forget, except I
know that he's British) has looked into the energy-efficiency
of a somewhat-sprawling community design of Wright's, and found
that it was quite optimal.

=x= I lack the knowledge to say much more, but the whole thing
is pretty intriguing.  Perhaps this thread could be picked up
in the new newsgroup . . .
    <_Jym_>

(Wright was way ahead of his time in many respects.  He's
created homes in 1936 that used energy so wisely that they
outperform a lot of the ones built in the 1970s to address the
"energy crisis."  He also designed condos years and years before
anyone would think to buy such a thing, and his designs were far
more human and private than what we see today.)